“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-...

Your thoughts, please.

I don't think comments like these are helpful. I'd rather see them make the case for Hillary by specifying what she would do for women if elected and particularly address issues of importance to younger women. In other words, make it about issues rather than gender.

It's a pity the debate has been recast in these terms and that it's woman vs. man already on the Dem side (save it for the election...) but I understand, or at least feel for, both the older women and the young. Trouble is, Clinton's candidacy is way too late for where feminism in the world's richest and most developed country ought to have been in the year 2016, and simply wrong for the moment, given what policies she represents.

Had Shirley Chisholm been elected or at least nominated (way back in 1971 or whenever it was)--now THAT would have been progress. Shirley's the one. It should have been her. That's the moon landing that didn't happen. Shirley would have made (even more) history.

Other women elsewhere have been presidents and prime ministers ages ago, it's not that big of a "first" any more. Nobody's holding their breath wondering if a woman, least of all someone as accomplished as Clinton, could do it. (Let's be serious--we're talking about the office held TWICE by fucking Dubya.)

By no means do I wish to convey that I think her win would be trivial or insignificant, of course not. It's just, well, not the most important thing when you have no jobs or prospects for the young and the planet is rapidly going to the devil. How can I do justice to both sides of the argument? The conflict is about such different things. I do understand the fight women like Albright had in their lives. I know their fierceness and worth in the face of monumental aggression, insults, humiliation they faced. I understand this is the ultimate prize.

On the other hand, there are the lives of the young. If I were a twenty-something with a fresh diploma in my hand, what good would it do me just to have Clinton as president?

Sanders--rightly or wrongly--represents something else. People who don't understand this and think it's just because he's a man and Hillary's not are deluding themselves. I first noticed posts about him more than a year ago, from girls on Tumblr. He did not seduce them with his septuagenarian charms. They liked the cut of his jib because it addressed their fears and problems and gave them hope.

ETA: x-post w#2

Right, I've been watching Sanders for a very long time now, and it's NOT because he's an old white man. It's because I agree with the things he says. I do not agree with Hillary on very much of anything. Why the hell would I support her over someone I think would actually have a shot at doing good for the country, just because she happens to have been born without a penis?! Oh yeah, that's right, I wouldn't. She's eons better than the clowns on the other side, of course, so if she does get on, well, okay, there's that. But trying to claim you must vote for someone to run a country, because of their genitals?? Fuck no. And fuck everyone who tries to play that card. The US finally getting with the times and having a woman president would be great. But it has to be a woman who would do the job well, and that is not Hillary, imo, as well as the opinion of many others who cannot stand her.

I think we're getting a lovely preview of what the presidential race will look like if Clinton wins the nomination. Picture the BernieBros multiplied and then women on both sides attacking each other. I am not looking forward to this at all. I think I'm going to do my best to ignore all of it. I'll vote, but that's it.

My neighbor had a similar issue during the last election. She came from a family of Republicans but was thinking of voting for Obama. She was attacked, viciously, by people saying that she wanted to vote for him only because he's African American. She had made the mistake of being open about her deliberations.

In this case, if you support Clinton, it's only because she's a woman, and if you support Sanders, you're failing to support women. Everybody loses and we never get to discuss the issues.

>5 RidgewayGirl: hear, hear.

It's really distressing to me to see the politics of divisiveness start to take over the Democratic party as it has already thoroughly infected the Republicans. People agitate for change in our broken system, but divisiveness is a big reason why our system is broken and it's not going to be fixed unless we can stop tearing down anyone who's not 100% on our side. Alienating potential supporters is not an effective campaign strategy. That's not how Obama won.

>7 sturlington:

Doesn't divisiveness reflect a serious divergence of opinion, though? Given the pressures, for example that of economic recession, the loss of job security, increasing cost of education etc., isn't it to be expected that "same old" can't seem satisfactory to all people?

Democrats shifted to the right with Bill Clinton; majority of the party seemed to see nothing wrong with that, but now their mainstream representative, Hillary, is being shown up by a leftist.

There's a divide there for sure, but, how can I put it, there's a reason for that, it's not a mere caprice or something...

