Human Rights Campaign Members NOT POLLED for Hillary Clinton Endorsement

[Segami]

~snip~

“While they fight to take us backwards, Hillary Clinton is fighting to advance LGBT equality across our nation and throughout the world,” Griffin continued. “We are proud to endorse Hillary Clinton for president, and believe that she is the champion we can count on in November — and every day she occupies the Oval Office.”

The organization cited Clinton’s advocacy for LGBT rights worldwide during her tenure as Secretary of State and her “strong record on key votes and legislation” as a Senator from New York as reasons for their endorsement. Clinton was the last candidate in the three person race for the Democrat nomination to publicly “evolve” on same-sex marriage rights.

The group listed “support for issues of concern to the community, demonstrated leadership on LGBT issues, and viability” as the criteria for earning their endorsement. They did not poll their membership to determine the results. So far, every progressive organization or labor union who has asked their membership to decide their nomination has picked Senator Bernie Sanders.

Clinton spoke at the Human Rights Campaign’s board meeting in late 2015 and in March 2007. The organization went on to endorse Senator Barack Obama in 2008.


https://www.queerty.com/hillary-clinton-endorsed-by-human-rights-campaign-20160119

[Zorra]

1. The HRC just keeps sinking lower and lower into the quicksand cesspool of corporate subsidiaries.

I stopped donating to them a few months ago.

[m-lekktor]

15. they are getting reemed all over the internets for this endorsement!

it brings me great joy! lol

[MissDeeds]

17. Same here

In the days before social media and the internet, they may have been able to pull this stuff and not get called out for it. Today, transparency is only a few clicks away. You'd think her campaign would know better.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. They didn't poll us and we're contributors.

We're also contributors to PP and weren't polled before their lousy choice.

[Segami]

4. More Clinton theater....

its not support, its just well-rehearsed theater.

[kenfrequed]

12. Half right

She has been desperately rolling out every endorsement now that she thought she would be using later in an effort to make news or capture news cycle with how progressive she is in order to chew into Sanders growing numbers.

I don't think it is well reharsed, I think they had to throw out the script; I think it is full-blown desperate improv. I think they are throwing everything they have against the wall in hopes that something sticks and so far it isn't going well.

[Segami]

13. Yes, you're bang on right!

They've been forced to move up their 'showtime' schedules a lot earlier than they expected......its now become 'Improv theater'..

[Duval]

52. Time for more Hillary Hysterics, I guess.

[progressoid]

6. Same thing in many Unions too.

Sad.

[UglyGreed]

10. +1000

[Roy Rolling]

29. +1001

Some rank-and-file members are outraged.

[randome]

3. Jesus Christ.

A new # added to the conspiracy list.
1. The MSM is conspiring against Sanders.
2. Planned Parenthood is conspiring against Sanders.
3. The DNC is conspiring against Sanders.
4. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is conspiring against Sanders.
5. The IT company that works for the DNC is conspiring against Sanders.
6. The polling companies are conspiring against Sanders.
7. And, of course, those of us on DU who support the eventual nominee (Clinton or Sanders) are conspiring against Sanders.
8. Human Rights Campaign is conspiring against Sanders.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[tk2kewl]

7. i didn't see the word "conspiracy" in the article

what i do see is a pattern of powerful heads of organizations and unions making endorsements without checking with their membership

[Segami]

11. Oh,...stop sounding too rational will you?....

you wouldn't want to spoil her fun list?

[KingFlorez]

18. The paranoia is astounding

And incredibly sad.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. You use the word "conspiracy". I don't think it means what you think it means.

The word conspiracy implies something is done in secret. There are no secrets to what's going on here. The Party PTB want Hillary Clinton to get her turn and they want to see a woman elected President. It's very important that the first female President come from the Democratic Party, Hillary is at the moment the only viable female choice, and by gosh and by golly the DNC is going to make it happen while taking no prisoners.

When it was in the interest of Hillary supporters to point out that the "whole organization" (PP) didn't endorse Hillary but instead their political action committee did, it was posted post haste and 40 Hillary supporters rec'd it. When it's pointed out that only 32 people from the Human Rights Commission voted to endorse Hillary, you jump in with the conspiracy BS.

As I said; I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Roy Rolling]

34. A fact is not a conspiracy

I can tell you it is a 100% factual that some rank-and-file members of unions are quite upset at a Hillary endorsement without any consideration of rank-and-file candidate support. Other groups are rankled at the same treatment by group leadership. They want a say in who the group endorses before they are publically portrayed as in favor of a candidate by being a member of a union or group.

Dismissing that very valid concern and lumping it in as if it has the same credibility as unicorns, is a bit hasty wouldn't you say?

