April 14, 2016 at 5:02 pm EDT | by Chris Johnson
Sanders raising funds against gay congressional candidates
Bernie Sanders, gay news, Washington Blade

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) (Photo by Gino Santa Maria; courtesy Bigstock)

Following criticism that he hasn’t aided candidates down ballot from the presidential race, Bernie Sanders has announced three congressional hopefuls he supports — and two of them are seeking to defeat openly gay contenders.

In a fundraising email on Wednesday, Sanders announced he has endorsed three U.S. House candidates who support him in the presidential race and are seeking the Democratic nomination to run for Congress.

Sanders declared support for Lucy Flores, a former Nevada Assembly member running in Nevada’s 4th congressional district; Pramila Jayapal, a member of the Washington State Senate running in Washington’s 7th congressional district; and Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham University running in New York’s 19th congressional district.

The candidate makes the endorsements amid criticism he hasn’t aided other candidates seeking office despite having raised $140 million this election cycle. An unprecedented amount comes from small donors, whom Sanders often says have contributed a average of $27 to his campaign.

According to the Huffington Post, the fundraising email isn’t the first time two of these three candidates have worked with the Sanders campaign. Both Flores and Jayapal introduced the presidential candidate during rallies in their respective home states of Nevada and Washington. Flores also appeared in an advertisement for Sanders that ran before the Nevada caucuses.

But two of these three candidates are seeking to defeat openly gay contenders seeking the Democratic nomination to run for Congress. As of right now, a total of seven lawmakers serving in the Congress are openly gay, lesbian or bisexual, or slightly more than 1 percent of the legislative body. That’s short of the estimated 3.5 percent of the U.S. population as a whole who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, according to the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles. (Transgender people make up an estimated one-third of one percent of the U.S. population, but no member of Congress, nor any member of a state legislature, is openly transgender.)

Teachout is running against Will Yandik, an openly gay farmer and Livingston deputy town supervisor who recently had a child with his same-sex spouse. Their primary is on June 28, weeks after the presidential contest on Tuesday.

Jayapal is competing against two openly gay candidates: Joe McDermott, a former member of the Washington legislature and now a member of the King County Council, and Brady Walkinshaw, a member of the Washington State House. Their primary is set for August 2, some time after the Washington presidential caucuses for Democrats, which took place on March 26, and the Republicans, which is set for May 24.

Both McDermott and Walkinshaw told the Washington Blade they objected to Sanders’ endorsements of their opponents at a time LGBT people aren’t proportionately represented in Congress.

McDermott called Sanders’ endorsement out-of-state interference in a race that should be decided by people of his district n Washington State.

“The people of Washington’s seventh congressional district should decide their next representative, not out of state interests, whether from Super PACs or presidential candidates,” McDermott said. “As a gay legislator, I led efforts to include our transgender citizens in our state’s hate crime statute, and was a leader in the years long work to achieve marriage equality in Washington. I’ll put my track record of proven progressive results up against anyone, and so long as the voters of the seventh district aren’t drowned out by outside money, I’m very confident we’ll be successful in November.”

Walkinshaw said Sanders’ effort is undermining efforts to seat an openly LGBT and Spanish-speaking person as a representative in Congress.

“It’s sad that any national campaign would ignore the fact that multiple progressive leaders are running in competitive Democratic primaries like Washington’s 7th, where we have the chance to send our State’s first openly LGBT member to Congress and a first native Spanish speaker,” Walkinshaw said. “We’re seeing states and a radicalized Republican party around our country pursuing discriminatory policies with newfound fervor, and now is not the time to be closing doors on LGBT candidates.”

Their opponent whom Sanders endorsed, Jayapal, is a civil rights activist who recently was executive director of the pro-immigration advocacy group OneAmerica. During her brief tenure starting this year as a member of the Washington State Senate, Jayapal voted against SB 6443, anti-trans bathroom legislation that would have prohibited transgender students from using public restrooms in schools consistent with their gender identity.

The campaign for Yandik declined to comment for this article. Teachout, who served as CEO for the campaign finance reform Mayday PAC, has taken part in New York City Pride and during her 2014 primary challenge to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was endorsed by some local New York City LGBT groups.

