2016 Postmortem

rachacha

(173 posts)

79. I am not saying Warren would not encounter sexism and other despicable attacks.

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:07 PM

Apr 2016

I'm saying that Hillary is a completely different person, and in my opinion, Warren's integrity is on a completely separate level.

It's ok if you like Hillary as a candidate. I don't. And my dislike for her says nothing about my sexism or lack thereof. I'm sorry if you don't believe that based on your experience. I can't change that. If I were jewish, and I had experiences of antisemitism, I would naturally more skeptical of people's criticism of others who are jewish.

But I hope you can appreciate that when my, and other Bernie supporters' distaste for Hillary is reduced to a charge of sexism, it drives us away. What is there to discuss at that point? A baseless charge has been leveled against each individual person by generalizing about "Berners" as a whole. We could dispute it, but wouldn't that be a waste of time if you've already made up your mind about the group as a whole?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

93 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Will We Ever Be Able to Trust 'Ambitious' Political Women? [View all] niyad Apr 2016 OP

Warren? Absolutely. Clinton? Hell to the no. rachacha Apr 2016 #1

yep. has nothing to do with her being a woman Viva_La_Revolution Apr 2016 #4

you clearly have no problem with women not at all dsc Apr 2016 #56

nope. i am one Viva_La_Revolution Apr 2016 #85

oooooo-k then Dem2 Apr 2016 #68

don't tolerate those mean girls who comment on others to make them fight either Viva_La_Revolution Apr 2016 #86

Really! artislife Apr 2016 #10

Neither is Sanders. Squinch Apr 2016 #82

This. bam. nt retrowire Apr 2016 #40

Warren is not running. athena Apr 2016 #66

I am not saying Warren would not encounter sexism and other despicable attacks. rachacha Apr 2016 #79

Did I say anything about you? athena Apr 2016 #84

Warren ambitious? joshcryer Apr 2016 #73

I'm not sure if you're joking, or have a different definition of ambitious. rachacha Apr 2016 #81

Who tapped Warren for bankruptcy reform? joshcryer Apr 2016 #93

yep - my thought exactly. 840high Apr 2016 #87

obama was criticized heavily for his presidential run. restorefreedom Apr 2016 #2

and yet, I hear the same misogynistic crap coming out of the mouths of dems in niyad Apr 2016 #7

i have no doubt that sexism , like racism, still exists restorefreedom Apr 2016 #17

this is an incredibly conservatively religiously fundamentalist area--home to new life, niyad Apr 2016 #34

oh man, that kind of explains it restorefreedom Apr 2016 #38

his was a special circumstance...he's a black man WhiteTara Apr 2016 #53

no doubt. but his resume was light on governmental experience restorefreedom Apr 2016 #57

Cruz is a white evangelical which is its own special circumstance WhiteTara Apr 2016 #58

and he ate his own booger on national tv! nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #59

You had to remind me! WhiteTara Apr 2016 #60

ooops ...sorry :( it is a hard image to shake. nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #61

You are so right! It came back in a flash WhiteTara Apr 2016 #65

yup. then again, he makes it easy to be disgusted lol. nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #74

I think he should be given "disgusting" things WhiteTara Apr 2016 #76

i am waiting for his band aid to fall off in the next debate lol. ewwwww nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #80

I admire the ambition, but I loathe the proclivity for war and fracking and the TPP, djean111 Apr 2016 #3

No more than I trust Ambitious Political Men. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #5

I don't "trust" ANY politicians. NRaleighLiberal Apr 2016 #6

you make a most excellent point. niyad Apr 2016 #8

thank you. just my own personal POV. NRaleighLiberal Apr 2016 #9

I cover city hall nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #25

Ambition is not the problem. MuseRider Apr 2016 #11

Nothing wrong with ambition... lying is a different problem. basselope Apr 2016 #12

Are are all women inoculated against criticism because of this? nt Bonobo Apr 2016 #13

THAT is my problem RazBerryBeret Apr 2016 #26

oh, please, there appears, even on this board, to be absolutely NO problem niyad Apr 2016 #36

