2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI Despise Hillary Clinton, And It Has Nothing To Do With Her Gender
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isaac-saul/i-despise-hillary-clinton-gender_b_9160682.htmlWithout question, there has been a disheartening amount of seemingly sexist comments made about Hillary from people who you would otherwise expect to at least support her unenthusiastically. But the response from the Hillary supporters has basically been a general blanket statement that goes something like this: Bernie Sanders supporters hate Hillary because shes unlikeable as a woman, and her policies really arent that different than his. If she were a man theyd be singing a different tune.
We are now no longer Sanders supporters, but a sexist mob. Its a provocative and completely baseless claim. But its working. The idea that Sanders supporters are somehow unique in having some online anger issues completely ignores the ever-present atmosphere of the Internet and how people interact with those they dont agree.
From the sexist comments Ive read, which there are a few, I offer this: I do not believe Sanders supporters, many of which are young men like me, hate her because she is a woman. I believe they hate her for who she is and much of what she stands for. But in that hatred, some of the most immature supporters are using her gender as a way to express their vitriol and disapproval. Is this any better? Probably not. Is it different? Certainly, yes. Is it unique to Sanders supporters? Obviously, no.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)IamMab
(1,359 posts)Didn't register to vote? The system is rigged!
Didn't register to change parties by a certain deadline? It's all corrupt!
A few rallies of a couple thousand people didn't translate into a victory in a state with millions of people? How can we possibly be losing??? ((I shit you not, there's a thread on GDP today with pictures of the rallies and this very quote.))
Every news show isn't about Bernie 24/7? TEH MEDIA BIAS!!111
Sanders is losing by over 3 million votes? Those votes don't count, because they're black and Southern!
Super-delegates may influence outcome? Super-delegates are the spawn of Satan!
Super-delegates may flip to Bernie? Bernie is entitled to those super-delegates, which now are not the spawn of Satan, unless they don't flip to Sanders, then they're still Lucifer Jr!
The common denominator to all of these problems is the Sanders supporters. Well past time for them to take a hard look in the mirror and self-assess.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)IamMab
(1,359 posts)Thanks for the reminder!
Sancho
(9,071 posts)Dozen's of unions - the one really fighting for salaries and jobs - analyzed the records, questionnaires, and policies of the candidates - and they picked Hillary even though a post on Facebook said it was a conspiracy!
Hundreds of politicians and elected officials who worked with Bernie and Hillary for years endorsed Hillary!! Establishment hacks didn't pick a 30 year veteran of Congress because he's an outsider!!
IamMab
(1,359 posts)The only thing Bernie is "outside" of is Reality.
Demsrule86
(68,788 posts)Always the victim...Bernie lost because people liked Hillary more...that's all folks.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)FarPoint
(12,481 posts)He chose poorly, ultimately defeating his purpose and goals. He drew first blood with hateful attacks, claiming all is wonderful, targeting delegates etc...Made this Primary Season taste bitter.
Logical
(22,457 posts)FarPoint
(12,481 posts)See Bernie for being a dreamer without a plan and turning your cheek when he goes desperately down the path of falsehood claims.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)They are making it all up. Nothing to back up the "misstatements".
amborin
(16,631 posts)pnwmom
(109,024 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)I would say "swiftboat" is the perfect description of the attacks out of the Hillary camp this election.
They did the same thing in 2008. Obama was much better on LGBT issues than Hillary. But that did not stop them from 24x7 attacking Obama on LGBT issues.
They would have almost certainly attacked him as racist had he not been African-American. They had to resort to the dog-whistle strategy to try and make up for that loss.
dchill
(38,609 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Clinton has a known integrity problem. She lied about the need to invade Iraq and most Americans haven't trusted her since. How can one say that Bush lied about Iraq without saying that Clinton lied about Iraq. She gave the same speech.
FarPoint
(12,481 posts)Such a term is very manipulative and disingenuous. John Kerry, now he indeed knows what it is like to be swiftboated....Bernie Team,well once again and again playing the false victim card....making thing up to gain sympathy from the small donors.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)/ignore list.
TM99
(8,352 posts)a bogus story that Sanders was not the man in the photographs in Chicago during the civil rights era in the week before SC.
Even after being proven wrong, he doubled down and refused to recant or apologize for his smears and baseless accusations.
That is called swiftboating.
synergie
(1,901 posts)that could easily expose Mr. Purity as nothing of the sort. You and Bernie have been "swiftboating" HRC. Swiftboating is when you make attacks on character and credibility based on lies, allusions and outright dishonesty. You're engaging in this right now and Bernie has been doing so for quite some time.
