No, it doesn't look sexist at all. Uh uh. Nope. Nothing to see here...

[bravenak]

Doesn't it though? It kinda does to me. I mean, the first woman to win more delegates and become the presumptive nominee of a major US political party and here we go with the outraged cries of 'fraud', the comparisons to Margaret Thatcher, the lies about coronations and the dumb ass advice to us Hillary voters, that we should wait and find somebody better, nicer, more perfect than our candidate. Somebody more like their candidate. Somebody exactly like their candidate, who is perfect.

So tired of being told that now is not the time, that is not the 'right' woman, this man is better, she is too ambitious, too mean, too loud, too quiet, too hard, too soft, and that if I do not agree then, well, I am just using the ADVANTAGE I have of being born female over them and using my woman card. Makes me sick, ew.

Um, HI! Yes it does look sexist. And the fact that folks sit around trying to tell us what type of woman would be acceptable when we never ever ever ever use a man's masculinity against him in politics should be your first damn clue that it is sexist. And no, I do not care if you are a woman and feel those feelings against her and have the same objections. That you agree just shows how prevalent sexism is in this world.

She is going to be Candidate Hillary running against Donald Trump whether you think she is too tall, too short, to smiley, too stern, too happy, too sad, too bad, too gullible, too sharp, too dull, too bold, too shy. No matter what you think this is just what is going to happen period. Get used to imperfect women being able to do the same exact things as imperfect men. Too many double standards going on and people need to check themselves.

[CrowCityDem]

1. I'm sick of Bernie's arrogance demanding new rules for himself.

[bravenak]

3. Me too. Damn. Something new every damn day.

[AgingAmerican]

11. Democracy isn't fair!

Boo Hoo Hoo!

[Lord Magus]

54. I guess that must be Bernie's position since he's the one arguing against democracy.

That's what his call for a superdelegate coup amounts to.

[Beacool]

76. Good one.

[dchill]

202. "superdelegate coup"...

You mean like the one HRC & the DNC pulled before the primaries even started? Educate yourself.

[Lord Magus]

210. So it's a "coup" for about half the superdelegates to announce their endorsements early?

But it's not a coup if they were to announce after the voters have our say that superdelegates will overturn our democratic choice?

[Omaha Steve]

134. Hillary would never do such a thing

[uponit7771]

189. +1, then saying the same system the long shot black guy won with in 08 is "rigged" for his ass

[bravenak]

5. You are the only one think about that

Pretty gross

[seabeyond]

6. No jillian, I know this is way out there, but discussing women is not discussing genitals

but in a man's world that has the need to always reduce a woman to body parts, to dismiss, shame, humiliate or degrade. You play that game?

[jillan]

8. I don't base my vote for a candidate based on what body parts they have. I don't base my friends,

bosses anyone on that either!

People are people.

[PeaceNikki]

9. Nor do Clinton supporters.

[seabeyond]

10. You reduced Clinton to a body part. YOU. You reduce her supporters to body parts and voting

on body parts. Who does that? And we only do this with the one woman running. Are we talking about Sanders penis? I get the Repugs are, and how stupid do they look. It is the Sanders men that start the whole, voting with vagina. It was used to dismiss, degrade, shame and humiliate. Sanders women, Sarandon jumps on board with the guys.

None of us is voting with a vagina, nor for the vagina and how offensively stupid is it we have had to listen to Sanders supporters tell us this for a fuckin year.

[skylucy]

132. Yes! Why is it that the Sanders campaign thinks that the first woman to ever become the presumptive

nominee for President is supposed to pretend that she hasn't really won the nomination on Tuesday? Because Bernie refuses to accept reality, Hillary is supposed to play along so as not to hurt his inflated ego??? Would this be tolerated if a woman was in Sanders' position? NO IT WOULD NOT!!! Give me a break.

[HERVEPA]

156. and yet you comment this is sexism. Hard to believe Harry.

[Starry Messenger]

13. Neither do we. You're welcome.

And some people are sexists.

On Sun Jun 5, 2016, 06:26 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Another thread about genitals.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2132515

REASON FOR ALERT

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

YOUR COMMENTS

The only person to mention genitals in regard to sexism is this poster, who has been making this bigoted comment in other threads lately. (And no, it isn't any better because jillan is a woman's name. )

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Jun 5, 2016, 06:28 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this abuse of alert needs to stop. WTF?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[BobbyDrake]

20. You sure do seem to base your arguments on it though.

You were the first person on this thread to bring it up, and that's a fact.

[Cary]

213. So much negativity from Sanders supporters

I speak only for myself. I don't need Sanders supporters' negativity.

[seabeyond]

4. From start to finish, Clinton has been in the lead. Any man would be called successful. The bar just

is raised for Clinton, not good enough, should be winning by more. Her voters give her a decided win, but we dismiss them with coronation, anointment as if it was given to her. Over 3 million more votes makes a man a clear winner with a mandate. She wins Tuesday, but Sanders isn't man enough to hand her that win.

All thru this, she has shattered one glass ceiling after another, but we do not even get to celebrate those, because we are told none of it was enough.

Ya, pretty damn clear.

[bravenak]

7. Crystal damn clear

Getting sick of it. Real sick.

[mcar]

116. Well put, sea!

How is this so hard to get?

[skylucy]

133. So true.

[Whimsey]

163. Sanders is not man enough

Excellent point.

Men who are comfortable in their own skin are not intimidated to be beat by a woman (or a man). Sanders is as thin-skinned as they come.

(Although I personally think Jane is a driving force behind him). And the continuing campaign perks do not hurt either.

[GulfCoast66]

179. Yep

Southern middle aged and class male here.

Nothing makes me happier than having our first female President on the heels of our first African American President.

Really sticking it to the remaining racist and misogyist.

Love it.👍

[uponit7771]

191. +1

[treestar]

219. [phone]

She is being held to a higher standard, a lot like President Obama was.

