Human Rights Campaign Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

[Alfresco]

http://www.hrc.org/blog/human-rights-campaign-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
By HRC staff January 19, 2016

HRC today announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President. HRC’s Board of Directors, comprised of 32 community leaders from across the nation, unanimously voted to endorse Secretary Clinton -- an endorsement she will accept next Sunday, January 24at an event in Des Moines, Iowa with HRC President Chad Griffin and the organization’s members and supporters.

Today’s endorsement comes at a time when the stakes could not be higher for the LGBT community. Over the last seven years under President Obama’s leadership, the nation has made substantial progress on LGBT equality -- from the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” to his Executive Order protecting LGBT employees of federal contractors from discrimination, to his historic support for nationwide marriage equality, to signing landmark hate crimes legislation, speaking out against so-called “conversion therapy,” and working to protect LGBT students. Despite the fact that a majority of Republican and Independent voters today support federal protections for LGBT Americans, the leading Republican candidates for president have threatened to halt progress as well as revoke, repeal, and overturn the gains made during President Obama’s two terms.

[brooklynite]

1. Protecting gains made against a Republican retrenchment. Sensible politics.

[livetohike]

2. Nice endorsement! n/t

[Ferd Berfel]

87. More Rigged Elitest BS - Only the Front OFGfice voted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511031724

[NCTraveler]

3. Huge. K&R nt

[BlueMTexpat]

4. Great post, Alfresco! eom

[Alfresco]

8. This is great news for Hillary and I am very proud of it being my 900th post. :-)

[BlueMTexpat]

62. Congratulations for all of your

very fine posts!

[Alfresco]

63. Thank You!

[stonecutter357]

5. K&R!

[firebrand80]

6. We're gonna need a bigger bus nt

[Armstead]

14. Issues groups should not be tossing candidates who support them under the bus either

Y

[Ed Suspicious]

15. No kidding.

[NCTraveler]

23. Who did they throw under the bus? nt.

[snoringvoter]

29. Clinton. By accident.

[Alfresco]

46. The backlash has started, unfortunately.

[Gothmog]

7. LGBT rights are Human Rights

This is a major endorsement

[billhicks76]

9. Corrupt System Is Toxic

Anyone who thinks that's hyperbole is a damn fool. The Clintons are 100% in bed with the Bushes. How does that fit people's perspective?

[Alfresco]

11. Anything positive to say about this endorsement?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. LGBTQ rights are human rights

LGBTQ rights are human rights and as a straight white male who has benefited enormously from that status I am not going to tell the Human Rights Campaign who they can and can not support.

[stonecutter357]

13. the Bushes lol.

[billhicks76]

17. You Don't Pay Attention Obviously

Ask someone who knows them.

[stonecutter357]

34. I do know them.....

I know a lot of them's.

[billhicks76]

93. Then You Should Know

[Nyan]

16. 32 people voted. That's how she got the endorsement.

"HRC’s Board of Directors, comprised of 32 community leaders from across the nation, unanimously voted to endorse Secretary Clinton"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. You can do your own research and canvass our lgbtq brothers and sisters./nt

[Bohunk68]

21. As a gay man, you can ask me and I will tell you that I didn't like

DADT OR DOMA, things that Bill signed and Hillary supported. They told us , ohhhh, well iffen I don't sign, then they will pass something worse and and and maybe even an amendment to the Constitution!!!!! OMG OMG OMG. Bullshit, the Rethugs would've merely passed a bill that they already had a huge majority on, over his veto. But he didn't have what it took.
FYI, I was the coordinator for Upstate NY for the 1979 March on Washington for GLBT rights. I would hope that would be at least a little qualification to know what I am talking about. My task didn't end then. It continues to this day in a rural community where my presence has made a difference.

[m-lekktor]

27. I am gay and just left a note on the HRC facebook page.

They are getting some "feedback" on this endorsement. heh

But yes she is getting much support from the LGBTers, she has a personality cult following in our community.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. LOL ...

But yes she is getting much support from the LGBTers, she has a personality cult following in our community.

A "personality cult following"? Really?

