• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On October - 26 - 2015

clinton_maddow

After being put in the political stocks by the sham of a Benghazi Committee and having to take verbal beatings by a bunch of vicious, dishonest Republicans, Hillary’s unflappable and calm demeanor throughout earned a degree of respect from me and doubtless many other Democrats who may not have been as enthusiastic about the prospects of her becoming the Democratic nominee for President.

Then the following day, an overconfident Hillary reminded everyone why she should continue to be distrusted. She appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show and unflinchingly delivered propaganda to shield herself from criticism due to her support  of and Bill Clinton’s signing of The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

To refresh memories, DOMA was a law signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 that, according to Wikipedia:

[DOMA] defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

By defining “spouse” and its related terms to signify a heterosexual couple in a recognized marriage, Section 3 codified non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors’ benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns, as well as excluding same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers (18 U. S. C. §115), laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses.

Bill Clinton’s views on gay rights were actually very supportive and Progressive, he didn’t sign DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT, which allowed gays to serve in the military as long as they hid it from others) because he was homophobic or anti-gay rights. He did it for a reason that is quite familiar for Bill Clinton (and Hillary for that matter), because it was better for serving himself.

Why did a gay rights supporter like Bill Clinton sign such an institutionally bigoted law against gays? The clue is quite obvious when you look back at the date of the bill’s signing.

September 21, 1996. It was an election year, the year of a Presidential election, less than a month and a half before Bill Clinton hoped to win re-election.

It may be hard to remember just how unpopular gay rights were in the America of 1996 but less than 30% of Americans supported gay marriage back then. Many Democrats in Congress joined most (if not all) Republicans in being strongly against gay marriage. And no Presidential candidate, even up to and including President Obama, could come out in favor of gay marriage as a candidate without a potentially huge political price to pay.

So as was often the case with Bill Clinton, he triangulated what would benefit him most, put aside his principles and signed an oppressive law into place in order to win an election. He didn’t allow photos of the signing, it seems clear he wasn’t proud or happy about signing it…but in the end, he did sign it.

In 2013, Richard Socarides, who served as a White House Special Assistant and Senior Adviser in the Clinton Administration, wrote a piece for The New Yorker in which he described the reasons that Bill Clinton signed DOMA:

Inside the White House, there was a genuine belief that if the President vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, his reelection could be in jeopardy. There was a heated debate about whether this was a realistic assessment, but it became clear that the President’s chief political advisers were not willing to take any chances. Some in the White House pointed out that DOMA, once enacted, would have no immediate practical effect on anyone—there were no state-sanctioned same-sex marriages then for the federal government to ignore. I remember a Presidential adviser saying that he was not about to risk a second term on a veto, however noble, that wouldn’t change a single thing nor make a single person’s life better.

During the campaign season, Clinton would sometimes complain publicly about how the Republicans were using the marriage issue against him. He said, derisively, that it was “hardly a problem that is sweeping the country” and his press secretary called it “gay baiting, pure and simple.” And that September, when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, President Clinton signed it.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-bill-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-act

Socarides wonders whether a veto of DOMA would actually have made a difference in Clinton’s re-election, siting the potency of the anti-gay, Karl Rove driven, George W. Bush campaign attack on John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential race that helped rally The Right to get Bush re-elected. Also, Congress had passed DOMA with enough votes to override a veto. It is possible that some Democratic votes would switch to sustain a Clinton veto but we will never know.

Could it have been an added risk to Bill Clinton’s re-election to have vetoed DOMA, even if his veto could have been overridden? Possibly. Is it possible that risk could have been mitigated by the reason Bill Clinton gave for the veto? That’s possible too. Could he have at least stated that he would delay signing it because there was a question of Constitutionality to it, even if he wanted to say he favored it for political reasons? Of course, we know now that would have been accurate since DOMA was recently struck down by the Supreme Court for that reason. Bill Clinton and his advisers had to know that any law that takes away rights from a particular group of Americans has never stood a test of Constitutionality in the long term, they could have used this excuse to permanently stall signing it but Bill and his staff chose instead to play it “safe” and reluctantly sign bigotry into law, claiming it wasn’t bigotry.

Why does this matter now? Because instead of honestly recounting this  understandable, politically driven situation, that may make Bill and Hillary look self-serving but at the same time, affirm that even then, they personally supported gay rights, Hillary and her campaign have instead laid out a cover up using an inaccurate justification to try and make her and Bill instead look like protectors of gay rights for supporting oppression against them.

