Tweet: "What if we just elected the black woman?"

[EffieBlack]

THIS!

Link to tweet

[brush]

1. Now that you mention it, black women sure have saved our Party's bacon a lot lately.

I'd be all in on a Harris/Beto ticket.

[EffieBlack]

2. There is something interesting about white men getting credit for chaining themselves to black women

while the black women continue to be ignored, isn't there?

[NurseJackie]

4. Nailed it!

[EffieBlack]

5. Not only that, but black women (and men) who wonder why they're still getting credit 50 years later

are told, "How DARE you question me after what we did for you!"

[brush]

10. Thanks for adding black men to the equation. We were/are the second highest...

demographic of voting Democratic.

[brush]

8. I had a post of mine alerted on and taken down when I responded that...

a post proposing a two-white-male Dem ticket for 2020 wouldn't fly considering the base and overall demographics of the Democratic Party. I suggested pairing either of the two with a woman or a POC and then we'd have something.

The reason for my post being pulled was "bigotry and insensitivity".

[EffieBlack]

14. Wow

But the approximately 37,000 (and counting) posts warning that we need a white male standard bearer because the stakes are too high to risk the election by playing "identity politics" continue to saturate the board.

Go figure ...

[curlyred]

23. Jeez, I think that is a stretch

And I am sorry that happened to you.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Yeah, I believe you and that might do it for me.

[yardwork]

78. I hope that you appealed that hide.

[brush]

83. I reposted in the AA group but that was taken down too. I appealed both.

The next day pulling was rescinded but by then it was old news as new postings were being discussed.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

72. as if she's just a prop, doing nothing

Invisible, still?

[calimary]

84. Yeah, no kidding!!!

[madaboutharry]

101. Exactly.

[Bleacher Creature]

6. Saved the Party??

Try, saved the entire freakin country!

The only thing keeping me going is the fact that Democrats are about to take over in the House. And without question, and I say this as a very grateful white guy, black women led the charge in making that happen.

[brush]

9. Thank you.

[Mister Ed]

13. They've saved the party, saved the country,

and saved the world.

Given the immense global power of the U.S - both military power and economic power - I don't think it's any stretch at all to say that saving the U.S. from its freefall into facism has also saved the world from disaster and destruction.

[brush]

52. Yeah, once you extrapolate it out, you're right.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

104. Yes, standing O to black women for their contribution to Democratic victories...

Would absolutely LOVE to see Michelle Obama run in 2020. Hope Kamala runs too and I look forward to hearing her current views on important issues of the day. Wouldn't mind if Maxine threw her hat onto the ring... ya gotta love her way... she would destroy the Racist-in-Chief!!

[MrScorpio]

3. Vote as black women vote

That’s the best advice

[mcar]

42. This is what I try to do

The base of the Democratic party has never led us wrong.

[ismnotwasm]

49. That's my plan

Absolutely my plan

[handmade34]

7. yes...

just fucking elect the black woman for god's sake!!!!!!!!!!!

time's up guys... we gotta turn this around, and soon....

[Iggo]

11. If he's the candidate, I'm voting for him happily.

If he's not, I'll vote for whoever is, just as happily.

[Catch2.2]

24. Exactly!

Agree 100%

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

109. Me too... gladly!

[sheshe2]

12. Interesting responses on that twitter thread. ;)

Thanks Effie.

[irisblue]

16. Sheshe, which tweet thread did you read?

The originating tweet, @WillisJermane or the replying one @JillFilipovic or both?
I found both intetesting.

[sheshe2]

19. The first one...

Will go check out the second one now, thanks irisblue.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. YES INDEED. K&R.

[violetpastille]

17. That image of BS has the exact opposite effect on me that his supporters want it to have.

[Stonepounder]

21. Not all of them. The Mrs. would die rather than vote for tRump, n/t

[Honeycombe8]

27. That sign is a lie.

Why do a sign that divides people on the left, spouts an untruth, and fosters feelings of enmity? What's the goal? To hopefully get voters not to vote for a white woman? That's racist.