[Alfresco]

19. And if they had voted for Bernie would these 32 votes still bother you?

[comradebillyboy]

81. They are not pure enough

[Armstead]

10. Because we all know Bernie hates The Gay

[NCTraveler]

24. Link to anything remotley stating that from HRC. nt.

[Armstead]

26. I'm obviously being sarcastic and exagerating

But I do think issue-oriented groups should not be taking sides between primary candidates who are both equally supportive of their agenda.

It

[NCTraveler]

28. I don't think they are both equally supportive. They are both supportive.

Clinton does more in this area than I do. Doesn't mean I am a bad person. It's not some awful thing to say as you think.




"I'm obviously being sarcastic and exaggerating" Big time. Fully agree. So over the top you wouldn't be able to present any argument at all as to why you said it.

[Armstead]

30. Because I'm pissed off about this trend of putting supporters in awkward positions

[NCTraveler]

31. I don't see the awkward positon.

There isn't even a thought of these people endorsing the other side. Not only am I not "pissed," it makes me even more proud to be a democrat. These are great days for the party. Looks like we are going to have a shake-up at the top of the DNC after this cycle, O'Malley has been introduced to the country, and the republicans look like fools. I'm tickled pink.

[Armstead]

43. It feels shitty to know that organizations whose goals you support....

...is working to defeat a political candidate you support, and especially when it is a candidate who also supports that organization and its goals.

That's different from an organization taking sides when the choice is between those who have different positions, like an anti-LGBT Republican.

[NCTraveler]

45. They aren't working to defeat someone you support.

Framing everything in the negative can have serious consequences in someone's life. They are supporting someone. That is completely based in the positive. Not negative.

This should not change your thoughts on supporting their goals in any way. You supported their goals yesterday, you will continue to support their goals today. Common sense and based in positivity for progress, not negativity.

[Armstead]

49. Supporting the opponent of candidate A is working to defeat them

It doesn't change my attitude about the issue.

An endorsement only seems "positive" if their anointed candidate is the same as one's own choice of candidate.

But when organizations thumb their noses at a large block of the people who support their goals, that's not a good thing.

[NCTraveler]

50. Again, they are supporting someone.

I have yet to see them say a bad word about Sanders as you continually promote. The negative just isn't there.

[Armstead]

52. An endorsement is a defacto snub of the opponent. That's the point of an endorsement

They don't have to say a word to convey the message -- "We want Clinton and don't want Sanders or O Malley. We will work to elect her and defeat them."

[NCTraveler]

54. That isn't the point of an endorsement.

An endorsement is about showing support. It's about giving someone else access to, or using for the benefit of, very large email lists. It's about a couple days of news coverage. It's about expanding resources without using your own. Do you see how positive that is and Sanders name wasn't mentioned once.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. No you weren't ...

you're doing exactly what some Bernie supporters have done this whole campaign ... you take a statement or event ... interpret in a way that was never said ... then, argue that the statement maker/event maker, actually said it.

It happened for months here on DU, when it was noted by African-Americans that Bernie's crowds were largely white, as he campaigned in 90+% white spaces ... that became, "Why are you calling Bernie a racist?"

But I do think issue-oriented groups should not be taking sides between primary candidates who are both equally supportive of their agenda.

Well ... The HRC doesn't assess the candidates' support of their issue the way you do.

[Armstead]

58. The purpose of an endorsement is to support one candidate over the other

But when one is referring to an endorsement, the entire purpose is to say "We want this candidate to win. We do not want their opponent to win."

Okay that's part of the political process. But generally, in my opinion, that should be limited to campaigns in which the choice is between those who support or oppose the organization's positions on issues. If Sanders or O'Malley were anti-LGBT rights, okay. But that is not the case.

As for the racial aspect of your complaint...That whole issue was distorted from the day Sanders entered the campaign. There was a deliberate intent by some to paint him as having a "problem" with AAs or not caring about racial justice.....rather than the real problem at the time, which was basically unfamiliarity by a majority of all voters with him.

Putting that in a racial context, made some of his supporters, myself included, angry. The implication that he does not care about racial issue -- and by extension his supporters are " white progressives" who do not care -- is the opposite of the goals and values of what Bernie has been fighting for all his life. And his commitment to universal social and economic justice is why many support him.

So yeah, some people (myself admittedly included) got defensive and angry. But that toxic tone was a two way street. It was very unfortunate (to use a more subtle word.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. My post wasn't a complaint ...

it was/is an observation ... One I have made numerous times.

