You learn new stuff, you grow and change. That's the whole POINT of being alive.

I will never understand penalising politicians because they LISTEN to voters and change in order to be in line with what people want. That's their JOB.

you held something against gay people before your son came out to you?

did you evolve?

a good catalyst for positive outcomes.

It's not uncommon at all for people to "evolve" once their lives are directly impacted. See Dick Cheney, for instance. In any case, would you like a medal or something?

Please don't compare a parent's love for a child with a politician's "love" for the people. The Clintons are partners of the Bush family and corporations.

... but my opinion of you is now so low that there's no room left for sympathy.

Are these people trying to pretend they sprang out of the womb perfect people- never needing to grow or learn anything?
Explains the ego we see here.

I'm not sure if I'd call it "bait" ... I wasn't really PLANNING on drawing people out into revealing their true selves.

But, planned or not, that seems to be the end result, doesn't it?

It's quite an odd response from someone recently bragged that his own son is FTM and his personal accomplishments ... so it just helps to illustrate that the HillaryHate goes far beyond an obsession with a candidate and crossed over to irrational personal hatred and contempt of her supporters as well.



And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off

Case in point: On the very night my then Daughter came out to me via text message, my response was exactly this... "Thank goodness; I thought you were going to tell me you were dropping out of high school or something." I posted about it here on DU moments later. Some might remember it.

No evolution needed. No flip-flopping needed. No ego involved.

idea and change their thinking. And you are proud of this?

I saw a lot of the much older generations change their thinking over the last 20-30 years and I am proud of them- attacking them would be the last thing I would think of. My parents came from the country in a very fire and brimstone upbringing overseas and came to NYC, their world view changed a ton over the years to be the kindest and most openminded people you'd ever want to meet. Fuck anyone who can't give people credit for growing into better people- all they have to cling to is their own negativity and spite.

What exactly did you evolve on?

Rob Portman is for gay marriage because of his son. Dick Cheney because of his daughter. Reagan didn't give a shit about AIDS until Rock Hudson.

Conservatives don't care unless it directly impacts them.

... into believing it's wrong, but realize the dogma they had been taught was wrong and love your kids the same if they came out.

With my father being bi and having a lesbian cousin, Mom wanted to address it in the sex talk... said she would love me no matter who I loved, but tbat she hoped for my sake I conformed to social norms on that just because she wouldn't want to see one of her kids go through the stigma, the legal prohibitions against marriage and children....

But not every Mom in the South had the same exposure that mine did, as a result of my father, in ghe 80s to say that in 1992.

These changed overnight.

On the gay marriage matter I might give her a pass, people evolve.

But the more principled among us got it right the first time.

Nope, she pretty clearly says what she thinks an audience in that moment wants to hear.

This is my current opinion, subject to evolution.

She clearly stated that she's learning more about the issue, and at the moment it's not to her liking. She is willing to think about things further, examine them more closely, and change her mind. How is that a weakness? God knows, I want someone like that in the White House! Otherwise it's reactionary nonsense. "I've always believed this, so I have to still continue to believe it even when it makes no sense".

If you decide to buy a car and you see one you like, and it looks good, and you say to your partner, "I think I'm going to get the Honda", or whatever, and then the next day you read that that particular model has a tendency to blow up or something, and you say to your partner, "Actually, I don't think I will do that", are you flip flopping?

You don't go around for years selling the TPP as the "gold standard" after supporting virtually every free trade deal, then say you're against it a few weeks before the Democratic primary, and expect to be believed. Coming from a candidate who said she was against free trade with Colombia when campaigning, then lobbied for it out of the public eye later on as revealed in her emails, she is particularly unbelievable.

Her Bosnian sniper fire tale wasn't evolution either, it was just making stuff up because it sounded good.

You are the political equivalent of the type of internet commentor who gets in a thread and posts nothing but "First!"

Oh, how gracious of you, m'lord (or m'lady as the case may be). That is good news, indeed! Just the fact that you're even considering the possibility that you might give her a pass is such a great honor.

...but when you have a history of being consistently wrong the first time that's an issue.

