I'd have liked Clinton if she had been content to become a good Senator

[Armstead]

I'll be honest, and say that I would have liked Clinton if she had stayed at her level of competence and been content to be a Democratic warhorse Senator from New York.

I wouldn't have agreed with her on certain issues, but like Chuck Schumer, at least I could have rationalized her coziness with Wall St. as a form of constituent service. She could have probably done a great job and learned the ropes and used her Senate east to push for those truly liberal issues she seems to care about. Might have had a career as a distinguished Senate leader.

But she wasn't content with that. The notion that she was anointed and should automatically leapfrog over more experienced and capable politicians (male and female) to be the assumed Democratic nominee ever since Bill left the WH leaves a very bad taste.

The fact that she just saw the Senate as a resume steppingstone does not indicate a sense of commitment to public service for its own sake. The fact that she became Secretary of State over much more experienced and capable foreign policy leaders is bothersome.

The fact that she cashed in so blatantly on her public service at a time when she was also considering another run for the brass ring shows bad taste and bad judgement.

The fact that she is so aligned with big corporations and Big Bad Banksters symbolizes a core problem in out nation and in the Democratic Party.

The Clintons were the 90's, and they should have allowed the Democrats to move on from their brand of Corporate Centrism, instead of grasping on the reigns and stifling otehr leaders and the large segment of the Democratic base who want reform and truly liberal/progressive change.

She is epitomizing the Peter Principle about rising to her level of incompetence as a presidential candidate. She may win because she is lucky enough to be running against Donald Dump --but being able to govern and build an effective energized Democratic Party, and sending the GOP to their knees? Not so much.

Those are the core reasons that I (and I think many, many others) have a problem with her as the possible head of the Democratic Party and as a national CEO.

[NurseJackie]

1. If only she'd just "stayed in her place", huh?

[Arkansas Granny]

2. That's what it sounds like.

[Armstead]

7. So predictable -- this has nothing to do with her gender

Had she been elected President first and Bill did the same thing, I'd feel the same way

[NurseJackie]

60. I didn't say that it did. (See how that works? I can plausibly deny, too.)

[Demsrule86]

73. Doesn't it?

One of the most insulting condescending posts put out by a Bern person...you know how many time women including me have been patted on the head and told to let the 'boys' handle it. It's a dog whistle.

[moriah]

107. You may have not intended that, but it's the way people take things.

You knw there's a woman entering training to become a 19d cavalry scout? The guy who told me was saying that he wished she would have chosen something she could actually do, before giving her the chance to even try the training. (His concern was amount carried routinely, not gender, but making assumptions about typical female body strength.) When she might, she might not, but fuck it, not only does she have the right to try, but dude might be wrong!

In this case, it leads to a feeling that you're underestimating her. Which I think is a very bad mistake, but in the same way as the guy saying that about the female soldier, the fact you wish she'd not run and don't think she's capable doesn't deny her the right to try, and whether you feel that capacity is in any way based on gender or not, in the context that's how it's going to come across.

More concerningly, it suggests that you may have fallen into believing RW stereotypes about her:

The notion that she was anointed and should automatically leapfrog over more experienced and capable politicians (male and female) to be the assumed Democratic nominee ever since Bill left the WH leaves a very bad taste.

This, particularly, has been a GOP fear ever since they saw how capable she actually was during the fight for health care. Even if the country wasn't ready for it, even if it failed, it scared the pants off them to see a First Lady potentially as capable as her husband. In Arkansas, Bill often tasked Hillary with certain issues -- like dealing with education issues -- and even back then people admitted maybe Arkansas voted the wrong person in as Governor.

So honestly, I believe the bad taste it leaves is the GOP bullshit batter that notion has been fried in for more than two decades. It's not your fault if you swallowed it -- it's been distributed, disguised, for awhile.

Not saying that I expect/demand for you to change your mind, though -- just as she had every right to run, you have every right to believe as you do.

Hope you're having a good day!

[Armstead]

180. Here's the prioblem

It has been set up so anything critical said about Clinton is turned into a sexist statement.


Think of all of the critical -- and sometimes insulting -- stuff that has been said about Sanders. His supporters may take umbrage at them, but they don't always make it "you're only saying that because he';s a man" or "you're demeaning him because he's Jewish and you're anti-Semitic.'

Bernie can be accused of yelling all the time. But God forbid anyone should say the same thing about Clinton when she uses a loud and excessively aggressive and horse tone of voice.....noooooo that would be sexist.

People can complain that Bernie is being cranky and grouchy. But say something similar about Clinton and it's "What you're saying she's having women problems?" or "You're complaining that she's not being a meek little woman?" or similar things.

If she becomes president we can not be expected to stifle all criticism because she is a female.

[moriah]

183. It just had a strong "stay in her place" ring.

Her place is anywhere the voters decide to put her, which very well may be the Oval Office.

[Armstead]

189. And, if so, then in four years we can see whether or not I'm wrong

If she turns out to be a great president, and breaks free of Wall St. and the Corporate Mafia and puts them in their place..... and actually fights for -- and hopefully achieves progress on -- truly universal and affordable health care without the stranglehold of for-profit insurance....and makes it possible for everyone to have access to post-secondary education, and.....etc.etc. etc.

If she makes aggressive steps and progress in those directions, I'll happily eat crow.

[nolawarlock]

186. Oh, we know what you meant.

Dance around it all you will, but it's truly disappointing.

[hamsterjill]

100. That is EXACTLY what it sounds like!

She couldn't be an astronaut, right? So she should have just settled.

[Armstead]

181. Is being a really good senator settling?

[hamsterjill]

209. No, but why should she stop at being a really good senator?

When she can be a really good President?

It's for her to decide what she wishes to pursue.

[DURHAM D]

3. Exactly.

Damn those Uppity Women !

[Armstead]

10. So predictable -- this has nothing to do with her gender

[Yurovsky]

91. And easily disproved - the HilBots may not want to accept this truth BUT...

I absolutely guarantee that is Elizabeth Warren had run instead of Bernie, most progressives would have gladly supported Sen. Warren. Progressives who won't support HRC are typically opposed to her POLICY, not her gender. Seriously, are all the female Bernie supporters somehow misogynist or self loathing?

The HRC camp is using gender as a diversion to draw Democrats' attention away from her sleazy corporate money-grubbing. It's unsavory for any politician, the fact that she is a woman is irrelevant. She is a center-right 3rd Way Corporatist trying to win the nomination of a party whose rank & file is becoming increasingly progressive and unwillingly to accept someone who represents the very forces oppressing the working class & poor of America.

[Nonhlanhla]

95. Actually, when she was running, Warren faced similar criticism

http://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion/

From the article in the link"

We beg Clinton to run, and then accuse her of feeling “entitled” to win. Several feminist writers have analyzed the Clinton yo-yo. Melissa McEwan sees a deliberate pattern of humiliation, which involves “building [Clinton] up and pressuring her to take on increasingly prominent public challenges, only to immediately turn on her and unleash breathtaking misogyny against her when she steps up to the plate.”...

Yet it seems odd that even when Clinton ascends to ever-greater positions of power—from first lady to senator, from senator to secretary of state—we start liking her again once she’s landed the job. It’s not her success that seems to arouse ire, but the act of campaigning itself.

This issue is not specific to Clinton. As Slate writer Jamelle Bouie has pointed out on Twitter, even progressive demigod Elizabeth Warren was seen as “unlikable” when she ran for the Massachusetts senate seat. Local outlets published op-eds about how women were being “turned off” by Warren’s “know-it-all style”—a framing that’s indistinguishable from 2016 Clinton coverage. “I’m asking her to be more authentic,” a Democratic analyst for Boston radio station WBUR said of Warren. “I want her to just sound like a human being, not read the script that makes her sound like some angry, hectoring school marm.”

Once Warren made it to the Senate, she was lionized—right down to a Clinton-esque moment in which supporters begged her to run for President. Yet seeing Warren engaged in the actual act of running seems to freak people out.

[bettyellen]

128. " the script that makes her sound like some angry, hectoring school marm.” SBS could have

written that- did write something blaming women like that for mens' issues in fact. Interesting stuff.

[NurseJackie]

169. The word "CONTENT" is used in the title and emphasized again and again in the message itself ...

... and it's a code-talk, a dog-whistle about how the "little woman" shouldn't have had ambitions beyond that which many like-minded people may deem to be appropriate and non-threatening. The word itself is evocative of motherhood, home-making, carefree and comfortable. Contained and kept safe.

I would have liked Clinton if she had stayed at her level of competence and been content to be a Democratic warhorse Senator from New York.

Heaven forbid that she aspire for more that others think is appropriate for "her level of competence." Thank the gods that we have wise writers like the OP to make these difficult assessments and judgements. You never know ... she might even inspire others to strive for more beyond mere "contentment".