Elizabeth Warren is a Woman I would get behind in a heart beat 2banon Apr 2016 #14

What a nonsensical question nichomachus Apr 2016 #15

the very fact that a person could actually use that word as some sort of dog whistle niyad Apr 2016 #21

Give it a rest. A woman can be every bit as corrupt as a man. Avalux Apr 2016 #16

I love it. when we point out sexism, we are playing the sex card. it is sickening niyad Apr 2016 #19

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2016 #31

Don't you know, sexism is obsolete. athena Apr 2016 #91

But not as "ambitious" that's the point, we both know that will be ignored uponit7771 Apr 2016 #20

She has been largely pro war for years Ash_F Apr 2016 #18

Trust corrupt political women? Hell no. seattleite Apr 2016 #22

do try reading the whole article. niyad Apr 2016 #23

Sure - as long as they are trustworthy. I treat men the same way re: trust. nt jmg257 Apr 2016 #24

Like everything else, it depends on the person. Sarah Palin is an ambitious woman LadyHawkAZ Apr 2016 #27

Palin was in favour of Iraq too. PowerToThePeople Apr 2016 #35

Broken clocks, etc. LadyHawkAZ Apr 2016 #48

I don't trust ambition regardless gender. Depends on motivation. Evolve, People. Hiraeth Apr 2016 #28

The best leaders are often those who reluctantly become leaders Zorra Apr 2016 #29

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2016 #30

Who gives a shit about gender? It's about the damn issues! pinebox Apr 2016 #32

one would think so, would one not? and yet, even amoung progressives, liberals, niyad Apr 2016 #42

I'm sorry, this is defensive. First of all, that is no belly laugh. it appears contrive and far from highprincipleswork Apr 2016 #33

Bernie/Warren 2016! B Calm Apr 2016 #37

Oh Please!! As a feminist I beg of you to stop trying to make women sound like they should be pitied jillan Apr 2016 #39

nice try. as a feminist, I find the sexist attacks on HRC disgusting, even more so niyad Apr 2016 #43

What part about gender EQUALITY do you not understand. Women are NOT weak! jillan Apr 2016 #46

what part of this article did YOU not understand? nobody said anything about niyad Apr 2016 #49

There is a wide difference between ambition which is the jwirr Apr 2016 #41

one of these centuries, we might comment on the ambitious men running for office. niyad Apr 2016 #44

There are few Rs who are pretty visible right now. jwirr Apr 2016 #45

Interesting. H2O Man Apr 2016 #47

so, one person makes one comment on one man, and that negates the point niyad Apr 2016 #50

Of course not. H2O Man Apr 2016 #71

Some people want the thing TOO badly, and combined with reflexive impulses toward secrecy Warren DeMontague Apr 2016 #51

it would be helpful if people understood that this article was not solely about one niyad Apr 2016 #52

Yes. In fact, we do already. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2016 #54

really? if that were true, the situation that precipitated this article would not niyad Apr 2016 #63

Tammy Duckworth, Kamala Harris, Loretta Sanchez... I guess you've never heard of those women. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2016 #69

Recommended, and unfortunately all too true. guillaumeb Apr 2016 #55

exactly niyad Apr 2016 #64

I don't trust anyone who triangulates. Man or woman. Gender has nothing to do with it. Cobalt Violet Apr 2016 #62

So it will really be Bill in charge? athena Apr 2016 #67

I don't trust "ambitious political" anyone. hobbit709 Apr 2016 #70

When will people get it re the trust issue? Gender has nothing to do with it. Vinca Apr 2016 #72

Of course we can trust ambitious women with integrity. n/t Skwmom Apr 2016 #75

not until WhiteTara Apr 2016 #77

exactly niyad Apr 2016 #78

Do you trust 'ambitious' political men? I don't. Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #83

did you read the article? about the fact that ambitious men do not arouse our niyad Apr 2016 #88

Could you please directly answer my question? Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #89

why? apparently, you didn't bother reading the article. niyad Apr 2016 #90

If you don't want to, that's ok. Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #92