Thank you Thom Hartman for your perspective on the Marissa Johnson diatribe

[Farmbrook]

In paraphrasing Mr. Hartman in the final minutes of his show today he responded to a caller on the issue saying that after 400 years of oppression the least blacks can do is to disrupt a campaign. He is worried that BS supporters are concentrating on Ms. Johnson's Palin campaign button and other conspiracies such as she is a plant from the Hillary Campaign and disparaging her. Thom went on to say those responses are coming from mostly white people who do not get it. I was tearful. For one thing he stated that he gets it even as a strong Bernie support which I am also as a black person. Thank you Thom. I highly respect his perspectives and education on a lot of issues. Go Bernie, #blacklivesmatter.

[avaistheone1]

1. Thom is a special, amazing and honorable human being

on so many levels.

[ShrimpPoboy]

9. Arguably

He's the best spokesman out there for liberal/progressive ideas. I used to catch him on air america back in the day when I was a political wanderer and he played a big part in how I've come to see a lot of issues.

[handmade34]

17. me too

I had the pleasure of working with him 40 years ago… boy do I have stories he has always been a force for good

[sabrina 1]

44. He used to post here, but was not treated very well by some people and I guess he

didn't want to waste time on irrelevancies. Not the only one who no longer posts here. He is an honorable man. And is always willing to listen to all sides.

[PeaceNikki]

115. He posted in this thread, as a matter of fact.

[n8dogg83]

2. I heard that segment and it was very touching....

and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I'm also a Bernie supporter and an AA so I was initially torn about the incident. But Thom has a great way of getting at the heart of the matter and i'm so glad he did. He helped me understand things better. #FeelTheBern #blacklivesmatter.

[passiveporcupine]

10. The reason so many are torn about it

Is because Hillary supporters are using it as a weapon against Bernie to try to make him look weak and unprepared and unpresidential.

If they hadn't gone there, I bet a lot of the controversy over who she was and who was really behind all this would have never presented itself.

Yes, Thom is a very good progressive who can really see things as they are.

My concerns over the Marissa event where her disrespect for the Seattle crowd and Bernie. If you want to be "heard" and actually get people to listen and maybe even agree with you, that is so not the way to do it. Interrupt yes...but do it in a way that doesn't turn the entire crowd against you. Otherwise, you get attention, but maybe not the kind you want.

I'm not sorry she did this, as Bernie used it to his advantage, as he did the NRN event, by moving forward with his policy updates and hiring Symone Sanders as his press secretary...a very smart move.

[staggerleem]

24. Unpresidential??!!

You know what's unpresidential? Making campaign videos about your mama, instead of about the ISSUES!

[rhett o rick]

190. Issues, you want to talk issues? Which issues do you disagree with Sen Sanders? XL Pipeline,

fracking, the TPP? Medicare of all, making the 1% pay their fair share of taxes? Maybe you don't agree with keeping SS away from private hands, or raising the cap.

[staggerleem]

201. I agree with Bernie on Just about everything.

Did you read what I wrote or are you commenting on my post's title? I don't think Bernie has even mentioned his mother in the campaign. Hillary made a campaign ad with hers.

I would like to hear ALL the Democratic candidates talking about issues of substance, every day. Bernie is doing so, but the Party chair has essentially ceded the summer to the Republicans - we don't get a debate until October.

[rhett o rick]

202. Sorry. Not sure what happened there. nm

[BainsBane]

45. You all make a major issue about something

fret and complain all weekend, work to disparage those women, Soros plants, RWers, fundies, on and on. And now you claim it was all the doing of Hillary supporters. Give me a break.

You all brought all that shit on yourselves. BLM protested at Netroots, not just Bernie but O'Malley too. O'Malley supporters didn't make it all about him. They didn't take to social media attacking black people, as was done again this weekend following Seattle.
You all made your own bed and now you get to lie in it. The fact is people exposed themselves. Ain't no pretending otherwise.

[passiveporcupine]

46. Sorry Bain, but the hits on Bernie for looking weak

because he didn't have them hauled off the stage started immediately.

I never blamed Hillary for them being there, as many did, but I do blame her supporters for trying to tear down Sanders because he didn't have security (secret service) there to keep them off the stage.

You can deny it, but I read it too many times to dismiss it.

[BainsBane]

80. We are talking about the whole shit about BLM, those two protestors

That is Thom Hartman's discussion. It isn't about you personally. I don't keep track of who says what unless something really sticks out, but to claim this whole shitstorm was brought on by Clinton supporters is simply false. No one forced anyone to attack those women. Hillary Clinton, I, nor the other 14 people on DU who don't despise Clinton didn't force anyone to call those women "subhuman" tell them to "use the servants entrace," or anything else. Sanders supporters chose to make Sanders and themselves the issue. That is all on them, no one else.

I did not see those posts about Sanders security other than one OP from a Sanders supporter insisting it was time for him to get Secret Service protection. That, however, is a side issue at NOT AT ALL what Hartman is addressing.

[RichVRichV]

71. Where were all these attacks on black people?

Did I miss a bunch of hidden posts or something?

[BainsBane]

82. Did you read this site this weekend?

It is absolutely inconceivable to me that anyone can have read that stuff and missed it. I also gave you a number of examples in another post. You could also listen to the Thom Hartman interview referenced in the OP, which says what people said and references this site by name, though admittedly without some of the uglier names used.

If after that your primary concern remains the horror of seeing the words "white supremacist" written or spoken somewhere, then I would request you seek solace elsewhere because you will get no sympathy from me. I remain FAR more concerned about the mass slaughter of African Americans by the state.

[RichVRichV]

88. You just don't get it.

Black people being killed by police is a blight on this land and something we all must work to eliminate. You'll be hard pressed to find a Bernie supporter that disagrees with that.


However you don't get how bad it is to call a Jew a white supremist. Let me give you some perspective. There were about a thousand people reported killed by police in 2014 (of all races, for any reason). An astronomically high number compared to any other country. There were 11 million Jews killed by real white supremists in the holocaust. It would take 11,000 more years like 2014 to match the 4 year death toll to them. Are you starting to get how aweful that epitath she spewed was? It registers with you the same way your problems register with whites. And through all that Bernie stood up there with dignity and class.

[Cha]

99. Thom Hartmann gets it.

[daredtowork]

102. White Supremacists

This is why I spent the last two days begging people to google and do some research. While "White Supremacist" may have that connotation Jews, it doesn't seem the same resonance for BLM. It is a commonly used term that escalates white privilege into a problem inherent in the social structure: White Supremacist Society that is designed to benefit white people. It sounds vaguely academic, so it may come out of African American or Ethnic Studies departments. Because it *does* have anti-Semitic connotations, it's worth looking into whether that phrase originally came from Malcolm X or perhaps it's from a more recent Black Muslim leader like Farrakhan. However, it's used in a totally non-religious context by people are obviously outside a religious milieu: if that term emerged from an anti-Semitic context, I think it has shed that meaning.

For the greater good of keeping the peace and promoting Bernie's campaign, I was hoping that people would tamp down their "knee-jerk reaction" and research the history of the phrase before deciding if it had any anti-Semitic resonance at all.

If "White Supremacists" did still have an anti-Semitic vibe, I hope people would realize that they were taking on the entire BLM movement, and perhaps all of African American culture in addressing it - not just a couple of women during a one-time event - when they protested the insult.

If they chose to continue their protest, I would hope they would take a tone of education rather than outrage and remember that the BLM movement is composed of people who are suffering and people who after specific power-goals: the Bernie campaign can only negotiate with them or make offers to them, they can't lecture or scold them.

[druidity33]

108. BLM knows it's a divisive term...

they used it intentionally. It does come from Academia and no one i'd talked to had ever heard the phrase used in that manner except in a classroom. It's disingenuous to believe they didn't know what effect the words would have on people who have tried their damnedest to be receptive...

gotta go to work now...

[daredtowork]

110. I don't think it was a plot from BLM to use the term

It seems like it has seeped up into common usage.

If, upon research, people really feel it has anti-Semitic connotation, then someone should perhaps write a whole position paper on it explaining that. Arguing it out in dozens of posts won't help against such an entrenched concept. It's like trying to BLM making random claims that words we use in our everyday vocabulary are "racist".

I understand what you mean about "divisive" being a strategy - I just don't think this was it.

[RichVRichV]

135. I'm not outraged.

I never was. And the whole purpose of my posts was to educate people in the hopes they'll think before throwing it around wrecklessly. The reasons behind using the term are irrelivent. There's certain thing you just don't call Jews just like there's certain things you just don't call African Americans.


And just like all the white internet posters have dug their heels in, so have all the blm backers.


Once we get past all the divisive stuff and the faux outrages we agree with each other on most issues.

I believe black people shouldn't be shot unarmed by police.

I believe black people shouldn't be targeted by them.

I believe black people shouldn't have to fear for anything more than a ticket when they see police in their rear view mirrors.

I believe black people have the same right to walk down the street un-harrassed at night as everyone else.

I believe black people don't deserve to be incarcerated at a higher rate than any other polpulation.

I believe there shouldn't be drug laws that disproportionately target black people.

I believe fines shouldn't be used as a means to supress a black community.

I believe blacks shouldn't be disenfranchised en mass and lose what little voice they have in controlling their governments.

I believe black people deserve the same funding to their schools that white people get.

I believe black people deserve the same oppertunities to attend higher education that others take for granted.

I believe blacks deserve the same job oppertunities that others get.

I believe blacks deserve respect.


I also believe the vast vast majority of Bernie supporters feel identical to how I do. And, believe it or not, us white people feel helpless too when it comes to enacting change by the government who represents us. That's why, when we finally have a candidate who listens to us and represents our views, we so passionately defend him against unfair and wrong attacks.


There's simply too much emotion and too much divisiveness on all sides when we should be working together to make all our lives better.