For me divisiveness is belittling or othering anyone who disagrees with you. It's reducing dissenting opinion to something as insulting as voting with your vagina or going where the boys are. Disagreement, debate, dissent are healthy until it turns into a never compromise, never surrender situation.

ETA On both sides, we have women being told by other women, self proclaimed feminists, that they are making decisions about who to vote for based not on using their brains, not seriously, but for superficial reasons. And in the same breath, women I truly respect are saying women are obligated to vote for Hillary simply because we're all women, which is wrong too. This is not what I believe feminism is about.

By both sides, I mean Hillary's and Bernie's. Of course the entire slate on the other side has made their complete contempt for women well known.

>9 sturlington:

Oh, I see, that's completely different from how I understand "divisiveness".

>8 LolaWalser: Elections amplify differences between candidates and seek to make those differences emotional. In reality, Clinton and Sanders have voted the same way 93% of the time.

>11 RidgewayGirl:

Not on Iraq.

Again, I have no personal dog in this race, so I hope nothing I say gets taken as an expression of some vehement conviction. With that caveat, it's less, perhaps, that I believe Sanders is the harbinger of real change (what some, ayes and nays call "revolution"), than that I don't believe--with much more evidence available--that Hillary could be.

Thanks everyone. Sincerely appreciate your input on this.

Me? I'm an old dude (well, middle-aged, but definitely born with a penis, to paraphrase >4 .Monkey.:), so I don't know exactly how the young women being spoken to by Secretary Albright and Ms. Steinem feel, but if those kinds of remarks were directed toward me and my peer group, I would find them really condescending. Most of the young women I know quite aware that Hillary is potentially on the cusp of making a historic breakthrough for women; they are also aware that there are other important issues at at stake, and many of them (quite reasonably, in my view) feel that Sanders is the one that will address them in a more effective and committed fashion. To imply otherwise is more than a little patronizing.

>14 artturnerjr:

many of them (quite reasonably, in my view) feel that Sanders is the one that will address them in a more effective and committed fashion. To imply otherwise is more than a little patronizing.

Yeah, but so was Sarandon tweeting about not voting with her vagina. I mean, both sides have brought genitals into this. I can only say I wish no one did, or at least no one other than the Republicans, from whom that's to be expected.

That said, I think it should be acknowledged, somehow, that when you have people variously oppressed, suppressed, ruled over etc. for, like, forever... BECAUSE of their genitals... and then in the last five minutes or so they are supposedly treated as equals (but not really completely, not in fact)... the injustice doesn't disappear overnight.

Women are constantly being called upon to support issues presumably more important than their emancipation and freedom. It's standard, and it sucks donkey balls, and if Sanders proceeds or succeeds over the grief of women, he should turn himself into a Planetary Feminist Number 1 until he dies.

•" the office held TWICE by fucking Dubya"

The fair Juliet speaks.

Oprah made race an issue in the Obama election. She said, "I'm a woman, but I'm a black woman first."

I guess she's a racist. I guess Madline Albright is a sexist. And I guess all men who don't vote for Bernie Sanders will go to hell.

Fairly new to LT so thanks again for pointing out the block button

Bernie has brought many great ideas into the campaign and appears to have invigorating the youth to vote. All good things. I've followed him for years as VT news always was covered by my local NPR station.

I don't think Bernie has the physical stamina to make it through a presidency. While voting strictly on gender doesn't work for me (carly Fiorina - not happening) the likelihood of being able to accomplish things does.

My big problem is I see echos of 2000 when Republicans funded Nader, in part and had their young people offer to switch votes in states where it mattered. I believe at least some of the Bernie bros are supported by Republicans who detest Hillary.

As long as the democrats stick together during generral election to protect the Supreme Court so we have true thinkers on the bench,I'm happy.

A lot of democrats hate Hillary too, though. Which is a big part of why this election cannot be about gender. All of her publicity in the past couple years, the email crap, she has lost a ton of former supporters and pushed away a lot of dems who will only support her if she winds up on the ticket because she's better than the clowns on the other side. The fact that for ages everyone has been all "ooh yeah Bernie sounds good but he's nobody, he'll never make it!" and now, he was tied even with her in Iowa and even won over her for NH, clearly shows not just how far he's come but how far she's dropped. If she makes it on, I'm a bit worried how things will go.

