Support NeoGAF

[TestOfTide]

Makes sense. She represent the democratic side of these dynastic rulers. First the Bushes, now the Clintons. If you see the terrible state of the prison system, or justice system in general and you see that a Clinton had two terms relatively recently, and another Clinton has been involved in the upper echelons of Obamas presidency... maybe you just don't see exactly why you should keep voting for the same crap over and over again. Obviously these people are sane enough not to vote Trump, but that of course makes this a much more balanced game than many of the Hilary fanboys on here would like to believe.

To be honest the absolutely blind fanboyism towards Clinton shown on Gaf is quite disturbing. She represents very little that's truly progressive. Many of her progressive stances are backtracks on things she said the polar opposite to just a few years ago. She gets big bucks from big donors and don't think for a minute she won't be eager to repay them in kind. She's a war hawk just as much as the Bushes. Trump is a fucking calamity.

Argh, truly Sanders represented at least something new and virtually unseen before in American politics, with some actual policies that would fundamentally make the entire political system in America fairer and more responsive to the people rather than huge moneyed interests. Say what you want about his electability but when fucking Trump looks dangerously close to winning don't say you weren't warned.

Thanks for showing you don't want Democrats to actually be more competitive.

If you want a purely progressive party, you can try living in the UK where the Labour Party has refused to be more pragmatic.

 

[kirblar]

Barack Obama is right fucking there. He only first campaigned for President eight years or so.

So either your memory is just that goddamn awful, or you are too young to have been politically aware in 2008.

I'm now convinced this is a big part of the reason Gore lost in 2000 following 8 years of Clinton. Young people going from 10->18 or 14->22 don't know how good they have it until it's gone.

 

[EMT0]

To be fair, during that <2 year period, most people thought that healthcare reform was the most important thing to get done.

I understand your criticisms but you can only get so much done in less than 2 years.

That's both true and fair, but broken campaign promises are broken campaign promises, and the Dems deserve to get raked over the coals for it until they both give answers to their failure to act, and actually deliver.

The truth is that immigration reform became more viable for the Democratic party in correlation to their growth as a voting bloc and the Republicans growing isolating actions toward hispanics.

Its a hard truth. Another hard truth is that political capital is not unlimited and you can't do everything at once. Obama took office amidst a major financial crisis and pending collapse of the American healthcare system. Both of those measures took a ton of political capital and time to get passed. The consequence of which was the tea party emergence. Forcing other issues to effectively become frozen indefinitely due to the Republican's steadfast opposition to anything Obama.

Glad you recognize that the Dems were more than content to turn the plight of 11.4 million individuals into political brownie points. Ergo, I'll continue to give them shit for this as those 11.4 million people have continued to languish under Obama for 8 years, his campaign promises to the contrary. The Dream Act is a band-aid to something that needs stitches, and is just enough to cover Obama's ass on the matter so that he can say 'I tried'. And like a band-aid, it can be torn off as easily as he put it on. And if or when that happens, those 11.4 million are right back at square one.

 

[remist]

You are reaching at best, being reckless at worst. Supporting capital punishment - even if I disagree with it - does not equal a person is racist. Especially when in order to make that leap you are inferring guilt by association for Hillary.

As to the 2008 campaign, again, reaching. At worst this shows her as a dirty fighter willing to go into pretty muddy waters 8 years ago.

Now on the other hand we have Trump....I rest my case. Concern trolling about Clinton's supposed racism comes off really empty when Trump is the alternative.

It has nothing to do with supporting capital punishment or not. This was a mentally challenged man who had no concept of what was happening to him. The dog whistle was not subtle at all. Bill constantly used rejection of black public figures to signal to white racists in the democratic party that he was sufficiently moderate on race issues from Sister Souljah to Jesse Jackson to Lani Guinier. He used them all as props to dog whistle to democratic racists.

Trump is definitely worse than the Clinton's. that doesn't mean the democratic party doesn't have a problem.

 

[Bounceounce]

Usually first thing people throw at me when I say I'm gay and voting for Hillary is. "How? She was against gay marriage!" I don't care.

You know who else I knew that was against gay marriage when I was growing up?
My mom.
My sister.
My extended family.
My peers in school.
One of my best friends.
Nearly every prominent politician then.

It took my mom nearly 10 years to come around to acceptance. She went from a stark hatred of gays and homosexuality fueled by her religious views.. to wanting to march with me in gay pride parades and join me at clubs and bars (no way I'm letting her join me on the latter though, lol).

Hillary denying she was against is a bad look yeah. But frankly. I don't give a shit. As long as she supports it now and is willing to help LGBT rights further that's all I care about. Tell me what you're going to do today.

That's your bit.
But if I'm comparing two candidates the issues they supported and when are relevant, period.
I already said it doesn't matter much to me, but simply brushing it away is also wrong imo.
I'm not sure what you're attacking me for anyways when I already addressed your complaint in the OP, and I have defended that former KY Klux Klan politician Byrd and Hillary's support of him.
But your mother/those other people supported a bigoted position, and if she's running for office against a politician that came around to an issue sooner then its going on a checklist as a mark not in her favor.
Note on the phrase political office.
Edit:Mainly because she denied ever not supporting it, because on the flipside I value people who can change their positions on things.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

In particular one of the most disgusting moments in presidential politics, when in order to appeal to white racists and and divert attention from the Gennifer Flowers story. Bill started up his own southern strategy and went back to Arizona to execute a mentally challenged black man who had no idea what was happening to him. That's explicit enough for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

Bill Clinton executing that man was about showing he's tough on crime, which is precisely what lost Dukakis the election. It had nothing to do with showing white men he'd be tough on black people.

If Clinton ran a southern strategy, why did he lose not only most of the south, but especially Mississippi and Alabama, the most racist states in the country? Why did he run a campaign that featured so many black people and black voices? If this is the best you can do, then it is not very good at all.

In reference to the 2008 campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html

Most of that is Clinton emphasizing a strong demographic appeal. I don't think you remember 2008. During the primaries, it really was a big question of whether or not Obama would appeal to enough voters outside of his demographic advantage to win the entire election. That's not a racist question to ask. That's an informed one. We're lucky that he did win that support in the end.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Barack Obama is right fucking there. He only first campaigned for President eight years or so.

So either your memory is just that goddamn awful, or you are too young to have been politically aware in 2008.