[daredtowork]

142. If you believe "White Supremacy" crosses that kind of line

then you STILL need to be aware of the history of the term, which has ALREADY sunk deep roots, and you still need to make a formal argument about it in some sort of position paper in an academic journal or in a high profile article in NYT.

Because you will be accusing BLM and the entire African American community of using the equivalent of the "N" word, you cannot afford to be using superficial arguments that they can dismiss as politically motivated blame storming. You need to look at the history of the term and formally present the case.

This is the wrong forum to do it in. That's all I'm saying.

[RichVRichV]

157. I understand the history of the term quite well.

I was always good at history and had a passion for it. I understand the origins, how it has been used, and how it has developed.

White supremacy is the belief by some that they are superior to other races and people that are different; morally, intellectually, even genetically. And that they have some divine right to superiority over others.

I understand how the belief has been used to inflict unspeakable harms. I understand how it's still used to supress people of color, jews, and anyone deemed different and "inferior".

It's a term that even white people recognize and don't throw around lightly. To accuse thousands of people who believe in, support, and fight for other races as being white supremists is wrong. To accuse a jew who has fought for those same causes is even worse.

If this isn't the place to discuss these types of things then what are we doing here?


I'm not against blm. I agree whole heartedly with their cause. I admit that I was a little angry at first when Netroots happened, that the person I support was ambushed. But then I stepped back, threw aside the emotions, got over myself quickly, and recognized it for the positive it was (for everyone).

I applaud the Seattle protesters for going up on the stage, it takes a lot of courage to stand up in front of a crowd that size without knowing how they will receive you. I recognize the anger people feel over being marginalized and attacked.

What I condemn is the actions of Marissa Johnson once she got up on that stage. It wasn't just the slur, it was the aggressive actions she took, it was the demeaning inflammitory position she took. I believe she harmed a lot of people, including blm with her actions.

I also condemn the people in the audience yelling "taze her" and people standing over black kids menacingly.

My condemnation isn't directed at black lives matter, it's not directed at black people in general, it's not even directed at her as an individual (I'm not a hypocrit. I haven't led a perfect life). My condemnation is directed specifically at her actions and the actions of other individuals.

I'm capable of seperating the actions a person takes from the person themselves. I'm capable of seperating those actions from the groups they represent. I'm even capable of condemning the actions of a person while simultaniously supporting other actions they take, which I have done on a number of occasions with president Obama.

The bulk of my previous post was an olive branch. It was a heartfelt attemp to show how much agreement there is amongst us. And yet none of that was so much as mentioned. Are we so different, so divided, that we can't find any common ground? Do I have to agree with every action taken by every individual of a group to be accepted?

[daredtowork]

158. I'm not trying to stop you from discussing it

I apologize if I came across that way.

What I'm trying to say is it's *ineffective* to discuss it here, and it's divisive for the Bernie campaign since it will come across as more superficial sniping without the formal position paper behind it.

That's why I'm urging you to do the formal position paper (Academic article, NYT, The Atlantic, The Economist - even write a book) to give your argument weight and credibility.

No matter what you say here, BLM is currently not seeing "White Supremacist Liberal" as the equivalent of the "N" word. This is part of their vocabulary. They just see you harping on one of their regular concepts.

[RichVRichV]

160. I'm not an overly academic person

and I'd be terrible as a writer. I'm way too blunt and not overly eloquent with words as you can tell.

Still to say there is nothing backing my view is rediculous. Go look at a history book about WWII. Go read up on the holocaust. There have literally been thousands, if not millions of academic papers, news articles, and position papers on the effects of white supremists on jews. It may be the most discussed tragedy in history.

You can't decide what's offensive to other groups. I can't decide what's offensive. Even academics can't. Only the group itself can.

Just so there's no confusion, I'm not Jewish, I'm a Deist. However I have family that's Jewish. I talk regularly with them on all matters of subjects. It's not hard to see how strongly their views are on the matter at hand. These people who usually have a strong loud view on anything just clam up when the conversation leads that way. Just because a person doesn't lash out about something doesn't mean it doesn't effect them.

[daredtowork]

162. I'm not saying it's ridiculous or offensive

But your views will merely be deflected. They remain just superficial comments until they have the weight of some formal "academic cred" behind them - that's (unfortunately) the way the world works. Right now BLM can freely use "White Supremacist Society" because they DO have that academic cred. That's why they are sticking with it and ignoring their critics.

[RichVRichV]

164. How can the effects of white supremacy on Jews be

one of the most academically discussed topics ever on injustice AND my statement on the subject lack academic "creds"? I sense a logical failure here. Do I personally have to write a dissertation on a subject before I can comment on how obvious and well studied it is?

There are tons of academic "cred" on the subject. The problem isn't lack of credibility, it's that that "cred" is simply being ignored and marginalized in favor of a differing point of view.

I'm pretty sure when the academics you refer to were discussing the effects of white supremecy on society they weren't refering to Jews, another minority group targeted and attacked, as the white supremists.

The context used by Ms. Johnson was simply wrong by any standards applied. And everyone is too dug in and stubborn to concede even that one simple point.

[AikidoSoul]

179. Was the "pushing around Bernie" act an official BLM act, or one by individuals

with their own agenda.

I'm concerned that nobody is investigating the agenda of the person(s) who staged that act on Bernie.

And is it conceivable that these actors were compensated in some way?

Those competing for the POTUS are capable of doing monstrous things.

Just sayin.....

[daredtowork]

183. I don't think this has to be seen as mutually exclusive

There are no "official" BLM acts since BLM is a decentralized organization. Marissa is the head of BLM in Seattle. Therefore, what she did was a BLM act. That's true even if she belongs to a radical "Outliers" group and/or if she's an extreme Christian and/or if she once had a Sarah Palin button on her backpack and/or if she once flirted with joining the GOP. BLM isn't part of the Democratic party-building machine. They are a goal-focused organization, that goal to be to call attention to and stop the killing of African Americans. Marissa acted within that framework when she disrupted the Bernie event.

As to the question about whether Marissa was compensated. Or whether she worked for Hillary. Or whether she worked for the GOP to help split the Democratic party. Or whether she was taking down Bernie to try out for a nob with Hillary...all this is pure speculation.

Some BLM activists are continuing to harp on this and try to inflate their outrage over the suggestion Marissa could be working for Hillary. To me this is almost as bad as Bernie supporters booing the BLM girls. They are in effect calling Bernie supporters paranoid conspiracy theorists when in fact they should be suspicious. Thom Hartmann himself is suspicious of BLM's "reaching out" to Hillary.

[Fred Sanders]

124. "Liberal white supremacy". At least get the 'offending" term right! Understand it rather than distorting the meaning? OK?

Thom gets it, some refuse to.

[1StrongBlackMan]

133. LOL ...

I suspect the "misquote" is because the commentator has actually listened to what was said; but rather, heard someone say, BLM (Marissa) called Bernie and his supporters white supremacists.

[Fred Sanders]

136. Yes, and once you have posted a comment based on the terribly faulty knowledge of others, you have to stick to it!

[RichVRichV]

137. I'm not your enemy. I never was.

Please read my post above.

[1StrongBlackMan]

139. There you go "misquoting", again! ...

Where have I said you were/are my "enemy"?

[RichVRichV]

159. I never quoted you.

I based it on the aggressive actions you have taken on these forums lately towards anyone who supports Bernie.

You have been on the war path, as has many blm supporters, and way too many Bernie supporters. I've been guilty of it as well. There's a lot of emotions and a lot of righteous anger all around. Everyone is dug in on their views. And it's all directed at each other, not the people who truly make our lives more difficult.

I've read your posts for a while now. You're an intelligent, compassionate, well respected person. We're not going to agree on whether or not the actions taken by Ms. Johnson were appropriate. That's abundantly clear. That doesn't mean we can't agree on most other things. It doesn't mean I don't support your causes, because I do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

161. I think if you read my posts ...

you will note that my "aggressive actions" is directed at a specific sub-set of Bernie supporters ... well, actually two sets: those that are condemning BLM for stuff that, history indicates, would be acceptable; but for, Bernie being the focus of the confrontation, and those that stand quiet as the first group those their thing.

And it's all directed at each other, not the people who truly make our lives more difficult.

Understand ... My life is made more difficult by, both, the racists, AND those that insist Bernie is/was on the right track (for Black people) with his economic primacy platform.

[RichVRichV]

163. Both sides are guilty.

I've seen Bernie supporters get attacked for condemning the actions of Ms. Johnson on the basis they were condemning blm and blacks in general for disagreeing with how she behaved. No blm supporters came to their defense.

I've seen Bernie attacked with new lies every week on here by Democrats, from he's a racist, to he's a commie, to he doesn't care about or do anything for the Democratic party, to he doesn't relate to the public. I've seen virtually no blm or Hillary supporters defend him.

I've also seen Bernie supporters pig headidly defend positions they knew were wrong, launch attacks they at the very least knew were inflammitory, and act out incorrectly.


Everyone is dug in. Everyone seems to have "their side" and won't give an inch. The only difference between you and I is I can recognize and admit that both sides are guilty of it.


Most people on this forum are good people regardless of their views. I know many Bernie supporters won't go near gd:p because they consider the forum toxic and don't think they can say anything that will make things better.

I don't share those views. I believe the only way we can make things better is by confronting the issues and talking it out.

Neither "side" is ever going to win through capitulation. We eventually have to recognize our differences and work together to increase what we can accomplish. At the rate we're going I'm figuring it will probably happen shortly after the primaries are finally decided and we can get back to having a common enemy.



And Bernie has evolved his platform and it's been embraced by his supporters. Just watch a video of his rallies and listen for the cheers when he discusses racial injustice. His supporters are very supportive of your causes.

[sufrommich]

113. Agree. This attempt to blame Hillary supporters for the bad behavior

of some Sanders supporters is unbelievable. This behavior has been recognized and talked about all over the internet.So much paranoia and bitterness aimed at anyone who dares to cross them.