Characterizations of her as too ambitious are openly sexist. Who would say that of any prior presidential candidates? It was never said.

[nilram]

228. From before the start, really, by 355 supers.

[m-lekktor]

12. Sorry. For me she is too right wing, it has nothing to do with gender.

She is HORRIBLE on the issues, something you all seem to like to avoid discussing which is understandable. Yes, it's about the ISSUES, it's as simple as that. Would you call me sexist because I don't support Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman? You Hillary people have truly become fucking ridiculous.

[seabeyond]

16. That is fine you do not vote for her because of issues. We are talking about the obvious sexism

that is going on that people who do not like her, won't vote for her, can still recognize. Like for the first time EVER, a man demands Clinton not receive what every man before her received. That would be sexism. Calling out sexism has nothing to do with liking a person.

[TeddyR]

29. There is no sexism

That is just an excuse for a poor candidate. So you really think she has 40% approval because of "sexism"?

[seabeyond]

33. No excuse. Clinton is kicking ass, perserving, is the fuckin WINNER. To call out the bullshit

is not making excuses. This is on Sanders and his actions and he will be disrespected for the behavior and denigrate himself. Clinton will deal with the sexism for all of her term, and do it graciously rising above and continue to be successful. It will be a conversation to be had, awareness to be had, just like Obama, a black man, stepping into the White House.

[TeddyR]

37. You ignored the point

40% approval. And she's winning. So where's the sexism?

[seabeyond]

45. People have been pretty damn articulate explaining the sexism to you.

[TeddyR]

68. Ah! Epiphany!

Instead of answering the question you point to the "people" who answered the question (but did not). Great deflection. The people on DU who oppose Hills don't do so because they are "sexist" or "socialist," they oppose her candidacy because she's a terrible politician without any particular positions other than those that benefit Hills. I'd like to know the three top policy positions that make you support Hills for president (the three things that make YOU support her).

[seabeyond]

71. Simple. A few words, a few sentence. After Tuesday, it is Clinton's nomination.

First time in history is a man denying the only woman a win. Sanders is making Demands that Clinton dare not call herself the winner.

That is the sexist behavior that he thinks he has that right, when never before would a man do that to another man, in this same situation.

[TeddyR]

75. That wasn't my question

What three policy positions make you support Hills? Three positions. That's a pretty small ask.

On edit, based on the number of your posts you've been on this website a LOT longer than me, so I respect your opinion. But the question still stands.

[seabeyond]

79. So, we redirect the whole conversation of this Op to what YOU want to talk about? No.

[TeddyR]

83. Very informative

[guillaumeb]

80. Some others are still waiting also.........

and I believe that it will be a long wait.

[skylucy]

128. Thank you !! Yes! I agree! HILLARY 2016!

[bravenak]

34. Bull

The poor candidate is millions of votes behind. What excuse is there for not beating her if she is so awful? None.

[TeddyR]

40. So you think a person

Who has the worst favorable ratings ever, and who is under active investigation by the FBI, is a good candidate?

[apcalc]

88. She is NOT under investigation by the FBI.

[PeaceNikki]

43. Yes. America loves women like Hillary Clinton–as long as they’re not asking for a promotion

It’s hard to remember these days, but just a few years ago, everybody loved Hillary Rodham Clinton. When she stepped down as US secretary of state in January 2013 after four years in office, her approval rating stood at what the Wall Street Journal described as an “eye-popping” 69%. That made her not only the most popular politician in the country, but the second-most popular secretary of state since 1948.

The 2012 “Texts from Hillary” meme, which featured a sunglasses-clad Clinton scrolling through her Blackberry aboard a military flight to Libya, had given rise to a flood of think pieces hailing her “badass cool.” The Washington Post wanted president Barack Obama to give vice president Joe Biden the boot and replace him with Clinton. Taking stock of Clinton’s approval ratings, Nate Silver noted in a 2012 piece for the New York Times that she currently held “remarkably high numbers for a politician in an era when many public officials are distrusted or disliked.”

How times have changed. “The FBI And 67 Percent of Americans Distrust Hillary Clinton,” booms a recent headline in the Huffington Post. Clinton’s favorability ratings currently hover around 40.8%. Bob Woodward complains that “there is something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating.” “Hillary’s personality repels me,” Walker Bragman writes in Salon.

How can we reconcile the “unlikable” Democratic presidential candidate of today with the adored politician of recent history? It’s simple: Public opinion of Clinton has followed a fixed pattern throughout her career. Her public approval plummets whenever she applies for a new position. Then it soars when she gets the job. The wild difference between the way we talk about Clinton when she campaigns and the way we talk about her when she’s in office can’t be explained as ordinary political mud-slinging. Rather, the predictable swings of public opinion reveal Americans’ continued prejudice against women caught in the act of asking for power.

This is a great piece. Much more at link: http://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion/

[skylucy]

135. So true.

[k8conant]

140. Rather strange article excerpt...

but I suppose it's in keeping with the tenor of this thread.

[PeaceNikki]

141. Strange how?

It's the first couple paragraphs and on point to the discussion of the subthread: her approval ratings.

I think it's weird that you think it's strange.

[k8conant]

143. Strange because I don't think it's true...

even less so after reading the entire article.

After all the only elected position Hillary held was U.S. Senator from New York. I have never voted for her.

I vote based on principles not personalities.

I would never ever vote for Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) for president (and have never voted for her for Senator or Representative. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my denigrating her (or Hillary's) ambition. It has to do with my voting my conscience.

OTOH, I have voted for Natalie Tennant for U.S. Senator and Virginia Graf for Congress (2nd District-WV), on principle.

Having said that, I see that some women do vote for women just because they are women.

[PeaceNikki]

145. Concern: duly noted.

[uponit7771]

192. The establishment usually has a hard time recognizing oppression of marginalized people

[bravenak]

23. I just alerted a post that called her a hag

So it might not be you saying this shit, but it is being said. No need to defend any of it.

