Well, that’s hardball. It’s total bullshit, but it’s brilliant opposition research. Bravo Clintons, you’ve done it again.
Take a close look at the surrogates who have the knives in their hands. They’ll be back again.
Ironically, they’re willingness to stoop this low is evidence of their extreme combativeness, which is actually a legitimate electability argument in their favor.
Also, they shouldn’t leave Bill alone on the campaign trail. It’s not because of the ladies; he’s too hold for that stuff. It’s because he goes off script.
The former president of the United States should not be in a half-empty middle school gym bitching about newspaper endorsements..
Actually, that is a pretty good press article that places the incident in its context and gives the timeline of both contestants on the issue.
Interesting that they have to reinterpret the passage to make it a “smear.” Husband and wife in 1980 only equaled “man and woman” because gay marriage was not even on the horizon. Gay marriages also contain “husband and wife” in an informal manner, no?
It’s a total anachronism.
It’s almost like criticizing a 1960’s politician for using the word ‘negro’ as if that indicated their bigotry.
Wait a second: gay marriage was not on the horizon? Then what was the point of the resolution affirming marriage was between a man and a woman? Time to fill in the ol’ daily agenda and all the other resolution topics were taken?
I agree the resolution was a long time ago. But Bernie has claimed to support gay marriage for a long time. Can’t play it both ways, seems to me. At least not effectively.
The point is that it was NOT a resolution affirming marriage between a “man and a woman.” The actual wording was between a “husband and wife”. Sorry if I was unclear.
And you’re saying Bernie, as well as the City Council, understood that to include same-sex marriage — which is also argued to here not have even been on the radar at the time? Or maybe you think the City Council had in mind only opposite-sex marriage but Bernie had his fingers crossed behind his back as he signed?
Either way … please.
They had living together without benefit of marriage in mind. Read the article.
“The document, apparently signed by Sanders in his capacity as Burlington mayor, designates “We Believe in Marriage Week” for the city.”
The actual document. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8FLYbegXp9JNENTR0pVelk3bHM/view
Okay. I see what you’re saying: Burlington was defending marriage against those who would advocate some tsk-tsk alternative to marriage, such as “living together” or without benefit of marriage.” Well, it’s plausible. I’ll give it that. Not sure I buy that the City Council didn’t also see homosexuality as part of that whole “living together” threat to marriage they were apparently frightened of, but at least there’s some “plausible deniability” going on.
Sorry, did not see this reply before commenting above. Yes, it was the nervousness at that trend–trial cohabitation.
the linked article? Your question was answered in it!
I will add though: much as I’m finding Bernie Sanders’s rigidity and humorlessness annoying on a personal level, and his focus on economic inequality to the exclusion, largely, of civil rights issues (not to mention his obvious lack of interest in foreign policy) concerning on a policy level, Bill Clinton’s embittered mocking of this or that statement from the Sanders campaign is just bad bad bad. It sounds awful. It sounds like his disparaging of Obama in South Carolina in 2008. It didn’t help Hillary at all back then, and the staying power of that bitter voice makes it all more important he not invoke that memory now.
Can I just say how utter bullshit this talking point is?
Like, I’m not even going to get into the whole economic vs. social issue ‘vat is more important?’ thing(1). I’m also not going to get into the whole issue of how any major proposed civil rights-policy on police brutality, affirmative action, lead detoxification, etc. is race-neutral WRT means(2). I’m irritated by the sheer, unadulterated double standard. The Third Way wing never talks about civil rights in more than a furtive way until well after the Little Red Hen has the bread in the oven. They got mildly burned on DADT and that was the end of that.
Basically, this bullshit talking point invites us to view Sanders’ half-loaf measures as insensitive and inferior to Clinton’s no-loaf measures. Apparently, it’s more insensitive to only focus on an aspect of a certain group of peoples’ problems than it is to completely ignore them.
(1) Though I will tell you straight-up that American Civil Rights and the War on Poverty would’ve never happened without the previous two decades of unprecedented (white) economic prosperity.
(2) With the exception of reparations, but I thought we weren’t supposed to be talking about economics and class?
“without the previous two decades of unprecedented (white) economic prosperity.”