>20 .Monkey.:

If she makes it on, I'm a bit worried how things will go.

I'm a little worried about how things will go regardless. As >19 nospi: indicated, I think it's really important for everybody that's left of center politically (and sane independents) to rally behind whoever gets the Democratic nomination, because it is increasingly looking like either Trump or Cruz is gonna get the Republican one, and if either of those guys ends up in the White House, I'm sorry, but "pack bags for Canada" will probably then move to the top of my "to-do" list. :/

Yeah, the US will be a truly scary place with either of them running the show. :| But I think enough people would support Bernie, if it's him, over those imbeciles. I mean their own party doesn't want either of them winning it! What a mockery of an election this is. Hillary, though... my mother has been a staunch dem her whole life, but she is flipping her shit about Hillary and how much she despises her and actually contemplating the clowns on the other side over her!! If she feels that way, I cannot even fathom how a lot of people who are more on the fence and not strongly identifying with either side feel!

>22 .Monkey.: Yes. Hating Hillary Clinton is a national sport. I admire her ability to give no fucks.

>23 RidgewayGirl: It has been since at least the 2008 election. The hostility she engenders for just existing is pretty irrational.

It's funny, because politically I actually align more closely to Sanders, but I value a pragmatic approach to world-changing and "Free college education for everyone!" while a good goal, doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. I could live with a Hillary Clinton presidency although I wouldn't expect rainbows and roses, I also wouldn't expect any serious backwards movement in our own civil rights.

She has her faults, but she doesn't fill me with fear the way that pretty much the entire GOP contender list does. None of those people seem to have the slightest concern or awareness that their deliberately outrageous platforms have real world consequences.

>24 southernbooklady: Everything about this election is irrational. There is so much at stake. If you have any concern about climate change, this will be a pivotal election. I have never been a fervent Hillary supporter, and what Monkey says above about her mother's hate of her concerns me. But there is just as much irrationalism about Bernie being an "avowed socialist" that it's hard to predict which one might be at more of a disadvantage in the general election. It's clear the Republicans are hoping for a Bernie win--and I'm not saying they can't be wrong--but I'm taking that seriously.

One thing is clear about this election: no strong, unifying leader has emerged. Thinking back on other pivotal times in American history--and of course I wasn't there, so there may be some mythologizing going on--but we clearly have no Lincoln, no FDR. I'm not angry. I'm terrified.

>24 southernbooklady: I was reading a blog post yesterday about how the primaries require candidates to manufacture divisions where there are none and to administer a series of purity tests.

One thing about Clinton is that there are no surprises. We know what the right will throw at her, and we know that they've relentlessly pursued her for decades. We know she can stand up under immense pressure. I watched her during those botched Senate interrogations committee hearings, and her demeanor impressed me.

>26 RidgewayGirl: That's a good point. Watching the committee hearings were what solidified my support for her, as a matter of fact.

>22 .Monkey.:

Hillary, though... my mother has been a staunch dem her whole life, but she is flipping her shit about Hillary and how much she despises her and actually contemplating the clowns on the other side over her!! If she feels that way, I cannot even fathom how a lot of people who are more on the fence and not strongly identifying with either side feel!

The exit polling in New Hampshire* gave us some very interesting data. Among people who voted Democratic that considered "honest and trustworthy" to be the most important quality in a candidate, ninety-one percent voted for Sanders, versus only five for Clinton. And this is among Democrats! Can you really win a president election if so few people in your own party trust you?

* http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/new-hampshire-primaries-exit-polls/

ETA: ended last sentence "don't trust you" when I meant "trust you"

Madeline Albright has been saying this for years, and it isn't helpful to the discussion. Biology aside, gender, per se, doesn't automatically qualify anyone for anything, nor should it. What surprised me more was Gloria Steinem's remarks about girls getting involved in politics b/c that's where the boys are... Really???