[think]

14. Hillary broke govt rules & lied about it. That's just bad behavior regardless...

[seabeyond]

19. She has the vote. She won. She gets the nomination. Sanders behavior is atrocious.

Your comment has nothing to do with this OP. Two separate issues.

[bravenak]

24. She won

[TeddyR]

31. Great

So sexism isn't an issue

[bravenak]

38. Yes it is

I'll let you know when it is not, k?

[seabeyond]

41. Hey Brave, how many times have you heard racism is CURED because Obama was elected? Ever? Nt

[bravenak]

55. I heard the cure was for us to stfu about it.

[seabeyond]

57. Lmfao. Ya. And that. Nt

[seabeyond]

39. The racist argument. There is no racism, Obama became president. Brilliant. A true progressive.

[think]

46. How does that justify lying and breaking rules?

[bravenak]

47. It says the cries of fraud are bullshit

Nobody is perfect. She admitted her faults. Time to move on.

[think]

53. She hasn't admitted shit. She got called out by the Inspector General and is still lying about it.

The only ones who have moved on are her die hard supporters that won't acknowledge the truth.

[bravenak]

58. I watched her say she'd do it differently. See? Admitted a fault. Unlike some people

[think]

78. Good luck with that...

[George II]

217. And the inspector general said she did NOT break any laws.

[think]

220. Clinton email server broke government rules, watchdog finds

Clinton email server broke government rules, watchdog finds
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0YG21Z

Inspector general’s email report lists Hillary…


CLINTON: “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.” — AP interview, September.

THE REPORT: “No evidence” that Clinton asked for or received approval to conduct official government business on a personal email account run through a private server in her New York home. According to top State Department officials interviewed for the investigation, the departments that oversee security “did not — and would not — approve” her use of a personal account because of security concerns.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/27/ap-fact-check-clinton-misstates-key-facts-in-email-episode/

[George II]

221. "Rules" are not "laws".

[think]

223. As an employee of the government are you suppose to follow rules or break them?

[seabeyond]

52. We have caught Sanders lying, breaking the rules and possibly laws. I expect your consistency.

[apcalc]

90. She broke no rules.

[think]

107. Apparently you missed the memo:

Hillary Clinton broke the rules: Our view

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/30/hillary-clinton-email-server-inspector-general-editorials-debates/85159948/

[truebrit71]

131. Please don't confuse them with facts...

....

[uponit7771]

193. Hillary breaking rules is a plus for her, she needs to break some more

[George II]

216. She didn't. Period.

[think]

218. LOL. You keep telling youself that...

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/27/ap-fact-check-clinton-misstates-key-facts-in-email-episode/

[The Straight Story]

15. How easy it is. Don't like what someone says, claim sexism to avoid discussion

In 2008 DU primaries basically ended up being everyone here was either sexist or racist.

Now maybe it is ageism and sexism.

Could be that some people just don't like some candidates based on their personality, ideas, history, etc. Same as in every election ever.

[Haveadream]

44. Nothing is easy about racism and sexism

In fact, it is the only reason women and minorities continue to have grossly unequal access to rights and positions of power. Unless of course you think there is something inherent in women and minorities that prevents them from having the acumen to achieve that. It could be that discrimination operates over and above their personalities, ideas, history, etc. Same as in every election ever.

[The Straight Story]

56. Such things warrant serious discussion. Labeling things sexist because you don't like them

isn't an argument. It is an accusation which people throw out and hide behind.

You can have a million reasons you can't stand a certain candidate and some people will stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala sexism, you don't like her because she isn't a man, lalalala"

That isn't discussion or debate.

If someone says "She shouldn't be president because women x,y,z" yeah, that's some sexism. Not everything is though and just shouting out that accusation doesn't make it true.

[Haveadream]

70. The topics of racism and sexism have been discussed seriously

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

throughout every campaigns of Obama and Hillary. It is of no surprise that those who dispute the seriousness of the charges are those who also dispute the suitability of both candidates.

[aikoaiko]

17. I think Bernie would be doing the same thing if it were Bill instead of Hill.

He's bucking the establishment and convention. He always has been.

[seabeyond]

21. And we do not believe it. We will never know. What I do know, he has never attacked a man

like he has attacked the handful of women in this race. Not even Republicans. So some of us may feel that Sanders behavior alone pushes toward another conclusion.

[aikoaiko]

77. I guess its true that we will never know, but he has hard very harsh words for republicans.

He has already said that Hillary is better than Trump months ago and that he would support her over any Republican. I

[seabeyond]

82. Nothing compared to how he has talked to or dismissed women thru out. He doesn't

go after Trump like he goes after Clinton, DWS, PP Richards, women teachers the old bitches, or moms oppressing the kids sexuality. I never hear him talk to or about men like he has toward women.

Just a person opinion, mommy issues.

Edit: One man. Obama. A black man. Oh... another man. Frank. A gay.

[aikoaiko]

89. He didn't criticize those leaders in the party because of their gender, race, or sexual orientation

but because of their actions, policies, and anti-Bernie statements.

And his rhetoric has much harsher against Trump than HRC.

[seabeyond]

95. It is ALWAYS women he says something to, but the men that are doing the same? Not so much.

[aikoaiko]

102. Ok, maybe someday maybe we'll see and understand each other better,

but today is not that day.

[seabeyond]

103. Lol aikoaiko.

Here is the thing, beyond all this. I have been listening to you for a couple months, and on opposite sides of the street, I have respected your posts. You seem at a peace, I hadn't seen for a while, or something.

Anyway, Ok. Later. Thanks.

[Lord Magus]

60. Bucking the establishment or just going on an ego trip?

At this point it's more of the latter.

[aikoaiko]

69. At this point? See that's the thing. Bernie's been very consistent (albeit imperfectly)

in his career, but him staying in to the very end is perfectly consistent with his stubborn advocacy of a liberal cause.

