'lead from behind' is SOP for successful democratic politicians.
Bill and Hillary loved to call 1993 to 2001 a "Co-Presidency" except when it's not convenient for them to do so.
The point is that Hillary Clinton has a mile-long track record of craven lying, and she'll do so again in the future without a second thought. The Clintons have no real values other than their own enrichment and self-aggrandizement.

It’s taken 20 years to overcome the legacy of the hateful anti-gay legislation signed by Bill Clinton under the guise of practicality, and the middle class was decimated by NAFTA and outsourcing. We may never in our lifetimes recover from the serial financial crime wave he unleashed by signing the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act. Hillary will say anything to get elected and hand the whole enchilada over to the oligarchs, then once again LGBT people, black people, and poor people will be the first under the bus. NO MORE CLINTONS.
Is that even a word, Dan. Bi- tank- the rest. I'm all for more tanks, having only one tank means I often have to buy water.
I don't know about Hillary. Her dress sense, is really shameful. Some burgundy coloured silk top she had on the last time I saw her on the TV, it was just horrible. And that hair.
Please. Mists of her husband's sperm all over other women's dresses, and she never says boo about it. Hate that. Own up to what a croc her husband has been, get Michele Obama to be her dress and hair advisor.
Bernie; where to start. Cardigans. Have I seen cardigans on this guy?
I can't vote, but either of them over the clowns.
@3, Well that's a fun sentiment. Yes, Hillary lies, just like every other politician and frankly most people in general. So, here's the real question. Let's say we get to next November and Bernie has gracefully bowed out (just a hypothetical I'm not saying he should or will lose the primary. He's doing quite well and I'm happy he is.) and you're down to choosing to vote for Hillary or Trump. What do you do? Do you vote for Trump because Clinton lies? Do you stay home and let other people make the decision for you because Clinton's husband signed a Republican bill that repealed Glass-Steagall? Do you write in Bernie Sanders as a protest vote because you're a fucking moron?

I'm honestly curious. I ask that of all the staunch Bernie and Hillary supporters. If your preferred candidate loses the primaries will you ignore the fact that the other will give you 80% of what your preferred candidate would have and instead let someone win who will give you 100% of what you don't want? In reality, for the foreseeable future we're stuck with a Republican house so Bernie and Hillary will only realistically be able to give us 20% of what they're promising anyway. Will you take that 20% or will you pour gasoline all over everything and watch it burn (bern?) out of spite? It's worth thinking about in advance so you don't have to decide on short notice.
Sanders supported Burlington's first-ever gay pride parade when he was mayor. He doesn't have a perfect gay rights record, but he's undeniably been better than Clinton. Do you want the candidate who listens to you from the beginning, or the candidate who comes around years later once the majority of people already hold your position and it's politically expedient?
"Bitankual" will be the Oxford Dictionary's 2016 word of the year.
I'm not gay and neither is Bernie Sanders, but I have to give him credit for standing up for gay Americans long before it was fashionable to do so.

Oh, and Root @5, way to hoist up a straw man argument. But you know this, just like you know the PUMA (party unity my ass) Hillary holdouts proved to be a negligible constituency in 2008.

You see, Original Andrew @3 pretty much captures my own disdain for Hillary Clinton, and yet I'll be voting for her in November. There's a time for rallying around the nominee, but that time is not now. Now's the time for us to be having a real conversation about what's been going wrong with this nation and what we're gonna do about it.
She will turn her back on everyone on the left once she gets the nomination. That is why people care.
@8: How is #5 a straw man? It's a situation that is all but guaranteed to happen. (signed, a Bernie supporter)
@8: How is #5 a straw man? It's a situation that is all but guaranteed to happen. (signed, a Bernie supporting pessimist)
Sorry for the double post, have to remember to disclaim my inherent pessimism.
@5 Root:
//f your preferred candidate loses the primaries will you ignore the fact that the other will give you 80% of what your preferred candidate would have and instead let someone win who will give you 100% of what you don't want? //

You're genuinely curious, so I shall give you my genuine answer:

It's my job in a democracy to vote for the candidate I think best represents my interests. It is the DNC's job to produce a candidate that earns my vote. I am a progressive. Bernie Sanders has shown me enough to earn my vote. Hillary Clinton has not. If the DNC give us Hillary as the candidate, then the democratic party has not earned my vote.

If Hillary wins the nomination, it will have shown that people have voted and prefer her over Bernie. I can accept that, and won't write in Bernie. However, that does not mean that Hillary *automatically* gets my vote. She still has to earn it. And as it stands, Jill Stein has a much more appealing platform to this progressive than Hillary.

//Will you take that 20% or will you pour gasoline all over everything and watch it burn (bern?) out of spite?//

No. It's my job to vote my views. It is the DNC's job to provide a candidate that *earns* my vote. If that candidate is Bernie, great. If it is Hillary, then the democratic party simply has not earned my vote. I'm not ruining anything. I'm not handing over the election to the GOP. This type of view assumes that my vote is one to lose, rather than one to win. It's the DNC that will have failed in producing a viable candidate, full stop.

As for me, if it comes down to Hillary vs. GOP, we shall see. She still has the opportunity to earn my vote, but she has not done so yet. Clinton can write off progressives as an automatic vote if she wants, but she does so at her own peril. I will vote progressive regardless of the candidate, and if she decides not to run on a progressive platform, she does not get my vote.
Thanks for this, Dan. And, @5, as a Hillary supporter, I will enthusiasticly support Bernie if he wins the nomination.
The main thing I am taking from this election is that the Dems might be going to go the same way the Republican party has: completely taken over by extremist puritans who will cast out all who do not believe in the One True Way, or gasp and horror, believed something different thirty years ago then what is currently en vogue.

I always thought Liberals were smarter and more nuanced, not so certain now.
So just a thought. It's a heck of a lot easier to openly support certain progressive ideals openly and consistently if you're only representing Vermont than if you're in Hilary's shoes.
I am with #13. Except I am probably a bit harsher. I will never again hold my nose and vote for the least offensive person. No necon, third way, DLC, Republican lite candidate will ever get my vote again. I will only vote for progressives. I won't be a part of some 'moderate' selling us down the street on economic matters, like Clinton and Obama have done. Sure, Obama has been better in the last year, but not much.

Clinton has offered that she would deal on abortion. She has indicated she would be open to a grand bargain. I bet she will accept a deal on religious liberty as well. If she wins the nomination, she goes hard right. Wait for it.
@15: if you want more nuance you may need to develop a deeper understanding of liberal politics than "people who don't like Hillary are ideological purists". Because that's a pretty simplistic line of thinking.
@16: Sanders was an independent for decades because when he started he was outside the political mainstream of *both* parties. He became successful and popular in Vermont (he gets a lot if Republican votes) because he convinced people to trust him and agree with him, not because he took the easy or politically expedient path.
My parents were against anything to do with gay people until they had a son who came out to them. I was with my partner for 15 years before Maine voters passed marriage equality and we were able to get married on the day the law went into effect. I never told my dad that Greg and I would be married and he died less than a month before our wedding. Neither of our families were pleased with our wedding plans and so we didn't invite them...My mom reconnected with a long lost friend 40 years later because the friend saw our wedding announcement in the Times. She flew down to see my mom and they bonded over their gay sons. They must have talked late into the night, because about a week later, my mom asked if she could throw us a summer wedding reception. She has done a complete 180 degree turn on marriage and now plans to move in with us in the future. I witnessed the evolution of my parents and so I never begrudge people who were against it before they were for it. Go Hilary!!
@13 & @17 So when it comes down to neoliberal vs. neofascist, you'd decline to work to form a majority against the neofascist (Trump)? You do realize there are actual differences between the two, and a real chance the latter will reach power, don't you?
Shortsighted and petulant.
@ LavaGirl - Wow. Yeah, the first woman ever elected Senator of New York who went on to be Secretary of State and who will very likely be the Democratic party's nominee for the Presidency obviously needs to answer some hard questions about her fucking clothes. I just cannot even...
As Robert Heinlein put it, the poignant thing about democracy is that it is ALWAYS going to be a choice of the lesser of two evils - there are no perfect candidates for the simple reason that there are no perfect humans. But as rare as it is to find an inspiring figure worth voting for, there is ALWAYS going to be someone worth voting against.

We liberals are always looking for a messiah. We thought we had one in Obama in 2008, and then he turned out to be "just a politician" after all - so we collectively sat home in 2010 and let the Republicans run the table.

Never again. I'm in the tank for Bernie, but I'll happily vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. Because even if Hillary were as awful as the Republicans and the nastier Bernie supporters think she is - and for the record, I don't think she is - she would STILL be better than "first they came for the Mexicans and the Muslims."
#21 Elections have consequences. The people who vote, those who do not, and those who decide to always accept the lesser of two evils need to learn to live with them. Not shortsighted. It is actually playing the long game. It is not my responsibility to save you from yourself. You do see that difference, don't you?
Oh dear.. Did I get it wrong. MiscKitty.@22. Her clothes, Her lies about her husband, Her coldness. Just her whole presentation is hard.. Getting to be in those positions doesn't mean I have to like her, does it?
Better than Trump/ Cruz etc is about the best I can offer.
How about we decide to vote for Bernie because he's consistently more progressive on almost every issue and has been for decades. He's also not a Hawk. Not every Bernie supporter is a coke snorting white guy who can only remember one reason why you'd be insane not to vote for Bernie.
The rest of the world have to just lump who gets voted as President of the USA. Pity it effects us all so much.
Of course Trump or Cruz or any of the other idiots from the RP would be a disaster for us all.
And everyone says the U.S. can't handle someone like Bernie, because hey, he's sorta socialist or something scary like that.
All that's left is Hillary.
@23: It's possible to be imperfect without being evil.
@24: The long game? Oh I get it, you're going to wait for the majority to come to you.

