2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSen. Warren Exposing Liberal Sexism
After Elizabeth Warren's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, we have seen an ugly strain of thought rising up among the 'progressive' left. Despite Bernie Sanders' position being that superdelegates should wait until the end of a primary to announce their support, and Warren doing exactly that, she is being viciously attacked for her endorsement of the Democratic nominee.
Her Facebook page and Twitter feed are being flooded with nasty comments branding her a traitor to the cause, which exposes an air of entitlement among some people, who feel that Warren owed it to them to do what they wanted.
More importantly, it exposes a startling degree of sexism among people who are supposed to be the most 'progressive' of us. Senator Merkely, Bernie's lone endorser in the Senate, has just flipped his allegiance and declared that he is supporting Hillary Clinton for President.
Where is the outrage? Where are the dozens of posts here calling him a sellout? Where are the hundreds of messages being sent to him that he has abandoned all of his principles?
This is the ugly truth we don't like to believe exists even among those of us on the left. One good Senator endorses the winner after the race is over, while another changes his vote to go with the winner, and it's the former who is facing pitchforks and torches.
It's sad, it's pathetic, and it reveals that 'progressives' aren't as righteous as they like to think.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Merkely gets a pass and warren doesn't.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Been watching this for months.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Merkely is a minor figure by comparison.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Other than saying that Bernie was ENTITLED to her support for some reason?
athena
(4,187 posts)If someone who had been a friend turned against me, I would be much more hurt than if they had never been a friend in the first place.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)She did not put herself on the line when we needed her.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I expected that from her during the primary.
I don't consider her endorsement of Hillary as a candidate to be a betrayal.
She made a calculated decision, and it tells me something about her that is separate from her policy beliefs.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)She said "Wall St broke our economy"....now she endorses the hand picked candidate of Wall St.
I liked what she said. What I disliked was her unwillingness to stand up for Bernie when it really counted.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Putting that onus on someone is entirely your own doing, and is such an entitled position that I don't know how to justify it.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Choosing the hand picked candidate of those who "rigged" it after failing to endorse the person who wanted to change that makes no sense to me.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)created her as. Sanders has the fact and is not bigoted toward Clinton. She does not oppose Clinton mostly, because Clinton has very progressive policies, is informed, strong and knows what she is doing.
You and Sanders people are seeing it from your perspective, not Warrens.
You all say Warren is smart, bold and honest. But, when you do not like what Warren is saying about Clinton, she must have betrayed you. No. She is saying Sanders and supporters are wrong. That is not who Clinton is. She knows, she is a part.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)her on a position, respectfully. Clinton listened to Warren and said, heard ya, and pretty cool your position.
You are creating soemthing that is not, to justify your position.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is not true, she won't pretend it is. Unlike Sanders.
liberal from boston
(856 posts)Senator Warren during the Primary issued a statement cheering Bernie on & urging him to stay in the race. Senators Sanders & Warren are liberals who promote progressive polices
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)RogueTrooper
(4,665 posts)or rate his ability to get things done.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Nope. No sexism here.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You're quoting someone who is themselves mischaracterizing the another poster's position.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)So why bring that up?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I just expected more of her. I would have supported her for President if she had run. I hoped that she would support Bernie since they are practically of one voice on many issues.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)She actually, you know, knows and has worked with him? And has decided he would make a shitty president. And only one of his Senate colleagues endorsed him. Just maybe?
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)no, no sexism on the left, oh no god forbid, we can't be sexist, we are leftist!
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I would still be excited if she was nominated.
athena
(4,187 posts)In fact, it means nothing, zilch, to say that you would vote for a woman who is not actually running for president.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)By the way, I am a progressive, and I am for Hillary. A person who cares only about income inequality and thinks that sexism and racism are distractions is not a true progressive in my opinion.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)They don't want Bernie as VP either for the same reason.
Would you want Bernie as the VP?
Turin_C3PO
(15,369 posts)Were many Hillary supporters only socially progressive but dismissed incomes inequality, healthcare, and education? Probably the same amount, which is to say, not very many.
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)then it would have been different the moment she expressed an .opinion that was not sufficiently leftish.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)was president, then they would vote for her, proving how it is not about sexism, I stated they would go after her at a drop of the hat.
The most hate during this primary is exclusively toward women.
This is what sexism looks like.
athena
(4,187 posts)went out the window the moment it started to look like Warren might be Hillary's choice for VP.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You don't?
You're a sexist.
(Just using your myopic logic.)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)hurled at these women, from our Democrats. I do not have the option of standing up for only the women I agree with.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)What is someone else says "Ted Cruze says a lot of stupid things which are harmful."