I applaud his tenacity. He could have conceded and had HRC folks stroke him like a nice pet. Instead he is availing himself to every option to win as many votes and delegates as possible even though he really can't win. Its important for the agenda to earn as many votes and delegates as possible.

HRC is already attacking Trump (as she should, and as Bernie has been) and he will support her by the end of the convention.

[radical noodle]

142. Here's where he has not been consistent

Early in the primaries he said many times that super delegates should not decide the nominee. He said it would not be fair if he got the most votes and the most delegates, but then lost to Hillary because of the super delegates. Now he's flipped and says even though Hillary has (and will continue to have) the most delegates and the most votes the super delegates should choose him and over turn the will of the people. So he's a populist when it suits him but not when he's losing.

[aikoaiko]

144. Maybe so, but I'd need to look at what Bernie said exactly.

Because I remember him hammering on the superdelegates but that was when 400+ had declared there loyalty to HRC before a single voter had voted.

But I agree that if he said it the way you said it, then that would be inconsistent.

[Lord Magus]

212. So 400+ superdelegates announcing their preference for Hillary before the primaries = bad.

But 400+ superdelegates deciding to hand the nomination to Bernie after the voters say no would = good?

[aikoaiko]

214. I think an argument can be made that in neither case is the will of the people the main issue.

But I the later the SD are informed by the vote andthe candidates' campaigns.

Having said that even as a Bernie supporter I don't think the the SDs should massively sitch over but probably some of those who declared early should given the vote and campaign. I don't think we are in a situation that warrants the SD saving the party.

[Whimsey]

170. It's the campaign contributions stupid...

Bernie is staying in to get as much money to spend on his trips and staff as he can. He knows he cannot convince the superdelegates to switch, but he has lived better in the last six months than he has in his entire life. Hard to give that up.

[bravenak]

174. Very hard to give that up

[aikoaiko]

215. I don't know if that is true. Bernie has a pretty sweet life in Burlington.

I think it is hard to give up a campaign when you've come so close and do see much benefit to conceding.

At least Hillary was promised help to erase $12 million dollars in debt from loaning her campaign money from her self. Plus I'm sure there was a place in Obama's admin on the table.

Hillary can't offer Bernie much.

[Lord Magus]

209. Blind stubbornness is not praiseworthy.

It's one thing to be tenacious when victory is still possible, it's quite another if he keeps campaigning after crossing the line from merely unlikely to mathematically impossible. Bernie says he's going to do the latter. Now maybe that's because he really still believes he's going to pull off a sufficiently large comeback in California, and thinks he needs to say he'll never give up to pump up the enthusiasm of his voters. But if he really does intend to "take it to the convention" no matter what the voters say, that's just stubborn refusal to admit defeat even after it's already happened.

[Haveadream]

105. Bernie IS the establishment when it serves his purpose

And can take some very right wing positions as well, especially when it pays. He is a superdelegate and party insider and has exercised that power and enjoyed those perks. He takes campaign money from the NRA. He uses beltway insiders to run his campaign. He arranged for a paid seat for his wife on the board of a Bush crony organization that dumps nuclear waste on poor Hispanic communities in Texas. He voted for the Crime bill. His state has the worst black incarceration rate in the country. He voted against women being able to know their rapist's HIV status. He celebrates victories in what he knows are undemocratic caucuses. He voted to allow VT dairy farmers to use poor illegal migrant workers at slave wages and conditions because it helped protect their profits. He uses money from the Democratic campaign funding resources. He takes money from the health insurance industry. He supported the military industrial complex to the tune of a $1.2 trillion. Now he wants Party insiders to overturn the votes of more than 3 million people.

That my friends, is establishment.

[seabeyond]

106. Excellent post. Thanks. Nt

[Haveadream]

110. Thanks, seabeyond!

[brer cat]

124. Walking away with this thread!

[sufrommich]

18. Well said. nt

[bravenak]

30. It feels like all of it is coming out right now. Sick!

[Yavin4]

22. The woman who won more delegates and votes should relent to a male in 2nd place

That's is cold, hard, naked male privilege right there.

[bravenak]

27. It sure is blatant

[TeddyR]

32. The woman

Under investigation by the FBI with the worst approval rating in ever?

[seabeyond]

35. Yes. Nt

[Starry Messenger]

36. This.

[skylucy]

137. Yes! Absolutely!

[Maven]

158. Yup!

[uponit7771]

195. +1

[guillaumeb]

25. One tiny little word of qualification in all this:

Some. Yes the word some. Some of the criticism is clearly sexist. it is bad enough that the GOP has formally declared war on women, among others, but when some Democrats enlist in this war that is really depressing.

But if I speak about HRC's past support for some of the worst (in my opinion) of William Clinton's accomplishments, is that sexist or a reflection of my opinion?

It is my personal opinion that William Clinton governed more as a GOP moderate than as a Roosevelt Democrat. And when HRC expressed her support for these GOP-lite accomplishments of William Clinton that makes her, in my eyes, just as regressive as William Clinton.

But to equate all criticism of HRC as inevitably sexist is just as reductionist as a male who talks about women being "too emotional" to be a leader.

[bravenak]

28. And I am not saying all of it is sexist

But the stuff I describe? Sexism. Period

[seabeyond]

50. Point. You are sure to draw point that it is SOME. then.... "But to equate all criticism of HRC as"

"But to equate all criticism of HRC as inevitably sexist"

You have the audacity to suggest we women are saying and have been saying that ALL criticism toward Clinton always.

Now. No. never in the history of this campaign, nor ever has ANYONE ever said, that ALL criticism of Clinton is sexist. Not close. Not kinda, not sorta.

Your post is dismissive.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

26. K&R nt

[BlueStater]

42. What a stupid fucking thread.

A new low for Hillary supporters. They're as whiny and entitled as their candidate.