Good fucking luck. I'm not going to be around for the long game you're playing, and a whole lot more other people won't either. Spare me from your sanctimony about not having responsibility for me. Of course not you selfish fuck, but you do live in a community, right? Populated by imperfect people and neofacist monsters, right? Me too. Look at that, common cause.
Unbelievable how many people on this thread are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Like @21 said, shortsighted and petulant.
I love Bernie. Every change he wants is a change I want. It's like he's reading my mind. I want him to be President. But if it can't be Bernie, we're pretty fucking lucky to have Hillary. She has many great qualities. I'm just sick to death of anyone who answers questions with shit like, "I 've got a 5 point plan..." which is a Hillary kind of answer.. So go Bernie! And /or Hillary.
gtimm@17. They are right. Your vote can be used to keep out the maniac man.
Of course, you can keep your high minded principles. They will hold you in good stead as your country burns around you.
Amen to #23. Democrats inability to get out and vote is what really worries me. You can say there's "no difference" between a Clinton or a GOP administration but there is a world of difference in who they will put on the Supreme Court for the next 30-40 years.
@3 Hillary doesn't lie like everyone else, not like you and me, when she lies it's "craven lying" Wow, Who would of thunk it? Bernie never lied in his life, but if he had, it wouldn't have been "craven lying" like Hillary, but sweat lying like taffy or caramel. When the Republican lie, Like Bush did to get us into a war, it wasn't even "craven lying" It must have been macho lying or patriot lying. Hey, @3, when you lie, what do you call it?
I have to keep in mind, as a Sanders/Clinton supporter, the right is all over these sites pretending to be Sanders supporters, spreading their Hillary Hate.
Obama didn't support gay marriage, he did of course, but he lied for political reasons. Was that a "Craven Lie" like @3 says? We now have gay marriage all over the nation, in part, thanks to Obama and his "I've evolved" lie... another "Craven lie" @3?
Sanders never ran a national race, he only had to run as a liberal, in a whitish state. If all the Democratic presidential candidates, had run, sounding like Sanders, 25 years ago, none of them would have gotten any where. Bill Clinton wouldn't have won the election, Obama wouldn't had won the election. Some people had to do what they had, to get elected and fight for the middle class. Don't be fooled by the trolls on here, trashing Clinton, they are snakes in the grass.
There's about two or three too may fucks in this which makes me think there's a little bit of protesting too much. If you are really that okay with Clinton, I think there'd be fewer fucks and at least one fewer motherfucking.

There are people who have always been for gay marriage, even when it was politically inconvenient- which was always until right about now. The same people who were always for legalizing drugs- which both major parties are still against at the Federal level. The same people who were against the Patriot Act when Hillary Clinton voted for it. Those people are the Libertarians. And you don't have to forgive them anything when you vote for them.

It's nice the Democrats are trying to catch up. Republicans will as well when the numbers tell them to. I'm not sure I'll see such taking yes for an answer then. And there shouldn't be. You get to be wrong and be forgiven and maybe even voted for. You don't get to be a total asshole. This is an ivy league educated New York Senator we are talking about less than ten years ago. Not some hillbilly rookie congresswoman from Alabama in the 80s. Someone who would say that, whether they believed it in their heart or not, is not someone I would ever vote for.

Right, Chrissycrunch@37. Voting for Trump
then are you? If you've gay, well, it'll be back in that little 'ol closet for you then.
Hey Seth @20. Thanks for sharing your story. I'm so happy for you that your mother could change and accept you for who you are.
Hi Bayhuntr @36. Very well put and well thought out.
I am done wasting my vote. I have been voting for the lesser evil for the last 15 years- and what is there to show for it? A divided country and this ridiculous presidential election. This "high minded" vote for the lesser evil contributes to widespread voter apathy. I will vote for the person who I think has the best vision and policies for this country. I am not going to compromise.To Dan's point- everyone changes positions! Of course they do, because no one is held accountable.

If Hillary loses to Trump, it is her fault. In our democracy, the person with the best idea wins because of popular support. Unfortunately, there is a lack of competition and we get the same choice in a different flavor. Even if Trump wins, will there be no Supreme Court to rule against putting up a wall? Will there be no demonstrations of decent humans against banning Muslims? If Obama can't get anything done because of a Republican Congress, then why can't we elect a Democratic Congress for President Trump?