She could have probably done a great job and learned the ropes and used her Senate east to push for those truly liberal issues she seems to care about.

And even here, the writer is dismissive of her accomplishments by telling us that she "probably could have done a great job". Probably? That's it? Just "probably"??

Obviously, the writer lacks the confidence to say that she could have done a better job, or should have done a better job (neither of which suggests that she was incapable of doing better, only that she didn't do better). But this writer says only that she "probably" could have done better (the writer is suggesting, of course, that he feels that she likely wouldn't have done better, or if she did, it would have been a real struggle for her to do so.)

But wait, it gets better. That's quickly followed with a not-so-subtle suggestion that she hadn't even "learned the ropes". Good god! Could the writer be more condescending?

The writer isn't even sure if she actually cares about the issues because she only "seems to care". I guess the OP thinks that we can't be sure if Hillary actually cares, because well, you know how women are ... always changing their minds, and unable to make decisions without someone's help. The writer can't accept that Hillary ACTUALLY cares about something, or that Hillary can thoughtfully analyze and come to her own conclusions.

So the suggestion is that she may-care, or she may-not-care, but we really can't be too sure ... therefore it's safer to say that she "seems" to care. (We mustn't give her TOO MUCH credit for having the capacity for thinking on her own now, should we?)

But she wasn't content with that.

And there you have it again, for the third time. She should have just been "content", eh? Why couldn't she have been satisfied with what she already had? Why would she want more? She just had to keep pushing! What NERVE!

After all, she'd made her point, right? She'd pushed that envelope just about far enough, thank you. (But only as far as her "level of competence" would allow, is that about right?)

[CrowCityDem]

173. It's even worse.

He responded to me by saying that Obama ran 'a little too early', when Hillary has 3X the resume he did when he was elected. The sexism involved is disgusting.

[Armstead]

182. I was content to achieve my level of professional achievement.

I'm really really good at what I do for a living. It is my calling and my ingrained talent.

But I would be a bad manager of what i do for a living and it would be very unsatisfying. So I am content not to take that step.. I realize that so I do what I do and I do it well, rather than seeking a position which would not do well at.

I'm a male.

I am also totally unqualified to be president. So is about 95 percent of the population, including most politicians. That is not demeaning myself or the rest of the 95 percent who should not be president. We all have to be content to do whatever we do in life, rather than seeking to become president.

[Hortensis]

171. Armstead, the irrational loathing of Hillary Clinton

absolutely is fueled by her sex. As is the relentless opposition of the press to her rise. Hillary Hate is such a part of our national culture, that we take it for granted without examining it.

Like that disgracefully reproduced meme that Hillary has a serious electability problem because she is so hated. How many articles point out that those people who burn with irrational passion whenever her name is mentioned each have one vote, just like everyone else? Their votes don't somehow multiply with their resentment and frustration that she could win, and they would not be more likely to vote for her if they calmed down and just disliked her the way normal conservatives dislike liberals. The main effect it has, and it is significant as far as it goes, is that they will dig the car out in a snowstorm to go vote against her.

[peggysue2]

178. Nothing to do with gender

Because it never has anything to do with gender. And if it does, it's silly and frivolous and/or can be explained away. Or we're being overly sensitive or misunderstanding or . . . .

As if women haven't heard this utterly lame explanation/excuse a thousand times.

If only she'd known her place, I 'might' have respected her.

Dog whistle much?

But, of course, it has nothing to do with gender. Because talented, ambitious men are A-okay. Women with the same propensities are . . . she-wolves. Check your history if you don't believe me.

But please, keep digging. You're so-o-o very good at it.

[Armstead]

5. So predictable -- this has nothing to do with her gender

[JSup]

6. Yeah, it was so blatantly...

...awful that I actually looked for a "I'd have liked Sanders if he had been content to be a leading Senator" post to see if he was doing that stupid "no you" thing that keeps popping up here lately.

[Armstead]

8. Nope. Just being honest

Your mileage may vary

[Ash_F]

90. People like Sanders because of the platform

If not for Clinton's past she could have taken his platform and been killing it.

[Armstead]

190. Let me ask you a not-very-hypothetical question

Suppose someone did post something that said "I wish Bernie had been content to stay in the Senate and work for his goals there instead of overreaching and running for President, because he is unelectable and is not qualified for that"......What do you think would have been the reaction?

That is not outside the realm of possibility, because similar things are said all the time.

His supporters might object...but it would not be on the premise that that is only being said because he is a male, or Jewish or something that is beside the point of the post.

[JSup]

210. I have seen the 'anti-semitic' defense...

...a few times and it is as bad as 'cry-wolf' sexism.

But I honestly thought this was a sarcastic, satirical sexist post... like the ones people post to make fun of actual sexists; I didn't see it that way on purpose. I'm guessing now that you didn't mean it as a joke and I'm not sure how to take that because now instead of it looking like you jokingly said 'Get back into the kitchen' it looks like you seriously said 'Get back into the kitchen'.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way... I hope? My sister's boyfriend used to act like that to her before he literally pushed her down the stairs (she's fine, he's not), which is where my zealous defense of women comes from.

[Ned_Devine]

201. I have seen and still see plenty of Sanders needs to go back to the Senate posts

You're kidding, right?

[stopbush]

11. Yep. Women need to know their place.

It's only senators like St Bernard who deserve the WH. Who wouldn't put his decades as a Senate back bencher, with getting two post offices renamed as his major accomplishment up against Hillary's paltry experience as a Senator and SoS?

She's already a mom. What else does she think we owe her?

Yes, we need a level of competence in our presidents. Bush, Reagan - just a few examples of how competence is just a natural attribute of males.

[all american girl]

15. Those damn women. They should stay home and bake cookies and make tea.

[SidDithers]

16. Jury results...

On Thu May 5, 2016, 10:44 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

If only she'd just "stayed in her place", huh?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1904739

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling OP sexist without just cause.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 5, 2016, 10:48 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not quite a call-out. It's a snarky opinion. Snark is not a hide-able offense.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That is a stretch.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ridiculous alert.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Takes much more than this for a hide. Free speech.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter is trying to censor discussion s/he doesn't like simply because s/he doesn't like it. Challenged post is definitely not disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The OP is sexist.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Sid

[NurseJackie]

18. Thank you, Jury! (The alert and results speak for themselves.)

And I'll just leave it at that ... except to add:

[Tarc]

150. The best part of that? The alerter (I think it still works this way) gets a 24h ban on alerting

[Demsrule86]

75. tsk tsk

I guess a woman's got to know her place...

[uponit7771]

87. +1

[katsy]

110. No. More like jeb should've stayed out of the

race for the presidency and his brother had no fucking business in the White House he's a better rancher maybe.

Personally, I don't like dynasty politics. No I don't want Michele to run for President tho I think PBO is an extraordinary president. Monarchies by any other guise are still monarchies.

If Michele goes on to be elected a judge & maybe the Supreme Court someday... I'd be supportive. President? No. It's perfectly legal but smells of monarchy and entitlement to me.

We've handed our democracy to the richest, best connected families thinking democracy won't be as messy. In fact, I think it's devastating. IMO, corruption exists to protect the well moneyed and connected.

[LisaM]

138. So Malia should rule out politics in her future?

By all accounts she's very bright and well adjusted, and is further grounding herself by taking a year off before entering Harvard. I guess she should never think about running for office. Two people in the same family now constitutes a dynasty.

[katsy]

140. Idk. I'm glad I didn't have to face a personal

choice like that because my fave athiest, Ron Reagan, didn't run for office.

I'll cross that line when or if it happens. Tho I tend to think in this great big world there are so many ways of giving back... If you held my feet to the fire I would hope Malia make her own path in life. But no judgement.

I like term limits also.

Corruption is insidious. It takes hold in power circles.

[LisaM]

143. Term limits sound good in theory. In practice, they are terrible.

Part of the mess in Michigan can attributed to the absolute debacle of 20 years of term limits (they've now had long enough to study the effects of this). The results are absolutely damning. The incessant turnover means that almost one third of the elected officials are new every two years. People who effectively work on committees are timed out and greenhorns have to come in and try and take their place. It's chaotic. No coalitions are formed anymore. The legislature is an absolute hot mess and you can pretty much base it on the asinine notion that experience doesn't matter. It does matter. It matters a lot.

When I first moved to Washington, there was a Congressman from Spokane named Tom Foley who was the Speaker of the House and who did an excellent job - and who advocated well for his district, and for the state, along with just being a general good guy. He was voted out of office on the term limit craze in, I think, 1994, by an absolute asshole conservative named George Nethercutt. "Term limits!" he shrieked. Of course, after he'd served two terms, he ran again, claiming he hadn't been able to accomplish everything he'd set out to do in that short period of time. No apology to Tom Foley or to the good citizens of Spokane whom he'd duped was forthcoming.

