Human Rights Campaign Endorsed The Candidate They Themselves ADMIT Has A WORSE Voting Record.

[Segami]

In 2006, the HRC graded each Senator and U.S. Rep. on their LGBT rights voting record.


Senator Clinton received an 89%.

Senator Sanders received a 100%.


To this day, Bernie STILL has a 100% rating from the HRC. They endorsed the candidate they themselves admit has a worse voting record.

Ratings from 2006 where Bernie scored higher than Hillary.

Current grade for Sanders, a remarkable and well deserved 100%.

h/t Reddit

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/20/1472323/-HRC-endorsed-the-candidate-they-themselves-admit-has-a-worse-voting-record

[earthside]

1. This is the 'insider' class doing favors for one of their own.

I don't think anybody is really being fooled when these boards of directors 'endorse' a well-connected, political insider like Hillary Clinton.

And everybody knows that the work of the organizations is wonderful and worthy of all of our support -- but we also all know that politics is politics. It is hard for these boards that are so oriented towards fundraising and lobbying to resist the pressure of establishment schmoozing as is epitomized by the whole Clinton, Inc. operation.

The rank and file of these groups are going to vote or caucus for Sanders despite and maybe in spite of these 'endorsements' ... they get what is going on.

These kinds of 'endorsements' are more a badge of honor for Sanders and in reality have little concrete significance. In my decades in politics I have run into very few people who ever changed their minds or sudden got motivated to get involved because of any endorsement.

Frankly, I also think that since this is a replay of the strategy Hillary used in 2008 in which she lost, I think this stuff really bespeaks her campaign's lack of energy and innovation -- they are stuck. The more the Clinton campaign has to headline these endorsements before Iowa and New Hampshire, the more one can conclude that their internal polls are showing erosion.

[Segami]

2. And to think...

...she and her advisors had a full eight years to lay out a plan for her future 2016 presidential run.....

[Punkingal]

5. Not surprising, really. They are an elitist, tone-deaf, out-of touch group.

[Still In Wisconsin]

13. Hillary and her inner circle are a bunch of entitled elitists who couldn't care less about anyone

but themselves.

[Plucketeer]

56. Let 'em eat cake!

Sheesh! Twelve bucks an hour is all they deserve! We gave 'em, Nafta, Cafta and the looming Shafta - and now they wanna piss 'n moan.

[m-lekktor]

11. That is exactly correct!

On a side note, I saw a comment on facebook yesterday by an LGBT activist who claims to have worked along side Human Rights Campaign for a period of time and she said it was horrible and that if the GOP wasn't so anti-gay all of the top people in that organization would be voting for republicans!

[mikehiggins]

77. I still find it hard to believe that organizations like Log Cabin Republicans exist.

HRC is legit but the leadership made a big mistake.

[artislife]

21. They love their paychecks and don't want to lose them

This is shades of Susan B Komen. Do they really want to rid the very thing that gives them such a great life?

[lewebley3]

30. : Hillary is best for the LGBT: I am Glad LGBT are standing up to Sanders Bullies

[dorkzilla]

41. Again, one line and no evidence to back up said line.

Really unless you have some evidence, why bother?

Here - I’ll go first:

[virtualobserver]

61. Hey, I take umbrage at Hillary's remarks in this video.

But isn't she amazing.....and so convinced of her own righteousness?

[dorkzilla]

71. She’s a legend in her own mind

I wouldn’t even have this visceral reaction to her except you just feel that she doesn’t care about people, she is convinced she’s going to be the first woman president.

[cui bono]

81. Well said.

She has been getting the heads of group's endorsements, not their members'.

While I don't think she's going to be shocked, I think there will be a shockwave when the actual caucuses and voting happens. The MSM and the establishment have been trying so hard to keep a lid on the Sanders phenomenon that they will have to feign surprise when he shakes up their world. I think Hillary sees it coming, as shown by the desparation of the recent attacks on Bernie that are flat out lies.

.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. Bought and paid for.

There's no logical reason they endorsed HRH. NONE.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Punkingal]

6. I read yesterday that one of their 3 criteria was "viabilty."

Ha!

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Seriously!

Ha! Ha!

Her endorsements are hollow! She's not endorsed by the members of the organizations. She's endorsed by a handful of board members. Big whoop.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[ieoeja]

67. You have that completely back asswards.

Sanders already supports them 100%. Hillary only 89%. Furthermore, it is well known that Hillary rates people according to how well they support her. Endorsing Sanders would hurt them if Hillary wins. They don't have to worry about that with Sanders.

That right there is a logical reason for their endorsement. The endorsement is meant to buy Hillary's support. HRC has not bought off HRC. HRC is trying to buy off HRC.

You've got your HRC's backwards.

[enlightenment]

4. Apparently, they decided to

support Planned Parenthood or something, if this tweet from a couple of hours ago is any clue.

HumanRightsCampaign ?@HRC 2h2 hours ago

We share @PPact's disappointment in Sanders' attacks. @HRC has proudly taken on the establishment & fought for LGBT people for over 30 years

It's an interesting comment, full of a whole lot of nothing when you break it down.

[Robbins]

7. supported LGBT people for over 30 years?

Sorry that makes no sense.especilly with bernie running.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Right. That statement is pretty much a big fat lie. n/t

[enlightenment]

17. No sense at all.

I don't think that sense has much to do with the decision, particularly when you look at some of HRC's past endorsements that have defied logic.

[Kalidurga]

62. They meant three years that is a typo.

[dsc]

10. because her record at state is better than his as mayor Burlington

Last edited Wed Jan 20, 2016, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

He has only two LGBT related accomplishments as mayor of Burlington. One was a fair housing ordinance that wasn't just for LGBT and the other was a pride proclamation. Hillary at state equalized benefits between LGBT employees and straight employees including allowing partners to travel with state department passports and planes. She also actively reached out to those employees and made a video for the it gets better project. Bernie directly stated that he had no intention of trying to get employment non discrimination for LGBT in Burlington even as he was running for mayor the last time. He didn't sponsor ENDA in Congress either. The above might be why they endorsed her and not him.

[JTFrog]

14. +1 n/t

[Metric System]

15. +1000

[angrychair]

16. Sorry, doesn't wash

With Human Rights Campaign's own ratings. Sanders has had a 100% rating for as long as they have been doing ratings. He has be a outspoken advocate for LGBTQ rights since the 70's and was working for marriage equality when the Clintons were advocating for and signing into law things like DOMA and DADT.
Secondly, she just, very recently, "evolved" on marriage equality. Don't buy into this endorsement at all.

[dsc]

20. as late as 2006 he said that he was opposed to marriage equality for Vermont

because it would be too divisive. He said in the late 1980's that he wouldn't push for equality in employment. You can try to blow smoke but the 2006 thing is on video from his very own mouth.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Hillary opposed marriage equality until 2013 on religious/moral grounds and even lobbied against it:

[dsc]

29. his earliest declaration was in 2009

after his state enacted it. She actually beat the nation by a year.

[beam me up scottie]

32. He voted against DOMA in 1994 and never defended "traditional" marriage like Hillary.

In fact she didn't come around until the majority of the country already supported same sex marriage.

Bernie never went upon a crusade trying to deny lgbt people their right to marry the person they love, Hillary did.

That's the biggest difference, she was so adamantly opposed to it she actually tried to convince others to vote against marriage equality.

[dsc]

34. when did she do that

sorry but that is ridiculous. He said, publically he opposed marriage equality (BTW that is the term not same sex marriage) as did she. If her public statements are a crusade than so are his.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Did you not see the video where she said marriage was a "sacred bond between a man and a woman"?

Then there were her 2000 comments:

* Clinton said in January 2000 that marriage does not include gay unions: "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." She said she would have voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, but again said she supported partnership benefits for same-sex couples. Gay groups expressed disappointment in her position.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/how-hillary-clinton-evolved-on-gay-marriage/

[dsc]

39. and he called it divisive

so what is the difference.

[beam me up scottie]

40. The difference is Bernie never claimed same sex marriage was immoral.

He never opposed marriage equality because of homophobic religious beliefs, he simply said Vermont was not ready for it yet and he was correct.

Not supporting it at the time is quite different than actively opposing it for moral reasons.

[dsc]

43. No it isn't

I think drug use is immoral I don't think there should be laws against it. I really don't care why he didn't support it, he didn't support it just like she didn't support it.