You are not politically astute because you believe that everyone should coalesce behind the less shitty candidate- you just accept the premise of a false choice. One person, one vote- why is it petulant or moronic to believe in voting in earnest?
@40, "In our democracy, the person with the best idea wins because of popular support."
Wow, do you actually believe that? You're so cute and naive. Yeah, leave out the money and the lies. Leave out whether the person with the best ideas can get out the vote. Leave out if the person with the best ideas is short and ugly and a bad speaker. Boy, I so wish you were right, but you're so demonstrably not. If Trump wins do you really think it's because his ideas were the the best ideas?

The Supreme Court wouldn't rule against the wall because it's not a constitutional issue. Demonstrations only work if politicians have shame, which Trump does not, or fear, which Trump wouldn't if he was working with Republican majorities. I fully support your fantasy of electing a Democratic Congress for Trump to fight against. What's the plan? How will you undo decades of gerrymandering that have entrenched an almost unbeatable Republican House majority? Senate is comparatively easy but not a lot of help without taking the House too.

I'm a big fan of voting third party and I do it whenever it makes sense. That is, whenever there's a good third party candidate in a local, state or even congressional race. Voting third party for president, in fact even running a third party candidate for president, is idiotic. Third parties have to be built from the ground up and you do that by electing them to all of the other positions I mentioned. You don't start a third party from the top down by throwing completely ignored candidates at the top position in the country. It's pissing away your money, votes and energy. I'm sure Jill Stein is a great person but she's wasting her time on a presidential "run" that nobody knows about. She should be running for Congress.
I get the point of this article, but it's leaving out context. There are many people confused as to why liberals are supporting Hillary, not because they can't accept her progression on the issues of gay rights, but because there is another candidate that's has a much better record on gay rights. So if gay rights is a voting priority for someone, the confusing over Hillary is still not resolved. If the argument were, "yes there is a candidate with a better historical stance on gay rights than Hillary, but I think her positions on other issues make up for this deficit." But... That is not what is said here. The reason I care that it has taken her so long to come around is because it's about principles. It speaks to character and an ability to stand on the right side of history even when it's unpopular. That quality transfers over to many issues and is a good indicator of how a leader will reason and govern with future controversial issues. So yes, if both candidates only recently came out for gay marriage then I could follow this line of thinking of "we will take a motherfucking yes" and just be glad they finally did come around. But like I've said we've got a candidate with a much better record so confusion over choosing Hillary on gay rights issues is still perplexing. Full disclosure: I am an undecided voter but leaning towards Bernie.
If you look at it as voting for the lesser of two evils or choosing the best out of a list of imperfect candidates, that is just a shade of interpretation. In the end we are always doing it.

In the end if Bernie doesn't get the nomination it is no contest. I'll be voting for Hillary. Because if any of the current front runners for the GOP win it isn't a choice between the lesser of two evils. It's the choice between pure evil and something other than pure evil.

If the democrats nominate an orangutan who does nothing but fling it's poo at congress all day I'm voting for the freaking orangutan, because it's still better than Trump, Cruz or Rubio.
@45, People do vote on where a candidate stands today, but how much we believe those stances are based on their record. And I'm not talking about 20 years ago. Hillary didn't come out in support of gay marriage until 2013. That's just a few years ago. So while I do believe that she supports gay marriage specifically, I don't know that I think she will be the best advocate for future issues. I do think there is a difference between a candidate who has been on the right side of history for 40 years and one who in preparation for an election started evolving on issues. I'm more interested in how people make decisions and deal with difficult issues when I'm selecting a candidate because there will always be new issues and possible unforseen crisis. I don't agree that there is not much difference between Hillary and Bernie, but I will vote for if she is the nominee. I accept her new stand on gay marriage, I'm grappling with her damaging foreign policy and commitment to the status quo.
@45: I think the issue is more that people think Sanders is genuine, and he actually cares about gay rights, while Clinton is just saying it out of political expediency.

That is the basic issue behind all of it. People just do not trust Clintons anymore at all, and are tired of seeing Clintons and Bushes running things.
"It speaks to character and an ability to stand on the right side of history even when it's unpopular."
Ample evidence of what years of concerted political spending can do. Why do people so vilify Hillary over other politicians? Because they have been programmed to by the GOP. She is not particularly venal in the scale of political animals. If you want cite an example of a dishonest and shifty politician, you can do a lot better than Hillary. She has been successfully slandered. Do I hear you calling out Patty Murray as of poor character because she also had to change her position with regard to marriage equality? She's running this year too you know.
I think Bernie does have a better position, right now in the present day, on a lot of economic issues. ACA was always meant to be a temporary compromise on the way to universal, single payer healthcare, and I don't know why Hillary is acting like it was ever a permanent solution. Community colleges and state schools need to be tuition free (although we must remember that a lot of low income, self-supporting students are only able to go to school because their financial aid covers at least part of their living expenses while they are in school. Nearly no one can work full time while pursuing some of the hardest, most useful degrees in STEM and healthcare). Social security needs to be expanded. I could go on and on, but I will spare you.