What's ironic is that for all the hype of Bernie ushering in a "political revolution" and unprecedented support among young people, it was Obama who actually got them out to vote at record breaking levels. Bernie didn't even match Obama's support leading up to the nomination

 

[Lord Frieza]

People say Trump is both racist and a liar. I don't anyone's accused Hillary of being racist though

Trump has

 

[Armaros]

What's ironic is that for all the hype of Bernie ushering in a "political revolution" and unprecedented support among young people, it was Obama who actually got them out to vote at record breaking levels. Bernie didn't even match Obama's support leading up to the nomination

Remember early in the Primary, the Obama to Bernie comparisons?

That stopped very quickly after SC.

 

[Kin5290]

Glad you recognize that the Dems were more than content to turn the plight of 11.4 million individuals into political brownie points. Ergo, I'll continue to give them shit for this as those 11.4 million people have continued to languish under Obama for 8 years, his campaign promises to the contrary. The Dream Act is a band-aid to something that needs stitches, and is just enough to cover Obama's ass on the matter so that he can say 'I tried'. And like a band-aid, it can be torn off as easily as he put it on. And if or when that happens, those 11.4 million are right back at square one.

This is too stupid for words.

This isn't Russia, and Presidents are not God-Kings.

 

[Future]

I almost want trump to win so I can witness the crow getting eaten when two ultra conservative, lgbt right hating, voter ID law loving, roe v wade dismissing, racism is over believing justices get appointed to the bench. And then I will watch this crow get eatin over 20+ years after every ruling.

It would almost be worth it. Then they'd see it isn't about a drug war that started two decades ago, or stances that have shifted for the better over the years. It's about what's happening right now.

 

[Stinkles]

A surprising number of young people seem genuinely surprised at the sausage making of politics. And I don't mean like, Bieber fans I mean smart, college educated kids.

I can't tell if it's naive idealism, or genuine ignorance. What I do remember from my teenage and early twenties political energy, was a rooted awareness of how entrenched the nasty aspects of the political process were- and that voting was a tactic to achieve baby steps of a more idealistic strategic result.

Like, to get Jesus you have to vote for a lot of Matthews, Marks and the odd Judas.

I guess one genuine difference for this generation is the trivial ability to create your own bubble and echo cyber and luxuriously ignoring contrary data or viewpoints. Which explains if nothing else, the genuine befuddlement of a core group of Bernie fans when their unelectable candidate lost the nom.

To be clear, the vast majority of millennials are just people. Fundamentally no different than gen Xers, but there's a significant core of bafflingly naive folks. Not dumb. Not evil. Just afflicted with self imposed blinders.


Cloudyell.gif

 

[Aiustis]

They don't vote anyway.

 

[TestOfTide]

That's both true and fair, but broken campaign promises are broken campaign promises, and the Dems deserve to get raked over the coals for it until they both give answers to their failure to act, and actually deliver.

And like I said, I understand your criticism, but I guess my question is this:

Since you acknowledge that Obama and the democrats had less than 2 years and only so much can get done in that time, what should the blue houses of congress have not done so that they had time to pass immigration reform?

 

[Jonm1010]

That's both true and fair, but broken campaign promises are broken campaign promises, and the Dems deserve to get raked over the coals for it until they both give answers to their failure to act, and actually deliver.



Glad you recognize that the Dems were more than content to turn the plight of 11.4 million individuals into political brownie points. Ergo, I'll continue to give them shit for this as those 11.4 million people have continued to languish under Obama for 8 years, his campaign promises to the contrary. The Dream Act is a band-aid to something that needs stitches, and is just enough to cover Obama's ass on the matter so that he can say 'I tried'. And like a band-aid, it can be torn off as easily as he put it on. And if or when that happens, those 11.4 million are right back at square one.

My issue with the Gay Marriage thing?
Hillary has supported advancement for gay's in America and in other counties, long before she came around to support gay marriage, and Sanders fans should commend her for this.
But rather than acknowledge the gay marriage thing as a fault of hers, Gaf constantly tries to deflect by saying "b-b-but Obama!"or "b-but if we don't allow people to change!".
I'm someone who in real life has forgiven racists that have literally thrown slurs at me, I have no issue with forgiving people for their past discretions.
But they still occurred, and when deciding between two politicians it's important to take into consideration what stances they have held, and it's important to acknowledge that she only came around post 2010.
It's also important to acknowledge that she denied ever not supporting gay marriage when interviewed about it after she announced her support.
When the stereotype on this site is that Bernie is stubborn and won't admit fault you just can't ignore that Hillary explicitly denied ever not supporting gay marriage multiple times.
Especially when you shit on Bernie for not reeeaaaly caring about anything other than whites and banks, which ignores the lgbt parade he started in Vermont as well as his legislation to protect housing for gay's and trans in Vermont decades ago.
Of course I also acknowledge that Bernie did not always officially support gay marriage as well.

I see a running theme of ignoring how representative democracy works and ignoring the mechanics of change in such a system. When someone points out things Obama said its not to deflect, its to show a larger truth about the ugliness of how change is made and how even those you hold up in high regard often much make compromises that in hindsight will certainly be viewed unfavorably.

Let me ask you a question, if you were magically transported back to 1860 and were faced with an election between Abraham Lincoln, who was espousing that blacks maybe should have freedom but they are an inferior race and should go home, and Douglas who supported "popular sovereignty" would you really be wasting breathe trying to tear down Lincoln knowing it was and is the only realistic path toward progress on slavery?

That is the ugly reality of representative democracy, immediate and total gratification is often not realistic and demanding it and accepting no compromises to the point of eating your own can and often does have the opposite effect. It's an even harder truth for oppressed groups because it acknowledges that change is not going to be sudden, immediate and perfectly ideal. It is often a long, hard fight that can have people so ingrained in the status quo that they will kill or die to maintain it. That people fighting for your rights will often have to take positions they may not agree with in their core because if not they can never get into the positions of power necessary to lay the tracks that can get the train to the light at the end of the tunnel.

A surprising number of young people seem genuinely surprised at the sausage making of politics. And I don't mean like, Bieber fans I mean smart, college educated kids.

I can't tell if it's naive idealism, or genuine ignorance. What I do remember from my teenage and early twenties political energy, was a rooted awareness of how entrenched the nasty aspects of the political process were- and that voting was a tactic to achieve baby steps of a more idealistic strategic result.

Like, to get Jesus you have to vote for a lot of Matthews, Marks and the odd Judas.

I guess one genuine difference for this generation is the trivial ability to create your own bubble and echo cyber and luxuriously ignoring contrary data or viewpoints. Which explains if nothing else, the genuine befuddlement of a core group of Bernie fans when their unelectable candidate lost the nom.

To be clear, the vast majority of millennials are just people. Fundamentally no different than gen Xers, but there's a significant core of bafflingly naive folks. Not dumb. Not evil. Just afflicted with self imposed blinders.


