I see dudes holding hands with dudes and chicks holding hands with chicks every day.

I hold my wife's hand as nothing special every day.

Just a bunch of people being nothing special, except to each other.

and have to say that holding hands in public isn't something I would have done until I was at least in my 30's (I was born in 67). Even now, I would honestly be a bit afraid of doing so in some areas even now. But that said, my point is that it was in a video for a Presidential announcement. It wasn't that long ago that gays were not seen and not heard on political campaigns.

gay inclusion was very nice to see among the variety.

I do, however, have one quibble with you...MIDDLE AGED!? I was born in 66 and I say we're both still Spring chickens!

I'm not sure anyone who uses the phrase 'spring chicken' can be considered a spring chicken.



Besides, my eye doctor made me get reading glasses. He said, "Well, it's to be expected at your age." I kind of wanted to throw something at him.

told me I wasn't a "spring chicken" anymore when I was 35!! And he was quite serious... which was many years ago.

Just sayin.

but I'm still hanging on to the edges of the door fighting that "getting old" thing.

My 14 and 12 year old sons tell me I'm still losing, but I'm fighting it!

(Spring Chicken was one of my grandma's often used phrases.)

Nobody said you have to get old!

Life to do that and not worried about being harassed or killed. Next time your feeling so smug, try walking hand in hand with another guy, not in a big gay friendly city.

This is about equals. That was reflected in the video.

I'm truly a die-hard libral, but also a generation Joneser, so I'm pragmatic. Hillary is our best option thus far. If I see a better one, I will vote for it, but for now, we have Cruz, Paul, Bush and god only knows what in the running. I completely understand people who have reservations about Hillary. I do, too, but that being said, I will gladly vote for her if it means that a f*cked up Republican won't get into the highest office in our land. Seriously folks, priorities. When you're my age, you realize that nobody's perfect, and you have to make due with what you have. President Hillary Clinton. President Rand Paul. President Ted Cruz. President Jeb Bush. Now which ones turn your knees to jelly?

I vote for Supreme Court pickers.

Who are the people who can only find negative things to say?

That it featured gay couples made me proud to be a democrat. As a candidate, the video gave us nothing of substance.

There's plenty of time for substance. It was a great video!

Not an introduction. It was polished and clean, but gave us nothing whatsoever of what policies she is pushing or what issues she will focus on.

The people who have contempt for her would still have contempt. They would just move the goal posts a little to the left.

women about to retire--different skin tones, --kids, gay relationships-- that told me her focus.

To who? Cave dwellers? I'm still trying to get over the surprise!

This is a brand new, poll-driven, focus group approved Hillary!

and forget the one(s) we knew in the past...

She is, after all; "all about new beginnings".

Fun Fact: So far, I've never gotten to vote for any Democratic nominee who both says 'gay' out loud and does not follow it with a bunch of trash talk about how deeply sinful gay people are compared to the candidate, the candidates Sanctified spouse and the candidate's Baptist Deacon Daddy. As midterm incumbent Obama was an equality candidate, in 08 he was running with ex-gays and talking about how God is in the mix.
So it's fairly substantial to me to see a candidate open with a handshake instead of a balled fist. It's refreshing.

positions.

What was Hillary's '08 position on gay rights?

Answer only if you were running for or holding office somewhere other than the northeast or California.

discriminatory laws.

But you get the point. Anti-gay bigotry and even apathy to LGBT rights is are viable positions for Democratic candidates in 2016. It is a good thing, even if far too late. And is not special or unique to Hillary Clinton (who did not promote those positions in 2007-08).

What state?

will be running on anti-marriage equality?

I thought so.

done

Can you answer mine?

Well it wasn't really a debate more like interviews. I watched. The only full equality position was taken by kucinich and gravel if I remember correctly. I felt Hillary was a touch more progressive than Obama and way more comfortable during the entire interview. I thought Edwards and Richardson were abysmal. Just my opinion.

that and the forum where he said White was his favorite Supreme Court justice on the day of the anniversary of Roe V Wade.

it was a risky move for HC, in that Dems always plan on a small voting block to move from teh GOP and vote Dem....this statement and it accompanying visual has the ability to alienate voters in what could possibly be a close race. No one plans on losing a block of votes...she took the risk, that many won't. She made it loud and clear...others will acquiesce only upon questioning.

