Why Does Hillary Clinton Get A Pass On Race ???

[WillyT]

Sister Souljah anyone ???

DOMA... Don't Ask, Dont Tell ???

Welfare Reform ???

And THIS... was the first "Black President" ???

[JI7]

1. you seriously are not getting it or listening to what anyone says

[WillyT]

3. Try Answering The Question

[JI7]

11. The blm protest was about more than some primary campaign

[MADem]

25. Try not confusing Hillary with her husband. nt

[cprise]

47. In 1992 Clintons campaigned as "2 for the price of 1", then she got official positions

Then in 2008 -- before the economic crisis -- Bill's accomplishments were touted as Hillary's!

Its an exercise in gullibility and selective amnesia to pretend the Clintons were not proudly acting in partnership.

I always say that my slogan might well be, "Buy one, get one free".
--Bill Clinton

If she didn't speak out against the worst policies of the Clinton administration -- even after leaving office -- then at the very least she was more concerned with her own career than in healing the wounds of the nation. Its more likely that Hillary -- true to a Goldwater Republican mindset -- guided some or all of those bad decisions and prefers to defend them.

Bill's assurance that the final decisions were his does little to erase the black marks of his administration from Hillary's career.

Its because of them and other Third Way corporatists that we now have BOTH major parties using identity politics to make poor whites and poor minorities cling to neoliberal race-to-the-bottom ideologues.

The class-warrior version of diversity has spilled over into a race war. Have a nice day.

[MADem]

64. Don't you realize that Jane Sanders serves as Senator Sanders' Chief of Staff?

She has been his "political advisor" since he ran for Mayor of Burlington. She has a key role (and a corner office) in his campaign HQ. A Chief of Staff is "the" office official that manages everything about a legislator's job--his schedule, his staff, his legislation, his meetings, his fundraising--everything.

If you're going to play the "twofer/team" card, understand this--both couples have that issue--and Sanders' wife has been at it, without a break, for decades. She's always worked for her husband. She's advised him on all of his policies and stances and helped him shape his political positions--that's what a CoS does. So, Sandia Labs, the F-35, all of that--shall we just blame her for those, and allow him to take no responsibility? Or better still, blame him for the financial and management failings that got her resigned-to-avoid-firing from her job at Burlington College?

You are busily going all the way back to the last century to try and "pin" something on Clinton. I could go back and "pin" plenty on Sanders (read this whole thread and you'll see what I mean) but that is meaningless to THIS contest. I think doing that kind of thing is pointless. It makes more sense to see what politicians are saying NOW about issues we care about.

What are the candidates saying TODAY about the issues that concern you? That should be your focus--not something they said twenty or forty years ago. People do change--if they didn't, we could build a robot President and just upgrade it every four years.

As for "race war" the only ones fighting that are the angry "progressives" who believe their candidate wasn't sufficiently adored at nn15 because he was "interrupted" by people speaking their truth. When your own are being shot, strangled, and 'suicided' by police, there's a point when, yes, that does "matter."

Read this: http://www.eclectablog.com/2015/07/white-progressives-get-a-taste-of-anger-frustration-as-blacklivesmatter-activists-upstage-bernie-sanders.html


If that doesn't help you "get it," well, you have a nice day, too.

[cprise]

69. So what, is she a right winger? Does she love secret free-trade deals?

And did either of the Sanders say they were working as a "team" at Burlington College? Did any of that screw up the lives of millions of people?

This might be comparable (slightly) if I brought up the Clinton's shady dealings in Arkansas. I'm talking about Hillary's close involvement in a position of power that she wants to occupy again.

Why were the Clintons busy "going all the way back to the last century" in the 2008 campaign? She worked in the White House and affected policy and the cabinet feared her, 20th century or not.

I "get" what its like to have a brain!

[leveymg]

6. What's to get? This is political theater of the absurd. eom

[Trajan]

2. Unlike a previous poster .. I see exactly what you mean

I will tell you why - because nearly all of those who are hammering poor Bernie are Hillary supporters ...