It’s the same kind of Karl Rovian twisting of the truth that many Democrats despised in the Bush years and Hillary’s comfort and ease in delivering it (as she did in the 2008 race) does not bode well for what one might expect from a President Hillary Clinton.

Here is Hillary Clinton’s new spin about why she supported DOMA and why Bill Clinton signed it as she presented it on The Rachel Maddow Show last week:

HILLARY CLINTON:  Well, I – I want to say a word about the – the issues you mentioned, because my – my – my take on it is slightly different.
On Defense of Marriage, I think what my husband believed – and there was certainly evidence to support it – is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that.

And there wasn’t any rational argument – because I was in on some of those discussions, on both “don’t ask, don’t tell” and on – on DOMA, where both the president, his advisers and occasionally I would – you know, chime in and talk about, “you can’t be serious.  You can’t be serious.”

But they were.  And so, in – in a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/transcript-rachel-maddow-interviews-hillary-clinton

It’s like police officers saying, “The reason we shot the innocent black man in the stomach is so other officers wouldn’t shoot him in the head! We were protecting him!”

It’s so insultingly dishonest that, at least for me, it has wiped out the sympathies that she earned in the Benghazi hearing. She once again appears as the calculating, dishonest politician who has a low opinion of the intelligence of voters and is quick to offer fabrications to them about anything as long as it advances her ambition.

This self-serving story that Bill was defusing the energy for a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage has been occasionally floated by Bill Clinton and his camp since then as one of the excuses for joining with the homophobes in signing DOMA but it is completely at odds with articles written about this decision by insiders from the Bill Clinton Administration and campaign. It instead appears as a convenient and desperate straw man.

Constitutional amendments are virtually impossible to pass, take many, many years and go through an enormous, burdensome and failure-bound process. The Right Wing Evangelicals who strongly supported a Constitutional Amendment then (and still do now but to no avail) are a small minority of voters. Would a majority of those who opposed gay marriage in polls automatically support changing the Constitution to enshrine that?

There was not even enough energy behind passing an Equal Rights Amendment for women in the activist years of the 1970’s even though women represented over 50% of voters…and considering that amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1923 and couldn’t get passed in 50 years, there really didn’t seem any immediate threat from a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

And even if this story was taken at face value, supporting bigotry with the excuse that it might have prevented greater bigotry is still hugely unprincipled and cowardly.

If elected President, Hillary is saying that she may sign bills that harm Americans in order to prevent what she’d suggest are greater harms that could come if she didn’t do so.

But in fact, she is demonstrating that she has no guilt when she supports laws that oppress Americans, she instead just sees it as an inconvenient truth that needs to be covered up. She demonstrates no commitment to speaking honestly to Americans about such a situation that may be unflattering to her.

To be fair, Hillary Clinton reflects the traits of many other accomplished politicians. She is not unique in this respect. The powerful ambition, the self-serving dishonesty for political expediency, the lack of conscience when their decisions harm many of those they are supposed to serve. This is what many politicians do, not the ones who best represent those who put them in office but perhaps a majority who become politicians primarily for reasons of personal gratification.

At the same time, there is no question that any of the Republican field would make such traits look minor if they became President. The choice next November will be between a government, society and economic demolitionist from the Republican Party…and a self-serving, not always honest, corporate-friendly, well-experienced Hillary Clinton or a principled, populist, democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders.

The choice still remains obvious. Even if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, not voting for her and as a result, handing the Republican nominee the value of an extra vote is unthinkable. Hillary may not be the most trustworthy, may not keep her promises to The Left and may even sign a bill into law that hurts supporters of hers and other Americans while claiming it is “protecting them” from worse harm…but with a Republican, all of those plus so many more terrible things are assured.

I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination for President but I will do so with eyes wide open, recognizing the true character of who that person is and never hesitating to criticize them as honestly as I would a Republican. That’s what I believe sets Dems and Progressives apart from Repubs, the willingness to honestly appraise and criticize our politicians when they do the wrong thing or we disagree with their actions.

