Tag Archives: hillary clinton

ENDORSEMENT: I Have Voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton

NOTE: I wrote this back in June as “I will vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton” but decided to hold off from publishing it until now. Edited appropriately.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has completed the consolidation of the Obama coalition around her campaign, eight years after her first historic run. The Democratic pivot to the presidential election is now complete with Rodham Clinton at the helm.

I went to a Christian private school while HRC was a senator from New York, and I attended college while she served as Secretary of State. Since I wasn’t involved in local politics until maybe 2012, I didn’t follow her career or campaign. I’ve only found out more about her as a politician during these last two years. 2008 was when I started college, and I think I wrote in Ralph Nader in the general election because Obama came off as an “inevitable” candidate and I was interested in “bucking the trend”. I don’t remember participating in the primary that year, but it was my first presidential election of voting age.

HRC was someone who I remember my mother dismissing as “that woman who would take your kids away and put them all in government daycare”. I vaguely remember how she and Bill were mocked in jokes on TV in the 90s and 2000s.

She was someone who, from what I remember, came off as an ambitious, motivated First Lady who wrote, released and promoted popular autobiographies on her experiences for TV audiences. Her time as Secretary of State was when I first started taking notice of her as a multilateralist diplomat who would seek UN support to defend U.S. government interests abroad. She was someone who set a different tone from the Bush years of going it alone.

I was watching when the Arab Spring happened in 2011, which I think was the moment when Hillary and Obama, together, demonstrated the “lead from behind” strategy that kept us out of more overt war, stressed a reliance on drones and jets to assist Libyan rebels, and applying diplomatic and media channels to engage dissenters in the MENA region.

I remember Cablegate, when diplomatic cables showed how complicated we were in our relations with other countries. The release, which happened during HRC’s tenure, allowed the public to see the issues faced by our diplomats around the world. I think it helped her profile as a political figure, especially in relation to her public (but troubled) human rights stances.

In regards to our relations with the world, HRC emphasized restraint of our military capacity and the need to build bridges with other nations, even in the face of religiously-motivated violence abroad.

Unfortunately, I don’t think she broke enough with the Kissingerian tradition of “realpolitik”, and I don’t think it is possible in American statecraft to do so because of the vigilant free-market hawkery which has defined us for longer than HRC’s entire life. She is pretty standard fare as far as hawkery is concerned, just not an extremist like many of her predecessors.

HRC has cultivated her own political path over the last 16 years. I think she may not be the exact “New Democrat” that Bill and Jimmy Carter were in their presidencies. She had her highest political experience under Obama, and she is fully cognizant of how the Democratic party has changed. I don’t think she will move the party to the right of Obama like Bill did, particularly because to the right of the Democrats’ platform of civil rights and the ACA is the space occupied by the far-right which has demonized her constantly since she became First Lady in 1992.

HRC has no reason to tack to the right of Obama. At worst, she may be as corporate-friendly as Obama has been, despite the thankless, ungrateful behavior by corporate leaders over the ACA, net neutrality and climate preparedness. She has pinned her campaign on securing and maintaining the ACA, which will rub the proponents of single-payer the wrong way.

But her absolute bucking of the rumor-mongering regarding the FBI investigation into her private emails is polarizing. Sometimes, I don’t know who to believe – those on the right who DESPERATELY want her to go to prison for some sort of “treason” which is hard to pin down, those who despise her from the left for her “baby-killing” support for (multilateral, non-Bushian) intervention, those who find her “fake” for attempting to relate to audiences where they are, those who tentatively admire her for defending herself against and defying the GOP’s knife-edge vituperation, or those who see the severe criticism as unbridled good-ole-boy misogyny against a typical seasoned, multi-dimensional politician who just happens to be a woman.

HRC is a human being. She, like Barack Obama, like Bernie Sanders, and maybe even like George W. Bush, have multiple dimensions to their personalities. She has flaws, and she has triumphs. I don’t think her prior flaws disqualify her from the presidency any more than other presidents’ flaws disqualified them. As an African-American, I don’t think her past support for the “superpredator” thesis disqualifies her from being racially progressive since she has demonstrably removed herself from that position.