It's not just about the injustice, but it's also about political expediency ...

That what i believe to be true ..

[Thinkingabout]

4. Hammering Bernie, this is another op to hammer on Hillary and then we have the statement of

hammering poor Bernie. Are you a Bernie supporter?

[Trajan]

9. Yes ...

Goodbye ...

[sufrommich]

5. I pity Bernie for his supporters. nt

[MADem]

20. Bernie deserves a more sophisticated and nuanced fanbase.

They don't understand how much they undermine him. They just don't get it. He obviously took the concerns that were directed towards him and applied them.

[zappaman]

7. Wow.

You really aren't listening.
Maybe you should ask minorities why they overwhelmingly support her?

[WillyT]

13. We Don't Have Any Minorities Here ??? - I Always Thought We Did...

Who knew ???

[zappaman]

17. Many have been run off by tone deaf self proclaimed "progressives"

But yeah, there are a handful left.
No surprise you didn't know that.

[bravenak]

52. Colorblind?

[SolutionisSolidarity]

8. Well, DOMA and don't ask, don't tell aren't race related.

But she will have to answer the same questions put to Bernie and Martin. A member of BLM was murdered just days before the protest, and they wanted the candidates to show they had their back. I don't think they went there to hurt Bernie.

[Sheepshank]

16. Please explain what You mean by Hillary and DOMA?

My recollection is that Obama refused to defend it...leading up to the final gasps at the Supreme Court.

[MADem]

23. Hillary used her discretionary State Department money to fund travel of partners of

gay State Department civil servants, WELL ahead of DOMA repeal.

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-expanding-lgbt-rights-at-state/

Secretary Clinton transformed the State Dept. by expanding LGBT rights and promoting equality for employees. WhileSec. Clinton was telling the world that gay rights were human rights, her message of LGBT equality started at home at the State Department. She strived to ensure the State Department was an LGBT-friendly place to work, extending several benefits to Foreign Service employees which served as a model for other agencies. Building on Sec. Clinton’s efforts, President Obama expanded federal benefits to “same-sex partners of Foreign Service and executive branch government employees.”

[beam me up scottie]

32. She ran for president while opposing equal rights for lgbt people.

She fiercely opposed same sex marriage throughout her career.

1996: “My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriages, and that the people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another and to the child. We also have to be realistic and know there are others who can do a good job, as well, of raising children,” Mrs. Clinton told The San Francisco Examiner.

2000: “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,” Mrs. Clinton said while running for the Senate in New York.

2003: “Well, marriage means something different. You know, marriage has a meaning that I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have many of the same rights and the same respect for their unions that they are seeking, and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is,” Mrs. Clinton speaking to WNYC on the difference between gay marriage and civil unions.

2003: “I am, you know, for many reasons. I think that the vast majority of Americans find that to be something they can’t agree with. But I think most Americans are fair. And if they believe that people in committed relationships want to share their lives and, not only that, have the same rights that I do in my marriage, to decide who I want to inherit my property or visit me in a hospital, I think that most Americans would think that that’s fair and that should be done,” Mrs. Clinton, in an interview with CBS, on whether she still opposed same-sex marriage.

2006: “My position is consistent. I support states making the decision. I think that Chuck Schumer would say the same thing. And if anyone ever tried to use our words in any way, we’ll review that. Because I think that it should be in the political process and people make a decision and if our governor and our Legislature support marriage in New York, I’m not going to be against that,” Mrs. Clinton telling Gay City News that she would not block legislation supporting gay marriage in New York.

2007: “I am very much in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits,” Mrs. Clinton told Ellen DeGeneres, explaining that she still believed the decision should be left to states.

She finally came around in 2013.

2013: “L.G.B.T. Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones, and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage,” Mrs. Clinton said in a video released by Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/16/hillary-clintons-changing-views-on-gay-marriage/

[MADem]

38. What's her stance on the issue NOW? What has she done for the LGBT team lately?

How did she treat them at STATE? Why do so many LGBT people support her so ardently?