McDermott has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, but neither Walkinshaw nor Yandik have made an endorsement in the presidential race.

The campaign for Sanders, who has a long record in support of LGBT rights and voted against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, didn’t respond to repeated requests from the Washington Blade to comment on whether Sanders was aware he’s raising money against gay congressional candidates and whether he thinks the endorsements are undermining LGBT representation in Congress.

During a campaign rally Wednesday night attended by an estimated 27,000 people in New York City, Sanders said his campaign about ensuring a “decent standing of living” for all Americans, invoking the Stonewall riots among other things as an example of progress.

“This campaign remembers, interestingly enough, something that happened two or three blocks away from here,” Sanders said. “And that is that 47 years ago, the gay community said that in this country, right over here in the Stonewall Inn, that in this country, people will have the right to love each other no matter what their gender is.”

Chris Johnson is Chief Political & White House Reporter for the Washington Blade. Johnson is a member of the White House Correspondents' Association. Follow Chris

  • Wow. I used to like this guy, but every day the evidence piles up that he’s just a self-centered, egotistical jerk.When critics said he wasn’t supporting down ticket Democrats, they didn’t mean to pick and choose sides in primary battles to effectively buy endorsements. Meanwhile Hillary has raised millions for downticket Democrats, even ones that haven’t endorsed her, including the ones Sanders is buying off now. She’s party building while he is doing his best to tear the party to pieces.

  • While I can’t say much about the West Coast races, I voted for Teachout against Cuomo in the last election. She’s a hardcore Socialist and the endorsement doeant surprise me.

  • I’m sorry, but this is really shallow. Being openly gay does not grant you the right to win an election just because you are gay. It’s a non-issue. I am openly gay, and I certainly would not use that status to shame others into voting for me. Vote for the people that actually accomplish something, and that are the most qualified to create change. You are purposely shaming and dividing here. It is nasty.

  • Hillery is raising money to get more Democrats elected. She is trying to get rid of Republicans. Sanders is trying to get rid of certain Democrats. He has very narrow criteria. He only cares about socialism. He doesn’t care about equitable representation in government by women, minorities or LGBT. These are not important to him. He does not know these areas or the people. When Democratic leaders back a certain candidate electability comes into play. The people in these districts are all trying to win Republicans seats. He would be a disaster at the head of the Democratic Party. He would never embrace the whole Party.

  • this is dumbest article and headline ever.

  • This article is so stupid. The next headline will probably lead with “Sanders raising funds against Christian congressional candidates.”

  • This piece basically argues for selection of a candidate based upon sexual preference, similar to arguments for supporting a candidate based on gender. Sorry, I’m one of the pioneers of LGBTQ civil rights and what I’ve learned over the decades is that voting with our brains gets us more every time. WA Senator Pramila Jayapal has been a true and reliable advocate for ALL marginalized communities for over two decades and simply because she’s not gay and has received the endorsement of Bernie Sanders is no reason to disparage her. She and the other down ballot candidates mentioned here are true champions for the underdog and outsider classes. Wake up, Blade, this is the 21st century.

  • There’s nothing in this article that leads me to believe that Sanders is raising money for the opponents of these candidates because they are gay and his record certainly would add credibility to the idea that their sexuality has nothing to with why he would or wouldn’t support a candidate. I’m not a supporter of Sanders but I’m firmly of the opinion that this is b.s. He should, however, be raising money for the entire party to be distributed among our downticket candidates. If we have a Democratic President but a Republican led Congress for another 6+ years, we’ll see nothing but gridlock again. Bernie Sanders agreed to raise money for the downticket members of the DNC when he was permitted to run as a Democrat. It’s a promise he needs to live up to.

    • @AKRNC:disqus: And as he pointed out at the debate, he has lived up to that promise. He has caucused with democrats for years, and fundraised through the DSCC for a whole host of down ticket democrats running for senate positions. Additionally, at every Sanders event I’ve been to in Missouri, we’ve met local candidates that the Sanders campaign has given time… usually the majority of the time… to in order to make sure they get elected.