[Dawgs]

45. Not even close.

You should have stopped your argument a long time ago.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Yes it is, telling gay people that their marriages are immoral is despicable.

I do care about the difference.

Hillary used the same argument as the religious right wing and it's no less offensive when it comes from someone on the left.

Hillary said those things and she didn't change her mind about marriage equality until 2013, that is part of her record whether you agree with it or not.

[dsc]

49. and he didn't until a majority of his state was in favor

both were against marriage equality. I really don't care if you deny me rights because you think I am immoral or because you want to limit lawsuits or because you think giving me those rights is divisive. Sanders opposed marriage equality, he did so on tape, what he did in that regard is no different at all from what she did.

[beam me up scottie]

52. There is a world of difference between saying Vermont wasn't ready and opposing it for moral reasons

Again, Bernie never actually opposed marriage equality, he just said Vermont wasn't ready for it yet.

Hillary was adamant in her opposition and repeatedly defended "traditional" marriage.

It's the difference between telling someone to wait a little longer in one state and telling them that their love is immoral.

[cui bono]

80. +1,000,000!!!

[angrychair]

66. I'll concede

He didn't support marriage in 2006 but he did support civil unions, which is still a far cry better than most, even in 2006. By 2009 he was already completely onboard By endorsing and advocating for Vermont's Marriage Equality Act.
All that being said, doesn't change the fact that he has had a 100% rating. Doesn't change the fact that, for whatever reason At the time, he opposed DOMA and voted against it but Clinton not only supported it but advocated for it. She didn't support it until her public announcement through a Human Right Campaign video in 2013...just a little over 2 years ago.
The long and short of it is that few people can claim a very pure record on LGBTQ rights advocacy.

[enlightenment]

18. Then why give him consistently perfect ratings?

Seems like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing at that organization - or perhaps it's because the inner circle of HRC has different criteria than the folks who look at the advocacy positions of the politicians.

[dsc]

19. they don't rate mayors

they are a federal organization that works at the federal level but it would be insane to not look at that record when deciding whom to endorse.

[enlightenment]

24. You're stretching your logic

a bit, I think.

If they are a federal organization that works at a federal level, then they should be looking at a candidates federal record. If they have to dig down to a city level to find the dirt they want to reject someone, then it's pretty clear they are looking for excuses, not making an unbiased assessment.

Nothing new for this organization, though, so not a big surprise.

[dsc]

28. the man has one, and only one claim of executive experince

and that is as mayor, So yes, since he is running for an executive office they took into account his sole executive experience. Are you saying they shouldn't have looked at either his mayoraility or her Secretary of State before deciding?

[cali]

36. Bwahaha.

[enlightenment]

75. Shifting the goal posts

from his stance on LGBT equality to his "executive experience" doesn't help your argument.

[jeff47]

23. Sanders mayor 1982-1989. Clinton was SOS 2009-2012.

Hrm...I wonder if the decades between those terms had anything to do with the differences in what they could get done....

Nope!! 1984 is EXACTLY the same environment as 2010!!!

[dsc]

26. many, many liberal cities passed non discrimination laws in that time

and he didn't even try. He could have made an It Get's Better Video, many, many Democratic Senators did, he didn't.

[jeff47]

31. And what did Clinton do in that time?

You are attempting to compare events from the 1980s to events from the 2010s as if they took place in the same environment. That the time when we were desperately trying to get the Reagan administration to believe AIDS existed is the same as the time when "gay marriage" is legal.

That's massively dishonest, and you are smart enough to know that it is dishonest.

[dsc]

33. one fair point of comparison is that Arkansas had the most lenient sodomy law in the south

Also they took on ignorance in regards to AIDS

http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=4905

The struggle to provide services for people with AIDS in Arkansas has often been met with considerable opposition due to the controversial nature of the disease. In the late 1980s, then-head of the Arkansas Department of Health, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, introduced controversial plans to distribute contraceptives to public school students. Eventually, her efforts resulted in the establishment of several public school health clinics that distribute condoms and promote public awareness of HIV/AIDS, as well as a state mandate that all schools include a sex education program in their curricula.

again to do this in a southern state was impressive. Dr. Elders was a great women who the Clintons put in charge of this in Arkansas and the nation. The simple fact is, Sanders did pretty much nothing as the mayor of an exceptionally liberal city and that should be taken into account. He also didn't make an It Get's Better Video or speak out about gay suicides in 2011 not the 1980's.

[jeff47]

35. And that would be relevant if you could show Hillary Clinton had anything to do with it. (nt)

[dsc]

44. she did make the video

which he didn't. And we sure like giving her the blame for DOMA, which was passed while her husband was President.

[artislife]

25. 1995

When he didn't have political ambitions past representing the good state of Vermont and helping draft laws that would benefit the American people

He did not hesitate. He did not hold back. He did not write a speech to word it just right. He reacted to the situation in front of him and he reacted in support of all LGBTs and without meely mouth words and caution.

I'm with HIM!!

[jalan48]

22. Something tells me there will be new leadership at the HRC in the near future.

[Uponthegears]

38. I was wondering

when someone was going to point that out.

Along those lines, I went through the respective campaigns' answers to the HRC survey and Hillary very notably limited the situations where she believed religious beliefs should not overrule civil rights to only public (i.e., government) action. If she had her way, clerks in rural Kentucky might have to issue marriage licenses, but Saved Sally's Sandwiches could STILL put a big "No Gays Allowed" sign in their front window.

[brooklynite]

42. You know who has a worse voting record? Any one of the Republican candidates.

Clinton is seen as still having the best chance to win in November. Every candidate and elected official I've talked to (moderate AND progressive) says so.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

48. False choice between Hillary or a Republican.

[Goblinmonger]

72. So the HRC had to choose between Clinton and Republican?

Those were their options for whom to support? Seems odd.

But, hey, throw your support behind the person you give a B rating to and not the one that has a perfect score.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. It's not what you vote it's who you know.

[ChiciB1]

50. I'm Not Sure What Memo Went Out, But In My Gut...

and it pains me to say this, but ALL these endorsements being made from Wall Street, Congress Critters, Institutions and the many groups coming out of the wood works to endorse her must have an agenda of some sort.

There are people who I would NEVER had thought would endorse her have actually done so. One name we've been talking about lately is Howard Dean! So then we look behind his FACADE we find that he's not who or what he once was! Signed, sealed and delivered by one main thing.... MONEY and the GREED for more. How about Barney Frank, the uber liberal who was attacked mercilessly over so many years has rolled over too.

AND, another one that cut to the bone with me was John Lewis. I was young but I remember him from his fight for Civil Rights and so many other great causes he's championed. WHAT else could it be? What don't they see? I do have to admit that way before Bernie decided to run I wanted him to run if for no other reason than to have some sort of horse race in our Democratic Party. I didn't like the fact that it was HILLARY and only HILLARY that TPTB had decided that there could be no other choice than Hillary as our nominee.

I was told over and over and over that I was NUTS and wasting my time by supporting Bernie. I could only answer by saying that I believed in his proposals and the fact that he wasn't so tied to BIG MONEY... add the names of groups you know who support her to the list. As staunch as I was in my support for Bernie, I NEVER dreamed he would build such a HUGE following of supporters.

But we are here now AND I'm seeing an almost desperate effort by those on the Hillary side to make sure these endorsements get out there for her. Many who actually should support Bernie because his record is better than hers for their particular group.

It's repulsive that we've gotten to this point where far too many are ignoring what so many of us want which is to get back to REPRESENTING "we the people" as opposed to TPTB!!!

We've spent far too many years calling out Republems for their connections to Wall Street et all, but NOW it's so many of our very own DEMOCRATS! Our media obfuscates, ignores and actually lies to us and too many still listen and support them!

IT'S JUST SO VERY WRONG! If we keep letting this happen we GO THE WAY OF ROME!!!!

[malokvale77]

68. The answer is...

John Podesta.

Look here: http://www.muckety.com/John-D-Podesta/8565.muckety

Just look at all those connections. Click a few, it's enlightening.

[ChiciB1]

69. WOW, Thanks For The Information!!! n/t

[malokvale77]

74. You are more than welcome.

Just for comparison check out Bernie at muckety.

[NorthCarolina]

51. Youo forgot to include the money factor of 100%, so that would put

Hillary at 189%....so she wins.

[asuhornets]

53. Basically what this means ...

HCR Organization knows Bernie Sanders does not have a chance in hell of becoming president. They wanted to be on the side of a winner-Hillary Clinton.

[Maedhros]

55. Sanders polls better against the Republican candidates than does Hillary.

Your post makes no sense.

[asuhornets]

58. It absolutely makes sense..

You just don't agree with it. Polls polls polls. You only agree with the polls when they favor Bernie.

[Maedhros]

60. Meh. I present evidence, you present opinion.

You belong on the ignore list.

Bye.

[snoringvoter]

64. Clinton supporters are poll driven.

Sanders supporters are not. We are issues driven.

[asuhornets]

65. Clinton is issue and policy driven.

Sanders is one dimensional.

[malthaussen]

54. Which just means they don't think Mr Sanders can win.

Or will win. Nothing says an organization (or individual) must endorse the person whom they think is better on their interests. Cynicism, or realism, might just as equally be a motivating factor as nepotism. (Though nothing says they need be mutually exclusive)

-- Mal

[Politicub]

57. All Hillary supporters must be absolutely insane!

John Lewis. The HRC. Planned Parenthood. All absolutely nuts. How could they not be? Don't they recognize the awesomeness that is Bernie? My gawd - I'm surprised the people endorsing her can even tie their shoes in the morning!

We're so brainwashed. If only we could bathe in Bernie's golden light. We would see the promised land.

[Goblinmonger]

73. So whey did HRC give Bernie a 100% rating?

Or are you saying that the didn't? That rating would seem to me to indicate that they do think he is awesome.

[Politicub]

82. Because they're part of the Hillary cabal

It's like we've all been brainwashed.

[Goblinmonger]

87. It doesn't make you wonder at all.

I'm not putting on the tinfoil hat, but why would you support someone that you give an 89% approval rating rather than the person you give a 100% approval rating? It makes no sense. Add into that that there was no vote of membership before this approval. The HRC doesn't seem to be supporting their own best interests.

[Doc Holliday]

59. Don't overthink it.

HRC is endorsing HRC. Boom.

Sign the check.

[liberal_at_heart]

63. My daughter brought this to my attention and she is pissed about it.

The candidate with the best record on human rights is what my daughter bases her vote on and she is not voting for Hillary even with this endorsement from Human Rights Campaign.

[Orsino]

70. Electability is a real concern...

...and an awful lot of people and organizations are going to be endorsing and voting for the candidate they think is the surest winner in the general. That was always going to be Clinton, the nostalgia candidate with all the name recognition.

Some endorsements will flip before it's all over, as will various definitions of "electability." This isn't 2008, but 2008 wasn't 2016, either.

[Bradical79]

76. Being front runners

Some groups just want to be on the side their analysts say has the best shot, which isn't an entirely unreasonable position when dealing with politicians. It's a reason their endorsement is meaningless to me, but I understand why they would go that direction.

[MellowDem]

78. She's very likely to win...

And the whole Democratic establishment, which many of these organizations absolutely rely on, is behind her. It's a practical move.

It's also a bit galling to people who care about integrity and honesty, but American politics makes quick work of both, and only dumb idealists stay concerned with them.

[stillwaiting]

79. Didn't Planned Parenthood do the same?

I think Bernie had 100% and Hillary was around 90% maybe.

Both PP and HRC were top-down decisions. Those are easily bought in our corrupted (and legal) world of politics today. The system is corrupt, and a large majority of Americans know it.

[backscatter712]

83. HRC: A weak-ass organization made to funnel money to limousine-liberals.

You didn't see HRC stand up for marriage equality until it was virtually a done deal. Other organizations had to do it for them.

But they didn't feel like worrying about it, for fear of losing their Beltway buddies.

Even today, trans people find HRC to be little more than a fair-weather friend. HRC caters to white, affluent, "Gold Star" gay and lesbian people. If you're poor, black, Latino, or you're gender-queer, or trans, they don't cater so much. When it comes to those who actually do really need someone to stand up for their rights, all of the sudden, HRC runs out of give-a-fuck.

Not surprised that HRC catered to the candidate with this speech on record:

instead of the candidate that stuck up for the GLBTQIA community since being gay or lesbian was a criminal offense.

[Bernblu]

84. Follow the Money.

[olddots]

85. these limo liberals are close to the clown car

when it comes to selling out .

[Politicub]

86. Limo liberals? Seriously?

Never thought I would see the day when DU uses liberal as a pejorative.