Projecting your own misbehavior when the facts say otherwise is something that CONS do, why do you feel the need to adopt their tactics?
TM99
(8,352 posts)I have plenty at my disposal to prove it is the Brock/Clinton machine doing the swiftboating from Capeheart to Lewis to 'discredit & disqualify' and on and on.
The only projections are coming as usual from the Clinton camp. Brock learned at the feet of the master of swiftboating and y'all pretend that laying down with a dog will spare you from the fleas.
synergie
(1,901 posts)disposal. Capehart is not affiliated with the Clinton campaign, nor did he say anything that was factually incorrect or even abusive of Bernie, and Lewis was asked a question and responded to it specifically and factually. So, unless you have something that's actually factual and shows that your favorite Bogeyman, Brock or the Clinton campaign or anyone else has actually said anything about Bernie, you're pretty much out of luck here with this particular lie.
Bernie's NRA backing and the votes he placed in exchange are part of public record, as are his rape fantasies and his votes that denied rape victims access to basic and necessary information, and a litany of other things that prove that Bernie is perfectly fine about compromising on pretty important things when it serves his personal interests, and so on. That's not even touching Jane's financial improprieties and the fraud she committed, which got her fired.
As usual projection is what you guys do, insulting the Clinton camp and screeching about Brock. Bernie and his camp have been known to play quite dirty in the most underhanded ways possible, as his previous contests have proven. Swiftboating is what CONS do, and only one campaign and one group of supporters have embraced the RW vision, smears, attacks and nastiness and it has not been Clinton or her supporters. You guys are certainly proving what masters of RW tactics you are, and that your own colonies of fleas are someone not biting you, but those who point out that you're the only ones covered in them.
Its amusing that you have demonized Brock, but embrace his fellow Anita Hill hating CON, Cenk. Take a dip dear, projection won't save you from the consequences of the company you keep, the behavior you engage in and the RW nature of your attacks.
The indictments you and the RWer dream of might be coming, for the only people who broke actual laws here, Bernie and Jane. Lying about things on financial documents is an actual violation of law.
TM99
(8,352 posts)aren't you.
Capeheart's partner is a Clinton campaign worker.
Yes, he did say something which was proven factually incorrect. The photographer confirmed who Sanders was. That you defend him and spin this is all the bullshit I need see from you to know you are so full of it that it is pathetic.
Bernie HAS NEVER won or run a negative campaign ever in VT. That is factual. Clinton was a racist POS to Obama in 2008, that is factual.
Yes, indeed swiftboating is what cons do, like your buddy, Brock. Now what was it he said about Anita Hill? Oh yeah, she is a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.
Oh, and now you are peddling some bullshit about Bernie and Jane lying on financial documents? This while your precious is under investigation by the FBI.
Yeah, you have demonstrated exactly what kind of foolish person you are, what talking points you will spew (whether paid to do so or not is irrelevant), and that is all that really needs to be said.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That statement is shockingly ignorant on its face.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)whatever they may be at present, is considered "hating". When these positions...past and present... are recorded, one may expect immediate denial and general flack from Her Flock.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)approval of the Reagan's position on AIDS? Or a "mistake" like Clinton's vote for the Iraq War.
Marr
(20,317 posts)pushed this photo of Obama when running against him:
...were the innocent victims when the primary season against Bernie Sanders went negative?
C'mon. I doubt even your fellow Hillary supporters believe that.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)has IMMENSE qualms about Clinton's policy decisions; and not even just by her supporters, but by her high profile surrogates who she obviously agrees with, if she hasn't walked back their reprehensible garbage. I feel safe in saying screw every single one of 'em, and I will be waiting for the day of their utter public irrelevance with bated breath.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)...voting for a woman with a similar political background to Bernie.
Many/most/all would be proud to do so.
Just not Hillary.
That's not being sexist.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)pnwmom
(109,024 posts)to be President.
That's part of her allure. She's not threatening.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)Not familiar with these two names.
mythology
(9,527 posts)And they said lacks the ambition to be president, based on Warren not running this year. Obviously Warren has ambitions, but running for president is a very different ballgame than for the Senate.
Jill Stein is the Green party candidate for president.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)pnwmom
(109,024 posts)So she's a nice safe choice for those who don't really want a woman to be President -- especially an ambitious one.
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)As far as the ambition thing goes, I think that what a lot of people object to is that Clinton's campaign is perceived as being rooted in personal ambition, as opposed to doing what's right for the country.
Notice I said "perceived as." I'm not the guy you have to convince, and it's on a much bigger scale than DU, too. People don't like her, people don't trust her, and yeah...she might just get enough people who do like her to make her our next President. I get that.
