Woah woah woah, this is getting out of hand.

[retrowire]

What the hell is this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110769845

Now we've got an OP that is simplifying everyone's discontent with Hillary as pure hatred against women?

WHAT THE FUCK??? This is a deplorable smear against Bernie supporters and it's outright painting us as haters of women. And it's posted in the protected Hillary group so I guess they can be as meta as they want without challenge?

Either way... I don't speak for all critics of Hillary. And as a feminist myself, I know full well that there are undeniably haters of Hillary simply because of her gender.

But this OP here is... It's a pretty broad brush I think. I see this as more victimizing of Hillary because of her gender. That sets back feminism yet again. She is being criticized on the same merit as any man would and that is fine. She is insulted with the same insults as a man would get and while insults aren't nice at all, that's better than protecting her because of her gender.

But the point is, is anyone here attacking Hillary strictly BECAUSE OF her gender? Because I'd love to see some proof. I'd love to see where a Bernie supporter said, "Sorry, Hillary can't run because she's a woman." or "Women aren't capable of that." or anything like that.

This smear campaign against the supporters of Bernie is getting a bit too out of hand. I'm fine with the schoolyard BernieBro insult. But being referred to as an outright hater of women? Get the fuck out of here.

ETA: And btw, the OP I'm referring to mentions a vague "something involving a brick" and then goes on to denounce violence against women. The brick comment was the same kind of phrase that would be used against a man. It involved telling Hillary to shove a brick somewhere. That's not "encouraging violence on women" it's a generic phrase that infers that someone can just go screw themselves. Yes it's derogatory, it's an insult. And yes, if taken literally it is an act of violence. I don't agree with the sentiment myself but that's most likely, NOT what it meant to convey.

Either way, a Hillary supporter saw an opportunity to see that as an act of violence against women so please people... Tread lightly. They'll interpret what they want to interpret if it benefits them in calling us all sexist, racists, etc...

[bernbabe]

1. Most of the sexists that won't vote for a woman

are in the knuckledragger group in the other primary.

[retrowire]

6. Welp, I've already read them agreeing with one another

that most of us are probably Trump supporters in disguise. *facepalm*

[VulgarPoet]

14. You know what they say, if we don't support her, somehow, we're supporting Trump

(Which is patently bullshit as long as there are more than two parties on the ballot AND a write in section but hey, what do I know I'm just a half-black military knuckledragger who's clearly a rw plant )

[onecaliberal]

25. Id argue they are the Trump supporters considering they ignore all the polls

Showing her losing to trump big.

[mindwalker_i]

26. That's the low-effort explanation

Much easier than examining the actual issues. And Hillary's campaign has been geared to play the victim while also calling herself strong - a nice contradiction - which is manipulative and disgusting.

[bvf]

41. Nice point.

Manipulative and disgusting isn't the half of it.

It takes pure cheek* to risk alienating so many potential supporters on the assumption that the deficit can be made up by out-and-out lying to the ill-informed.



*Sure as shit, some ignoramus somewhere will read sexism into even this.

[mindwalker_i]

44. You know, this is what Hillary excels at

She's very good at manipulating people. she plays on peoples outrage of sexism - sexism is real, and should be dealt with, but Hillary manipulates people with it. She plays on people's fears that nobody else can win against republicans - all the while being a republican. I'm sure her speeches to the banks played on all their fears and vanities.

[bvf]

47. All too true.

Her speeches to the money people probably command the payment they do for a reason. "Look! She's one of us!"

[Volaris]

50. Yes. (and, that gif wins the Internet).

[cannabis_flower]

80. Bingo!

[jalan48]

2. It's their fallback position-Hillary's too. The victim.

[Gwhittey]

12. The victim.

That is standard for a Right wing.

Look at all claims of Christian persecution that happens in this country.
Religious Freedom means my right to force my religious beliefs on you.

[rhett o rick]

22. The fall-back position of all bullies when cornered is the victim card. nm

[noiretextatique]

84. Seems to happen a lot: emotional manipulation

Seems to be to go-to position with gender and race. Doesn't work too well.

[Scootaloo]

3. Let 'em yell at each other. No point in jumping into their mud pit.

[Divernan]

36. I saw that OP - wallowing in maudlin self pity

Reminded me of a humorous kids' song:

Nobody likes me, everybody hates me,
I think I'll go eat worms!
Big fat juicy ones,
Eensie weensy squeensy ones,
See how they wiggle and squirm!

Then the OP's thread devolves into declarations of the posters' undying love for each other.
- total strangers outside of their internet/Hill connections - declaring their great love for each other. I love you. Well, I love your more. No, I love you the most!

[snort]

61. Reading your post, it put a real fire in my loins.

I'm pretty sure its love.

[Divernan]

72. OMG! Be still, my heart! (lol)

[Divernan]

73. Johnny Cash - A Berning Ring of Fire!

If John were still alive, he'd do a kickass fund raising concert for Bernie.

[snort]

97. I bet you are right about that!

[bkkyosemite]

4. Not Gender (I'm female)....Character!

[madaboutharry]

5. That was one person's post.

I wouldn't call it a smear campaign. A lot of people supporting Hillary, like me, also like Bernie.

[retrowire]

10. And it was one post with a brick comment.

And here's an OP that is chastising all of DU because of that one brick comment along with others.

But the point is, where is anyone criticizing Hillary strictly because of her gender and gender alone?

[mindwalker_i]

28. Or ereven criticizing her gender AT ALL?

The only gender-related criticism is about Hillary using gender as a club, then complaining about being a victim.

[bernbabe]

32. They are probably talking about

comments calling her "Shillary", criticizing how she dresses, her weight, etc., but I've seen very little of that here.

[retrowire]

38. i think i can vaguely recall some commentary

on her hair or dress. but that's all I can muster.

the "shillary" comment isn't sexist though. it's tying her name to the term "shill" in order to infer that she works for the corporations.

[Fawke Em]

93. Heck, there's a whole thread about Bernie's tie.

Maybe I should write a post about how sexist it is to carry on about his tie.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511431821

(And I know this was written by a Bernie supporter - our own beloved Cheese Sandwich. I'm just making the point that we all talk about what our candidates wear and how they look on a particular day. Mentioning that isn't being sexist. For example, I don't like when Hillary wears shirts that look like they were chosen from the maternity department. I like her fitted suits better. That's not sexist. It's just a personal preference. And I'm female.)

[noiretextatique]

85. And...the post was deleted!!!

[mikehiggins]

7. Thank you

I was infuriated by that post, and by the fact that it was posted in a group I have been banned from.

Thank you for beating me to the reply.

[Silver_Witch]

8. Just saw that link myself...

and was wholly confused by the post.

I am a 60 year old woman, democrat and staunchly feminist. I will not vote for Hillary because she is not the woman I want as my President. Would love to have a woman for President think it would rock the world and make for a better planet. Not however under a Clinton Presidency. Clinton is a War Hawk and for that reason (one of many) I cannot support her candidacy.

To cry anti-woman is to demean the true anti-women actions in this country - like limiting access to woman's health care and abortion, or equal pay or even passing the ERA which has long waited being acted on.

I am beginning to wonder if I am really a democrat. I am wondering if this party has changed so drastically that I can no longer be a member of the party. I am a democrat because we are supposed to be the one's that uphold voting and the right of each American to vote as they will.

This seems as if the DNC is saying this is the candidate we want and anyone else is out! WE have primaries so each of us can vote our hearts and conscious. Pure and simple. And now with this move of women attacking other women because we don't think as they do - well frankly it is scary and feeling very Phyllis Schflyish

[Lorien]

17. Agreed. If the DNC keeps moving to the hard right

then it's not the party for me.

[DiehardLiberal]

40. +10000

I am a woman a few years older than you and also have been a lifelong Democrat and feminist. However it is just as sexist to vote for a candidate because of her gender as it is to vote against her for the same reason. I was ok with Clinton a year ago and might have voted for her. However now no way! That decision is based on character, behavior and judgment. I may need to rethink my party affiliation as well. Very sad.