I am a white woman. I did not vote for Trump. Therefore, that sign is a lie. So it doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy about voting for whoever wrote, or supports, that lie.

What if we see a sign at a protest that says, "Black women voted for Trump"?




How about a sign that says "Black men voted for Trump"?

[violetpastille]

28. A Woman Named Angela Peoples Made That Sign. She Says:

AP: Most were saying, “Not this white woman,” or “No one I know!” I’d say, “[Fifty-three percent] of white women voted for Trump. That means someone you know, someone who is in close community with you, voted for Trump. You need to organize your people.” And some people said, “Oh, I’m so ashamed.” Don’t be ashamed; organize your people.

That’s why the photo was such a great moment to capture, because it tells the story of white women in this moment wanting to just show up in a very superficial way and not wanting to do the hard work of making change, of challenging their own privilege. You’re here protesting, but don’t forget: The folks that you live with every single day—and probably some of the women that decided to come to the march—voted for Trump, made the decision to vote against self-interests to maintain their white supremacist way of life.

If you want to know more here is a link:
https://www.theroot.com/woman-in-viral-photo-from-women-s-march-to-white-female-1791524613

I associate this image with the "BS Chained to a Black Woman" photo. To me they shine a bright light on "White Wokeness Performance Art."

[Honeycombe8]

30. The sign says "White women voted for Trump."

I posted pics for similar signs that would say "Black women voted for Trump" and "Black Men Voted for Trump."

See what that kind of false sign engenders? Signs like that are not done by people on the left to promote the election of Democrats, IMO. Because (1) it's a lie, and (2) it sows the seeds of discord among the Democrats. There is no Democratic Party group that would do such a thing.

[violetpastille]

41. 52 Percent of White Women Who Voted - Voted For Trump

But we did do better than White Men. Sixty-two percent of them are not so good at the whole voting thing, apparently. So. There's that at least. Yay.

Four percent of Black Women voted for Trump.

So just in terms of percentages...statistics...Black Women pretty much have this Liberal Democracy thing wired, wouldn't you say?

[Honeycombe8]

43. The sign says "White women voted for Trump."

It's a lie. And it serves no purpose that helps the Democratic Party.

Black women voted for Trump.
Black men voted for Trump.
White women voted for Trump.
White men voted for Trump.

[violetpastille]

46. In your own experience then, forget the exit polls

How many black people do you know personally that voted for Trump?

And how many white people do you know personally that voted for Trump?

And what is the percentage of each?

[Honeycombe8]

47. Put your thinking cap on. That's a manipulation tactic.

No one who is working toward a 2020 Democratic Party win is going to work toward pitting the Democrats against each other because of race or gender or anything else.

Didn't we learn this lesson in 2016?

[violetpastille]

51. Here's the lesson we didn't learn in 1865

Or 1965.


White people need to clean up our OWN messes.

Racism is our mess. We need to get on that. We are the problem.


#yesallwhitewomen

[brush]

57. Wow, the truth has spoken.

[Bucky]

66. So you want racists to clean up racism?

Why would you sit around waiting for racists to end racism. That seems a little futile

[violetpastille]

73. Why wait?

Addicts can stop doing their addiction.

The first step is admitting we have a problem...

All white people benefit from systemic racism. All of us. Every day and in every way. Admitting that is the first step.

Step by step, each by each we can get there.

If the clock doesn't run out first.

[Bucky]

75. Now you're just confusing me

First you said all white women are racist. I assume you think white men are racist too.

Then you said white people need to clean up racism.

So you want the cleaning up to be done by racists. You even compared it to an addiction.

but then you said that white people benefit from racism. How is addiction a benefit? And more importantly, why do you think people would bring an end to something that they're benefiting from?