Gender needs to get off the stage so the issues will be in the spotlight.

>29 PaulaDail: If Clinton's the Democratic candidate, things will get deeply misogynistic very quickly.

If Sanders is the nominee, then the right will be doing its best to make social democrat = socialist = godless commie scum coming to take all yer money. And his age will be emphasized.

No matter who runs in the general election, some ugly things will be shouted.

Given the determined push to legislate and even criminalize women's reproductive health, I'm good with gender remaining "on the stage," so to speak.

Which one of you ladies would have liked to help "Bonnie Parker" rob banks? You help women be women not help them boost their careers. Like men, their careers are their responsibility. Clinton has no right to ask you to rely on your womanhood to make your decision. After all, blacks voting for a black simply because he was black, gave us an idiot, not a president. Vote for Hillary because she's a woman like you are, invites, even yet, another damn criminal. King was right. It's about "Content of character". Sanders and Clinton both are characters we don't need. One is communist and the other a murderer (possibly twice if you remember White Water).

>32 verncox: I dispute several of your statements. Barack Obama is not an idiot. I am not black, I voted for him twice, and I think he is an intelligent and measured man. I also think he has been a very good president, despite an unbelievable number of obstacles he had to overcome. By any objective measure, they generally don't admit idiots to Harvard Law School.

Did black people vote for him because he's black or because here was a person they believed would finally represent their interests? There is a difference. If I choose to vote for Hillary because I think she is the best candidate to protect women's rights and she understands that issue uniquely out of all the candidates, it's not the same as me voting for her just because she is a woman. I would never vote for Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina. How many black people are supporting Ben Carson? This tired refrain does not hold up.

PS Not everyone who posts in this forum is a "lady."

"Fall through the cracks" is something that happens to everyone including Harvard and even the military academies. As far as O'Bama goes, he panders too much to our enemies and does so
on purpose.
Read Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders", which I have listed in my library. It's about what happens to someone who can't handle too much power even if he is normally the good guy. For the record, I support Ben Carson and/or Trump because this country needs
the caliber of leader these two represent. "here was a person they believed would finally represent their interests". Assuming "here" was supposed to be "he" how is supporting black thugs destroying black businesses in the black communitiy's best interest? Even leading members of the black community call it "Race baiting" which helps no one.

Another sack of shit for the Ignore list...

>29 PaulaDail:

Gender needs to get off the stage so the issues will be in the spotlight.

Like race got off the stage for Obama during the entire election process AND his presidency? That's just not happening, in this time and place.

>22 .Monkey.:

I don't get it--apart from the misogynists, which, okay, is pretty much everyone--what is there specifically that makes people "hate" Hillary? I don't think much of her politics, but what on earth has she done, besides exist as a female human being, to earn her outright HATE? Do the same people HATE Bill Clinton? If not, why not?

I feel like signing up for her private army every time I hear that.

>35 LolaWalser: In a recent discussion, a friend pointed out to me that Clinton is bombarded with so much shit from the Republican side, that after a while it's hard not to think that they wouldn't be throwing so many accusations at her if there wasn't a good reason. The emails are a good example. It was fine (if mildly frowned on) when people like Condoleezza Rice did it, but it's a criminal act when Clinton does. She does get a different rulebook.

I think that there are many legitimate policy issues to debate. I don't like her continuing support of the death penalty, for example. But who can debate when everyone is running around, waving their arms in the air and yelling, "burn the witch!"

And, yeah, every time someone starts yelling about women only voting with their vaginas, or attacking her with idea that "we all know" the horrors she's committed (mass murder, apparently), I do feel indignant on her behalf. It is making me think more of her, rather than less.

So looking forward to months and months of being condescended to by idiots who refer to women as "ladies."

>35 LolaWalser: Must have gotten confused and thought he was in the Racist Theory group.

>36 RidgewayGirl: every time someone starts yelling about women only voting with their vaginas

Yeah. I don't think the idea that a woman president would be sensitive to women's issues in politics really translates into "voting with vaginas."

>38 southernbooklady: For one thing, I'm not sure how accurate my vagina would be with the touch screen in the voting booth. Also, I'm not sure how hygienic that would be.