As for the racial aspect of your complaint...That whole issue was distorted from the day Sanders entered the campaign. There was a deliberate intent by some to paint him as having a "problem" with AAs or not caring about racial justice.....rather than the real problem at the time, which was basically unfamiliarity by a majority of all voters with him.

NO! While Bernie did/does have a problem gaining traction among the African-American electorate, the latter part, i.e., Bernie's not caring about racial justice is/was, purely, a Bernie supporter fabricated narrative. That's how Bernie supporters INTERPRETED it, then got defensive and angry and ran with what was NOT said.

[Orrex]

71. That's a defensive and self-serving interpretation

The purpose of an endorsement is to support one candidate over the other but when one is referring to an endorsement, the entire purpose is to say "We want this candidate to win. We do not want their opponent to win."

That is a biased mischaracterization perpetuating the image of Sanders as an innocent victim of the evil establishmentalist regime, and it speaks volumes about your view of things.

An endorsement can mean what you suggest, but there's no reason that it must mean what you suggest.

It might also mean:
"We support the candidate whose priorities most closely match our own."
"We support the candidate with a proven history of supporting our organization."
"We support the candidate who we think is most likely to win the election."
"We support the candidate who offers the best chance to further our agenda."
"We support the candidate who's most likely to broaden our appeal across our target demographic."

All of those (and more) are entirely valid reasons for an organization's endorsement, all of them positive and all of them focused on the candidate. If you insist on spinning the endorsement into an insult to your preferred candidate, that's your problem, and it's frankly a childish response. It's very much like stomping your feet and complaining that you're in love with Person A, only to learn that Person A prefers Person B. "Why doesn't Person A like me? I'm so much better than Person B!"

Your preferred candidate isn't automatically entitled to their endorsement, so although you're free to complain about it, it only winds up making you look foolish and petty. Hell, throw the HRC under the bus with all of the other people and organizations who have somehow failed to Feel the Bern.

It's odd that those who support Sanders, heralded far and wide as a positive force for positive change, consistently frame everything in terms of negativity and fear.

[Armstead]

72. It's not blanket "negativity" -- It's what an endorsement is

Politics is a zero-sum activity. Only one person wins an election.

Therefore, an endorsement of one candidate automatically is favoring one candidate to win, while working for the other candidate(s) to lose.

It doesn't matter what nice things one says about the non-endorsed candidate, that is the upshot and purpose of an endorsement.

I'm fine with endorsements. That's part of politics, and everyone certainly has the right to express their support of one candidate over another.

But there are implications and factors involved when an organization endorses a candidate, and how the selection is determined. I just think in many cases, it is unseemly and short sighted when issues-oriented organizations endorse particular primary candidates when all are supportive of the organization's goals and values.

[randys1]

76. You are fine with endorsements? Have you criticized any of the ones Bernie has received?

[Armstead]

84. Depends on of members were polled and the was very clear preference...plus....

if there are specific issues involved.

[randys1]

90. Hmm, let me know when you criticize someone for supporting Bernie...but to the

point I think the issue here is timing.

Evidently, per someone I trust, these endorsements, HRC and PP are either never done before or if done before usually not until the candidate is clearly decided.

So too soon, and obviously they are coming as a result of pressure from the Clinton campaign due to the closeness of the race with Bernie.

What if Hillary blows her campaign money fighting off Bernie, still wins, then is shorthanded battling the assholes?

[Orrex]

77. Zero sum means that in a one-victor contest, one is the victor and one is not.

In this context, it means that one is endorsed and one is not endorsed. That's all.
If the endorsing agency doesn't provide a further statement, then any inference of negativity is the sole responsibility of the person who's drawing the inference.

I'm fine with endorsements. That's part of politics, and everyone certainly has the right to express their support of one candidate over another.

But there are implications and factors involved when an organization endorses a candidate, and how the selection is determined. I just think in many cases, it is unseemly and short sighted when issues-oriented organizations endorse particular primary candidates when all are supportive of the organization's goals and values.

Can you perhaps understand that those two statements, taken together, come across as "an organization can endorse whichever candidate it wants to endorse, as long as they want to endorse my chosen candidate."