Don’t forget the black northward migration in the 1950’s. That took black people from agricultural (sharecropper mostly) and domestic work to Union industrial jobs, primarily in the Auto and Steel industries, although also in the Chicago stockyards. The stockyards, although hideous work, had been a mainstay of immigrants for a century. It doesn’t an education or even much English to whack a steer between the horns with a hammer. Brutal and disgusting as the work was, it paid well.
The stockyards are gone now, replaced by non-union packers in the South and West. But they were a welcome replacement for sharecropping in the Jim Crow South.
Agreed with your reading, and it doesn’t make it better for me, it makes it worse. But that’s mostly because confining benefits to “marriage” should be opposed, and I realize my opinion is delegated to certain lefts and queer groups.
remind me again, why I don’t want Bill to have a 3rd term
Yes, is he morally any better than Trump? And I don’t mean his sexcapades. I can ignore that as being a good old boy.
And is she? For not rebuking Gloria Steinem, who went way too far out and became sexist herself saying, in effect, that young women are sex mad idiots who only want a boy friend. Straight out of the “Mad Men” early 1950’s. Sad, really. It’s like Shockley repudiating his real scientific achievements in the 1940’s with “The Bell Curve”.
Shockley came out in favor of racial eugenics late in his life. “The Bell Curve” by Richard J. Herrnstein (who died before the book was released) and American political scientist Charles Murray wasn’t published until 1994, several years after Shockley was died.
And Steinem is coming out with this crap late in life.
Oh, you’re saying he wasn’t one of the authors. I thought he was. Should have double checked.
Just signing it is okay?
Oops. Never mind this. I misread your comment.
When I heard her say that and Mahers response, I first thought she was joking. But not so. I think she later walked it back, but you know how effective that is.
Weak tea. As far as oppo research, they better keep digging. I’d like to know if Sanders refused to sign the draft that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, ’cause this one doesn’t say that. And 1982? I’m gay and do not find it offensive in the least. Back then we were way more concerned about dying from AIDS than marriage. So it says marriage is between two spouses; big deal. Silly stuff.
Yes, Neil. To me, the complete wording shows that the emphasis was on the commitment of marriage rather than the sex of the participants, which in 1982 was never in doubt. Remember that in 1993 when Clinton signed “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell”, the official government policy was to drum people out for merely being gay and soldiers, especially Marines, engaged in “fag hunts” which were condoned by the officers. And this was 11 years after 1982. I’m quite sure that whoever drafted the proclamation didn’t even think of gay marriage. What was happening at that time was a real questioning of marriage itself by young people, many of whom thought of it as an anachronism.
What’s next? Attacking Mother’s Day as sexist and anti-gay?
Maybe they can leave that one to Gloria Steinem.
Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ Smear Time
So is the past weeks Clinton camp allegations of smear from the Sanders camp an argument for Clinton or Sanders?
If I get the logic right, then if there was actual smear from the Sanders camp, then it is an argument for the combativeness of the Sanders camp, and thus for Sanders. While if the allegations were false, and thus a Clinton campaign smear on Sanders, it is an argument for the combativeness of the Clinton camp, and thus for Clinton.
Applying the same logic to the republican side, they really should be voting Trump as his camp is all about extreme combativeness.
Interesting elections you got over there.
Yep.
If Sanders can’t overcome Clinton’s combativeness in the Democratic primary, then he can’t beat the Republicans. (And if Clinton can’t beat Sanders in the primary, likewise.) The only electability argument that holds water is winning the race.
If Clinton’s smears take Bernie down, good. I want to know how vulnerable he is as soon as possible. If her smear backfire, also good. A primary isn’t just an airing of differences (and grievances), it’s a testing ground.
(And god help me, they probably should go for Trump. Or Christie. I’ve seen Christie a few times in Non-Total Bully Mode, and … he’s scary good. Plus, you can only mention the bridge a few thousand times before it gets old and everyone things you’re spanning a dead horse.)
This a thousand times. Whatever Bernie’s position on gay marriage was in 1982, who cares?
If he can’t fend off this (lame) attack, then he can’t win.
The problem for Clinton is her smears aren’t working. Since Clinton claimed that Sanders smeared him there have been a half-dozen articles about her connection to Wall Street money. The best that Clinton supporters seem to have done is the “everybody does it” claim, which doesn’t work against Sanders because he doesn’t.
Trotting out Steinem and Albright and their really inane lines have only shown how out of touch the campaign is. Really. Albright is creepy. A special place in hell? For the SOS who said a half million children dying in Iraq was a legitimate price to pay. Or who managed to avoid lifting a finger during the Rwanda genocide? Long short, if you remember Albright you are disgusted. If you don’t, and someone’s grandma says you have to vote for women candidates or you’ll go to hell? Steinem just sounded silly.
The problem is Sanders is liked. Every attack seems to make Sanders look better than Clinton. The old arrows don’t slay Sanders. The question is whether or young people continue to come out and vote in the primaries and I don’t think that Clinton has the ability to suppress the turnout.
Something from 1982 disqualifies long term support for gay marriage. Some of us weren’t even alive then!
1982.
82.
BU-WAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh man so fail.
When was it that the Clinton folks began pushing the “BernieBros” meme?
But like everything else about the Clintons and her campaign it’s stale, dated, and been used before: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already! Young women are growing increasingly frustrated with the fanatical support of Barack and gleeful bashing of Hillary.
The article does talk about young women feeling pressure from older feminists to back Clinton in ’08. Even Albright’s “special place in hell” line was trotted out in the ’08 campaign (a line she’d earlier put in one of her books).
How curious: ‘he’s too old for that stuff.’ A little titilation can do no harm, here, there or anywhere. Looking at him, I’d think he might do well to eat a little meat because he needs to go every day to the woods to chop wood to keep his Hill warm, as we can conclude from the brand-new jeans and hunting shirt he wore. May Sanders win. He doesn’t do costume parties, at least not yet.
it’s what they think ppl in NH wear. I guess the Rmoney set wears such
Wow, That’s really a reach, and still this early in the campaign? Tut-tut. No historical context whatsoever …
As I said the other day, this kind of stuff is only going to backfire on the Clintons. Reading the comments on this thread — mainly common-sense rather than partisan — you can already see that.
1982 was long before any movement for same-sex marriage.
http://www.advocate.com/news/2009/06/20/great-undoing
yes, comments interesting.
Just learned yesterday that Denise Juneau is now running openly as lesbian (having outed herself via introducing her partner at campaign events).
Hard to guess how that might impact campaign, though my sincere hope is that we’ve evolved enough that the effect is that it just doesn’t matter!
To his credit (and really, I never imagined myself saying that, and this is literally the first thing to ever prompt it), Zinke made a statement saying more or less the same thing.
Interestingly, I got a flyer from a woman running for City Commission that expresses gratitude to her partner (i.e., also id’ing herself as openly “out”) that has an inset box with Juneau’s endorsement. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!” (There isn’t!)
(Just found myself musing whether that Seinfeld episode, and the frequent quoting of that line in particular, may even have contributed in some muted, but significant way to the cause of gay rights. Seems at least plausible?)
In fact, it’s refreshing to think that attitudes have evolved to such an extent, with so many people (outside the bigoted swamps of the far/religious right) now thinking, “duh, of course there’s nothing wrong with that, it goes without saying; why would it even merit mentioning?” . . .
. . . that that Seinfeld episode, and that line that once echoed through (and maybe even changed?) the cultural zeitgeist . . .
. . . now seems almost quaint . . . dated, even!
Now that’s what I’d call some (real) progress!
yes, what you say about that Seinfeld episode,!
thanks for the update, great news!
Bernie’s good at comebacks so be careful what you wish for Clintons, it just might Bern.
Smearing an opponent is easy and not technically a measure of “electability” combativeness. Fending off smears is the better measure of combativeness as Obama demonstrated in ’08 when the Clintons threw the kitchen sink at him.
The most delicious exchange of words was in 1992:
“It’s not because of the ladies; he’s too
hold for that stuff.”Because he isn’t. The man is younger than me! Male menopause doesn’t exist except as a medical condition that can hit men as young as 30 and maybe younger.
To use a sports analogy, we can’t hit hard line drives or out of the park home runs, but we can still bunt and enjoy getting on base. I’m quite sure Bill can still enjoy his favorite sex act.
