2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton angry at gay-friendly passports, worried about Fox/Palin
Yeah, said it a billion times. Clinton will do the safe thing and little more. When faced with the possibility that Sarah Palin might have a sad at LGBT friendly passport changes, Hillary threw a fit:
Some exchanges show Clinton demonstrating a sensitivity to potential political difficulty particularly in anticipating attacks from Republicans. Clinton appeared perturbed after she read a Washington Post story about State deciding to make U.S. passport forms gender neutral, a change that was considered a victory for gay rights groups.
Who made the decision that State will not use the terms mother and father and instead substitute parent one and two? she wrote to Mills on Jan. 8, 2011. Im not defending that decision, which I disagree w and knew nothing about, in front of this Congress. I could live w letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father. We need to address this today or we will be facing a huge Fox-generated media storm led by Palin et al.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-kept-a-close-eye-on-her-reputation-state-e-mails-show/2015/09/30/cf24a130-67aa-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html
LGBT families or Clinton's political career - which one will always come first with her?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)all about her. More of that milk of human kindness.
Duckfan
(1,268 posts)I would be one of a million other people that would be doing flips to get them in the W H. An awsome ticket. But then again, I could just be dreaming.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Give someone else the VP slot so Warren can keep accomplishing things in the Senate for us.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)but not to worry, there are always back up plans for the daily utterly unconvincing Clinton bashing at DU...for what reason is the question?
Prism
(5,815 posts)Fortunately, I have none.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I care that operatives in China and Russia know about them (and national security secrets) because the server didn't have even basic security.
That's not a bash: it's a legitimate issue.
Of course, most of our media would rather pluck the low-hanging fruit of gossip than investigate what security measures the Clintons took to secure their server and its contents.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Because it offers a window into her thinking and lays bare where her priorities are. When given a choice between a gay-friendly act or facing the wrath of Sarah Palin, she surrendered to Palin.
That isn't to disagree with what you've pointed out about security. I agree. If it comes out that Russia or China had access to her work mails, she's toast.
But when trying to divine just how strong and sincere her newfound deep love of LGBT equality is, things like this are important peeks behind the facade.
artislife
(9,497 posts)So much like a fighter when this comes to light.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Sorry - didn't mean to make light of that.
My point is that her emailing about this isn't worthy of a Congressional investigation, but it does show she's only about political expediency.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)than about the issue of families. More worried about how she might look to Fox. Wth does she care what the think or say? They are a marginal propaganda machine with a few million moronic viewers who, if she went over a cliff to show how 'sensitive' she is to their Conservative viewpoints, they would STILL hate her.
So what about this do you agree or disagree with. Is the leadership in your opinion? Do you think Gays should be treated differently to other citizens in any way?
Bernie doesn't and never did, even before he went into politics. That is why I support him. He gets these issues re people's Civil Rights RIGHT every time and consistently and doesn't worry one bit about Fox or any other bigoted network.
murielm99
(30,745 posts)have them grasping at straws.
askew
(1,464 posts)That she cares more about the bile spewed by Fox News/Palin than in doing the right thing shows her priorities.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)anti-Hillary will have to do to make up for it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is important. It isn't about distractions, if you want to talk about emails, post an OP of your own, why you're bringing it up here, when most people KNOW it is a distraction so we WON'T talk about issues such as the one in the OP is beyond me.
Hillary displays an unwillingness to stand up for people who stood up for her when she needed it. And for the worst of reasons, because of what Fox might think. Fox doesn't 'think' they spew propaganda for the far right fringes of this society. Why on earth woul their opinion of her be more important than the lives of millions of Americans?
Or maybe you don't want to talk about issues. Primaries are about Issues and people ARE going to talk about them whether you like it or not.
Response to askew (Reply #4)
Post removed
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Saw a post that Clinton relieved some emails about Anthony Weiner when the media frenzy was at it's height and a lame attempt to make something, something of that.
"Lame" succinctly describes the radical LW/RW reaction.
Another day, another nothing plucked from enemies of Clinton...because it helps Sanders?
It does not. Full stop.
It is not just exclusively right wingers that have no shame.
Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #8)
Post removed
iwillalwayswonderwhy
(2,602 posts)I can't think of a single DU poster other than a short lived troll who thought the Benghazi investigation was anything other than complete crap. I LOVE that it came about from that cretin Sean Hannity's interview. It actually made me laugh when I heard it. I don't give a flying fig about the emails either.
I'm sorry if that messes with your narrative.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Sanders doesn't need help, hadn't you noticed? All he needed was to let people know where he stood on the issues and how consistent he has been all his life on those issues, and he didn't need to do another thing. He has defended Hillary over and over again, and yet you slam him and his supporters about something only you seem to be concerned about.
Hillary has major issues problems, period People are not, NOT supporting because they don't like her, they are choosing a leader for this country and they want someone who gets it RIGHT when they have the power to make such decisions.
You are trying to distract people from their right to do what they believe is best for this, projecting your own tactics onto good, decent people, making stuff up and thinking somehow this is going to help, who?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But how dare he express disappointment in a Dem candidate on DU!!!
Amirite?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)At Liberty U he stood up for our rights much to the dismay of some HC supporters.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Vermonters love their junior Senator, the hatred for him here makes me sick.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)mind polluting to read some of what has been posted on this forum about someone whose entire has been devoted to doing good for ALL the people of this country. I don't know how they think behaving like that is going to help their candidate, it isn't and if I were a Hillary supporter I would be embarrassed.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's just business as usual in GD P.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)him. But people are not going to forget the way they behaved for a long time. The false accusations, the bigotry the personal attacks on his supporters, to be honest I've not seen anything like it anywhere.
I don't want to judge all Hillary supporters by what we've seen on this forum, I'm sure many of them are, like most of Bernie's supporters, really good people. But what we see here is thoroughly despicable, and I hope it is confined to a small group because if that is what Democrats have become, we're going to see even more of an exodus from the party than we have over the past few years.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)You can keep your Senators and gain Bernie as your President.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Don't even get me started on her neocon foreign policy views. I really don't understand why in hell anybody would chose the likes of her when there is a Bernie Sanders or a Martin O'Malley running. She represents everything that is wrong with politics.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Is that we finally got a Democratic president on board with us. It took some tugging, some fighting, some drag out brawls, but at the end of the day, I'm pleased to know President Obama will go down in history as the first President and first major presidential candidate to endorse equality.
And now people want to start over with someone else who's reticent and only wants to do what they absolutely must? Why?!
There is a difference between an affectionate hug and a person who pats your shoulders at arm's length.
Hillary strikes me as the latter when it comes to the LGBT community.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)It was a fairly risk-free move. Even Bush left some benefits for partners alone when he came into office (the religious right threw an absolute fit).
The salient question comes down to Clinton's trustworthiness on LGBT issues. When something like the Equality Act is facing a hard fight in a divided Congress, will she go to the mat? Will she be a Lyndon Johnson? Or will she make some hand waves, shrug, and go, "Oh well, I tried."
That distinction matters. When choosing a candidate, I want to know a candidate is willing to put themselves out there, spend some political capital, be willing to push for the right thing at the expense of their own political standing.
I have yet to really see that from Clinton on LGBT issues, and things like this mail only reinforce my suspicions about the ardor with which she'll pursue LGBT legislative battles in the future. It seems she'll do what she kinda can, as long as it isn't too much trouble.
That is truly not good enough.
dsc
(52,163 posts)if it was so risk free? Also Bush didn't leave anything alone since he appointed a religious right wacko to enforce the rules who wound up not doing to for gays. So yes Bush did screw the gays but you are so anti Hillary you are wiling to praise Bush, how sad.
Prism
(5,815 posts)It was risk-free for a Democrat to do it. I did not "praise" Bush. I noted that the Clinton administration put in some benefits for LGBT employees that the Bush administration left alone. Just that act, "leaving it alone" was enough to enrage the Religious Right. But acting as if, in 2010, benefits for employees was at the vanguard of championing equality is a bit much. She didn't risk anything, it was fairly cost-free for her to do, and quite frankly, most people didn't care. It meant a lot to us, but your average citizen probably didn't give a high shit. Doing it was admirable, but it is very small potatoes in the balance of equality. Extending benefits while still publicly declaring us to be second class citizens all the way to 2013 does not come anywhere close to being a wash.