[LiberalLovinLug]

66. Thanks

I saw your post on that other thread. You were being very polite, and only stated your concerns about the OP implying if you don't support Hillary you are anti-woman. Yet you got no honest feedback for your efforts. Only insults, direct and vague. I would have backed you up but I was banned on my first post in there.

[oldandhappy]

9. for me, lies are not gender related.

Lies have nothing to do with racism or sexism or gender.
Lies are lies.

[brewens]

11. I know plenty of women that would have shown Bill the door long before Monica. If you want

respect, rate respect. That is all.

[Peace Patriot]

24. I don't agree, brewens. Their personal relationship is NOBODY'S BUSINESS.

I've always thought this and I think it now. Our leaders' private lives should be PRIVATE. Bill's private relations with Monica or others were NOBODY'S BUSINESS. Hillary's and Bill's private relationship is NOBODY's BUSINESS. We can think anything we want to about it, but it is NOT public business and should NOT be revealed and not discussed in a public venue.

Only in the case of publicly required financial records, spying, treason, blackmail, government policy, security, criminal acts and other obvious public matters should a leader's private life be intruded upon, and then, only to the extent that any other citizen can be investigated.

I want privacy RESTORED--for our leaders and for all of us!

The ripping apart of Bill's and Hillary's life served no public purpose whatsoever, and so smacked of Puritan witch trials that we should have risen up, at the time, and demanded a stop to it.

And, indeed, it was a great harm to public discourse. It was a huge distraction from critically important public matters that we SHOULD have been paying attention to. Glass-Steagall. Free Trade bills. Mass incarceration. All this got buried in that goddamned, stupid, pointless, scandalous investigation.

[AgerolanAmerican]

33. I'd say it's everybody's business

She rode her marriage to the position she is in now, and she's asking for the public to put her in office based in no small part on the strength of that experience, and the fallout from their relationship brought us the Lewinsky craziness and all that followed... her marriage and opinions thereof are in the public domain by her, and his, own choices.

If they wanted to be private citizens that's fully within their rights. But they're seeking public office and that makes pretty much everything about them - including very private things like taxes and health records - the public's business.

[Peace Patriot]

71. "the fallout from their relationship brought us the Lewinsky craziness"--no, Ken Starr did.

The Clintons' private life was NEVER the alleged point of that "Star Chamber" proceeding, and should never have been invaded, and held up to exposure and ridicule. That should NOT be the price of public service.

Whatever you think of that public service--support their policies or don't--NO public servant should be subjected to that. It makes every public servant blackmailable and controllable by dark forces if they stray even a little bit from a completely outdated and quite vicious PURITAN idea of marriage.

Gawd, people were laughing at us all over the world! "He had a mistress...and you're doing THAT to him, and you're spending a half a billion dollars on it? Are you crazy?"

We need a new pact among us and our leaders and the media. We really do. Consenting sex among adults inside or outside of marriage HAS NOTHING TO DO with fitness for PUBLIC SERVICE.

Where did this Puritanism come from? It is sick. I really believe that. And, politically, I don't like the Clintons at all. Not one bit. But that's not my point. If they'd done this to, oh, I don't know, say John Kerry or Barack Obama, or to arch-villains Bush or Reagan, I would NOT have approved. In fact, they did do it to John Edwards--a very good liberal--who was drummed out of public life, and to...who was that Latino who headed HUD or one of those agencies--drummed out of public life for having a mistress, with whom he had a long term relationship including support. A very good public servant, as I recall. Damn, can't think of his name. A Clinton appointee, and "presidential material," as I recall. That was disgraceful!

As for Hillary Clinton, she may have "ridden" Bill's fame and fortune to a position of power, but I don't judge her for that. I know a lot of women in that position. (I'm 70--some of us didn't have a lot of choices.) Hillary needs to be judged on her own terms. She supports very damaging policies of Bill's, for instance, and she championed some of them during his presidency. I don't care if she's famous because of who she's married to. She could have opposed those policies, and she could have disavowed them later, and even stay married to him if she wanted to (and he wanted to). But she did not oppose those policies when she became a senator, a prez candidate and sec of state.

