Connect with us

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 … ”

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.  

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.  

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

Continue Reading
Click to comment

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.


Experts Sound Alarm as ‘Urgent and Heated’ Threats of Civil War Ramp Up Before Midterm Election



According to a report from the New York Times, analysts and experts who follow online trends with regard to threats of political violence are warning the U.S. is moving into dangerous territory as the 2022 midterm election day grows closer.

As the Times’ Ken Bensinger and Sheera Frenkel wrote, there have been upticks in calls for a civil war since the FBI initiated a search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort seeking stolen government documents and then again when President Joe Biden called the former president and “MAGA Republicans” a threat to “the very foundations of our republic.”

Following the Mar-a-Lago search, “civil war’ talk on conservative social media platforms more than doubled and now “experts are bracing for renewed discussions of civil war, as the Nov. 8 midterm elections approach and political talk grows more urgent and heated.”

“Polling, social media studies and a rise in threats suggest that a growing number of Americans are anticipating, or even welcoming, the possibility of sustained political violence, researchers studying extremism say. What was once the subject of serious discussion only on the political periphery has migrated closer to the mainstream,” the report states before adding, “Social media platforms are rife with groups and boards dedicated to discussions of civil war. One, on Gab, describes itself as a place for ‘action reports,’ ‘combat vids’ and reports of killed in action in ‘the civil war that is also looking to be a 2nd American Revolution.'”

IN OTHER NEWS: ‘This isn’t going to work out’: Legal expert throws cold water on Trump’s latest effort to stall Mar-a-Lago probe

According to Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, “What you’re seeing is a narrative that was limited to the fringe going into the mainstream.”

Kurt Braddock, an American University professor who studies the recruitment techniques of fringe groups claimed the former president is not helping matters.

“Ideas go into echo chambers and it’s the only voice that’s heard; there are no voices of dissent,” he explained before warning, “The statements Trump makes are not overt calls to action, but when you have a huge and devoted following, the chances that one or more people are activated by that are high.”

You can read more here.

Continue Reading


‘Oddest’: Legal Experts Mock Trump’s ‘Nutty’ and ‘Doomed to Fail’ Emergency Supreme Court Motion



It weighs in at 240 pages but legal experts are still mocking Donald Trump’s emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an 11th Circuit Court ruling and allow the special master to continue to inspect the 103 classified documents retrieved from him Mar-a-Lago home.

“Oddest SCOTUS petition. Very technical and not terribly logical,” observed Andrew Weissmann, an NYU School of Law law professor and former DOJ official who served as the General Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and as special counsel to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller.

The motion was addressed to Justice Clarence Thomas,  who oversees the 11th Circuit courts. His wife, Ginni Thomas, is an avowed supporter of Trump and his “Big Lie” claims he won the 2020 election.

READ MORE: Trump Asks Supreme Court to Intervene for Him in Classified Documents Case

“SCOTUS should send him packing,” tweets former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, now an MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst. “No surprise here, this was why he paid former Florida Solicitor General Chris Kise $3 million to sign on, no one else on his team could handle this.”

“Just watch SCOTUS turn Trump down 9-0. (Or 8-1 if Thomas dissents . . . ),” writes retired Harvard professor of law Laurence Tribe. “Will The Donald start calling ‘his’ three justices traitors? Will he say they have a ‘death wish’ as he did with McConnell?”

Weissmann took another hit at Trump’s Lawsuit, declaring it “nutty.”

“Trump argument to SCOTUS: 11th circuit had power to stay Cannon decision BUT it [could] not take the classified docs away from SM Dearie review. Nutty and if he won Dearie wd just say he won’t review the docs bc they are not Trump’s.”

University of Texas School of Law professor of law Steve Vladeck says that while the lawsuit is “not *entirely* laughable,” but he thinks “it’s both (1) doomed to fail; and (2) unlikely to accomplish much even if it succeeds.”

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti says, “I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court decides not to hear it.”




Continue Reading


Trump Asks Supreme Court to Intervene for Him in Classified Documents Case



Donald Trump on Tuesday petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in his classified documents case, and reverse a ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed the U.S. Dept. of Justice access to the more than 100 classified and top secret documents federal agents recovered from his Mar-a-Lago residence and resort.

Trump is asking the nation’s highest court to order a special master to continue to inspect the 103 classified documents, despite the special master emphatically stating the government, not Trump, gets to decide what is classified and what is not, especially when Trump refused to provide a list of what he considered declassified.

The lawsuit, which is a massive 240 pages, mostly made up of other documents including the now infamous FBI photo of the classified documents on the Mar-a-Lago rug, is addressed to “The Honorable Clarence Thomas, Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit,” and refers to the former president as “President Trump.”

The lawsuit also mentions the contents that federal agents took, including “89 empty envelopes,” while not noting they were classified document envelopes.

“As part of the 11th Circuit’s decision, the panel allowed the criminal investigation to use the seized documents, something [Judge] Cannon had previously barred,” The Washington Post notes. “Trump’s filing seeks only to reverse the appeals court’s ruling on the special master’s access to the documents, not the part of the decision concerning the investigation.”

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. 

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.