>39 RidgewayGirl:

More hygienic than thousands of nasty hands to be sure.

I feel compelled to point out that I voted for men and women with the same vagina on me.

>40 LolaWalser: I don't understand how your vagina allowed you to make the decision of who you voted for. The Vaginal Agenda marches in lock-step and allows no dissent. Didn't your vagina get the memo?

These females are far from being ladies. Take it from a man who respects women (ask my former wives and current girl friend, two who admit they lost out, and the other knows what she has).
Men know what kind of woman they like and contrary to what these ladies tell you, we don't feel threatened by a self sufficient woman. We like them. Successful men who feel threatened are the minority and are insecure _ussys.

>41 RidgewayGirl:

It's a struggle! Can you imagine, my ladybrain against this titan of nature!

But I listen to what the menz say a lot. The wisdom rubs off.

>2 sturlington:

It's useful in one very special sense: it reveals the ugly sexist bigotry which is actually behind many feminists' views. For it's revelatory candor, I welcome it.

What some feminists assume is that everyone is a sexist, a sexual bigot, without a sense of fairplay for the rights and proper interests of those of the "opposite" (or "other" ) sex. (That is a complicated issue which for this purpose I leave aside.)

Thus, all men are supposed to behave in a self-interested way, mainly or solely for their fellows' (supposed) interests and, of course, the same is supposed about women--"We can only get a fair shake from a woman. It's useless to expect representation from a member of the opposite sex."

The stupidity of such a view ought to be glaring but for many it simply isn't.

executive orders is fiction.

It is a shame you cannot distinguish between history, reality, and fiction.

Hillary has been investigated thoroughly for over 25 years. Perhaps you are saying are police and investigatory agencies are inept?
There is nothing there.

Dozens of diplomatic corps members died under the Bush presidency but no one mentions them. Three died from carbon monoxide poisoning from a diesel fire started outside the walls and conspiracies abound.

>42 verncox: Given the rest of the horseshit you've posted, why are you being coy about typing the word "pussy"?

>46 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Now, now. Don't want to ruffle dem laydeez, do we. ;)

Interesting discussion. I'm Democrat but still on the fence re. Sanders and Clinton.

That said, I thought this article on Steinem's comments was interesting: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a53372/gloria-steinem-controversial-co...

Also, there's a part of me that thinks that Hillary is being punished for having worked hard her entire life to get into the boy's club and be respected by them. If she'd been a bit of an outsider, more people would have been rooting for her. But, now, she is, apparently, "the establishment". Well, it took her a lot of battles and a lot of wounds and scars to get there. She's battle-tested in ways that Sanders never has been and never will be before taking on the big job (if he gets it).

I came across this quote in another article too: Women in power are cool, but powerful women competing with powerful men are not just uncool but seen as unappealing. There's some truth in that.

Again, I'm still on the fence. Sanders is saying all the right things but I am worried that it will be impossible to achieve even half of what he's offering -- his own party will disagree with him, never mind the Republicans.

>48 jennybhatt:

Sanders is saying all the right things but I am worried that it will be impossible to achieve even half of what he's offering

That's my fear as well, from the viewpoint of someone who believes American politics should become more left.

there's a part of me that thinks that Hillary is being punished for having worked hard her entire life to get into the boy's club and be respected by them.

This came up in another group, how she's not seen as someone who'd "change the rules", and I said there it should be acknowledged that her presence already (like Obama's) has changed some rules--those about "no women, no blacks". This, too, has weight and value.

And I'm beginning to wonder whether the circumstances for women aren't, in fact, still so shitty that getting a female POTUS may not be worth more than I thought.

This is the paradox: when people "genitalize" politics already on this level and on the "same" side, that in fact becomes evidence that we are NOT OVER sexism. And if we are not over sexism and it's impossible to discuss issues of policy because we must excuse and justify our opinions in the light of gender, then that's precisely the best reason to elect someone on the basis of gender.

In short, the more I hear "don't vote with your vagina!!!!" the more I feel there are reasons one should do exactly that.

The daily show does it up :

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/qplr4o/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-breaking-do...