Bernie Sanders used to write rapey stories about how women just love being abused in his early thirties. That doesn't seem very "supportive" of women to me!

Should we roll those ghastly magazines up and continue to beat him over the head with them? Trot them out at every opportunity, mock him, rub his nose in them?

You know, play the WAAAH WAAAH WAAAH UNFORGIVEN card?

Or should we behave like adults, and recognize that people do evolve?

I go with the latter. You?

[6chars]

39. Go Hillary!

[beam me up scottie]

43. I posted FACTS about her record and you respond with "Bernie Sanders used to write rapey stories"?

And you have the gall to ask others to behave like adults?

I even gave her credit for coming around on same sex marriage while you posted a vile smear that sounds exactly like the ones made up by the sexually repressed right wing whackjobs who used that story to attack him from the other side of the aisle.

Bernie Sanders wrote one essay about gender stereotypes, any intelligent adult who reads it understands the difference between what he wrote and "rapey stories".


Many other HC supporters had the decency and class to say how stupid that smear was but obviously you're not interested in raising the level of discourse past flinging feces and screeching like a howler monkey.


Get back to me when you can discuss the issues like an adult.

[MADem]

58. That is a fact about HIS record--get over it. You think only your "facts" count? Really!!!

The point I have been making here, all along, that went right over your head is that it is UNFAIR to drag up OLD STUFF. It's also UNFAIR to blame a spouse for their other half's mistakes.

But hey, way to mash buttons and miss the entire lesson! Pat yourself on the back!




Here's the kinder, gentler "NPR" discussion of the referenced event: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/29/410606045/the-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained

And, of course, you DO know (or maybe you don't) that Senator Sanders disavowed that opus, called it stupid, and says it doesn't reflect his current feelings on the topic. Are there more out there on these lines? Who knows, but it doesn't matter -- I take him at his word.

I find it really odd that when HRC does or says things that prove she's evolved on issues (like treat her gay/married State Department workers as if gay marriage had been legalized at the federal level well before the SC decision, providing them with travel and benefits), some folks just can't take HER at HER word--or they're too busy blaming her for her husband's missteps.

Now, if you want to keep bringing up OLD stuff, and blaming what Bill Clinton has done in the past on his WIFE, then I, too, can bring up OLD stuff, and even blame what Jane Sanders does on her husband.

See how that works? More to the point, see how ineffective that is?

The take-away: Don't do it. Why? When you throw pointless, old bombs, that aren't valid and don't address current thinking, don't be surprised if pointless, old bombs gets thrown back at you.

For someone who professes to put such stock in being an "adult," here's a pro tip--when you call someone a "howler monkey" because you don't like something they've said (after it becomes painfully obvious that you haven't read the full conversation, to boot), you've lost the argument before you hit POST.

Real mature approach to discussion, there!

[SolutionisSolidarity]

27. I think you meant to reply to the OP...

Presumably he's holding the Clintons both responsible for the passage of DOMA in the first place. Of course at the time gay marriage was wildly unpopular and only crazy idealists like Bernie Sanders were supporting it.

[Sheepshank]

63. Yes it was supposed to be to the op , but as for the rest of your narrative

Are we to assume that a POTUS is supposed to represent the desires of a majority of their constituency at that time in history, or merely represent their own personal values and hope a dictatorship of sorts is palatable with the assumption that hopefully eventually everyone else will fall in line? For it is that latter scenario I keep hearing.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

66. I never said there wasn't a certain tactical wisdom in their stance.

Republicans were winning on gay marriage everywhere they put it on the ballot, and don't ask, don't tell was itself a moderation of a more regressive policy. Bernie may not have been the right president for the 90s, but these same crazy stances that he's been taking over his career seem to fit in pretty well now. Many of his supporters feel that his civil rights credentials are under attack, so they are trying to point out that he has been out in front on important issues. But that isn't really the point of the BLM protesters, who are less interested in what he's done and more concerned with whether he'll commit to helping them systematically correct the injustices the criminal justice system now.

[Ken Burch]

44. They were right to protest at the netroots.

And it's fair to hold ALL the Democratic candidates to high standards. What was unfair (before the Netroots event) was the whole "Bernie doesn't get it on race but Hillary and O'Malley and anybody ELSE who might run as a Dem is cool".

It was never justifiable to single Bernie out, or to go confrontational ONLY towards him. Bernie did need to change the approach he took to race(and it was always clear that he would) but he didn't deserve to be the subject of a relentless attack on the issue. It was the singling out, I think, that provoked the intemperate response...it sounded like some people thought that the anti-oppression cause could only prevail if Bernie was driven out of the race-a development which would have reduced the rest of the primary season to a bland, passionless, issue-free dead zone like 1996, 2000, and 2004.

And, while not everything is economics(as even Bernie and his supporters agreed from the start)there was never any justification for the canard that the struggles for social and economic justice were both unrelated and at odds with each other. it was always clear that the vast majority, the prohibitive majority, of those fighting in one justice movement were also committed supporters of the other. There never were any significant number of bigoted economic justice supporters OR social justice supporters who didn't care about economic justice. In the end, whether we all liked it or not, we were, and are, partisans in BOTH struggles. We are united even when we drive each other crazy.

[WillyT]

70. + 1,000,000,000 - What You Said !!!

[Trajan]

10. Thanks WillyT

Boom Boom Boom .... done ...

[WillyT]

71. You Are Quite Welcome...

[Zorra]

12. Because she is the chosen Democratic candidate of the billionaire ownership class.

She's not getting a pass with everyone though, just the Clinton supporters and the billionaire owned media.

[msongs]

14. oh dear, you left out the evidence proving she gets "a pass on race" nt

[zappaman]

18. Please don't hold your breath.

I want you to be ok.

[Cheese Sandwich]

15. In some ways Bill Clinton did do a lot for people of color

Even though NAFTA and opening trade with China destroyed black communities, and welfare reform hit black people probably hardest, and tough on crime policies were basically a race war, and the war on drugs. You get my point.

But the public face was good. Clinton brought a lot of people of color into government in a big way for the first time. He changed the face of government to make it look more like the people of America.

He opened a lot of doors. Without Clinton doing that we might never have had Obama. I think that's why a lot of people like the Clintons on race issues.

But I think the policies were pretty bad though and she doesn't deserve a free pass.

[ericson00]

22. especially in the aftermath of Willie Horton

it seems to be easy for people around here to forget that. Revolving door prisons, anyone? While some of the policies absolutely had problems, fact is Bill Clinton took welfare and "being tough on crime" out of play as those were rarely mentioned after 1996 by the major presidential candidates as they were in the 1970s and 1980s when Democrats got their asses kicked on the presidential stage.

[cprise]

49. Clinton exceeded conservatives wildest dreams on several issues

And why would the corporate media keep harping when Clinton deregulated their industry, allowing companies like ClearChannel to build monopolies in many rural and midwestern markets. The 90s weren't the era of "merger mania" for nothing. What was left became the instruments of an oligarchy with its own revolving door problem.

[Sheepshank]

19. I honestly think that you are conflating missing the Netroots fiasco with a pass

.....or maybe you could simply explain in what way Hillary is getting a pass.....from what...a pass from BLM...because if that is your tack, you have failed to learn anything from the last few days of intense discussion.

[aspirant]

28. Generally intense discussions are creepy

[Sheepshank]

31. Oh, you're still here and stalking again?

[aspirant]

34. Are you attacking again?

Time to be "still" and calm

[Sheepshank]

62. I will respond every time I see you do this.

You may do well to take your own advice since I'm not the only one noticing.

[Reter]

21. Because Bill Clinton is responsible for all of that, not her

Thread win.