You're not going to sell me on term limits. And if in 20 years Malia Obama wants to run for office, I'm pretty sure she'd do a great job if she was elected.

[katsy]

145. Lots of substance in your illustration about

term limits. I need to think very hard about that. Maybe stronger corruption laws/oversight, big $ out of politics. Something must give here.

If my son is lucky enuf to realize his goals, he'll be at Harvard when Malia is a junior. PBO has an extraordinary family, he's the President I'm so proud of more so than anyone I've had the pleasure of voting for.

So your question about Malia hit me between the eyes. You landed that punch. Publicly I'll state my hope that Malia reaches all her potential and dreams outside the White House.

Privately, lol you'll never know.

[LisaM]

148. If we can get rid of gerrymandering and get people to vote

the need for term limits will effectively vanish. I agree that bad people are in office and it can be hard to get them out.

Not guessing at your last remark, but is your son tall?

[katsy]

151. Very tall.

My 1st observation actually.

You are correct about term limits. I was shortsighted.

Cheers

[LisaM]

158. Cheers to you!

I have just had the luxury of being able to observe some occasions where term limits have failed.

[Armstead]

184. Thank you for getting what I am saying

[auntpurl]

127. Yeah, really.

This post left a really sour taste in my mouth. If she'd been "content"? Because ambition is a cardinal sin...in a woman.

[pangaia]

131. Just perfectly typical from you. Which is why I no longer respond to anything you write

But this time, it is just beyond the pale.

This post has nothing at all to do with your imaginary --poor Hillary complex. poor woman complex. NOTHING.

It is exactly what it says it is...

The woman is insufferable.

[NurseJackie]

172. See? This is why y'all are losing ... you keep making it personal.

Which is why I no longer respond to anything you write

Your overall tone suggests that you believe this announcement is something that should cause me regret. Please, allow me to disabuse you of that notion.

To that end, I'd like to say in all honesty, how much I truly appreciate the effort you've made to avoid responding to me. In my opinion, that was a very wise decision that has doubtlessly saved both of us much consternation. I sincerely look forward to a lengthy continuation of your successful avoidance of me.

[LisaM]

136. I know, right?

Pretty brazen.

[timmymoff]

147. She couldn't stay in her place she was busy trying to bring the left to heel.

[nolawarlock]

188. And they talk about dog whistles.

This whistle would bring the Wooly Mammoth back from the dead.

[egalitegirl]

206. She is a warmongering corporatist

Regardless of her gender, the fact is that she represents the same interests as the Bush family and has received money from Goldman Sachs and is a warmongering corporatist who is clueless about foreign policy and the economy. She won a few states after Madeleine Albright threatened people that they would go to hell if they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

[Gomez163]

228. Exactly how it sounds to me.

[WhiteTara]

4. But then she got uppity and now

she needs the back of the nation's hand, eh?

[Armstead]

9. So predictable -- this has nothing to do with her gender

[all american girl]

23. And so predictable that you don't see it. These are the dog whistles that a lot of women hear

and some of us are getting damn tired of hearing them and also damn tired of being told that it's all in our heads. You may not see it, but a lot of us do...

[Armstead]

25. No I'd have said the same thing about Bill if situations were reversed

Also Democrats said similar things about GW Bush and his coronation by the GOP

And I wouldn't say it about Elizabeth Warren because she has made her bones on her own

[all american girl]

33. Yeah, here's the difference between her and GW Bush

she actually worked to get were she's at and I would also say, that her husband and her name have sometimes hurt her more than helped her. All you have to do is look here...she gets blamed for things her husband signed...that Bernie voted for, but it's all her fault.

[CobaltBlue]

238. all american girl—Didn't Hillary Clinton see George W. Bush's Iraq War as a "business opportunity?"

[Blue_In_AK]

187. I've been a woman for almost 70 years,

and I hear no dog whistles. People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.

[CentralCoaster]

21. Uppity? No, just ambitious to the point of becoming epically flawed.

That's demonstrably true.

She got where she is on name recognition, having been married to Bill Clinton.

Sad, because that undermines the concept of breaking any ceilings were she to win presidency.

Which she will not.

[Demsrule86]

179. It is always the same story

Ambitious women flawed...ambitious men powerful...

[JaneyVee]

12. Women, know your place!

[Armstead]

17. So predictable. This has nothing to do with her gender

[JaneyVee]

19. Not nearly as predictable as rampant sexism.

[Armstead]

27. Predictable response

[Maru Kitteh]

243. If I watch you hit your thumb with a fucking hammer, I predict you will have pain

The predictability of this outcome does not negate your feeling. It exists for a reason.

[blue neen]

134. Is that all you've got as a defense for what you posted?

"So predictable"? That was your answer to a multitude of posts telling you that your OP sounded like a dog whistle.

It wasn't just one poster who said that your OP was out of line. It was many posters. Maybe it would be helpful to you to listen to what they are saying, rather than dismiss them by saying "So predictable".

[Armstead]

192. Do me a favor

Please tell me how people are supposed to say anything critical of Clinton without ringing some "dog whistle" or another.

Everything that has anything to do with a contrary opinion of her leadership qualities, judgement, temperament or any of the otehr qualities that ALL politicians are scrutinized for is branded as "sexist" when referring to her, because some "code word" might be used.

People can beat up on Bernie all day long --call him incompetent, greedy, nasty, grouchy, corrupt and all the rest of the daily slurs. That's okay. Nothing sexist or anti Semitic in any of that.

But gosh if you say "I'm not comfortable with Clinton because....' the red alarm bells go off -- Sexism Alert, sexism alert.

It's getting to the point where there are going to be five acceptable words in the English language if this keeps up.

[drray23]

232. maybe if it was "so predictible"

You should have refrained from posting it or phrased it diferently. Or maybe you were hoping to send some dog whistle signals.

[VulgarPoet]

13. Seven replies, and I can imagine at least one top level comment has something to do with

"waaaaaah sexism"

How weak do you have to be to assume that every legitimate grievance against someone(here, blatant power-grabbing, a problem endemic in BOTH sexes and ALL genders) automatically has to fall under some kind of perjorative -ism to dehumanize the opponent rather than to debate them on their argument's merits?

Oh, wait. Corporate supplicant Thatcherites. I'm probably approaching a 300+ ignore list thanks to them...

[Armstead]

20. I know....especially since people had similar complains about GW Bush

Democrats were really upset that GW Bush wanted to perpetuate a family dynasty in the WH when he ran.

last I saw, GW is a male.

I guess if GW had been female we should not have criticized him either

[VulgarPoet]

24. Tumblr activist hypocrisy, thy name is the HRC group.

YMMV but I see the exact same culture of narcissism and perpetuating the ideal that free speech itself is a micro-aggression just because someone doesn't like it in them as I see in the tumblrites. You want to see real authoritarianism? Look no further.

[Maedhros]

153. They are wound collectors scrutinizing every conversation, article, or blog post

for a reason to be deeply offended. This provides validation that they are right.

[VulgarPoet]

163. Like I said, a culture of narcissism and "me first"-- is it any wonder they support the very avatar

of "use and discard"? Of kill-and-pillage? Of "Iraq is a business opportunity"? They will sell, sell, sell until they're right where they want to be, and start clutching their pearls if you have the temerity to call them on it.

[MisterP]

202. if Tumblr ran the world the races would be strictly segregated, transwomen burned, blood

guilt written into law, and het sex done through a hole in a sheet (if at all)

[loyalsister]

53. I've seen the same thing in the MO general assembly

Because we have term limits, the republicans have been putting novices in charge of committees and grooming them for higher office and other government leadership roles immediately. Of course, they are more likely to go into corporate lobbying and make a lot more $. Sadly, HRC resembles that situation in more ways than one. Obviously the majority of them are men.

To add: Imagine if Obama and his supporters had talked about victimization over racism the way HRC does about imagined sexism.

[VulgarPoet]

104. Which is funny, because a lot of Hillary supporters claim to have supported Obama during the GE

but I remember a LOT of the reprehensibly fucked up memes running around about Obama FLOATED BY Hillary supporters.

[JaneyVee]

22. But mediocre senator Sanders should rise to the top?

[Armstead]

30. He's been working in Congress for decades and has done everything on his own

If you don;'t think he is qualified, fine. But don't deflect.

[JaneyVee]

34. With nothing to show for it = mediocre.

Even his only senate buddy Sherrod Brown endorsed Hillz.

[Armstead]

56. That's beside the point

If you think he's unqualified that's obviously your right and prtivilege

But golly gee, someone says similar criticisms about Clinton and suddenly....ooooooo it's all about gender

[angrychair]

152. Mediocre?

In a Congress with a lower approval rating than cockroaches, Sanders has one of highest constitute approval ratings in all of Congress.
He is so well liked in Vermont that Clinton was not even viable in the primary there this year.
FYI, neither PBO nor HRC was able to achieve that feat in their 2008 nomination contest in their respective states (though both from Illinois, I am also including New York, Hawaii and Kansas).

He was one of the most effective chairperson of the Veterans Affairs Committee in the recent history and was effective in moving legislation and it being voted on during the most ineffective and gridlocked Congress in US history.
He was actually awarded for his efforts by the VFW and other veteran's organizations.

If he was so "mediocre", why is he the only candidate for president in 2016 that has a 100% rating from both PP and NARAL for 23 years in a row?

If he was so "mediocre", why is he the only candidate for president in 2016 that has a 100% rating from The Human Rights Campaign for 17 years in a row?

[LexVegas]

14. Jesus Fucking Christ.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Some kind of verbiage for a guy supporting a candidate who claims to be super Christian to

the point that she loudly objected to LGBT equality for years and years, staking out the last major Democratic objections to our civil rights with endless rhetoric about the sacred and sacramental tone that must be used at all times, my faith, my church, my traditions......or Jesus Fucking Christ, whatever works that day, sacred, profane, whatever.
It's a factor in religious hypocrisy that makes it so unappealing, that double standard that says 'Why don't you treat my fucking lord with respect!!!!'

Yeah, sacraments and all that. Jesus Fucking Christ. Hilarious.

[farleftlib]

26. It is the hubris

Her tenure at State could be summed up in two words: Epic fail.

Now she wants to be POTUS. Whether her incredibly bad decisions as SoS were mistakes
or were, as I truly believe, due exclusively to her neocon hawkishness and greed, she is
overstepping her bounds. There are so many much more qualified, and ethical politicians
why did the party leadership bow to her unbridled ambition and back her exclusively?

I cannot fathom how she got this far. Bill's coattails are only so long. She arm-twisted her
way to SoS by threatening Obama and with the job she did she should have been kicked
to the curb, not given more support for her criminal ineptitude.

K& R

[BootinUp]

28. On the notion she did something wrong by running for the office

Leapfrogging, positioning herself as the anointed one?

I must disagree. Just as there is a lot of "grass roots" support for Bernie, the same case can be easily shown for Hillary. For example her very strong polling numbers before she even announced she was a candidate. If thats not an indication of wide support from the people right from the start I don't know what is.

I would also say that in my opinion she has run a very decent campaign, and expressed some valid reasons for running in a sincere way. And I challenge folks to convincingly show something differently.

No, the "she thinks she is anointed" meme is just a baseless slur that banks off of negative coverage of her over the years and I think its a low blow that Democrats and those that want to see a Democratic President would be wiser to drop.

[Armstead]

35. A fair response ......At least you didn't claim sexism

[all american girl]

29. You did good with that. You were able to get in she wasn't content, she's anointed, and

and she's basically unqualified....

Nope, no dog whistles there...because she's never worked hard. She's never proved herself to be qualified. She only relied on her name and just sat there and took credit

Good job

[Armstead]

32. Criticisms are not automatically dog whistles

And I meant the positive things I said. Some people are executives some are legislators.

[all american girl]

41. Nope, all those things I pointed out are dog whistles and nothing more

I read on here, more times than I can count, how she is a queen and it's her turn. She's worked her ass off....in the jobs she has had and in this election. By saying these things, people are saying she's done nothing. That's wrong and I would hope you see it.

I'm sure there will be women who don't see it that way, but not all of us view things the same way...I view this as sexist, and no, I will not change just to make others feel comfortable.

[Ed Suspicious]

66. You might be hearing things that aren't really there.

[all american girl]

70. Yep, because as a woman I could never be offended by sexist crap being played as

"I'm just concern" "I'm just pointing out..." or whatever. I know there will be women who don't hear it, but it doesn't mean it's not true. So please don't tell me how I'm suppose to feel, or hear things. That just says that I'm "too sensitive" and I need to learn to get over it.

[Ed Suspicious]

117. How do you walk through life? Not every shadow hides a monster.

[all american girl]

121. Thanks for the insult. I'll wear it as a badge of honor.

[bettyellen]

157. You need to have some deep and honest conversations with women about "how they walk"

because our experiences ar much different than mens. You seem to be really ignorant about that.

[CobaltBlue]

239. all american girl—The word 'unworthy' would have been accurate.

[Tarc]

31. That is an amazing degree of patronizing sexism right there

[Armstead]

36. Predictable...This is not about her gender

same criticisms were made about GW Bush as the anointed heir apparent in 2008

[Tarc]

39. It is everything about her gender, you just can't see that

Posts like this just lose more and more of the female support for Sanders (not that it matters much as the primary is essentially over), so by all means, keep going.

[Armstead]

44. Is she automatically entitled just because of her gender? More-so than many otehr qualified females?

[Tarc]

61. It's really sad that you lack the self-awareness to see what your comments mean to many women here

Yes, she's ambitious. Yes, she may have had an eye on the next position while serving in a current one. When a male does that, i business or politics or wherever, "he's a real go-getter", "wow what an up-and-coming guy!", and so on.

[katsy]

124. Is OP being a big meany-head to girls?

I'm a woman and I found nothing sexist in the OP.

I could swap out HRC for jeb! or dubya and it would hold true no matter the sex.

FFS just because people get fucking vapors every time a word or statement holds "speshul" "meaning" to the voices in their OWN heads doesn't make every statement an insult to a demographic.

Pretty soon speaking will cease cuz every word uttered is offensive to someone.

[Tarc]

149. Congrats on your personal observation, and on not being personally offended.

I'm sure one or two disabled people had no problem when Trump did this, either;



Most of the rest found it to be inappropriate and disgusting, however.

[katsy]

156. And you can't discern the differences between that

horrific man and a stupid article about online assholes whom we can't identify with SBS in any fact based manner?

Fact: trump by his own words and actions is a misogynistic, vile, bigoted, racist person.

Fact: SBS is not.

Fact: online personalities are not verifiably honest and may be paid-for or freebie shit-stirrers.

Or is that too much to comprehend?

So when someone whines that it was "BernieBros" made misogyny real for them I call bullshit.

And I accuse them of trivializing feminism in a most egregious way. They ignore centuries of misogyny and BAM!!!! BernieBros, whether real or not, paid-for trolls or not, brings it home for her.

BULL FUCKING SHIT

Oh dearie me she's mortally offended by who the fuck knows who these people really are. Faint. Swoon.

I'm a woman & think she's an idiot. How weak of a sister is she to let jerks online define her.

[Tarc]

164. Again, your personal observation

Congrats on not being offended. I guess.

[katsy]

166. Who in their right mind is not offended by these trolls?

I am.

Do I blame SBS? No.

Did a lightbulb go off in my head like: duhhhh misogyny. Oh hell no.

I've experienced misogyny and these trolls are fucking zeros on the Richter scale. So I wouldn't give them creds for influencing shit. They are invisible to anyone with 2 brain cells.

And to top it off... You don't know they support SBS for real or not! It's the Internet! Use those 2 brain cells to ignore the bullshit.

Yeah... The author is disingenuous at best if she's just stumping for her candidate. Or at worst, a fucking idiot for crediting anonymous online trolls for opening her eyes to misogyny.

[cherokeeprogressive]

139. At this point, gender is really all she has. You just can't see that.

ETA... gender and a white noise generator.

[egalitegirl]

207. So we have to support Goldman Sachs?

How does it follow that just because she is a woman, we have to hand over the government to Goldman Sachs and obey Wall Street honchos?

[Sparkly]

37. How dare she.

[Armstead]

38. Wouldn't have said it about Barbara Boxer or other female possibilities

[all american girl]

47. But they didn't run, and as far as I know, had no desire.

Obama wasn't a Senator for very long when he ran. Hillary tried to us this same bs on him...it didn't work. Second time isn't always the charm.

[Armstead]

50. Obama did it on his own

Frankly, it was worrisome that he too jumped the que. He might have been more effective if he'd gotten a lottle more DC esasoning first.

But he has undeniable genius for governing and politics. He has accomplished everything he has done solely on his merits.

[all american girl]

57. And so has she. I know you all like to believe that it's because of her husband

but SHE won the senate because SHE went out and met the people...like she's doing now. She talked, she listen, and they got to know her for herself. She then went and worked for them. When SHE became SOS, she worked to undue all the damage that Bush did-and trust me, there was a lot. SHE did this, not her husband. Running in this primary, SHE did the same thing SHE did in NY...talked to people, listen to people, and let them get to know her....SHE did it on her own. Now just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it not true.


Also, have you ever thought that maybe Bill became president because of her?