[daredtowork]

85. Bernie Supporters Fell for a Gambit

When I checked GD I noticed that many Hillary supporters were suddenly showing "solidarity" with Bernie over how awful the disruption was: suddenly they were rising above partisan politics - and even apologizing for their own past behavior - in order to position Bernie supporters as victims in this situation. There was very little awareness of how this strategy continued to drive a wedge between Bernie and BLM, which is exactly what Team Hillary needs in the first place.

Now that the ball is rolling, expect the meme of "Bernie Supporters Hate BLM" to go on for a long time.

Meanwhile, Bernie supporters hold out in a very small bubble for an apology. *crickets*

[1StrongBlackMan]

132. Really?

The reason so many are torn about it ... Is because Hillary supporters are using it as a weapon against Bernie to try to make him look weak and unprepared and unpresidential.

Really ... the first DU, and internet, condemnations of the BLM confrontation came long before any HRC-supporter mentioned Bernie supporters, or even Bernie.

I would suggest the only ones "torn about it" are Bernie supporters ... feeling the tension between knowing that BLM was correct in its action and them feeling the need to defend a politician.

[passiveporcupine]

177. Why would we feel the need to defend Bernie

I would suggest the only ones "torn about it" are Bernie supporters ... feeling the tension between knowing that BLM was correct in its action and them feeling the need to defend a politician.

Unless he was being attacked? Yes, many people felt he was being attacked by Marissa Johnson. And I think most of the anger was aimed at her, not at BLM. Of course on a forum this large you will get all kinds of responses...some not very nice. I can't control that.

I will admit the language used and anger displayed by Marissa on the stage in Washington really put me off. I have no problem with BLM protesting, in whatever way it takes to get attention...as long as they don't start attacking people who are trying to be their allies to do it. And what she did came across as an attack on the crowd and on Bernie. Maybe it's just the fact that two different ethnic groups don't really speak the same language. Liberal White Supremacy sounds to me like blacks hate white liberals, and that doesn't make any sense to me, because white liberals are the group of whites that fight against discrimination. So singling out White Liberals as the enemy just sounds like an attack to me. I can understand them singling out whites. The combination of White Liberal and Supremacy still makes no sense, as white liberals don't feel themselves supreme over other races. We are your allies.

If you want us to listen to you, maybe you also need to listen to us so you can understand why the communications are blocked? I keep hearing "NO...you aren't listening". I am listening, and I think the communications are all one-sided. We can hear you but you can't hear us.

Again, I've said this twice now...I'm OK with what Johnson did, even though I think she could have done it more effectively, because it helped Bernie accomplish his web page updated and the hiring of Symone Sanders for his press secretary.

I understand that a lot of people jumped on Marissa because of her facebook profile, and I hope you understand that it was not an attack on BLM, but on her personally because of her actions.

[1StrongBlackMan]

178. This ...

If you want us to listen to you, maybe you also need to listen to us so you can understand why the communications are blocked? I keep hearing "NO...you aren't listening". I am listening, and I think the communications are all one-sided. We can hear you but you can't hear us.

Led me to see the DU disconnect ... I, and I suppect, BLM, really don't care whether Bernie supporters listen to/hears me/us, other than bring to an end, you telling me what you think is best for me/us ... I/We do care, very much, that Bernie hears me/us.

[druidity33]

193. and that is a problem...

that remains unaddressed. That you and "BLM, really don't care whether Bernie supporters listen to/hears me/us". As for the difference between "liberal white supremacy" and "white supremacists", forgive me if i don't see an immediate distinction. Nor do i want to (as someone suggested above) write a paper and submit it to Academic journals as to why it might be offensive to a Jew with direct relations who died in the Holocaust to be called a "liberal white supremacist". I'm glad Bernie is hearing BLM's concerns, but i think any other candidate would have tried to shut them down by now. I personally think BLM's actions will garner more positive attention when they start focusing on Republican candidates and direct actions more often.

Ugh, but i probably shouldn't have typed this post up or have an opinion at all, i should just bow down, listen and shut the f up, right? I'm a white man i'm not allowed to be critical of BLM, what does it matter that i have a bi-racial child and do my damnedest every day to TRY and work towards racial equality? No i didn't march with MLK myself, but only because i wasn't born yet! Otherwise i would've been there.

Yeah i'm a Bernie supporter, so now someone can point to me and say "see, Bernie supporters don't get it!"

[rhett o rick]

191. Yes the first condemnations were of the protestors. They clearly didn't want to talk only

disrupt. I would hope you can understand that those that wanted to hear Sen Sanders were upset. But then came the tirade of crap about how Sen Sanders did the wrong thing. And they got wicked. He was afraid, he wouldn't address them, he looked weak, he is un-presidential, he ignored the, etc. Where did that come from? This is SwiftBoating at it's worst.

[1StrongBlackMan]

192. Yeah ... Okay. I seem to recall ...

once upon a time, you had a use for Van Jones. Is that still the case?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016130021

[rhett o rick]

194. As I recall, Pres Obama didn't have a use for Van Jones. But this discussion wasn't about

justifying what they did, the three protestors, this discussion was about the Swiftboating that came later. Using the protest as a means to smear Sen Sanders. The smear was not intended to advance the cause of BLM but to disparage Sen Sanders. The smear was a low blow (maybe Rovian) but that's what is expected for someone that dares challenge the billionaires.

For the record I have always liked Van Jones and understood why Obama, the conservative would fire him. I even agree with the article you posted. I support BLM. I just thought it very strange that BLM would target the most liberal candidate of all first. While H. Clinton is having $2,700 an invite, cups of tea with the 1%, Sen Sanders is standing before larger and larger audiences of the 99%. Have Clinton or any other candidate put forth a plan to solve the 200 years of racism?

I know that the billionaires don't want Sen Sanders. Do you disagree? I know that the billionaires want H. Clinton (Goldman-Sachs said as much and she is expected to raise close to $2,000,000,000 dollars from the billionaires in an attempt to buy the election).

Why would a Democrat choose the side of Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Gangsters?

[1StrongBlackMan]

195. You clearly have read, neither ...

The initial OP, nor my link to Jones.

Why do I bother?

[notadmblnd]

3. Get it? What is it us "liberal white supremists" aren't getting?

That people who have recognized and worked towards the elimination of institutional racism in government most of their lives and now being called some rather ugly names in the hopes of accomplishing what?

Is it to make us see how all white people are complicit it keeping it going? It's not just white people that keep it going. Even people of color have a vested interest in keeping it going including Ms Johnson herself.

Ms. Johnson took over the podium and stood there yelling racial epitaphs at a group of people. She bullied, disrespected and assaulted all while claiming she was a victim never once questioning her own participation and being a part of the social hierarchy she want's to destroy by ANY MEANS NECESARY. She wailed on how the whites stole the land of the Native Americans and the irony of renaming the land after the people it was stolen from. But I did not steal Seattle from the Native Americans, nor can I give it back. Nor do I have the benefit of occupying that stolen land. But guess who does? That's right MS. Johnson.

I heard Ms. Johnson scream at the top of her lungs how now, the "liberal white supremest" are gentrifying the part of the city that was allotted to AAs by those who stole it from the Native Americans, once again claiming to be a victim. If Ms. Johnson was really sincere in her quest for justice, she wouldn't be working to keep that allotted parcel of soil for the AAs it was originally allotted to, she'd be advocating and agitating to give it back to those it was stolen from.

So perhaps she should take a few moments from her shrill diatribes to examine how she really feels about her own vested interests and what contribution she is making to constructs of this country's social hierarchy.

In other words, don't come and tell me how dirty my house is, when your own house need some cleaning too.

[Skidmore]

5. You clearly don't

get it even when someone like Hartmann tries to expain it to you.

[notadmblnd]

6. Well I asked for an explaination and got this

Tom Hartman did not explain it to me. It was paraphrased by a new member claiming it was what Tom Hartman explained. When I read the OP, there was no link to his show.

Clearly, there is a lot of grey area covering people's feelings. I see her as a bully. I see her as combative and looking for a fight. I see her as vengeful and wanting violence. I'm not willing to support acts of violence. And I think if she is successful in agitating that violence whether directly or indirectly- she's gonna get a lot more black lives killed.

Yes, I believe Black Lives Matter to her. To the extent to which she can exploit them.

[Skidmore]

7. She was asking that

it matter to you too. You can't understand what you don't want to hear.

[notadmblnd]

8. and neither can others

because she wasn't asking. And she especially wasn't asking about other black lives. She was asking about hers.

An no, shouldn't have to ask for any of those things nor should she HAVE to demand them because society shouldn't have the constructs of racism in them to begin with. But agitating for young people to pick up the sword is not going to do anything but get more people killed.

[PeaceNikki]

12. We each choose as individuals what part of her message to focus on.

I choose to focus on this:

I refuse to think they are ignorant or stupid or assholes or Republican operatives or part of a false flag operation.

I think they're angry and scared and hurt at what's happening to their brothers and sisters and children and friends.

They're trying to affect change. Sanders and O'Mally now have comprehensive plans laid out regarding racial justice. Neither did before these disruptions. And that's all they are is minor disruptions. Yeah, they said some nasty hurtful shit but they've heard it all themselves their entire lives. They're pissed. I get it. People are dying and they're asking to be heard.

We should listen to them. They have life experiences we don't.

[ismnotwasm]

20. That is a truly awesome post

Thank you

[PeaceNikki]

34. Thanks, I really mean it.

I was raised to be a bleeding heart Democrat. I'm disappointed with the reaction of many on this side. I truly want to listen and learn. I've felt some significant misogyny in my life, but I'll never know the feelings of racism firsthand like a PoC feels.