Cloudyell.gif

Yep. Much more eloquently put.

 

[Spiritreaver]

That's your bit.
But if I'm comparing two candidates the issues they supported and when are relevant, period.
I already said it doesn't matter much to me, but simply brushing it away is also wrong imo.
I'm not sure what you're attacking me for anyways when I already addressed your complaint in the OP, and I have defended that former KY Klux Klan politician Byrd and Hillary's support of him.
But your mother supported a bigoted position, and if she's running for office against a politician that came around to an issue sooner than its going on a checklist as a mark not in her favor.
Note on the phrase political office.

Why does everyone think that just because someone quotes you, it means they're attacking you? I was adding onto your post with some of my personal experiences and views as a gay man. In fact I agreed with your first bit.

This is why I grossly dislike these discussions about X demographics because it quickly becomes people attempt to speak for large swathes of people. Perhaps to some people it does matter, but if any of my friends asked me how I feel about her not supporting gay marriage that is what I would say. That is what many people have also said in my gay social networks.

Whether they are in politics or not, people can change for the better. People tout her change as flip flopping, when I don't view it as such. That is my point really. That's the basis of why I do no care.

 

[Lord Frieza]

I almost want trump to win so I can witness the crow getting eaten when two ultra conservative, lgbt right hating, voter ID law loving, roe v wade dismissing, racism is over believing justices get appointed to the bench. And then I will watch this crow get eatin over 20+ years after every ruling.

It would almost be worth it

What, like Jim Crowe eattins and fixins?

 

[old manatee]

I've done this multiple times, as have others. Perhaps you should stop acting as if GAF is a hivemind. The problem here is so many of you are being disingenuous. It is tiring hearing people constantly cite Clinton's stances on gay marriage as a reason to not support her when they already support a politician who exhibited the exact same failings. It's hypocritical and dishonest and many, many of us thought we were done arguing with such people after the Primary ended.

It's an election, not a coronation.

Thanks for showing you don't want Democrats to actually be more competitive.

If you want a purely progressive party, you can try living in the UK where the Labour Party has refused to be more pragmatic.

 

[EMT0]

This is too stupid for words.

This isn't Russia, and Presidents are not God-Kings.

Alright bro. Let's ignore Obama promising immigration reform within a year of being elected, the loss of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, and the fact that yes, Obama did have the window to act on his promises but chose not to. Too stupid for words? More like you're happy to ignore both the reality of the situation in the past, and the type of shit Obama was marketing to Hispanics.

 

[Debirudog]

My issue with the Gay Marriage thing?
Hillary has supported advancement for gay's in America and in other counties, long before she came around to support gay marriage, and Sanders fans should commend her for this.
But rather than acknowledge the gay marriage thing as a fault of hers, Gaf constantly tries to deflect by saying "b-b-but Obama!"or "b-but if we don't allow people to change!".
I'm someone who in real life has forgiven racists that have literally thrown slurs at me, I have no issue with forgiving people for their past discretions.
But they still occurred, and when deciding between two politicians it's important to take into consideration what stances they have held, and it's important to acknowledge that she only came around post 2010.
It's also important to acknowledge that she denied ever not supporting gay marriage when interviewed about it after she announced her support.
When the stereotype on this site is that Bernie is stubborn and won't admit fault you just can't ignore that Hillary explicitly denied ever not supporting gay marriage multiple times.
Especially when you shit on Bernie for not reeeaaaly caring about anything other than whites and banks, which ignores the lgbt parade he started in Vermont as well as his legislation to protect housing for gay's and trans in Vermont decades ago.
Of course I also acknowledge that Bernie did not always officially support gay marriage as well.

I only brought up Bernie not to drag his name or say he wasn't for gay rights, just that the indictment of Hillary seems silly when other politicians like Obama and Bernie never get the level of scrunity by saying they believe in traditional marriage. Especially when Hillary, during that same comment she made, believed that gay couples should be recognized as civil unions and enjoy the same privileges as straight married couples.

and the thing is, Hillary is a lot more prone to apologize over her statements but time and time again, Bernie honestly believes he's right and refuses to budge on the issues. Name one instance where he explicitly apologize for some remarks he made.

While I agree she should've stood up for her beliefs...it just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Why do we hold so much of this statement against her, when she's done so much for LGBT rights? People really should let it go.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

You're saying he was as influential as Fox News and conservative talk radio? That doesn't seem equivalent.

The left tried with Air America, but that failed after a few years. My claim isn't that the left lacked ideologues. My claim is that the media environment conducive to ideological purity tests only really has risen recently with the rise of online organizing.

Influential? Maybe not in total, but certainly Chris Matthews + Rachel Maddow + Keith Olbermann have been pretty solid champions for the American left for a long time and have/had a big following (myself included). Now that you elaborated your claim I would certainly agree with you that there hasn't been a medium in particular that has catered (or been open to) the left quite like the internet has been.

 

[B-Dubs]

What's ironic is that for all the hype of Bernie ushering in a "political revolution" and unprecedented support among young people, it was Obama who actually got them out to vote at record breaking levels. Bernie didn't even match Obama's support leading up to the nomination

Honestly as the election dragged on, it's this cry of "we need a political revolution" that annoyed me the most. I came to age politically while Bush was president and I remember what it was like. The US of today is a 180° turn from those years, if that's not a political revolution i don't know what is. It just felt like he was trying to take credit for that with his rhetoric.

 

[TestOfTide]

Sounds a lot like the "If you don't like it you can get out" line that conservatives use to fend off any criticism.

No it's more of a "Here's what it would it would like if the US left tried that purity crap"

One of the reasons that Democrats are winning on a national scale is because the GOP voters are making the mistake of being more about purity than pragmatism.

I would hope that Democratic voters are smart enough to not make the mistake that the GOP base is making.

 

[Debirudog]

Obama started the whole grassroots idea way before Bernie claimed to start a revolution.

 

[Aaronology]

To be honest the absolutely blind fanboyism towards Clinton shown on Gaf is quite disturbing. She represents very little that's truly progressive.

I've written a few posts addressing this sentiment. I've no problem rehashing them here:

Democrats Advance Most Progressive Platform in Party History
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/democrats-advance-most-progressive-platform-party-history-n606646

Sanders endorses Clinton, touts 'most progressive platform' in history
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/sanders-expected-to-finally-endorse-clinton-in-new-hampshire.html

Clinton, Dems embrace a progressive vision with little resistance
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/clinton-dems-embrace-progressive-vision-little-resistance

OnTheIssues.Org's has an exhaustive list of Clinton's stances and ranks her politics based on comments, voting records and her entire career:

HILLARY CLINTON ON...

