Sanders now attacking Planned Parenthood and the HRC

[Adam Griffin]

Yeah, well, the HRC is the establishment. He's not saying anything that's not factual, but it comes across as silly in this context. I really don't want to get started on HRC here, though.

[Adam Griffin]

He was asked why groups didn't endorse him and he gave a reasonable answer. This is a non-story. Only Clinton zombies are upset by this.

Planned Parenthood is already one of the most vilified organizations in America, constantly attacked by the right. I don't think it's too much to ask that Democratic presidential candidates, at least, don't go on television and attack it as well.

Now that I understand the context - that this wasn't just some unprovoked commentary out of the blue, which is how both you and Rubin framed it - it's actually quite docile and certainly not an attack. Considering Sanders is a class reductionist, a real attack would have looked something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's widely known that the Bill Clinton acquiesced to Don't Ask Don't Tell to help alleviate discrimination of closeted service member and the Defense of Marriage Act in order to prevent it from becoming a constitutional amendment. He was an enthusiastic supporter of neither, but he didn't let the perfect become the enemy of the good, especially in the case of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

NO, NO, NO! By "widely known", you actually mean that "Hillary and Bill Clinton started giving this explanation around a year ago in preparation for dodging the question when it inevitably came up in the campaign", most notably and initially by Rachel Maddow.

In fact, those involved with the Clinton White House explained prior to this new explanation that the real reason Clinton signed the bill into law was because the Republicans had boxed him in (he was on the record as being against same-sex marriage and against anti-gay discrimination) and thought he would veto the bill, giving them a chance for Dole to win. In reality, he out-maneuvered them by signing it to save his hide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

Bernie's supporters are causing much more harm then good on the HRC facebook page. Lots of abusive and downright nasty comments towards the group singularly most responsible for equal rights for gay people in the United States.

I see you ignored my piece about DOMA on the previous page, and how the Clintons didn't start selling the whole "it was passed to prevent something worse from happening" narrative until last year; that it was instead signed to ameliorate re-election concerns in 1996. Other than giving speeches to LGBT-friendly organizations and engaging in intangible diplomatic discussions, both Clintons have next to no record on pushing for or achieving equal (LGBT) rights. Where do you get this?

Hillary is a feminist icon for a reason.

Why she is a gay icon, however, remains mystifying.

You want to know the real, unfiltered reason? Her biggest accomplishment on equal rights in the arena is being turned into a pop-culture icon/role-model by the LGBT community, in the mold of "big/strong/fierce/bad bitch YAAAAS". This is why she is a gay icon. I resent how so many of us do this to people who have nothing to do with our concerns.

[Adam Griffin]

Bernie's supporters are causing much more harm then good on the HRC facebook page. Lots of abusive and downright nasty comments towards the group singularly most responsible for equal rights for gay people in the United States.

I see you ignored my piece about DOMA on the previous page, and how the Clintons didn't start selling the whole "it was passed to prevent something worse from happening" narrative until last year; that it was instead signed to ameliorate re-election concerns in 1996. Other than giving speeches to LGBT-friendly organizations and engaging in intangible diplomatic discussions, both Clintons have next to no record on pushing for or achieving equal (LGBT) rights. Where do you get this?

HRC being the Human Rights Campaign. I didn't respond to your comment about DOMA since it's a tired argument that basically amounts to a "he said, she said." Also, "next to no record" definitely ignores Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which was major progress for the rights of gay people in the military.

It's not a tired argument. I would hope that you wouldn't be like Generic Disaffected Voter who, when unable to sort through the facts because there are multiple, countervailing claims, simply throws his/her hands in the air and says "who's to say?". It's a case of Clinton Administration officials and advisers explaining the real reasoning for years - when likely even the Clintons themselves didn't think it would be a big deal or a major issue that would change as quickly as it did - followed by the Clintons themselves changing the narrative because their prior positioning suddenly became toxic.

Also, "HRC being Human Rights Campaign" doesn't mean anything. Susan G. Komen was breast cancer progress. Americans for Prosperity are supposedly for prosperity. Just because there's a name and a broader issues-based umbrella involved doesn't mean that an organization isn't a political racket or that the organization doesn't have clear biases, loyalties and interests that transcend their actual causes.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm not rewriting history in regards to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Bill Clinton campaigned on lifting the ban on gay service members in 1992, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a compromise to go around Congress to attempt to end the culture of fear and intimidation in the service.

The only ones rewriting history here are the one's casting as Hillary Clinton as anything other than a champion for LGBT causes during her career.

Yes, thats why she still publicly supported DOMA in her NY Senate run while talking about how real marriage for straights is "historic, religious and moral content", and why she was so principled to fight against a same-sex constitutional amendment proposal in 2004 (where she also made sure to tell people that marriage was a sacred bond for straights, and while also emphasizing that just because she was fighting against this amendment, it didn't mean that she wanted those gay people to get full marriage), and yes, that's why she came out in favor of marriage equality one full year after both the President and the Democratic Party had formally endorsed it.

Face it: the only thing she's flipped on flopped on more than equal rights is the gun issue.

[Adam Griffin]

I guess every time I change my mind, I'm a dirty flip flopper.

Well, which is it? You've provided two narratives here.

On one hand, she was a realist who did what was necessary to defend against the times but has always been on the side of good. On the other hand, she was a genuine convert who, like many Americans, had a sudden change of heart at each moment that 55% of the country became OK with every major advancement of equal rights. It can't be both...Plenty of people have changes of heart and "flop". Hardly anyone engages in "two steps forward, one step back" with respect to their opinion on the issues, depending on to whom they're appealing and whom they're attempting to persuade.

Not to go too far off-topic, but you should really examine her posturing on Second Amendment issues from the 1980s to today. Literally three flips and flops between then and now (pro gun->anti-gun->pro-gun->anti-gun). The occasions were Arkansas Democrat to New York Democrat to Flanking Obama on the Right Democrat to 2016 Primary Environment Democrat.

You'll excuse me if, when combined with her lack of tangible accomplishments on the matter, that it is any different for equal rights than it was for guns.