>46 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
I wondered that, too. Vern, you're not punching my shoulder.

>46 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Maybe because, unlike the strident termagants who think their opinions are as valid as any man's, verncox aspires to gentle ladyhood? What kind of delicate flower would he be were he to use such a vulgar term?

>48 jennybhatt: It's an interesting take, but isn't it just as reductive to say that Sanders attracts young women because of the coolness factor as it is to imply they're trolling for boyfriends? I think Sanders has youth appeal because he is directly addressing what is of most concern to them, which is college debt and their future prospects. The other candidates probably aren't talking about this enough.

I do agree that Hillary is getting a raw deal from both sides. She's both outside, as a woman, and in the establishment at the same time. As you say, though, she is battle-scarred and probably well used to being subjected to the old double standard. Hillary's toughness and her unflappability are what primarily appeal to me.

>50 rkchr: That was excellent.

>53 sturlington:: I agree that Sanders does have youth appeal because he's addressing what is of concern to them. But, I think, so is Hillary. They both actually agree on the issues, just not the approaches to deal with them.

Thing is, I look back on the time I was part of the 18-24 demographic and recall how revolution felt sexy rather than practicalities. How I wanted to get ahead on my boundless merits (which I just knew I was capable of having). How my emotional resources felt infinite because I could bounce back, at the time, from setbacks easily. How I had more wide-eyed optimism about people who promised they were watching my back. I worry that today's younger generation thinks they can climb those mountains with Sanders while Hillary's saying, "Hey, let's first get geared up, let's take this a few steps at a time, let's pace ourselves to last the distance." Or, to use another analogy, it's sexier to go with Sanders, who's saying, the house is locked shut and we can't get in, let's blast it open, than to go with Hillary, who's saying, well, I know a way we can work our way in without blasting anything to bits.

I hope, really, that I'm wrong. We'll see in due course.

>55 jennybhatt:

I think it's no less patronizing to say that it's about the "sexiness" of "revolution" for the young than about the sex appeal of Sanders' "boys".

Occupy didn't happen because some idle young thought it would be sexy to rebel, and the same problems that fuelled that movement are still present.

>56 LolaWalser:: You're right. "Sexiness" is a charged word. A more appropriate choice on my part would have been, perhaps, "appealing". That revolution is more appealing to the younger generation -- as, indeed, it was to me when I was younger. Now, I'm not so keen on it because of all the collateral damage I know it can leave in its wake. And, "appealing" because it promises an "out with the old and in with the new" rather than "let's tinker with and improve the old". It's along the same lines as the attraction that, at work, my younger team members have for sinking their teeth into an innovative moonshot of a project rather than working on improvements to an ongoing system.

>50 rkchr: I totally support a no tax on tampons platform.

Fiction envisioned by a genius based on fact. "Absolute Power can corrupt absolutely" applies to all but The Creator. That's not fiction. Hillary is a criminal
and they're after her. It's a matter of time. BTW, I have in my collection "The trial of GW Bush" which is of course a wish list of charges to bring against him.
Sorry, but your mention of him was a failed attempt at a cheap shot.

Because goof ball, I'm respecting the real ladies on this board. Thanks for the help in proving my point and verifying my Character.

>60 verncox:

I'm a bit confused as to why you feel yourself to be the judge of who is a real "lady" (or why you condescend to assume anyone has asked for your "protection"), but your statement is an excellent example of the dictum that "if one needs evidence for the utility of feminism, one should merely listen to respond to discussions of feminism."

As it is, I'd have to assume that even a "real lady" would be just as offended by using an incomplete spelling of a vulgar word for a female's anatomy to denigrate people with whom you disagree.

Trust me, though, your "character" is plainly showing.

>48 jennybhatt:

Jenny,

You can be sure of this much: if Sanders is not the nominee, there'll be virtually nothing of the priorities he is defending even attempted, let alone passed into law.