[Armstead]

83. Nope. I can honestly say.....

If Sanders gets support of an organization, I would be happy about it on one level, but I would have mixed feelings for the reasons i stated.

I would also emphasize the how and why, though. It also depends on situations and how the endorsements are decided on.

[Orrex]

85. Framing it as positive-vs-negative only works in abstract examples

That's fine if we're positing a thought experiment with only one variable, but in a real-world environment it becomes more complicated.

Suppose that an organization admires each of two candidates equally but can give only one endorsement. How might they choose?

And if they must choose between two equally-liked candidates, on what basis can we infer negativity?

[Armstead]

91. It's case by case but you asked (and criticized me) in a general philosophucal sense

[Orrex]

92. Yes, because you inferred a negative where none is implied

In the current example, one endorsement can be given to one of two candidates. Absent a statement from the HCR criticizing Sanders, there is no basis for inferring a negative toward him. Forgive me, but that's more of the Sanders-as-victim sentiment that's been circulating since he decided he declared his candidacy as a Democrat.

The only negative in the current example applies to the HCR itself.

At the start of the exchange:

Clinton's endorsements from the HCR equal zero
Sanders' endorsements from the HCR equal zero
HCR's endorsements to give equal: one

At the end of the exchange:

Clinton's endorsements from the HCR equal one
Sanders' endorsements from the HCR equal zero
HCR's endorsements to give equal: zero

Clinton has gained one, Sanders has gained zero, and the HCR has lost one.
Tell me again how this amounts to a negative for Sanders?

You might claim that he has gone from one potential endorsement to zero actual endorsements, but that's not the same thing.

[Armstead]

41. It was.....

[stonecutter357]

55. i will delete my post.

[Thinkingabout]

20. K & R, thanks, good endorsement.

[andrewv1]

22. Did they take a vote of their Members?

[Alfresco]

25. Follow the link for contact info. I'm sure they will be happy to explain how and why of the decision

[Orrex]

32. They only did it because they have the same initials.

[Alfresco]

33. Good one. :-)

[retrowire]

36. hrc endorses hrc. lol nt

[Orrex]

40. Only a fool would point that out.

Oh, wait...

[retrowire]

57. I know I was too late. :( nt

[Sunlei]

37. I read the questionnaires all three filled out, here's a link

HRC’s endorsement criteria include support for issues of concern to the community, demonstrated leadership on LGBT issues, and viability. As part of that process, all candidates -- on both sides of the aisle -- were asked to fill out a candidate questionnaire. Secretary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Governor Martin O’Malley provided answers, while no Republican candidates for president returned HRC’s questionnaire. HRC has, however, compiled a detailed look at each of the Republican candidates’ records and those assessments can be found here.

links to the questions all 3 D candidates answered are on candidates names on this page, a PDF file will open.-

http://www.hrc.org/blog/human-rights-campaign-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president

[pandr32]

38. Wonderful news

She certainly is racking up important endorsements.

[blackspade]

39. So, Obama's leadership somehow equates with a Clinton endorsement?

That makes no sense, especially considering "Don't ask, Don't tell" was a Clinton era policy, and Clinton herself was an opponent of LBGT marriage rights up until a couple of years ago.

But I guess the Board of Directors knows best.....

[Orrex]

66. Why don't you call them and tell that they don't know what they're doing?

Perhaps with your wise guidance they'll come to see the error of their ways.

[Blue_Tires]

42. Can't wait to see Greenwald try to smear this group...

His hitpiece on Dean last week was beyond the pale, and the Dudebros here just lapped it up....

[Orrex]

68. Good point.

It's a extension of the mantra of fear that we've seen from Sanders' supporters from the beginning.

The DNC is afraid of him. DWS is afraid of him. Clinton is afraid of him. The GOP is afraid of him. The media are afraid of him. DUers who question his electability are afraid of him. And on and on.

It's a classic false dichotomy in which the only options are "feel the Bern" or "fear him," as if there are no other reasons why someone might not embrace this Democrat of convenience.

Again and again we see the attacks on anyone who backs Clinton or who even dares question Sanders' proposals.

If you doubt his ability to deliver on free healthcare and free college tuition and a huge reduction in the military, you're not a realist; you're a would-be Republican.