Look, I don't envy you. You're in a very strange position in this election. Last time around, we had two candidates with spotty LGBT records, so we had to hash out who was likelier to be good for us. This time around, there's no contest. Sanders wipes the floor with Clinton on LGBT issues. So, the cognitive dissonance has to come fast and furious to make your choice work.
Here you're faced with a window into Clinton's thinking. Not only does she think the heteronormative family must be upheld over an LGBT consideration - which is consonant with her previous statements on marriage, but she shows that she is worried what FOX and Palin think of her should she do something that was applauded by community activist groups. So there is definitely a reticence in her about our community. She'll do things, but she won't stick her neck out.
Personally, I don't know why you bother trying to mop up after her when it comes to our equality. But hey, some people like a challenge.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That's extremely nasty business. Instructing minority groups as to how they should conduct themselves is a trait of the right wing. You don't even make a comment, just the internet version of pointing and laughing and I think that's cheap, vulgar and uncalled for in every fucking way.
If you did that to any other minority group on DU you'd not get by with it so easily.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)That the LGBT have stuck by Hillary. Is this the way to reward friends Hillary?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)She's just getting started.
delrem
(9,688 posts)This OP is a great read and I especially like prism's response post #12
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251637075#post12
The question, why? Why go backwards now?
This is the time to move forward. Obama's 2nd term, without the albatross of Hillary Rodham Clinton hanging around the neck of the Dem party, has been day vs night.
The supreme noodle knows that for foreign policy issues Obama's 2nd term has been a laborious task of climbing out of a hole dug by the PNAC team, Bush/Cheney -> Clinton/Kagan. And the TPP is not looking good, at all. But I can accept better, in some ways much better, so long as there's a turning of direction to the positive and progressive.
Clinton represents a step back in time for LGBT issues and for economic and foreign policy issues. For example I can't imagine the beginning of a rapprochement with Cuba and a treaty with and the beginnings of diplomacy with Iran happening under Hillary Rodham Clinton's watch. She hasn't got any of these things in her. She is a politician out of time.
Everything about Hillary Rodham Clinton is wrong for the times.
These should be times of wonder, of hope. Of new beginnings. Not for watching in despair as big banks, war profiteers, investment capital, are unleashed for unrestricted plundering, while Hillary Rodham Clinton laughs and breathes in the adulation of the .01%.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)So she's not even a good weathervane.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie may not be perfect but he sure as hell doesn't pander to homophobic Republicans:
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I wish we had more politicians who were that uninvolved.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He's only interested in "trickle down" justice, not social issues.
Keep up!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)by the far right neocons/libs he's practically perfect by comparison. I know that's not saying a lot considering the bunch of cowards who supposedly represent us, but still, I don't remember any other candidate as near perfect on almost all issues and consistently so and willing to fight for them, as this one.
If we miss this chance, we won't get another one probably in any of our lifetimes.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)the same groveling.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the traditional configuration is given special status? That's pretty galling. This language makes my skin crawl.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)Some people are kicking and screaming, but most of the LBGT hate in my reddest of red states has more or less disappeared.
No, I always felt like she and others had problems "evolving" because they honestly don't like the people who fall outside the religiously designated lines. Not nice, not nice at all...
I imagine that "not liking" comes easy for war mongering bigots who worship wealth.
She can put on her Methodist at Church uniform and express her bigotry in terms of "the sanctity of marriage", giving her dislike, her bigotry, the imprimatur of God and History, and appear very righteous to like minded people. That's how much she cares. The next day she can make the decision that it's best not to count the war dead, and maybe tell a little joke on TV about how good she feels about liberating Libya, and, through her support for war and war profiteering, being God's gift to Democracy and Freedom. An all round wonderful candidate for POTUS.
reddread
(6,896 posts)you cant fall that far and ever really have been mighty, can you?
msongs
(67,420 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)Cold, except for that she cared about her own ass - and was afraid of FOX and Sarah Palin, so jumped to do their bidding.
This was her thought process. It's how she "triangulated it" and responded.