But anyway, you better believe that if Hillary gets the nomination, I am voting for her. Can you imagine if an evangelical extremist like Ted Cruz got to nominate the next Supreme Court justice? Or if Trump got to do it?? And who knows how many vacancies might occur in the next 4 (or 8) years. Not only that, but presidencies do leave lasting legacies. In some ways, we are still worse off because Nixon was a president.
@48, I'm not sure how the quote you chose to highlight is an example of vilifying Hillary??? Exercising critical thinking skills about different platforms isn't an attack on Hillary. Of course there are plenty of other politicians we could criticize but this article was about Hillary and Bernie, so for the sake of staying on topic lets try to steer away from fallacies. I really want to like Hillary and am keeping an open mind as the election process evolves, but remaining critical of our candidates is not slander- it's our right as informed voters. The argument that anyone who critiques Hillary has bought into GOP propaganda is really tired and just deflects from having a real discussion about real issues.
Bernie: Even When Wrong, Still More Correct Than Anyone Else In Competition.
It is not an expedient
It is not an expedient choice to vote for Hillary, it's a circular conversation among politically attune people "blah is not electable" "blah has trustworthiness issues" "democrat is better than a republican." Says who? The same people that couldn't predict Obama in 2008, that couldn't see Trump surviving past the summer and that couldn't cover Bernie as a serious candidate until he tied the supposed front runner.

I think we can all agree that Trump is not the RNC candidate, yet mob rule has foisted him to be the front runner. It's obvious that Hillary is the DNC candidate. Even if it was a cynical move to have Bernie run to rile up the base and then throw over that built up support to Hillary when the nomination went to her, I think we've underestimated how frustrated and disillusioned people are. Once I've had the chance at a real candidate, I am not giving it up for a Hillary- whose positions change as they are politically expedient, who is hawkish and who lacks a moral core. If you believe, or Hope aka 2008, that Hillary will do well by important issues, then there isn't anything to argue. But I would argue that hope isn't enough, actions matter more.

We have a right to privacy, a right to love who we want, a right to free speech, a right to own guns, a right to practice our religion if any but when it comes to our right to vote we have to throw it in some communal pot and hope for the best? All the while, our voting rights and abortion rights are being dismantled, drug addiction and mental illness are criminalized, education is privatized, our public lands given up for fossil fuels.

Obama was a better choice than McCain in 2008. Obama was a better choice over Romney in 2012. Yet not a single banker has gone to jail, we're stuck in eternal war, we deport more people and use more drones, the wealth of African Americans has diminished, and the Flint water crisis is covered like it's normal for a government to poison its most vulnerable citizens. Is Hillary going to change any of this? Or am I supposed to imagine it's gonna be worse with Trump because it's pretty awful now.
So, #13 and #17, I think if I boil down your viewpoint, it is "If I don't like your candidate 100%, then you don't deserve my vote. So I'll throw it away on someone who has no chance to win to spite you. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!"

And to those who imagine that a person who has changed her view on an issue is inherently a liar, or say that Hillary is not a progressive, or who imagine that as soon as she is a president she will reveal herself to be a hard right conservative (WTF????) -- hey, enjoy your crown of purity (or your tin foil hat, in some of your cases!).

I am glad that you are young enough to have always been right or narcissic enough to believe that you are the center of the political universe and have no responsibility to pick the best candidate supporting the majority of your progressive views WHO MIGHT ACTUALLY WIN. Some of you remind me of those who insisted that voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 was pure and not political suicide, since not only did Nader never have a chance to win, but you elected the Republican instead! Thanks, putzes. That Republican was George W. Bush. Are you good with electing a Trump or a Cruz if Hillary is just not progressive enough to suit your ideals? Or maybe baby face Rubio, whom some think is more moderate that Trump or Cruz, but really is just more cheerful in his ambition to lead the Tea Party right?
Oh -- and to comment #54, you really think that electing Bush in 2000 instead of Gore was not consequential -- that things would have been the same no matter who won? You think Gore would have sent us to Iraq? That eternal war that you protest was started by Bush, who was elected by the third party candidate Nader making the race so close in Florida. With a help of the Supreme Court republicans 5-4 majority. Don't you think maybe electing a Democrat -- even one you don't love -- would be a better way to fill Scalia's seat and that of the elderly LIBERAL justices who will probably leave vacancies soon?
I thought Bush was the worst, apparently the worst is yet to come. Gore lost, and we'll never know if he would have put us on a better course. Gore lost because of the supreme court* decision that decided against his slim majority win and because he didn't appeal to Nader voters- the onus was on Gore to shore up that base, to bring those voters in. The candidate has the platform, make it a winning one. In that election, 54% of the country bothered to vote.

So maybe Gore would have been better but it wasn't Bush that removed Glass Steagall or approved Nafta or replaced welfare programs with sh*t on the poor initiatives, or whose "tough on crime" initiatives invited intense policing on minority communities.

