SALON: This feminist is sticking with Bernie Sanders

[cui bono]

Wednesday, May 4, 2016 02:58 AM PST

This feminist is sticking with Bernie Sanders: Why Hillary backers need to take another long, honest look

Before it's too late, my fellow feminists need to reconsider Clinton, ignore the peer pressure, and vote on issues

Marie Myung-Ok Lee


A week after the New York primary, I had lunch with a colleague whom I hadn’t seen for a year. We are both avowed feminists and members of a joke secret society, Women Who Get Shit Done (we have badges, that’s about it); she started talking about having voted for Hillary Clinton, in that confiding way one does when presuming the other person feels the same. I had to stop her and gently let her know that I had voted for Bernie, and even with the (contested) results in, I was still Sanders. She immediately backtracked and revealed, as if disclosing a shameful secret, that “Bernie’s positions” — voted against the Iraq, against fracking, for banking regulation — “align much closer to my own than Hillary’s.” Why on earth vote for Hillary then? I asked, astounded. The best she could come up with was “My daughter really wants me to vote for Hillary.”

...

A Trump presidency is indeed not an impossibility. But if that happens, it’s not on Writers4Bernie; it’s on Hillary for being a weak candidate. And likely on the DNC for not supporting the candidate who polls stronger against all three of the Republicans–Bernie beats Trump by double digits while Hillary is within the margin of error against Trump and loses to Kasich. Simply put, the superdelegate system and closed primaries may succeed in pushing Clinton to victory as the party’s nominee, but it’s at the peril of wishing away the most recent Gallup poll that showed a record 43% of American voters identify as independents, a demographic that overwhelmingly prefers Bernie, as seen in his sweeping wins in the caucuses and open primaries where independents are allowed to vote. So why stick to an outdated, confusing, likely corrupt nominating process that ignores voters’ actual preferences?

A lot of smart people I know are Bernie supporters, including the Nobel Prize winner in our building, who has the distinction of having a Bernie sign up even longer than we have.

I went on my own (to quote Hillary Clinton’s senatorial bid) “listening tour” of my smart friends who are/have voted for Hillary and for anonymity’s sake, created a composite, which includes doctors, academics, writers, stay at home moms. Besides “having a woman president would be historic” and “Hillary has the most experience,” they would look at me blankly when I’d say, “And I disagree with almost everything she’s done in the State Department and much of what she did while she was a senator.”

more...
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/04/this_feminist_is_sticking_with_bernie_sanders_why_hillary_backers_need_to_take_another_long_honest_look/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

_______________________________________________________________

I haven't heard anyone state why Hillary is better than Bernie on issues either.

.

[lagomorph777]

1. It's not about issues.

It's just - well - she's very experienced. Very experienced at starting wars, collecting Gold in sacks, etc.

[boobooday]

2. I'm sticking with him too

His platform is the one that will do the most for my family and my community.

[Dems to Win]

3. +1

[cui bono]

4. Very true. And he appeals to independents far more than Hillary.

In fact, he's brought a lot of them into the party. They'll leave again if he isn't nominated, I'm sure.

.

[NorthCarolina]

5. K&R

Excellent read, thanks.

[Aerows]

6. "it’s not on Writers4Bernie; it’s on Hillary for being a weak candidate"

It's not on Democrats that have warned repeatedly that the Clinton Foundation is going to become a morass that could take down Atlas.

It's not on Democrats that flat out stated that mishandling classified material on a server that was elementary to hack (and did, in fact, get hacked) was a breathtaking display of poor judgment.

It's not on Democrats that have loudly stated that she has polling issues with a sizable chunk of the very people that should be in her corner - Democrats.

If anybody has illusions that she can make up for lost Democratic voters with Independents and Republicans, well, truly, nothing anyone could ever say will convince you.

Do *NOT* blame me in November and start Nader yelling. I don't want to hear it.