It's not a very pretty picture, especially for a politician running a campaign about how she's a leader w.r.t. "social issues", and how other candidates are deficient in those regards, and just aren't "practical" and "realistic" about economic/foreign policy matters. Don't understand the deep structure like she does.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)I really don't think Hillary has it in her. With Bernie, it's ingrained...just comes naturally.
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
moobu2
(4,822 posts)and also to hear what Hillary has to say about it. She might have been perturbed that such a decision was made without her input or President Obama might have told her he wasn't ready to proceed on it or something else. I give Hillary the benefit of the doubt because she's such a great person and I'm a rational person and suspicious of a comment taken out of context like this.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)moobu2
(4,822 posts)spread by none Democrats here and elsewhere. yes, she's a great person.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)moobu2
(4,822 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)MindfulOne
(227 posts)Oh man. She wasn't very great on this one occasion.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
..the weather vane. The image. The manipulation of the media.
We'll be in deep trouble if she becomes president. She will not have the best interests of ordinary people as the top priority. It will always be about the Clinton image, name, legacy.
To object to passports changing in this way is craven as a leader. The reasons she gave are alarming. This designation change would be such a minor advancement. She's a coward.
toshiba783
(74 posts)So how did she and the state department end up handling this? Were there any public statements? What terms are now used to define heterosexual and same-sex parents?
Ino
(3,366 posts)What Hillary wants, Hillary gets.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/30/emails-hillary-clinton-angry-about-passports-axing-mother-father/
Mrs. Clinton wanted no part of it, foreseeing a public-relations debacle.
Who made the decision that State will not use the terms mother and father and instead substitute parent one and two? Mrs. Clinton wrote, in an email released Wednesday by the State Department as part of a rolling release of her State Department correspondence. Im not defending that decision, which I disagree (with) and knew nothing about, in front of this Congress.
I could live w letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father. We need to address this today or we will be facing a huge Fox-generated media storm led by (Sarah) Palin et al.
About a half hour later, her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, replied: Reaching out to folks to find out.
The new language was quickly dropped.
The following day, Ms. Mills sent to Mrs. Clinton an Associated Press article headlined: State Department steps back on gender-neutral parentage, wont replace terms mother, father.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Patronizing to the LGBT?"; "Why Are Sanders Supporters So Defensive When Accused of Homophobia?" "Sanders's Decades of Gay Neglect"
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 1, 2015, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)
Oh, and to those that wonder if her email had any effect....
"Within days, the new, gender-neutral language had been dropped from all U.S. passport applications."
more info ref:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/114167-hillary-clintons-clumsy-email-about-gender-neutral-language-could-hurt-her-campaign
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjt1dP5sqDIAhVREZIKHVHjAiM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Farticle%2F424865%2Fe-mail-hillary-clinton-lashed-out-staff-over-gay-friendly-passports-brendan-bordelon&usg=AFQjCNEd-B8XBe-uJ3c7JZ6uru6Ip0MHug&sig2=2xjDfB8d_JETE43o2VCVsA
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)I appreciate your correction
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Clinton reportedly turned down the opportunity to deliver a keynote speech at the Human Rights Campaign gala in order to make the appearance. The Times reports she and actress Kate McKinnon, who portrays Clinton on "SNL," will appear together in the "cold open" on Saturday night.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/10/hillary-clinton-saturday-night-live-premiere-214335
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)PatrickforO
(14,578 posts)negative publicity than actually standing for something.
I've said before that to me, Hillary Clinton more closely resembles a wind sock than someone I could really envision in the White House. She's SO poll- and focus group-driven that it makes me wonder what she really does stand for. If anything.
This is the thing about Bernie. He has stated clearly and then stood by his positions. Not to mention that I LIKE his positions because they will genuinely help millions of Americans have better lives...
But this was a good post. We needed to see it.
MindfulOne
(227 posts)It speaks volumes.
grrrrr.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)I'm starting to worry she's something of a homophobe though.
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)It's asexual. Hillary said she objected to the elimination of Mother and Father as identifiers. She didn't object to the inclusion of other identifiers. Why must mothers and fathers be nuetered in order to make gay couples feel accepted. I think that Hillary just saw it as an overstep of political correctness and that the rabid right would have a field day with something seemingly innocuous.