Hillary Clinton has been right next to Bill Clinton through his terms as Arkansas governor and U.S. president. No one has had greater infuence on him that she has over those years. It is safe to say, from both this perspective as well as from her tenures as U.S. Senator from New York and as Secretary of State, that Mrs. Clinton is, so far from being a challenge to the power structure's worst features, instead emblematic of its worst features. The power structure of elite privilege with its complete political dominance is entirely content with Hillary Clinton. Their lavish campaign donations prove that they have complete confidence in her as their representative--against the rest of us. All of that is the polar opposite of their opinion of Senator Sanders, whose apparent potential to win the nomination provokes in them true concern.

I hope that you might take the time to read this essay at the following link before you make up your mind about your vote in the primaries.

https://medium.com/@Lookingforrobyn/when-you-ask-me-to-vote-for-hillary-174becdb...

"When you ask me to vote for Hillary" by Robyn Morton (January 28) ( https://medium.com/@Lookingforrobyn )

>49 LolaWalser: I said there it should be acknowledged that her presence already (like Obama's) has changed some rules--those about "no women, no blacks". This, too, has weight and value.

Those "rules" were violated long before Hillary Rodham Clinton came on the scene. It does an injustice to those women and men who preceeded her to suppose that her career has actually moved womens' rights significantly ahead of where they were when she was a college student.

Instead of blazing trails--as other women before her have done, refusing to simply adopt the most conventional of male power-structure forms and assumptions--HRC has become the archetype of that male power structure, embracing it and making it her own. Of course many women before her have done the same--but they never advertised themselves as feminists working to break through sexist barriers.

RE: "And I'm beginning to wonder whether the circumstances for women aren't, in fact, still so shitty that getting a female POTUS may not be worth more than I thought."

Test your concern there with examples from reality: if you seriously wonder about this tnen have a very good look at what women elsewhere have actually done when they've supposeldly broken their societies' gender barriers--

Margaret Thatcher-- first female Prime Minister of Britain. is that your idea of progress for anyone--women or men?, young or old?

State Governor? Observe Sarah Palin. U.S. Senator--there have been some before HRC*--

Hazel Abel
Maryon Pittman Allen
Kelly Ayotte

B

Tammy Baldwin
Eva Bowring
Barbara Boxer
Muriel Humphrey Brown
Jocelyn Burdick
Vera C. Bushfield

C

Maria Cantwell
Shelley Moore Capito
Hattie Caraway
Jean Carnahan
Hillary Clinton*
Susan Collins

D

Elizabeth Dole

E

Elaine S. Edwards
Joni Ernst

F

Dianne Feinstein
Rebecca Latimer Felton
Deb Fischer
Sheila Frahm

G

Kirsten Gillibrand
Dixie Bibb Graves

H

Kay Hagan
Paula Hawkins
Heidi Heitkamp
Mazie Hirono
Kay Bailey Hutchison

K

Nancy Kassebaum
Amy Klobuchar

L

Mary Landrieu
Blanche Lincoln
Rose McConnell Long

M

Claire McCaskill
Barbara Mikulski
Carol Moseley Braun
Lisa Murkowski
Patty Murray

N

Maurine Neuberger

P

Gladys Pyle

S

Jeanne Shaheen
Margaret Chase Smith
Olympia Snowe
Debbie Stabenow

W

Elizabeth Warren

have these, taken together or separately, blazed remarkable new trails for womens' equality? Haven't they, instead, proven what most practical people can see without needing a fresh example at each "new" opportunity--women, once in places formerly reserved to men think and act very very much like...

...the men around them and those who came before them. This is human nature and it is very much time that women stopped kidding themselves about the supposed value of this gender form of "identity politics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

>57 jennybhatt: Yes, "appealing" is a good word to choose. I know that, over time, I've moved over from wanting to burn it all to the ground and start over to trying to figure out what the most effective method for affecting the change I want is. There are weaknesses to both extremes, and the strength of the two candidates we have is that they work to sharpen the other. While the "you're stupid if you support the other candidate" nonsense (see above) is a distraction, there is a real benefit in Sanders pushing Clinton into articulating her aspirations for this country, in getting her to vocalize liberal values that she might otherwise keep quiet about with an eye to the general election. And Clinton pushes Sanders into having to explain how he'd manage to get his sweeping changes enacted - with the lawmakers we have now. I'd like him to be more policy oriented, but he's certainly had to be more concrete than he otherwise would have been.