[farleftlib]

74. Her tenure as SoS should have precluded her from ever

holding office again. She is responsible for damage on a massive scale. Obama has
even said Libya was a big mistake but Hillary believes leaving a country open to ISIS
was a good thing. Epic Fail.

[all american girl]

79. You know that the buck stops with the President

She was one of his advisers, but he makes the decision, not her....and it was a coalition of many countries, so there's that. ISIS is because of Bush and no one else. And her tenure as SOS was very successful, I know you don't want to believe it, but it's true.

[farleftlib]

116. No, that's how it should be but not how it was.

She disregarded everything Obama's experts and military brass told her about Libya
and not one day passed after Obama claimed Honduras was an illegal coup before she
said it was legitimate. Not one other country agreed with her and we were the only
country that could have put a stop to it but she ignored her president and publicly
made a fool of him by not acknowledging his decision or abiding by it.

[all american girl]

120. I must have missed Hillary being president, because I could have swore that it was Obama

I don't think the government works the way you think. You might want to go google it some time. Presidents decide the coarse of action not the SOS

[peace13]

40. During Bill's presidency she was always on the wrong side.

NAFTA, non gay rights, imprisoning minorities. There was no way that she could become a 'good' senator. Prime example, She sold the Iraq invasion without a blink!

She is not out of her league or Petered out, she simply sells products that are not in the majority's interest. She has always worked for the corporations. When you look at her sales record that is clear.

[Punkingal]

42. She has always been about becoming President.

I could live with that fact, if she wanted it for good reasons, like Bernie does, but I don't see that. She is too much of a hawk and too in with big banks and corporations. I just see blind ambition, and I find that difficult to reconcile.

[all american girl]

49. Yes, because an ambitious woman is a bad thing....now men, on the other hand...

[Armstead]

52. A massive red herring...

[all american girl]

58. Why?

[Armstead]

193. For my part, i accept that all politicians are ambitiouis

It's a matter of whether those ambitions are aligned with ones talents and qualifications. (95 percent of the popuklation is not suited to be president, including most politicians)

It's also a matter of how one pursues those ambitions, and the larger effect of those ambitions.

I happen to think that the alignment of the democratic Party with big Money and Big Power and Corporate America and Wall Street that both Clintons (including the male partner) helped to engineer has been bad for the Democratic Party and bad for America on many levels.

I realize people will disagree with that. That's fine. But that is not a matter of her gender, not inappropriate ambition for a woman. Claiming it is, is a deflection from the larger issues involved/

[Punkingal]

54. Yeah, I hate ambitious women, being one myself.

Go sell your sexist bullshit somewhere else.

[all american girl]

59. I'm glad you don't think it's sexist, but I do.

[Punkingal]

62. Imagine how little I care what you think.

[all american girl]

64. Right back at you. Too bad, though. It would be nice to talk about the sexist language that

we all have and how we can all change for the better.

[Punkingal]

69. I am talking about character, not gender.

Her gender is irrelevant to me. I would gladly talk about sexism all day if it were relevant, but it is not. Criticizing her hair, her clothes, her make-up is sexist. Criticizing her actions, words, and positions is not sexist.

[kcr]

72. Sexism is only about hair, makeup, and clothes?

I don't think that's actually correct.

[Punkingal]

125. No.

I didn't mean to say that it was, those are just the most obvious examples.

[kcr]

133. I don't think it gets any more obvious

than criticizing a woman merely for being ambitious. And told she should know her place. Not subtle at all.

[Punkingal]

135. Well, I criticized John Edwards for the same thing.

Should I accuse everyone who criticizes Bernie as being Anti-Semetic? That would make as little sense as criticism of Hillary being sexist. And I never said she should know her place. I don't say things like that.

[kcr]

146. The fact you criticized John Edwards for being ambitious and not knowing his place

doesn't negate the fact that women are held to this standard in a way men are not. Was Edwards indeed out of place? I guess if you honestly felt that way. I don't get it, but okay. It's a very unusual criticism. That's the point.

As far deciding whether or not you want to accuse everyone who criticized Bernie Sanders of anti-semitism. If you feel they're being anti-semitic. Go right on ahead. But it is indeed sexist to say that Hillary shouldn't run for president and should know her place. It's not as if there is never actual sexist criticism of Hillary, right?

[all american girl]

76. Positions, fine...critizing a woman for being ambitious is too much of the same

Ambition in a woman in never portrayed as a positive, so when I see it put like that, I get angry. Being ambitious is good and every person who ever ran for president, including Bernie, has that quality. But for women, it's not and that type of language should stop, but I know it won't...and that's what is sad.

[Armstead]

194. Elizabeth Warren is ambitious. That's fine with me. I hope she continues to be ambitious.

Carly Fiorina is ambitious. Ugh.

Am I wrong for saying that? Do you think her obvious flaws should be excused because she is a women?

[CrowCityDem]

43. Sexist, Patronizing, Insulting. You're hitting all the marks.

You can say that about any politician who ever moves up the ladder, but no one does, because it's expected that they are going to want to rise to more prominent positions. Hillary's ascension to this spot was far slower than President Obama's was. She has put in eight years as a Senator, and four as Secretary Of State. That is plenty of dedication to public service.

Why didn't Bernie feel content to stay the Mayor of Burlington? Sounds pathetic, huh?

Everyone who runs for President wants the power, wants the attention. Yes, they have egos. Just look at the way that Bernie is twisting himself into knots trying to rationalize how he can snatch the nomination at this point. Everyone wants to win. It's funny, though, how women seem to be the only ones who get criticized for it. We sure are 'progressive' around here.

[Armstead]

48. You can't say that about any politician...One could have said it about Ted Kennedy

He was one of our greatest Senators. Buit he too overreached beyond his true talents when he tried to take an inherited crown to run for President

Fortunately he returned to the Senate and became a great one.

[CrowCityDem]

67. "True talent"? Who defines that?

Kennedy overreached because he tried to unseat a sitting President, not because he wasn't considered up to the job.

What makes Bernie within his rights, as you see them, to run for President, but not Hillary? Other than being a man, of course.

[Armstead]

196. "True talent"is a matter of both objective observation and subjective opinion

You believe Clinton has it. Fine. I have no problem with that. But I disagree.

I thunk Bernie has it. You do not.

Subjective opinions.

If those did not exist, politics would not either.

[Demsrule86]

80. Very well said.

[Armstead]

115. Most senators are not constantly angling to become president.....and...

those who do, wait until they have a long and strong track record. And they don't usually get touted before they are even elected to anything.

Obama ran a little too soon for comfort, but he also was an incredibly gifted politician, and rose solely on his own merits....(And he might have been more effective as President if he'd spent a little more time in the Senate first.)

[CrowCityDem]

119. "A little too soon"?

Hillary was a Senator for eight year, and served four years in the Cabinet. What the hell else does a woman need in order to be, using your word, "competent" to want to seek the Presidency?

[bbgrunt]

51. While it is probably true that a large percentage of male aspirants to

big power are sociopaths and/or narcissists, that does not disqualify criticism of a female with the same characteristics. True leaders have more than their own advancement and power as a goal.

So while it may be sexist to point out these flaws when obvious in a female candidate and ignore/expect them when so prevalent in many male candidates, it's just sad that so many scream sexism as if they can hardly wait for females to be rewarded for the same sociopathic/narcissistic traits that are a big contributing factor in our dysfunctional society.

[Armstead]

55. Thing is the males can get criticized without it being made into being about gender

GW Bush was criticized for the same dynastic issue and overreach I am referring to

[kcr]

68. Yes. They can. That should be a clue right there n/t

[Doctor_J]

63. As the replies to this OP demonstrate, her gender is the main reason many are supporting her

All criticism of her can be written off as sexism, and thus completely disregarded. She has hinted that she would be OK with a constitutional amendment to restrict reproductive rights. Such a declaration would have ended the campaign of any male on the Dem side, yet for her it is excused. Why?

[bbgrunt]

77. exactly.

[CrowCityDem]

82. The replies are because a percentage of Bernie fans can't see their own sexism.

[Doctor_J]

92. It's sexist to support an anti-choice female over a pro-choice male

I am amazed at how many Clinton supporters don't have any reasons whatsoever for supporting her. If Sanders was anti-choice, favored raising the SS eligibility age, had supported DOMA and DADT, had called welfare mothers "deadbeats", and signed a bill that led to mass incarceration of black people, he wouldn't have gotten a single vote. And that's not even to mention Iraq, NDAA, Syria, Libya, Honduras, and her opposition to gay marriage. She has an excellent resume...for a Republican.