For the most part, the procreative family unit is still Mother, Father and offspring. I imagine that this issue arises from acquiring passports for minors.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I also agree with the idea that the wingnuts would turn it into a WAR ON CHRISTMAS-type scenario.
You can leave a form blank and allow the person filling it in to describe their relationship to say, a youthful passport bearer: mother (and there can be more than one), father (same deal), guardian, uncle, aunt, etc. Not every child (or adult) needing State Department services comes from a June and Ward Cleaver family.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you were the child of a lesbian couple, who should be put down as "father"?
The fact that you don't get this at all means you need to spend a lot more time trying to understand it.
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)Hillary was talking about letting people self-identify as opposed to eliminating the terms of mother & father to a neutered form, what is wromg with making an opyion with two mothers or two fathers? Are you saying that gay woman would rather be refered to as parent as opposed to mother.
The care roles are changing for heterosexual couples as well, But there is nothing wrong with choosing to gender qualify your relation to a minor as opposed to neutering it.
Your perspective is your perspective.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The form said "Mother" and "Father". It was changed to "Parent 1" and "Parent 2". She changed the form back to "Mother" and "Father".
There was no "Mother" and "Mother" option. There was no "Father" and "Father" option.
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)The signature section of the current application has three signature lines.
one line states: Applicant's Legal Signature - age 16 and older
the other two lines are identical and state: Mother/Father/Parent/Legal Guardian's Signature (if identifying minor)
So I would say I understand quite clearly.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/212239.pdf
Maven
(10,533 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)And an adoptive father is not a father?
Are you saying that all gay persons who are parents, adoptive or biological, identify themselves as such?: "I am little Bobby's parent."
and not
"I am little Bobby's Mom." or "I am little Bobby's Dad."
Is it gay friendly to neuter a gay parent who prefers to identify as a Mother or Father?
Again, Hillary objected to the replacement of Mother/Father by Parent--not to the inclusion of Parent as an identifier.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Bernie really cares about us. Wow how pathetic Clinton is.
TM99
(8,352 posts)She is more concerned with maintaining her persona than she is in connecting with others in a meaningful and empathic way.
This should confirm that she will always put herself and her ambitions above the rights and welfare of others. No thanks, I will take a genuinely caring Sanders instead.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)called such.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Mother or father, is more appropriate than parent 1 or parent 2.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You really, really, really, really do not get this.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that to parent #1 &2....you change that to Mother and Father, they choose.....which is how you do it now.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)surprised at all the straight splaining going on here?
I certainly am not.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Replied to myself.
MindfulOne
(227 posts).
Simply eliminating gender reference is the most inclusive way this could have been done.
Do you propose longer forms with father/father, mother/father, mother/mother, father/prefer not to answer, prefer not to answer/prefer not to answer, and mother/prefer not to answer options?
Puh-lease.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MindfulOne
(227 posts).
"Sorry, one of you is going to have to be the father in this relationship."
It doesn't work.
It's institutionalized homophobia, it excludes and dismisses people's identities.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Secretary Clinton wasn't saying that there had to be one mother and one father nearly that the use of the label should continue.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)DU's manufactured outrage factory runs 24/7.
And today, its spitting out some low quality outrage widgets.
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)The signature section of the current application has three signature lines.
one line states: Applicant's Legal Signature - age 16 and older
the other two lines are identical and state: Mother/Father/Parent/Legal Guardian's Signature (if identifying minor)
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/212239.pdf
MindfulOne
(227 posts)I'm glad you posted the new version, which makes sense.
But it's not what was in use when Hillary wrote that insensitive and mean email.
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)What is Municipal International University? It's dated 2014....Hmmm let's just set this one aside for a moment and assume you meant to post the 2011 government form.
The government form was already in use. Hillary didn't create it. A change was presented to her; she presented an alternative. The alternative was adopted.
Insensitive and mean?! It was an email to her aide.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)MindfulOne
(227 posts)Her words:
Why, Hillary? Why that "presumption of mother and father"?