[notadmblnd]

22. I no longer think she is any of those things

I think she is a curious young woman, who doesn't like herself very much- specifically her white self. I think in her quest to claim her racial identity she has allowed herself to become an extremist by those would would manipulate her lack of political sophistication and have her do their bidding.

But unlike the white woman who got her hair permed and pretended to be black, who only hurt herself and her loved ones. Ms. Johnson's actions have the potential to hurt many more. Is today day 4 or day 5 of Oath keeper milita's occupation of Ferguson? They're both racists and anti government- just itching to pull the trigger on someone. There will be a massacre there if they do.

I feel I can see what is coming down the road with this and I've got skin and blood in this game all the way around. Black, White, Latino and Asian and we've all worked really hard to eliminate the prejudices and bigotry in our multi racial family.

And I can't sit back quietly and keep my opinions to myself and watch our children be incited to take on the system in a violent manner by a young woman who is looking to make HER black life matter. Sorry, my black children's lives matter more.

[noiretextatique]

33. i am a 56 year old black woman

Last edited Thu Aug 13, 2015, 12:13 AM - Edit history (1)

i am not sure that i share this young woman's life experience. however, i do understand her anger. i do not however, agree with her actions, or support her rhetoric. but i do understand the rage that stems from being helpless to stop the senseless slaughter of people who look like me. i do not, however, agree with the tactic of insisting on silencing sanders in order to be heard. nor do i agree with some of the responses to that tactic, and not just from sanders supporters. and finally: i really do not support her message. i don't think anyone needs to bowdown so that others may rise up. nor do i believe sanders needs to be held accountable because of the white supremacy of his supporters...or whatever the hell she said. nor do i believe that warmed-over 70's black nationalism is a stance that is a viable or even reasonable position. nor do i believe that destroying the democratic party is a noble goal.
i have heard quite enough from her, thank you very much. i am really curious, however, to hear what Symone Sanders, a BLM activist and Sanders' new press secretary has to say. she wants to integrate BLM into the Sanders campaign.

[PeaceNikki]

35. I hear you and respect your view.

I am not advocating her actions as ideal nor the words she's chosen as appropriate, but I get why she's pissed and I'm trying to stay focused on the deeper, broader picture while not getting lost in her tactics. I choose not to let that turn *me* angry and bitter. I chose to take the path of saying, "I want to know how we got here and what I can do to help make it better". I choose to not make it about her or any gripes I have with how she handled it. I do think the disruptions are forcing the candidates to face the topic directly. I do appreciate that we're taking about it.

[noiretextatique]

37. Thank you, PeaceNikki, and likewise

I too am trying to stay above the fray. Her anger is real and valid.

[TM99]

119. I do not think that rage should ever be rewarded.

Rage fuels not only itself but also acts as the foundation for extremism and violence, all of which this young woman expressed this past weekend in Seattle.

The hurt and fear underneath is what drives it. Yell from the top of your lungs that you are hurt and are afraid and yes, others will empathize and hear you.

I will not excuse her actions fueled by rage just because I have, like you and others, the insight to recognize its source even when she does not.

Excusing the rage induced actions gives her tacit permission to act out again. It gives others the message that it is rage that will solve these problems. It alienates those potential allies that our community desperately needs. It is this type of anarchistic activism that does not solve the very real problems that must be face.

I am just not as forgiving of this as some here because I know where it comes from and sadly too often where it leads.

[PeaceNikki]

120. I just can't make it about her. The picture is bigger.

[TM99]

121. Because the picture is bigger,

it should never have been about her.

Unfortunately it now is.

[PeaceNikki]

122. It doesn't have to be. We each choose as individuals what to focus on.

[TM99]

123. If only it was a personal choice.

The internet age and MSM make it not so much.

[notadmblnd]

60. I have no objection to Sanders campaign integrating BLM into it.

But I would caution to thoroughly investigate the founding leader's and chapter leader's backgrounds and associations. If these people have associations with the hate groups that advocate violence that I think they may have- it could be damaging when the info comes out.

[RichVRichV]

77. Sorry but it's hard to get past asshole when the person is throwing racial epitaphs out.

Especially at someone who has been so harmed by the groups she accused him of belonging to. I don't think people realize how offensive calling a Jew a white supremist is. There were 11 million Jews rounded up and murdered by real white supremists in only a few short years. No one in this country, not even blacks (post slavery), have anything that compares.

You talk about whites ignoring the pain of black people and yet in one short outburst she ignored an unimaginable tragedy of another.


I believe the netroots protest did a lot of good. I don't feel the same way about the Seattle one. Any pain she might be feeling was completely overshadowed by the way she acted.

[PeaceNikki]

116. Hrm, that's a shame. I can "get past asshole" because they're just words.

The holocaust was unimaginable horror. Slavery was unimaginable horror. The Trail of Tears was unimaginable horror. The continued institutionalized racism and racial injustice is unimaginable horror. It's not a contest.

[Marr]

166. *epithets.

An epitaph is what you put on a headstone. Sorry to be 'that guy'.

[RichVRichV]

168. Thank you.

Headstones would probably hurt if people were throwing them around. lol

[snagglepuss]

90. Hear Hear.

[6000eliot]

184. Perhaps if she had used the term "white privilege" you would understand.

Somehow I doubt it, though.

[notadmblnd]

186. more insults

that certainly is going to change hearts and minds

you have a good day now

[bigdarryl]

4. And he was responding to a Sanders supporter some of them are really turning me off

There becoming almost ridiculous as the tea party people with there harsh rhetoric

[PeaceNikki]

11. He's right. Bravenak tried to explain it to DU, too.

[JoePhilly]

27. +1

[uponit7771]

32. +1

[lovemydog]

56. Yes she did.

With, imo, a great deal of patience and humor.

[daredtowork]

84. +1

anyone know how long her break is going to be?

[Cha]

91. Yes, Bravenak was explaining this all over the place.. and she wrote a letter to Thom Hartmann

about it.. and perhaps others did too.. because here we are discussing what he said on his show.. basically calling out those on DU .. who brave was trying to make understand.

And, Thom said it.. " that's a reflexive white person's response. "stop looking for hidden motives.."

Mahalo PeaceNikki

[Bobbie Jo]

126. +1

Indeed she did.

[Cleita]

13. I love Thom and never miss his morning show.

He actually introduced the nation at large to Bernie with his weekly Brunch With Bernie hour on Friday mornings. I'm grateful for this because otherwise Bernie would have been just another Senator from back east to me.

[Dont call me Shirley]

14. I heard that today, Thom is awesome. He saved my life.

[apnu]

15. K&R for you! (nt)

[yuiyoshida]

16. So What Happened with Black Lives Matter and Hillary Clinton?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017285895

[daredtowork]

93. Change through seeking jobs in the Hillary administration?

This would tend to confirm what Bernie supporters think of these "disruptions" and their focus.

However, I can't find any such quote on the Black Agenda report.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/blm_and_democrats_disruption_to_collaboration

Did this post originally include an account of the closed door meeting with Hillary?

[yuiyoshida]

118. what you see is what there is.

Go to Youtube if you wish to see if those that posted the video, have further links.

[MisterP]

18. how's the Palin button not relevant? it's hardly isolated from her other writings

[Deadshot]

19. I firmly believe in protesting those who'd most help me.

[thomhartmann]

21. Here's the link/rant - thanks for the kind words and let's all work to help wake up white folks...

[uponit7771]

29. +1

[Admiral Loinpresser]

31. +1 n/t

[Number23]

38. "let's all work to help wake up white folks..." Ahhh... if only.

It won't happen in my lifetime. Of that I'm sure. But maybe my children (aged 8 and 5) will be able to live to see that happen.

And I can't thank you enough for calling Democratic Underground and these people's responses out by name. I'd like to think it would make a difference but I've got little confidence of that actually happening.

My only quibble is that black folks have been "making noise" for a LOT longer than #BLM. We wrote the book on civil (and not so civil) disobediance.

[sheshe2]

47. Hey you.

You are young enough to be my daughter. My great nieces and nephews are your children's age.

We have a lot of colors in our family. I love everyone of them.

I hope it happens in your lifetime. Me. I will be long gone before it happens. I just wish the best for our children.

I thank Thom Hartmann for addressing this and calling out dU.

[Number23]

55. My grandmother said the same to my mother. My mother said the same to me.

And now all I can do is pass that along and hope that it will be eradicated in my children's lifetime. But I think that's unrealistic as well.

Because we are still seeing employment discrimination. And housing discrimination. And racism in every single social movement. And black people shot dead in the streets by people who swore to protect them. And racism in media. And racism in sports. And racism in prison sentencing. And racism in health. And. And. And.

It''s not as bad as my grandmother's time. My grandmother, who read Kafka for fun when she was young and is one of the most literate well read people I know, could only find employment as a school teacher. She could have been president in another world. My mother remembers as a child not being allowed to go through the front doors of shops.

It's not as bad as their time. There is no question of that. But it can damn sure be better and it ain't nowhere as good as it could be.

[giftedgirl77]

129. This...

Hey you, how are you doing?

[Number23]

167. Hey you! We have been absolutely overwhelmed in the AA forum. I'm sure you've seen the carnage

We have blocked more posters in the last THREE DAYS than in the previous FOUR DAMN YEARS. It is unreal. And as you can see downthread, there are some here that are working hard as hell to NOT understand anything that anybody is saying to them. I don't know why they think people are going to keep trying to explain shit to them. The train is out of the station. Either get on board or get smooshed. I don't think most of us care either way.

The DU bubble is hard for some people to come out of. They see the same tripe blanketing the home page and begin to think that they represent some sort of majority. And when they get hit and hit hard that that is in no way shape or form even close to the truth, they actually sink further into the bubble. It's astonishing.

But it's always good to see you. Come to AA and hang out!