Quite aside from it being a cheap shot and, to me, an obvious attempt to bamboozle those too young to remember 1982, the demographic that they failing with.
Right, the remark is ageist (agist?), not sexist. The whole thing kills me it so first-grade school. In the meantime preparations are being made for…(fill in the blank, suggestion war in Libya)….
That was tossed out there back in the ’08 election to diffuse “electability” concerns about Hillary in the general election. The translation was that Bill was long past his philandering days and primary voters didn’t have to fear that a post-Lewinsky girlfriend would pop up at an inconvenient moment.
Let me clarify that post. The first part addresses Booman regarding Bill being too old for sex. The second part, I now see, looks like I am saying Boo took a cheap shot. That was not my intent. I was shifting to Clinton’s remark about Bernie signing an innocuous proclamation. That was the cheap shot I was referring to.
“Take a close look at the surrogates who have the knives in their hands. They’ll be back again.”
OK . . .
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gay-lesbian-pols-ny-endorse-hillary-clinton-article-1.25092
61
Did the Clintons just forget that they’re still the MSM’s punching bags? They’re the class bullying victim that got appointed football manager and turns out to be really good at it — and then they make the mistake of interpreting their peers’ silent ‘don’t outlive your usefulness’ tolerance as genuine regard despite the years of hazing beforehand. Even if the Clintons have gleefully accepted their roles as establishment bagmen and perform the role admirably, that doesn’t change the fact that the MSM loooooves picking on them. And if they show weakness or look to be slacking off on their job it doesn’t matter if their opponent is a raging commie Jew with bad hair who wants to put the overclass in their place — they’re going to get picked on again and no amount of ‘but we’re your loyal standardbearers! If we go down, you do too!’ is going to stop the hazing.
HRC should’ve taken Chuck Todd’s asking for her speech transcripts as a grave warning that the MSM isn’t as much on their side as they’d like. Bernstein telling them to get their head out of their asses after making Albright and Steinem look like utter goons should’ve been her ‘come to Jesus’ moment. But it looks like the campaign is going to continue to operate under the assumption that the jocks and cheerleaders are really and truly on their side and won’t throw them to the wolves for a quick laugh — not when the state championship is on the line.
Other than the Schaif funded “Arkansas Project” (David Brock’s original source of funds), and a few anti-Clinton MSM journalists and pundits, which seem to me is the norm for any President, the Clintons haven’t been MSM punching bags. They have received at least as many passes as other politicians and may have received more favorable press than some.
Why the witch hunt by the Clinton administration and NYTimes of Wen Ho Lee? (A good reason to have rejected Bill Richardson for POTUS in ’08.)
Good point. I see the Clintons’ relationship with MSM as sort of a Zacchaeus’s relationship with the Roman treasury; their bosses aren’t going to let the public attack their servants on grounds of economics, but they won’t lift a finger to help them out as long as the money keeps coming in.
The MSM won’t, unless goaded to by the GOP, attack unbidden the Clinton’s on their stupid-ass Foundation or their warhawkery or hippie-punching. Nonetheless, attacks and innuendo on things that don’t affect their ability to keep the DFHs in line and enable the overclass are not only fair game but encouraged.
And while the “lefties” in the ’90s and beyond were obsessed with “Mena” and the righties obsessed with Whitewater, Paula Jones (and assorted other claimed victims, and Lewinsky, were there any peeps from the MSM about the tainted blood scandal that rocked Canada?
” they’re willingness to stoop this low is evidence of their extreme combativeness, which is actually a legitimate electability argument in their favor.”
I would agree with this statement if their combativeness had any punch. In this case, their “oppo-research” is just baloney. It makes them seem desperate to be grasping at straws like this. Meanwhile, Sanders floats above the fray while his surrogates/supporters slip their knives in deep, and twist. I have to respect that, on some level.
I think this goes nowhere. 1982 is 34 years ago.
I don’t comment much, and generally enjoy the discussion here, but obviously the Frog Pond has gone 99%+ for Bernie — which is okay, but it does lead to some groupthink imo.