...ABORTION​

• It's big government to intervene on woman's right to choose. (Oct 2015)
• 1999: keep abortion safe, legal & rare into next century. (Jul 2007)
• Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases. (Jun 2007)
• 1993:Early action on abortion rights ended Right&#8217;s dominance. (Jun 2007)
• Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too. (Nov 2006)
• Partial birth exceptions for life-threatening abnormalities. (Apr 2006)
• Government should have no role in abortion decision. (Oct 2005)
• Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice. (Oct 2000)
• Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk. (Oct 2000)
• Remain vigilant on a woman&#8217;s right to chose. (Jan 2000)
• Keep abortion safe, legal and rare. (Jan 1999)
• Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. (Jan 1999)
• Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems. (Jan 1999)
• Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus. (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
• Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
• Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
• Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
• Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
• Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims. (Sep 2006)
• Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
• Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
• Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
• Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)
  
  
  ...CIVIL RIGHTS
• Fight systemic racism in education & employment. (Feb 2016)
• Root out systemic racism exposed by social media. (Feb 2016)
• After 200 presidential debates, female majority on stage. (Feb 2016)
• No Ceilings: worldwide full equal education for girls. (Apr 2015)
• Women in Public Service Project: 50% of officials by 2050. (Nov 2013)
• 1998: Hillary predicted female President in near future. (Oct 2007)
• 1962: met MLK Jr. preaching a sermon in Chicago. (Jul 2007)
• 1995: Politely criticized China&#8217;s human rights. (Jun 2007)
• Developmental thread: tragedy of race must be made right. (Jun 2007)
• Pushing for privacy bill of rights. (Jun 2006)
• Professional woman AND hostess; feminist AND traditionalist. (Nov 2003)
• Crack down on sex trafficking of women and girls. (Jan 2000)
• Human rights are women&#8217;s rights. (Jan 2000)
• Women&#8217;s rights are human rights. (Dec 1999)
• Support National Endowment for the Arts. (Feb 1997)
• Sex selection, prostitution & war rape: human rights issues. (Sep 1995)
• Women's suffrage was 72-year struggle, but not a shot fired. (Sep 1993)
  
  
  ...AFFIRMATION ACTION
• Fight systemic racism in education & employment. (Feb 2016)
• Will fight for minorities, immigrants, & women's rights. (Feb 2016)
• Unleash the full potential of women and girls. (Feb 2016)
• We need a New Deal for Communities of Color. (Oct 2015)
• OpEd: "18 million cracks" meant "lingering sexism". (Aug 2009)
• Heads movement of women looking to America's true promise. (Aug 2009)
• Equal pay is not yet equal. (Jan 2008)
• MLK recognized that working within the system was necessary. (Jan 2008)
• Compiled &#8220;Handbook on Legal Rights for Arkansas Women&#8221;. (Nov 2007)
• Hillary wanted Bill&#8217;s cabinet to &#8220;Look Like America&#8221;. (Oct 2007)
• Founded Vital Voices Initiative with Madeleine Albright. (Sep 2007)
• 1965: brought black classmates to all-white church. (Jul 2007)
• We&#8217;ve come a long way on race, but we have a long way to go. (Jun 2007)
• 1988: Instituted gender diversity Report Card within ABA. (Jun 2007)
• Create a pipeline for more women in leadership. (Oct 2005)
• 1972: Worked with Edelman on school desegregation in South. (Nov 2003)
• Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now. (Oct 2000)
• First chair of ABA Commission on Women and the Profession. (Aug 1999)
• Raised issues of gender compensation gap at 1970s Rose Law. (Nov 1997)
• Affirmative living: involve entire village against racism. (Sep 1996)
  
  
  ..GAY RIGHTS
• LGBT people now married on Saturday & fired on Monday. (Feb 2016)
• Pledged to sign Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (Apr 2015)
• I re-evaluated & changed my mind on gay marriage. (Jun 2014)
• We have all evolved on gay marriage since 1990s. (Jun 2014)
• DOMA discrimination holds us back from a more perfect union. (Jun 2013)
• I support gay marriage personally and as law. (Mar 2013)
• Telling kids about gay couples is parental discretion. (Sep 2007)
• Positive about civil unions, with full equality of benefits. (Aug 2007)
• Let states decide gay marriage; they&#8217;re ahead of feds. (Aug 2007)
• GLBT progress since 2000, when I marched in gay pride parade. (Aug 2007)
• Supports DOMA, which Bill Clinton signed. (Jul 2007)
• Don&#8217;t ask don&#8217;t tell was an important transition step. (Jun 2007)
• 2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex. (May 2007)
• Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards. (Oct 2006)
• Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight. (Nov 2003)
• End hate crimes and other intolerance. (Sep 2000)
• Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)
• Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation. (Dec 1999)
• Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning. (Jan 2010)
• Op-ed: Sponsored flag-burning bill for centrist credential. (May 2006)
• Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
• Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
• Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all. (Aug 2000)
• Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
• Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
• Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
• Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)
• Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)
• Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
• Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements. (Jan 2008)
  
  
  ...HEALTHCARE
• 1990s plan failed after big pharma & insurance worked on it. (Apr 2007)
• 1990s healthcare reforms laid groundwork for today&#8217;s reforms. (Mar 2007)
• Still scarred from 1990s reform, but now doing it better. (Feb 2007)
• When last Republican backed out, HillaryCare died. (Nov 2003)
• Despite failure, glad she tried system-wide reform. (Nov 2003)
• 1994 "Harry & Louise" ads exploited consumer fears. (Nov 2003)
• 1990s plan based on employer mandate. (Feb 2003)
• Learned lessons on health care; but hasn&#8217;t given up goal. (Aug 2000)
• 1979: Developed program to deliver rural healthcare. (Aug 1999)
• OpEd: 1993 debate was highest level ever reached. (Jun 1997)
• 1994: can't fix just part of problem; it's all or nothing. (Jan 1997)
• Health care initiatives are her first priority in Senate. (Feb 2001)
• Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
• Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
• Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
• Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
• Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
• Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
• Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
• Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care. (Aug 2000)
• Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage. (Apr 2001)
• Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations. (May 2003)
• Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
• End government propaganda on Medicare bill. (Mar 2004)
• Sponsored bill for mental health service for older Americans. (May 2005)
• Improve services for people with autism & their families. (Apr 2007)
• Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007)
• Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)
  
  
  ...POVERTY
• Address distressed communities and generational poverty. (Feb 2016)
• Make sure the economy works for everybody. (Jan 2008)
• Partner with faith based community in empowerment zones. (Dec 2007)
• Considered idea of $5000 at birth to pay for future college. (Oct 2007)
• Time-out for mortgage companies on march toward foreclosure. (Sep 2007)
• Equal access to capital and jobs. (Jan 2000)
• Working should mean no poverty. (Jan 2000)
• Community involvement helps, but only in short term. (Dec 1999)
• Don&#8217;t criminalize the homeless. (Dec 1999)
• 1976: Founded first indigent legal aid in Fayetteville AR. (Aug 1993)
• Finish welfare reform by moving able recipients into jobs. (Aug 2000)
• Establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. (Jul 2003)
• Tax credits to promote home ownership in distressed areas. (Apr 2003)
• Fully fund AmeriCorps. (Jun 2003)
  

Hillary Clinton is a hard core liberal.