[giftedgirl77]

169. Oh I know this place has been crazy...

I've been trying to lay low (got my 4th hide last night for being ageist to Sanders & Clinton). I've been working on the definition of hypocrite with a poster who decided to use Cory Booker as their token black friend after throwing him under the bus repeatedly.

[Number23]

171. Oh girl, I saw that thread. That was my Laugh of the Freaking WEEK right there. I laughed my ass

off when I read that thread.

That person has a reputation for pulling that kind of foolishness over and over and over again. Has done it for years with no repercussions because they know just what to say to keep their pals happy as clams in their little bubble. I'm laughing again just thinking about it.

[giftedgirl77]

173. I just don't get the cluelessness, people can't really

think it's ok to treat people that way & not get called on it.

[Starry Messenger]

41. Thanks Thom.

I'll share this around my networks too.

[aikoaiko]

43. Even if they were pure of heart, you have to admit the optics are bad for Bernie to be...

....disrupted from speaking to his audience twice (not once as you claimed in your show).

Most people not there won't know what they said -- only that Black Lives Matters thinks Bernie is so worthless to black lives that he isn't even worth letting speak at an invited event.

I get it why BLM wants to treat the urgency of needless black deaths by (mostly) white people as the most important issue of the day, but is it the only issue? Is there no possibility to say that there may be more lost than gained by creating the image that Bernie is bad for black people without being called white supremacists and demanding that Bernie bow down? Will someone less liberal do a better job of protecting and caring for black lives?

[daredtowork]

100. Thom Hartmann also covered that

Someone asked him why Hillary's campaign got advanced notice while Bernie just got disrupted (twice):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017285895

I'd like to find the article/post/podcast on Black Agenda Report that he quotes here.

It bugs me that just because *some* Bernie supporters went off the deep end in trying to find reasons to be outraged about BLM that *all* Bernie supporters are now supposed to consider themselves somehow irrational and possibly racist if they dare think a rival political candidate will exploit an obvious advantage.

Thom treats horse hockey on all sides the same.

This quote from the Black Agenda Report is about as CT as you can get, though - that's a much bigger game than paid disruptions. There should definitely be a Black Agenda Report citation if anyone repeats it.

[lovemydog]

48. Thank you Thom Hartman.

True among some oblivious folks at DU. Let's hope they stop that bullshit. Black lives matter far more than any one rally or any one candidate.

[betsuni]

53. Thank you, Thom, that was great!

Will share.

[OneGrassRoot]

112. Thank you. Just what I was scrolling down to find. n/t

[Chiyo-chichi]

148. Well said. Thank you.

[Omaha Steve]

23. I was driving to the recycle center to drop off glass at the time

I heard it. He mentioned the DU in that too.

K&R!

Third largest city in Nebraska doesn't offer glass recycling. I had to take it to Omaha.

OS

[SHRED]

25. He also said today...

...that they wanted the mic for 15 minutes yet they never gave it back over.

[magical thyme]

26. I get the anger, the rage, the frustration, the fear expressed in every demonstration,

even when it breaks out in violence.

What I don't get is:

1. Why she names Bernie Sanders as "the enemy." Because those are her ffacebook words about him and she specifically targeted him. She specifically calls Bernie Sanders "the enemy." Nobody else. Just Bernie. If she targeted him to get access to his large crowds, that begs the question:

2. How does she expect to advance the cause of racial injustice by screaming incoherent abuse at and shoving any 70 year old man, let alone one who has devoted much of his life to trying to end racial injustice? And then screaming abuse at the crowd? And especially doing so in front of a racial and sexually diverse crowd with one thing in common: social security? This wasn't a peaceful demonstration that blew out of control. She was planned and calculated. What did she, in her calculations, think this would achieve?

3. Why do some people assume that when Bernie talks about having marched with MLK and quotes MLK, he's "whitesplaining" to them? I think he's providing context for why he believes what he does, and how he has believed this for his lifetime. I don't think he's trying to tell anybody anything about MLK that they don't already know. He's introducing himself, his background, what informs his thinking.

4. I also do think her former membership in the republican party is relevent. It is revealed by her statement that they should have "groomed" her when they had the chance and implying that they'll get to see what they missed out on now that she's gone to "the other side."

Why would somebody who is seeking racial justice spend a part of their lives in the party doing the most to prevent racial justice, trying/hoping to be "groomed" by them presumably for some official role? And then go to "the other side" and declare one of their candidates to be "the enemy?

I can tell you that the conservatives I know are disavowing her and laughing at us for having her on "our side." It makes no sense to me. None.

[druidity33]

176. All reasonable, salient points.

No doubt you'll be excoriated for them.

[magical thyme]

185. apparently silent excoriation, because mostly all I'm hearing is

crickets.

Sometimes, though, silence says it all. There really is no reasonable answer.

[deutsey]

189. You articulate how I feel as well

[uponit7771]

28. Oh Shit, DU is on the road to hating BLM........ too. Hartman isn't supposed to be interrupting that

[noiretextatique]

39. Sanders hired Symone Sanders, BLM activist

As his press secretary. One of her goals is to include BLM in Sanders campaign. She is a 25 yo Black woman, and apparently a brilliant stategist. I am not sure how that will affect the hyperbole at DU.

[djean111]

105. Oh, it used to be that Bernie did not have any black people on his staff, or

on his stage, and that was bad. Now, when he hires Symone Sanders, that is pandering and shameful. To some.
This was set up to be a lose-lose situation, you know. I doubt it is working, though.

[stevenleser]

30. This is what Bravenak, 1strongblackman, number23, myself and many others

Tried to say, some Hillary supporters, some Bernie supporters, and some like Bravenak who don't really fit into either category.

[lovemydog]

49. Yes indeed stevenlesser.

And some like me who is currently undecided and as you say, many others. I hope that hateful bullshit is put to rest. I hope a lot of people will read this thread and find it in their hearts to allow that one can be a supporter of O'Malley, Sanders or Hillary or currently undecided and still wholeheartedly support blacklivesmatter.

[betsuni]

58. Why anyone would refuse to listen to such intelligent people who are right most of the time...

is a large puzzlement I can't begin to understand. I love you all and thank you.

[Number23]

36. Most of the Internet has been "getting it" which is why these people calling #BLM "thugs" and

implying that they are Hillary plants or "Koch funded right wingers" have been exposed for the faux liberal frauds that they are.

Even Occupy put out a statement condemning Sanders supporters who have engaged in these tactics.

Black people have been condemning these people since Netroots Nation. But now that more and more white people are doing it, maybe the ones that automatically reject everything black people say will finally listen. And I fully expect for Bernie Sanders himself to come out and criticize these people and their tactics as well.

[noiretextatique]

40. Why should he wade into this quagmire?

I think hiring BLM activist Symone Sanders as his Press Secretary is a really smart move. She plans to bring BLM into the Sanders campaign. This should be interesting.

[lovemydog]

52. Yes, this will get interesting.

I'm delighted that he hired her as his Press Secretary. Cool they have the same last name too.

[lovemydog]

50. +1

You're so right Number23.

You hit the nail on the head.

And I'd just like to add: Bravenak was correct about this too!

[JustAnotherGen]

154. Free bravenak!

[daredtowork]

155. LOL, I'll buy that T-shirt. nt

[lovemydog]

170. Free bravenak!

[daredtowork]

65. Now that's taking it too far the other way

You can see my post below for my full support regarding the manufactured outrage, and I've spent a good part of the last few days trying to get people to just google "White Liberal Supremacy".

However, there is no logical leap from there to the idea that Hillary's people do *not* support BLM activity that particularly benefits her at Bernie's expense. And it doesn't make one a white supremacist racist or a faux liberal fraud to say so. It's simply pointing out where the vested interests lay.

[Number23]

68. Only a fraud would say that #BLM was full of right wingers or working for Hillary

instead of black people fighting for their communities. A fraud or much, MUCH worse.

If that upsets you, so be it.

[daredtowork]

70. Now you are the one "manufacturing outrage"

I didn't say that BLM was full of right wingers or working for Hillary.

I said it did not make one a "faux liberal fraud" to suspect that Team Hillary might encourage, make promises, and/or offer some walking around money for the disruption of Bernie events. She is trying to position herself as "the social" candidate and frame Bernie as someone whose economic ideas don't work for "the social".

I'm not upset. I'm very calmly pointing out to you that you're wrong.

[Number23]

72. You are not proving or pointing out anything. And it boggles my mind that not only do you consider

this a legitimate point

I said it did not make one a "faux liberal fraud" to suspect that Team Hillary might encourage, make promises, and/or offer some walking around money for the disruption of Bernie events. She is trying to position herself as "the social" candidate and frame Bernie as someone whose economic ideas don't work for "the social".

but you are making it in the very thread from a white liberal chastising and criticizing white liberals for coming up with wild, pointless and incredibly stupid conspiracy theories about who #BLM and what they are trying to do.

[daredtowork]

74. Boggle away

You can see my comment below that I support Thom's remark, and I've actually been supporting it in my own way for days. By the way, I've worked for him before.

One does not have to be a "faux liberal fraud" to suspect Team Hillary would try to pay for BLM disruption. I totally think she would do that.

Go ahead - call me names, accuse me, and boggle away. You're simply wrong.

[Number23]

76. Whatever you're trying to get out of this pointless exchange, I hope that you got it.

I have absolutely no interest in this. You are arguing that I've said things that I haven't and your Cloak of Victimhood about me "calling you names" when I've done nothing of the sort is almost as nonsensical as your contention that I'm wrong simply because you say so.

Anyone that believes that #BLM operatives are right wingers or Hillary plants have been proven to be the faux liberal frauds that they are. And the entire world that didn't know this already is starting to understand that. If you want to be the lone holdout and cling to that ridiculous notion, I truly don't understand why you think that I or anyone else would care.

[daredtowork]

81. I'm hardly the "lone hold out"

Last edited Thu Aug 13, 2015, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)

You're simply wrong. [This late-night remark deleted upon request.]