One could only hope that with enough voters being vocal about their criticisms of their candidates’ negative traits, that it would give them less room to maneuver towards them along the way.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

28 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. enigma2 says:

    Hello everyone. I am the former enigma2 from the old days at Huffington Post. I have been a member here for many years but my account has been idle. I stopped in to say hello to a couple old friends. Hope you don’t mind me just dropping in.
    Seems there have been some chances since I last visited. Is it common or should I say standard, for a WP PlanetPOV page to open, that certainly is new to me. Nice touch by the way. As I said, I wanted to say hello to some old friends. I would like to say a special hello to RSG music for one, and to any others I may not have seen. it was really nice to see some familiar faces here. Take care.

    • escribacat says:

      hello there enigma. i remember you from huffy days. good to see you. (my keyboard is messed up, not just being lazy).

      • enigma2 says:

        Thanks! I remember you as well. I am concerned though. I seem to have been allowed into the admin dashboard on this site. I don’t know how perhaps it’s because I am a mod on another WP site, but not as enigma2. I am hoping someone can tell me if this is standard or not. I don’t want to be in places I do not belong.

        • escribacat says:

          We’re all able to post articles here so that’s probably why you’re seeing admin stuff on a limited basis, i’m guessing. but i’m not sure. Adlib is the techie guy and honcho — he’ll be around soon when the debate starts. You can join the chat room and discuss the mud being slung!

          • enigma2 says:

            Thank you appreciate your help. I wondered how did I get into admin just posting a question. I may try to get back later. My address is on file here. it was good to see you, hope all is well with you and yours.

  2. monicaangela says:

    “This above all; to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~ William Shakespeare

    Excellent article as always Adlib. I am of a different opinion when it comes to voting for the democratic nominee. I say this because just as Clinton lied about the reason for Bill Clinton signing DOMA, and the fact being clear to you, me, and anyone who saw that interview, we realize she is not a trustworthy candidate. At least Bernie Sanders record is clear and consistent with what he proposes today. Just as you feel about her lying about Bill’s reason for signing Doma, I would feel the same way justifying a vote for her, I would be lying to myself and doing something against my better judgment. I would have to come up with some sort of excuse like the one you give, well, I had to do it because if I didn’t the republicans might win. I refuse to vote for someone just because the consequences may be worse if I don’t.

    In your article you state the fact that Hillary is trying to cover up what Bill did to serve herself. Well I would feel that voting for her would be admitting that I don’t have the backbone to accept whatever comes if there isn’t a better candidate than Hillary for the office of President meaning I would be in effect going against my better judgement to serve myself. In Ohio, things are so gerrymandered that you can almost be assured that your vote for a democrat is going to be a wasted vote, but I have learned to vote my conscience, and even if my candidate loses, I still feel good about my vote.

    I suppose what I am trying to say is, I know that with Hillary, everything will center around what is best for her second term, and if compromising with republicans like Paul Ryan will help get her elected a second time, she will probably go so far as to implement Ryan’s horrible budget, or any of several horrible bills and policies the republicans want implemented and of course justify it by saying if she doesn’t, something much worse might be passed and implemented.

    Supporting the party, and not ones ideals seems to be the obvious thing to do, because, well after all what is the alternative? A republican? I personally don’t believe I could bring myself to vote republican, but when I look at the politicians that are leading the pack, that would be Hillary and Donald, I don’t see much difference between the two of them. One, Trump, tells you point blank that he is going to do things you don’t like, and the other, Clinton, tells you she is going to do everything you like. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, and I don’t believe Trump will do the horrible things he says he will do, and I know Clinton will not do the wonderful things she says she will do. I just can’t see her putting up a fight against the republicans if she is challenged, and even if the numbers in congress changes and she gets a majority democrat congress, I still believe she will capitulate to special interest. I can see her in a backroom somewhere compromising, and then blaming anything that may be bad for the country on the lack of the republicans ability to compromise and their hatred for the American people while at the same time signing the bills that the republicans put forward, especially if those bills seal the deal on her re-election to office. Same thing if the congress is democrat, I can see her vetoing bills that some will scratch their heads and wonder why…explanation will be we can get a much better deal….etc., obfuscate, deviate, and carry water for those that you feel will help you win a second term, even if it goes against the wishes of your party and the American people.

    Then there is the fact that we, just like before will have both Bill and Hillary in office again, and just as she was sticking her head and opinions into meetings where she had no business being, I’m sure Bill will be doing the same thing.

    No, for me, voting for Hillary even if she is the nominee is a NO to the HELL NO, never. I refuse to allow myself to go with the flow, knowing the flow is leading right down the tubes. Better allow those who don’t mind voting for her the opportunity to do so, maybe that way she could get elected if she is the nominee, my conscience will be clear. As I have said before, I will do a protest write in vote if she wins the nomination, and if that helps the republican nominee so be it.

    “Be yourself. Above all, let who you are, what you are, what you believe, shine through every sentence you write, every piece you finish.”
    ~~~~~~~~~ John Jakes

    • AdLib says:

      monicaangela, this is one of those few occasions when we disagree.

      Giving Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt (not much doubt in my mind) that he will be better as President than we think while proposing that Hillary will be worse, just doesn’t follow for me. I think both may be worse but don’t understand why Trump should ever be viewed as better than he is.

      IMO, if Donald Trump or any Repub becomes President, our future as a nation will be cemented into decline.

      My central argument is that a President Donald Trump/Ben Carson/Marco Rubio/etc. could be in a position to lock in the SCOTUS for decades into a strong RW majority and it won’t matter what happens in subsequent Presidential elections, American society will be strangled by a RW SCOTUS.

      So my proposition to those who express that they would rather sit out the election and help a Republican win instead of voting for a Democrat who they view as undesirable, is that they would also be supporting a new, RW majority SCOTUS to destroy the Obama legacy, including Obamacare, voting rights protections, consumer protections, etc. that will never be re-instituted again in our lifetime.

      So, in the end, not voting for a Dem President in 2016 may be assisting in the destruction of Obama’s Presidency and accomplishments.

      I don’t have high expectations for what a Hillary Presidency would be, I think many of your concerns are valid and many could indeed happen. However, I don’t think she would nominate a SCOTUS judge who would be a Right Winger dedicated to undermining the President and the laws that the President signs. And if she wants to be re-elected, she couldn’t nominate one that Dems didn’t approve of. At worst, Hillary would nominate a centrist SCOTUS judge. Meanwhile, a President Trump who wants to get re-elected, or any other Republican, would know that if they didn’t nominate a RW ideologue, they’d be pilloried by the GOP core.

      Not only are the RW ideologues on the SCOTUS getting older and potentials for retirement, so are some of the liberals and moderates. If a Republican President was able to replace a couple of liberals as well as RWs with young RWs? That’s a RW majority SCOTUS controlling our society for decades.

      That’s why I think it is critical that a Dem is in the WH, even if it is a PINO (Progressive in Name Only…not a Pinot!).

      • monicaangela says:

        I realize that all you say is true. I did not mean to leave the impression that I was giving Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt, I was rather saying, I don’t trust Hillary Clinton any more than I do Donald Trump. As far as my sitting the election out, I won’t be doing that, there is more on the ballot than the Presidency. If my vote would be the deciding vote in the election, and I felt I could trust Hillary Clinton to make a proper choice when it comes to the Supreme Court etc., maybe I would vote for her. I just don’t trust her and her husband, and would prefer allowing the rest of the nation the opportunity to put her into office. I won’t be voting for her if she gets the nomination so I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

        • sillylittleme says:

          I’m with you MA, and I’m getting kinds peeved at those who are happy to accept the lies at the expense of the rest of us. Especially those who call themselves liberal or progressive.

          • monicaangela says:

            I’m answering your second post here because it appears we have run out of thread for this conversation. I feel the same as you about boomers who cling to the status quo because they are afraid things will change for them if they allow things to change. I have many friends who are “progressive,” until they think that maybe some minority is going to get equal treatment, and then miraculously they start to be of the opinion “well you know I agree with what you are saying, but it is going to take time for the country to make that much progress. Just look at how far we have come, and I’m sure that if we just give it a little more time, we will eventually be able to elect a socialist or we will get the candidate we’ve been waiting for, etc., etc., etc. However, they then say, I don’t believe in much of what X candidate says, but they’re more electable at this time, so we had better get in line and follow them, at least we’ll get some of what we want…I mean really, look at the alternative.

            Fight, that is my motto, and don’t settle for 2nd best when you have the best staring you in the face just because of some technicality. I believe that is the reason we continue to get these lukewarm democrats in office, those with little to no backbone, you know, the ones that cave as soon as a republican says no, or I don’t think so. It is time for democrats, liberals, progressives, or whatever we are calling ourselves these days to stand up and be counted. I’m sure there are more of us in this nation than conservatives, and it is time the privileged started giving up a bit of their privilege so that we can all exist in the nation and on this planet as equal human beings and not “the other,” or “the lesser,” or “the unfortunate” or “the unworthy,” or whichever catch phrase is being thrown in these days to explain the inequality and why it seems we can’t get rid of it.

            The situation with the children escaping the violence in South and Central America was heartbreaking. I have many friends from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and other central and South American nations. The situation there is terrible, and yes, it is because of the policies of this nation especially those created by President Reagan. Just as we are doing now in the Middle East, we did in South and Central America. When will the people of this nation start holding those responsible for these “CRIMES” responsible? I wonder…

          • monicaangela says:

            Spot on slm. I think it is about time this nation stopped going along to get along and actually voted for what will be good for the nation. I’ve heard things like, “I’m voting for Hillary, but only because I don’t believe any of the rest of the nominees can win the general election. I don’t like her, and all of her lies, but what is the alternative.” And then there is the well she probably won’t be good for the nation if she continues to support Wall Street, and the many other horrible things she has supported in the past, but oh well, we have to look over that. Think about the Supreme Court.”

            I’m sorry, if this country can’t produce anything other than the same old do overs at the top of the ticket then I say, let’s just go down in flames. What’s the difference if we are just nailed to the cross by our hands with a dem, or nailed by both hands and feet by a republican? The object remains the same, we’re still nailed, screwed, F’d, or whatever phrase you want to use whichever way we go.

            Why accept someone who we know is going to lie steal and cheat to get what she wants, and not give an opportunity to someone like Bernie Sanders who has not lied, has been correct on just about every vote during his time in office, and has vowed to help bring some semblance of equality to this nation, economically, through the justice system, through better education, etc.

            What is wrong with the people of this country when they sit back and allow the MSM to tell them how to vote and who to vote for, even though they don’t really accept half of what the person they are voting for stands for. I say enough of this what would be the alternative and more like okay, if the wrong person gets into office, we all have to pull together and make sure that person governs in the manner that we wish them to. If we are not willing to do that, then we need to go somewhere, sit down and be quiet and allow those that are willing to fight for their rights do so.

            Sorry for the rant, but I am just sick of voting for people because they may be the lesser of two evils. I would like to vote for someone I truly believe in, and that person in this race is Bernie Sanders.

            • monicaangela says:

              @KT…..Yep, but then I heard that one when President Obama was running in the primary in 2008. Imagine if I had let that stop me then.

            • Then there is the conundrum of having to vote for someone who can’t possibly win.

              That’s about the same as not voting at all.

            • sillylittleme says:

              MA thanks, sometimes I feel alone amongst the Boomers who won’t own the mess and won’t let us clean it up either. Young and old need little to any convincing. It’s just those who think money is important, or not a complete figment of our imagination. I was here when the children were coming over the border. It was heart wrenching how many here were advocating for their return to their home countries. This election is an extension of that. If they want to deport children back to the hell our own CIA created on behalf of our corporate overlords. Then I guess they aren’t up for a revolution. Even a political one. I wish they understood that the anarchists are waiting patiently, they are at least willing to see if we are successful at the ballot box. But they are ready for the second civil war make no mistake about it.

  3. Nirek says:

    Excellent article, AdLib!

    I too will vote for the Dem in November 2016 simply because if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination there is not a single Republican candidate I could vote for. That said, I feel sure that Bernie will win the nomination.

    Your article describes “politicians” very well. They will say or do whatever will give them an edge.

    Bernie is not the usual politician. He has always done what he felt is the right thing to do, not what he thinks will get him more votes. I have known Bernie all of his career because his career has taken place here in Vermont. Bernie has been making correct votes even when they were NOT popular. “Political expediency” is not what Bernie thinks of when doing his job. That is what is differentiates Bernie from all other politicians. It is also what makes Bernie the best candidate for President!

    • AdLib says:

      Nirek, I think any fair minded person recognizes that Bernie is genuine in his long held beliefs and doesn’t display the typical attributes of typical politicians that includes lying to voters, hypocrisy and being beholden to wealthy and powerful donors.

      Win or lose, all I want is for the contests in the Dem Primary to be as honest as possible and for voters to make their decisions based on the true character and positions of the candidates. This is why Hillary’s dishonesty gets such a focus from me, hiding truths and promoting falsehoods is anti-democratic IMO.

