This is news to me, but it’s an old story that needs wider circulation. Hillary Clinton is a conservative Christian with ties to the anti-choice movement. She’s not imbedded deeply in that crap, but she likes to affectionately skirt the edges of it.
That’s enough for me — my nightmare would be an election with Clinton vs. some ratbag Republican, with me in the voting booth vomiting all over the ballot.
Can we please have a secular candidate? Please, please, please?
I doubt it makes much difference anyways, most politicians are just puppets. From everything I have been able to piece together, the US and the Western world is run by Jewish bankers in pseudo-democracies that are really oligarchies.
Mark @1
Why Jewish bankers? What’s your evidence for Jewish bankers?
Didn’t you post about her enthusiastic participation in prayer breakfasts back when she last ran? Or was that someone else …
Mark:
Is this anything like the evidence you have about atheism and agnosticism? We all know how reliable that info is…
Who you gonna believe, Planned Parenthood or some dude? Planned Parenthood honors Hillary Clinton
Yes, Hillary Clinton is sincerely religious, and no, we are not going to elect a secularist. But to imply that Hillary Clinton is anti-choice is silly and deeply ignorant of how choice and women’s rights are advanced in this country (e.g. children’s rights as a political key to women’s rights, and Clinton’s long history advocating for them). As for Clinton rejecting the Methodist social gospel, that is complete BS: http://www.christianpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-shares-why-she-likes-methodist-church-talks-about-social-gospel-118741/
I second Al Dente. I too am intrigued by Mark’s sudden blaming of Teh Jews. Especially considering the other thread where Mark also had a drive-by post, and it had a whiff of Christian apologetics. Truly, I am fascinated.
A secular candidate? Not in your lifetime, PZ. (Perhaps in mine, though, provided I outlive you a couple of decades. [But I’m older than you, so that’s tricky.])
Not that I wouldn’t prefer Elizabeth Warren over Hillary, but I really don’t think you can question Hillary’s Pro-Choice stance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9rC0MaBJc
Right. Hillary Clinton, with ratings on abortion/reproductive issues ranging from a low of 93% to a high of 100% going back to 1995 (see https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/55463/hillary-clinton/75 ), with multiple endorsements from virtually every major pro-choice group in existence, has ties to the anti-abortion movement.
You don’t want Clinton as the Democratic nominee, fine; the FSM knows there are plenty of reasons to dislike her. But this bullshit? Seriously? I’m getting a flashback to 2008 and Daily Kos.
The politics are so broken in the United States that there ain’t no fixin’ ’em.
P.Z., before you vomit all over the ballot in the voting booth, do what I did. Vote with your feet.
It’s the only vote you’ll ever cast that will change anything.
I did that eleven years ago and I haven’t regretted it for even a minute since.
The way he talks about the “The Family”, I almost think he is just misspelling “The Bilderbergers”.
anteprepro @ # 11 – Have you read Sharlet’s books The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power and C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy?
Or even followed serious reportage on US religious-extremist organizations as found on, e.g., Talk To Action and Truth Wins Out/Center Against Religious Extremism?
If not, please refrain from pooh-poohing serious threats of which you seem so ignorant.
If so, kindly explain why we should not consider these amazingly well-funded and strategically calculating theocrats with suitable fear ‘n’ loathing.
Pierce R. Butler, because it is conspiracy theorizing and scaremongering. We are already aware of the threats that evangelicals and right-wing religious lobbyists have on our politics. Getting into histrionics over one specific small group of them doesn’t seem particularly constructive. Nor does going all Courtier’s Reply on me for pointing out that Sharlet is so overly obsessed with his one Secret Fundie Society that he sees any association with them as poison while ignoring that we are basically swimming in a sea of fucking poison in this country. It’s missing the snake-filled forest for the snake-filled trees.
I’m not American, but I’d love to see the manosphere tangle their own feet in their ridiculous assumptions and presumptions about Hillary if she becomes the candidate. Remember when Chelsea announced she was pregnant? They couldn’t work out how and why Chelsea and Hillary could possibly both be pleased about that. They’ll be falling out of the clown car in all directions when Hillary comes out as a happy grandmother.
As I thought at the time I read this, “I wonder who the Democrats will nominate.”
anteprepro @ # 13 – Something tells me the answer to all my questions is “No” – you have not read Sharlet’s books, nor followed the available exposure of the upper levels of hyperchristian politicking.
Suffice it to say that “lobbyists” describes groups like the C Street Family about as adequately as “hippies” describes Charles Manson’s “Family”.
Stop sneering and start reading.
Thanks for the condescension. Go fuck yourself, Pierce.