[randome]

37. How has the Human Rights Campaign conducted endorsements in the past?

Does this endorsement of Clinton represent an abrupt change? If not, then it's 'par for the course' and nothing to complain about, IMO.

Not every organization puts every endorsement up to a vote. For some, it's too big of an administrative hassle. These organizations are not designed to be popularity contests.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Prism]

44. They endorsed Obama in June in 2008

Inserting themselves into a contentious primary before the voting has started isn't how they've conducted themselves in the past.

Proof: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/interestg08/hrc060608pr.html

[Mike__M]

46. In case you hadn't noticed

"Par for the course" isn't good enough for many Americans this time around. That is what this election is about.
And, yes, it is something to complain about.

[Empowerer]

35. Don't forget liberal Dem politicians, civil rights icons

[randome]

40. It's getting hard to keep up.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[murielm99]

41. You forgot Howard Dean!

[bjobotts]

45. Stop misleading and making stuff up

People here see through this crap PP conspiring against Sanders? What a load. Aren't you doing exactly what the Clinton campaign is accused of doing? Try to stay issue oriented.

[Qutzupalotl]

5. H, R and C. That's three things they have in common. n/t

[Ferd Berfel]

8. Another One? Where the Front Office Elite get to vote but not the Rank-and-file?

I guess we are seeing how she will Govern too.

[UglyGreed]

9. Just like many

Unions have done. Never mind what the members feel or think.....

[ViseGrip]

14. Here is more on why this endorsement is wrong and just how flawed the Human Rights Org is..

Strange, while under Bill's admin, women and children were trafficked out of Bosnia, by our own contractors! Just google Dyn Corp A Go Go. Then it was the 'Boys of Afghanistan' Dyn Corp were feeding up to adults there. Why were they allowed another contract after Bosnia?

Obama just gave DynCorp another contract.

Look, none of these folks deserve an endorsement from the Human Rights Campaign.

They are ignoring the truth, so I'll give them what they need to know right here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-isenberg/its-dj-vu-for-dyncorp-all_b_792394.html

It's Déjà Vu for DynCorp All Over Again
Posted: 12/06/2010 8:47 am EST Updated: 05/25/2011 6:15 pm EDT
snip
For an example of how just one transgression can lead to endless bad publicity consider the movie titled The Whistleblower that was released earlier this year. To summarize the plot, in Bosnia in 1999, Kathryn Bolkovac, a U.S. policewoman served as a U.N. peacekeeper. Her post was with the International Police Task Force which was arranged by DynCorp Aerospace. She was assigned to run the IPTF office that investigates sex trafficking, domestic abuse and sexual assault. She ultimately alleges that peacekeepers, U.N. workers and international police are visiting brothels and facilitating sex trafficking by forging documents and aiding the illegal transport of woman into Bosnia. DynCorp responds by firing Bolkovac, who returns to the U.S. and files a wrongful termination case. She wins the suit but says she's still blacklisted.

Put bluntly, DynCorp was involved in a sex slavery scandal in Bosnia in 1999, with its employees accused of rape and the buying and selling of girls as young as 12. Dyncorp, hired to perform police duties for the UN and aircraft maintenance for the US Army, were implicated in prostituting the children, whereas the company's Bosnia site supervisor filmed himself raping two women. A number of employees were transferred out of the country, but with no legal consequences for them.
******************************
Bosnia: The United Nations, human trafficking and prostitution
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/08/bosn-a21.html

By Tony Robson
21 August 2002

There is mounting evidence that the United Nations has carried out a cover-up of the role played by its personnel in human trafficking and prostitution in Bosnia—a trade that has grown astronomically since the establishment of the Western protectorate seven years ago.
*******************************
*https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11357-DynCorp-the-Balkan-child-traffickers-punish-whistleblower
DynCorp - the Balkan child traffickers punish whistleblower

I know this story has been posted here before by Magda. But....

What the UN Doesn't Want You to Know

In 1999, Kathryn Bolkovac went to Bosnia as part of a UN mission. She discovered terrible wrongdoing - and refused to stay silent about it. She tells Nisha Lilia Diu her incredible story, now the subject of a film starring Rachel Weisz.

Nisha Lilia Diu4:42PM GMT 06 Feb 2012

****************************
Now, why is the Human Rights Campaign endorsing Clinton? For all of the work I'm aware of, they cancels out their credibility! Folks, the truth is ugly. We as a country are in this horrible business. THIS is why, the country is fed up with establishment. But this endorsement is very very sad.

[TM99]

16. Of course not.

This is how most endorsements of Clinton have been this season.

Only 32 executives members of HRC made this decision.

I already stopped donating to them a few years ago. I am not in the least bit surprised by this.