  4. funksands says:

    Ad, couldn’t agree with you more. I watched that interview and I think the words “f**king liar” came out of my mouth.

    What most people (including me) had forgotten about the process to enact DOMA into law is that Congress didn’t call one federal agency representative to testify what this would do to federal benefits. Didn’t call 1 historian, 1 economist or any child welfare experts to testify about whether or not the bill was necessary or harmful.

    Bill Clinton signed a bill that was passed after floor debate where Congressional Reps decried homosexuality as a perversion, a sin, immoral, depraved, dangerous and the death blow to the American Family. It was nastiness and bigotry codified into law.

    Moments after reading your article, Rachel Maddow came on and gave commentary about that interview and to her credit stated that she was dubious about Hillary’s story. She followed that up with an interview with Bernie Sanders about his lonely vote against DOMA.

    • AdLib says:

      Funk, thanks for the recap of the passage of DOMA and how slanted it was.

      What astounds me is the incredible gall Hillary demonstrated in being so obviously dishonest about something so documented in history. Despite the evidence being so overwhelming that Bill signed DOMA to help his re-election (and Hillary supported it for the same reason), she delivered this propaganda so confidently and comfortably.

      She affirmed that she is unprincipled and dishonest. For Hillary, feeling so confident in winning now seems to have made her feel freer to go back to being smug about delivering falsehoods.

      Her latest propaganda is trying to portray Bernie Sanders as sexist for using the word “yelling” towards her in the debate when he expressed that talking/yelling about something isn’t the same as getting it done. Now she has a meme she’s repeating, “Sometimes when a woman speaks out, some people think it’s shouting.”

      Yes, Bernie hates women and opposes letting them express their opinions while Hillary Clinton is a martyr for women.

      Just a disgusting dishonesty, Hillary’s so anxious to play the gender card whenever she can and slur the character of someone who isn’t misogynist, just to benefit herself.

      I saw that Maddow interview with Bernie but I wish Maddow had challenged Hillary at the time when she tossed out that propaganda.

      Hillary’s on a roll now, spouting more and more dishonest propaganda. This is what she seems happiest doing, have you seen the joy she seems to have when she’s doing so? This is who she is and if she does win the nom and the WH, the necessity of people to come out and confront her is critical to blunt this behavior.

    • Nirek says:

      Hi Funk, that lonely vote was not the only time Bernie has been right with his vote while almost all other Reps. and Senators were wrong.

      Bernie is a different breed of politician. He is honest, has integrity, and morality, all of which seem to be missing in other politicians!

  5. RSGmusic says:

    Hi Adlib good article and like all articles i have some questions that predicting the future is really hard to do.

    Point one Doma is dead with the supreme court second ruling on same sex marriage. SHe can not sign into law to take it away. If she can the dem group will just filibuster it to death. SHe does need the parties cooperation to do the job. As far as firing people by being in the fine LGBT can not apply. that is a subset of US citizens. the emancipation proclamation take car of that.

    Well She is not Bill Clinton!! It is really unfair to judge her by Bill actions, SHe does like the LGBT community.

    point two
    Next Tarp oh panic !!! no tarp started slowly and then created a whole lot of jobs Clinton is the biggest job creator of all! OH just to be sure i made a whole lot of money of tarp. i would bet you did also.

    THe ttp will not be the monster everyone says it is. Here is why. it will only work for small items. larger cargo is very expensive and you can not just build sea going vessels in a yr. they cost 500 million to build. THen the price to rent space is going to be expensive.

    You can forget about any cooperation from the GOP! It is just as important to take back the senate. 10 are fairly safe that leaves 16 if the dems take 10 that almost give the dems a passable senate 60 with independants.

    Now i like what you said about no matter who gets the spot you will vote for. My point exactly.

    She has to say some of this centrist view to draw votes . It does not mean she will carry them out. Example a CEO before he is CEO does not give away what he is going to exactly do. THis applies to politics even more.

    If a dem does not win you can seal all sorts of religious laws that ruin america form religious judges. All the GOP rules on religious bias and for the party line. 2 to 3 judges may 4 will be appointed in the next 8 yrs Pro life will pass all thought it is already the perfect law. Each side gets there way. The passage of religious freedom laws are all unconstitutional except to designate a religion as a religion. AKA the American Indians religions are now recognized. THey do not have to have a law to build a church or religious business or anything else. Essential they are saying that a far right christian religion is better then every one else s. THe most corrupt supreme court on the conservative side pass hobby lobby to attack Roe vs wade!

    Bernie has his faults!! i will not list them it is not my style to bash candidates at all. Just there good points.

    • AdLib says:

      RSGmusic, respect your views and points. I also appreciate your position not to bash other Dems like Bernie just because there are a few issues where you may disagree with them. Actually, I feel the same way. I do think we should be honest and fair handed in our criticisms which is why none of my criticisms of Hillary are about the few areas on policy where I disagree with her, they are about character.

      Positions on issues are very important but character is most important to me in a candidate, I have issues with any politician on either side of the fence who is hypocritical, selfishly motivated and/or dishonest. Who a person is matters most to me, above what party they may belong to. And I think that when a politician/candidate is dishonest, we have a responsibility to call them out on that. Citizens deserve honesty from their representatives but if they don’t demand it, in the end, they won’t receive it.

      Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying that Hillary would ever attempt to re-instate DOMA if elected President, I just documented that she was intentionally dishonest once again in the Maddow interview about something she could have easily been honest about.

      Hillary has stated that she was involved in meetings about DOMA back in 1996 and that she too approved of it. Those facts are not disputed by her so I’m not holding her responsible for anything Bill did, I’m connecting her to her own position and involvement back then.

      The dispute is over the manufactured falsehood that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were saving gays from a Constitutional Amendment that would have been worse. That’s just flat out false. There was nothing going on back then with a Constitutional amendment and as I offered, saying that you shot an innocent person in the stomach so someone else wouldn’t shoot them in the head is messed up.

      My point was that since Hillary is claiming that supporting harm towards Americans can be good if it can be claimed to be protecting them from greater harm, that should be a concern. If, for example, she is willing to sign a bill that harms 99% of Americans and gives more power and wealth to the banks (who contribute big time to her campaign) and she can justify it by saying that if she didn’t sign that bill, a bill that was worse could be passed, primary voters should consider that.

      I fully agree, taking back the Senate in 2016 is critical! My main reason for that is that there is a good chance that SCOTUS seats may need to be filled and we need to have Dem running the confirmation process, maybe even having to use the Nuclear Option if Repubs try to block a Dem President from filling those seats.

      Bernie does have his faults, his position on gun control is one of them, IMO. He is not a perfect candidate because such a candidate doesn’t exist. He does seem to be more committed over a long period to many of the positions many Progressives support which is why his candidacy has been far more successful than he had ever dreamed.

      When it’s all said and done, we need a Democrat winning the White House in 2016, whoever the nom ends up being. I do think it is best though that we see that person for who they are though, applauding the positive traits and criticizing the negative traits as fair minded, free thinking citizens should.

      • RSGmusic says:

        Your post is great and do not disagree the way you explained it. The only thing when i made the CEO analogy. IN shell the next CEO keeps what he really will do secret until he gets the position. I am saying Hillary may change her position if elected. But ya she could compromise too much and hurt we the people on all sides!

  6. sillylittleme says:

    Thank you Ad for putting so eloquently what I found so mind-numbingly shocking (not) coming from the Hill herself. After all this is the woman who still misremembers her Bosnian trip.

    Someone should tell her to stop speaking before she actually gets through to her adoring masses.

    I brought this very thing up to be poo poo’d by a Hill supporter using exactly your argument.

    This is yet another issue they could have gotten in front of but chose to hide behind the great right wing conspiracy, not aimed at the Clintons, but at the American public in general.

    • AdLib says:

      slm -- I think it stems from two main things, the primary thing being that Hillary and Bill will do and say whatever it takes to get what they want (i.e. elected) and the second thing is that they have a sense of superiority over the rest of Americans, looking at them as beneath their intellects and foolish enough to believe whatever BS they shovel out to them.

      Hillary is dishonest, the numerous incidents and facts are there for anyone to see if they choose to. She is only advocating Progressive positions to outflank Sanders, her campaign has admitted as much. When she veers back to the more conservative side in the GE if she wins the Dem nom, no one should be surprised.

      It would not have been a negative for Hillary to have been honest and admitted that she and Bill felt that in 1996, a veto of DOMA could have meant Bob Dole and Republicans getting the White House. Even though she and Bill could have done the right thing, they didn’t, out of fear of losing and they could admit they made a mistake.