I am not trying to rile anyone up. My vote is inconsequential as I just speak for myself. I am trying to honestly figure out if I have become naive or am just a recuperating sucker.

*The Supreme Court, the highest law of the land, decided against simple math. Why is the outrage directed against Nader voters? It's like being angry at illegal immigrants who work poverty wages yet somehow are criminal masterminds to bypass businesses doing a simple social security number check. Who really has the power in those scenarios?
@43/46 Sanders came out for gay marriage in 2009, 4 years before Hillary Clinton did in 2013, not 40 as you imply.

It wasn’t until 2009 that Sanders publicly voiced support for gay marriage, years after many of his contemporaries in Vermont. The state legislature voted to legalize gay marriage that March and overrode a gubernatorial veto to pass it into law in April. It’s unclear when exactly Sanders took his position. When asked, his campaign provided a news article from July of that year which noted that he had “previously supported” it.

Of course, Dan's quote shows Sanders was not for gay marriage as of 2006.
@58, you misquoted me. I said Sander's had been on the right side of history for 40 years, meaning treating gay rights as civil rights and not shying away from including LBGT issues in his political and ideological beliefs. I didn't say he was trying specifically to legalize gay marriage 40 years ago. In the early 1970's when Sanders ran for governor he included gay rights in his platform, stating "Let us abolish all laws which attempt to impose a particular brand of morality or ‘right’ on people. Let’s abolish all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)." In 1983, Mayor Sanders supported his state's first gay pride parade, expressing "we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each other’s lifestyle." A year later he passed a housing anti-discrimination ordinance that protected people based on "his or her sexual preference." In 1993 he opposed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In 1995 he publicly shamed a congressman on the house floor for using the word "homo." In 1996 he was one of the few legislators to opposed DOMA. Senator Sanders also supported his state's civil union law in 2000. Sen. Sanders is currently a cosponsor of the Equality Act, which would expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other anti-discrimination laws to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. Dan's quote does not show that he was not for gay marriage in 2006. He wasn't asked if he is for or against gay marriage- he was asked if he would push for it right then and he said no, "not now". That is not the same thing as voting against a bill for gay marriage or coming out against gay marriage. It is not a logical assessment to act like Hillary and Bernie are on equal footing on this topic because they both now support gay marriage. The only thing we can tell from Bernie's record specific to same-sex marriage is that he opposed defining marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman. He expressed that opinion through his votes, and in conversations with constituents in his state. When compared to Hillary's votes and public statements there is a stark contrast over the last 25 years.
@61 Your claim that his "not now" in 2006 isn't "no" is silly. I suppose that clerk in Kentucky who said "not here" wasn't saying "no" either, then.
This comments section needs thumbs up/thumbs down.

Anyway, all you admirably utopianist Sanernistas: There will be an election between the Democratic and Republican party nominees. The next eight years and beyond (Supreme Court nominees, two or three in the next administration) of your life will be affected quite severely by whoever wins. Get over yourselves, and support and vote for whoever is not the Republican. And if it's Hillary Clinton, try thinking your way through all the right wing propaganda you seem to have absorbed about her.
@62, I'm saying that "not now" does not inherently mean he is "against" marriage equality as an issue. He never states he is against marriage equality and all of his voting up until then is pro gay rights, so I find it disingenuous to grab one quote and then ignore his history of voting and speaking out in favor of gay rights. As if any of that never happened and then all the sudden in 2006 we hear from him for the first time- please. He has explained that at the time his state was the first to pass civil unions and the people were very socially divided at that moment and he didn't think he could rally the support at that time. That's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean he is "anti" gay marriage. He didn't make any statements about marriage being between a man and a woman or any of that crap.
In 2011, five years ago, HillaryClinton delivered a speech to the UN at Geneva: (what the fuck more do you want?)…
@51: Fair enough, you're right, not a good quote. And I agree that Hillary Clinton and the DNC and the platforms they present are well deserving of critical review. Didn't mean to be tired or to deflect. I do think a popular perception of Clinton has been shaped by a concerted campaign against her, and I hear those themes coming back from some Sanders supporters. That is very disappointing because Clinton is the likely candidate in the general, and it really does matter that the GOP does not win. Jesus what a shit show.