[CharlotteVale]

8. +1000000

[cui bono]

10. Yep. Been saying that on here for a while. It will be Hillary's supporters' fault

if she gets the nom and losed the GE. They couldn't even give one policy/issue reason for choosing her over Bernie. They know the independents that are for Bernie are not for Hillary. Bernie is the reason they want to vote and the reason many of them joined the Dem Party. They know Hillary won't attract the independents she needs in the GE the way Bernie does.

Yes, it will be their fault and they damn well better not blame Bernie supporters for them and the DNC and the establishment conspiring to shove a flawed, untrustworthy and unlikeable candidate on us.

.

[Betty Karlson]

7. I'm sticking with Bernie's ideals - this was always bigger than one man - as he said countless times

[seabeyond]

9. Peer pressure? Insulting suggesting that women vote Clinton because of our vagina or peer pressure.

Fail, again.

[cui bono]

11. Can you point me to the comments you made when Steinem said young women are flocking to Bernie

because that's where the boys are? Or when Albright said whatever she said about women burning in hell or special place in hell for women who don't vote for women?

Would love to see them! Thanks!

Notice that the author is recounting what happened in reality when she spoke to Hillary supporters. She's not making a broad generalization of unknown people that is merely a "guess" or an opinion of hers that she pulled out of her backside like Steinem did, nor attempting to insult or threaten a swath of unknown people like Albright did. She is telling you what people told her. If you think that's insulting you should be angry at the Hillary supporters. Or is that who you were offended by?

.

[Autumn]

13. * Crickets*

[seabeyond]

14. Crickets? What, I didn't post fast enough for you Autumn?

[Autumn]

30. I miss you sea. nt

[cui bono]

18. Even better!

I got a non-response response.



.

[seabeyond]

15. You can find my comments yourself. Why should I bother finding my comments for you?

[cui bono]

16. No, actually I can't. So can you please? Thanks! What about the rest of my post?

Can you address that?

The part about how what the author is writing about is not merely her opinion, but is what she was told by Hillary supporters? Where as when Steinem and Albright made their ultra-offensive comments that any feminist would be horrified by they were just stating their opinion and judgment and it had no basis in reality.

.

[seabeyond]

17. No, I will not "please" waste my time getting past posts for you. No.

[cui bono]

19. Okay, so you don't want to show you have integrity, fine. What about the rest of my post?

Why do you keep ignoring that? You're responding to a post on a discussion/message board, that usually means one wishes to discuss things. This confuses me.

So do you want to discuss this or did just come in here to fling poo with nothing to back up what you say?
.

[seabeyond]

20. Show I have integrity because you insist I hunt shit down for you?

[cui bono]

22. I said that's fine. Now what about the rest of my post?

Why do you purposely ignore that part? The part that stated... well here it is, in case you have trouble finding it again:

Notice that the author is recounting what happened in reality when she spoke to Hillary supporters. She's not making a broad generalization of unknown people that is merely a "guess" or an opinion of hers that she pulled out of her backside like Steinem did, nor attempting to insult or threaten a swath of unknown people like Albright did. She is telling you what people told her. If you think that's insulting you should be angry at the Hillary supporters. Or is that who you were offended by?

[seabeyond]

23. I called out the peer pressure bullshit. I do not have to respond to your post just cause you insist

I didn't read it, I do not care what you have to say. This sub thread alone should be a clue in why I have no interest responding or reading your shit.

[cui bono]

27. Aha! Some truth. You don't read and you don't care.

So why are you on a message/discussion board?

Why do you call yourself a feminist?

Why don't you care what you are making yourself look like with these asinine posts of yours?

.

[seabeyond]

21. Peer pressure. Snarky comment suggesting women vote because of peer pressure. Silly women

That we vote with our vagina and peer pressure.

That is what I commented on.

I have a right to call out that crap.

You then make demands on me, my time and effort about stuff I have no interest discussing with you. Again, my right.

You then throw out crickets because I didn't reply fast enough and wrapped it into my integrity because I did not jump at your demand.