I can hear the usual suspects now;
“But… But…. [INSERT REPUBICAN CANDIDATE’S NAME HERE] WOULD BE WORSE! Sure, HRC might be anti-choice but [INSERT REPUBICAN CANDIDATE’S NAME HERE] is anti- choice and anti-GLBT! We have to elect the lesser of two evils, you hear me?”
“We can’t split the party! DEEP RIFTS DEEEEEP RIIIIFTS!”
That’s great Akira. Any actual solutions then?
No.
This is today’s edition of SATSQ
Well, there’s advocating and fielding candidates at the local level and building support at the ground level.
But apparently you can’t do that and triage in general elections at the same time. For some reason.
The thing that matters most are the policies she will promote, support, and advance.
What personal ties she may or may not have matter much less. To obsess over that is to fall victim to a mode of authoritarian thinking.
It is not, and never will be, about the person. It is about the policies.
antepropro @ 19
Other than running an honest-to-goodness leftist candidate rather than another “Republican Lite?” Sure, but I’d probably get banned if I suggested them, even in Thunderdome.
Is Hillary religious? I assume so. Do we have pretty solid data on her pro-choice credentials? Yes! Unless you’re implying that Clinton’s been hiding her true nature for the time she becomes president, we don’t need to be concerned that she’ll be anti-choice.
Will she be a carbon copy of Obama, possibly a bit more liberal domestically while a bit more hawkish on foreign policy? Sadly yes.
This is the same HRC who supported Dubya’s wars in the Middle East.
This is the same HRC who led a moral panic against the video game industry.
This is the same HRC who co-sponsored an anti-flag burning amendment.
Yeah, she’s a real progressive. (/sarcasm)
Like her husband, she’s a political chameleon. Why shouldn’t it be so surprising that she’d reads the pro-choice script one minute, then throws women under the bus when she get’s the chance?
Then there’s her support for the Obama administration’s horrific record on deportations – two million deportations since 2008, hundreds of thousands of families torn apart. And her enthusiastic support for deporting Central American refugee children at the border. No, Hillary Clinton is not a good person.
In America? You silly billy, you!
Anteprepro #19:
Akira MacKenzie #23:
I will say it: ¡Viva la revolución!
Is that forbidden here?
Fuck. I don’t get the reference to Clinton.The woman isn’t named after some man, is she?
Then, if PZ doesn’t want to vo(mi)te, why not call upon the horde? Since the Jews, erhm, the US, rules the world, SOME located elsewhere might contribute to a secular US candidate’s campaign.
Scott Bidstrup @10:
I’m someone who successfully got a US green card for my immigrant husband, and successfully immigrated overseas with him to his home country.
Nevertheless I consider myself lucky twice, and am somewhat unsuccessfully refraining from telling you exactly what I think of you and your dim, blithe proposal to “just leave the country”.
It’s infuriating how every single election a huge chunk of the left throws a tantrum because the only viable party not controlled by right wing fanatics is picking someone who could actually win instead of their dream candidate who wouldn’t stand a chance.
The only two choices in this election with any chance of winning are Democrat and Republican. The Democrat candidate is going to be Hillary whether you like it or not. If she were to somehow not get the nomination it’ll inevitably go to someone just as moderate as she is. If you live in a swing state and don’t vote for the Democrat candidate you’re helping the Republican candidate win.
I know the usual objection to this blunt statement is”You can’t tell me how to use my vote!” and that’s true nothing I do can actually force you to change your vote. What I can do though is blame you for getting us stuck with President Rand Paul.
No, you can’t have a secular candidate for President. It’s your country, haven’t you noticed its religiosity? Currently, according to Pew, the only group that ranks below atheists is Muslims so I think it’s safe to say no, you can’t have an openly secular candidate for President but you can try for a President that doesn’t enact religiously motivated policies.
If I remember correctly, Obama claimed deep faith after a secular up-bringing when he was seeking the nomination. Remember the claim that his faith meant he couldn’t support gay marriage? I do. I remember very well. And yet, he’s managed to be a fairly secular leader.
I think Clinton is more politically astute then to come out and claim that she’s an atheist, even if she was (which I’m certainly not suggesting). As a woman, she already has the fucking deck stacked against her. Does she have to take on the mantle of secularism too? She has always supported a woman’s right to choose and access to birth control. She has been vocal in that and her support of Planned Parenthood. She’s has a record of supporting these things that goes back to the 70s, for crying out loud.
And yet now we’re supposed to believe that she’s some Manchurian candidate, groomed by the religious right to take away the reproductive rights of women and spit in the face of social justice?