Bernie is great, but he won't win the nomination. If he does he's got my enthusiastic support, but he won't.
@66: And what does Trump think of the "undertrodden"? I'll give you a hint: that they are loooosers that he'll tolerate as long as they are worshipping him. And if they're from Honduras then they're probably rapists.
yay, fuck the iraqis, the Hondurans, the libyans, the siryans, and on (like the middle class), if Dan got a Clinton to say when it finally became acceptable what they should have said 30 years ago. What a pathetic piece of writing.
With words like this pushed into the net by a #lgbt "advocate" who needs the republicans to do the gay bashing? What a short sighted, attention seeking bunch of junk. The #lggt community should stand with who has stood with us for years. That's Bernie Sanders
Okay I give up. You guys all stay home if Clinton is the nominee, I'm sure the international community will be ever grateful for your help getting a Republican elected.
@70: And BTW (I know, I said I'd shut up) my comment @68 was in no way a non-sequitur it's WHAT DAN'S ENTIRE POST WAS ABOUT. Vote Bernie in the primary (I plan to) but line up behind WHOEVER the nominee is.
When it comes to the lesser of two evils, I'll take a papercut over having my limbs chainsawed off.
As a former Vermonter, first in the early '90s (and again in the early2000s tho not as relevant to the point of this post), I would participate in Vermont Pride with all the excitement and anticipation that a young gay man would have had at that time in our history. There was a longing and desire to hear our political leaders address the specific concerns of our community - anti-discrimination and hate crimes protections, employment/housing/credit protections, access to healthcare, domestic partner benefits (marriage equality and ENDA were mere pipe dreams...apparently, ENDA still is), even just to hear a politician say the words "gay and lesbian" was a big deal. Many Vermont politicians would attend Pride, especially in election years, and most would specifically address the issues of importance to the LGBTQ audience...even some Republicans. Bernie would show up at Pride...not always...and when he did attend it was obvious that he was there out of obligation; he wasn't there because he wanted to be there. And while every other speaker would talk about the issues confronting the LGBTQ community at that time, Bernie would deliver the same - the very same - speech that he delivers today. The struggles of the LGBTQ community were solely a result of economic inequalities. His tag line - or scripted robotic words, if you will - was always, and remains virtually the same today, was "...but do you have a job?" Yes, economic inequalities are a problem in this country; but, they are not the sole cause of every problem and focusing just on that will never ever resolve our deeper problems. Yes, Bernie may vote the right way (in my opinion) on most issues but he isn't on the forefront of the issues I believe are of utmost importance...standing up like the champion I expect of my political leaders. I see Bernie as tone deaf and politically blind; he needs to know his constituents better and he needs to deliver nuanced messages to those audiences. Sure, he's more passionate than Marco Rubio but he's no less scripted. I've voted for Bernie a number of times and I love that he's a cantankerous, if not all that accomplished, representative for the state of Vermont; he helps keep Vermont weird. However, he's not at all inspiring to me, he's disappointed me, and he has not broadened his message or demonstrated that he understands what the presidency means to me and my country. #TheresNoThereThere #NotFeelingTheBern #Hillary2016 #ImWithHer
"Hillary's remarks in the Senate are basically an EP version of Barack Obama's infamous comments on marriage equality when he was running for president in 2007: "“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me, as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. God's in the mix.” (Ha ha! Remember when Obama pretended to oppose marriage equality and we pretended to believe him? Those were the days!"

Not true. Obama had publicly stated his support for marriage equality and pretended to oppose it for political gain, whereas Hillary Clinton never publicly stated her support, and privately expressed her disgust.

Hillary's remarks in the Senate are basically an EP version of Barack Obama's infamous comments on marriage equality when he was running for president in 2007: "“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me, as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. God's in the mix.” (Ha ha! Remember when Obama pretended to oppose marriage equality and we pretended to believe him? Those were the days!…
I was 15 and living in another country when these early nineties debates were going on and thought it was illogical that gay people should not have the same rights even back then. As a moderate straight non-white Democrat I am frankly a bit appalled by the rhetoric of many Bernie supporters and that is what turned me off his campaign. It reeks of a left wing version of the Tea Party. Blame others for all your problems while not taking any responsibility. Blame free trade but wait in line for the latest Foxconn iPhone. Every Bernie supporter I know is white (sure there is a smattering of non-whites) and typically has failed to hold down a decent job or generate any significant amount of savings after living in one of the richest countries in the world for their entire lives. You want to tax the 1%? If you make $30K/year you are in the top 1% by income in the entire world so tax yourselves first.
Listen to the Vermonter #76 and grow up. No one who has worked much with Bernie (not a single person in the entire Senate) supports him campaign because he is just a wanker. There is a saying in my mother tongue "like leaving your husband based on the promises of the king".
I hope Hillary raises the taxes on every millennial and Bernie supporter (oh wait you guys are in the 47% that doesn't pay any Federal taxes). We all make mistakes but learn some loyalty towards the people in your family. I will be disappointed if Hillary doesn't win but it will be tempered by the joy of a Republican president lowering my taxes and effectively raising that of the Berners.
Btw I was one of the first donors for Obama in 07/08 and Elizabeth Warren's Senate run even though their campaign was predicated largely on raising my taxes. For once in your lives Berners try something new, like thinking beyond your genitals and about good of the rest of the country.
I feel very sorry for people who are so naive as to accept a politicians pandering as truth. You MUST look at their record and not accept their word in anyway. To believe what they say is, quite frankly, moronic. Bernie Sanders record speaks for himself. He has supported marriage equality as far back as he has been in office. Hillary has never supported it in anyway. She has only claimed to support it. Stop listening to her lies and start supporting the far better candidate for EVERYONE!
"f your preferred candidate loses the primaries will you ignore the fact that the other will give you 80% of what your preferred candidate would have and instead let someone win who will give you 100% of what you don't want? "

I think this is a very funny question. Are you proposing that Hillary is 80% of Bernie? If so, then you are admitting Bernie is a better candidate, so you should vote for Bernie. You should still vote for Bernie if he doesn't get the nomination, because voting for someone that gives you 100% is pretty damn amazing, and you would have to have zero integrity to vote for someone less.

As for me, I see Bernie as maybe 35% of what I want. Or a 35% move to the left. Hillary isn't 80% of that or even 0% of that. She is -40% in the opposite direction. She is a move to the right. A move into more corporatism and rich oligarchical masters controlling this country and most of the world. That is not my opinion, that is a simple study of history. She is a rich oligarch who loves to give her friends more power. Even if that means breaking the law, which she is well above.
Dan, I've generally been a very big supporter of your work and, in particular, developed enormous respect for you after looking past Savage Love to your more personal writing and working on projects like "It Gets Better." To say this article was disappointing is quite the understatement. I am a straight man who has been fortunate enough to know and love many LGBT men and women throughout my life and their rights have always been a concern to me as I have seen and related to many of their struggles.

That being said, to borrow an idea from Hillary, I am not a single issue voter and I tend to see LGBT rights as intrinsically connected to the equal rights of anyone in this country not provided with equal respect, status, and opportunity. Just as I find myself being more vocal about the issues that have touched me on a personal level, I understand that much of the work for equal rights is done by members of the communities fighting for them.

When voting for president, however, I look for someone who very clearly fights for everyone. I have deep admiration for someone like Killer Mike who advocates for a movement that fights for the rights of all, not just members of the black community he does such an excellent job representing. It's a brave statement and an important one to ask people still fighting for their own rights to also fight for the rights of others.

As for Hillary, this is not a question of her changing her mind to the right side of an issue. It's about a career of saying what she thinks she needs to say to be elected while consistently voting against the interests of the people who vote for her. Three years ago, at an advanced age and after years of a consistent message, she quite suddenly flipped her opinion of same sex marriage and LGBT rights in general. Some times, she argues that her terrible votes for Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA were attempts to prevent something worse while at other times, she has argued that she had simply evolved on the issue. I don't buy it.

Looking over her history in politics, Hillary has demonstrated time and time again her willingness to take whatever position seems popular publicly, while her actions have demonstrated time and time again that she always has and always will fight for legislation that benefits the rich elite at the expense of the working and middle classes and minorities.

Furthermore, Hillary has tried time and time again to paint herself as the pragmatist up against the dreamer with no real plans. She of course ignores all the very clearly drawn our plans available to view on Bernie's website, but the thing that really irks me about this attitude is that it furthers a message and attitude that is central to the fight to crush our democracy. Her campaign, especially an overwhelming number of her supporters, have fought hard to equate ideals with naivete. Ideals are responsible for the most important changes in history, not because people realized the actual ideals, but because they set their sights high enough to inspire the conviction necessary to realize real change. Do you know what is truly naive? Thinking that someone who is part of a broken system running on a platform of incremental change will somehow stop the wholesale destruction of our democracy that has been happening for over 3 decades.

Bernie Sanders has been a voice of opposition to this trend and his message has been consistent since he first entered public office. Your attempts to point out inconsistencies in his record are guilty of taking information out of context just as nearly every attack Clinton has made against him has done. That's what Hillary is all about, though. She broadcasts an over-simplified, pandering message intended to garner votes and then works carefully to sustain the inequality in this country as covertly as possible.

I am not surprised, nor angry, that you might support Hillary as many other valuable and positive figures in this fight have done, because she has benefited from a narrative supported by the media that paints her as the obvious answer to our problems. And while I would welcome the opportunity to debate the issue, I fully respect the right of anyone to vote for the candidate of his or her choice and am always interested to hear the reasons behind these decisions. To attack anyone with strong anti-Hillary opinions, however, is divisive and spits in the face of overwhelming evidence supporting the attacks lobbed against her. As liberals, we've been told to dismiss the attacks on Hillary as hateful, imaginary, sexist propaganda from the right. Those malicious attacks exist, but the sad truth is that the Republicans had more than enough to attack without making crap up and many liberals are coming around to realize just how disingenuous she is.

I beg of you to focus on the reasons you think Hillary should be supported going forward rather than taking your anger out on people who are well-informed and passionate supporters of democracy. That last thing we need is for one of our best champions for equal rights dividing us even more. Thanks.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.