Oh, she's trying to, on a few of them now, but I don't believe her. She's a thorough "neo-liberal" and is responsible for the disasters in Libya, Syria and Honduras, where many innocent lives have been lost. But, to me, it has nothing to do with her marriage. And I feel for her, as a human being, for all the filthy muck she had to endure at the hands of that righteous prick, Ken Starr, and all his minions and promoters. THEY damaged our government, in that regard, NOT Bill, Hillary or the other women involved.

[Divernan]

45. If he wanted privacy, he should have rented a motel room, not used the Oval Office

It's long been historically documented that public officials who get sexually involved outside their marriages are vulnerable to blackmail and/or espionage. Ever heard the term, honey pots?

Behind Closed Doors: Sex, Love and Espionage: The Honeypot Phenomenon
http://www.academia.edu/2577766/Behind_Closed_Doors_Sex_Love_and_Espionage_The_Honeypot_Phenomenon

[840high]

54. Yes.

[sarge43]

75. He should have remembered

it was no longer the '60's and he wasn't Jack Kennedy. The days when the media and the opposition would "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" and "boys will be boys" were gone.

How Hillary Clinton deals with her marriage is her business, not ours.

[Divernan]

77. That sublimated pain of hers is projected out on the rest of the world

There is no deeper pain than being betrayed by the person you love. Whatever her reasons for choosing to stay in that marriage, the betrayals were not only frequent, but so carelessly done that public humiliation was added to the private pain for HRC, culminating in her marriage becoming an international scandal and joke.

Does history tell us of any male head of state whose wife repeatedly and publicly cuckolded him?

My pity for what she has endured ends when she starts taking her pain and anger out on the rest of the world. Regime change! Cluster bombs! Send those little brown kids back to the hell of Central America! Cackling laughter at assassinations.

[senz]

55. 100% with you on this, Peace Patriot

There used to be a clear division between the public and the private sphere. What people did in private (as long as it wasn't harming anyone) was their own business. Certainly people's sex lives were private. No one would think of intruding into other people's private, personal lives without being invited. We respected one another.

In public, people were polite, considerate of others, minded their own business, and actually dressed a little more modestly and formally.

This probably sounds ridiculously old-fashioned, but I honestly think these two spheres encouraged mutual respect and smooth, cooperative relationships.

[Divernan]

74. Operative term: "as long as it wasn't harming anyone"

Single adult? Fine, do whatever.

Married, with an open marriage agreement? Fine, swing away. Try not to catch any STDs.

Traditional marriage - with vows of "cleaving unto each other, until death do you part?

Then, bucko, believe me, there's a trusting spouse being betrayed and there is a world of hurt and there is someone being very deeply harmed.

[senz]

99. But does adultery invite public exploration and censure?

Because that's what I was talking about.

We cannot force people to be sexually faithful to one another. We have divorce laws and marriage counseling for that.

And I want you to know, Divernan, that I like you and enjoy your comments very much, but no one has ever called me "bucko" before, and I find it distinctly unpleasant. Could you tell me why you called me that?

[brewens]

94. But we do know about it. It sure makes it look like she stuck with him because she wasn't

willing to give up the money, power and chance to go on to a career seeking high political office herself. Or maybe it's true love and she just can't live without him no matter what he does? LOL

[Kip Humphrey]

13. I would be careful... the OP does not specifically mention Bernie or Bernie supporters.

It does mention violence against women. It does have obscure references to some posts on DU without links. Tread carefully!

[retrowire]

19. To be fair...

Would it be Hillary supporters that are criticizing Hillary?

No... That's why it stands to reason that it's referring to Bernie supporters. :/

[saltpoint]

23. Agree. It's inferred with emphasis. eom

[virtualobserver]

15. That is why I trashed the Hillary Clinton group

They interpret all criticism of Hillary as gender related.....any criticism of a Hillary surrogate or media person becomes throwing someone "under the bus"....

It is too depressing for me to look at the titles of ops there......