I wish to approach her with grace, magnanimity and an open mind until she proves otherwise as president. I think she can be a decent president, but the pressure should be on to keep a diverse socio-economic set of concerns at the fore of an HRC presidency and, hopefully, a more Democratic Congress.

So I think HRC, with a comparatively-decent resume, can be a decent president and can make more progressive choices with decent pressure from within the Democratic party. I can live with “Madam President” and “First Gentleman”. And I can work to see more progressive, single-payer-supporting, pro-labor politicians in state and congressional office in the years to come.

This is why I have voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton as of October 18, and encourage you to vote for her and all other downballot Democrats in Georgia on November 8, 2016.


Dilma, Cristina, Michelle and Hillary

Women Presidents of the AmericasIf there are any contemporaries to whom Hillary Clinton can be compared, they would be Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina and Michelle Bachelet of Chile.

They all succeeded their immediate male partisan predecessors: in Dilma’s case, the hugely consequential Lula da Silva of Brazil, both of the Workers’ Party; in CFK’s case, her husband Nestor Kirchner, both of the Peronist Justicialist Party; in Michelle’s first case, her predecessor Ricardo Lagos, both from the Coalition of Parties for Democracy. Hillary is on course to do the same with Barack Obama, both of the Democratic Party.

Dilma, Michelle and CFK, all left-leaning but much too economically-neoliberal-leaning to those further to the left, led problematic administrations and made fateful decisions which have inspired free-market-liberal backlash, and were the first, first and second female heads of state for their countries, respectively.

The decisions of Dilma, a social progressive who tacks to the free market, happened during a steep economic decline for Brazil but also tamped down on World Cup-related working-class protest, which did not endear her to the Workers Party’s base or target demographic. She has now been suspended awaiting impeachment for unclarified, politicized charges of corruption (which also await the majority of the Brazilian Congress) and sits under house arrest, and her ambitious former VP from a different, further-right party (the PMDB) now faces his own protests for corruption, racism and the ongoing recession in the America’s “sleeping giant”.

Meanwhile CFK’s decisions tacked harder to the populist left, particularly on Argentina’s long-running default to foreign investors. She was socially progressive, especially on LGBT rights. She herself faced scrutiny for an ability to play political, Louisiana-style hardball with her opponents in very problematic, colorful ways. She saw many political enemies, and faced criticism for corruption, poor relations with the press, and a face off with the agricultural sector. She was also suspected of being “controlled” by her husband until he himself died from cancer in 2010. CFK’s administration lasted much longer than the first woman to hold such office, Isabel Peron; Isabel, who was Juan Peron’s third wife and was the first female republican head of state in the world from 1974 to 1976, inherited a very problematic, economically-undermined administration which resulted in the coup of 1976 and her ongoing exile to Spain.

And Michelle Bachelet, a social progressive who is currently serving her second non-consecutive term as president (as per the constitution), is currently facing a low popularity level due to both an ongoing economic recession as well as a corruption scandal involving her family members (but not herself). Pro-LGBT, pro-women’s equality, openly identifying herself as a socialist in a country which was once ran by Augusto Pinochet and, like Brazil and Argentina, subjected to the bloody Plan Condor/La Guerra Sucia, Michelle came into office with an equal number of women and men in her cabinet.

Dilma, CFK, Michelle. All the few or first women to hold a presidency in the Americas. All center-left and progressive. All complicated, consequential, recent republican heads of state in the Americas who eventually get blamed for recession and/or corruption. All partisan inheritors of their highly-popular immediate male predecessors in office who end up defining themselves and striking it big for women’s equality in government. All held up to standards which demand less of men than of women.

Hillary, as president, may find herself in company populated by recent presidents of the other large nations of the Americas.

Hillary Rodham Clinton Becomes First Woman Democratic Nominee for U.S. President

Hillary Clinton, presumptive Democratic nominee for POTUS

After winning New Jersey, South Dakota, New Mexico and California last night, adding to her total of 2,184 pledged and 571 super delegates, Hillary Rodham Clinton has clinched the Democratic presumptive nomination for President of the United States. She will be confirmed as the party’s nominee at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 28, 2016, becoming the first woman nominated by a major U.S. party for President.