Obama's official position, was he favored civil unions and not gay marriage, because of churches. He was not pro-gay at all, not even close until Biden pushed him to it. Those are the facts, not the rose colored glasses version.

The theme of all people are created equal is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between Dems and Rethug.

on the path for the general election.

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Don't forget that step. It posed a problem for her last time.

Yes, she has to win in the primary. And this ad won't hurt her a bit in the primary.

Paging Dr. Freud....?

I typed "last time" on my phone with my fat thumbs. I am fixing that embarrassing auto correct now (and maybe not going to use my phone anymore).

Nothing more added.

as long as possible.

This op shows you the substance directly. It sucks that you say that isn't "substance." It is huge. The couples themselves are substance. Sorry you don't see it that way.

"the video gave us nothing of substance"

I read it was an act of genius designed to trap Republicans into rushing out with negative ads and lo and behold...!

It was an announcement, not a manifesto.

Women and minorities of all kinds are the strongest base of progressivism and also the strongest base of the democratic party. We've made tremendous strides together. We'll continue advancing together.

Issues for GLBT are still being dismissed by Democrats! It is disgusting.

for your comments!

Where was the support last time... Before majority opinion favored us??

aren't you at least happy about the majority opinion?

If a centrist and corporatist feels safe with it, it's cause for celebration.

Cause they really ALL have evolved...

The first is that I don't support any current running candidate. (I would support Bernie if he does, or Warren if for whatever reason she did.)

The second is that not everyone has "evolved" to like gay people. Some actually supported us WHEN IT WAS UNPOPULAR. The strongest example of this was Sen. Kennedy. He literally had nothing to gain from supporting equality and equal marriage. It was a conscience decision and was at the time unpopular even in MA.

Hillary did NOT support us prior to last year. She support "civil unions" and separate but equal is not equal. Before that, she didn't say a damn thing about us.

She is trying to use us to get elected. Would she be better for LGBT rights than a Republican? Yes. But only because she needs us to help her to win. She will say anything to anyone to get elected. She holds no actual beliefs, only positions which change as her pollsters suggest they should to benefit her campaigns. This is DESPICABLE.

ex-Republican show, still I hope she continues. Because she's (now) working for the people.

Your insult is moot unless you are agreeing that your candidate is in the exact same boat.

And Warren has never, I repeat NEVER voiced anti-LGBT opinions. Full stop.

Stop making things up.

about who is AGAINST LGBT. We're talking about those who have evolved...like me and my family...and loudly support them. That would be 2 gay couples, plus the last one. Big difference between that and Not Saying Anything for or against.

Hillary's Introduction Proudly Featured Gay Couples. That's a big Effing Thing. As I said, Warren is great where she is, but she's still a one-issue politician, albeit very good at what she does.

She's going to have to explain away keeping company with bigots with faulty economic theories if she runs for higher office. thats hard to forgive a adult.

You should not be surprised that heartless votes will not be forgotten.

The extent of HIV in 1980. I guarantee that HIV is not the reason a vast plurality of prior voted for Reagan. That's just silliness. The world is not so black and white.

To you to think that's important? He ignored it for many many years while it made headlines. His own Hollywood friends were begging him to take an interest yet me moved to cut funding. It was hearless.
Calling the issue silly says a lot. Wow.
Learn some history- you seem to have no idea.

Number two you've been sadly misinformed about how important HIV was to the average person basically ever. Obviously Reagan was wrong about it, but that doesn't mean than everyone who voted for him supported biological genocide. That's utterly ridiculous!

If you exclude every major city's 'average person" you might be right. but I was there, and politically active and there was MUCH political activism and awareness back then. Not sure how old or where you were, but at this point you are ignoring history and making excuses for gross negligence that led to thousands of deaths. And that is sad, and telling that you can call this issue silly and ridiculous. That's really pretty disgusting, so I am done bothering with this revisionist bullshit.