I mean, I always thought the idea of the victims of racism sitting around waiting for a white savior was a borderline racist notion. But on top of that, you want that savior to be a racist?

it just sounds to me like you're digging a hole with your sweeping racist generalizations about people, and giving up on the idea that Americans can work together.

I think you should explore the idea that the truth is a little bit more subtle than your ham-fisted generalities allow for

[mr_lebowski]

76. Well said (nt)

[violetpastille]

79. Okay. I'm being sincere here. Next it's your turn to tell me where you are coming from.

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2018, 06:56 PM - Edit history (3)

1.
All white people are racist. Because we benefit from systemic racism. I am including myself in that group. (White Woman)

2.
We are addicted to systemic racism. We don't want to give up that privilege. I would encourage white people to go into that place "Am I willing to give up all of my privilege?" Really go there. If it feels easy you aren't there yet.

If you have ever been addicted to a substance - or lived with an addict - you know that there are benefits derived from addiction. It's not all puking and shaking.

But plenty of denial.

3.
Denial. "I don't have a problem." "I've got this under control" "Not me" "It's not my fault" "I wasn't even there when.."

[Iggo]

90. +1.

[Bucky]

93. Fair enough

1. I think it's unnecessarily harsh to say that if I've benefited from institutional racism, I am therefore racist. I'm sorry, but that sounds like self-flagellation.

Just like some Libertarians go to the most severe form of anti-government beliefs to show there 'comrades' that they're sincere in believing what the rest of the group wants, just like Republicans swallow the BS about voter fraud (all the way up to believing Black Panther voter intimidation tactics and mass conspiracies of illegal aliens voting in California) just to rationalize their support for voter suppression efforts... There are people in the left who embrace extremist rhetoric like "all white people are racist" out of a commitment to rejecting racism. But it's misguided and divisive to the left and insulting to everyone.

Racism is something you believe. People do not believe things because of their skin color. We have free will. Sure, our experiences shape our understanding. But I've never met a problem that could be fixed by throwing labels around.

Sustaining the argument all white people are racist requires a complete redefinition of what "racism" means. I would very seriously doubt if you have any intentions of promoting racial discrimination. I very seriously doubt there's any part of you that buys into ideas of racial hierarchies. I sure know that these things don't apply to me. I am not a racist. Throwing pejorative terms around doesn't do anything to promote social justice.

2. Institutional racism is obviously a problem. But just like you don't feed starving people by giving up food, you don't end discrimination by sloughing off your white privilege.

For that matter white privilege isn't something you can actually give up. That's why it's called institutional racism, it's cooked into the American casserole. And obsessing about its impact on white people seriously distracts from where the focus should be, on those Americans who are being deprived of equal treatment under the law.

Besides which, framing all aspects of the American experience in terms of race tends to promote a victimization view of African Americans. That is demeaning to the full personhood of someone we are supposed to stand as allies with.

I guess what I'm saying is sweeping generalizations are not conducive to improving the country. Like any full plate, you can only tackle it one bite at a time.

3. I think the origin of this labeling approach to social justice comes from a genuine desire to challenge people's experiences and understanding. But you challenge stale notions and open peoples' eyes by offering a fresh understanding of events that demonstrate racial inequality. That requires opening a dialogue and building communication

Telling someone is they're a racist and don't know their own mind doesn't promote a dialogue, doesn't challenge anybody's perspectives, and works to shut down communication.

Here in Texas I'm involved with a group called SURJ (which stands for something something Racial Justice). Our work involves doing things and showing up, not diagnosing things from the sidelines, and not self-indulging in non-productive self-criticism. We build partnerships with other activist groups and take direct action where racist authorities need to be challenged.

I recommend being actively involved in building bridges with all people. Labels and gratuitous social divisions helps sustain injustice. People learning each other and connecting is always the first step in undermining injustice

[violetpastille]

100. The only important point we disagree on is this one:

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2018, 03:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Racism is something you believe.

I don't believe that racism is something that "you believe".

I believe that it is a system that you and I were born into.