After a historic first run for the nomination in 2008 against then-Senator Barack Obama, in which then-Senator Clinton (already the first former First Lady to run for political office) became the first woman to win a major-party primary and capitalized on nationwide disgust with the G.W. Bush administration, Clinton has returned as the furtherer of Obama’s legacy in office and the builder of her own. Clinton premiered her general election campaign’s slogan, “Stronger Together”, at the Brooklyn, NY rally marking her presumptive nomination, in contrast against the slogan of her presumptive Republican opponent Donald Trump: “Make America Great Again”.

In her seminal speech at the rally, Clinton invoked historic events in women’s rights such as the Seneca Falls Convention, the 1848 convention in New York State which drafted the Declaration of Sentiments for women’s suffrage, as well as the memory of her mother, who was born the day in 1919 when Congress passed the 19th Amendment recognizing women’s suffrage.

Clinton congratulated her primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), on his spirited pressure for progressive principles, to which the audience clapped.

Sanders ended up winning North Dakota and Montana last night, adding to his total of 22 states but few to his total of 1,804 pledged and 48 super delegates. Either candidate needed 2,383 total delegates to clinch the prerequisite majority.

Surprisingly, at 1am EST Wednesday in Santa Monica, California, Sanders refused to acknowledge defeat, and pledged to take his campaign to the remaining Democratic primary in the District of Columbia on 14 June, stating “the struggle continues.” Hours earlier, word came out that the Sanders campaign laid off most of their paid staff. At the rally in Santa Monica, Sanders mentioned in one sentence his phone conversation with Clinton, to which the audience angrily booed.

California, a Democratic-heavy state with 475 pledged delegates (the most of the nomination process), was hoped by the Sanders campaign to show a stronger showing than what final results showed, 55.9% to 43.1%. Sanders supporters on social media, as well as the Sanders campaign, charged the Associated Press with “suppression” of Tuesday’s voters in the AP’s announcing Hillary’s clinching of the presumptive nomination the day before the primary. The theme of media and party suppression of primary voters has become a constant critique by the Sanders campaign and support base against media outlets and the Democratic National Committee.

The Vermont senator’s left-wing populist message of campaign and financial reform has been a constant refrain throughout his campaign for the nomination, but was criticized by others, including Clinton supporters, for not being sufficiently inclusive of other concerns such as racial and gender justice.

The final spate of multiple Democratic primaries have bookended perhaps the most ideologically-fractured presidential primary contest faced by the Democratic Party since 1972, when anti-war candidate George McGovern, to whom Sanders has often been unfavorably compared by Clinton supporters, won the nomination against Ed Muskie under the shift from party caucuses to primaries which McGovern helped design through the McGovern-Fraser Commission (and which have lasted to the present), only to spectacularly lose against Republican incumbent Richard Nixon in the general.

Clinton, a centrist pragmatist who has largely won in the Southeast, Southwest, Northeast and Midwest, stresses her ability to be a “progressive who gets things done.” She has been fiercely criticized by Sanders supporters for her statecraft as Secretary of State, the third woman to hold the position, in relation to poorer countries in the Global South; her usage of the word “superpredators” in a speech delivered in 1996; not being sufficiently active against fracking and the Trans-Pacific Partnership; and civil investigations into her usage of private email servers for state-level communication.

However, Clinton won praise and support, particularly from veterans of the Obama coalition, for her emphasis on women’s and LGBT rights; her alliance with mothers of African-Americans killed by police or under police custody; and her support for comprehensive immigration reform. Clinton has used these planks to counter the vocal rages of Donald Trump, calling him “temperamentally unfit to be president”.

Clinton is the foremost female major-party nominee for any U.S. office since Rep. Geraldine Ferraro’s candidacy for vice-president with Walter Mondale in 1984. Ferraro herself, who died in 2011, endorsed Clinton’s 2008 bid for the presidency.

DNC CONCESSION: Sanders, Clinton Get to Pick Dem Platform Committee

From Washington Post, which calls this development “highly unusual”:

The two Democratic candidates have agreed with Democratic Party officials to a new apportionment of the 15-member committee that writes the platform, according to Democratic officials familiar with the compromise worked out this month.

