eom

I think I'll go take a shower now. You have yourself a lovely day now, you hear?

He has the right views and participated, but no one ever bothered to hit him back. He was a footnote at best.

means nothing. Parcipating in something that getting people beaten and killed shows nothing if your not mentioned in a 'book'.

You, my friend, have shown me nothing, but you have a lovely day now, you hear?

Federal level positions. The fact that he was in or from Vermont does not mean he "did not have to grapple with racism, sexism, or homophobia. He did not have to confront the radical right, the religious right, or various extremists in positions of power." He did. He did it every single day in Washington, D.C. The 'state' you represent does not magically insulate you from dealing with the struggles of Americans all across the country when you're working in Congress. He was 'in the trenches, fighting with right wing extremists' for far longer than Hillary ever was.

Your OP is embarrassing in your lack of understanding of how government works.

his years in Congress?

I've seen many of them posted here on site over the last half year or so. Ditto a fair number of newspaper article clippings.

The proof is out there, whether or not I waste any time trying to pull it all down to show you - and I won't, because if you haven't been paying attention enough to know by now, it's not worth wasting my time trying to show you.

Racism, sexism, or homophobia?

I lived there years ago, had family there until recently. Relative to every other state, it has very, very little of that, and was not the seat of any significant civil rights action as far as I know. What's worth noting though is the only area where Vermont's politics create some complications, Bernie did what Hillary did and compromised -- I'm talking about gun rights.

I have worked there as well and visit there frequently. I came across the same amount of racism, sexism, and homophobia as anywhere else I've been. As far as I know Bernie hasn't changed his stance on guns. He has been against assult weapons and large magazines and continues to be.

And it all sounds wonderful.

She didn't need all that dirty money. She could have easily won flying above the flotsam and jetsam of corporatist money and influence. She had the name recognition, the experience, and the benefit of being the first female to really have the inside track to the nomination &
Oval Office.

But by selling out to the high bidders amongst those who are actively working to destroy and subjugate the poor and working class of America, she betrayed the very backbone of this party. Sure there have always been monied interests within the Democratic Party, but that world was primarily aligned with the GOP, and the unbridled greed of the average republican.

Anyone who thinks Hillary is going to bite the hand that has made her family FABULOUSLY wealthy is simply delusional. The monied interests want her in power so they can keep shitting on the 99%. They know if the GOP wins, they will continue to cash in, and HRC is fully bought and paid for. So the only threat to the 1% is Bernie. And much of the flack he is catching - from the Democrats as well as Republicans - has corporate fingerprints all over it. The "I've got mine, fuck you" demographic.

If they win this election - with the GOP, or HRC, IMHO - thie poor & working class are doomed.

There's so much wrong with your op, I don't know where to begin or even whether to bother wading in. Let's start here: Vermont, if not the whitest state in the late 60s early 70s, was certainly at the top of that list, but it wasn't even close to being the most liberal. It was just beginning to trend that way. In 1970, the governor, our sole rep sand both senators were republicans. Vermont's first and only democratic senator, Pat Leahy, was elected in 1974.

Yes, we grapple and have grappled with racism and sexism and homophobia here. I was involved in the fight for civil unions/marriage equality in the late nineties. It was not pretty. Read Pulitzer prize winner David Moats on just how ugly it was.

You have a completely distorted view of Vermont. You know jackshit about us. You know fuck all about Bernie.

You have done a stellar job displaying your utter ignorance.

the whole "Bernie's from Vermont, that doesn't count" argument is just the latest attempt by the HRC camp to throw a plate of spaghetti at the wall and see if it sticks.

I only care what they used to be so I can compare with what they are today. One candidate belongs in the race, the other in a bank.

In which universe? Not the reality-based one most of us live in.

Obviously, I wrote too much for you to read. I specifically refer to DADT. And DOMA was a very complex issue given the politics of the time. Paul Wellstone voted for it. The reasons there were some liberals who voted for it was there was a real fear that efforts would be made to pass a constitutional amendment on the matter. At that time, the right wing was in the ascendancy, something both the Clintons and Obama today have had to contend with. It's not pretty.

Sam Stein and Jennifer Bendery approached this from a human angle and asked the people who led gay rights groups in the 1990s, who said the constitutional amendment angle never came up.

The impolite conclusion would be that Clinton — along with other 1990s Democratic leaders, such as Tom Daschle, who've offered a version of this story — is simply lying. The more charitable interpretation is that they are genuinely misremembering — taking a game of political tricks Democrats really were using in the mid-aughts and retrojecting them 10 years further back in time to create a record they are more proud of.

Why did the constitutional amendment story seem plausible?

Largely because something like what Clinton now says was going on in 1996 was, in fact, going on eight to 15 years later.

but i had this need to leave the thread immediately. I only came back to see your response because I saw I had one under "my posts". lol

Could you have waited until maybe your third or fourth sentence before inserting your foot in your mouth?