We definitely agree that we can't individually opt out of white privilege. "No systemic racism for me today, thanks!"


Thank you, Bucky, for taking the time to put yourself out there for me. I appreciate it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

106. +1000

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

105. Very true!!

[EffieBlack]

33. "Not all white women"

Yes, we know...

[Iggo]

39. Not all white men, either.

But they did.

Lots and lots and lots of them.

In fact, most of them.

[Honeycombe8]

48. What matters is who the Democratic members voted for.

It serves no Democratic Party purpose to spout generalizations that sound like they matter, but which have nothing to do with our likelihood of winning in 2020 or any other time.

A sign that says "white women voted for Trump" does not help the Democratic Party win in 2020 and seems awfully close to the sorts of things that happened in 2015-2016. Almost-truths, but lies in totality, trying to sow discord among party members, so their vote is split.

It's misleading to state that "white women voted for Trump." What would be the purpose of such a sign? Help us win in 2020? No. Just the opposite, IMO. Did "white Democratic women" vote for Trump? No. So...what would be the purpose of such a sign, if not to give a misimpression and foster animosity between the races in the Democratic Party?

Don't fall for this stuff.

[Iggo]

54. The purpose...

...is to remind people who are complaining about face-eating leopards eating their faces that they keep voting for the Face-Eating Leopard Party.

[Honeycombe8]

58. "They" do not.

"WE" vote Democratic.

Don't fall for the manipulation tactics. There is no big disagreement among Democratic Party members on who to vote for. We voted for Hillary en masse, although a group broke off to vote for Stein. We will be voting for the Democratic Party candidate in 2020.

"We" do not keep voting for the opposition.

Don't fall for the manipulation. It's a clever sign, though. I'll grant it that. It's easy to think that the sign is true or that it means something it doesn't, or that it has something to do with who the Democrats voted for. But that's how manipulation works.

Democrats are together now, like they were in 2016, with a few exceptions as noted above.

And don't forget that some who are registered Democrat in the south, are really Republicans who never changed their party.

[Iggo]

60. I'm falling for nothing.

I know how I vote. And I know that most people who look like me don't vote the way I do, and I don't fall into denial or equivocation when I talk about it, and talking about it doesn't divide the Democratic Party.

[Bucky]

50. I wish we could discuss issues and if not dumb it down to demographics

I don't see how we can resist institutional racism in our society if we keep on buying into racist paradigms, such as race and gender being a determination of one's worth or character.

[mcar]

18. Can I rec this 1000 times?

[watoos]

20. United we stand, divided we fall.

[Catch2.2]

25. Thank you!

I'm all for a Black Woman as President, but let's unite to get rid of Traitor Trump & the Rethugs that protect him. Let's not start attacking each other. Not all white women are trump supporters, Bernie Sanders is not the devil, white men are not evil (at least not all of them). Lets stay positive and support all liberals and progressives!

[JudyM]

38. If only.

Energy devoted to repeatedly tearing down rather than binding ourselves back up. The irony is lost on some people.

[George II]

22. Sounds like a great idea to me. As for Willis...

..."who believe the things they say because they’ve lived them?" Say what? What white person has lived the life of ANY black person in this country? I think very few, and NONE who are thinking of running for President.

[Gothmog]

29. I agree-elect the black woman

[KayF]

31. some people think she means Kamala Harris

but I don't think she does.

[Iggo]

40. I'd be happy to vote for her a seventh time.

EDIT: Actually by then it'd be the 8th time.

[pdsimdars]

32. It is a "clever" tweet but misses the substance of the first. . .

which is that before Bernie was anyone, he believed in issues enough to put himself out there for them. That's a real someone.

[EffieBlack]

35. It didn't miss the substance of the first tweet at all... That's the point

[pdsimdars]

44. Oh, I didn't know she was into politics and running for president?

At least I don't think I ever heard of her running for president. And if she is NOT running for president, what you are saying is that a white man who has shown great integrity and IS running for president should be passed over for someone else who happens to be black.
I mean, do you know her positions on issues? Do you know if she has any experience or desire for politics? Has she tried to run for office? If not, then you are saying that she is black and a woman and simply on that basis she would be superior to Bernie. Preposterous!