Isn’t the point of Sharlet’s book that everyone in Washington is connected to the Brotherhood somehow? Isn’t it? Back in the 90s, Clinton was fighting to secure her political future in the face of her husband’s infidelity. No shit she curried the favour of women from the right.
Sharlet sounds like any other American who suddenly, now that the female half of the Clinton’s is running for office, suddenly can’t stand the sight of a Clinton. It’s all fine when it’s Bill spouting bullshit but Hillary? No fucking way.
If Rand Paul somehow wins the GOP nomination, Bill Kristol and The Weekly Standard will endorse Hillary for her foreign policy stance.
God damn that would be satisfying.
AndersH wrote:
Ms. Clinton votes pro-choice, but has a tendency to say unfortunate things that undermine the movement. She has often emphasized that she wants abortion to be rare, for instance. This sabotages those who are working to try and remove the shame that anti-abortionists have tried their best to cover the medical procedure with.
PZ, be careful. I can hear the brain-eater gnawing away at you.
Candidate, possibly. Winning candidate, no.
It does rather seem to me that “Republican lite” would be preferable to “Republican crazy” and that these are likely to be the only choices on offer.
Her statement is only problematic if you ignore the fact that there are people trying to withhold birth control from women. Birth control. Ms. Clinton’s support for reproductive control is unwavering even if she isn’t willing to commit the political suicide of declaring there is no stigma attached to abortion. Even allies of the pro-choice crowd are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion as birth control.
Also the statement “available, accessible and rare” was first made by Bill Clinton when he was President.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t care if you vomit on the ballot just as long as you still vote for her (although it’d be horrible for the poll workers, and a vomited upon ballot would be about as ‘spoiled’ as you can get)-just like she doesn’t care if people ‘hold their noses’ but they still vote for her anyways.
You write this today but will you be sucked in by the lesser evil two years from now?
There are plenty of reasons to dislike the idea of HRC as President, but her stand on choice does not appear to be one of those reasons: as others have pointed out, I put more trust in Planned Parenthood’s evaluation than in Sharlet’s opinion.
I agree with Scott’s position in #10: we must vote with our feet. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil, and nothing will change as long as one candidate need only position herself as slightly less evil than the other. As long as Americans buy into the lie that there are two and only two choices, nothing will ever change.
To anyone saying that there are more than 2 choices, a message from someone in a country that pretends there are. No, there aren’t. Without massive changes to the electoral system, having more choices doesn’t really seem to work. In Canada we have three pretty big parties, as well as some other parties (Green, the provincial QC parties, etc.) and in reality the third “big” party pretty much ends up splitting the vote, and the conservatives get in again and again. The voting system isn’t built with multiple parties in mind. If you can get some electoral changes put in place to allow for rank-based voting, or proportional representation, maybe – but that’s unlikely to happen under anyone elected under the current system, since the system worked to elect them.
As for Clinton, the best hope is that she takes someone like Warren as a VP pick, giving Warren even more clout, and prompting much more dialogue about more progressive policies.
Is that supposed to be a point in its favour?
Just like it was in 2008.
Yeah, thank dog we got Obama instead. Imagine what might have happened had it been Clinton…Why, Guantanamo might still be open. We might be trying to deport and/or outright kill small children seeking to flee civil war in Honduras. Corporations might have been declared to be people with rights including free speech (ok, so I’m getting into ridiculous dystopia territory with that last one: surely not even under a theoretical President Romney would that happen.)
Nick Gotts @ #42
No but when it was Bill Clinton saying it, it was a good statement on abortion. People acknowledged it was the right thing to say because it appealed to everyone except the really crazy anti-abortionists who want to kill doctors and stop birth control. It addressed the problem that many pro-choice allies have with abortion on demand. It maintained the construction (rightly or wrongly) that abortion should only be a last resort when birth control failed.
My point was, whether you agree with the statement or not (personally, I don’t because I think abortions should be free, accessible and none of you goddamned business) if it was politically savvy under Bill, a man we trusted to not limit the rights of women, then how is it evidence of a hidden anti-abortion agenda under Hillary?
Couldn’t we have a secular candidate? Wasn’t Dr. Jill Stein secular enough for you? Presidetial candidate in 2012, Green Party ticket. But did you vote for her?
Has anyone paid any attention to the work that the Clinton Foundation does?
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/
Criticize Bill Clinton all you want for what he has done in the past, but right now Bill, Hillary and Chelsea are doing a lot to fight child hunger, child obesity and give women and girls more opportunities all over the world.
I read recently that Chelsea gives every penny that she gets from making speeches to this cause.
As many others have noted, Planned Parenthood has judged Hillary to be one of their top supporters.