[CrowCityDem]

93. This wasn't about positions. It was about how telling a woman to know her place is sexist.

[bettyellen]

177. HRC has done more to preserve and extend womens reproductive choices than anyone who ever

ran for POTUS. You really have no clue what the context of that discussion was if you are trying to use it as a cudgel.
You should go find out exactly why PP and NARAL have endorsed her over SBS. It is because she has done the work, and he has not. Educate yourself because this is embarrassing to read here. This bullshit was the straw that made me turn on SBS.

[redstateblues]

237. The bill that Bernie signed?

It's amazing how you gloss over Bernies disastrous decisions. Your credibility disintegrates when you blame Hillary for all the evil in the world.

[Armstead]

113. Sexism is giving someone a free pass because of gender

In my OP i said in my opinion she could have been a very good Senator, but I don't believe she is Presidential material.

There are many otehr Senators and political figures of both genders that can be applied to. And there are women who I would happily and enthusiastically support as presidential material.

[CrowCityDem]

118. It was when you said...

... everything would have been fine if she "stayed at her level of competence".

That single line is completely demeaning to someone who has been involved in public service, at all levels, for decades. You boil down a lifetime of work and service to this country as her being incompetent to think she could do more. It's an insult.

If you don't like her, fine. If you don't agree with her, fine.

But what you said was more than that. It reduced her to a stereotype of a pushy woman who doesn't 'know her place'. Ironically, that's exactly the argument that one of Bernie's advisors made. It's very telling that people can think that a twice-elected Senator who also served as Secretary Of State should be ashamed of wanting to be President, but being Mayor of Burlington is a stepping stone to the White House.

[Armstead]

197. People demean Bernie's life of service and think he should "stay in his place"....

Why is it considered fair to attack him, despite his decades of uninterrupted public service? Why is that not considered sexist?

Why is he constantly being attacked as an opportunist? Is that because he is male? Or is it a "dog whistle" because he is Jewish? ...................Does claiming that sound like a ridiculous deflection to demean what many believe are legitimate criticisms of his motives and ambitions and abilities?

[CrowCityDem]

199. Who said he couldn't run? You're telling a qualified woman she shouldn't. Very different situation.

[MisterP]

203. I got banhammered from HOF for daring to post some ABC links on that

[Turin_C3PO]

65. She was a good Senator, yes.

But I believe she'll make a fine executive. I actually see her doing better as a leader than a Senator, to be honest. Oh btw: I've seen many of your posts and in no way do I think you're a "sexist". Accusations like that are terribly unfair. It's why I hate primary season, frankly.

[Armstead]

112. Thank you

I don't mind when people disagree for valid reasons....

[Demsrule86]

71. She is so uppity and all

Imagine someone like her ...her being the operative word challenging the great Bern and beating him....why that is just mean. I guess millions of people don't er...share your opinion.

[Demsrule86]

78. so you are accusing us of playing the woman's card?

I heard that somewhere else...now where did I hear that...ah well...then just a few words about this sort of thing...


Deal me in !!!!

[Armstead]

105. No -- only the ones who are

You missed the good things I said about her. I was being sincere.

You may have also missed the fact that I replied reasonably to the people who responded to this by explaining how they disagree because they believe she is the best and most qualified choice.

[Mike Nelson]

81. I think it's great she moved on...

...but I hold her in higher esteem than you do, obviously.

[tularetom]

83. She spent most of her Senate term ingratiating herself with the worst right wing elements in DC

"The Family", the Iraq War Resolution vote...

WTF is a Democratic senator from NY thinking, sponsoring a constitutional amendment to make flag burning a crime?

She only gave lip service to being an actual Democrat when she sought reelection in 2006. Sorta like what she's pretending to be right now.

Hopefully, we won't fall for it again.

[cali]

84. Clinton has exercised bad judgment repeatedly

And that is why I don't like her and never have

[JTFrog]

85. Yea, if only that woman knew her place.

Fuck that noise.

[Uponthegears]

86. How does

the most privileged woman in the world figure that playing the victim is: (a) an acceptable substitute for defending her policies; or, (b) anything other than laughable?

She should try running on something else.

[NCTraveler]

88. Little lady just doesn't know when to stop.

Who the hell does she think she is running for President.

This is an op my old friend Armstead would have never written. I'm really sorry to see it.

This is my first post in GD P in days. One of our conversations was a big reason for that. I know this isn't you.

Back to GD for me. I just don't want to read this crap anymore.

[Armstead]

97. It's an emotional point in the process for all sides

And I'm trying to behave. But I feel really strongly about what the Democrats do (or don't do) in this election, and I can't give up "'til the last dog dies" as Bill Clinton used to say. After it's all done, I'll either fade away from DU for a while and/or just gripe about Republicanss in GD and goof around in the Lounge.....

As for this post, I am simply being honest, including what I think she is good at.

It has nothing to do with gender. It's similar to Ted Kennedy. He was a really good Senator, but he tried to go higher because of the association with his brother, and made a mess of it. Fortunately he went back to work in the Congress and became a truly great Senator.

[NCTraveler]

98. Nothing in this primary is similar to what Kennedy did.

Nothing. That is how far you are reaching after your "the little lady is too ambitious" op.

There is simply no connection between Kennedy and Clinton here.

Please stop.

If you want to keep fighting the primaries there are so many aggressive and respectable ways to do so. This isn't who you are. You have a long history showing just that. Look at the example you just used as comparison.

Thanks

[Armstead]

102. Let's just agree to disagree on this

I can say quite honestly if Elizabeth Warren were running for President I would have supported her, as I would women like Jan Schiakovsky, Barbara Lee or any number of others.

[NCTraveler]

106. There is no agree to disagree on the tone of your op.

It's blatant.

There is no agree to disagree that your Kennedy comparison is flawed in every single way it can be analyzed.

[Armstead]

109. All I can say is read the previous post

This is not about gender in my eyes.

I am a huge admirer of Kennedy (he was my Senator for many years). I won't rehash my statement about him, except to say that my analysis was shared at the time by many many Democrats.

[asuhornets]

89. I'd have liked Sanders if he had been content to become a good Senator

but instead for some odd reason he wanted to be President with no experience..

[Armstead]

94. That's a legitimate criticism if you believe it

[Nonhlanhla]

96. Is this the newest version of the Bernie camp's claim that Hillary is "unqualified"?

'Cause that line worked so well for you folks in New York.

Now imagine if someone had written the following 8 years ago: "I'd have like Barack Obama if he'd been content to become a good senator ... I would have liked Obama if he had stayed at his level of competence." Tell me honestly, is there anyone who would not recognize the racism if someone had made such an argument? Is there anyone who would not hear this as "the black man is reaching too high, above his 'level of competence'; he is 'uppity'"... ?

Now replace "Obama" with "Hillary," as in the OP. What do you hear?

[Armstead]

99. If someone had said that and believed it that would not have been automatically racist

Equal opportunity means equal right to be scrutinized and evaluated.

Obama is great, and he has advanced solely on his own merits. I happily supported him.

But it would have been legitimate to question whether a first term Senator was ready to be president, whether AA, white, male or female or whatever demographic characteristic he possessed. It could be argued that if he had waited for another term or so, he might have been more seasoned, built more relationships with Congress and been more effective at battling the GOP and advancing the Democratic agenda.

[Nonhlanhla]

141. And yet this is not the kind of language that you usually hear about white men

What is Bernie's "level of competence"? He has hardly achieved much in his life. What was Bill Clinton's? He was only governor of Arkansas. Should we said that they should have stayed on their "level of competence"?

The only previous president that i can truly say should really have stayed on his level of competence is George W. Bush. HE deserved such condescending language. The nation's first presumptive female nominee (of a major party) does NOT deserve this kind of bullshit.

[Armstead]

154. What the hell are you talking about?

SO because she is a female Clinton's suitability for the office of president cannot be questioned?

I don;t think Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina are fiot to be president, is thatr sexist?

Your example of GW automatically negates your argument. And you are forgetting all the snipes about Ronald Reagan's intelligence and all of the questions abut Nixon's moral suitability for it. There is constant debate over whether Jimmy Carter was well suited for the job....Not to mention all of the candidates who did not get nominated or who lost.

My God

...Guess what? I'm not fit to be president. Almost no one I know is fit to be president. Very few public figures are fit to be president.

[Nonhlanhla]

161. You really don't get it, do you?

If you think Hillary is on the level of George W. Bush in intelligence and competence, then you have not paid attention. The man is a MORON. He deserved this kind of crap. Hillary, whether you agree with her policies or not, does not.

I'll spell this out to you as plainly as I can: your OP makes me want to vomit. It evokes some really bad memories for me, as a woman who's had this kind of "know your place" bullshit flung at me. Your language of "her level of competence" is really badly chosen. Your reflexive denials mean NOTHING. Your OP is hurting the feelings of a lot of women here, because it reminds us all too clearly of the realities of the glass ceiling. If you are indeed sincere, then LISTEN to us and don't persist in this bullshit.