I'm not going to play the game of guessing if your swipe was aimed at Elizabeth Warren, but if it was, feel free to list your accomplishments here and we'll see how they stack up to hers.
Bleacher Creature
(11,258 posts)Despise? Really?
Tarc
(10,478 posts)I think they're finally starting to come to grips wit the fallibility of #berniemath, and there aren't many clubs left to play. Note today there is quite an uptick in Emailgate foolishness.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)... end up hating you with a passion.
It has been said many times here, what the fuck made them think that attacking your opponent's supporters was a good campaign strategy?
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)I'd write a poem about it, but I've been out of spoons since maybe February-- it'd come out looking more O_O-worthy than Catullus 16.
apnu
(8,759 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,023 posts)"I'm not sexist but"..
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)and the claim was made that they didn't hate him because he was black, would anyone here accept that argument?
The sexism that has been unearthed during this campaign among Democrats is shocking and disheartening.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)pnwmom
(109,024 posts)But for no good reason -- and yet they're not expressing their hate in racial terms.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)pnwmom
(109,024 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)pnwmom
(109,024 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The poster did no such thing. Try using actual facts next time.
jillan
(39,451 posts)with strong women when I have been in management for 25 years, one of a few women that made it into management in a male dominated field. AND now own my own business.
Calling me a sexist because I don't support Hillary is a joke! But not as hysterically funny as when I am called a Bernie Bro.... I'm still laughing at being called an Obama Bro from 8 years ago.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)Just the supporters who use sexist language against Hillary, and there are many.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Sexist.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)How about a 3rd Party?
How about Clarence Thomas? A vote for "diversity"?
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I've voted for Socialists for president and a woman for president.
You?
Throd
(7,208 posts)Sarah Palin as veep would have been historic.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The argument is, basically, "because vagina."
I ain't buyin' it.
panader0
(25,816 posts)I am sure that there are many such voters, in the general populace, and here at DU.
snot
(10,549 posts)I do not believe that most Bernie supporters are sexist, and of course a great many aren't male (has anyone seen any actual percentages? Because based on what I've seen first-hand, I'd be surprised if they were more than 50% male).
I realize there may be a few genuinely sexist "bro's" out there, but I also realize there could be sock puppets pretending to be "bro's"; either way, I think they're disproportionately vocal and/or have received extremely disproportionate amounts of attention from the corporate media.
Hillary's positions, even after her purported leftward shifts, are NOT the same as Bernie's; and her record is certainly NOT the same as Bernie's; and these differences fully justify Bernie's supporters in continuing to fight for their candidate. The Bernie supporters I've met personally and I've met quite a few in the course of my work for his campaign are as open-hearted and liberal on "racial"- and gender-related issues as they are on so many others.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)realmirage
(2,117 posts)Too delicious to read the label to find out if they're something you should be swallowing
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)It's the author who "despises" her.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)That's why.
MFM008
(19,834 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...doesn't stop BSers from calling me an anti-semite however
Faux pas
(14,706 posts)demonization is the tool of the wicked. We know who the wicked are, and, it ain't the ones feeling the BERN.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)continued to lose. He has not continued to lose because he's a sexist (even though there is some evidence that he is). He has continued to lose because Democrats are voting for Hillary instead of him.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Such harsh feelings drive Karma direction.
Mike Nelson
(9,984 posts)...despises Hillary Clinton and claims it is not sexist. I believe the writer. I admire Hillary Clinton and don't "despise" either her or Bernie Sanders. Sure, there are sexist reasons for people to despise Hillary. But not all are sexist. In my own group of friends, I know a Donald Trump supporter who is not a sexist, bigot, racist... I've known him since childhood and he's just disgusted with politics. He does not follow it closely. He likes Trump's call out on the Iraq war and how he speaks about other politicians. He thinks "Make America Great" means something entirely different than I thought he would... so, people can have perspectives I don't see. Back, to despising Hillary - I would never state that, but I believe the writer does despise her and accept that it's not for sexist reasons. To each her own.
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)I just don't like her.
And I'm not voting for her.
And the endless stream of people who feel that they have to "justify" that is distressing.
If you could do a "personality swap" between her and Sanders, I'd feel the same way about him that I do her.
LexVegas
(6,121 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)CincyDem
(6,418 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Her supporters never mention issues. Just vicious attacks on Sanders and anyone who dares to bring up her far right ideology.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)and gender has nothing to do with that at all.
K&R.
I'm 1 of the 99%.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)
Many of the same folks who claim it has nothing to do with her gender are the same folks who rationalized their votes for Edwards and Kerry.
Sorry, not buying it. DU has archives.