If a media outlet questions Sanders or asks him an unapproved question, they're doing a hit-piece in an attempt to sabotage him.

Unless it's the NYT, hated a week ago as a RW rag but now apparently great because it wrote nice things about Sanders.

Or unless you're Krugman, who was praised when he supported some of Sanders' proposals but was attacked earlier this week when he presumed to voice doubt.

Or unless you're Dean, as you note. Lately adored by DU en masse, he was cast aside as a shill when he had the nerve to question the feasibility of Sanders' suggested Medicaid program.


If Sanders miraculously winds up on the ballot I will support and vote for him of course. I only hope that the true believers will accept my support despite my failure to join the flock on day one.

[kenfrequed]

44. I am cancelling my support for this organization.

I have been supporting this organization for almost a decade now. I just cancelled my monthy support of them and will be sending it to a real ally in Bernie Sanders instead.

This is a grotesque endorsement for a candidate that has done very little for LGBT rights and did nothing for the right to marry who you love until after the Supreme Court already fixed the problem. Rather than rewarding a consistent ally the organization has decided to endorse someone for reasons I cannot fathom.

[closeupready]

48. Reasoning of the same type of gays who thought putting the Pope on Advocate's

cover (as their "Person of the Year&quot was a good idea.

[Orrex]

53. Maybe you could short-sheet their beds and cancel their subscriptions, too.

[kenfrequed]

56. Childish and churlish nonsense.

I am not a big donor. I have been sending them only $25 a month for the last eight or nine years (I think.) They will probably not miss my support of them. But if you want to respond with nonsense then feel free. I have friends and family members that I have supported and worked to try to get their relationships recognized as equal.

An absurd comment like yours with a pathetic meme is not equal to the indignity of this endorsement nor the way it ignores history. We have rewarded a candidate that just wasn't there when we needed her and that is sad.

[Orrex]

59. Absurd and amusing alliteration!

Your kneejerk tantrum is unsurprising and has the same stink as the petulant "Sanders or fuck it" approach to the election. That is, if Sanders doesn't land on the ticket, a swath of his supporters will help to elect the Republican.
You're willing to abandon an organization that has done and continues to do tremendous good simply because you don't care for the candidate whom they've opted to endorse.

You are welcome to support whichever organization appeals to you of course, but ditching the HRC in a fit of pique seems like childish and churlish nonsense indeed.

[kenfrequed]

69. A tantrum?

Really? Kneejerk?

I am basing my opinion and actions on decades of support from one candidate and decades of absurdity from the other.

When you reward political opportunism you invite being treated opportunistically. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.

[Orrex]

73. Yes, a kneejerk tantrum.

Your decades of support are lovely but irrelevant here.

Your tantrum hasn't been building for decades. No matter how you opt to dress it up, it's a reaction to hurt feelings resulting from this endorsement.

When you reward political opportunism you invite being treated opportunistically. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.

Yes, this is one of the standard mantras chanted by Sanders' supporters. Well done.

[kenfrequed]

74. I am done with you.

My donations have been building up nearly a decade. My support has been for decades. Had they waited until after the nomination process and endorsed Hillary at that time I would have been ok with it. After all, I understand what is at stake.

But rewarding political opportunism in the face of an actual, very viable, candidate who has always come through for the community is absurd. Your attempts to marginalize, mischaracterize, or diminish my opinion are equally absurd.

But this is what I have come to expect.

[Orrex]

78. It's swell that you've given decades of support to an Independent

As long as you support the Democrat on the November ballot, I don't care.

[SidDithers]

60. DU rec...nt

Sid

[William769]

61. Kick & highly recommended!

[murielm99]

65. K&R!

Great news! Thanks for posting.

[ViseGrip]

67. Strange, while under Bill's admin, women and children were trafficked out of Bosnia, by our own

contractors! Just google Dyn Corp A Go Go. Then it was the 'Boys of Afghanistan' Dyn Corp were feeding up to adults there. Why were they allowed another contract after Bosnia?

Obama just gave DynCorp another contract.

Look, none of these folks deserve an endorsement from the Human Rights Campaign.