[VulgarPoet]

18. Eh. I use it to fluff my ignore list. At 105 and counting-- the last two days have been a DOOZY.

[virtualobserver]

27. I just trash the group because I can't really respond to most posts there

I like to look at GD-P to keep a handle on what Brock in sending down to Hillary Supporters, so I don't block people.

[VulgarPoet]

91. It keeps my blood pressure down, and inoculates me against wrong opinions and self-serving tribalism

the latter of which nearly t-boned me entirely.

[Lorien]

16. At the Bernie Rally today when Bernie talked about fighting for equity and choice for all women

the crowd went WILD! Left of center voters aren't sexist, and Bernie isn't the candidate who said that they would be moved to limited a woman's right to choose AND who was fine with pay inequity when she was on Walmart's board of directors. THEY are the ones backing the fake feminist! This perpetual faux outrage and victimhood is only being used because they don't want to DEAL WITH THE ISSUES!!

[senz]

60. Exactly. I think Bernie care more for women's rights than Hillary does

and I believe it stems from his deep egalitarianism that sees the worth of every human being.

Something wonderful must have happened when he was a child, to make him that way.

[saltpoint]

20. Awfully borderline over there in

the Hillary group. They aren't very good at taking criticism of their candidate, even though a significant amount of national progressives say the same thing Sanders DU folk are saying.

Accusing people of hating women is pretty much a steaming pile of bullshit. A lot of us on this site have volunteered for many female candidates over a hell of a long time. How would the Hillary group have voted in the Barbara Boxer vs. Carly Fiorina Senate matchup? If they supported Boxer as I did, are they anti-woman since Carly Fiorina is a woman? Do they hate women? Poor Carly! Victimized by female woman-haters!! No wonder Carly took to making demon sheep ads.

Hillary is well-positioned in the primary race. But there's no way she gave Bernie Sanders his due, and his crowds are large and loud and packing arenas.

Note to Hillary's supporters: your candidate is not drawing crowds like that on anywhere near the same level as Bernie Sanders. There is no woman-hating cadre on this site. We choose candidates after thoughtful consideration and we did not choose your candidate for the primary. Our reasons are good reasons and we're not alone.

We chose Bernie Sanders. Now stop pouting and slinging crap around. There's a special place in hell for people who pretend this is about gender.

[snagglepuss]

21. It's pathetic. Hillary will become a laughingstock if this inanity is taken further.

[tblue37]

29. I am a 65-year-old woman, a long time feminist, and I also resent the implication that

we who support Bernie do so because of hatred of women. A lot of us ARE women!

[840high]

56. They have me blocked in that

group. I'd like to tell them I supported her in 'o8. Then I learned more about her.

[Hatchling]

96. Yeah, me too!

In fact I was so close to being a PUMA when Obama supporters talked me down.
Later I spent some time re-reading their objections to her. I was horrified by what I tried to justify on her behalf. I was so "SHe didn't do/say that" or "That's not what she meant!"

[Major Hogwash]

30. The good news is that the Republicans are now facing a brokered convention.

Moreso than ever before.

On Tuesday, Ted Cruz won the GOP's primary in Idaho, and by quite a few votes, too.
Idaho has voted for the eventual Republican candidate in their primary every single time in the last 36 years.

So, if Rubio can do well in Florida next week, he may steal some of Trump's thunder, as well.

Between them, Cruz and Rubio may be able to keep Trump from getting enough delegates before their primary election season is over.
If that happens, there will be no clear nominee to be their candidate.

So then, the Republican Old Guard leaders will have to decide what to do at their convention.
Conventional wisdom says they will choose Cruz to be their nominee, and force him to use Rubio as his VP candidate.

This will freeze Trump out from meddling in the Republican party's business.

And so then, Trump will be free to run as an Independent.

All 3 of those guys are known to downgrade women.
All of them disrespect women.
None of them are for sexual equality.

Instead of directing broadsides at Bernie, Hillary's supporters should be focusing on how much the Republicans disregard women.