      On the Hillary side of things, it’s true that she has raised a lot more money for down-ticket democrats via her Hillary Victory Fund, but she also made that money conditional on state democratic parties supporting her campaign, which I think is REALLY low. The reason she had the support of so many more superdelegates on day one this year is because she had quite literally bought the support of 33 state democratic parties. I don’t think that’s right at all.

      I personally have been out campaigning for Berniecrats, and will attempt to get progressives elected wherever I can, because you’re absolutely right that we’re going to need to retake the senate and at least make a dent in the house if we want to get anything done. That’s one of the reasons I back Sanders… he’s brought in a TON of new voters to the Democratic party, and those voters are going to help us take back congress.

  • This is terrible reporting. An equally fair headline would be “Sanders raises money for women of color running against rich white men.”

  • Where was Barney Franks endorsement? Oh yeah, he threw it to the establishment. Being Gay is not a sole qualifier to being a progressive. There are gay republicans too, you want him to support those guys too?

  • Tipping the Two Faces of Bernie?

    So Sanders, the not even half-Democrat, spent half of last week running a half-sexist campaign– unbelievably, attacking as ‘unqualified’– among the most-qualified presidential candidates in American history. Ever.

    That must have been a ‘one-off’ for good old, avuncular lib, Bernie Sanders. Right???

    But now we discover that Sanders is opposing, with cold hard cash, openly gay Democrats in TWO out of THREE down-ballot congressional races.

    I’d say that justifies LGBTs cutting Sanders’ remaining ‘tips’ by at least two thirds… for his bold delivery of really bad service on gender equality and LGBTQ empowerment.

    Generously tipping a waiter who has repeatedly provided sloppy service and empty-plate promises is not just goofy. It also encourages the waiter to extend his sloppy service to others.

    • I’m gay, but that doesn’t mean I’m automatically going to vote for a gay candidate just because they’re gay. That’s like saying, “Oh, your GAY? You should meet my friend, Steve! He’s gay TOO!” I’m all for more gay folks in public office, but I’m not gonna slam someone just because they support a non-gay candidate over a gay one.


  • I agree with Nathan. I am also an openly gay man. But that doesn’t mean I would automatically vote for a gay candidate. Assuming that is like saying, “Oh, you’re gay? I should introduce you to my friend Steve! He’s gay TOO!” Come on…

  • So simply being gay trumps policy considerations? In other words are we to support Aaron Schock unconditionally?

  • Oh my… and just to think of it: I wanted to start a discussion, but there have been about 30 guys/women before me who have had the same thought… )))
    Chris Johnson – shame, shame, shame.
    The only thing you have failed to do yet, is transferring a Hillary for President decal on your forehead and running around with it.
    Petit bourgeois – that’s the only recation you deserve.
    No, I will not vote for Hillary. Your effors are for naught. Sorry.

  • #HillarySoQualified that her minions are forced to write nonsensical hit pieces like this article.

  • Sanders fought for gay rights, while Hillary was throwing gays under the bus.
    She thought gay marriage should be illegal until 2013.
    Thanks for reminding us that Bernie is the leader; and that Hillary follows the money.

  • If this clip of Hillary doesn’t make your skin crawl, then you are not an ally to the LGBT community.
    Bernie is an ally, and was long before Hillary found the “courage”.

  • Saying Bernie is raising money against gay candidates is like saying he’s against all children of Cuban immigrants (i.e. Ted Cruz)! In that same light, is Blade magazine and this article’s writer against Women and Immigration reform in light of this pro-gay candidate rant? Of course not. I love that the journalist buried in the article that both the candidates Bernie supports also voted against anti-gay and anti-trans legislation.

  • Bernie Sanders is so divisive.

  • So… to recap, Bernie is continuing to send money down-ballot by backing 3 more congressional candidates, who are allies, 2 of whom are running against incumbents who are gay… because they believe they are better on fiscal policy. And the author expects me to, on that basis, reject Sanders and all 3 congressional candidates as anti-LGBT?!

    You, sir, are acting shamefully. This is really indefensible.