FiveThirtyEight on Clinton's political leaning.

We&#8217;ve gotten this raft of &#8220;Clinton is liberal&#8221; exposés as Clinton has revved up her 2016 campaign, speaking out in support of gay marriage, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and criminal justice reform. But what many of these articles miss is that Clinton has always been, by most measures, pretty far to the left. When she&#8217;s shifted positions, it has been in concert with the entire Democratic Party.

To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising.

Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton&#8217;s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members &#8212; he was not more liberal than Clinton.

Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a &#8220;hard core liberal&#8221; per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a &#8220;hard core liberal,&#8221; Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.

There have been a few issues on which Hillary Clinton has taken more centrist positions. She, of course, voted for the Iraq War (she now says that was a mistake). Clinton has been mostly pro free trade (although she hasn&#8217;t said much of anything on the Trans-Pacific Partnership). And she has been against marijuana legalization, and seemingly remains so.

When Clinton has shifted left, she has usually done so with her party and &#8212; on the issues she&#8217;s highlighted in the 2016 campaign so far &#8212; the country.

DailyKos:

As it turns out, with a first-dimension score of -0.391 based upon her entire service in Congress, Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal member of the Senate in each of the 107th, 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses. That places her slightly to the left of Pat Leahy (-0.386), Barbara Mikulski (-0.385) and Dick Durbin (-0.385); clearly to the left of Joe Biden (-0.331) and Harry Reid (-0.289); and well to the left of moderate Democrats like Jon Tester (-0.230), Blanche Lincoln (-0.173), and Claire McCaskill (-0.154).

Comparing votes is hardly a perfect way to measure ideology, but it is by far the best method available to bring a measure of quantitative rigor to this inherently subjective topic, and political scientists and statisticians have long relied on DW-NOMINATE for insights about politics and voting behavior. (Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com make extensive use of it to power their own results, for example.)

The New York Times:

The field of potential Democratic presidential candidates is ideologically cohesive. While there is room to the left of Mrs. Clinton&#8217;s Crowdpac score of -6.4, there is not a lot.

Timeline: How Hillary Clinton Has Championed Women&#8217;s Rights
http://www.self.com/work/politics/2015/04/timeline-how-hillary-clinton-has-paved-the-way-for-womens-rights/

Throughout her distinguished career, she pushed to improve medical facilities for the poor and promoted educational reforms&#8212;a cause for which Bill would become known during his years as governor. She also nabbed several awards, including Arkansas Woman of the Year 1983 and Arkansas Young Mother of the Year in 1984.

5 Times Hillary Clinton Pushed for LGBT Rights
http://shewinswewin.org/blog/5-times-hillary-clinton-pushed-for-lgbt-rights/

1. She Was The First-Ever Global Leader to Declare That Gay Rights Are Human Rights, Again and Again.

In 2011, Hillary Clinton followed in her own footsteps when she declared, on a global stage, that &#8220;gay rights are human rights.&#8221; In what could only be considered the 21st-century sequel to her historic speech on women&#8217;s rights in Beijing in 1997, Hillary did what no American leader or global figurehead otherwise had ever had the courage to do: unequivocally demand that LGBT rights be part of the human rights framework around the world.

..

3. In the Senate, She Voted Consistently for LGBT Rights. As Secretary of State, She Institutionalized Them.
Of course, all of this work was preceded by Hillary&#8217;s Senate career, in which she stood tall as an ally to LGBT folks at every turn.

As a Senator, Hillary voted against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and supported efforts to expand workplace non-discrimination legislation to include LGBT employees, end restrictions on gay adoption, and put hate crime legislation into place that recognized the identity-based attacks on LGBT people. She earned an 89% grade from the Human Rights Campaign as a Senator, indicating her strong support for queer and trans rights.

[Hillary Clinton] urged President Obama to push harder against homophobic regimes in Africa.
http://www.newnownext.com/8-times-hillary-clinton-was-a-champion-of-lgbt-equality/02/2016/

While outlets like Fox News attacked Clinton about &#8220;hiding&#8221; emails, there was actually some good that surfaced: One leaked message revealed she pushed the Obama Administration to press leaders in Africa to change their anti-LGBT policies.

It was not a safe position, either: As Clinton revealed in her memoir, Hard Choices, after she confronted Uganda&#8217;s President Yoweri Museveni about gay rights, he ridiculed my concerns.&#8221;

&#8220;Like many people in Uganda and around the world, I was appalled that the police and government had done little to protect [murdered activist] David [Cato] after public calls for his murder,&#8221; she wrote. &#8220;It was the result of a nationwide campaign to suppress LGBT people by any means necessary, and the government was part of it.&#8221;

Hillary Clinton in the Civil Rights Era
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/4/1495575/-Hillary-Clinton-in-the-Civil-Rights-Era

Hillary Clinton leading a 1968 student protest to increase African-American admissions at Wellesley College, following the assassination of Martin Luther King. Clinton met King in Chicago in 1962, when she was 14.

...

Also at age 20, she denounced the Republican Party as being racist, after she attended the RNC convention in Miami and saw Richard Nixon's supporters attack, sometimes physically, supporters of moderate Republican Nelson Rockefeller, who stood on the old guard Party of Lincoln platform. Nixon threw that one out with his Southern Strategy that swept the racist southern Democrats off their feet for the GOP.

At age 21, unknown Hillary Clinton made headlines. She and her speech were featured in a Life Magazine article about the activist ideals of the class of 1969. She had led protests to protect black civil rights. She had accomplished civil rights goals. She advocated active civil disobedience to better African-American lives, to make the changes that passive compliance and blind trust had failed to make.

How Hillary Clinton Went Undercover to Examine Race in Education
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/politics/how-hillary-clinton-went-undercover-to-examine-race-in-education.html

In summer 1972, Mr. Clinton was in Miami working on George McGovern&#8217;s presidential campaign when Mrs. Clinton traveled from Washington to Atlanta to meet with civil rights lawyers and activists, then rented a car and drove the nearly four hours to Dothan.