[Armstead]

198. No I don't

Why is it okay to demean Sanders' abilities, question his motives and ambitions, say he is running a scam, is grouchy and unpleasant, is too strident...etc.

But it is not okay to question anything about Clinton without being called sexist? Is no discussion of her personal qualifications allowed because she is a woman?.

I'm serious. Are we just supposed to not criticize anything about her? How is normal political discourse supposed to occur if nothing bad can be said because of her gender because we might use some word that is considered verboten?

What if she becomes President? Does that mean all criticism of her handling of the job, her performance and her policies off limits?

[Nonhlanhla]

200. Several people here have explained this to you OVER AND OVER

You CHOOSE not to understand.

You did not just question a policy issue of Hillary's. You used trigger language that many women have had to hear so many times in our lives: that we should not hope for too much, that we should be content, that women have their "level of competence" (which is always set as lower than that of men).

You are not serious. A serious person listens to the heartfelt responses of other human beings.

Bye bye.

[Armstead]

204. Okay answer me this

Things like this are said endlessly:

"Bernie Sanders is a grouchy unpleasant man and I can't stand to listen to him yelling."

"Sanders is only keeping the campaign going because his outsize ego is out of control."

"Sanders should have just stayed in the Senate."

"Sanders does not have the temperament to be a leader."

"Bernie Sanders is not electable. He totally unqualified to be president."

"Sanders is just a manipulative opportunist.'

"Sanders is running a giant scam. His campaign is just a con job."

etc.

Why are these things acceptable? Why can't they be considered anti-male, or anti-Semetic? If any of these things are said about Clinton is that sexist? Why is one candidate allowed to be criticized, and the other isn't?

AND

How are we supposed to ever discuss or criticize Clinton as candidate or president without being sexist? Are absolutely no critical words -- or even phrases that might hint at sexism -- allowed? If that is the case, how is any political discourse supposed to happen regarding the White House over the next four or eight years?

None of the explanations have answered that.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

101. Personally

I feel like it's Bernie who is "out of his depth" as far as potentially being POTUS is concerned. He has one or two issues that he passionately cares about and knows something about and has a plan for (sort of)- which would make him a good activist Senator-but he doesn't seem to have the kind of broad base of knowledge that would make him a good POTUS. Hillary has experience from being actively engaged on national/international issues as First Lady, US Senator, and a Secretary of State, so she has a wide exposure to a lot of different experiences IMHO that give her a better foundation for being POTUS.

[Armstead]

103. That's fair

I don't agree, but appreciate your reasons and tone about it.

[Beacool]

108. Of all the condescending bullshit I have read on this site, yours must be near the top.

"I would have liked Clinton if she had stayed at her level of competence and been content to be a Democratic warhorse Senator from New York."

Ahem, what's Sanders? Oh yeah, he's a senator. I guess it's OK for him to run for president, and join a party he criticized for years so that he could use its resources, but Hillary didn't care about the people of her state after serving as their senator for 8 years? How long was Obama in the Senate? A mere 2 years.

Hillary is winning the Democratic primary because registered Democrats are voting for her in larger number than are voting for Sanders. It's not that complicated.

Hillary will be a good and effective president. Something I doubt that Sanders would have ever been.

[Armstead]

111. I was sincere in the positive things I said about her Senate potential.....and if you think...

...Sanders in not qualified, fine. That's what makes politics and horse racing.

We will only know whether she turns out to be an effective president and good for the country in 4 to 8 years.

Otherwise I stand by what I said.

[VulgarPoet]

122. I won't hold my breath.

I'll watch the temperatures continue to rise, hear about the people I trained with dying in another middle-eastern sandpit, and watch the economy just get worse. I know full well what side she's buttering her bread on.

[Skinner]

123. Martin O'Malley wasn't content to stop at governor.

Was that a character flaw for him too?

Barack Obama wasn't content to stop at Senator.

Was that a character flaw for him too?

John Kerry wasn't content to stop at Senator.

Was that a character flaw for him too?

Howard Dean wasn't content to stop at governor.

Was that a character flaw for him too?

Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton -- not content to stop at governor.

Was that a character flaw for them too?

Name ONE Democrat who was a serious contender for president of the United States (other than Hillary Clinton) whose ambition to be president was considered a legitimate argument against their candidacy. Name one.

[Fronkonsteen]

137. The argument isn't about ambition as a character flaw

The argument is about experience and judgement, and her lack thereof. THAT is a legitimate argument against her candidacy.

Ambition itself is neither good nor bad, it's the motivation behind it and direction of it that engenders admiration or alarm.

[bettyellen]

142. It is precisely about her ambition- the OP has created a literal glass ceiling for Clinton.

The reactions he is getting are to people recognizing how common that is. Warren faced the same in her senate run- and will again if she tries for higher office.

[Armstead]

160. No. Everyone has their own built in glass ceiling -- or to put another way a skill set

It is legitimate to disagree on whether she or Bernie or any otehr individuals have the qualifications to be president. But please don't put it all in gender categories.

I can think of very few people of either gender who are qualified to be President. It requires exceptional abilities and an extreme and unique mix of skills and personal qualities. Therefore a political glass ceiling exists for the vast majority of the population, including most people in Washington. We have seen what happens when people who do not have that combination do become president.

Most people have innate talents and abilities, and limitations. That is not the same as a glass ceiling.

I'm great at my job. I do what I do really well, and I get compliments all the time.

There is a possible step up in my particular career. I have never been tempted to take it because I know that it requires abilities and qualities i do not have. I would be lousy at it. So I focus on doing the best I can at what i know I'm best suited for.

Gender not involved in that.

[bettyellen]

162. When you have dozens of people explaining they hear you quaking like a duck- it is time to pause...

for reflection my friend. You are better than this.

[Armstead]

165. Do me a favor please. Explain something.

I will grant that you believe she is the best person for the job.

But if you assume that i am sincere in my opinion that she is not a person who should be president because she does not have the very rare qualities for that job -- how am I supposed to say it without being "sexist"?

If you accept that I honestly believe that she and her husband and the network of alliances and power and wealth associated with them has stifled new leadership and prevented many qualified potential candidates -- male and female -- from running how do i explain that without being sexist?

(I would note that they all but kidnapped Obama in 2008, in their effort to prevent him from becoming president. And they disparaged his qualifications and competence in fairly insulting ways.)

If I honestly believe that she could been a very accomplished Senator, how do I say that without imposing a glass ceiling?

Why can such things be said about the unsuitability of many politicians, but somehow she is supposed to be immune from such observations and criticisms?

Quack quack

[Armstead]

155. By definition, anyone who wants to be president is ambitious

That was not my point.

[Skinner]

167. The title of your OP very clearly criticizes Hillary Clinton...

...based on the fact that she was not content to stay in the Senate.

Seems pretty obvious here that the problem is her desire to go beyond the Senate.

Of course, this isn't about ambition. It's about "staying at her level of competence" which for Hillary is the Senate.

Martin O'Malley, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton -- which of these other Democratic contenders for president should have been content to "stay at their level of competence" and not run for president?

[bettyellen]

175. I think a lot of people are unaware of all the research into attitudes toward women with

ambition. Some of the most interesting stuff I have seen has been posted by our Lioness Priyanka. I wish I could find her links.

I wish there was a way to judge women blindly- like the curtains classical musicians use for auditions now. Those orchestra heads swore they had no bias against women musicians... but when the results are so skewed, we know there is a problem. And there is a problem with women who dare to be powerful.

Thanks for chiming in here Skinner! Looking forward to some community standards returning to DU soon.

[runaway hero]

195. For Obama and Dukakis

Obama had only been in there for one term and Dukakis was unprepared, to put it mildly.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

126. You are describing 99% of all current and former American politicians for the past 50 years or more.

On one hand you can name the exceptions.

Bernie would be one.

But here is your logic if you wont vote for her no matter what.

I am now going to set a bar that no politician other than Bernie can reach, and will not vote for anyone who cant reach it

Result of that, suicide.

[bettyellen]

129. I hope you take time to reflect on the responses you have gotten here.

[NurseJackie]

174. ... and apologize.

[auntpurl]

130. Don't you want to be better than this?

You're generally a good writer, but you are justifiably getting shellacked for this OP. I'm willing to believe you "didn't mean to be sexist", but you were. You've never been a woman - you don't know how it feels to be told to know your place, and anything that sounds like that is a massive dog whistle, whether you meant it or not. Take your spanking, and maybe instead of reflexively denying sexism, think about what it must feel like for women to read this when they've been told, vocally and without words, to know their place their whole lives.

[Nonhlanhla]

144. Thank you. THIS.

This OP makes me want to vomit because it evokes so many bad memories.