I am at work. I am now leaving work. I make the choice what I discuss or not. Your tantrums, demands, and insults don't dictate what and when I discuss.

[cui bono]

26. Yowzer! Calm down. I'm merely trying to have a discussion and be sure that you are not hypocritical.

No one suggested anything. The author has recounted the answers she actually got from Hillary supporters. I actually think you are describing it worse than it actually was. Are you trying to make Hillary supporters look worse?

You can call out whatever you want, but you can also be wrong, which in this case you are. Or do you know all the Hillary supporters that this author spoke to? I didn't see where she named them by name, but hey, maybe you have an inside scoop. If so, do tell!

I don't recall making any demands at all. I politely asked if you would share your responses to the offensive and judgmental comments Steinem and Albright made about women. I mean those were over the top and outrageous as I'm sure a self-proclaimed feminist such as yourself would agree. I just wanted to see if you were being fair with your outrage or if you only directed it at Bernie supporters. Since you are such a staunch self-proclaimed feminist I'm certain you really laid in on them for saying such sexist comments and I'd love to see that!

And I don't recall throwing out crickets. You are getting confused. You really shouldn't get so worked up over this, we're just having a discussion here. Or I thought we were. Didn't you want to? You replied on a discussion board.

Also, I looked back and I don't see where I had a tantrum. What is your definition of tantrum? Maybe that's why we're having this odd exchange, perhaps you define things differently than I.

Oh well, let me know what you think about the fact that the author of this piece was recounting actual responses and reasons from Hillary supporters where as Steinem and Albright simply made generaly blanket opinion/judgment based sexist attacks on Bernie supporters they had never met or spoken with in real life.

.

[seabeyond]

28. Calm down? You call crickets cause I am not fast enough, make demands, insult my integrity

Assign emotion to me then tell me to calm down.

I would never put forth a serious effort to have any type of conversation with you.

[cui bono]

29. I called crickets? Where? Please link to that and provide the exact quote where I did that.

And please show me the quote were I made demands. Asking someone for something is not making a demand. And I told you if you didn't want to prove you had integrity that was fine. I moved on.

You do need to calm down. It is evident by your posts that you are quite worked up.

I'm sad that you don't want to discuss how the author of this pieces uses actual words of Hillary supporters, which apparently is making you very upset and causing you to come in and fling poo while saying nothing that adds to the discussion, and comparing it to the outlandish ad ultra-sexist and judgmental attacks Steinem and Albright made on Bernie supporters. As I said, a self-proclaimed staunch feminist must have been outraged by what they said about a group of anonymous people they didn't know at all, I mean really, saying young women were only voting for someone because of boys. Yuck.

This is supposed to be right up your alley, so why don't you want to discuss it? To compare and contrast the different situations? One where someone is reporting what Hillary supporters actually said or how they actually reacted and another where someone makes a sexist assumption about an entire group of young women simply because they don't agree with the choice they made. Seems like a great topic to me and you were the one who brought it up with your initial comment.

So come on... why are you so upset about this article, which is based on reality and real life encounters but you don't say anything about the one where someone - not really just someone, an icon of the feminist movement - just makes a sexist comment out of nowhere simply to insult young women who don't agree with them? Why is the reality based one so awful to you yet you don't seem to mind the fabricated sexist one?

.

[bvar22]

24. Your beligerant and defensive responses leaves us with the most probable conclusion that...

...there you made no such posts, and know that it is futile to look for something that does not exist.

(The above in response to a simple resuest from DU member cui bono in post #11)

cui bono (19,155 posts)
11. Can you point me to the comments you made when Steinem said young women are flocking to Bernie....
.....because that's where the boys are? Or when Albright said whatever she said about women burning in hell or special place in hell for women who don't vote for women?

Would love to see them! Thanks!

[seabeyond]

25. Wtf ever

[Autumn]

12. I am with Bernie all the way.

[LWolf]

31. So am I. nt