Answer that fucking question, explain how same sex parents can be truly equal AND still elevate hetero couples to the presumptive status.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)and straight splaining are hilarious. And it expect it to get much much worse.
frylock
(34,825 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)She's not afraid of Palin. She just doesn't like to see and hear her, I suspect. And in thatshe has a lot of company.
frylock
(34,825 posts)hmmn
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)Weee...!!! DU and the Palins can join hands now!
frylock
(34,825 posts)maybe attack Iran. idk
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)Gabrielle Giffords was shot.
Response to Prism (Original post)
Post removed
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)But hey, there are at least another 30,000 or so opportunities to find more anti-Hillary fodder in Emailghazi.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/212239.pdf
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Ok, now I hate her!!!!
MindfulOne
(227 posts)That form says 2013 at the bottom. It is a good solution to the problem that existed at the time.
Here's an earlier version:
They struck a good compromise, they didn't go with Parent 1 and Parent 2, but what you showed was not in use at the time.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mother-and-father-replaced-by-parent-1-and-parent-2/
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)to the neutered change as some kind of anger-driven, anti-gay atrocity. She should have allowed the change to Parent 1 and Parent 2, and then changed it again to the more inclusive solution? How does that make sense?
She doesn't make the forms, but it seems like she has to sign off on any changes. Somebody presented the change to her. Someone who was not the Secretary of State. The current form is better than both the original AND the first proposed change. Wouldn't you agree?
Thanks Hillary!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I noticed it because I was posting a bit below it.
So I looked to see what it was. A Hillary supporter? A Bernie supporter? What did they say?
If that post gets a hide, DU is headed for joke-site status.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Obviously
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Response to Prism (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MindfulOne
(227 posts)The current form allows the parental adults to select "mother", "father", or "parent", thus allowing for any combination of adults and not holding one form of partnership above another. Better than "parent 1" and "parent 2", which was not particularly thoughtful.
Hillary's comments are disgusting.
Here's an earlier version, the one in use that Hillary seemed to be defending:
They struck a good compromise, they didn't go with Parent 1 and Parent 2.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mother-and-father-replaced-by-parent-1-and-parent-2/
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)which is better than both the old form and the change to parent 1 and parent 2. Thanks Hillary!
She wasn't opposed to changing the form. But wait, there's at least 30,000 more chances to be disgusted with Hillary.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)are expressing disgust with Hillary based on their interpretation of an email and the assumptions they make about her motivations and actions.
What I think about their disgust is irrelevent. It is theirs.
I hold a different interpretation of the email than what the OP offers. The evidence of the current form is proof that the form was changed to be both nuetral and more inclusive--a better outcome than both the original form and the first proposed change because it allows both same sex couples and heterosexual couples to identify as either mother, father, parent or legal guardian if that's what they are. Much better than Parent1 or Parent2. I think Hillary presented the better of the three coices, and that is what was adopted.
It is also possible to have two opposite-sex parents of the same NAME, such as Christopher Jones or Michael Smith or Robin Brooks...
One would be the Mother, the other the Father if they so chose.
I think this latest revealed atrocity by Hillary Clinton was actually a wonky impetus for allowing more people an equal opportunity to identify themselves in relation to their sponsored minor.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Because this is what you said about the op who is gay:
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)Mindful one was presenting a form specific argument, and I presented the argument that Hillary was not opposed to changing the form, but was opposed to the specific change that was presented--parent 1 and parent 2.
Again, I think there are other people on DU who identify as LGBT and are not disgusted by this as they hold a different interpretation of both the email and the following actions. Do they have right to hold that view?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He has every right to be disgusted and didn't deserve to be accused of using this as an opportunity to bash Hillary.
LuvLoogie
(7,014 posts)People were bashing her for that as well. People here don't need an excuse to bash Hillary. The links to email, quotes out of context,recordings of laughs, are mere formalities.
Again, whether one is disgusted with Hillary is not my concern. I will from time to time argue against an unfair accusation toward her and make my case.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This particular email is disgusting and the op's concerns are valid.
jfern
(5,204 posts)than what the left thinks of her? It sure seems that way.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)She has evolved for 2015. Choirs are singing, a heavenly ray is shining down...
Yeah. She has evolved alright.