They are ignoring the truth, so I'll give them what they need to know right here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-isenberg/its-dj-vu-for-dyncorp-all_b_792394.html
It's Déjà Vu for DynCorp All Over Again
Posted: 12/06/2010 8:47 am EST Updated: 05/25/2011 6:15 pm EDT
snip
For an example of how just one transgression can lead to endless bad publicity consider the movie titled The Whistleblower that was released earlier this year. To summarize the plot, in Bosnia in 1999, Kathryn Bolkovac, a U.S. policewoman served as a U.N. peacekeeper. Her post was with the International Police Task Force which was arranged by DynCorp Aerospace. She was assigned to run the IPTF office that investigates sex trafficking, domestic abuse and sexual assault. She ultimately alleges that peacekeepers, U.N. workers and international police are visiting brothels and facilitating sex trafficking by forging documents and aiding the illegal transport of woman into Bosnia. DynCorp responds by firing Bolkovac, who returns to the U.S. and files a wrongful termination case. She wins the suit but says she's still blacklisted.

Put bluntly, DynCorp was involved in a sex slavery scandal in Bosnia in 1999, with its employees accused of rape and the buying and selling of girls as young as 12. Dyncorp, hired to perform police duties for the UN and aircraft maintenance for the US Army, were implicated in prostituting the children, whereas the company's Bosnia site supervisor filmed himself raping two women. A number of employees were transferred out of the country, but with no legal consequences for them.
******************************
Bosnia: The United Nations, human trafficking and prostitution
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/08/bosn-a21.html

By Tony Robson
21 August 2002

There is mounting evidence that the United Nations has carried out a cover-up of the role played by its personnel in human trafficking and prostitution in Bosnia—a trade that has grown astronomically since the establishment of the Western protectorate seven years ago.
*******************************
*https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11357-DynCorp-the-Balkan-child-traffickers-punish-whistleblower
DynCorp - the Balkan child traffickers punish whistleblower

I know this story has been posted here before by Magda. But....

What the UN Doesn't Want You to Know

In 1999, Kathryn Bolkovac went to Bosnia as part of a UN mission. She discovered terrible wrongdoing - and refused to stay silent about it. She tells Nisha Lilia Diu her incredible story, now the subject of a film starring Rachel Weisz.

Nisha Lilia Diu4:42PM GMT 06 Feb 2012

****************************
Now, why is the Human Rights Campaign endorsing Clinton? For all of the work I'm aware of, they cancels out their credibility! Folks, the truth is ugly. We as a country are in this horrible business. THIS is why, the country is fed up with establishment. But this endorsement is very very sad.

[Tanuki]

70. Any chance you are confusing the Human Rights Campaign

with a different organization, Human Rights Watch? I mean no disrespect either way, but your links seem more relevant to the latter.

[ViseGrip]

82. Not confused. The Human Rights Org where I live works on human trafficking...like the kind I wrote

about. thanks for asking...

[Dawson Leery]

75. The anger from Bernie's supports (and himself)

show why Hillary is best qualified.

This is a great endorsement. Sad to see HRC being vilified with lies.

[pinebox]

79. This is not a lie, it's a FACT. Hillary was against gay marriage

and it's sad that your camp apparently thinks this is ok and that her past stances shouldn't be relevant. Newsflash, she's responsible for her comments, period.

[Dawson Leery]

86. In 1985, a certain left wing mayor from Vermont.

gave praise to Fidel Castro for providing "education" and "healthcare".

That same Fidel Castro jailed and tortured gays.

[pinebox]

89. Meanwhile HRC is like....well this!

That's 1985.

Now let's go modern shall we?

Do you really want to have this discussion? We can if you'd like.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-test-of-record-aiding-women.html

Instead, as Mrs. Clinton commemorates her 1995 women’s rights speech in Beijing in back-to-back events in New York, she finds herself under attack for her family foundation’s acceptance of millions of dollars in donations from Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women and for denying them many basic freedoms.

Ooops!

Now for Bernie.

While Hillary was busy defending DOMA and the sanctity of marriage. Bernie was doing this.

Sorry but there is absolutely NO comparison who is way out on front on gay rights here. Bernie. Period. Full stop.

[Beacool]

88. The flogging of this group will start until they retract the endorsement.

It never fails......

[Number23]

94. K&R This is a tremendous endorsement

[kristopher]

95. ...and Mark Kirk (R)