...

She drove over the railroad tracks near downtown, east of Park Avenue, to the black part of town. There, she met local contacts who told her over a lunch of sweetened ice tea and burgers &#8220;that many of the school districts in the area were draining local public schools of books and equipment to send to the so-called academies, which they viewed as the alternatives for white students,&#8221; she wrote in &#8220;Living History.&#8221;

Years later, Mrs. Clinton does not say she ever felt afraid, but a white woman traveling alone in the South would have been &#8220;looking over her shoulder,&#8221; said Marlene Provizer, who did similar research into segregation academies in Mississippi and Georgia in the same era.

&#8220;There weren&#8217;t many folks doing this work,&#8221; she said. &#8220;I was very conscious of being &#8216;the other.&#8217; &#8221;

There is "very little" that is progressive about her, you say? Sorry, but that comment immediately marks you as someone who has not invested much energy into becoming familiar with who Hillary Clinton is, her political history, and perhaps American politics. Her record is consistent, and it is progressive. This is reality.

Please join us in it.

 

[Jonm1010]

No it's more of a "Here's what it would it would like if the US left tried that purity crap"

We don't even have to look across the ocean, the tea party gives us insight right now.

I wish I could transport all the Bernie bros/purity crusaders on the left back to 2000. Let them experience what the youth at that time learned the hard way with Nader and the subsequent Bush years....Though some never learned the lesson.

 

[Lord Frieza]

There is "very little" that is progressive about her, you say? Sorry, but that comment immediately marks you as someone who has not invested much energy into becoming familiar with who Hillary Clinton is, her political history, and perhaps American politics. Her record is consistent, and it is progressive. This is reality.

Please join us in it.

Bah, way too much to read, can you please put this on the back of a cereal box?

Spoiler

But in all seriousness, great post, great information.

 

[Aaronology]

Thanks for showing you don't want Democrats to actually be more competitive.

If you want a purely progressive party, you can try living in the UK where the Labour Party has refused to be more pragmatic.

He does.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I've written a few posts addressing this sentiment. I've no problem rehashing them here:

Aaronology, I remember saying you should have made a thread out of your previous Hillary fact checking post that dispelled most of the bullshit, and with this recent post I really have to repeat that again. More people need to see this before saying blatantly ignorant statements

 

[EMT0]

I see a running theme of ignoring how representative democracy works and ignoring the mechanics of change in such a system. When someone points out things Obama said its not to deflect, its to show a larger truth about the ugliness of how change is made and how even those you hold up in high regard often much make compromises that in hindsight will certainly be viewed unfavorably.

Let me ask you a question, if you were magically transported back to 1860 and were faced with an election between Abraham Lincoln, who was espousing that blacks maybe should have freedom but they are an inferior race and should go home, and Douglas who supported "popular sovereignty" would you really be wasting breathe trying to tear down Lincoln knowing it was and is the only realistic path toward progress on slavery?

That is the ugly reality of representative democracy, immediate and total gratification is often not realistic and demanding it and accepting no compromises to the point of eating your own can and often does have the opposite effect. It's an even harder truth for oppressed groups because it acknowledges that change is not going to be sudden, immediate and perfectly ideal. It is often a long, hard fight that can have people so ingrained in the status quo that they will kill or die to maintain it. That people fighting for your rights will often have to take positions they may not agree with in their core because if not they can never get into the positions of power necessary to lay the tracks that can get the train to the light at the end of the tunnel.



Yep. Much more eloquently put.

The only thing I'm seeing here is:

A) It's okay to lie while campaigning, since
B) Campaign promises are meant to be broken, as long as
C) It's used for political capital in other ideologically alligned ventures because
D) Representative democracy means taking someone at face value and crossing your damn fingers that he holds up what he says

If you agree that the above is distorted, then tell me, should I:

A) Ignore Obama's inflated campaign promises to Hispanics?
B) Not critique deciding to wait until his second goddamn term to do squat when being a two-term president is far from guaranteed?
C) Be content that the Democrats had a window of opportunity of over two years to act on immigration, and chose to not even begin on these so-called 'gradual steps to change' that occurs in representative democracy?
D) Question why the Democrats waited until Republicans were actively shunning Hispanics to even begin courting immigration reform on their present political agenda?
E) Not express doubt about ANY commitment from the Democrats to Hispanics on these grounds?

Please, tell me why I should take the Democrats at face value about shit they say about immigration reform, deportation, or a path to citizenship. If the best you've got is 'Well at least they're not Donald Trump', thanks for telling me all I need to know.

 

[Spiritreaver]

This is why I make posts on personal experience rather than murk up tired debates. Posters like Aaronology handle it far better than I can.

 

[Aaronology]

It's an election, not a coronation.

The primary is over, fam. Arguing about Bernie Sanders, comparing his record to Clinton's, going over tired discussions with Bernie supporters at this juncture is pointless. He lost.

 

[TestOfTide]

He does.

I assume he supports Corbyn then and all his MANY accomplishments from being pure.....

 

[old manatee]

We don't even have to look across the ocean, the tea party gives us insight right now.

I wish I could transport all the Bernie bros/purity crusaders on the left back to 2000. Let them experience what the youth at that time learned the hard way with Nader and the subsequent Bush years....Though some never learned the lesson.

Thanks for the condescension, but I voted for Nader and never once regretted it.

 

[DarthWoo]

The only thing I'm seeing here is:

A) It's okay to lie while campaigning, since
B) Campaign promises are meant to be broken, as long as
C) It's used for political capital in other ideologically alligned ventures because
D) Representative democracy means taking someone at face value and crossing your damn fingers that he holds up what he says

If you agree that the above is distorted, then tell me, should I:

A) Ignore Obama's inflated campaign promises to Hispanics?
B) Not critique deciding to wait until his second goddamn term to do squat when being a two-term president is far from guaranteed?
C) Be content that the Democrats had a window of opportunity of over two years to act on immigration, and chose to not even begin on these so-called 'gradual steps to change' that occurs in representative democracy?
D) Question why the Democrats waited until Republicans were actively shunning Hispanics to even begin courting immigration reform on their present political agenda?
E) Not express doubt about ANY commitment from the Democrats to Hispanics on these grounds?

Please, tell me why I should take the Democrats at face value about shit they say about immigration reform, deportation, or a path to citizenship. If the best you've got is 'Well at least they're not Donald Trump', thanks for telling me all I need to know.

Are you trying to repeat the frequently debunked talking point that Democrats had control of both houses for two years?