The Crime Bill - You can find video of Bernie outlining the consequences of that bill while Hillary was out there pushing it
NAFTA - Same as the Crime Bill
IWR - If you haven't seen Bernie's speeches attempting to stop it he outlines what will happen in amazing detail should we go forward...meanwhile Hillary is out there not only voting for it but working to get her colleagues to as well
Panama - Same deal

It's pretty incredible how on point he's been for years.

What is the point of trying to convince people to support you if you're just going to endlessly attack them for not supporting you the whole time.

The inability to work well with others is what holds progressives back. Get off the fucking high horse and do some work down in the real world with the rest of us.

Pragmatism is a dirty word on DU these days.

Or does it favor those who recognized it was wrong and led the fight before it was politically pragmatic?

Typical Hillarian reply.

states rights, and all that. Pretending their are always easy painless answers is moronic.

by committed abolitionists during the 1850s and '60s for being "pragmatic" about slavery.

He didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until more than a year into his presidency, and even then it only abolished slavery in parts of the country which were in active rebellion. Until then he stressed again and again that he had no intention of ending slavery where ever it existed, but only wanted to prevent its spread into new territories.

Has history been kind to Abraham Lincoln, do you think?

And I don't thin HRC evolves. She polls and the put out policy to align with the current trend. Is that a good thing? I justndont know. It sort of depends on what she is saying behind closed doors!

Let's see how far to the middle HRC moves after the primary. November is a long way off and we have time to watch and see what/where Clinton heads and time to decidemif she wins our vote. For now I don't think so for me. But I have changed my mind before!

Is this just a really cynical way to say "she listens to the voters and ensures her policies are in line with public thinking"? Because...yeah. That's what I want my politicians to do. That's their JOB.

You're right, it's a long way til November. I was pleasantly surprised by Obama, and I hope you will be pleasantly surprised by Hillary.

And my opinion pertains to all politicians. Their job is to represent all the people... not just progressives (of which I'm one).

The political spectrum is very much like the Kinsey Scale--it's made up of all kinds of constituents. How is a politician supposed to know what all of their constituents want without using polling data? In reality, they can't. They have to take the "pulse" of not just their constituents and their party but nationally too. I feel, that a politician that pays attention to polls/polling data and goes with what they say, is actually doing their job.

If he had evolved sooner on the early primaries and POCs he'd probably be leading.

Evolution is good.

"I'm going to run a clean campaign!" "No wait, Hillary Clinton is an unqualified liar!"

etc

He may not like it, but he'd be a fool to not take advantage of it. Your second example is a load of shite. Holding Hillary accountable for past deeds or words isn't campaigning dirty. It's going to be fun watching the collective loss of shit when Trump starts rolling.

gosh, where have I seen those different standards before?

The Hillary Victory Fund is nothing more than a money washing scheme.

She has a habit of checking which way the wind is blowing before deciding on what position to take.

She has stated (and it's on her website) that she wants to get away from fracking, coal, oil, etc as energy sources in favour of creating a new clean energy economy (while creating new jobs in the sector). But that this is a process, and we sort of need to run the country in the meantime, or else people can't go to work and heat their houses. So the long-term goal IS to put coal miners out of business. But it's not going to happen overnight.

It's pretty hard to reduce that to a one-sentence soundbite, which is why she said it was taken out of context.

There's a big difference! Fossil fuels ARE on the way out, but in the meantime it is a Democrat's job to support labor.

Why can't we get these coal workers certified in another job? If we did that maybe she would not need to support a dying industry.

Have you been to a coal mine? Talked with the workers there? Do you know people in the energy industry?

Last Friday, I spent two hours in a pickup truck beside the Reclamation Manager for a huge coal mine. This guy is a wizard at taking hundred of acres of mined area and turning into a conservationist's dream.

The conversation moved to the status of coal in this country. (I have no love for coal, though I recognize that it is the most expansive source of energy in the US.) The mine has about 100 years of coal available, but they are shutting down. All these people are losing their jobs forever. I could not sit in that truck with that man and listen to the story without feeling tremendous empathy for him and all his colleagues. If someone at that moment asked me to comment on my position concerning the future of coal in this country, I would have said something really similar to HRC.