[bravenak]

49. Best thread on du

[skylucy]

138. Yes! Great thread!

[leftinportland]

48. Too corrupt

[bravenak]

51. Show me some criminal charges or you are just saying stuff that sounds bad to you for attention

[leftinportland]

96. I'm the last one around here that needs attention...

[bravenak]

99. Cant tell

[Peachhead22]

59. She'd be the first woman and Sanders would be the first Jewish guy

So what? I vote for policies and honesty and integrity and stuff like that. Not gender or religion. Silly me, I thought it was the other guys that put more stock in who a person was instead of what that person thinks.

[bravenak]

62. Well. She will reach her mark by Tuesday and we can move on

History made.

[AuntPatsy]

61. Agree that for many, the sexism cannot be ignored, at the same time you have to admit

that not everyone feels the way others do nor are thier behaviors equal though it might appear that way, no need to sound as if everyone is at fault...

for the most part I still have yet to be comfortable enough to ignore my warning signs regarding both candidates for the democratic run for president....

I've watched, read, listened, studied and to be honest I'm not sure it's possible at present for a candidate to ignore the true leaders of this country or that one can get themselves free from the dangers of corruption becoming the norm in order to I assume be heard...

I try to ignore a lot of the supporters comments that border on unwarranted just plain ugliness, I do not blame the candidate since we are in control of ourselves...

I know no one in this world that deserves my utmost loyalty and trust, no one and I do sense a strange adoring audience, very uncomfortable to witness, but I try to give others the benefit of the doubt and it's not always easy to do...

I admire both and yet I can't help but be leery.

I don't view Trump as a threat, so I don't fear his winning, he's a kardashian wanna be reality tv celebrity and sooner or later his mindless followers will turn on him, people like them always do....its just a matter of time before the script changes in order to retain its viewing audience..

[bravenak]

63. I don't think anybody is going to please everybody

I have my reservations about both. I cannot wait for Trump's people to turn on him though. That brough a smile to my face. He deserves it.

[mcar]

64. I agree completely

[bravenak]

65. This is almost over!!

Than we can fight Trump!! Finally! Instead of hillary! Would be nice!

[Ken Burch]

66. The issue is her conservatism on key issues, not her gender.

We'd be fighting to the end against Biden, too(and he'd be running on the exact same set of issues and be just as unelectable).

[bravenak]

67. That is not what this thread is about

And those who use sexist criticism know who they are.

[TeddyR]

72. I'd be interested to see some examples

Of "sexist criticism" against Hills from Bernie.

[bravenak]

73. Go look for them if you are feeling a desire to see such

[TeddyR]

81. So you have none?

Great. Good job supporting your position.

[bravenak]

84. I don't run a link farm or ranch or orchard, even

I leave that to my fans

[TeddyR]

86. Very fitting

Hillary also talks and talks and never says anything substantive.

[bravenak]

87. Umm hmm

[mcar]

122. Indeed

They are all over this board.

[bravenak]

123. Seriously

[truebrit71]

136. There you go ruining a perfectly good rant with facts....

How dare you....

[Beacool]

74. Hear, hear!!!!

[TheFarseer]

85. I resent being called sexist

I thought the other candidate was better because of his positions and record on issues. Not enough people agreed with me. Quit being a sore winner.

[bravenak]

94. Who wrote your name in this op? Not me.

If you exhibit these signs, it ain't on me to be fixin

[TheFarseer]

117. If you're not talking about Bernie voters

Then I guess I missed the point. My mistake.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. The only Thatcher thing I saw came from a Hillary supporter's twitter feed.

[bravenak]

100. I saw it here and it was hidden

[Cali_Democrat]

104. ....

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1149442

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511981982

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511762248

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251835271

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251843933

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251849933

Would you like me to continue?

[Warren DeMontague]

111. I guess you win, congratulations.

I was talking about today, but whatever.

Hey- at least unlike some people, when I'm wrong I stick around and admit it, instead of running away to hide in my little safe space.

[azurnoir]

203. How is comparing a woman that wants to be POTUS to other woman that have been head of state sexist?

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. It IS the right time, and she IS NOT the right woman. And frankly...

I don't give a fuck if you think my feeling like that is sexist.

I just don't.

[bravenak]

93. I don't care if you don't care

I say what I see, it is what it is

[R B Garr]

97. Thank you, brave! It is very obvious now that Sanders' feels extremely comfortable in

exerting his male authority, and his reasons for doing so are not completely rational and contradict his earlier positions, but he doesn't care because he doesn't have to.

That's all you can call it when a man refuses to acknowledge that he got beat by a woman. His authoritarianism and moral "preening"* have been on full display and are his main campaign barbs, but his descending into this full-out confrontation and denial of his circumstances comes from some reservoir of self-entitlement and privilege that he is entitled to an innate advantage and he doesn't have to explain it in rational terms. He just gets to live it out because he decided that's his right.

*"moral preening" is something I read about Sanders in a pundit's article, and it struck me as a very apt description/

[bravenak]

101. Perfect!!!! You said what I feel.

Moral preening without a leg to stand on

[NastyRiffraff]

108. "Moral preening"!

That's just perfect.

Sanders acts like he thinks he's better, more moral, more pure than anyone else. That annoying finger-wagging looks like somebody scolding a three year old. Or a woman.

Yes, Virginia, there is rampant sexism, both by Sanders and certainly on DU. "Voting with your vagina," "Playing the woman carc," etc. etc. And no, nobody said every Sanders supporter is sexist, so let's not drag that straw man out.

BTW, I vote with my brain. My vagina has other things to do.

[Il_Coniglietto]

98. "Get used to imperfect women being able to do the same exact things as imperfect men."

Every single man elected president since the founding of our nation has been flawed, some deeply. And yet, not once has someone suggested we not elect them because they're too flawed to represent their sex.

But after nearly 230 years of male presidents--when the most knowledgeable, experienced, and prepared candidate is a woman who can actually win it all--the discussion suddenly turns to, "the first female president must be perfect!!"