Clinton has picked six members, and Sanders has named five — including a longtime activist on behalf of Palestinian rights, a potential sign of his plans to push the party’s policy on Israel in a different direction, the Democrats said Monday ahead of an expected announcement by the DNC.

The math is based on the number of popular votes each has received to date, one official said. Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will name four. The campaign choices were selected in consultation with the campaigns and the DNC from larger slates of 12 and 10 suggested by the campaigns.

So Sanders is getting the concession he’s vocally wanted from the DNC, even as his campaign winds down further to the last few contests in early June.

Problem is, does anyone read the party platform after Election Day? Even former GOP House Speaker John Boehner has said that no one reads the GOP platform. They’re more likely to read the “Contract with America“.

So really, what has Sanders gained? What are Sanders supporters getting?

Here’s the full list.

  • DWS:
    • Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland
    • Rep. Howard Berman of California
    • Rep. Barbara Lee of California
    • Bonnie Schaefer, author and executive
  • Clinton:
    • Wendy Sherman, a former top State Department official and Clinton surrogate
    • Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and longtime Clinton confidante
    • Rep. Luis Guttierez of Illinois
    • Carol Browner, a former former director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy
    • Ohio State Rep. Alicia Reece
    • Paul Booth of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union.
  • Sanders:
    • James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute
    • Cornel West, a liberal author and racial justice activist
    • Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota
    • Bill McKibben, author and environmental activist
    • Deborah Parker, Native American activist


Hillary Clinton Flubs on Reagans’ AIDS Legacy; Issues Two Apologies

While attending the funeral of Nancy Reagan in Simi Valley, California, Clinton made the following comment to NBC News:

“It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about H.I.V./AIDS back in the 1980s. And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan – in particular, Mrs. Reagan – we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it. Nobody wanted anything to do with it, and that, too, is something that I really appreciate. With her very effective, low-key advocacy … it penetrated the public conscience and people began to say: ‘Hey, we have to do something about this too.’”

Almost immediately, the fallout began. Criticism came swiftly from various quarters, not just LGBT organizations but news organizations such as Gawker; even Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign (who have endorsed Clinton’s campaign), stated on Twitter that “Nancy Reagan was, sadly, no hero in the fight against H.I.V./AIDS.” A few came to her defense, such as this post at The Peoples’ View, a pro-Obama blog.

Within hours, Clinton’s campaign issued the following apology:

“While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, I misspoke about her record on HIV and AIDS. For that, I’m sorry.”

Today, Clinton issued a second, much longer apology on Medium.com, which is below in full:

Yesterday, at Nancy Reagan’s funeral, I said something inaccurate when speaking about the Reagans’ record on HIV and AIDS. Since then, I’ve heard from countless people who were devastated by the loss of friends and loved ones, and hurt and disappointed by what I said. As someone who has also lost friends and loved ones to AIDS, I understand why. I made a mistake, plain and simple.

I want to use this opportunity to talk not only about where we’ve come from, but where we must go in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

To be clear, the Reagans did not start a national conversation about HIV and AIDS. That distinction belongs to generations of brave lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, along with straight allies, who started not just a conversation but a movement that continues to this day.

The AIDS crisis in America began as a quiet, deadly epidemic. Because of discrimination and disregard, it remained that way for far too long. When many in positions of power turned a blind eye, it was groups like ACT UP, Gay Men’s Health Crisis and others that came forward to shatter the silence — because as they reminded us again and again, Silence = Death. They organized and marched, held die-ins on the steps of city halls and vigils in the streets. They fought alongside a few courageous voices in Washington, like U.S. Representative Henry Waxman, who spoke out from the floor of Congress.

Then there were all the people whose names we don’t often hear today — the unsung heroes who fought on the front lines of the crisis, from hospital wards and bedsides, some with their last breath. Slowly, too slowly, ignorance was crowded out by information. People who had once closed their eyes opened their hearts.

If not for those advocates, activists, and ordinary, heroic people, we would not be where we are in preventing and treating HIV and AIDS. Their courage — and their refusal to accept silence as the status quo — saved lives.

We’ve come a long way. But we still have work to do to eradicate this disease for good and to erase the stigma that is an echo of a shameful and painful period in our country’s history.