No never been to a coal mine but do know about gold mines. And no I haven't talked to any of them.

I actually no a few people in the industry. Just not on the coal side.

I as well feel for these people but like you. I feel that coal is a dirty product that needs to be shifted away from.

said so the last debate, and few hear listened to her. It is bizarre.

This is an absurd meme.

God I love that line.

He has a succinct, common-sense way of putting things.

to save all those poor Iraqi homosexuals persecuted by Saddam? How did that work out again?

point where I and the majority no longer believe her, no matter what she says... And that's a problem.

If you believe Hillary is a lying liar, everything she does is coloured with that belief in your view. Nothing anyone can do to change your mind re: policy discussion.

my opposition goes deeper and older around her involvement and support of globalism from its earliest days to the present. Had she not advocated so strongly to exclude the US citizenry in using the wealth of this country (our wealth, our factories, jobs, etc.) to raise world standards of living while simultaneously lowering ours... alas, she refused my arguments and dismissed my warnings while steadfastly insisting that the imperative lay in moving forward with neither the knowledge by nor the consent of the governed.

and confirmation from fact checking sites. Has nothing to do with "Belief".

when she tried to walk back her "I'm going to put a lot of coal miners out of work" statement.
She lied completely, the weathervane spun around. Sickening.

If so I won a dollar bet

one of the greatest grass roots movements in history. It makes no sense that people use it as a negative when it is what progressives are about. Winning hearts and minds and social change. People, that flat out happens by getting others to evolve. It is what we are out here doing every single day. Huge positive in my mind. People willing to listen and change from previously flawed positions.

If politicians aren't willing to change their minds, I am afraid of them. Single-minded blind adherence to an outdated ideology is a recipe for disaster.

and even more happy to claim Bernie never changes, that whole conversation takes a hypocritical turn Left when talking about Bernie's famous essays. Suddenly it's all about justifying the crass because of human psychology, based on the era, he was only xx years old, etc etc.

Of course everyone evolves, but the interesting thing is that Bernie Bros do not like to admit it when it comes the facts placed before them.

I have absolutely no problem with a politician adjusting to better represent a changing constituency. I do have a problem when a politician flip flops to a position that does not represent their current constituencey.

Bernie has "evolved" a lot more than his supporters are willing to admit.

This isn't complicated to understand, pandering is meaningless. A time or two is fine, but when there's a very clear, long standing pattern? Come on. People are selective and often inconsistent, they believe what they want to believe. There is no reason whatsoever to believe Hillary will stick to the principles, even when politically inconvenient. Especially when politically inconvenient.

Your point about politicians ... we don't want politicians, we want leaders.

If you believe Hillary is a lying liar, nothing anyone says will convince you differently.

I don't want leaders; I want to elect politicians that represent my views. I don't need a "leader" - I'm a grownup.

Politicians are the problem, leaders are the solution. You made your choice.

You imply it's naive to expect more from those who wish to represent me. Keep telling yourself that, be a part of the problem.

Cynicism is not wisdom.

Me? I'm sticking with hope.

...it deserves to be shit on.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck if you agree or not.

...and valid for you.

Considering the shit flung by Hillarians at me, I'm being more than civil.

I am 100% against ideological type thinking, thats why I am a liberal.

The clown not only supported the invasion of Iraq in order to "protect Iraqi homosexuals from Saddam", he also excoriated anyone who thought the evidence on WMDs was falsified or who disagreed with his position as a bigot, homophobe and fool. How well exactly did that work out again?

Citation: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/say-yes-to-war-on-iraq/Content?oid=12237

Oct. 17 2002

Say "YES" to War on Iraq
Liberals Against Liberation
by Dan Savage

&quot ...) You see, lefties, there are times when saying "no" to war means saying "yes" to oppression. Don't believe me? Go ask a Czech or a European Jew about the British and French saying "no" to war with Germany in 1938. War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times. Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. "

He was wrong then, he is wrong now. Savage should stick to writing advice columns that teach people how to safely pee on each other as foreplay: it is what he is best at.