[yardwork]

69. You really did miss the point.

[sheshe2]

103. Yep.

Sigh.

[pdsimdars]

59. Or, perhaps you meant that IF she had continued in politics

and had continued to fight politically to end these inequalities, that if she were running against someone like Bernie, maybe she should have the edge because the inequality had been hers to live.
On the other hand, the fight was imposed on her and not on Bernie, he CHOSE to fight for someone else's rights because it was wrong. That is what heroes do, fight for someone else.

[yardwork]

70. He went all the way to Vermont to fight.

[EffieBlack]

85. So he is extraordinarily noble because he "CHOSE" to fight while she had no choice?

Seriously?

White people don't get extra credit for fighting for civil rights since they don't don't have any less obligation or duty than black people do.

Fighting for civil rights is not something that anyone - regardless their race - does for the benefit of black people. It benefits EVERYONE, not just minorities - you do it for our country, humanity, for your souls. The idea that it's some kind of gift or favor white people do for us - that it's no big deal when we do it because it's for us but white people who do it should be praised and thanked because they're doing a good deed is beyond paternalistic.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

110. Couldn't agree more.

[pdsimdars]

111. Then why do you give her extra credit for being black? Seriously.

You don't know her positions on issues. You don't have a record on her activity politically. And yet, you stack up her "merits" to be superior to Bernie who has openly fought for equality his lifetime. Not simply, silently carrying on with his personal struggles, but out there trying to fight for everyone his whole life. To your thinking, none of that matters, but the overriding consideration in your mind is her race. Sorry, but that is BS.
There is a lifetime of work Bernie has done on behalf of others. And I don't know a single thing about this woman other than that she was a person of color. Seriously, is that all you base your decision on? Gimme a break!

[pdsimdars]

112. I have clearer thinking because of this discussion

The idea that comes to my mind is that there are 2 factors, the people living with the issue and the warriors fighting for the issue. The person living under oppression has the most visceral and nuanced understanding of the oppression. And the warrior is the one who is most skilled in fighting.
Now, if you had an oppressed person who became a warrior, that would give them the edge, because it is more personal AND they have learned the skills to do battle with the society as a whole.
And there are a number of strong, black women who are coming up now in politics. There were a few clips of Stacey Abrams during that campaign in Georgia. Now, there is someone to be reckoned with. And listen to Maxine Waters. She is no nonsense. Trump is in real trouble. They have the personal issue AND the skill set.

[yardwork]

68. A lot of us marched a few times in the 60s and 70s.

If that's the only criteria, then there are tens of millions of us just like Bernie. So?

[jalan48]

34. Can a black woman win in 2020? That's really the question, not whether it's deserved or not.

[EffieBlack]

36. It depends on who she is... You know, just like any white male candidate.

[jalan48]

45. Yes, and all black women interested in running for President should be encouraged to run in the

primaries. New voices can be a good thing.

[Bucky]

55. I think we're a little bit past that

We have twice seen in the past decade that the minority of people who will not cast of vote for Democrat because of race, will probably not cast a vote for Democrat at all.

Who we should nominate is the person that stable to produce a big win. That is my only criterion. That is the only criterion worth considering.

[jalan48]

63. I'm not quite sure what you are past but the primaries will determine who gets the nomination.

Let the candidates speak and then let the voters decide.

[Bucky]

64. I responded to your silly question

You asked "Can a black woman win in 2020? That's really the question, not whether it's deserved or not."

Actually, being qualified to be president is the number one question. The candidates race or sex do not matter.

Your question, about whether black woman can get elected or not, has been answered by history 3 times now, is superficial, and embraces racially prejudiced paradigms.