This issue matters to me deeply. And I’ve always tried to do my part in the fight against this disease, and the stigma and pain that accompanies it. At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, when my husband accepted the nomination for president, we marked a break with the past by having two HIV-positive speakers — the first time that ever happened at a national convention. As First Lady, I brought together world leaders to strategize and coordinate efforts to take on HIV and AIDS around the world. In the Senate, I put forward legislation to expand global AIDS research and assistance and to increase prevention and education, and I proudly voted for the creation of PEPFAR and to defend and protect the Ryan White Act. And as secretary of state, I launched a campaign to usher in an AIDS-free generation through prevention and treatment, targeting the populations at greatest risk of contracting HIV.

The AIDS crisis looks very different today. There are more options for treatment and prevention than ever before. More people with HIV are leading full and happy lives. But HIV and AIDS are still with us. They continue to disproportionately impact communities of color, transgender people, young people and gay and bisexual men. There are still 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States today, with about 50,000 people newly diagnosed each year. In Sub-Saharan Africa, almost 60 percent of people with HIV are women and girls. Even though the tools exist to end this epidemic once and for all, there are still far too many people dying today.

That is absolutely inexcusable.

I believe there’s even more we can — and must — do together. For starters, let’s continue to increase HIV and AIDS research and invest in the promising innovations that research is producing. Medications like PrEP are proving effective in preventing HIV infection; we should expand access to that drug for everyone, including at-risk populations. We should call on Republican governors to put people’s health and well-being ahead of politics and extend Medicaid, which would provide health care to those with HIV and AIDS.

We should call on states to reform outdated and stigmatizing HIV criminalization laws. We should increase global funding for HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment. And we should cap out-of-pocket expenses and drug costs—and hold companies like Turing and Valeant accountable when they attempt to gouge patients by jacking up the price of lifesaving medications.

We’re still surrounded by memories of loved ones lost and lives cut short. But we’re also surrounded by survivors who are fighting harder than ever. We owe it to them and to future generations to continue that fight together. For the first time, an AIDS-free generation is in sight. As president, I promise you that I will not let up until we reach that goal. We will not leave anyone behind.

In summation, the apology/essay is replete with homages and references to the history of the epidemic and the fierce activists who fought against it.

One of the questions which are now being raised to this essay, and to the whole controversy sparked by her words, is “what was she thinking when she lauded the Reagans?”

Anyone can read about how Ronald Reagan didn’t utter the word “AIDS” until at least 5 years into the plague and over 20,000 people died from it in the United States; when the word was uttered by his press secretary, it was done so in jest with a homophobic crank propagandist named Les Kinsolving.

Anyone can read about the desolation in neighborhoods across the country, how it went beyond being a so-called “gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome” to becoming a “Black” disease around which conspiracy theories (on par with the Reagans’ alleged flooding of Black neighborhoods with cocaine) hover to this day. More recent knowledge shows how the Reagans did not help their “dear friend”, Hollywood actor Rock Hudson, as he suffered from AIDS and languished without a more advanced French hospital to spend his last days.

Clinton, as she stated in her essay, lived through the crisis and saw many people in her life suffer and die from the disease in the 1980s and 1990s. She was personally affected by the plague’s devastation, and I have no doubt that she was affected. She freaking went with her husband to visit AIDS quilt memorial on the National Mall.

But was she, at the time she spoke those words to Andrea Mitchell, not as knowledgeable about the deep politics and mistrust regarding the Reagan administration’s comparative lack of a response to AIDS? And if so, did she read up on that history (a la the late Randy Shilts’ powerful 1987 history book And the Band Played On, or the Cliff’s Notes version) between the first and second apologies? Even more cynical queries abound regarding this incident and the aftermath.

But given that she only mentioned the word HIV/AIDS once in that paragraph of words, my money is on her first apology’s claim of misspeaking on the Reagans’ legacy on Alzheimer’s disease. The Reagans did start a national conversation on Alzheimer’s after Reagan left office, similar to how both Michael J. Fox and radio host Ron Reagan (son of Ronald and Nancy) started the modern national conversation on Parkinson’s disease being treatable through stem cell research.

I accept this claim because the following speech at the convention which brought her spouse to power helped further raise the profile of AIDS victims to political levels.