You are continuing to manufacture outrage over what's a sensible concern about opposition campaign operatives.

It seems to me that you are just trying to ramp up the Bernie hate, and I'm calling you out on that.

[Number23]

86. You are in a thread where Thom Hartmann is calling out people for attacking black people

And decide that this is a perfect place for you to make up stuff that nobody ever said, pretend that someone is talking about you and calling you names when they aren't even thinking about you, and ATTACK BLACK PEOPLE.

I mean, Thom could not have asked for a more gleaming example of the kind of idiocy that he's talking about and I simply could not have asked for a better example of exactly the kind of faux liberal fraudery that I have been talking about. And you did it willingly and without having to even be asked. Thanks so much for that.

Edit: Oh and your ever so late little high five to Bravenak replete with faux concern about when she's coming back was a nice little touch.

[daredtowork]

87. And so you double down on manufacturing outrage?

Sigh. Whatever.

You might want to ask Starry Messenger about the history of my support for Bravenak.

[Number23]

89. I have no idea what you're talking about and honestly, have no interest in trying to

This whole exchange, your bizarre claims about me "manufacturing outrage" when that makes absolutely no sense in the context of this conversation, and your attack on me for "Bernie hate" when I've not said one thing about the man except for the fact that I expect him to condemn these tactics as well have made this the hands down the dumbest and most pointless exchange I've had here in months.

[daredtowork]

94. You know what you are doing by slapping labels on people

By the way, I'm wondering what you think of this part of the Hartmann interview:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017285895

[Number23]

95. If calling this exchange dumb and pointless is "slapping a label on people" then consider that label

slapped.

Not one thing you've said to me has made even the slightest bit of sense. You have certainly made quite the needless spectacle of yourself in this thread.

[daredtowork]

97. If you think so. nt

[Starry Messenger]

125. Please don't drag my name into a discussion like this.

That's not cool at all. I didn't give you permission to use me as a shield in conversations. You are having a dialogue with a Black woman, Number 23, and using the name of another Black poster to try to make a point in a conversation, for what reason, I am unclear. I don't think bravenak would like it either, if I may be so bold. Thanks in advance.

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. LOL ...

It just comes so natural; but, I guess no other Black DUer was available for foil duty!

[daredtowork]

141. I apologize for bringing your name into it.

I guess I'll just have to assert with no back up that I was exonerating posters who complained about the Flagging of Bravenak and complaining about the Flagging of Bravenak from the minute I found out it happened (which was the next day). I hope my posts helped raise awareness outside the AA forum about what happened.

If a black poster is "making a point" to a white poster that involves a false accusation, I'm sure Bravenak would be the first to "keep it real" - especially if her name was part of that conversation.

[daredtowork]

143. Sorry but he or she to blow up the blame

and would not stop.

I had to put it bluntly. This is not the protected AA forum.

The "outrage machine" has to stop on both sides. While Bernie supporters shouldn't blow up what happened' in Seattle, BLM supporters shouldn't blow up Bernie supporters. Number 23 has made sweeping and unfair statements about Bernie supporters and refused to stop when that was noted.

[daredtowork]

150. Okay I take your point.

I will go back and delete that.

But I hope you will take a look at all the "stirring-up" Number23 is doing and see how that may be interpreted as creating a situation that is divisive and could end up badly in other ways, if this kind of rhetoric is perpetuated off this forum.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

151. Thank you ...

I will delete all my pertinent posts but this as well.

[ismnotwasm]

134. No one "Hates" Sanders

And he doesn't need this kind of "help" from his fan club. I know you won't listen--just as you won't listen to Occupy or Thom Hartman, but this is getting surreal.

[daredtowork]

144. I agree it is surreal

Go back and read what Number 23 kept saying about Bernie supporters. That certainly gives me the impression of fomenting hate. That's what needs to stop.

I can listen to Thom Hartmann fine: including his questions about what happened when BLM phoned the Hillary campaign in advance instead of disrupting it as a surprise. He entertained the question of whether that private meeting was a try out for administrative positions in Hillary's administration. Does that make Thom a "conspiracy theorist" and "faux liberal fraud" as well?

I've worked for Thom Hartmann in the past. Also, I'm a member of a sub-Occupy group. The surreal thing is trying to carry on a discussion while trying to process a lot of off-base remarks.

[giftedgirl77]

174. Black Lives Matter did not notify the Clinton campaign.

[daredtowork]

187. Could you send to some links/resources to clarify this

As a Bernie supporter, I am among those who have been irritated over the fact that Hillary seems to be receiving less disruption and heat from BLM when - when from my analysis of the situation (and this is why I support Bernie) - Clinton policies are largely responsible for the radical inequality and racial injustice we have today. Bill Clinton is the well-spring of mass incarceration, the homeless crisis, the welfare system breakdown, the Uberization of everything (NAFTA), the War on Drugs. Bill Clinton was caught on tape agreeing that we need to "do something about Medicare". Both Bill and Hillary have been entrenched in Third Way/New Democrat philosophies and courted/dog whistled the myth of the "white meritocratic worker". Only a month ago, Hillary dog whistled, "All Lives Matter" in a black church!

Yet Bernie's events get disrupted. Yet Bernie represents the "white supremacist liberal". Yet Bernie's economic policies will somehow subsume issues of race rather than finally start addressing some of the real problems listed above.

I realize BLM isn't about politics and isn't here to stump for anyone's campaign. I realize that the Seattle disruption was an opportunity to bring attention to the hypocrisy of supposedly white liberal cities promulgating policies that protect white privilege and cause black exodus.

What I don't understand is why they don't lay the blame for some of the injustice they experience where it truly belongs: and why they seem to focus their disruption on a man who wants to change things while sparing Hillary Clinton, whose current platform is more of the same, since she is still stealth Third Way and doesn't believe in "economic causes".

I would like to see the links to the details of the BLM meeting and stay informed of all the details of their dealings with her because I just don't understand. Educate me, please.

[Number23]

165. "I know you won't listen" Could not have made that more obvious if they were trying to

Nonsensical, combative and rambling posts that show not only an unwillingness to listen, but that they will "protect" candidate at all costs, to the point that they don't care how they make themselves look in the process.

And doing this in the very thread where a white liberal is actually CONDEMNING this type of behavior and talking about how counter productive, dumb and damaging it is to the very candidate that they are trying so hard to protect. With "supporters" like this, Bernie Sanders will need an ever loving miracle to survive this primary season.

[ismnotwasm]

175. That's what I think

And how did they get to this point? That's what I want to know

[George II]

172. Why did you edit out "full of shit"?

[daredtowork]

188. DemocratFromBirth asked me to

He felt the tone of the remark would just cause trouble, and since he asked courteously, I agreed to edit it.

He then deleted his request posts- I'm not sure why he felt the need to do that.

I do feel strongly that Number23 is trying to manufacture outrage on the BLM side, hence the frustration of my remark after several posts trying to point out that manufacturing outrage is just as bad on the BLM side as on the Bernie side. It was very late in the evening when I wrote it - not my normal tone. While that is how I feel about the matter, I should have been more restrained in how I communicated it.

[joshcryer]

42. Wow, Thom destroyed those arguments.

Single handedly destroyed the past several days of hateful bullshit spewed here. And he called out DU by name.

What a low point for DU.

[Number23]

51. "What a low point for DU." Yep.

[betsuni]

54. An embarrassing low point.

I'm already very busy being embarrassed by Republicans, and now this. It never ends.

[Bobbie Jo]

128. It was damn ugly.

Still is in some quarters.

I'll never see some of these people the same way again.

[Starry Messenger]

57. A week that will go down in infamy.

[killbotfactory]

59. So when people see wedges being driven between groups on the left...

they shouldn't suspect political ratfucking is going on?

[Skittles]

61. we are not supposed to believe our lying ears

or something like that

[joshcryer]

69. What's the largest most reliable Democratic voting bloc?

What's the best way to suppress their desire to vote for the Democratic nominee?

What's the most likely ratfucking strategy?

I'd say ostracizing the most reliable voting bloc would be a start, make them feel like voting doesn't matter.

[Skittles]

140. ostracizing ANYONE is not a good strategy

[joshcryer]

64. Well, I don't think Thom is being ratfucked.

He's on the side of sanity. If anything it's the people who are going after BLM, particularly on black twitter (and AA people have pointed this out time and time again).

What happened wasn't a big deal and it was resolved the next day. People in the bubble don't know what they are doing when they continue pressing an issue that is nonexistent and making up all sorts of insane claims.

[daredtowork]

67. +1

"People in the bubble don't know what they are doing when they continue pressing an issue that is nonexistent and making up all sorts of insane claims."

Btw, I got to do a small job for Thom around 8 or 9 years ago, hee hee.

[killbotfactory]

73. There is a long history of dirty tricks being pulled on the left wing...

and especially with regards to the civil rights movement. People are naturally suspicious, especially when it sets two political allies against each other, and BLM is decentralized to the point where it would be trivial to send in some astroturfer claiming to represent the movement to stir shit up.

[daredtowork]

75. Yes I think BLM has to give some leeway for this, too.

While there *has* been way too much overblown, manufactured outrage on DU, it's also wrong for BLM to deny that it's impossible for a political operative to influence one of their *decentralized* members in one of their action. So they need to cut out some of their manufactured outrage, too.

[joshcryer]

79. You can only respond to an action after the fact.

After the fact it was clear to BLM members that from their point of view it was a win.

By "raising suspicions" about members of BLM who actually got off their butt and did something that didn't have any negative impact on the campaign it is doing a disservice to BLM. Watch what Thom says. He's rightly irritated that people kneejerk and reflexively lost it over a near non-issue.