[Flying Squirrel]

31. Eh, consider the source...

There were a few that I had on Ignore long before the primaries. Some people on DU are really just interested in getting reactions... Don't indulge them.

[liberal_at_heart]

37. I completely agree. I put them on ignore.

[840high]

57. Yes. I have put 4 of them on ignore.

[Helen Borg]

34. The tragic aspect of this

Is that by spewing such obvious nonsense they are undermining the efforts of so many women on feminism. Next time, when real issues are in place, people will dismiss them as crying wolf. Hillary should come out and loudly make this point.

[840high]

58. She won't. She's played the gender card.

[senz]

62. Yes. Full agreement.

But if Hillary thinks this reverse sexism works in her favor, I doubt she'd place principle over self-interest.

She has no moral authority. That is a serious deficit in a would-be president.

[noiretextatique]

89. Why would she? She does it herself

Her entire campaign has been based on it, with respect to gender, and race. In all of the uproar about Bernie using the word ghetto, one salient fact was lost: he was relating a conversation he had with a BLM activist. That fact did not stop the media or her shock troops. Blatant dishonesty and emotional manipulation are hallmarks of her campaign.

[liberal_at_heart]

35. Let me get this straight. I'm a woman and because I criticize Hillary's policies, and her negative

campaign, I hate women and I support violence against women? They are really losing it over there.

[zentrum]

42. Yup, that's what they're saying.

It essentially says that a woman, by virtue of being a woman, can do nothing unethical, dishonest or harmful.

Ask the Iraqis and Hondurans how they feel about that.

[zentrum]

39. Read that OP.

It was appalling and I speak as a woman. And as a mother of a daughter. It embarrassed me.

Couldn't post there because I've been blocked from commenting on the HRC group when I once said something relevant, mild, fact-based but not pro-HRC.

Would never ever attack HRC because of her gender.

Maudlin victimhood like that hurts feminism.

[senz]

68. Yes, it embarrassed me too.

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.

As my aunt would say, such a pity party!

[litlbilly]

43. Im failry sure my wife of 36 years doesnt hate women. they are getting crazy now

[fbc]

46. I've voted for women often

I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren for president, but not Carly Fiorina nor Hillary Clinton.

[The Traveler]

48. It's all getting out of hand

I'm a Sanders supporter. I cannot endorse or defend the "brick" comment you reference in your post. While I understand that these are times which stir passions, and frustrations, I would encourage us all to keep our tongues in check and think before we post. (And I say that to remind myself of that need ... I'm pretty damn frustrated by the whole 2016 process myself.)

On the other hand, the OP you link to in this post does indeed characterize opposition to Ms. Clinton as constituting hatred of women. And that is obvious bullshit.

But we've all run into it. Whether it be here, on Facebook, or in other venues, when I dare broach a difference with Ms. Clinton on a matter of policy, I am invariably accused of being sexist, misogynist, racist, etc. by a Clinton supporter. And they almost never want to debate the merits of the policy. I have been told many, many times (and this is a close paraphrase of a command that varies but little in form and content) "Shut up. You're voting for Hillary."

And that stuns me. Evidently, I am supposed to stop thinking for myself because a woman is running for the Presidency. Evidently, I am supposed to forego all my other values to support the objective of breaking that ultimate glass ceiling. (But I think we all can agree that barrier really does need to be shattered at some point.)

Evidently, I am supposed to act like a Republican low information voter, and fall in line. The Clinton machine has been much more abusive than they were in 2008, and that was no picnic. I think they feel politically safer smearing an old white guy than the young, charismatic black gentleman who opposed them in 2008. (I'm beginning to wonder how much of the vitriol and contempt aimed at Sanders and his supporters is fueled by antisemitism? I don't want to believe that is the case but, damn! They're even stooping to red baiting now, and I didn't think that would happen, either. I've never heard Sanders or one of his supporters hurl that charge at a Clinton supporter, but maybe we should just to give them the same kind of experience they are so eager to dish out?)

