New Hillary Clinton video: LGBT equality

[brooklynite]

[MaggieD]

1. Bravo, Hillary!

Thanks for the post!

[NurseJackie]

2. <3 her so-o-o much!

[Cha]

26. Kickity Kick Kick!

[slipslidingaway]

3. She sure does change her mind with the times "Hillary Clinton on Gay Marriage 2004

[Cha]

4. We all evolve or we remain stagnant like a gd teabagger. this is a great update.. thank you!

[slipslidingaway]

6. Excuses, you can only use them so many times before people catch on ...

mistake, such as the Iraq invasion that displaced millions of people and is a cause for the rise of ISIS.

LGBT, she evolved when it was "safe" to do so.

Etc, etc, etc.

Good judgement is knowing what to do, even at an inconvenient time.

Sorry but I view Clinton as mostly a Convenient Politician, we need to coin a new phrase for those politicians who go along and do not stick their necks out too much.

[Cha]

8. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[slipslidingaway]

9. Clinton is a Convenient Candidate, she changes her positions when it is safe to do so. nt

[Cha]

12. Absolutely no clue.

[slipslidingaway]

14. Agree some of her supporters have no clue! nt

[Cha]

16. You don't agree with me.

[NCTraveler]

43. Understatement of the year.

Happy Tuesday Cha!!!!!

[Cha]

46. Hey NCTraveler~ Happy Tuesday to you!!!!

[treestar]

25. why does it have to be dangerous?

She got into power where she could help do something.

She was probably pro LGBt all along. Just careful to get elected while the country still evolved.

And then did something about it.

[Tortmaster]

72. Good post.

Screaming "Revolution" will help one get 30 to 35 percent of a major political party's base. It won't win a national election. We have seen that over and over and over again in the past.

[George II]

40. These organizations don't endorse candidates for no reason - they research the candidates'....

....backgrounds and records and endorse the candidate they see as best on their issue AND the country:

EMILY's List, PAC supporting pro-choice female Democratic candidates
Equality California, LGBT rights group[528]
LPAC, Lesbian Political Action Committee
National Organization for Women, feminist group
National Women's Political Caucus[533]
Stonewall Democrats of Arizona, LGBT rights group and PAC
U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce[536]

[JonLeibowitz]

53. Yes, EMILY's List has quite the record

For instance they backed candidates who show blatant anti-semitism, including this actual ad (yes, from the 2008 election, not 100 years ago; shocking):



More at: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2014/06/oh-please-not-more-emilys-list-anti.html

Or in Hawaii:

Last Thursday night, backward and reactionary congressional candidate Donna Kim told PBS Hawaii viewers she opposes marriage equality based on her Catholic faith. The very next morning she was endorsed by EMILY's List, a nominally pro-choice organization.

When Stephanie Schriock described Kim as “pro-choice” in the group’s endorsement statement, it was more than a desperate stretch; many in Hawaii were shocked. That term has rarely, if ever, been used to describe to Kim, a state senator who's been in various elected offices for 30 years. Kim has never been endorsed by the Patsy T. Mink PAC, which supports pro-choice women seeking election to the Hawaii state legislature. Kim regularly campaigns at vehemently anti-Choice fundamentalist churches, and even partners with them in her official capacity.

Indeed, it hasn't been clear Kim is even pro-contraception. In 2012, when seeking the endorsement of the anti-choice Hawaii Family Forum, she described herself as undecided on whether rape victims should be entitled to emergency contraception. She very pointedly hasn’t commented on the Hobby Lobby decision.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2014/07/emilys-list-teams-up-with-christian.html

Or how about when they ran this ad backing a candidate who Elizabeth Warren publicly opposed:



Quite the record indeed.

[George II]

57. Elizabeth Warren didn't opposed Katherine Clark, in fact she remained neutral throughout....

....that entire primary campaign.

That flyer doesn't say that Warren endorsed her. What it does say is that if she made it to Congress (by winning the primary and then the Special Election in December) SHE would stand with Warren in Washington. You're trying to say it was the other way around.

You've been around politics long enough to know that things like that are done by all candidates in just about every election.

[JonLeibowitz]

58. .

I was mistaken about Warren, I had thought she was opposed. I apologize. Anyway, it is still slimy election tactics to affiliate someone who is unaffiliated and work off their reputation to confuse voters.

I am actually not "trying to say it was the other way around" -- I am saying it is misleading and inaccurate to voters. It certainly does imply that Warren stands with Clark.

Are you saying anti-semitism is okay because all candidates do it in just about every primary election? Or were you just referring to Clark (honest confusion).

Anyway, you didn't address any of the other misdeeds of EMILY's list (and there are certainly more).

[George II]

59. No big deal, there's lots of stuff being thrown around by everyone. Thanks.

BUT, please explain what you mean by this: "re you saying anti-semitism is okay because all candidates do it in just about every primary election?" Where does that come in to this discussion?