[m-lekktor]

19. THey have endorsed republicans in the past. nt

[TM99]

23. Yes, they have. nt

[KingFlorez]

20. If Sanders had been given the endorsement, no one would care about the process

End of story.

[retrowire]

22. That depends, were the people asked their opinion?

Because then we'd know. If they endorsed Sanders, I would HOPE that the Hillary supporters would bring up the fact that they weren't asked for their opinion.

[m-lekktor]

24. nope I don't like them no matter who they endorse and haven't for some time. nt

[99Forever]

25. Bullshit.

[KingFlorez]

28. So you would have been angry had they endorsed Sanders?

Good to know you'd be consistent.

[99Forever]

31. Frankly ....

....I don't give a fat rats ass about endorsements.

Do you always try to put words in other peoples mouths or just at those times when you get called for talking bullsht?

[KingFlorez]

33. It's not that serious to me

I'm just giving an opinion, nothing more.

[99Forever]

36. Apparently it is "serious" enough...

....for you to post an insulting remark to those you don't agree with.

[TM99]

27. I know it may be hard to understand

for some but actually yes, I would. I also know many other Sanders supporters would as well.

I respect Sanders because he believes in a bottom to the top revolution and style of leadership. He has long history of integrity, congruency, and consistency. He is honest even to the point of having to come back later and say that maybe he should not have said that. I respect him. More polled respect him than they do Clinton.

She has a history of lies, deceit, and pushing a leadership style from the top. Neoliberals know what are good for us hippie leftists. Hell Rahm called us 'retards'!

So yes, if 32 executives only of an organization had decided without polling their membership that Sanders was their choice for an endorsement I would question it and be upset.

[Duval]

51. So would I, TM99

[99th_Monkey]

50. Sanders would not value it in the same way, because it would be a faux-endorsement.

Not that he would 'refuse' it or anything, but it doesn't mean as much.

Still, one must admit that there's been a clear pattern with endorsements in this primary, where
leader-driven ones go to Hillary, and membership-driven ones go to Bernie. It's that simple.

[Android3.14]

54. If Sanders had earned the endorsement, it's because they polled their members

Point of story.

[Jackilope]

26. Neither was NEA. The Fix is in.

We NEED a revolution!!!!! Bernie or Bust.

[randome]

30. How have they conducted their endorsements in the past?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[stillwaiting]

47. When have they endorsed in the past? nt

[Fuddnik]

32. Again?

These endorsements for access are going to leave a lot of egg on a lot of faces.

There's only so many jobs available at the Clinton Incorporated Foundation Incorporated.

[snoringvoter]

38. What a shocker. A executive board of 36 people decided for the members.

[ecstatic]

39. This whining and picking apart of every endorsement has become tiresome,

annoying, juvenile, almost comical. Seriously, just let it be. No need to pick apart and slime every organization that doesn't endorse your preferred candidate.

[tom_kelly]

42. Source

It sounds like a republican source based on the use of "Democrat nomination" instead of "Democratic nomination." They're so silly and cute sometimes when they leave off the ic. They're not that dumb, just playing silly.

[draa]

43. This was the best line of the article. And very true.

So far, every progressive organization or labor union who has asked their membership to decide their nomination has picked Senator Bernie Sanders.

All I can say is good luck Hillary Clinton because you're gonna' need it.

[elljay]

48. Not a Surprise

I lost my respect for the Human Rights Campaign when they started their push for marriage instead of for equal rights. Yeah, let's make sure we first benefit a subset of the LGBT community, especially those with resources, rather than fight for the entire community to make sure that no person loses job or home because of his/her identity. There are LGBT people thrown out on the street for who they are and I'd bet they are more concerned with food and shelter than whether they can marry and get inheritance rights and tax benefits. Of course there should be marriage equality, but I'm still waiting to see the HRC put the same energy into the struggle for our basic civil rights. Until I see that, screw them and their endorsement.

[99th_Monkey]

49. hmm. This is an undeniable pattern, isn' it? When Top Dogs tell members "who to vote for"

it really hurts the organization's reputation re: being participatory or democratic in any way, plus it exposes the endorsement as a sham, as well as creating deep schisms and distrust among the organization's membership and in the membership's relation with the group's Leadership.

EVERY time a group has asked it's members, Bernie wins hands-down. This is just astounding, but not in a good way.

[Metric System]

53. What a bunch of whiners.

[Gothmog]

55. I stand with the Human Rights Campaign

[Tien1985]

56. Not surprising...

The Human Rights Campaign has had plenty of practice throwing their own under the bus. I stopped supporting them when they dropped transgender inclusion in ENDA. Their leaders are tone-deaf and classist, and they get none of my money or time.

I am a Sanders supporter, who will vote for Clinton assuming she is the D candidate--but I wouldn't be proud of this endorsement.