There’s nothing bullshit about the ‘smear’ — and it’s no smear. Bernie and his supporters love to drive home the message that Hillary isn’t a progressive because she hasn’t had the consistency in her positions that Bernie has. That Bernie has never deviated. And if Bernie wants to sell that line, he’d better be prepared for evidence that, like every other politicians, his stances have been known to change.
It is absolutely NOT bullshit to point out that he was against DOMA not as some purity position, but because he felt it should be left to the states (which is contrary to the Constitution — Article IV Section I of the Constitution mandates that all states should give full faith and credit to the Public Acts, Records, and Proceedings of all other States). So, Bernie was in effect FOR Section 2 of DOMA, which is in many ways the more unconstitutional and pernicious section of the law.
Was he ahead of Clinton on being for Marriage? Yes, 2009 versus 2013 (or something like that). But as SoS, Clinton was at the vanguard of implement LGBT-equality measures administratively. State led the way for most of the federal government until repeal of DADT happened in the lame duck session in December 2010.
I think it’s fair to say that Bernie wasn’t nearly as early to the cause as he’s trying to make himself found, and it is beyond fair to call that out. On LGBT rights, on guns, on a few other areas, Bernie has some consistency issues that he would of course like to elide, but we shouldn’t let him.
Gay marriage wasn’t a goal of the gay community in 1982. At that time the focus was almost exclusively on expanding the number of states and municipalities with gay rights ordinances on the books. It was a huge victory for the campaign in 1982 when Wisconsin became the first state to pass such a law protecting lesbians and gay men from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. I was 25 at the time and homohatred was still so pervasive then that no one in the gay community even considered that gay marriage was going to be a possibility in our lifetimes. No one. It’s still shocking that marriage equality is the law nationally now, to me anyway, when as a minority we are still denied fundamental rights that are protected at the federal level for other minorities and disadvantaged classes. Anyway, whether it’s a long time ago or not, the idea of gay marriage just didn’t even exist 34 years ago in 1982.
iirc Holy Unions weren’t even a thing until the mid- to late eighties.
Also, as Andrew Sullivan NEVER loves to remind us, the gay “left” opposed marriage when he first argued for it. The reasons should be obvious: marriage is an inherently conservative institution.
Never loves to stop* reminding us
And that’s fine. And if I were on the campaign, I wouldn’t have reached back to 1982 either.
As a gay man, I’m sure both Hillary and Bernie would do their best for my civil rights. The difference is that Hillary showed she would while at State, expanding partner benefits and doing everything legal to expand rights for those serving at State that were gay — and she did this early in the administration.
Bernie’s voting against DOMA was not for some purity reason, and his ‘evolution’ on the issue didn’t get him to marriage equality until 2009, either. Hillary’s actions proved she was just as advanced as he was, whatever political flimflam she was saying to give the President cover. We all knew they (Obama, Clinton) both believed in marriage equality but were trying to avoid saying so. That’s politics.
If they were trying to make that case, it did not help that they chose such a easily refuted incident that showcases the stretch they had to make to use it. Better ammo was necessary.
seems as noteworthy as its bullshit nature and its dirtiness.
Seriously, Clintonites? You have to go back to ’82 to find something you can misrepresent outside its historical context to pretend Bernie’s been “hypocritical” about his support for gay rights?
Meanwhile, the article boo linked makes clear that, even going back that far into ancient history, Bernie’s consistently been out in front of Hillary on the issue. Every step of the way.
Yet it’s here you want to plant your flag?
That’s nuts.
If your goal is to push Bernie “leaners” (who nevertheless have some sympathy/appreciation for Hillary) further/irrevocably into his camp, then heckuva job!
Thanks to that attack line I learned (via one comment field or another) that Sanders supported the first Burlington Gay Pride Parade. In 1983.
32 Years Before SCOTUS Decision, Sanders Backed Gay Pride March | Off Message | Seven Days | Vermont’s Independent Voice
I can give the Clinton camp their next scoop: In 1962 Sanders used the word “Negro”!
Bernie Sanders – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sanders (and King for that matter) should have used another term! (After taking a ride in a time machine.)
At that time Hillary Rodham was a High School sophomore in lily white Park Ridge. Two years later she would become a Goldwater Girl. So naturally, she has better Civil rights credentials.