2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Refusal to accept Clinton as the Nominee is Rooted in Misogyny and Racism [View all]democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Many of us feel, I believe legitimately, that the party establishment designed certain features of the 2016 primary process with the goal of annointing Hillary as the nominee without a vigorous competition. Many of us believe that Bernie did not have an even playing field to compete on. Many of us who supported Dean felt the same way in 2004, and there were some who never accepted Kerry as the nominee for the same reason. So I don't see how the candidate's gender or the racial/ethnic/gender makeup of the candidate's supporters has anything to do with it.
I find this line of argument especially offensive because in 2008, Hillary herself tried on many occasions in the last few months of the primaries to delegitimatize Obama's success based on the age, race, or other characteristics of his voters. Remember when she said sometime toward the end of the primaries that despite being behind, she was staying in because "hard working white Americans" were voting for her? Or the time when Bill wrote off Obama's victory in South Carolina by pointing out that Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina in 1988 and didn't win the nomination? Throughout the 2008 primary season, the Clinton campaign repeatedly pushed a narrative that some primary voters mattered more than others.
To the best of my knowledge, Bernie and his campaign have never suggested that Clinton's victories should be discounted based on the composition of who voted for her. In contrast, I have seen that argument many times from Clinton supporters who write off Bernie's victories in mostly white states as somehow less legitimate or important than winning in more diverse states.
I've accepted that Hillary will be the nominee, but this article really pissed me off.