[jalan48]

74. My apologies if I offended you. To my knowledge no black woman has ever been the Party

nominee for President. Whether or not she is will be determined in the primaries and my statement expressed my scepticism.

"Actually, being qualified to be president is the number one question. The candidates race or sex do not matter."

I totally agree with this. It's too bad all Americans don't think like this.

[JI7]

80. a black woman would have won georgia governor but it was stolen from her

[ProudLib72]

91. Funny you should mention this

I got seriously dumped on when I posted "Stacey Abrams 2020", yet the Beto cries have not relented. And the reason for dismissing Abrams was that "she lost and we need someone who can win". Note to anyone who uses this excuse in the future: I fully understand what it is you are saying

[EffieBlack]

97. Thank you!

I've been asking about this for weeks and have gotten some of the weirdest excuses for the discrepancy between "Beto 2020" and "Stacey Who?"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

107. I would take Stacy Abrams over Beto O'Rourke in a heartbeat!

[IronLionZion]

37. The black woman from the civil rights protest, or any black woman?

[Bianca0293]

53. What if we just elected A woman?

What if we just elected A woman?

[Bucky]

56. We did

But it didn't take

[aikoaiko]

61. Ok, what is her name?

Or their names. Looks like two.

[WeekiWater]

98. Great question...

For multiple reasons.

[LiberalLovinLug]

62. Such a disengenuous insinuation and unnecessarily divisive

Not speaking about the "What if we just elected the black woman?". Because that could be taken as a wry tongue in cheek comment. But to extend that to denigrating the opinion of Jermane Lee Willis who describes himself as "Southern black who knows his rightful place = owning the means of production with my multi-racial, LGBTQ+, anti-war, working class brothers and sisters." by insinuating that this white man, obviously Bernie Sanders, was acting out of some kind of selfish reason to get "credit". So that many decades later, he knew that there would be this thing called social media and that they would spread a picture of it, to enhance his chances to become President.

Its not only a huge insult to intelligence in general to assume that, but its an insult to the thousands of white (+ Asian, Arab, Persian, etc..) Americans who stood by their black brothers and sisters. And risked themselves and their careers alongside them. And its an insult to all the present day non-African Americans that stand by and support BLM and support black athletes that kneel as a protest.

I just don't get why we have to put someone down, in order to praise someone else. I can understand how the black woman in this photo was risking more than the white man. I would not be at all surprised if she received more official retribution from her actions than Sanders did from his. That black protesters risked more than white protesters. But does that mean you sneer at white Americans that genuinely want to help right wrongs, especially from old photos of a younger man who had more to lose than gain from this kind of action.

Jermane Lee Willis, as a black person, respects those voluntary actions of a younger Bernie Sanders, and saw it as an indication of the character of the man, and thus would support him as President. Why do some feel they have to denigrate that?

[klook]

87. Thank you.

Most insightful post of this thread. The never-ending animosity toward progressives who will never be deemed sufficiently bonafide to satisfy a cadre of self-appointed arbiters of Democratic political purity is a puzzling position — and one that does a lot to weaken alliances among Democrats and their allies.

Our right-wing foes laugh and cheer us on every time we take up arms against our allies.

[LiberalLovinLug]

115. You are exactly right

Happ(ier) New Year!

[SidDithers]

65. One of the replies in the twitter thread suggested that...

Bernie's running mate will be Nina Turner.






Sid

[yardwork]

71. Nah. There's not enough room on the ticket for both of them...

[yardwork]

67. Immediate follow.

[Mike Nelson]

77. Would love to...

… vote for a black woman!

[JI7]

81. Mitch Mcconnell marched for civil rights also

to me it says something more about the person who keeps bringing that up as if it's something huge and rare.

and it kind of treats the black woman as a prop.

[oberliner]

82. Interesting that the "THIS!" tweet was by a white woman but the pro-Bernie tweet

Was by a black man.

[EffieBlack]

86. Why?

[oberliner]

114. I would've assumed it was the other way around

Based on the content of the tweets.