  • This article is trash. It does nothing but cause confusion for voters in my district.

    Walkinshaw will represent our district very well and speak with a clear progressive voice.

    Come to an upcoming campaign event or contact his campaign to learn more.

    I don’t work for the campaign and am a supporter who is sad to see people using this terrible article as an example of what Brady Walkinshaw stands for. This is a very disappointing and misleading article.

  • Being gay isn’t a ticket in. It must NOT be a door to keep people out.

  • He should definitely endorse some gay Republicans because it doesn’t matter if they have the same policies….

  • Sanders does not have a “long record” of supporting LGBT folk, he has a spotty record. In 1994 he released a statement that his vote against DOMA was bases on state’s rights not support of “same gender marriage.” He finally made a statement in support of marriage equality in 2010. His claims of support is nothing but pandering. With his choice candidate to endorse we see his REAL attitude toward LGBT folk.

    • Incorrect. He has been an ally since at least 1973, and his record has been SOLID ever since then.


      • The 1994 date was a typo, however the rest of the post is accurate. The 1973 you quote, shows a letter to the editor written about a national drive to rewrite criminal codes in the several states. This drive included removing several “victim less crimes,” such as sodomy. However, what neither the article nor the letter states is in the 49 states that had sodomy laws in 1969 sodomy laws were not limited to same gender sexual activities, but included many heterosexual activities as well. Sanders’ letter supporting the reworking of the criminal code was not aimed at supporting the gay community but clearing up the code.
        It was 10 years later that Sanders signed a parade permit for a pride march, after the majority of the city council voted for it.
        The article you cite points out that Bernie’s support has been spotty at best. It proves he has not been a long term supporter of marriage equality as he claims. He has not supported anti-discrimination laws until recently.
        I may make typos in my posts, but at least I check my history BEFORE accusing others of posting incorrect information.

          • Not even a good try Tony.
            The first link says “He didn’t do anything special, he just made them welcome.” That is not support of LGBT rights, it is being kind. And it also talks about 1980s NOT the ’70s.
            The second link connect to nothing.
            The third link list things like voting against DOMA, which you previous link explained was not a vote in favor of marriage. His vote against DADT left the total ban of LGBT folk in the military, hardly a stand for equality. Trashing a group that did not endorse him by calling it a part of the establishment, is not a move of equality. Particularly when it comes from a member of the establishment as an elected office for 30 years.. And the vote to uphold the decision of the government of DC is expected from all democrats.
            The fourth link repeats Bernie’s claims about his vote on DOMA which was disproved by the article in your last post, and it included the letter to the editor which was explained in my last post.
            The fifth link is an endorsement of Bernie, which does not mention LGBT rights at all.
            Bernie’s record is not solid at all.

          • I’m confident that others can google (and read) Bernie’s record better than you can.

          • Tony, it is you that need to read Bernie’s record. I have read it, and researched it. I know what he has and has not done. I also have read every link you have posted, and they have all proved my points not yours. You are free to believe what you wish, you do have the right to be wrong. However, those who can actually do research will know the TRUTH, which is Bernie’s record on LGBT rights is spotty at best.

          • No Tony, you are. Look it up if you dare. Or even better, read the links YOU posted. YOU disprove your own argument.

          • So Bernie voting against DOMA is not as good as Hillary campaigning and favoring DOMA. Get a grip, troll

          • Excuse me, but what was Hillary campaigning for? She was not in elected office, nor would she be running for one for another 4 years. Bernie telling lies about why he voted against DOMA in order to get votes is worse than anything Hillary has done.
            I love how you ignore the issue, and then call anyone who will not accept Bernie’s propaganda a troll. When you stp[ being concerned about the truth and onlyattack those who speak it you become the troll.

          • She was in favor of DOMA, that is a fact…and you are a troll, also a fact

          • Two unproven facts, nothing new from you. I could ask you to provide proof that she support DOMA, but trolls like you do not believe you have to provide proof for anything. Usually because you cannot. Isn’t it past your bed time little boy?

          • I read the article, and it talks about he statement in 2015, it says nothing about her campaigning for it it 1996. It says her husband signed it, it did not say she support it. Once again troll, where is your proof that she campaigned for it in 1996?