[daredtowork]

83. I'm not so sure it was

It was definitely a win for their immediate goal - so it is something they can throw back in the face of anyone who says their tactics are "ineffective". But the old fogeys have a point, too, if you believe economic problems are at the base of things. I know BLM is tired of hearing about the role they can play in the electoral fortunes of this and that candidate. However, the fact is, because Bernie was running a ground game, BLM was in a position to hurt him more. And, if you believe that economic justice can contribute to employment, educational, and housing justice - then there may be some truth to whining that stabbing Bernie in the back could lead us all to getting stuck with a Third Way, or worse, a GOP, President.

Sorry I stated that in such a convoluted way, I was trying to respect that BLM is not a politics-driven organization.

I agree the reaction of many DU members was kneejerk, and they did continue to try to *look* way out on a limb for ways that Marissa in particular did not represent BLM. At the same time, I think some pro-BLM people are creating some non-existing issues and trying to manufacture-Bernie hate as well: see my exchange with Number 23 above. There is nothing at all crazy or faux liberal for people in a political race to suspect that operatives of the competing candidate would be doing stuff that's against their interest: trying to turn that into a racist or a particularly anti-BLM thing is just as bad as DUers trying to turn Seattle into a deliberately anti-Semitic thing. It's harping, either way.

[joshcryer]

103. BLM can't hurt Bernie.

And it can't hurt any Democratic nominee that even remotely addresses their concerns.

The immediate reaction from some on the left was to trash the activist (she quipped once about having a Sarah Palin button when she was 16), create conspiracy theories (Soros, Clinton, funded them, etc), FUD about why BLM isn't attacking Clinton (no recognition that Clinton doesn't make herself available and has private roundtables and a SS detail).

BLM can hurt and offend some Bernie supporters, that's OK, some people are thin skinned, I admit the video pissed me off but I was able to calm down and realize it wasn't a big deal. There are also some Bernie supporters who, for better or worse, are Libertarians or conservatives who are fed up with their party and aren't familiar with left wing activism so they get even more ticked off when something like this happens.

Take a breather and step back, that's what's necessary here. It's over, we're going on half a week here, it's done, nothing bad happened, it was a protest, good things happened afterward. CBS news led their program tonight with Sanders (and pointed out Clinton's email problems). Sanders is doing so well. Don't let emotions get in the way and alienate black voters. It's a lose lose.

I personally think there is a segment of Bernie "supporters" who are setting him up to fail. I think that if they can press the idea that Clinton is behind his failure in some way they can strip away liberal votes from Clinton if she succeeds. They're not true Sanders supporters. We all know Sanders is the underdog, but I think that Sanders has a really good chance here, and I am disgusted by this crap. Attacking BLM does not help Sanders in any way. "Raising suspicions" about BLM does not help Sanders in any way.

[daredtowork]

104. I agree with the breather

And I've been a staunch supporter of laying off the hyperbole and not making assumptions about certain terms and actions.

The one thing I think is unfair is painting the suspicions about Hillary as "conspiracy theorizing". Her campaign was known for dirty trick during the Obama primary in 2008. It's natural to be suspicions now. She continues to be Bernie's political rival and actively engaging in opposition tactics even while this mess is going on - we don't know how she is or is not exploiting it.

It's just as conspiratorial to regard that Bernie supporters who think Hillary is capable of spending her vast amounts of money on furthering her political interests at Bernie's expense are "setting Bernie up to fail" as it would be for me to suspect George Soros were directly funding Marissa to make Bernie bow down because anti-Semitism.

But if you are going to believe that Bernie supporters are always conspiracy theorists for considering Hillary's interests vis-a-vis BLM, you will have to consider Thom a CT theorist, too. Behold this segment from the same show:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017285895

[joshcryer]

106. I differ to Thom.

He dismissed such conspiracy theories outright.

Nevermind there is zero evidence of such happenings, only FUD suppositions. This is damaging to anyone who supports Sanders (which I do).

I made a similar comment to Thom about the BLM Clinton protesters. But they knew that couldn't get in. Her events are private. No one not vetted gets in. Period. Thom and I are on the same page: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251510309

Thom is sort of off base because BLM has since said they recorded the event themselves and will be posting it. I believe BLM deserves exclusivity toward such ends. Journalists shouldn't be able to meddle in their interactions, because as we saw, BLM got absolutely trashed by the media. BLM should release what video they recorded soon.

But at least Thom isn't raising "suspicions."

[daredtowork]

107. That's why I asked for the Black Agenda Report quote

I can't find a quote saying any such thing, and I think given the environment around here, anyone making such an assertion better back it up.

Even without it, I think Thom has "raised suspicions here". No matter what BLM posts now, Bernie supporters who think they are super savvy will consider they are still trying out for a job with Hillary's administration. This is *way* more speculative than the usual accusations of Hillary trying to make Bernie look bad.

The only reason I'm pasting the Thom segment (repeatedly) around this thread is that I feel the "Hillary conspiracy theorist" line is unfair and a little insulting. IMHO, it's still valid to ask what Hillary does with her over-the-top amount of resources.

Ps. Regarding BLM and the media: don't they have a thing about African American voices speaking directly, unmediated by corporate power structures? I like that idea.

[joshcryer]

109. Thom is not "raising suspicions."

He's merely incorrect on certain measures. BLM went there with BLM shirts on. Of course they were going to be turned away. Thom doesn't recognize that. He's reading a lot of stuff and it gets muddled.

Clinton's security saw BLM people with BLM t-shirts, and they got busted. I posted about this. I think BLM knew they could not get in there (because Clinton's events are highly vetted and no-one who goes to such an event is getting in unless Clinton's people know them).

The "careers" comment is literally Thom quoting someone else "raising questions."

Thom is correct in being incredulous about BLM people not wanting photos. BLM said that they recorded the event. It is likely HRC's campaign didn't want journalists because it could've gone sour, so they let the BLM activists in and let it go as it did.

In the next day or three we'll see those recordings, and I guarantee you that this bullshit, the complete bullshit, won't end, because those BLM supporters will be slandered by the idiotic "left" and scrutinized and hated because Clinton answered questions and was all communicative to them (as if she would have had any other choice).

[daredtowork]

111. "raising suspicions" is the effect it has

Once Thom has put that idea "on the table", then people will be suspicious about it. The only control over that is asking where the quote came from.

You say the quote is someone else (from Black Agenda Report?) "raising questions". Again, why is it okay for this guy to raise such a question, while it's conspiracy theory for other Bernie supporters to go there?

I agree the B.S. won't end. The reason it won't end is not because Bernie supporters are natural conspiracy theorists. The reason it won't end is we are in the middle of a political campaign, and people do and say a lot of stuff in the middle of political campaigns.

The Black Agenda Report article I *did* read points out BLM takes money from labor unions. Now there's definitely money in the picture. I don't think it's wise for BLM to try to paint itself as a movement conducted by angels here. That means the first time one of their members does something self-interested like take a staff or lobbyist job somewhere, a Bernie supporter will stand up, point, and roar, "SEE!"

It's safer to assume that everyone is a human being in this picture and continue to stay on our toes and actively encourage each other to act honestly.

[joshcryer]

114. "Bernie supporters are natural conspiracy theorists."

"supporters"

[JI7]

196. this might explain why some of his so called supporters keep comparing him to Donald Trump

"There are also some Bernie supporters who, for better or worse, are Libertarians or conservatives who are fed up with their party and aren't familiar with left wing activism so they get even more ticked off when something like this happens."

and they seem really hostile to minorities in the way right wingers always do. i think they feel like minorities are forcing sanders to focus on issues which turn off white republicans(the reagan democrats) who they were depending on to come back to the party to support sanders.

[joshcryer]

78. The "suspicions" are likely the trick.

FUD. That's how you cause infighting.

[daredtowork]

62. Called out DU by name? Ouch.

This last week I keep thinking back to the start of the primary season where the Bernie campaign was so innocent. We were all so nice, and Hillary supporters were always bullying us. And they always looked like total clods since Hillary was Big and Inevitable.

The problem with the last week is Bernie supporters can't claim innocent nice folk anymore.

Perhaps we haven't been able to in a while. This is the first time I've taken a look into GD to see what the heck was going on in there. I usually stick to GD because that's time-consuming enough. I just always assumed Bernie supporters remained cute and nice, and everyone else bullied us.

The problem with the reaction to Seattle is Bernie supporters did not know when to stop. Perhaps the disruption was wrong, perhaps they had reason to feel offended, perhaps they had evaluated the perpetrators in a certain way - but the level of offense seemed to go way over the top. Some of it seemed to be kneejerk reactions with an unwillingness to listen to context that modulate those feelings, and worse, some posts seemed to be deliberately creating an outrage machine. At a certain point, Bernie supporters should have been mature enough to ask themselves who is all this outrage really benefiting? Even suspicions of Bernie being targeted could have been handled in a more low key way.

Now that people have been exploding everywhere and "on the offensive", I can't play like I'm on Team nice and cute anymore. Sigh.

[joshcryer]

66. He (or his people) posted the video in this thread:

He was asked a really "kneejerk question" and responded:

I noticed over at Democratic Underground this immediate kneejerk response of, "There's a picture of this woman with a Sarah Palin button." It's like a reflexive white-person response not understanding that black people in this country have suffered 400 years of genocide, and the murders continue at the rate of one every couple of days.

[ismnotwasm]

63. Yup

The lowest.

[Cha]

92. Some will take this to heart.. and some will continue in their same rut.. looking for hidden

motive and conspiracies and having as Thom Hartmann said.. " .. a reflexive white person's response."

[daredtowork]

96. Thom was also looking for motives

It seems like such motives only become "conspiracies" when attributed to political rivals, though.

I have worked hard to tamp down manufactured outrage on the Bernie side, but it's hard when people provoke. Calling everyone conspiracy theorists is provoking.

Would you say that Hartmann, in the same show, is indulging in conspiracy theory, when he considers the motives of BLM activists during their private Hillary meeting in the segment shown here...?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017285895

Just as unfair characterizations of BLM have to stop, unfair characterizations of Bernie supporters have to stop.