You fail to see that others do as well. HIV was not a defining factor of the 1980 or 1984 elections. Maybe to you it was. America didn't care about HIV except for how it could harm them. You are mistaken. It was not a key issue issue those elections or any. It should've been, but wasn't. The American people voted for other reasons. A majority of this country at the time voted for Reagan, none of them were evil incarnate for doing so in spite of HIV.

Who didn't care about thousands of dying Americans was a fucking selfish bigot.

Reagan was reelected at the height of the AIDS crises by selfish fucks who knew dammed well about the epidemic but felt that it would not effect them. The public knew- and he set the tone by ignoring it- giving them cover to look the other way.

A very sad chapter in our history. Nothing silly about it.

Obviously you know nothing at all about the time since you keep referencing 1980.
It WAS an issue in 84, despite you're own ignorance and confusion on the matter.
And now you're putting words in my mouth. So fuckkng done. Do us a favor and educate yourself on the 80s before wasting more words on the Reagan years. I was young, but not as heartless or ignorant as anyone who voted for that piece shit.

Issue.

I said it wasn't an election cycle issue because it wasn't. Then you said anyone who voted for Reagan voted for HIV. Which is bull. You don't understand the world outside of your perspectives. Is not right that people didn't care, but it's not their fault either. Otherwise by that logic anyone who has money and doesn't give all of it to the hungry is a murderer as well. It just doesn't work that way.

For fucks sake- keep your head in the sand.
Most people who read a paper knew exactly what a judgemental and cruel man he was.
Only the totally ignorant and uncaring did not.

She was just in the closet about it.

Did you not vote for him the first time when he ran openly opposing gay marriage? Obama's position then was only civil unions were acceptable. He even said this was because of his religious beliefs. In fact, he never supported gay marriage until Biden publically pushed him and shamed him to this position.

Guess it's not just Repugs that are not consistent.

even if you convince people not to be prejudiced and they change their minds, you still hate them for having been wrong in the first place?

One thing I know with every fiber of my being is that if HRC gets elected, she WILL NOT roll back any progress that President Obama has made with executive orders.

However, if there is a Cruz, Bush or Paul presidency, I'd imagine that would be one of their first points of order.

I say that as a reason to celebrate. Not to suggest that there aren't years of work ahead still. The marriage battle is just one and perhaps the most high profile. But, it had been won.

Marriage equality will not be an issue in 2016, thankfully.

LGBT rights still will be along will a host of other liberal causes.

If you're suggesting that Hillary as a Democratic candidate elected will end homophobia, that's just foolishness. Otherwise, the point made here has no bearing to anything.

I've had enough of the "middle of the road", "play it safe by the numbers", "peel off as many Republicans from their candidate as we can", pandering Democratic sycophants!

Fuck the Republican party!
Put up a real Democrat, goddammit!!

I, as a woman and a member of the LGBT community will vote for the lesser of two evils if that's what it comes down to.

A President Clinton is better than a President Cruz, Bush, Paul or Walker any day.

This is democratic underground, I'm going to support the dem primary winner in the general election. That isn't Hillary yet but if it is? I'm supporting her.

But don't think for a moment that I need to agree with you.

Guaranteed.

A national "religious freedom" right to discrimate law against gays, blacks, Hispanics, women.

Any American at all because...."religious freedom"

And the rethug congress would ram it down our throats in record time no doubt!

That would be the first sharia law rammed through but not the last!

That is despicable pandering. Anything to get elected.

You act like suddenly a bunch of straight people just joined a bandwagon to be popular.

At what point would it be acceptable for a Democratic politician to accept LGBT equality with out saying they are pandering?

It all has to start somewhere. She is the first major Presidential candidate that has come out of the gate for LGBT equality. That is a big deal. The fight for LGBT equality has come very far in a very short time. She has two gay couple featured in her announcement.

That isn't pandering, that is a very important realization that this is no longer something that is NOT normal. IT is a part of everyone's life. be it family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. It will no longer be in the shadows.

I suspect I won't be convincing you otherwise, so have a lovely night.

Look at the public opinion polls on marriage equality. The WEEK it passed 50%, Hillary jumped on board with an support video.

Any Democratic candidate needs to support LGBT equality. I suggest we find one that doesn't use us as a political point.

Do you disagree with this? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026495129#post21

I don't.