FUCK. THAT.

[bravenak]

109. Kinda obvious what is going on here...

Glad to see we finally made it. On to the GE.

[Il_Coniglietto]

112. Isn't it?

I just remind myself two things: 1. how beautiful the morning of November 9th, 2016 will be, and 2. as much as I'll miss President Obama, January 20th, 2017 will be a glorious, GLORIOUS day!

Until then

[bravenak]

113. I am so glad we can pass the torch from him to her

I am RELIEVED AS HELL to have Hillary. It's not the same as my youthful enthusiams, but it's just as comforting and inviting. I can be sure that she won't get all crazy like the Don and start dropping nukes on Europe. I still cannot believe he said that.

Time to make History and tell Donald, 'Not Hired!'.

[Il_Coniglietto]

114. Yes!! My other favorite mental image is

The very instant that Donald Trump realizes he has lost to Hillary Clinton. CNN or whoever better be there so I can save the image, print it onto t-shirts and hand them out in East LA.

Not that I have a plan or anything

[bravenak]

115. I want a tshirt please

Of his face and his wife half smiling at his loss.

[uponit7771]

196. +1

[Agnosticsherbet]

119. Jury results.

On Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:13 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

An anti-semite crying about sexism...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2133712

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster just came in to lob a personal insult. Personal attacks are a violation of the tos and this is very inappropriate. Please hide

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:19 PM, and the Jury voted 7-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The allegation of antisemitism is over-the-top.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Pretty cut and dried.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Absolutely unacceptable.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It appears the poster is making accusations that don't hold water and leveling an insult.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

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

[bravenak]

120. Good hide

Thank you!

[Agnosticsherbet]

121. Yes it was.

[still_one]

150. A very good hide indeed

[Cha]

159. Excellent Hide.. 7-Zip! They have nothing without their disingenuous personal attacks.

[truebrit71]

125. Total bullshit. I lived through Thatcher and about the only meaningful difference...

Is that Maggie wouldn't have been caught dead in a pantsuit...

[skylucy]

126. bravenak---THANK YOU!!!!! YES! I speak as another woman who is sick of the double standard!

HILLARY 2016!!!!!!

[bravenak]

129. No prob!!!! This is getting annoying!!

We have enough delegates now, but Hillary is kind enough to wait till Tuesday.

We are going to kick the Donald back to the stone age, where he belongs.

[brewens]

127. You left out too dishonest, too crooked and too many ties to the Banksters. n/t

[bravenak]

130. Nope!!!! Thanks anywayz.

[k8conant]

139. I see how prevalent your sexism is...

because you are calling us sexist because we happen to have chosen our candidate based on principles NOT on sex.

[PeaceNikki]

146. None of us Clinton supporters chose our candidate based on sex, either.

The fact it's a woman is just a bonus.

[bravenak]

147. Thank you

Jesus

[jack_krass]

171. Your post is quite possibly the most humorous thing I've ever read on this site.

[BreakfastClub]

160. I think you'd have to be crazy to support Bernie over Hillary if you're a woman and

you care about women's rights. Hillary has fought for women's rights her entire adult life. She has stood against misogyny even when she was viciously attacked for it--she has fought against sexism at every turn in her career. She is one of the bravest women I've ever seen.

For any woman not to support her is at best short-sighted, and at worst, a slap in the face to all women who have worked so fucking hard for women's equality. Susan B Anthony would be hanging her head in shame at this garbage of not taking sex into account when voting. It's stupid and it's wrong, but there were women who fought against the right of women to vote too, so she probably wouldn't be surprised.

Did black people vote based on skin color? Or maybe they realized that a black president would benefit them and society in a myriad of ways They were thrilled that a black person would be president of the US, and they had every right to be. Why can't women have that same excitement? Because the patriarchy taught us not to beat guys because they'll get threatened?? Because it's not "ladylike" to be competitive? What is wrong with women who would turn their backs on another woman? As Albright said, "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."

[k8conant]

184. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree

that I'm crazy to support the rights of all people.

You lose me with Albright's offensive statement. I am not going to help women who support war or Wall Street or bigotry or sexism or racism.

[Tragl1]

148. I read a lot of adjectives and descriptors

But I think the majority of people don't like her because of her policies, or changing thereof

For me it's her stance on fracking, and the TPP I don't trust she's not going to implement it. So...yeah, good luck with the unfavorable rating, oh and the honesty polling vs Trump, how does she lose that?

Oh well I have beer and popcorn.

[bravenak]

151. Well, I'm talkin about these other people

[Tragl1]

153. Fair point

Don't get me wrong, I am a Bernie supporter, but you bet your bottom dollar, comes down to it. I will throw my vote and a few bucks Clintons way, I'm a democrat. Thankful for Bernie, but realistic enough to support Clinton in the general if/when that happens.

My fear is the what the hell Trump does for an October surprise.

[bravenak]

154. Watch Trump quit the race when he slips down to 35 percent

He cannot lose without a tantrum. And he cannot respond to his own lies. Lies too much. Cant remember.

[Tragl1]

155. Honestly

I think he will quit if his merchandising brand "Trump" name gets so toxic it's no longer a viable means to make money. Maybe?

I prefer to call him the Maro Lago Musollini

But let's hope more organizations like the PGA tour start to pull out of events and places. That I think would deter him more so than bad press.

[bravenak]

157. I think you might be right about that

His branding is all he cares about. This was supposed to make him some money not make him a joke. He must be pissed!

[Bad Thoughts]

149. Too hawkish? Too conservative? Too corrupt? Too Nixonian?

You don't seem to mention those things.

And none of those labels seem particularly sexist.

[bravenak]

152. I was talkin about sexism, not whatever strawman you wanna tear up

[k8conant]

185. You seem to want to attribute any opposition to her to sexism

[bravenak]

188. No. Some of it is rightwing nonsense

[Lord Magus]

222. None of those labels seem particularly TRUE either. -nt-

[Bad Thoughts]

225. They are all debatable

Is she too hawkish? We have evidence to discuss this: her votes on Iraq, her defense of those votes, her policies on Honduras and the Middle East, etc.

Is she too conservative? We have evidence to discuss this: her use of conservative memes (free stuff) that undermine Democratic social policies, her advocacy for trade deals that don't protect labor or environment, her advocacy for traditional energy industries, etc.

Is she corrupt? We have evidence to discuss this: the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and her leadership of the DOS, her changing votes on banking and bankruptcy reforms with regard to political donations, etc.

Is she Nixonian? We have evidence to discuss this: her use of dogwhistle politics to divide the electorate (even the within the party), her conduct of health care reform out of public eye, her use of a private, unsecure server to conduct policy of DOS, refusal to divulge contents of public speeches, unwillingness to affirm public transparency and paranoia that information would be used against her.

These are all concerns that go to how she would perform as President, and they are the core critique within the left against her. They have nothing to do with gender. They are all important..

[Cha]

161. Thank you for this, bravenak.. Hillary is too strong and too smart for all of them. She rises

above.

[bravenak]

162. And we rise together

Fuck Donald Trump

[Logical]

164. FFS, most these "sexist" hillary haters LOVE Warren? You deny she is a woman? Nt

[bravenak]

165. They save the nasty stuff for Hillary

I keep alerting. A couple of Thatcher comparisons have been hidden, many more remain. Among other stuff.

[Logical]

166. It is not sexist, it is her. Not a great dem. Warren is! Nt

[bravenak]

167. I think both are

[pnwmom]

168. Yes, they all claim to just LOVE the woman who doesn't have the ambition

to be running for President. At least not now, in 2016. And not only did Warren not have that ambition, she signed a letter urging HILLARY to run.

But, they promise us: they LOVE Warren.

How convenient.

bravenak is absolutely right: "Get used to imperfect women being able to do the same exact things as imperfect men."

[Logical]

169. Warren is a real liberal! Hillary is not. All she is is better than trump. Nt

[pnwmom]

172. bravenak, thank you, thank you, thank you.

What a righteous rant. You nailed it perfectly.





And this sums up the wisdom in one simple sentence:

Get used to imperfect women being able to do the same exact things as imperfect men.

[bravenak]

173. You're welcome...

You see those that howl the loudest are the most prone to this type of attitude. Just an observation.

[MinnesotaRob]

175. This is exactly what is happening with the new Ghostbusters trailer as well.

A horrible trailer to a terribly conceived of "reboot" intended only to cash in on the name recognition of a beloved franchise, but don't you dare mention any of this because it has a female cast, any criticism is misogyny. Just get in line and buy a ticket to prove you're not sexist.

This is the same regressive logic used to guilt people into accepting Hillary. It's not progressive in any way, it is extremely damaging to people who are actually fighting for the cause rather than using and manipulating it to earn money and power.

[bravenak]

177. I disagree

[Whimsey]

176. John Stuart Mill

"The Subjection of Women", his essay written in 1869. I read it 40 years ago in college. He was ahead of his time, and too many people today are behind the times.

[bravenak]

178. I need to re read it

I find a parallel in the treatment of AAs

[Whimsey]

181. Go back and read chapter 3

It will tell you all you need to know.

Couldn't find my Norton anthology where I have it notated, but it is online.

[merrily]

180. Uh huh. Just like claims that the mob helped elect JFK were anti-Catholic. Identical, really, except

JFK didn't attempt a victim card.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/investigations/Kefauver.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/organized_crime.aspx

[Whimsey]

182. Huh? What's your point?

This point is too subtle for me. I was four when JFK was elected, and I watched tv election day with my mother. We were Catholic and it was a big deal. And I am a woman, and it is still a big deal.

[merrily]

183. My point is that claims of fraud are not sexist. And JFK never played a victim card when

those rumors circulated, even though he one to play.

Sorry if it was too subtle. It was not intended to be.

[Lord Magus]

211. Claims of fraud are also not TRUE.

Nobody cried "fraud" when Bernie pulled off his amazing and completely unexpected win in Michigan. But seemingly every Hillary victory, no matter the circumstances, seems to have people insisting it was fraudulent.

[Whimsey]

226. Claims of fraud or fraudulent claims?

JFK had no reason to cry those fraudulent rumors were sexist - there were no women in the race as far as I can tell.

And fraudulent claims are often sexist, or racist or whatever.

And as far as the victim card -Bernie and his supporters are the czars of playing the victim card. They are yelling conspiracy of the DNC when the real problem is the lack of knowledge of the system. Bernie and his staff should have learned the primary rules of each individual state when he first declared back in April 2015. Instead he yells collusion.

Hillary made the same mistake back in 2008 when she lost to Obama by not understanding the delegate map. She did not blame anyone but herself and supported Obama. But she made sure she knew all the rules this time.

[merrily]

227. What part of "anti-Catholic" did you misread as "sexist?"

[Whimsey]

229. I was being purposely obtuse

Your real point was playing the victim card, not fraudulent or sexist claims.

My real point is that Bernie and his supporters are constantly playing the victim card because they did not do their homework on the primary process and want to blame the DNC.

But the reality is that sexism is real, anti-Catholicism is real ( I moved to a small southern, Baptist town when I married my husband), racism is real, etc. But it is also real that white men are the least discriminated group in the US and they are bigger whiners than anyone when they don't win.

[merrily]

230. Gee, almost every reply I've been getting from Hillary supporters lately flattens a straw man I neve

erected.

[Whimsey]

231. I wonder what Freud would say

about your disavowal?

Ask any women. Men are whiners!

[merrily]

232. um, o.k.