          • lol, she is defendinit and even gay activists who suppoert her are calling her on this saying that not only is she wrong but she is also trying to rewrite history, like she did with Nancy Reagan and the aids epidemic…

            So you Clinton fans are very happy to talk about how great the 90’s were and try to tie her to that “success” only when it is convenient. Disappointment with Hillary Clinton’s version of how the Defense of Marriage Act became law is bubbling into public conversation among activists.

            During an interview with Rachel Maddow on Friday, Clinton described her husband signing DOMA in 1996 as a “defensive action,” meant to stave off passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.


            But that’s not how activists on the ground remember the fateful law’s passage.

            “It’s just not true,” wrote Michelangelo Signorile in a column today for The Huffington Post. “There was no talk, among activists, antigay forces or politicians, of a constitution amendment in 1996 when Clinton signed DOMA.”

            Bernie Sanders amplified the historical disconnect when he used a speech before the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa to highlight his vote at the time against DOMA.

            “Now today, some are trying to rewrite history by saying that they voted for one antigay law to stop something worse,” he told them. “That’s not the case.”

            Sanders had long shied away from attacks on Clinton, and he never mentioned his opponent by name, a tactic The Washington Post referred to glibly as “one long subtweet of Hillary Clinton.” Then Sanders reiterated the criticism when asked about it during an appearance on State of the Union on CNN Sunday.

            Even some big-name political activists and longtime Clinton supporters, like Hilary Rosen, are siding with Sanders’s version of the story.

            “Bernie Sanders is right,” Rosen wrote on Twitter on Saturday. “Note to my friends Bill and Hillary: Please stop saying DOMA was to prevent something worse. It wasn’t, I was there.”

            “The LGBT community should NEVER allow any politician to revise our noble and courageous history for political purposes,” wrote activist David Mixner Sunday.

            Their tweets and those from other activists triggered a story from the Washington Blade — “Gay Activists Unhappy With Clinton Remarks on DOMA” — that noted the increasingly outspoken dissatisfaction with Clinton’s version of events. That story has been picked up by a number of news sites, even conservative ones like Glenn Beck’s The Blaze and The Daily Caller.

            And freshly being passed around is an op-ed written in 2013 by the former head of the Human Rights Campaign, Elizabeth Birch, who responded to President Bill Clinton once trying to offer the same version of history being shared now by Hillary Clinton.

            Under a very straightforward headline, “President Clinton Is Wrong About the History of DOMA,” Birch wrote definitively for AmericaBlog that, “In 1996, I was President of the Human Rights Campaign, and there was no real threat of a Federal Marriage Amendment.”

            “President Clinton signed DOMA into law for purely political reasons,” wrote Birch. “I get it. As horrible as it was, I got it then. My point is that now I want the older and wiser President Clinton to reflect more deeply — to challenge himself. I want my friend to say: I was wrong, and you were all served badly by that moment in history.”

          • So your answer is you have no proof. Instead you presenting any non-existent proof, you chose to launch an attack, hoping that no one will notice that you avoided the issue. well isn’t to bad that did not work.
            Now, about you attack. You really should know who you are attacking before you start. You talk about activists on the ground in 1996 when DOMA was passed. I was one of those activists, and had been “on the ground for 29 years. I I joined the Mattichine society the day I turned 18, in 1967. I gave my first gay rights speech at a small church related college in NC in 1970, protested Anita Bryant, and fought homophobia before it was a word. I demonstrated for Gay Rights (we had not added all the letter yet) in GA from 1972-75.
            I took part in the founding of the United Church of Christ Lesbian Gay Coalition ( later to be called LGBT) the first mainline religious LGBT group in the nation. I served on the Gov. Advisory Board on Sexual Orientation in OH, and participated in OH first Pride march 4 years before Bernie signed a parade permit for one in Burlington. I was a founder of the the Untied Church AIDS Network and the AIDS National Interfaith Network, I lobbied Congress on LGBT issues for several years. I was a leader of the boycotts of both CO and Cincinnati. over their discriminatory anti-LGBT laws. I served as National Moderator of the UCCLGBTC. I have also been a member of more LGBT social action and social justice committees than I can count.
            Don’t presume to lecture me about what the condition was on the ground in 1996, or 1969, or 2015. I have lived and participated in the action on the ground since long before you ken what was going on. I also walked with Hillary in the NYC Pride March since the Secret Service allowed her to participate in 2000.
            Save your condescending attitude for someone who does not know what was going on.
            Now troll. you have two choices, an apology, or no return post.