 

[BanGy.nz]

Thanks for the condescension, but I voted for Nader and never once regretted it.

Please tell me you don't live in Florida.

 

[Boombloxer]

Without quoting that post, I'll just say this, since you didn't actually refute anything, Walrus.

You simply know less than what you're trying to argue, and an outsider you're missing the nuance when thats a large part of the conversation; you've admitted as much, and saying that means you can't see the forest for the trees yourself when you argue and post fact-less bullshit.

It's quite fascinating how we've gone back to February.

 

[TestOfTide]

Thanks for the condescension, but I voted for Nader and never once regretted it.

Are you from Florida? If so thanks for helping Bush win. We really appreciate it that the majority of SCOTUS justices voted to gut the VRA of its preclearance.

 

[Jonm1010]

The only thing I'm seeing here is:

A) It's okay to lie while campaigning, since
B) Campaign promises are meant to be broken, as long as
C) It's used for political capital in other ideologically alligned ventures because
D) Representative democracy means taking someone at face value and crossing your damn fingers that he holds up what he says

If you agree that the above is distorted, then tell me, should I:

A) Ignore Obama's inflated campaign promises to Hispanics?
B) Not critique deciding to wait until his second goddamn term to do squat when being a two-term president is far from guaranteed?
C) Be content that the Democrats had a window of opportunity of over two years to act on immigration, and chose to not even begin on these so-called 'gradual steps to change' that occurs in representative democracy?
D) Question why the Democrats waited until Republicans were actively shunning Hispanics to even begin courting immigration reform on their present political agenda?
E) Not express doubt about ANY commitment from the Democrats to Hispanics on these grounds?

Please, tell me why I should take the Democrats at face value about shit they say about immigration reform, deportation, or a path to citizenship. If the best you've got is 'Well at least they're not Donald Trump', thanks for telling me all I need to know.

Pressure and criticism is fine, it's part of that semi-chaotic process of pushing forward for change through the constituent-representative relationship. Resting on your laurels after visiting the ballot box every 4 years is one of the issues liberals continue to suffer from.

Willful ignorance of the mechanics of the political system, its limitations and how change is progressed(and can be blocked) is where I get frustrated. Compound that with basic issues you are showing with context of the situation like begging the question about why Obama didn't get more done in his short period with a majority or why a president can't make good on every campaign promise.

To borrow the term from stinkles, I'm sorry if the sausage making is a tough truth that upsets you, but it doesn't make it any less true. Putting your head in the sand is only going to hurt those very goals you claim to have.

 

[IrishNinja]

I guess this thread proves that Bernie or Busters are still living in a la-la fantasy fuck land, and most people who seem to hate Hillary, have absolutely no idea why outside shit that either happened ages ago or information that isn't even correct. Going after her for her clothes, Jesus fucking Christ.

i feel like we knew that crowd was gonna be a mess even after bernie fell in line - which is fine, they'll either show up in november or not. if there was a significant # of them in the first place, we'd not even be having this discussion.

 

[EMT0]

Are you trying to repeat the frequently debunked talking point that Democrats had control of both houses for two years?

Functionally six months IIRC due to a few Dems being ill, or something along those lines, but it'd also assume every Republican attends every session to stop said control, wouldn't it? Doesn't detract from the point that there was a window of time to do so, and considering Obama's touted 'Within a year, immigration reform' promises....yes, I am holding him and the Democratic Party accountable for failing on their biggest campaign promise to Hispanics and treating it as political capital, as both the Dems and Republicans have done so in the past.

 

[Jonm1010]

Thanks for the condescension, but I voted for Nader and never once regretted it.

So you would be in that group of people that didn't learn any lessons. Congrats?

Please tell me you don't live in Florida.

Are you from Florida? If so thanks for helping Bush win. We really appreciate it that the majority of SCOTUS justices voted to gut the VRA of its preclearance.

It goes beyond Florida. Nader's campaign in places like Oregon forced Gore to shift his limited resources and time to spend in areas like safe Oregon near the end of the campaign in order to stave off Nader from pulling so many votes from the left that Oregon would end up going red for Bush.

And for those saying it was about a bigger purpose, Nader became irrelevant 4 years later as many of his followers learned that lesson and the Green party has remained fringe and all but irrelevant since. Which is a natural response in first past the post systems.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Alright bro. Let's ignore Obama promising immigration reform within a year of being elected, the loss of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, and the fact that yes, Obama did have the window to act on his promises but chose not to. Too stupid for words? More like you're happy to ignore both the reality of the situation in the past, and the type of shit Obama was marketing to Hispanics.

Obama's top priority in his second term was an immigration bill that sailed through the Senate and was blocked by the House. And when he couldn't get that through he announced a deferred action program. Maybe he should have passed it when he had two Democratic houses, but then maybe PPACA or Dodd-Frank wouldn't have passed. As someone mentioned before there's always a give and take here, and political capital isn't free, particularly when you spend it passing hyperpartisan bills.

I understand the frustration, but you're also ignoring the reality of the world and the system we're working with. If Obama can't get immigration reform, or gun control, or higher ed reforms etc through Congress that doesn't mean he secretly doesn't give a shit. I mean he might! I don't know! But most likely it means that there's not enough support in Congress to pass those things, regardless of what the president asks for. You know how you change that? You change Congress. And the way you change Congress is by voting, not by folding your arms and pouting.

So Obama's actions are a bit of a bandaid because he couldn't get the stitches. Do you vote for someone who supports getting those stitches? Or let someone get elected who will tear that bandaid right off because you withheld your vote? (And then he cuts off your arm) Clinton several times has indicated she wants to get immigration reform done within her first 100 days, and she even said recently she already has the votes for it in the Senate (before Democrats hopefully take it over, even). I can't speak for the House because it doesn't look like America is ready to take the asylum keys away from the inmates. But if this is your top issue there's a rather obvious distinction between the candidates here, regardless of any frustrations with Obama's priorities upon taking office.

 

[old manatee]

It goes beyond Florida. Nader's campaign in places like Oregon forced Gore to shift his limited resources and time to spend in areas like safe Oregon near the end of the campaign in order to stave off Nader from pulling so many votes from the left that Oregon would end up going red for Bush.

And for those saying it was about a bigger purpose, Nader became irrelevant 4 years later as many of his followers learned that lesson and the Green party has remained fringe and all but irrelevant since.

Well as long as we live in a country that allows more than two political parties I guess we are going to keep running into this issue.

 

[Azzanadra]

Barack Obama is right fucking there. He only first campaigned for President eight years or so.

So either your memory is just that goddamn awful, or you are too young to have been politically aware in 2008.

Didn't know Obama campaigned as a socialist.

