Why I’m Proudly Voting FOR Hillary Clinton, Not Just AGAINST Donald Trump
Democratic Nominee Isn’t Perfect, but No One’s More Experienced or Qualified, and Her Policy Positions are Right Where I Want Them to Be
Sometime in the past few weeks, the presidential election conversation shifted away from “I’m voting for … †to “I’m voting against … â€
While I’m all for anyone voting against GOP nominee Donald Trump for pretty much any reason — and wow, are there many — I want to shift the conversation back. I’m not just voting against Trump, I’m proudly voting for Hillary Clinton. Â
Before we go any further I should tell you that no, I’m not affilliated with the Clinton campaign. Yes, I’ve worked on Democratic campaigns and will probably work on others in the future, but so far, they’ve all been local or statewide races.
This is all me, and I’ll say it again: I’m proudly voting for Hillary Clinton. She’s not just the best candidate for the job in relation to the other possibilities, she’s the best we’ve seen in a long time. Â
Right away, more than a few commentors on Facebook are going to start off by saying, “But Hillary wasn’t even for same-sex marriage until a couple of years ago and only because public opinion changed!†Seriously, wait a few hours after this gets posted and go check NCRM’s Facebook page. At least one person’s going to say this.Â
Here’s my response: So what? She’s there now. There are lots of folks who were involved in the fight, whether on the ground or at a policy level, who gladly take wins however we can get them.
A win’s a win. She may not have been with us before, but she took the time to listen, learn and act. She’s there now and she’s gone even farther — she’s more pro-LGBT going into the election than any other major party candidate in history.
Literally, there is no other candidate in the history of our country who is or has been more pro-LGBT than Clinton is. She’s talked openly about rights that go far beyond marriage — and she hasn’t been afraid to talk about trans non-discrimination laws. In fact, I kind of love it even more when a politician’s personal views don’t always match their public policy positions because they understand that their responsibility is to their consituents and not to themeselves.
Just this week, everyone’s favorite step-dad and Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine talked about how his Catholic faith guides him in his daily life, but not always in his political life. Isn’t this exactly what we want out of our leaders? People who understand that their religious beliefs are their own, and that their responsibility isn’t to minister to the masses, but to create public policy that works for everyone?
In my book, that’s paramount. Sure, I’d love it if a politician truly matched up with every one of my beliefs, but more than that, I want a politician who firmly believes in my right to live my life according to my personal beliefs, even if those beliefs differ from their own.Â
Hillary Clinton is the most pro-reproductve rights candidate we’ve seen in a long, long time. She’s an ardent supporter of access to abortion, birth control, and other reproductive health needs.
In terms of healthcare, she was the pioneer who first brought the idea of universal healthcare to the US. (Seriously, that’s where the seeds of Obamacare were planted.) She’s for paid family leave — for the whole family, not just the person who gave birth, because she’s smart enough to know that the not only do adoptive parents matter just as much as biological parents, she understands the powerful bonding that happens with the non-birth parent during the first few weeks of life.Â
There are so many other issues where the Clinton campaign is right where I want them to be: gun control, climate change, racial justice, worker’s rights — for me, the list goes on. And, sure, there are some issues where Clinton and I don’t see eye to eye, but that’s OK. I recognize the reality of the situation, too. Not every policy I’d like to see changed makes the most sense for the rest of the country, or, we’re just not there yet. But even with that in mind, there’s no denying that in certain areas — in foreign policy, for example, or, even just knowing how government actually works — there’s no one more experienced and qualified.
There’s no doubt that we still have plenty of work to do in many areas. No one candidate is going to be everywhere I want them to be — progress takes time. But when it comes to the person I think best matches with the majority of my issues and is most likely to make progress on them and who has experience and understands how to get things done? Hillary Clinton is the only choice. The other candidates don’t even come close.Â
I’m not ignoring that she’s got some faults and she’s made mistakes. (If you want to see a list of those faults, I’m sure the good people who comment on Facebook will be happy to make a list for you.) Clinton has bravely faced those mistakes, admitted to them, taken the heat, and moved on. That’s what I want in a candidate, and that’s what I want in a president.Â
I’m voting for Hillary Clinton because she’s the best person for the job. When it comes to pure experience and ability, no one else even comes close. Not by a longshot.
Robbie Medwed is an Atlanta-based LGBT activist and educator. His column appears here weekly. Follow him on Twitter @rjmedwed
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
