Bernie and Hillary both have good records on civil rights and social issues

[Armstead]

Personally one of my own big frustrations in the back-and-forth about which is a better candidate is that we all (me too) get caught up in things which have been made into needlessly polarizing and divisive distractions in which there is probably not a lot of real difference between them. We allow that to overshadow the real differences we should be debating.

IMO, both Clinton and Bernie are very strong in the overall context of civil rights issues, concern for minorities, women's issues, families and most of the varied issues that fall under the heading of social justice.

Neither is absolutely perfect, have done some things -- or do some things -- that could be better in that regard.

But on balance, I think both are equally strong in terms of their concern and commitment and performance on those issues. And I think both mean it.

The contrasts have more to do with other issues, specifically issues related to Wealth and Power. They represent different factions, trends and concerns and visions on that front. They have differing views on that, different histories and allegiances, and different messages. And they have different diagnosis about the current condition of the nation, what is the cause, and what they believe needs to change -- and how to go about that.

There is a larger symbolic and historical context underlying that, which is apparent. I wont repeat the specifics here. We all know them.

But IMO this nonsense about who cares more about women, or blacks or Latinos or whatever other wedge social issues stirs up such animosity are red herrings. I think we should be equally comfortable with both of them on those issues. But they are too often raised to distract from the real contrasts and issues involved in the primaries and, ultimately the general election -- and the larger context of what is needed to get us out of our present hole.

Just my 2 cents. Your mileage may vary.

[liberal_at_heart]

1. You cannot have social justice without economic justice. We can no longer have separate debates on

social justice and economic justice. They are one in the same, and we must have political leaders who will take action on this issue.

[Armstead]

2. I agree with that, in fact almost included it in the post

I didn't because it diffused the point I was making.

I agree with you 100 percent.

However, some of the "social issues" have been separated out artificially, and differences created where there none -- or at least little difference in the larger context. And that applies to both candidates, though as a Sanders supporters, I am more aware of it being applied to him.

That makes it more difficult to look honestly at those issues, as well as the larger ones, because people get uop on their haunches unnecessarily about things that both candidates both ultimately support equally.

[liberal_at_heart]

3. "'social issues' have been separated out artificially". I like the way you worded that. I agree.

Social issues have been artificially separated out.

[Chitown Kev]

4. Agreed.

[riversedge]

5. I agree

[Vattel]

6. I have to disagree. Clinton's record on social justice issues is much worse than Sanders'.

From mass incarceration to the war on drugs to police brutality to immigrant rights to capital punishment to the human rights of innocent bystanders killed in war, Bernie's record is far better.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. Agree. Which means that Clinton, the woman gets the edge in an equality battle

for the nomination, because she has been here and done this.

[davidpdx]

8. I'm glad civil rights and social issues are the only important ones to you

Those issues are important to me too, but the fiscal issues won't just go away on their own.

When we have the Clinton fiscal policies of more trade, less regulation, and greater loopholes for the banking industry it will be a comfort to see people lose their job, have their homes be foreclosed on, and their 401 k's go down the shitter.

[Armstead]

9. You're kind of missing the point

Last edited Sun Sep 13, 2015, 08:56 AM - Edit history (2)

Certainly the historic precedent of electing a woman as president is a plus.

However, being a woman is not automatically a qualification overall. If it were, we should all be rooting for President Carly Fiorina or bemoaning the fact that we didn't have Vice President Palin.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Not if you take her opposition to marriage equality into consideration.

She went there and did that.

[DanTex]

10. And also on economic issues. They both have good policies, but Hillary is more electable, which

makes her the best choice.

[Report1212]

11. Hillary was the WH point person for welfare reform

I dont think she has a good record on civil rights

[dsc]

13. that is flat out false

Yes she favored it but no she wasn't the point person on it. That is just false.

[Report1212]

14. She lobbied for it and she supported it as senator and presidential candidate

Probably the most anti civil rights legislation of the past 30 years that and USA PATRIOT which she also was for

[dsc]

15. that doesn't make her the point person

it makes here a supporter, you are just plain out spreading falsehoods.

[PowerToThePeople]

16. When you are obviously WRONG on the issue you differ on

Then you attack on the other issues. That is your only choice unless you accept losing.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. It's the Straight Center sputtering in confusion, they lack their traditional ability to trash LGBT

as part of their campaigns and without that divisive, bigoted nastiness they do not know how to function in politics.

Personally, I'd add Martin O'Malley and say all three of them have excellent records on the rights of persons and that it is hugely refreshing to me that for once, for the first time in my entire life, not one of our contenders is out there gay baiting. Not one of them is talking about how Sanctified straight people are and how those gays lack a spiritual quality, as some have done in the past when wishing to win SC.
In 08 we had only Dennis Kuchinich for equality. The rest were blustering with theology and supremacist rhetoric. We had John Edwards, a lying adulterer, lecturing us about his opposition to marriage equality based on his profoundly traditional views of marriage between one man and one woman as a Sacrament of God, he'd talk about his Baptist Deacon Daddy, and say he just could not support anything that endangered marriage.
We had Obama with McClurkin and Caldwell and Warren events that openly bashed LGBT.
We had Clinton muttering about prayer and civil unions.

This is much, much better.