They (and by "they", I mean the Bush government) lied to us about the proof of WMDs, about the situation on the ground, and about what exactly our involvement would entail. Iraq wasn't a great country in which to be gay. Savage is pretty much single-issue, he's never pretended otherwise. He was forming the best opinion he could with the information we all had at the time. I can't blame him for it. It's not like he's come out since and said "I was right about that and I still stand by it!"

The truth about WMDs was widely available at the time: I had it, and so did millions across the world. Your attempt to defend and dismiss his position is just another indicator of how disingenuous Camp Weathervane truly is.

Besides, can you imagine the public ridicule to which he would be held for repeating such a position in public today? It would absolutely expose him as a fraud and idiot and trash what is left of his "career" as a sex advice columnist.

"Regrettable": what a shameful euphemism to avoid laying proper blame.

I think some of Hillary's shifts have probably been sincere and others were more likely political opportunism, but yes, regardless of how they got there, if they are where you want your candidate to be, I don't have a problem voting for them.

I intended to vote for John Edwards in the 2008 primary. I didn't trust him. I considered him to be something of a slick weathervane politician. But the platform he was running on something I agreed with, and I figured, whether he truly had deep convictions about those things or not, if that was the platform that got him elected, and he hoped to be re-elected, then that would probably be the platform he would basically govern from. Sure, all else being equal, I'd prefer someone who I felt was more honest/trustworthy, but all else was not equal.

Their internally held beliefs, I mean. I want to know what they are going to do to represent MY views. That's why I vote for them.

That's why we all have a vote.

But Sen. Clinton still votes to OK a war with Iraq, was that representing the views of her constituents??

Who loooooovved the Iraq war.

Her position on gay rights is best captured by the word "unbelieveable" or maybe "unconvincing" - especially after her hagiography of Nancy Reagan. (May she rot in Hell.)

They represent Large corporations and Wall St banksters.

And the "weathervane" has taken a popular stance on issues like trade when campaigning...reversed positions once in office....then switched back again when campaigning again.

Examples abound, but not the time to dig them out at the moment.

Your post is nothing but excuses for a politician with absolutely no soul - no belief system, no concept of right and wrong. She "believes" in whatever will get her a few votes at that exact moment in time. She has lied about everything. She didn't say, "my constituents believe that marriage is between one man and one woman" (and interns, I guess). She said, I believe that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman".

If you want to vote for someone like that, fine. It's your vote. Don't try to pass her off as something she's not. She's not liberal, she's not a populist, and she's not a person with any integrity.

I see no value in lauding a politician for having been rock steady in his/her positions for the whole of their political careers. A lot of stuff has changed in public opinion in the approx 30 years since Hillary (and Bernie) started their political careers, and they SHOULD be freaking evolving, or else they are just ideologues stuck in the past.

position during the primary for the political purpose of enhancing one's chances at being nominated with the expectation of shifting back in the general election for the political purpose of enhancing one's chances of election is shameless.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once wrote that "even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked." If you don't understand the difference between a principled evolution in one's views on a topic and rudderless shifting for political expedience, you haven't got the common sense of a dog.

Maybe you just don't care to recognize it as one.

She didn't think about these issues and become convinced. She changed her position to capture votes, at least on several issues. That's not "evolving." She was simply looking at polls.

On other issues she hasn't "evolved" at all - like issues of when to go to war, I/P, labor and so on - even though the votes are there to "evolve." Why not?

Plus, she says different things to different audiences. How do we trust her to do what we want if she contradicts herself? We can't.

and not changing opinions for political expediency? And if you think Clinton is going to actually put forth the progressive views that she is now extolling (due to Bernie's candidacy) during the general election and, if she wins, into her presidency, you're extremely gullible. She has proven herself to be a deceptive politician many times before.

Without politicians such as Bernie Sanders, you would see no movement from the others. Somebody has to be first, and the progressives will show the way to the rest of our party. If all politicians were like Hillary Clinton, there would be no movement on any issues, because nobody would dare to get out front. There would be nothing but third way triangulators, waiting for someone to show some courage, but there would be no courage.