Is one statement sexist, while the otehr is fine, simply because of the gender of who they are directed at?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Find one comment from me, a feminist or another that has said this statement is sexist. Again, I do not waste my time arguing non truths or made up scenarios.
If they state she is a dingbat or any of the other sexist defining words directed exclusively to women, then I will speak up and call the language sexist. Where would you have an issue with that, being the progressive you are?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)is not sexist.
I won't defend any overtly sexist or otherwise nasty comments against Warren.
But to attribute people's feelings about it as sexism, is just wrong....No more to do with gender that characterizing Palin as dumb.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)There is all kinds of sexism in this world, which brings us the hard work of challenging the sexism in our world today.
You changed the argument to overt sexism. I addressed that issue. Now you are bring us back to the conversation about less overt sexism, and you insist that is NOT sexism. Bully for you. I disagree. And I know I have way more fact, academia, studies that will support my position and all you have is words thrown at us.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The attitude you express turns off many people who otherwise are supportive of increasing gender equality.
'But go ahead and have at it. .
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)if it is a progressive position you support.
Not my job to coddle others. Lol. I do it with my own, I do not have to do it with the rest of the word.
Ya ya ya, I get, once again I turned you off, lol.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)What-the-hell-ever indeed.
After all the "Hating Hillary is not sexist, if Warren were running we'd support her" posts here, it's hard to miss the sexist dismissal Warren is receiving from those same posters.
You can call it whatever you want, but it's pretty blatant to those without the hate colored blinders on.
And bringing up Palin, Fiorina or Thatcher is usually quite telling.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Listen to yourself.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Listen to your own self.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I happen to be very supportive of the goal of gender equality and have been closely involved in different ways with strongly committed feminists.
Saying that it's sexist of the people who have strongly supported a particular politician (Warren) to criticize him/her because of a particular political decision by that person makes all discussion incredibly shallow and one dimensional.
So don't give me that condescending shit. You only hurt what you claim to want to advance by making everything about sexism and expecting people to walk on eggshells all the time.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)My heart bleeds for them.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)actually want to accomplish what you claim you want to accomplish.
But go ahead. You simply make your case irrelevant by ringing false alarms.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)I would say that the dismissal of issues related to sexism (and racism) by Bernie as "not important" was probably one of the worst missteps of his campaign. It's unfortunate that many of his supporters echoed those sentiments here on DU regularly. And this argument of "ringing false alarms" you are using here is too close to some other arguments I've seen here over the years about false accusations for my comfort.
Trying to deny that some Democrats have indeed revealed their sexism this election season would be ludicrous. There could not be more cut and dry examples. Those who excused Kerry for his war vote and voted for him, but will never ever excuse Clinton and could never vote for her because she voted for the iwr. Those that claimed they would support Warren if she were running, instantly shifting gears when it became apparent she might actually be on the ticket.
All while touting their superior progressiveness and higher morality.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I am all for honest discussion of what is real sexism, imagined sexism and subconscious sexism in a larger sense.
But that is not the same as excessively using claims of sexism as a political tool to marginalize or otherwise discredit an opposing candidate and his supporters who share a similar agenda. (I am not referring to the neanderthal behavior and attitudes of people like Trump.)
I also believe that any such discussions -- within or without the context of politics -- should be an honest give and take, with acknowledgement of nuance, and recognition that no one is the sole repository of what is and is not the official definition of actual sexism (in the agree to disagree category).
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And if she started there you'd like her? I don't think anyone defended that crsp except for you. Sounds like you're still a little pissed about it, too.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Has nothing to do with her gender. I used a word I should not have, but I meant what I said.
But if you want to make it so....it is so in your mind. That's up to you.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)feel spiteful. As if that makes it any less sexist. It does not.
mcar
(43,341 posts)Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)but I blame the left for that. Attacking with such angry sexist ugliness that they would not let go of even years later... who the hell wouldn't be bitter? I liked that she told the MSM to go f*ck itself. I thought she was funny and would have been fun to have as a next door neighbor.
The left just couldn't let it go, so many sexist jokes. One person I am related to (who still supports Bernie BTW) still claims it was our duty to attack her with sexist jokes and memes to keep her out of the white house.
So no, I would not want her to be President, but I do like her. As for Carly, she is just one mean nasty piece of work.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)in the 2008 campaign.
But I guess I only find that offensive because a woman said it
choie
(4,394 posts)at Bernie Sanders by Clinton supporters? Anti-semitism?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)into his religion.
I know there were Sanders supporters that tried to create him as part of the oppressed group to be on the same level as a first woman president, but it never really caught hold. Are you bringing that to the table now?
choie
(4,394 posts)Are sexist.. You are so blind with allegiance to Clinton that you can't see straight.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Disgusting.