I accept it because her spouse’s administration dramatically raised federal funding for HIV prevention and treatment, and because the Clinton Foundation has been a leading funder for HIV/AIDS research, treatment and prevention.

I don’t think there is any way that she or anyone could deliberately credit the Reagans with starting anything resembling a national conversation on, or even a timely response to, the AIDS plague.

Well, there are some who would, and they’re pretty weird:

BREAKING: Clinton, Trump Win Georgia + Most Other #SuperTuesday States

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both won Georgia in the #SuperTuesday Primary. It was largely predicted by polls that both candidates would win Georgia and the lion’s share of states in both major primaries on Tuesday.

Georgia contributes 102 out of 3,657 delegates to the Democratic National Convention and 76 out of 2,108 delegates to the Republican National Convention.

Pink Peach News’ Voter Guide to #SuperTuesday

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/24101702220

So Today is Tuesday, and not just ANY Tuesday, but #SuperTuesday!

Why is it #super? What makes it much bigger than most other days throughout the American calendar?

Well, it’s one of the most important days in electoral politics, when the two big tents of American politics – the Democratic and Republican parties – hold their separate primaries in 13 states and 1 territory to decide their nominees for president. It tends to have a big impact on the decisions made by both parties later on in the year at their national conventions.

Why this election matters

This year is historic for both parties:

Democrats have an opportunity to pull a hat trick which has eluded them since the foundation of the party: succeed a two-term Democratic president with another Democratic president. The last attempt to do such was in 2000, when Vice President Al Gore made a bid to succeed two-term President Bill Clinton, but lost to Texas Governor George W. Bush under highly-controversial circumstances which ended in a Supreme Court decision handing the election to Bush. This time, either of the major Democratic candidates – Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton – are trying to succeed a two-term Democratic President, Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, Republicans face a civil war of endorsements and social media accusations between more orthodox social conservative candidates – Rubio, Cruz, Kasich and Carson – and the winner of 3/4 of Republican primaries this cycle, Donald Trump. Trump is explicitly nationalist, regularly breaks Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment (“Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican”), and has drawn a large fanbase of assorted nativists, racists and aggrieved unemployed people, both from inside and outside the party. Trump has gone from being embraced within the party for his accusations regarding President Obama’s place of birth to reviled within a large constituency of the party for his using the same tactic against Cruz and Rubio, both of Cuban descent. Trump has also cast himself as solidly against causes for racial justice and integration of immigrants.


Pink Peach News’ preliminary decision?

Vote for a Democrat. 

Sanders-021507-18335- 0004
Sen. Bernie Sanders

That’s right. Both individuals have stellar records in the last few years on LGBT and women’s rights (both, in their separate careers in the Senate, voted for and co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA), have had their own courses of political evolution (up til a few years ago, both were in favor of civil unions for same-sex couples rather than full marriage equality, but as elected officials, voted against anti-marriage equality bills like DOMA and the Federal Marriage Amendment), and have helped to increase the profile of LGBT people, rights and issues in the Democratic Party and progressive-liberal politics.

Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid - Washington
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Both are challenging each other on not just their evolutions, but also on issues of economic justice. Both have tactics which clash in their passion with each other: Clinton’s pragmatic reforms vs. Sanders’ revolutionary shakeup. Both can go a long way: Clinton’s experience as Secretary of State is a major plus for why she should be our next President, while Sanders’ long-running protest of our political and economic system is a useful critique for America to be better in our conduct than our past.

Warts and all, both candidates have offered much to LGBT people, to women, and to people of color in their own times as elected officials.


The Republicans in this cycle have offered nothing to the advancement of LGBT people, and are currently legislating to make us second-class citizens. All GOP candidates for president – Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson and Kasich – have pledged to roll back marriage rights for same-sex couples. This negatively affects ALL LGBT people in Georgia and around the country.

In my capacity as editor of Pink Peach News, I make no endorsement for Republicans in this election. Either Democratic candidate this cycle is more advantageous to LGBT people than any Republican candidate. The GOP way is a no-go for this cycle.

Readers, after you check your registration status and find your voting station, please vote for a Democrat today. Your rights and posterity depend on it.