          • Lol, As recently as last year she was still lying and defending DOMA as the lesser of two evils. In that article even some of her supporters called her on that lie.I am guessing that the gay activists that called her on her lie must have some kind of standing if they were interviewed by several media outlets… Maybe the media should ve contacted you. Apparently they dont know who you are. I dont care how many things YOU, not Hillary Clinton, have done in favor of gay rights, I dont have to apologize for telling the truth about her. After all you have done in favor of gay rights you are now standing on the. Wrong side of history.

          • When you start telling the truth, then we will worry about your not needing to apologize.
            You have been telling lies through out this conversation. You claimed Hillary campaigned for DOMA, and when pressed for proof, you present a link about comments mad in 2015, claiming it proved comments in 1996. When challenged on that, you claimed that you knew more about what happened “on the ground” than I did, which is a lie. When confronted with proof, you resorted to the final line of trolls every where, insults.
            The reason I have not been asked lately, for my opinion is I stopped being a professional gay years ago. Instead of dealing with folks like you who believe you know everything, when in fact you know nothing, I chose to spend my time teaching. So two Masters dDegrees and two PhDs. I find my enjoyment with people who actually want to learn the truth.
            You have your right to embrace inaccurate information, to show how little you know by trolling folk who know more, and demonstrate that propaganda can work on the willing. And I have my right to tell the truth, and challenge folk like you who thrive on trolling the intelligent.

    • and by the way, DOMA wasn’t even authored, let alone voted on, until 1996.


  • Gay is not a qualification, it is who you love..not a prerequisite for political office. Being a gay, married disabled combat veteran, I voted against the last gay politician here in SD as he was NOT qualified to serve…Bernie is not gay but he is the best choice for president as he is not bought and paid for. He has fought for us ALL..not special interests.

  • For a second I thought I was reading The Onion.

  • I’m sure if he supported the openly-gay candidates instead of the 3 women he’s supporting… he’d be getting grief for “raising funds against women”.

    He can’t win can he? Anything Bernie does or says is somehow a massive outrage and will be negatively framed with intent – such as the headline of this article makes clear what the intent of the article is… to smear.

  • News Flash… Gays can be Establishment, Corporate Puppets too!

  • This article proves the hypocrisy of the Democratic establishment elites. First they whine that Sanders hasn’t done enough to support the party, then when he does support the party, they whine and make slanderous lies about Sanders somehow being homophobic because he didn’t endorse the candidates the establishment has selected. If we live in a truly equal society, politicians should be voted on based on what their policies are and not what their sexuality is. If sexuality is all you care about, then you might as well vote for the Log Cabin Republicans. To insinuate that if you vote against a gay politician no matter what your reason that somehow makes you homophobic is insulting to all American voters and is dangerous thought crime. At least Washington Blade finally got Sanders’ name right after months of calling him Bernard instead of Bernie.

  • I’m bisexual (but leaning toward gay) and: if there was a primary election between an openly gay candidate supported by the business establishment, versus a hardcore progressive populist/socialist type (think Kshama Sawant), I’d go with the left populist every time.

  • This whole article is a fluff piece. The only reason to write it is click bait and to smear Bernie. Bernie is far from bigoted against LGBTQ… just look up his famous outburst on the Congressional floor defending gay servicemen and women.

  • This is a blatant attempt to create a crisis where there is none, and to imply that Senator Sanders’ is opposed to the candidates mentioned BECAUSE they are gay and we all know that is ludicrous. He has been ally to the LGBT community for decades. Unlike his opponent who is on record as opposing marriage. equality.