And implying Sanders doesn't care one way or another about his religion....sheesh! You're implying Sanders is a bad jew!
Disgusting.
51. People do not care one way or another about Sanders just as he does not put a lot of time and effort
into his religion.
I know there were Sanders supporters that tried to create him as part of the oppressed group to be on the same level as a first woman president, but it never really caught hold. Are you bringing that to the table now?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in order to win a fake argument? I do not get people who do this.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Hillary supporter comes to mind.
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)Yes indeed, here is the link to his face-book page: https://www.facebook.com/jeffmerkley/?fref=ts
and here is hers: https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/?fref=ts
Here is an example of what one woman said to Liz:
Your cheese has slid off your cracker Hitlery is terrible and you know it I use to love you but not anymore I thought your were different but you are backing a criminal and I can not continue to like you. I do not associate with folks that associate with criminals. My husband said you were part of the cabal and I defended you , he was right your just as much involved in the illusion of freedom as Hitlery is.
GeorgeGist
(25,397 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Baitball Blogger
(47,663 posts)on this very website?
Damn double standards.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We should banish them from our party! Oh, wait. We already did that. Never mind.
QC
(26,371 posts)around here. Honestly, the way some of them spend all their time driving wedges between Democrats, it's almost enough to make me wonder if they have our best interests at heart, like maybe they have some reason for being here other than getting Democrats elected.
Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)
Post removed
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"Oh Yeah? You're only complaining about it because she's a woman!"
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Soon, they'll want equal rights or something impossible like taxing the rich.
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)tritsofme
(18,143 posts)My take is that the Bernie people aren't as mad at Merkely because he is not particularly important.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Get real.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)of EW going after Hillary on the Senate floor because of her ties to Wall Street.
As far as Merkley - that's up for the voters to decide.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)And he's not grandstanding in his shift to Clinton.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Warren didn't use her superdelegate status to affect the race, she only endorsed when it was over, and she endorsed the winner of the country and her state.
Everything about that is exactly what Bernie wanted. There's ZERO in there to be mad about, without falling back into saying Bernie was owed her support.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)How you view it politically is irrelevant to that claim.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Feel free to disagree with it in terms of the two politicians involved.
But claiming it is all about sexism is 100 percent unadulterated bullshit.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)You are the one who described it as sexism.
My point is simply that it is a matter of different behavior and circumstances, rather then the gender of the candidates involved.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Yavin4
(35,903 posts)Sen. Warren did just that.
BS supporters stated that the SDs should vote with the will of the primary voters in total.
Sen. Warren did just that.
Where exactly is the problem with Sen. Warren?
choie
(4,394 posts)She states that the game is rigged and that Wall Street is a corrupting force and that the problem is the political establishment. Then she comes out to support the candidate that represents Just that.. That's what is infuriating and, as I said hypocritical. Not to mention politically expedient. It has crap to do with sexism.
Yavin4
(35,903 posts)That is her right to do. She went with the will of her state and the Democratic primary electorate in general. She's no less committed to her causes. She's just going about it in a manner different from Bernie, who didn't have any sort of strategic plan to get what he wanted done.
OTOH, Sen. Warren created the CFPB, the government watchdog group for the financial industry. That's more than Bernie has ever done.
Response to Yavin4 (Reply #60)
Armstead This message was self-deleted by its author.
choie
(4,394 posts)by supporting somebody who is the antithesis of the values she espouses? Right..
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and is unwilling to play that game.
choie
(4,394 posts)And there's years and years of corruption to prove it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)doesn't seem to see it with Clinton.
choie
(4,394 posts)Warren is wrong...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)for Clinton compared to all the men that endorsed and spoke out. The hate, the craziness were exclusively directed to bigoted groups. Not the men.
choie
(4,394 posts)The same disdain was shown to Barney Frank, Bill diBlasio and John Lewis. And if Kucinich came out for Clinton using as his reasons the need to stop corruption in our political system, I'm sure progressives would express disappointment with him as well.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Sad that a Civil Rights icon was called a low life by a sanders supporter.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Stupid as the attacks were, people have seen Warren and Bernie as a sort of tag team on economic issues, while few people even know much about Merkely.
This is more like the outrage one would see if Kirsten Gilibrand endorsed any opponent of Claire McKaskill after they worked together on addressing rape in the military.
Seriously, crying sexism at every turn diminishes the real experiences and expression that happen daily. If Obama had attributed every single unfavorable event or criticism to racism during his campaign, he would never have been elected.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Liberals are racist and sexist. Got it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)What Would Clinton say?