That kind of movement on issues?

Riding on the popularity of existing programs and proposing incremental changes. Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It seems bold, doesn't it? And it is bold, to a certain extent, and we should be grateful for it, but it would not happen if left entirely to the custody of politicians such as Hillary Clinton. But you can buy into the "bold leadership" thing if you want, and pretend she was out there all alone plowing new ground, boldly going where nobody had gone before.

And now she attacks the Democratic candidate who proposes a plan for it, using Republican talking points (Eek! Taxes! Not going to mention elimination of private insurance costs!)

Some evolution.

Sometimes it's not "evolution" that is the problem -- its consequences.

Example: Iraq War Vote -- tens of thousands dead, and "some politicians" now realize they made a mistake. That isn't a mistake I'm comfortable with repeating.

Another Example: Fracking -- bad for the planet in So Many Ways, but yummy for the pocketbook. When faced with an irate constituency, a sudden "evolution" seems insincere and does not repair the damage to the environment already incurred.

Another Example: Civil rights for LGBT -- how many "life partners" had issues with hospitals at end of life or problems building families through adoption or teens committed suicide because of despair over the demonizing of gays?

Abortion, Black Lives Matter, Prison for Profit and foreign trade policy all fit this same pattern -- if you have consistently made bad decisions on issues that matter, a sudden conversion to "decency" is simply not adequate.

When the question is "leadership" I am going to vote for the person who has been heading in the PROPER direction the longest. That person usually is the Democrat, but as I said, there is a difference between "evolution" and "consequences for previously bad behavior" and the preferred method of educating a politician who has been screwing up is Unemployment.

I want a leader who can help steer this country in the right direction, one who has good judgement. For the country as a whole.
Not just for corporations.

that does take a hell of a lot more work than one election. Here's to seeing them keep to it.

Integrity, honesty, ethics, smart decision making, a peacemaker, a voice for regular folks, a progressive, an advocate for human rights...wait..hang on, wasn't this thread about Hillary?

What we want to avoid is someone who lacks the ethical stamina to stand up in the face of public opposition for inhumane proposals such as the IWR, who is unable to recognize the soulless motivations for recent trade agreements and who discourages participatory democracy.

In short, we want to avoid Clinton in favor of an actual leader.

I want them to evolve.

...then "evolves," it leads to our questioning every other alleged principle.

It was wishy-washy when the president "evolved"--using the veep as a trial balloon, I'll note--and it's equally weathervaney when Hillary Clinton flip-flops.

I give her credit for generally pointing in a more-equal-rights direction, but point and laugh at her old insistence that marriage is for one man and one woman.

in Hillary's case it is more a matter of concern because her actual voting record is quite short.
Her record as Secretary of State is largely secret and what has come out, when it does not match her current rhetoric, is often blamed on Obama. Her "record," as first lady, likewise, is important when she wants to cite it as valuable experience (e.g., Health Care Reform), but not when she doesn't. The bottom line is that it is hard to find any core values, except for feminism, which just happens to coincide with her self interests. I look at her and have only a slightly better idea what she would do as president the I do for Trump, who has no political record at all, and what I do think she would do in foreign policy makes me very nervous.

And I don't believe she will make our issues a priority.

She would be President Bare Minimum.

And when there is an alternative who has a strong history of support for my community, who never played those games, who didn't go out of their way to denigrate my family in order to advance themselves . . .

Choice is clear.

that is not evolving! That is pandering.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-coal-miners-out-of-business-west-140835530.html

even all along as "stuck in the past".

"Fuck you! You should have been wrong more before and evolved to the correct position, you old unchanging fossil!".

Seriously? That is the argument? Ridiculous.

Overall, a solid point about welcoming the converted but buried in there is a bridge too far as well.

The demand that one either evolve off the map or else go ahead and be wrong for a while so you can display growth is kinda absurd and a page from the Book of Rovian techniques to make a strength a weakness and in doing so make one's own weakness appear to be a strength.