[JaneyVee]

24. Ugh. Its going to be a long election season.

[Scootaloo]

26. Because more is expected from the superior candidate?

[bravenak]

29. This is how Israel deal with criticism of the occupation. Similar.

BDS activists:

"The palestinians are oppressed!! Israel needs to end the occupation!"

Israel's supporters:

"Why does Syria get a pass?!?!"

[Violet_Crumble]

41. It's nothing like that. Here's why...

The tactic used by Team Israel is one I'm very familiar with. It's the 'Don't Talk About This! Look Over There!' tactic. What they do is point to something completely different and insist that has to be dealt with before they'll even talk about the situation in the Occupied Territories.

The one in this thread isn't like that because they're talking about two presidential candidates and where they stand on issues. I'd be thinking that the answer to that is no-one gets a pass. Every candidate should be judged the same way on every issue using the same standard.

btw, while I'm passing through here, I've gotta say that the US political system is so weird. I read some threads in here and anyone would think there's no such thing as Republicans, and if they do register at all, they're not the real enemy because a lot of people in here seem to be treating supporters of whoever they don't support as the enemy. It's like they've forgotten that both of the main candidates have their good and not so good points, but that when it all boils down in the end, they're both representing what the vast majority of DUers believe in. It's so divisive and unnecessary and such a waste of energy when the real enemy is the GOP. I hope all of you in here don't wear yrselves out tearing each others candidates apart and have some energy left when the primaries are over and the actual enemy is out campaigning. The world can't deal with another presidency like Bush's

[bravenak]

42. .

Oh. Okay. I get it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. This thread is interesting. I have my observer hat on...

A man can learn more by listening than talking.

[NCTraveler]

33. I think free pass is the wrong term to use.

The fair question is why does she get second, third, fourth....chances, along with forgiveness from so many. I don't think many actually give her a free pass.

Here is why.

She listens. She has spent decades putting herself in positions that many in her circles wouldn't. They wouldn't want to or would simply be uncomfortable. She is often not doing most of the talking in these situations. She is willing to change based on what she learns. She is very aware that she is human and flawed. Look at where they have put offices. While symbolic, it means something. The Clintons together have done more community outreach than some would like to give them credit for.

She simply embodies the direction of success. She embodies the hope fore equality. Her life and the changes she has undergone have been and are on public display. I see how we can get there by watching her life. Mind you, I didn't say she will get us there. She just represents one person willing to change for the better. She knows she isn't there yet so will continue down her path of learning.

I think most, not all, respect that.

Edit to add: With the direction of many posts, including my own in other threads, I think it is a fair question to ask. Not big on the rhetoric, but The general question.

[BlueMTexpat]

51. Nice response, IMO.

I believe that you have summed up her appeal quite well.

[betterdemsonly]

35. I think it is because Obama wants Clinton to be his heir apparent,

and many black activists do priortize his wants over the needs of the black commuity as a whole. So even though Hillary, her husband and even Obama ,contributed far more, to not prosecuting police officers who kill blacks, with civil rights violations than Bernie ever did or will, they will steer blacklivesmatter to protesting only threats to Hillary candidacy.

Now if they start protesting these people too, I might believe they are truly trying to help black youths killed by cops.

[JI7]

36. Why do most white people vote Republican for President ?

[oasis]

37. What's DOMA and don't ask don't tell got to do with race?

There are more whites on welfare. Not really Hillary's fault Bill was sometimes called First Black President.

If that's the criteria, I guess she does get a pass on race.

[Beacool]

40. This may come as a shock to you, but Hillary and Bill are separate people.

[Ken Burch]

45. Which will be believable when she finally does the decent, moral thing

And admits that it was racist, sexist and classist for Bill to sign the welfare reform bill.

A signing that gained him no votes at all in '96, btw, because it was impossible to want people on welfare punished just for being on welfare(at a time when we all knew there were no jobs for them) and still have any non-Republican views on any the major issue.

You can't hate the poor and still support any part of the feminist agenda, OR care about the environment, or give a damn about working-class people and the conditions they live under, or have any shred of compassion for another human being.

Bill got 49% that year and he'd have had that share no matter what.

[TheKentuckian]

46. Two people with little daylight between them ideologically other than she is more hawkish.

Get off this bullshit she just ran herself in 2008 and managed about no separation as well as in part ran on Bill's terms and at the time presented as a team.

Hell, I say if supporters are stuck playing plausible deniability, wait and see, and foaming at the mouth with accusations of misogyny because of positions then there is no real there there at all and people are simply sandbagging the levy until the general where order can be maintained by appealing to fear of the TeaPubliKlans.

It isn't that the Clinton aren't two different people but rather they share ideology as evidenced by both not just Bill being co founders of the DLC and her open support of the policies being scrambled to separate her from while accepting credit for positive feeling about the Clinton administration. When someone waxes nostalgic for the 90's and starts talking glowing about the economy of the time NEVAH EVAH are they called misogynistic or screamed at the Bill and Hillary aren't the same person or any of that bullshit so it is nothing but a red herring and a lame tactic to insulate from responsibility while gladly accepting credit and it is ridiculous.

JEB and W aren't literally the same person but what is the difference on policy while it is said the apple doesn't fall far from the tree it is pretty easy to see an ideological gulf between Ronald and Ron Reagan (and Ron even looks like his father) or between Birch and Evan Bayh. People know there were differences between FDR and Eleanor.

If there were all of these hinted at but never actually declared differences we'd probably know way before now.

[cprise]

50. They sooo want to forget their 2007-08 campaigning, pre-crisis:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102588_pf.html

Both Clintons are making the case that theirs was a co-presidency -- an echo of Bill Clinton's controversial statement during the 1992 campaign that voters would get "two for the price of one" if they elected him. At times, the former president has seemed to cast the current race as a referendum on his administration.

Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner nationally but facing strong challenges in Iowa and New Hampshire from Obama... (boy does this sound familiar!)

She has tried to co-opt the message of change from Obama, declaring that she has been "working for change" her entire life. Over the past week, she injected the phrase "new beginning" into her stump speech.

But the unchanging core of Clinton's message is her experience, and in recent days she has presented the election as a binary choice: between a competent, experienced Clinton and novices such as Obama. "That's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place," she said this week in Iowa. (...said the woman pursuing a political dynasty like Bush)

And the main basis for her assertion is the time she spent as first lady. Bill Clinton is hitting the theme hard as the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire draws closer, pointing back to the 1990s, citing his record as his wife's, referring to the work "we" did in office...

This degree of hypocrisy must sting.

[NCTraveler]

54. There is a deeply rooted thought process in this country that women must.....

There is a deeply rooted thought process in this country that women must apologize for their husbands actions. What leads to that is often intimidation behind closed doors. Some are more willing to go public with their beliefs in this area. Know them by their words.

Just like I won't make one negative comment about BLM because of the movements need for support over that of anything else, I won't ask a woman to apologize for her husband because of our need for support above pathetic and weak political points. They are really asking her to apologize for her husband because they know she won't do it. The foolishness of their thought process gives them the ability to never have to view her as positive in any way. It is a simpletons thought process that provides them with the self-fulfilling prophecy they so desperately need. Damn women will never meet the demands they have set out.

[sufrommich]

56. This,exactly. I also see a lot of people who love to claim that

she only says what her advisors tell her to say. The comments about her Facebook Q&A claiming that it wasn't her answering the questions but some campaign staffer were beyond the pale. She's a woman,she's too stupid to speak with her own words.

[Beacool]

68. This........

[gollygee]

48. She just didn't happen to be there

I won't be surprised if she ends with a protest at an event too. She'll be prepared at this point, and she's got a ton of campaign staff to advisor her and help her plan what to do, so she'll handle it better though. She's a smooth campaigner. But Sanders seems to be stepping it up on talking about race issues, and as long as he does that I don't think it'll matter. Protests are messy.