The New Democratic Party. If it is at all contrary to Clinton, it's wrong. No matter whether it's liberal, conservative, moderate or anything.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)tom-servo
(185 posts)... Warren is a very high profile progressive, which gives all her actions a higher profile. However, she is also a progressive champion and shouldn't catch any flack for supporting Clinton. The democratic party is lucky to have her.
snot
(10,658 posts)But I and I think many more in the U.S. DID know who Warren was; her endorsement will have/would have had real weight and value; and she's been such an eloquent and persuasive speaker re- her concerns re- economic issues, which have clearly been much closer to Bernie's long-standing concerns than to Hillary's (not that I'm sure what the latter are), that we couldn't help but hope that Warren would recognize a Bernie as a natural ally and lend him her support.
I and many other Bernie-ites have been active feminists and proponents of equity with respect to race, gender, and other so-called classifications since the 60's. But if some DU'er's want to believe that all Bernie-ites are sexists, racists, etc., I can't stop them.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)choie
(4,394 posts)Hate the sin and not the sinner, where have I heard that before
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Warren endorses Clinton only after the race is over, and she's getting viciously attacked.
Merkely, who actually endorsed Sanders, flips to Clinton to be on the winning side, and no one here says a word.
It makes no sense whatsoever to hold someone who was neutral more in contempt than someone who just abandoned your candidate. Sexism comes to mind.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Do you really think that people are angry with Warren's support of Hillary is due to "sexism" and neutral about Merkley's support because he's a man? Or, could it be, that Warren is a lot better known than Merkley?
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)... int he fact that they're more angry at the woman who 1) did nothing 'against' Bernie, and 2) who followed Bernie's own wishes for superdelegates, than they are with an actual Bernie endorser who is jumping ship so he can be on the winning side.
Only one of these two people did abandoned Bernie, and it wasn't Warren. Yet she is the only one getting criticized....
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)From what I see, the people are angry with both because they support Hillary instead of the more progressive (leftist) Sanders not because of gender. Are they angry with with Warren because she now supports Hillary or are they angry because she's a woman? Are they less angry with Merkely because he's a man?
I have yet to see anywhere, including DU, any Bernie supporters who criticize Hillary because she's woman. Nor, have seen any Bernie supporters "attack" Warren because she's a woman. Both are "attacked" because of their policies. In this case Warren's (and Merkely's) decision to support Hillary instead of Bernie.
It's as ridiculous as anyone accusing Hillary supporters of being anti-Semitic because he's a Jew.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)I don't see them anywhere here on DU. But you can't open a topic mentioning Warren without someone calling her a sellout or a traitor. If there was anything resembling an even distribution of anger, I wouldn't have brought the topic up. But it's unreasonable that only the woman, who did far less to upset them, gets inundated with negativity and attacks.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)The operative words are "because she's a woman". She's being criticized because of her endorsement of Hillary. I've seen a lot of "attacks" on Susan Sarandon by Hillary supporters. Are they because she's a woman? Or, is it because she doesn't support Hillary?
OTOH, I've seen plenty of attacks on Bernie because he's an Old White Male. Sexist? Racist? Ageist?
You can't have it both ways.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)But I'm wondering what else explains why she is the focus of so many attacks, while others who did not endorse Bernie, or who have now done worse and actively flipped against him, don't receive the same treatment. The outrage is not uniformly spread among those who didn't support Bernie. It seems to be uniquely pointed at Warren.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Who, in the eyes of some, is a betrayal. I think it's because she is more well known than Merkely and others.. I don't think her gender has anything to do with it. And, I think that is also true for those of us don't support/won't vote for Hillary. It's not because she's a woman, it's because of her politics.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)campaign against Trump?
The word 'sexism' will be a punchline by the time it's over. These casual accusations only discredit legitimate complaints of sexism and make Hillary and her fans look like oversensitive, dishonest, opportunistic crybabies. This isn't smart.
CBHagman
(17,117 posts)...as well.
Please spell Jeff Merkley's name M-E-R-K-L-E-Y.
[url]https://www.merkley.senate.gov/[/url]
ThinkCritically
(241 posts)the same people who were voting for Bernie Sanders were signing petitions to get Elizabeth Warren to run. We would have given her just as many votes as Bernie Sanders got. But she decided she would get more accomplished in congress and didn't run. I agree that we shouldn't bash her for endorsing Hillary after she got to 2026. That is typically the first milestone to become the nominee, usually the point when other candidates drop out. No one should give anybody a hard time for choosing to support the party to make sure Donald Trump doesn't get elected. However, If Elizabeth Warren wants to save any credibility after endorsing the exact type of candidate she has railed against throughout her time in congress, she needs to make it clear that she is only endorsing Hillary to make sure Trump isn't elected and that she will be pushing for Bernies platform.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)They're handy that way.