[seabeyond]

132. I would have liked Sanders if he had stayed in his place, too. Not gotten so uppity and mouthy.

[basselope]

159. Take out the words "content to become" and I'm with you.

Unfortunately, she was a LOUSY Senator and even worse secretary of state.

I have no issue with her ambition.. the problem is lacks the qualifications and resume to be president.

She's like a kid with a low SAT score and poor grades trying to get into Harvard and for some reason, people seem to think it is okay.

[carburyme]

168. Really?

Unfortunately, he was a lousy senator..

I have no issue with his ambition.. the problem is he lacks the qualifications and resume to be president.

He's like a kid with a low SAT score and poor grades trying to get into Harvard and for some reason, people seem to think it is okay.

I can play that game too..

[basselope]

170. My game has actual facts.

HE didn't vote for the Iraq War
HE didn't vote for the Bankruptcy Bill
HE didn't push for the regime change in Syria.
HE didn't negotiate for a lower minimum wage in Haiti.
HE doesn't have a string of broken promises in his wake.

So, yeah, you can "play" the game, but you don't have the facts to back up your statements.

[kcr]

211. People seem to think that's okay. Yep, that's how elections work.

The people get to decide. Politics is different from trying to get into Harvard, or interviewing for a job. In instances like job interviews and college acceptance, the beam of focus on the candidate is narrower. For a politician, they have a much larger beam of the electorate determining whether they're qualified for the position. For them, millions of people are trying to determine who is qualified, and they all have different parameters when making that decision.

I'm not saying that candidates shouldn't consider whether or not they're qualified going in, but that there isn't the same, objective lists of qualifications like there are for candidates of Harvard, who also have a much smaller group of people determining if they get in. It isn't quite the same thing. Politics is also, or should be, a goal oriented towards service, whereas Harvard is a more self-serving goal, at least initially.

[basselope]

212. You can use the same criteria for judgment.

When deciding how someone will preform in office you look at their past record... did they make the right calls at the right time.

Too many people think the political resume is a check box

"Served as senator" Check
"Served as secretary of state" Check.

When in reality performance in those jobs should be a major part of the consideration, just like a school application.

If you look at Clinton's performance on the job, it was very VERY poor.

[kcr]

213. You can. But you can use any criteria for judgment.

That's my point. That's why you can't compare running for office to applying for a job or college. It isn't the same. It isn't one person or a committee of people using a pre-determined checklist.

Not everyone thinks Clinton did poorly. This isn't a small body of people using a narrowly defined checklist. Therefore you can't objectively say that Clinton should know better than apply, not the way you could with a position where the parameters are known. Everyone's ideas of what qualifies her for the job will be different. Republicans will tend to think a liberal is less qualified, for example.

It's still sexist to tell a woman that she should know her place regardless, but I still felt it was relevant to point out the difference. Given how subjective it is, it seems especially egregious to tell a politician that they should know their place and not run.

[basselope]

214. There are many things with near universal agreement.

Is there anyone left who thinks the Iraq War vote was a good idea?

Knowing that, is there anyone who still supports the Libya decision which she pushed?

The e-mail scandal alone should disqualify her, not because she did anything wrong, but because it was SUCH poor judgment. She broke the very rules she set for her own staff.

If this is your resume.. how can you make a case you are qualified or have the judgment to be a leader?

It's like Carly Fiorina applying to run my company.. I wouldn't give her the job.

[kcr]

215. But those are your specific standards ranked in importance by you.

They aren't the objective and established qualifications that everyone will rank equally as important when making the decision. I'm not saying that list is absolutely unique to you or that a lot of people wouldn't agree with it. I'm just saying that there isn't a singular list. There are many standards that you haven't mentioned, a vast number that are arguably just as important.

[basselope]

217. What are those?

[kcr]

219. What do you mean, what are those?

Are you claiming your issues you listed are the only possible ones? That you know of no others? Do you actually want me to list some?

If your claim that there's only one list, and everyone agrees this is the list were true, then why would we even have elections?

[basselope]

220. The issues that she has a solid resume and track record on?

The problem is I can't find ANY.

Fiscally, she is a mess. Voted for the bankruptcy bill, supported free trade agreements, has close ties to wall street.

Health care she is a mess. Has taken single payer off the table, campaigns on universal health COVERAGE (ie, INSURANCE) instead of health care. Doesn't propose even a path towards a single payer system.

LBGT issues, she is a mess. She was against gay marriage for years and only flipped that after public opinion flipped on the issue.

Pro choice she is a mess. She is not 100% unequivocally pro-choice. She is okay with restrictions being in place at later times in pregnancy.

Foreign policy she is a mess. We have already gone over this.

So where is her resume that qualifies her for office?

[kcr]

221. No, that wasn't the question

The question was what what do people consider when they decide who to vote for. Because I was explaining that running for office isn't the same as getting into Harvard or applying for a job. Voters aren't the same as an admissions officer or a member of the HR department.

You are one voter. That's what you think about and measure when you're making the decision. That doesn't therefore follow that she stepped out of bounds in deciding to be president, because there are millions of other voters.

[basselope]

225. It's actually exactly the same.

George bush got into Yale not based on his grades, but based on who he was... same with his daughter.

SOME people get in on merit.. SOME people get in, wildly under qualified.

Same thing happens in the job market.. some people get jobs based on qualifications and strong resume.

Others... it is because of who they know or horse trading of favors.

I don't see Hillary Clinton getting votes based on her resume, since her resume is so poor... she is skating by on her name and a couple of check boxes and lack of critical thinking by the electorate.. the same way George bush got into Yale.

[MFM008]

176. no HE needs to stay in the Senate

thats where he worked best.

[nolawarlock]

185. You might as well just say she should have stayed in the kitchen.

This kind of post is just so beneath us. She should have "stayed at her level of competence?" Really?

This just proves even further that Trump has changed the very foundation of what's acceptable in politics. To see these things on a website for progressive people saddens me deeply.

[Armstead]

205. Why is permissible to say similar things about Sanders?

"He should have just stayed in the Senate. He has no business running for president."

"It's all about his ego and opportunism."

Are statements like that sexist or anti-semetic?

[nolawarlock]

208. When did I say he should have stayed in the senate?

In fact, I was just on another post saying that he should be the VP.

So just because you can find someone else make such not so subtle jabs, it makes it ok for you to do so?

[LaydeeBug]

191. If she would have "just been content" and a "warhorse", eh?

I *bet* you don't think *you're* the problem, do you?

[pdsimdars]

216. But she had other, personal priorities. . .

.

[NurseJackie]

218. Kick.

[nolawarlock]

222. Oh thank god it's you.

For a moment, I thought they were trying to keep arguing this sexist trope. LOL

[NurseJackie]

223. The weekend crowd needs to see what passes ...

... these days, and the great lengths that some will go to in order to justify and deny rather than learn and apologize.

[nolawarlock]

224. It's just so disgusting.

I lay this all at the feet of Trump. He's changed the game of politics. Anything goes. Stockholm Syndrome. Stay in the Senate Kitchen. You name it. It's all fair game these days.

[Armstead]

227. trotskyites eh.Hey I've got a candidate for ya....

[Armstead]

230. Okay Rush....

andBTW, it's been 40 years since I was on a campus except when passing through

[Armstead]

234. I prefer Naomi, as in Klein..or

Howard...as in Zinn....

But Noam makes some good points too sometimes...But too depressing for my tastes

[Armstead]

236. I don't see how you can call Klein a fantasist...

I consider the Clintons as masters of fiction and fantasy.

But that's what makes horseracing.

Chomski tells many truths -- but he's goes too far and is too dour about it.

The ultimate truths about the way things work kinda suck if one follows their logical course.

[nolawarlock]

231. Ding ding.

Give that man a cookie. Brilliantly said.

[Katashi_itto]

240. What is really going on.

[brooklynite]

241. Yoy know, I just can't imagine why this messaging isn't working...

[NurseJackie]

245. And in spite of the failed message, it continues. Apparently ...

... it's more important to be defiant than conciliatory. That seems to be a theme of Sanders, and his campaign, and many of his supporters. Pride, ego, anger and stubbornness.

This thread has been very enlightening to me. There are some individuals that I'd previously admired and held in high regard. But now that they've shown their unapologetic true-colors, my esteem for these individuals has turned into contempt and disgust.

With regard to certain individuals, I have no respect for them at all. (I know, it's not as if these people actually care what I think of them. They probably welcome my disdain. But I think it's fair to say that if my opinion has changed, then it's fairly likely others are coming to the same conclusions as well.)

[brooklynite]

242. Was there a "more experienced and capable" candidate hou had in mind?

[Armstead]

244. I can think of a number -- male and female -- including ones I don't necessarily agree with