      But Hillary and Bill don’t like to admit mistakes, the elite don’t apologize to the lower class they’re supposed to serve. Her performance in dealing with the email server certainly evidenced that, all the harm she did to herself and her campaign because Clintons will do almost anything to avoid having to admit they showed poor judgement (even risk impeachment for lying about an affair).

      This is what we’re stuck with in this political cycle, many candidates who appear most loyal to their own ambition and the elite but give lip service to being all about serving “the people” and having no reservation about lying to the people.

      Meanwhile, the electorate is sick and tired of power hungry and money hungry politicians who have no problem compromising the positions they’ve campaigned on to get money and a position of power via the wealth and power of the elite.

      They’re not all the same, Trump is different from Hillary, who are both different from Carson but they are all running as populists even though none of them are. Bernie Sanders is a genuine populist with legit populists stands on issues that he’s held for many years. He too has his flaws as a candidate, on gun control for example, but it would be unrealistic to think that only a perfect politician is who should be President (haven’t had one yet!).

      One big difference between Hillary and the Republicans is that the force of public opinion can press her to stay closer to Progressive values. No amount of public pressure could influence an egomaniac billionaire CEO or an ignorant religious extremist to follow the will of the people.

    • RSGmusic says:

      Hi Friend, what if Bernie losses? I like Bernie but he has some bad points.

      Sayings of the child of Nature

      for one the path of the future,
      There is a time to go forth and see
      the importance of what is called the
      wilds, In these wilds are the things that
      apex the future and pro long the things
      that are necessary. Long have we gone
      past that apex !

      • AdLib says:

        Appreciate the quotation, RSGmusic.

        I think most Bernie supporters will absolutely vote for Hillary if he she wins the nom. And though there are the PUMA types who vow not to vote for Bernie if he was to beat Hillary for the nom, I think most Hillary supporters would vote for Bernie if he won.

        IMO, it probably is more of a compromise for Bernie supporters to vote for Hillary because many of the Progressive views he’s long held have only been held by Hillary since she’s been campaigning to beat him for the nomination. Adding her dishonesty to the mix, one could understand the lack of confidence some Bernie supporters may have in Hillary.

        On the flip side, I don’t think most Hillary supporters doubt how earnest Bernie is in his commitment to all of the Progressive views Hillary espouses. So they wouldn’t be voting for someone who they’d view as potentially abandoning the positions he campaigned on, they’d be voting for everything Hillary represents she supports if they voted for him.

        The difference is, the Hillary voters who are most against Bernie take that position based primarily on their personal feelings towards Hillary and/or seeing America elect its first woman President. That is understandable and not unreasonable.

        The only thing that would be unreasonable though would be refusing to vote for a candidate that represents virtually all the principles their chosen candidate says she represents…and empowering Republican candidates who are greatly opposed to those values.

        Any voters who would do so, whether Bernie or Hillary supporters, are not Democrats, they are acting like petulant children who would let the house burn down if they can’t have their chosen fireman put out the fire.

  7. LightningJoe says:

    “That’s what I believe sets Dems and Progressives apart from Repubs, the willingness to honestly appraise and criticize our politicians when they do the wrong thing or we disagree with their actions.”

    No, what sets Repugs apart, is their willingness to believe any old crap their Authorities tell them. As soon as that sh*t hits the fan, Repugs decide they actually like having spotted-brown faces.

    To wit, any “honest” appraisal and criticism has been permanently weeded out of their very psyches, by the simple fact of who “has” the Authority in their world-view. Anything one of their Masters tells them IS the truth… until the story changes, and then the new story is the “new” “truth.”

    Confused? That’s why they do it that way, dude… keeping track is SO much work and mental effort… may as well just “trust” what your Authority tells you is so…

    • AdLib says:

      The way I look at it, many Repubs view their politics like their religion. They invest 100% faith in it and those who represent it, it’s all about believing completely in it and not questioning the dogma or authority.

      These are often people who vote against their own interests, vote against their own avowed principles and do so without any reasoning of their own, just echoing the propaganda they’ve been fed by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the RNC, etc.

      However, I have seen some Dems too who act similarly, blindly following the party dogma, acting as purists and condemning those who dare to criticize Dem politicians and quick to dish out hatred and/or fear towards those who they view as “outsiders”.

      Those who strive to be thoughtful individuals first and associated with a political party second would seem to me to be the more constructive and honest Americans.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features