I don't think Ms. Clinton, her attack dog Brock, or the vast majority of her supporters understand that kind of approach tends to just harden resistance. Or the problem that creates for members of the more progressive wing of the party. Because IF Ms. Clinton wins the nomination through these methods, and IF the membership of the Party is really OK with her on fracking, regime change, and several other important subjects, and IF the membership of the Party really demands that we behave like low information voters and shut up and fall in line .... well, how the hell can I stay in the Party? Are any of the alternatives really tenable? These are the questions all of this forces me to ask myself.

2016 is shaping up to be a very scary year, politically. The Democratic Party is the only vehicle by which the darkness of the Republican Party can be successfully opposed. If the Republicans gain the White House and increase their majorities in the Senate and/or House, women's rights and gay rights are exposed to direct jeopardy. We can expect no action on the climate crisis. We can expect even more war than Ms. Clinton would wage. For fucks sake, clearly, we cannot allow a Trump or Cruz access to the missile codes!

But my sense, and my fear is that the Democratic Party is in danger of fracturing in a way that cannot be easily repaired. Regardless of the clear differences between Sanders and Clinton camps, we cannot allow the Republicans to win the White House or strengthen their grip on Congress.

Trav

[nxylas]

59. The poster has a long history of such posts

"You're all sexists. It makes me cry" is basically her entire defence of Hillary. She reads like a parody of a weak, overemotional woman created by a Men's Rights Activist.

[Ivan Kaputski]

109. ^ this ^

[840high]

51. Hillary supporters are panicky. They

are grasping at straws. Pay no attention to them. by the way a Hillary supporter called Bernie a sonofabitch. That was allowed to stand by a jury.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

53. Her unfavorability ratings are high.

And just because she's a woman and a former Secretary of State doesn't mean I will automatically vote for her because I am a woman. On social issues she's fairly good but she is still a warmonger.


That's the same thing the Repubs are doing with their song and dance of "Oh we're diverse, we have blacks and women too." No they are not diverse, not if the "tokens" are saying and doing the same anti-minority and anti-woman things they've always done.



And I suspect a lot of independents who won't vote for a woman, since we saw how they lost their shit when we elected a half-African man President TWICE, and they came out from under their rocks with their blatant racism, that those independents just might vote for an old white guy named Bernie.

[Half-Century Man]

63. I would never support or debase Hillary as a woman.

I would never support or debase Bernie as a man.

This transcends sex. It is a question of who is the better candidate for POTUS based on merit, history, and stated directions to lead the country.
Not who was attacked at some point for whatever.
Not who has suffered more.
Not who might be first whatever.
Not on how much somebody may want it.
Not who was declared an outsider by anyone for whatever reason.

But on who, between the two possibilities, would be a better public servant to the largest majority of us for the next 4 years (and maybe beyond).

Frankly I am tired of people calling me names in anger because they haven't given me cause to change my mind. I have carefully thought about this for years. I know what I wanted in a candidate. Bernie Sanders is the closest to ideal in forty years.

[hopemountain]

64. i wonder how the male hillary supporters

feel about that post? does the poster realize how mean spirited and judgmental it feels to read such an attack? i am a 63 year old woman of color and for me that post is bitter, vindictive, and wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Gene Debs]

65. why would you even bother reading anything posted in the Hillary Clinton group anyway? All it is

is an echo chamber where only fawning praise of Hillary Clinton can be posted or will be tolerated. It's not a place where anyone would go for any kind of serious substantive discussion.

[Scootaloo]

69. They don't even praise Hillary

They yell about Bernie and his supporters. It's truly something to see.

Unfortunately, crap from ignored members and trashed groups still bubbles up like flotsam on the front page.

[redruddyred]

67. hillaryfans are hurting feminism

women need feminism, and they're making it look frivolous

[dana_b]

70. I commented on this in GDP but

I just don't get them. Why do they think that we hate women? It just reeks of martyrdom and that is not doing their candidate ANY good.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. Any criticism of Hillary is because we're all sexists.

Or racists.

It's never because Hillary is such a godawful candidate, with horrible baggage that will cost Dems the GE.