[JonLeibowitz]

60. I meant, you said

"You've been around politics long enough to know that things like that are done by all candidates in just about every election. "

I wasn't sure if that was referring only to Clark, or whether you were meaning it to apply to the other misdeeds I linked to in my first post. Since you didn't address the anti-semitism (or weak-sauce Hawaii candidate) directly I was not sure if you were meaning that to apply to my first message.

You still have not commented on the other points mentioned in my post.

[George II]

61. I think we all have to be very careful about making comments about people - candidates or....

....supporters being "anti-Semitic", especially if one doesn't know the person he/she is referring to. I've seen too much of that here in the last few months, more so in this campaign.

As for the specifics? I'm sure if I took the time and thought it would be useful and/or productive, I could find instances like that for every candidate and campaign - Democratic, republican, primary, or general election.

It's not the thing to do. As a take-off on the saying “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. No candidate or campaign is perfect, but it's not productive to delve into the peccadilloes of each and every candidate.

[Betty Karlson]

63. Very informative post. Thanks for the warning on Emily's List. eom

[JonLeibowitz]

64. You are quite welcome.

I should really do an OP about EMILY's as I have done quite a bit of reading about their nefarious actions. Protip: downwithtyranny is a great resource for the stuff EMILY's list has tried. They also attacked Garcetti, LA's progressive mayor.

[Betty Karlson]

65. In short: it's rather [i]Emily's Elitist[/i].

I very much hope you'll manage to write that OP. You seem like the DU contributor who would manage to present the matter in a balanced way: not neglecting to mention the few good things that EL has done, but questioning the dubious campaigns and undesirable candidates they have promoted.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. No, "We all" don't. Some people have been right all along.

[msrizzo]

28. Well with your "right all along" purity test....

You'll be in the minority forever. Not because people don't agree with you, but because you bar the door. What can I say?

[Warren DeMontague]

31. You can say whatever you want. I don't have a "purity test" but I do have a memory.

She said "we all evolve", and I pointed out that some of us never needed to.

Yes, people get credit for coming around eventually. But let's not pretend it's some great profile in courage to do the right thing once the polls say it is okay.

Leadership is doing the right thing regardless of whether the polls say it's okay.

[ibegurpard]

5. Is her campaign still trying to explain to me

How the passage of DOMA in the 90s helped me?
Stick to saber-rattling Hillary.

[Betty Karlson]

7. Sanders proposes to end detention of LGBT illegal immigrants.

Does Clinton? What does she offer, except a few (admittedly heart-warming) pictures of happy couples?

[slipslidingaway]

10. Hard to believe that people fall for these images and ads when it is politcally convenient. n/t

[treestar]

36. "illegal immigrants?"

We are not supposed to use that term now.

How are LGBT undocumented immigrants detained any more than straight ones? Is there any proof regarding that assertion?

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Bernie did not use that term. And you need to inform yourself. First off, there are a good number of

trans women immigrants and asylum seekers who are detained with the males, this is incorrect and dangerous, there is a great deal of abuse and violence. LGBT asylum seekers historically face barriers both in US law and in American's attitudes toward them.
The immigration process has always discriminated harshly against LGBT, only in the last few years can we bring a spouse or betrothed home from another country, something straight people have always had the right to do. For 22 years, the US banned entry by anyone with HIV, pointlessly and hatefully. That just ended under Obama. Stared under Clinton.

Asylum seeking LGBT often find hard hearts sending them back to violent abuse and death because of bigoted attitudes and a lack of understanding of the oppression under which these people live.

We have been and continue to be abused as a people by the US immigration system. Even the areas that have recently been made more inclusive by law are still in need of years of clean up work and accountability, you can't discriminate systemically for generations and see all of that instantly cured by edict of law.

This is yet another thread by and for straight people aimed at LGBT like a weapon. In such a thread, comments such as yours stand out, for you have not even bothered to use your Google to educate yourself before offering your uninformed two cents.

[treestar]

67. but are they detained at a higher rate than other asylum seekers, etc?

that was the claim made.

[Betty Karlson]

62. Sincere apology for the offensive choice of words.

The charge against them is illegal immigration. Their problem is being undocumented.

And the issue is not exactly disproportionate detention, but the increased risks undocumented LGBT run in detention (which are far exceding the risks run by straights). Another issue is that LGBT immigrants usually have a smaller social networks to fall back on in case of arrests and / or detention, as a result of which they are at greater risk of being unduly sentenced, having worse or no access to legal representation, having worse access to charitable networks and so on.

And last but not least: LGBT undocumented immigrants are at greater risk of being physically and/ or sexually abused, killed, locked up without trial or after a kangaroo court, or even executed if they are sent back to their country of origin.

[treestar]

68. are there any stats

sounds like there are somewhere.

LGBT from certain countries, say Iran, would have a good asylum case, not much chance of getting sent back.

It sounds like there are some articles or statistics somewhere though.