I think that Hillary must be influenced by the work that the Foundation does, so I’m not inclined to believe someone who tries to call her anti-woman or anti-abortion.
sambarge wrote>
It’s not evidence of a hidden agenda, but it is used as justification by others to support restrictions to prevent “flighty women” from getting this particular medical procedure.
Even if H.R. Clinton wins both the Dem nomination and the general election two years from now, pro-choice supporters will need to not relax.
During her husband’s administration, the White House wobbled repeatedly on these issues, and only stood firm after pressure campaigns from PPFA, NARAL, et al. Curiously, nearly all the trial balloons that pro-choicers had to pop came out under Hillary Clinton’s name.
Note also that the effectively 3rd & 4th Clinton administrations (the latter of which we live in now) have also featured backward steps from the WH, such as attempts to block the “morning-after pill” from younger women, signing the Hyde amendment into law, and continued multi-million-dollar abstinence-only mal-education subsidies domestically and abroad (the latter quietly signed off on by H.R. Clinton as Secretary of State).
And for those of who who don’t know just how closely HRC has tied herself to the theofascist movement, please do read Jeff Sharlet’s books!
Ahem. Pls read that last ‘graf in # 48 as “… for those of you who …” [/ahem]
Of course. People who oppose abortion are going to look for anything to latch onto. That’s why the Clintons keep saying that. It plays to both sides; it gives each side something to grasp on to and, more importantly from a political perspective, it gives the vast majority of people who believe a woman has the right to choose but aren’t down with abortion as an idea (see also the, “I’d never get one but wouldn’t stop someone else from getting one” crowd) something to feel good about.
Do I like it? No, but I prefer it to the asshats that tell me that the “female body has a way of shutting down pregnancy when it’s a ‘legitimate rape’.”
Also, I acknowledge that the Clintons are politicians, not ideologues. Both of them wanted to be elected, to have power, to be ground-breakers in some way but neither of them ran on platforms of social or political change. Bill is more radical now that he can’t run anymore (if you consider acknowledging that Tea Partiers are nutjobs is radical) but ultimately it’s about getting power. What they do with the power depends on what will get them re-elected.
And, while that’s kind of sociopathic and slimy, it’s actually easier to deal with than an ideologue who will use the law to bend you to their will.
The thing that matters most–even more than policy–is the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices serve for life, and the President nominates them. Never forget that.
And PZ–Clinton’s casual connection with the Family is not a surprise to me, since I read Sharlett’s book. But I agree with the commenters here who point out that her pro-choice credentials are solid. Politicians do have to make nice with their awfullest colleagues sometimes. Doesn’t make Clinton a closet pro-choicer.
And–a secular candidate? You mean a full-on, unambiguously Secular candidate? Silly lad. You must still be on pain meds for the knee. :P
@Epinephrine #40
THIS. So much this.
In what sense could the current government be described as the “4th Clinton administration”?
Shit. In comment #51 I meant to say:
Doesn’t make Clinton a closet pro-lifer.
Gonna need some evidence of that one.
dianne @ # 51: In what sense could the current government be described as the “4th Clinton administration”?
Obama’s appointments include a major proportion of Clinton retreads (not excluding his first-term SecState); his policy strategy has gone even further in what Clintonistas called “triangulation” (attempting to get measures past Republicans by giving up half his nominal goals as the first step of negotiation); the overall approach of forward-sounding rhetoric while throwing progressives and progressivism under the bus at any sign of opposition from the right or subtle moues of displeasure from financial/industrial moguls; faithfully following Republican predecessors’ war plans (when not escalating same); TPP is NAFTA on stilts; etc, etc.
It would take less time to list the differences between Clinton & Obama: absence (so far) of sex scandal or prominent staffer suicide; not having the good luck of a major economic boost like the invention of the Web to prop up the economy; BMI & melanin count.
On further reflection from my # 56 – Fracking is Obama’s Web.
Here’s another article that claims that Hillery’s commitment to same sex marriage is shaky at best.
http://goo.gl/3ZIvNW
I want abortion to be safe, legal, and on-demand. I also want it to be, as sambarge @ 44 has it, free, accessible, and none-of-your-business. I also want it to be rare.
Where’s the contradiction? Preventing pregnancy is safer and less invasive than ending a pregnancy. (Contraceptives should also be legal, accessible, and free.)
VP? Clout????
Yeah, I know, Chaney, right? But Chaney had clout because of who he was, not where he lived. As for Biden, he only has clout because Obama sometimes listens to him.
I’d rather see Warren stay in the Senate, or perhaps get a Cabinet post. Attorney General Warren, anyone?