[noamnety]

78. OMG Just ignore that hypocritical manipulative drivel

Half the people supporting the OP in that thread had nothing but harsh words for Hillary when she ran against Obama, called her a pathological liar, $hilary, said it was obvious she hates black people and black people aren't stupid - they can SEE she hates them all.

But once she endorsed Obama in return for the SOS job, she was revirginized and the lies, the right wing policies that hurt the poor and minorities but helped the 1%, her lifelong hatred of the AA community, were all cleansed from her soul. And now she has magically turned into the Virgin Mother.

[Donkees]

79. "You are a resource to be exploited – nothing more."

"When you get this, their attempts to manipulate your emotions will no longer have the same affect on you."

[noiretextatique]

82. They are referring to a nasty, sexist comment that was deleted

I know because I was on the jury. Why they continue to complain is beyond me. The vote was 4-3 to hide, which is disgusting, but it was hidden.

[stage left]

88. I think it's probably good such a thing was deleted.

Bernie is not like that. His supporters shouldn't be either. And even one makes us all look bad.

[noiretextatique]

90. I am not sure it was a Bernie supporter

There are all sorts of trolls here. But it should have been deleted...and it was.

[stage left]

112. Yes

I'm glad it was taken down.

[stage left]

83. Do you have a link to this post?

It sounds pretty over the top to me.

[noiretextatique]

92. I saw it

It is a crazy post titled "what did we ever do to you" insinuating that not supporting Clinton is based in woman hatred. Typical attempt at emotional manipulation via gender and race that we've seen from the Clinton campaign.

[stage left]

113. I guess I must hate myself then.

And I guess I'll be going to hell(per Madiline Allbright),too. At least, I'll have a special place there.

[noamnety]

86. Well, things have escalated.

Phase 1: Don't criticize a democrat, party loyalty is everything.

Phase 2: If you call out corruption by a female politician, it's because you are sexist.

We have apparently now hit ...

Phase 3: If you call out a corrupt and dishonest politician for being corrupt and dishonest, you are responsible for leading the world into fascism and genocide.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1467506


I definitely missed the history lesson where it was proven that the way to avoid fascism and genocide is by having a population that never criticizes their political leaders.

So what do you suppose they could be planning for Phase 4?

[senz]

100. What's interesting about this

is that some of us have wondered how the opposition would behave if their candidate started losing. I would never have have guessed that they'd retreat into self-pity and paranoia. I find it shocking and have to remind myself that public message boards include all types, all degrees of mental health, etc., and groups can succumb to various levels of group delusion. It happens in real life, and I guess it can happen on message boards, too. I'm really sorry that they're doing it. It's not healthy, it's not happy for any of us. It's distressing.

Now I wish a psychologist would come along and advise us on to how best to deal with it. He/she would probably suggest that we ignore it. It's unlikely that anyone could reason them out of it.

(I wonder what all this is like for the administrator? LOL, I picture him scratching his head and saying, "OMG what have I started here?" He should write a book some day. )

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

107. Perfect breakdown!

[Enthusiast]

87. Kicked and recommended! Thank you, retrowire! eom

[bunnies]

95. Oh FFS.

The drama is unbearable.

[SheenaR]

98. I posted a nice response

I will finally get banned

[SoapBox]

101. K & R!

I really don't have time for them...I would rather move forward with Bernie than backwards with them.

[dragonfly301]

102. I saw that last night

and since I'm banned from the Hillary group over an innocuous comment so am not able to respond, I just SMH and closed my laptop. I'm a 58 yo woman and I felt embarrassed that a fellow woman would use that type of manipulation to get support for her candidate. Hillary has been given every advantage in this race - if she doesn't win it's because she's a terrible candidate, not because of sexism.

[BillZBubb]

103. Consider the poster.

She's regular at playing the victim card. Her type like to dish it out, but can't take it. Then they whine about this or that unfair or sexist "attack".

[Wednesdays]

104. Some of those threads are starting to sound

like a campaign that's in its death throes (even if it isn't in reality). It truly feels like desperation.

[retrowire]

106. Really? nt

[Ivan Kaputski]

108. ~

Is there a medical treatment for this IMO obvious mental disorder?