[bigtree]

53. It just might have something to do with folks not buying criticisms like the one you're making here

...basing your objections on her husbands initiatives and the conflating of those with her own stated views and efforts which don't mesh with her actual stated views and efforts made on behalf of the black community and individuals, and her defense of issues related to race throughout her life and career.

Much has been written about those. I've posted several accounts and snippets of her record of support in public office, but detractors seem to think that blurring the line between Hillary and her husband is a legitimate argument or a winning political tactic to drive a wedge between her and the black community of voters.

I don't think it's working. Maybe you need a political approach which centers of things she's actually said and done and make certain those aren't contradicted by the totality of her life experience and record of public service. I think you're off-base and wrong about her, but if you really want to make an issue out of Hillary and race, beginning your argument with sophistry and false conflations doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

[Bobbie Jo]

55. Once again

It's not Bernie. It's the tone deaf reaction of his supporters.

and it continues....

[Nitram]

57. I keep seeing Bernistas attacking Clinton in one post and claiming victimhood in a second.

Playing the victim while you hammer your perceived opponent with often petty and irrelevant attacks is pathetic.

[mylye2222]

59. Because when you are HRC you get passes...

With name recognition and popularity comes almost divine right favors... you can have had racists comments before.. doesnt matters. You will be offered the nomination on a silver plate its OK. You can cozy with RW no problem....

[Bluenorthwest]

60. WillyT, you can't say I haven't tired, for months to get through to you. DOMA and DADT are not about

race, WillyT. The other two items are about Bill Clinton, while your 'point' is about Hillary. That's a flavor of misogyny, to claim the man runs the woman. I'm not sure what to call it when a person tries to pawn off LGBT issues as being about race. LGBT people are not all white, nor all black. We have a rainbow flag for a reason.
I've tried and tried and tried. And all you did was mock me. Here's a good example thread:
WillyT March 28:
"Can We Have An Open Honest Discussion About Progressives, Civil Rights, And Income Inequality ???"
"IT IS THE MONEY... IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE MONEY...

It has rarely been about anyone's civil rights...

The good news.... is that you fix income inequality... you make people happy... "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026430750

Here is the second version of that same OP from May 13
"Can We Have A Toughtful/Respectful Discussion Of Civil Rights Versus Income Inequality ???"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026669120

You kept asking if we could discuss it, and we did. But you refused to hear lessons that would have served the current process very well. When you dismiss and devalue others because they are different from you, you are chocking off the vast world of knowledge held by others and also failing to share that which you know in return.
In that March thread, I asked you about employment discrimination toward LGBT, which is legal in 29 States, and how that civil right could possibly be unrelated to economics and income inequality. You failed to deliver an answer. You did deliver insults and emoticons.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Those are legitimate questions.

However when all a person has is a hammer the whole world looks like a nail.

[MineralMan]

61. She doesn't. If you look at what she's saying, you'll understand why.

Senator Sanders got a wake-up call at NRN15. He seemed surprised. Now, just days later, you see his current statements, where he clearly recognizes his mistake in focusing solely on economic justice in this campaign. He was awakened by the protests at NRN15, and is speaking out to address what he had been slow to address previously.

Yes, he's been on the correct side on these issues throughout his career, but his campaign strategy wasn't covering ground he needed to cover. Now it is doing that.

You ask about Hillary Clinton, though. Look at what she's saying now. You really do have to look at that. If you don't, you'll keep getting this wrong. She has the support of People of Color. That's clear from the polling. Why? Because she's been addressing issues that are important to them.

You can look at the past, as you seem to be doing, but you're missing some stuff. Bill Clinton, for example, will be one of the main assets of her campaign. Why? Because he also enjoys massive popularity with Democratic voters. You can say whatever you wish, but you can't ignore the actual reality.

Here's the bottom line: All of the Democratic candidates will address the issues of PoC. All of them. Some may be a little late on the draw on those issues, but any of those candidates will make a good President, with regard to those issues.

[artislife]

67. When I see threads like this

my heart sinks further down.