  • He can’t endorse people because they might compete with a few openly gay candidates? What kind of drivel is this author and paper spouting?

  • Being gay doesn’t grant immunity. I don’t care about gay, straight or whatever, I care if the candidate works in the best interest of their constituents.

  • The title should be “Sanders raising funds for other progressives.” It’s pretty pathetic when people vote for someone because of their skin color, gender, or sexual preference. Yeah, I’d love to see more openly gay men and women in politics. But no, I don’t think their sexual orientation should be a factor, whether positively or negatively. It’s kind of insulting to me as a gay man when people imply that it should.

  • I am a Gay man and that doesn’t mean that I am going to support someone just because that person is gay. There are many gay people supporting Hillary, the one that until recently was against marriage equality and praised Nancy Reagan and her work in “favor of aids patients” (knowingly pandering for republican votes…because she is not that dumb). I believe in Bernies message and I will support and vote for tose who stand for real change. Their sexual orientation is not an issue for me and it shouldnt be an issue for Bernie or anyone else.

  • Zephyr Teachout primaried the governor of New York and did very well, she is reams more qualified than her opponent. Sanders also has a top grade rating from the HRC, there is no story here.

  • Bernie should just donate to Democratic candidates and let the voters decide who wins. Isn’t that what
    he’s asking to have for himself? Seems like the democratic thing to do.

  • Chris Johnson your reporting is embarrassing.

  • Sorry, but when Congress is balanced to represent the male and female population ratio, then I’ll worry about what percentage of gay people hold office.

  • How pathetic is this, suggesting that we LGBT voters should vote for or against a candidate simply because of their sexuality or gender identity? Personally, I’m offended, and the author neglects to similarly point out that the HRC has endorsed Republican Mark Kirk over Democratic Lesbian Senator Tammy Baldwin; but I suppose that’s different, both Baldwin and the HRC endorsed Hillary. For myself, I’d rather vote for the candidates who are consistant, have credibility and the long-term courage of their convictions; which, in Bernie’s case, I can say are completely aligned with my own. Political opportunists are a dime a dozen, and represent the status quo of our completely corrupt government. More bought & Paid-4 representatives derailing our democracy is something we can’t afford, Black, White, Gay and with or without imaginary friends.

  • What if the situation were framed as the gay candidates running against progressive women of color? This is infantile, regressive, and counterproductive identity politics. The best candidate for all on the widest range of issues deserves to win.

  • This is what I consider a libelous comment. The headline is totally misleading and the facts of the article do not support the headline. Bernie is supporting the candidates who support him. These candidates are pro gay civil rights. The fact that they happen to be running against gays is immaterial. You don’t deserve a place at the table simply because you are gay or black. Elections are about leadership. They are not about affirmative action. One of the candidates Bernie’s endorsed candidate is running against is a Hillary Clinton supporter.

  • By the time Hillary “evolved” on gay marriage, her daughter was already married to a hedge fund manager….

  • Will Yandick is a good guy- and he actually prefers Sanders. Guess that doesn’t matter. .

  • Trying to convince a Hillbot to support Bernie is a waste of time. How much more evidence through the decades could there be against the Clintons? Either they are to naive to believe that people with great power have the means to skirt the law or they have no moral compass. Either way, it is up to those of us to see the Clintons for what they are and support the candidate who can defeat Trump. The sad thing is that if she is nominated and Trump wins, it will be tough to find people who admit that they supported her. I am proud to say that I feel the Bern!

  • Not surprised at all by this. Sanders is an old-style “No struggle but class struggle” Socialist, and those types sneer at what they call “identity politics”, which is their term for anything that this mostly white cisgendered hetero male dominated crowd doesn’t see as important. (Or what Ralph Nader calls “gonadal politics” when referring strictly to women’s and LGBTQ issues.)

    His past record bears this out:


  • Well, raising the Minimum Wage is a great idea. However, real people can start tipping generously for good service today, without waiting on Congress or Republicans or Hillary to decide [not] to do anything. Thank you.

  • I don’t care if he’s gay. I do care about being lied to.

  • Why would Bernie endorse a Hillary democrat?

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2021. All rights reserved.