[uponit7771]

186. +1, "Get used to imperfect women being able to do the same exact things as imperfect men"

[bravenak]

194. They better learn to cope

[uponit7771]

199. Its going to take a while, all the "other" people running things is going to drive em even battier

[BigBoss26]

187. Can't it simply be that Hillary is just too moderate for some of us?

I mean, in truth, I'm not all that enamored with either candidate. Both are far from perfect. But if I'm choosing based on which one aligns with my political beliefs then, yeah, I'm going with the candidate that's more progressive. In this case, yes, it's a guy. But if it was a race between Elizabeth Warren and Jim Webb, I'd be a Warren supporter because she aligns with me politically. It really is as simple as that for some of us. To be labeled sexist because I'm not voting based on gender is bizarre to me.

And for the record, if and when the time comes, I'll be voting for Hillary over Trump. It'll still have nothing to do with her being a woman.

[bravenak]

190. I never said all opposition is sexism

[BigBoss26]

201. You kind of are though. You gave a laundry list of real criticisms and dismissed them all as sexism.

Fraud accusations are par for the course for almost every election now. To point to that as an example of sexism is pretty off the mark. Welcome to the world of paranoia and cynicism.

The "coronation" stuff, I mean, can even the biggest HRC supporters deny that she's been the party's chosen candidate for a long time? For me(and obviously I can't speak for others), that's all the coronation stuff is a reference to.

Too loud, too mean, too soft, too short, corrupt, corporate owned, etc... These are criticisms. Some of them very shallow and petty for sure, but they're still just criticisms. They're all things that can be said about men. There's nothing exclusively feminine about those criticisms to make them sexist. You can question the motives behind the criticisms(which would require a healthy dose of mind reading and projection) but the criticisms themselves aren't inherently sexist. Also, I think you have a pretty short memory if you don't think a guy's masculinity has ever been used against male politicians.

The one I'll grant you is "too ambitious". That definitely sends up a red flag because it's typically not something a man would ever get criticized for. I'm with you on that. But a lot of this sounds like you chalking up nearly every attack to sexism. Surely there's a more constructive response than that.

[SunSeeker]

197. K & R

[all american girl]

198. Thank you Bravenak!!!!!

[ancianita]

200. Yes. "Get used to imperfect women being able to do the same exact things as imperfect men...

Too many double standards going on and people need to check themselves."

Respect.

[Scuba]

204. "She is going to be Candidate Hillary running against Donald Trump whether you think ..."

She is going to be Candidate Hillary running against Donald Trump whether you think she is too tall, too short, to smiley, too stern, too happy, too sad, too bad, too gullible, too sharp, too dull, too bold, too shy.

I don't care about any of those things, or her chromosomes.




I care - a lot - about policy. That's why I've been supporting Bernie. Hillary's policy positions, as I understand them from her past actions, are anethema to me.

I also care - a lot - about character. Like many Americans, I don't trust Hillary. She's lied too many times.

[bravenak]

205. You will have to learn coping skills

I rarely like anybody I vote for. They are never anything like me whatsoever and do not inderstand my pov at all. I vote against Republicans and cope with the fact that as a black woman, my interestes are rarely ever represented or even though about by ANY candidate ever. She cares most about people who are like me than any candidate running.

I don't Trust Donald way more than I even think of not trusting Hillary. It is not about your personal feelings for a candidate. Either stand against that maniac Trump or get out of the way so I can stand against him.

[Scuba]

206. I'm not in your way, and as I've posted here many times, I'll hold my nose real tight in November ..

... and vote against the Republicans.




That doesn't change how I feel about Hillary, nor does it change why I feel that way.

The OP claims that it's only sexism that causes people to not want Hillary as our candidate. My reply was to refute that claim.

[bravenak]

207. No. The op does NOT say it is only sexism

We are each responsible for own own feelings. Nobody can change how we feel except ourselves.

[Scuba]

208. No, of course not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

224. Comparing her to Margaret Thatcher = Sexist?

When she's compared to Nixon, is that sexist too?

How does it look? It looks to me as if you've learned to parry every legitimate criticism of Clinton with charges of sexism.

[realmirage]

233. Comparing her to Thatcher is completely sexist

To jump to that comparison simply because they are both women. If you don't see how that's sexist, you have some soul seeking to do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

234. No, I don't. nt

[Orsino]

235. "Perfect" was never a concern.

Thatcher's body count doesn't compare to that of the American corporatists who led us to or enabled disastrous wars.

I agree this far, however: we have to destroy the myth that a woman can't take the White House, and if Clinton's presidency can do that much, it won't have been completely in vain. As I love to say, if we really wanted a "better" woman president, we would have been electing and promoting more women long ago.

[bravenak]

236. This part was a mic drop

As I love to say, if we really wanted a "better" woman president, we would have been electing and promoting more women long ago.

[Orsino]

237. I do think Hillary Clinton became a contender in spite of every cultural barrier...

...largely by coasting on nostalgia for her husband. That much is far ftom being her fault; her unconventional path to the presidency is anout the only one that was open to a woman, and it could only have been her.

No matter what happens, women in the future will face fewer obstacles because of her candidacy, and that will be a great thing.

Some would insist that we should congratulate her, but I'm still in the thank-god mode. I'm grateful at least that there was a way around all the sexism, and this is the year it is proven. The next woman to run won't have to be quite so rich or connected.

[Seeinghope]

238. There is a difference between a PERSON that is thought to be crooked and too right leaning. Just

like Bush. I did not vote for him either. Not because of his sex cut because of who he was and what he stood for. That is why Hillary Clinton did not get my vote the first time around. Back then I didn't even know then what I know now. I voted for President Obama because he was the better choice. PERIOD. It is people like you that fall back on the gender issue. The candidate is a bad choice. Just because she received more votes does not make her the better choice. It just means that for some unfathomable reason more people voted for her. Just like Trump. For some unfathomable reason more people voted for him. Definetly not the best choice but again more people like him as well.

Neither of these candidates are good for this country. One is a man and one is a woman. Different sexes equally bad.