[George II]

41. These organizations don't endorse candidates for no reason - they research the candidates'....

....backgrounds and records and endorse the candidate they see as best on their issue AND the country:

EMILY's List, PAC supporting pro-choice female Democratic candidates
Equality California, LGBT rights group
LPAC, Lesbian Political Action Committee
National Organization for Women, feminist group
National Women's Political Caucus
Stonewall Democrats of Arizona, LGBT rights group and PAC
U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce

[JonLeibowitz]

54. FYI, to those following along, Post #53 is informative.

[Cha]

13. Kick for the beautifulness of this vid and for Hillary.

[slipslidingaway]

15. Just a little bit late to the party, be honest now, that is what I term a convenient candidate. nt

[Cha]

17. KICK for the Beauty!

[slipslidingaway]

18. The beauty of being a decade late? Hillary = a Convenient Candidate. nt

[MADem]

19. Oh yeah? Sanders thought marriage equality for VT was "too divisive."

In 2006.

But keep living the dream!

Here's the link: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

But Sanders is not quite the gay rights visionary his defenders would like us to believe. Sanders did oppose DOMA—but purely on states’ rights grounds. And as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont. The senator may have evolved earlier than his primary opponents. But the fact remains that, in the critical early days of the modern marriage equality movement, Sanders was neutral at best and hostile at worst.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Bernie defended their rights in the 90's, Clinton followed when it was convenient ...

ads are cheap.

From your link, enough said.

"The senator may have evolved earlier than his primary opponents."

[MADem]

21. Yeah, he was "always there...." (not). Read the article. nt

[Cha]

22. Hey, MADem.. thank you!

[MADem]

23. Anytime. Kick for the early morning crowd... nt

[Cha]

24. Such a beautiful vid!

[leftofcool]

32. Yea, Bernie the states rights guy! No thank you!

[beam me up scottie]

35. As opposed to Hillary who declared that marriage is a "sacred bond between a man and a woman"?

The same Hillary who lobbied for DOMA and DADT and finally decided that marriage equality was acceptable in 2013?

It's nice she evolved but you can stop pretending she stood up and did the right thing when it mattered.

In fact she stood up and did the wrong thing when it mattered most.

[treestar]

37. Then why didn't he do it in the 80s?

The 70s?

The 60s?

By your standard you have to practically be born thinking all you are ever going to think in your life.

[BlueMTexpat]

27. Is this the new DU meme for Sanders supporters?

It ain't gonna work, however much you repeat it. It's certainly not winning hearts and/or minds.

One riposte: Bernie = Convenient Democrat

How does that feel?

Can we stop with this already? Both are great candidates.

[msrizzo]

29. If it is it's pretty lame.

At least I think so.

[BlueMTexpat]

51. I agree.

But I don't like to use memes such as my "riposte" about any of our current Dem candidates and will not do so again.

I was only using it as an example to see whether the poster might understand that if my meme offended him/her, the original meme is every bit as offensive to Hillary supporters.

Elementary schoolyard pissing contests ...

[riversedge]

30. Thanks Hillary--and the fight is not over. You are right.

[shenmue]

33. ...

[MeNMyVolt]

34. Fantastic! K&R!

[Prism]

38. Don't see an apology for her recent DOMA defense

Fluff over substance. Nah. pass.

[William769]

39. Kick & highly recommended!

[Amimnoch]

42. As one myself. BRAVO!!!

In today's climate, she is our best choice for progress!

[riversedge]

48. Agree

[Rose Siding]

69. As a mother and a sister, I too say BRAVO!!!

[NCTraveler]

44. K&R. nt

[BooScout]

45. K&R

[MaggieD]

47. Just want to point out....

Hillary has helped the LGBT political orgs to raise money; helped get other senators to vote against the constitutional marriage amendment; and championed equality across the globe as SOS.

AND bonus, she seems to have no qualms whatsoever about featuring LGBT people in her ads. This is like he 5th or 6th one I have seen just in he last few months. You sure don't see Bernie doing that.

[misterhighwasted]

50. + 10000 Absolutely correct MaggieD

Hillary's solid support in the LGBT community answers all the arguments.
Same with Latino & African American groups of our society.
They know who has the strength to stand with them in the constant battle for equal rights, and who will avoid them.

Hillary Clinton's own fight to be recognized as equal is the same as theirs. She "gets it", and they know it.

That's why they will stand firmly with HRC.
Their fight is her fight.

HRC 2016

[Walk away]

52. Hillary and the Democratic party are standing up for everyone's rights while...

the entire republican party look like a bunch of bigots and racists every time they open their mouths.

Democrats are lucky to have such a great candidate to move our country forward in every way.

Hillary 2016!!!!

[Spazito]

55. Great video!

Thanks for posting this.

[Cha]

56. KICK!

[Jester Messiah]

66. And if you believe her...

Then everything you get, you have coming.

[DemocraticWing]

70. Will Hillary stand against the Obama administration's inhumane treatment of trans immigrants?

I know President Obama told Jennicet Gutierrez to sit down and know her place when confronted about this in June, but if Hillary is going to proclaim "gay rights are human rights" it would be nice if she turns out to believe LGBT people are human.

[Cha]

71. Bulloney.. President Obama's Admin has done more for Transgenders that any other.

Thank you, President Obama.

[Cha]

73. Kicking this.. I love it!