White people have historically taken for granted the role of black women in the civil rights struggled and elevated the actions of white allies, sometimes at their expense.

I thought it was interesting that the person who pointed out the erasure of the black women in that protest photo was not black and that the person who seemed to be promoting Bernie and somewhat dismissing the black protestors was not white.

[EffieBlack]

88. Reposting because, judging by some of the comments here, it needs to be reiterated

Why "Bernie was arrested in '63" is an inappropriate answer to criticism of his civil rights record
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210468176

Let me preface this by saying this is in no way an attack on - or even a criticism of - Bernie Sanders or a diminishment of his civil rights activism in the 1960s or an effort to "refight the primaries."

But all too frequently, any attempt to question or, God forbid, criticize, Sanders' record, attitudes or comments on civil rights today is met with a reminder that he was arrested while protesting for civil rights in 1963, often with an accompanying photograph and sarcastic comments such as "Here's a picture of Bernie hating black people," or similarly snide remarks.

So, let me explain why such responses to questions about Sanders' current record are not only completely beside the point, but show an ignorance about the civil rights movement, not to mention an arrogance and paternalism that is very galling to me and many other African Americans. Maybe, once folks understand this in a little more depth, they will be less likely to dismiss us in such a way.

First, I think it's great that Bernie Sanders and tens of thousands of other young white college students participated in civil rights protests across the country during the 1960s. They truly made a difference, whatever their contribution.

Some, like Bernie, participated in protests at or near their schools. Some traveled to other parts of the country to protest. Some went into the deep South to help organize and work on an ongoing basis. Some joined protests that put them in serious danger - such as the Freedom Riders who had no idea whether they would come back alive and, sadly, some did not. But whatever the degree and depth of their participation, every one made a difference.

Bernie Sanders' participation was admirable and laudable and appreciated. But he did not get involved or make the kinds of sacrifices that many other students made. Again - that's not a knock on him, just the reality. He participated in protests in which he knew that he would not face great harm or risk to his body, life or future. He joined a protest in which the students planned to be arrested, practiced for it (the movement trained protesters in non-violence and how to be arrested so as not to be injured or accused of resisting arrest). He also likely knew, going in, that, like most white students in these protests, he would not be physically abused, his rights would be protected, he would be released shortly thereafter and his penalty would be a small fine - in this case $25 - and the arrest would not have any negative impact on his education or future career.

The benefit of this type of protest did not come in the suffering or brutality that many black and white protesters endured elsewhere, but in showing the country the power and numbers behind the movement. And they were very important and very effective.

So, I have nothing but praise for what Bernie did in 1963. He was a small part of something very important. He did the right thing. He could have stayed in his comfy dorm room, but he went out, inconvenienced himself, and lent himself to the fight. He was on the right side of history.

But people should recognize that participating in a righteous fight in the past does not, in and of itself, completely define a person for all time. Charlton Heston marched with Dr. King. As a college student, Mitch McConnell participated in the March on Washington and worked for a senator who helped to break the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I'm certainly not comparing Bernie to these two men, but just noting that support for civil rights in 1964 does not, by itself, mean that someone's positions can't be and shouldn't be questioned. And it surely doesn't make those who participated in it civil rights experts or icons who must be revered by virtue of what they did 55 years ago.

But more important is this simple fact: The civil rights movement was not a gift to black people. It wasn't a movement in which white people GAVE something to or did something for us. It was a movement, led by black people, in which Americans of all races joined together, prayed together, fought together and died together not to save us but to save AMERICA.

So, in my view, the notion that participation in the movement confers on a white person some special grace because they did something for black people and, as a result, black people must be forever grateful and cannot ever raise any question about their positions is not just insulting, it shows an incredible lack of understanding of what the civil rights movement really was. And it reveals a shallow and paternalistic view of civil rights and social justice as a movement based on an erroneous assumption that YOU did something for US and we should be forever grateful - and if we aren't, we are somehow betraying YOU.