The problem with saying that abortion should be rare is that it’s a value judgment on abortion. It suggests that abortion has a stigma attached to it and it is something that should be avoided. If an abortion is necessary, it should be ‘earned’ (ie. the bc failed, rape, medical necessity) and not entered into without consideration. Pro-choice activist, rightly IMHO, argue that abortion needs to be de-stigmatized and that women need to be free to choose abortion without the value judgments of others weighing on them.
So as a statement it does appeal to people. I have to agree that for the vast majority of people birth control seems preferable to abortion. Less intrusive, easier for women, less physically demanding, whatever the construct, people see birth control as a fact of life and abortion as an aberration.
@Epinephrine #40
Only in the last 10 yrs. The Liberals have held power far longer than the Conservatives and, until recently, splits on the right (the Cons, the Reform and the Bloq) actually made supposedly progressive Liberals the government over and over again.
The NDP has not had a significant impact on the formation of the government since Tommy Douglas. And, considering the resulting minority government gave us healthcare, Unemployment Insurance and Canada Pension all because of the political power of the NDP, I’m okay with it. I’d like it to happen more often.
A waste of a minority government is what we saw recently; a Con minority with the Liberals holding the balance of power. Totally fucking useless.
me, @60,
Who is this Chaney person?
The Prince of Darkness is Dick Cheney.
There’s not going to be a secular candidate because secular candidates can’t win. And no, Hilary Clinton isn’t anti-choice.
Seems to me that in Canada, the Liberals and the NDP ought to consider forming a coalition.
The Liberals and the Conservatives have much more in common than the Liberals and NDP. Justin Trudeau, for all his anti-authoritarianism and “let’s legalize pot” talk, is a supporter of big oil and the Keystone Pipeline. He’s not socially conservative but he’s more attractive to fiscal conservatives who don’t like their party being high-jacked by Harper’s born-again friends in Alberta than he is to actual lefties like me.
That said, under Mulcair, the NDP is abandoning its social justice platform so, who knows? Soon the NDP can be as toothless and unprincipled as New Labour.
OK, PZ, pick the Republican you’d rather have in office than HRC.
Top three names, and why you’d rather have them in office.
If you honestly can’t tell the difference, this should be no problem at all.
If you can, and you don’t wanna pick a GOP front-runner, then you know what you have to do.
Of course, you could always run.
If your argument against running boils down to “I don’t wanna” than vote for someone who’s willing to do so.
If your argument against running boils down to “Why bother running if I know I can’t win”… how does that differ from voting for someone you know can’t win?
Do I think HRC is the best pick? No, I’d rather vote for Princess Celestia – she’s much better on most issues, from what I’ve seen. But that vote would be just as stupid as any other candidate that can’t win.
@ Anri
-It’s useless to argue with them. The “would you rather have a republican in office” argument just floats through their head, because they honestly believe that by voting for third party candidate X, they’re going to show the democrats what they’re missing and force them to move more to the left on the issues!! Ah ha! (Except that never actually works, we just get a dipsh*t republican in office for 4 to 8 years, then the morons who didn’t vote for the democratic nominee will realize that quite in fact, there is a difference between republicans and democrats, as much as they like to pretend that there’s not. This happens after every democratic president has been in office 6 years, the ultra left grows complacent and starts to convince themselves that he’s really a republican, so they vote for some ralph nader guy who can’t possibly win, diverting hundreds of thousands if not a couple million votes away from the nominee and we lose)
I think before we get all self-righteous and enraged at Democrats for not being liberal enough and such, we should also note the very real likelihood that Republicans are going to make advances in 2016 due to the years of stagnation during Obama’s presidency and due to the fact that the right-wing has been getting even a louder voice in the form of unhinged Tea Party mouthpieces. The politics are polluted. We should be loudly and proudly be injecting liberalism into the conversation, yes. Make a liberal version of the Tea Party.
But don’t take your eye off the ball: The Supreme Court is fucked up as it is. The legislature has been being doing fuck all and that is without major control by Republicans. And God knows what the situation in the Middle East would look like now if we had a right-wing war hawk instead of the milquetoast one we have now. Unless a Justice retires or dies before Obama leaves office, if a Republican becomes president, the Supreme Court will be right-wing for probably another decade and continue to do damage. A Republican president will be an incredible gamble from the perspective of foreign countries, since they will shun diplomacy and we have no real idea of when they will arbitrarily decide to declare Total War. And, of course, there will be no chance of positive change in our laws, and possibly the chance of sliding backwards.
“BOTH SIDES” all you like, if you don’t understand how the above would be a significant blow to our country, you are deluding yourself.