[Cha]

98. Thom Hartmann has soul and compassion.. I will not listen to anyone whining about him.

I know several BS supporters who are reasonable people and do not insult people who disagree with them.

[daredtowork]

101. I'm not whining about him

I've worked for him before.

Did you watch the segment?

I'm saying he questioned the Hillary call-ahead as well, and he basically gave basis for the "conspiracy theory" you just dissed. This puts a lot of Bernie supporters back in the "reasonable" category. (By your own criteria).

[TBF]

117. I don't disagree with Thom - especially the

phrase "after 400 years of oppression the least blacks can do is to disrupt"

I support their right to disrupt. I support cameras on officers. I support reparations. Black lives absolutely matter.


But, the part I still don't understand is "why only Bernie?". He is one long-shot candidate who is obviously threatening the status quo and has a long history of supporting civil rights issues. You'd think they'd protest the white house or Congress - people who are in power TODAY and could do something.

In all the writing on DU I still have not seen an answer to that question. People give me BS answers like "oh - you attack people you are closest to" or "the republicans won't listen so why bother" ...

The current White House is not occupied by a republican. There are plenty of dems in Congress. Why are they not targeted? Hillary Clinton is not a republican (at least not in name). Why is she not targeted? I hear that they tried to go to her rally but were kept out - so they don't protest THAT? Why not another march on Washington?

Instead you focus on one long-shot candidate?

Hmmm.

[Person 2713]

130. Thom Hartmann has been doing Lunch with Bernie before Sanders ever entered the race

[notadmblnd]

180. My husband was a black man, whose life I attempted to ensure mattered

And when I needed his own flesh and blood to stand beside me in support for him, they told me in no polite manner what so ever to fuck off.

They were so blinded by their hate and resentment for me (a white woman) that his life didn't even matter to them. My husband died 13 years ago- hence another black child grew up without a father.

If she can't get past her hate and anger- she will never accomplish saving the black lives she is currently paying lip service to. She's gonna bring about more death- Her behavior displays to me- that, black lives matter to her -only to the extent she can exploit them.

My black son didn't grow up with that hate and I'm not going to allow people like Ms Johnson to teach it to him now.

[TBF]

181. I guess that's why I thought at first

that she must be a plant - her statements have made little sense. But it does make more sense once you understand that she is mired in hate and part of an extreme movement (the Outside Agitators 206). I feel bad that BLM got scapegoated in this way and want to hear more from folks like Bravenak. I have been saying all week that I think admin should lift her suspension. We only grow if we can communicate with each other. It's not the responsibility of African Americans to explain everything to dense white folks, but when we can have conversations I think it helps to get rid of the "other" phenomena and realize people are people.

[notadmblnd]

182. I too am an admirer of Bravenak and I have express my admiration for her to her

However, I don't feel that I have to prove my commitment to change- to any individual or organization that I currently feel is strongly rooted in hate or those that support that organization here at DU.

Ms Johnson stood up at the podium that night and accused everyone in that audience of being white supremacists. Then a few of the people here at DU picked up that mantle and applied it to every white liberal person here.

I've admitted in the past in posts here that as a white person- I've taken advantage of my white privilege. I can even admit that I may still harbor bigoted views in some areas of my thinking. What I can also tell people though is; I try to recognize it when I see it in myself and work to eliminate in my life. I also tend to think that in our quest to becoming better human beings, inner struggle with right and wrong is a life long struggle.

I'm not perfect and I can admit it. Other's here- not so much. Instead- they're trying desperately to convince POC here that they have eliminated their prejudices and biases and their bigoted views by agreeing with everything any person of color writes about Ms Johnson and BLM.

Ms. Johnson is wrong, people's reaction to her scribe that night did not expose thems as closeted liberal white supremacists, but it did expose some of the bigoted attitudes that some liberals still harbor and may want to consider spending time reflecting on.

Everyone contributes to the social hierarchy and the racism that has resulted from that hierarchy in this country- even the victims of it. Those who would deny it- don't themselves understand what racism is and why it exists.

[eridani]

197. The answer to "Why Bernie?" is very simple, and requires no conspiracy theories

If you want to go after presidential candidates, start with the easiest situation. That would be the candidate who has huge numbers of unscreened people attend his events. The campaigns with more tight-assed security are much harder to confront.

[TBF]

199. I actually found Marissa's statement on "why Bernie"

after I wrote this. I kept looking because it was bothering me. She feels like if he's the best we can do the whole thing should be burned down.

Honestly on some days I agree, but that is something you might think in frustration and express to a close friend. You don't say that on National TV or make it a basis for your protesting. Honestly I think she is a very confused young woman. I'm still trying to understand the turnabout in just a few years from supporting Palin to thinking Bernie's not good enough. And yet Hillary, who is far more conservative than Bernie (imo), is good enough. This is all crazy talk.

But I think she has had her 15 minutes, she is part of an extremist group aside from BLM, and people are moving on.

Side shows aside, I still support BLM and I'm sure Bernie Sanders does as well.

[CrispyQ]

131. I think back to the suffragette movement & the old saying, "Well behaved women rarely make history."

I'm sure the women picketing the White House were thought of as rude & disrespectful, too.




Even as a woman, I've never experienced the kind of systemic oppression black people have. I am a bit perplexed why Bernie has been singled out, considering of all the candidates, he has the longest record supporting & advocating for minorities, but perhaps it is because of the excitement he is generating with the big crowds? At any rate, Bernie handled the situation perfectly.

[BumRushDaShow]

146. Ask Ida B. Wells-Barnett about those women you cite

She had to do the same thing over 100 years ago because so-called "progressive" white women back then didn't get it either.

Perhaps one of Wells-Barnett's most important stands occurred at the March 3, 1913, National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) parade in the nation's capital. NAWSA was the national umbrella organization for state suffrage affiliates. Its history dated to 1890 when the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association merged their forces and resources. The primary goal was to enfranchise women. But, NAWSA did not always embrace all women. The southern white women encouraged to seek membership in NAWSA adhered to the same white supremacy ideology that their men championed. Dependence on southerners for the passage of full suffrage rights for women muffled any opposition that NAWSA might have harbored to the usurpation of the social, economic, and political rights that blacks gained during the Reconstruction years. NAWSA refused to publicly denounce racial segregation, adopted a policy of expediency, and accepted Jim Crow within its own ranks. This left the door open for state affiliates to discriminate against black women. But Illinois suffragists had always embraced African-American women like Wells-Barnett and encouraged their participation in the state movement. The Women's State Central Committee, for example, utilized Wells-Barnett's lecturing skills and enlisted her aid in canvassing the state to encourage women to organize and develop political knowledge.

Despite the progressive attitude of white female Illinois suffragists, they refused to support her in the historic suffrage march in Washington. Carrying banners representing almost every state in the Union, thousands of parade marchers underscored the demand for universal female enfranchisement. Wells-Barnett was one of sixty-five enthusiastic delegates from Illinois and one of many black women who participated in the march. But the African-American women were instructed to gather as one unit at the end of the procession because the NAWSA forbade the integration of state affiliates in the march. Wells-Barnett refused to comply with the NAWSA demand and instead lined up with her state contingent. Grace Wilbur Trout, president of the Illinois Equal Suffrage Association and chairperson of the group, initially sanctioned the integrated group. But after meeting with a NAWSA official, she told the delegation that Wells-Barnett could not march with the state contingent. Further, if they failed to follow the instructions set forth by the NAWSA, the entire delegation would be denied participation in the march.

Angry at the blatant disregard for her rights as a woman and as an Illinois resident, Wells-Barnett refused to comply. It was time to confront racism within the suffrage movement. Southern women, she argued, had evaded the issues of race, and the NAWSA and its state affiliates had allowed it. She wanted the Illinois group to show the nation that it was progressive enough to stand against NAWSA's hypocrisy of oppressing women because of their race while embracing the idea of equality for all women at the ballot box. Her pleas, however, fell on deaf ears. So did the pleas of two white colleagues, Belle Squire and Virginia Brooks.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/1996/iht319630.html

[CrispyQ]

147. The diff in the feminist experience wasnt' something I was aware of

until I started taking public transportation. Having grown up in predominately white environments my entire life, it was eye opening to realize there is an element of the feminist experience that is the same, all being women, but that there is an ocean of difference in just about everything else.

[BumRushDaShow]

153. "Expediency" has been the rallying cry

from progressive quarters that results in further oppression of POC by negating, minimizing, or outright rejecting our concerns, while promulgating the very behaviors that we protest in order to gain the support for their agendas, from those who overtly attack us.

[phleshdef]

145. She is still a bratty, foolish, childish person who called a Jewish man a white supremacist.

After watching the video in Seattle and reading things she said after the fact, I have no respect for her personally. I respect the BLM movement. But I have no time for unenlightened, self serving people like her. Anyone with half a brain that listens to her would know that its not about "black lives" for her, its about self aggrandizing bullshit.

[lewebley3]

152. Not interested in Hartman anymore, He can't speak for most Dem's anymore

I use to like Hartman, but now he has gone off the deep end
with Sanders. Sanders looked weak when he got attacked
by Black lives.

Progressive always turn on the people who are their supporters (Hillary Bernie Obama).

Progressive should be attacking the GOP in red states where the killing
of blacks is most concentrated.

(though it is everywhere)

[BumRushDaShow]

156. The "killing" is not "concentrated in the red states"

unless you think NYC is in the "red state" of New York or Oakland is in the "red state" of California.

[eridani]

198. Sanders is "weak"? Well excuuussse me! It wasn't his event!

Two members of the Social Security Works coalition (whose event it was) were on stage at the time, and made the decision to hand over the mic. Sanders went along with it, given that it was not his decision to make.

[lewebley3]

200. Sanders not Presidential material!