I think what he meant was that Bernie overcame the labels ascribed to him. First obviously is the socialist one, in a country indoctrinated into believing Socialism is the work of the devil himself, Sanders and his followers should be extremely proud for what they were able to accomplish. This example bodes well for the future, as it demonstrates modern America's receptiveness to socialism.

Another aspect, and one that doesn't get as talked about much is his religion. In a country so obsessed with religion, a seemingly "godless" man who at best was a secular Jew, and at worst an atheist managed to get nearly half of the primary vote. Obama's skin color and Hillary's gender are not nearly as damaging as Bernie's religion. Despite those factors, Hillary and Obama were still god-fearing Christians. Bernie would have still won were he the candidate, but America's weird obsession with religion points to just how backwards the country is for a supposed "secular" country. Its honestly on the level of Turkey, maybe even below because at least Turkey has an Alevi as the CHP leader. Its easier to swallow "Black Christian" or "Female Christian" than "Socialist Jew who may or may not believe in God". IMO of course, I am not American but this is the vibe I am getting after my numerous visits (especially in the south) and just what I read about.

 

[Boombloxer]

The primary is over, fam. Arguing about Bernie Sanders, comparing his record to Clinton's, going over tired discussions with Bernie supporters at this juncture is pointless. He lost.

Delusion springs eternal.
Like it's not even a real conversation.

 

[Melkezadek]

I've written a few posts addressing this sentiment. I've no problem rehashing them here:

Democrats Advance Most Progressive Platform in Party History
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/democrats-advance-most-progressive-platform-party-history-n606646

Sanders endorses Clinton, touts 'most progressive platform' in history
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/sanders-expected-to-finally-endorse-clinton-in-new-hampshire.html

Clinton, Dems embrace a progressive vision with little resistance
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/clinton-dems-embrace-progressive-vision-little-resistance




FiveThirtyEight on Clinton's political leaning.




DailyKos:




The New York Times:




Timeline: How Hillary Clinton Has Championed Women’s Rights
http://www.self.com/work/politics/2015/04/timeline-how-hillary-clinton-has-paved-the-way-for-womens-rights/



5 Times Hillary Clinton Pushed for LGBT Rights
http://shewinswewin.org/blog/5-times-hillary-clinton-pushed-for-lgbt-rights/



[Hillary Clinton] urged President Obama to push harder against homophobic regimes in Africa.
http://www.newnownext.com/8-times-hillary-clinton-was-a-champion-of-lgbt-equality/02/2016/


Hillary Clinton in the Civil Rights Era
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/4/1495575/-Hillary-Clinton-in-the-Civil-Rights-Era


How Hillary Clinton Went Undercover to Examine Race in Education
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/politics/how-hillary-clinton-went-undercover-to-examine-race-in-education.html


There is "very little" that is progressive about her, you say? Sorry, but that comment immediately marks you as someone who has not invested much energy into becoming familiar with who Hillary Clinton is, her political history, and perhaps American politics. Her record is consistent, and it is progressive. This is reality.

Please join us in it.

Quoting this again because goddamn.

I wish we knew each other in real life, as weird as that sounds.

 

[TestOfTide]

The only thing I'm seeing here is:

A) It's okay to lie while campaigning, since
B) Campaign promises are meant to be broken, as long as
C) It's used for political capital in other ideologically alligned ventures because
D) Representative democracy means taking someone at face value and crossing your damn fingers that he holds up what he says

If you agree that the above is distorted, then tell me, should I:

A) Ignore Obama's inflated campaign promises to Hispanics?
B) Not critique deciding to wait until his second goddamn term to do squat when being a two-term president is far from guaranteed?
C) Be content that the Democrats had a window of opportunity of over two years to act on immigration, and chose to not even begin on these so-called 'gradual steps to change' that occurs in representative democracy?
D) Question why the Democrats waited until Republicans were actively shunning Hispanics to even begin courting immigration reform on their present political agenda?
E) Not express doubt about ANY commitment from the Democrats to Hispanics on these grounds?

Please, tell me why I should take the Democrats at face value about shit they say about immigration reform, deportation, or a path to citizenship. If the best you've got is 'Well at least they're not Donald Trump', thanks for telling me all I need to know.

I'm unfortunately not going to address every part of your post, but I just want to say one thing and then ask you a question:

IF Hillary wins, democrats take back the Senate, they somehow flip the house blue, and they STILL don't use the opportunity to pass immigration reform, then your criticism will become more valid than it already is.

But since you acknowledge that Obama and the democrats had less than 2 years and only so much can get done in that time, what should the blue houses of congress of 2009-2010 have not done so that they had time to pass immigration reform?

Functionally six months IIRC due to a few Dems being ill, or something along those lines, but it'd also assume every Republican attends every session to stop said control, wouldn't it? Doesn't detract from the point that there was a window of time to do so, and considering Obama's touted 'Within a year, immigration reform' promises....yes, I am holding him and the Democratic Party accountable for failing on their biggest campaign promise to Hispanics and treating it as political capital, as both the Dems and Republicans have done so in the past.

Incorrect. The way the senate rules work is that you always need 60 votes to break a filibuster.

Now, you COULD say that Harry Reid should have gone nuclear, but no one at the time thought the GOP obstruction was going to be even worse than it was in the 90s.

 

[Jonm1010]

Well as long as we live in a country that allows more than two political parties I guess we are going to keep running into this issue.

Congrats on functionally helping elect Bush?

I am not sure what you are trying to prove anymore?

 

[EMT0]

Willful ignorance of the mechanics of the political system, its limitations and how change is progressed(and can be blocked) is where I get frustrated. Compound that with basic issues you are showing with context of the situation like begging the question about why Obama didn't get more done in his short period with a majority or why a president can't make good on every campaign promise.

So in other words...yes, Obama failed in his campaign promises to Hispanics. No, I shouldn't hold it against the Dems and Obama despite their six year recess from the idea and all of the people his administration has seen deported in the meantime. Nevermind that it was his biggest pitch to a large and important voting block which he threw under a bus for six years before he could be arsed to take any form of action, or the 11 million people sitting in the balance due to the inaction of the President as a lobbyist of his own campaign promise, or the Democrats at large.

Am I supposed to be happy with the Democrats for the actions they've taken in the last eight years, of which only two I can remotely call positive? Or am I supposed to nod, say yup, sometimes you win sometimes you lose, and call it a day, but he did his best? Or even made an attempt that doesn't ring hollow? Because let's not forget, the 2014 push came because the goddamn GOP started making noise about it. Neither Obama nor the Dems showed any initiative. Ergo, raking. over. coals.