For me, the bottom line is that Bernie Sanders did the right thing in 1963. I give him a lot of credit for that. But that credit is not unlimited and it definitely isn't a bottomless store of goodwill that shields him from any responsibility for or scrutiny of his subsequent actions, positions, views, or comments today. I appreciate what he did, but I don't OWE him anything, including reverent acceptance of whatever he says or does, for it.

So, again, I say, Thank you, Senator Sanders for doing the right thing 55 years ago and joining with us to help bring America closer to the more perfect union that we ALL want it to be. Now, let's talk about how you can continue to walk on that path with us now.

There's another point I want to make today. Just as Dr. King predicted, the rise of black southerners to full citizenship also lifted their white neighbors. "It is history's wry paradox," he said, "that when Negroes win their struggle to be free, those who have held them down will themselves be free for the first time."

After Selma, free white and black southerners crossed the bridge to the new South, leaving hatred and isolation on the far side—building vibrant cities, thriving economies, and great universities, a new South still enriched by the oldtime religion and rhythms and rituals we all love, now open to all things modern and people of all races and faiths from all over the world, a new South in which whites have gained at least as much as blacks from the march to freedom. Without Selma, Atlanta would never have had the Super Bowl or the Olympics. And without Selma, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton would never have been elected President of the United States.
...
My fellow Americans, this day has a special meaning for me, for I, too, am a son of the South, the old, segregated South. And those of you who marched 35 years ago set me free, too, on Bloody Sunday, free to know you, to work with you, to love you, to raise my child to celebrate our differences and hallow our common humanity.

I thank you all for what you did here. Thank you, Andy and Jesse and Joe, for the lives you have lived since. Thank you, Coretta, for giving up your beloved husband and the blessings of a normal life. Thank you, Ethel Kennedy, for giving up your beloved husband and the blessings of a normal life.

And thank you, John Lewis, for the beatings you took and the heart you kept wide open. Thank you for walking with the wind, hand in hand with your brothers and sisters, to hold America's trembling house down. Thank you for your vision of the beloved community, an America at peace with itself.

I tell you all, as long as Americans are willing to hold hands, we can walk with any wind; we can cross any bridge. Deep in my heart, I do believe, we shall overcome."

President Bill Clinton, Remarks on the 35th Anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights March in Selma, Alabama
March 5, 2000

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=58210

[revmclaren]

89. K & R X 10000!!!

ONLY! 2019 AND BEYOND.

[JI7]

94. his supporters booed John Lewis

[betsuni]

95. +1

[sheshe2]

102. Just, wow. +++++++++++++++++++++++++

I tell you all, as long as Americans are willing to hold hands, we can walk with any wind; we can cross any bridge. Deep in my heart, I do believe, we shall overcome."

President Bill Clinton, Remarks on the 35th Anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights March in Selma, Alabama
March 5, 2000

[betsuni]

92. K&R

[WeekiWater]

96. Good going on Sanders.

He lived s very interesting first part of his life. Into his early thirties. Some of it unknown, some very strange, and some really positive. Like a lost kid trying to find his way into his thirties. After that he settled and represented and surrounded himself with people who more resembled himself. He spent decades doing that and he generated and honed a message that is still front and center with him today. His one track mind is well suited for Vermont politics but doesn’t hit with the national progressive movement. That said, he learned a lot in the last primary and started to change his old ways. I’m not sure how a guy goes from the image above to some horrific writing about women a decade later.

Really interesting life. Always lashing out about something.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

108. Not true...Bernie's policies are a HUGE hit with the national progressive movement...

which explains why many of his progressive policies have been adopted and touted by other potential 2020 candidates.

[WeekiWater]

113. I did not say his one track policies weren't popular.

The omission of others has left him
On the outside.

[Bettie]

99. My husband is firmly of the belief

that black women should run everything going forward. Why? Because they are used to doing everything with nothing, give them some resources and watch the change happen.