Proceed.

Any of those movements were going to succeed regardless of many who were involved, that does not make any of those that were actually involved irrelevant... Your premise would disrespect many many of the people who were involved just because no one wrote their names in some book somewhere...

total fail.... try again

Bernie was never a part of the movement. He'd go back to Vermont and do his thing. He is not associated with any of the gay rights struggle. He was just an independent man who said good things. By 1992, Bill Clinton had already done a lot more good for gays and it was Bill Clinton who was trying to allow gays into the military. (I talk about the history in my post above.) Bernie could not have said those words on tv if it was not for the efforts of Bill Clinton. He was a follower on this issue at the time.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2016, 11:40 AM - Edit history (1)

just saying

... taking a stand like that in Burlington in the 1980s was about as courageous and significant as taking a stand like that in New York City in the 1980s. In liberal communities, the courage happened in the 1960s and 70s, not the 1980s. I mean, as I said, Bernie is a good man, but he took stands in places where it was easy and safe to take those stands. The one area where perhaps more courage was required in Vermont was gun control, but that's the area that shows he's really just like Hillary or any other politician. He took stands that aligned with the people in his community. He did not lead.

but yeah, there's more truthiness than reality being put forth.

It's the extra ridiculous variety.

Hillary had a choice to make

Either get people to like her more by promoting her views and ideas OR make people like Bernie less by attacking and smearing him and his ideas




She and her campaign has chosen the latter which will alienate Bernie's supports and many will not vote for Hillary come November. They will feel the Clinton Machine STOLE this from them with slander, smears, & lies. Now if she wins the primary we could very well be screwed because choice #2 could very well end up costing us the supreme court for 15-20 years and much more.

Now if it is Trump or Cruz I do not think it maters who we run, we win. But if Jeb or Kasich win the primary we have problems because the Clinton campaign has alienated young and independents voters. The Young might stay home or jump ship and the independent voters will simply vote for the GOP guy.

If she had picked option #1 and won the Bernie supporters would have thought they fought the good fight and just lost to the better campaigner, most would have no ill feelings for Hillary and would for the most part coalesced around her for the General Election run.

But in the end they have decided to go full tilt boogie scorched Earth on Bernie and that decision might cost us all, everything

Then you don't make massively error-filled posts like this one.

I think the main thing about the Clintons and minority rights is that the Clintons were in power in Arkansas and then at a time when the radical right in DC had a lot of power. During that era, they worked with black leaders to try to stem the rise of conservativism. Though not perfect, Bill appointed blacks to leading roles, nominated progressive Supreme Court Justices, supported affirmative action, advocated for children and families (in ways that tended to support the poor), and most importantly did their best to stand up to the very very powerful radical right and Newt Gingrich's Contract on America. They lost a number of these battles, but things probably would have been worse without them.

But, I think there's another factor here. From what I know, there is really much less sexism in the black community than the white community, especially when the women are parents or grandparents. (I know this in a variety of ways, including sociological and psychological studies, my father's 25 years teaching English in the South Bronx and regularly interacting with black parents, and my experience as a boy in the 1960s growing up in mostly black part of the Bronx.) In black families, in extended families, women often have considerably more power than men. So, I think when blacks compare Hillary and Bernie, their views aren't as contaminated by sexism.

For instance, i think this article is much more about whites than blacks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sexist-double-standards-hurting-hillary-clinton/2016/02/12/fb551e38-d195-11e5-abc9-ea152f0b9561_story.html

But, again I can't pretend to know the black experience, so I sincerely hope I have not committed a microaggression in my response.

I will support Hillary because of the court.

I'm completely torn between Bernie and Hillary. Bernie is the only one I've given money to, but I must admit that many of his supporters have alienated me by attacking civil rights leaders, blacks and gays who support Hillary, and portraying the Clinton's as awful people, which they are not. With Scalia dead, things will get very interesting.

What a bunch of crap.

I'm not a hero worshiper, haven't been since i was perhaps a teen. I see Hillary as a corporate shill, but also I see her as liberal on social issues, as having actually fought the right wing in places that matter, and I get the importance of having a woman as president. I much more share Bernie's politics than hers, but where was he in the great fights against the right wing? His name only came up in the context of, "Look how liberal Vermont is" until this election.

Perhaps you have no history with political struggle. Certainly the fact that you call yourself far left suggests you have no idea what you're talking about. Even in the context of OWS, Bernie talked about rebuilding the middle class.

My views are more nuanced than yours, but insults like yours are exactly what I am talking about that's pushing people away from Bernie. I don't see either Hillary or Bernie as perfect. I worship no one.

In fact, if you were capable of reading my whole post, you'd realize it's more for Bernie than against him, and I certainly have made a number of posts that prefer Bernie to Hillary, but I'm getting sick of people like you. I don't want to be part of your obnoxiousness. It's childish.