Well, this seems germane to the conversation.

Madeleine Albright: My Undiplomatic Moment http://nyti.ms/1KL8xS0

>65 sturlington: Thanks for posting that. Albright is one of my heroes.

>65 sturlington:

In my opinion, M.A. did not help herself there. Her attempt to explain is no less grossly insulting than her former remark. In essence she says maybe some found her comments insulting but she was right about making them anyway.

As Secretary of State, here's the "barrier" she broke: she proved that a woman lacks absolutely nothing when it comes to matching the vile and disgusting record of Henry Kissinger.

SEE:
Henry Kissinger’s War Crimes Are Central to the Divide Between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/12/henry-kissingers-war-crimes-are-central-to-t...

>63 proximity1:

Margaret Thatcher-- first female Prime Minister of Britain. is that your idea of progress for anyone--women or men?, young or old?

Do you have any idea how fucking condescending you are?

Why do you expect women NOT to be Margaret Thatchers and Hillary Clintons as well as Rosa Luxemburgs and Shirley Chisholms?

Understand this: there is no brief for women to be smarter, kinder, more progressive, in any way "better" than the average male dickhead, in the street or in office.

Yes, Thatcher's election was a sign of one kind of progress, regardless of how progressive or not, feminist or not, she was herself.

Clinton's election would break the last barrier for female representation in politics in the US. This, as I have argued, may not be as important at this moment, when (unexpectedly) a real leftist alternative seems to have arisen. But it's not unimportant.

Now I'll thank you to think twice before lecturing us here again.

>68 LolaWalser: Lola, I'm loving the block feature more and more these days. That random list? The hectoring tone? The insistence that women must be purer, politically, than any man? These posts have reminded me that I want to read the Solnit book.

>68 LolaWalser:

RE:
"Why do you expect women NOT to be Margaret Thatchers and Hillary Clintons as well as Rosa Luxemburgs and Shirley Chisholms?"

I don't expect them not to be- which is my point!

RE

"Understand this: there is no brief for women to be smarter, kinder, more progressive, in any way "better" than the average male dickhead, in the street or in office."

Yes. That's just my point. Hence there is no valid place for Albright's -or anyone else's- appeal for "gender solidarity" at the polling place-ever.

>69 RidgewayGirl:

Closed minds most need the "block" feature. You're welcome to use it immoderately.
_____________

Men Explain Things To Me

Rebecca Solnit

(From the book's Wikipedia page)

"The eponymous essay of this book focuses entirely on the silencing of women. Specifically the idea that men seemingly believe that no matter what a woman says they always know better.(*) This phenomenon would later come to be called mansplaining, but in this essay Solnit describes how the silencing of female voices is an infringement on female liberty and is in fact an abuse of power. With an absence of credibility to female voices in the male mind issues like violent death, abuse, harassment, and rape are often discounted. In this way, she argues, female silencing is a dangerous phenomenon."

* This exemplifies a person- man or woman- with a chip on his shoulder. It attempts to relate the experience of individual women to a supposed pan-male attitude of rejection so that with each and every single instance --however valid or justified even by others' views it may be--of a man disagreeing with a woman, the result shall be regarded as another "proof" of a wholly specious "general rule."

>72 verncox:.

Personal attacks are against the TOS.

>72 verncox: I'm sorry someone implied that you aren't a lady, verncox, and that you were upset by the conversation being less refined than is comfortable for you.

>71 proximity1: Have you read the book or only its Wikipedia page? I have read the book and your assessment doesn't actually address the point she is making. Perhaps you should read the book before explaining to all of us why the author is wrong.

>75 sturlington: We're seeing an extreme example of Lewis's Law here. So much irony.

>76 RidgewayGirl: Might be time for some bingo:
http://irregulargentlewomen.org/feminist-bingo/

>77 sturlington:: Haha, that's really pretty good. Thanks for sharing.

>77 sturlington: What's funniest about that is that every one of us here has heard each of those several times, and yet the men making the comments are always certain that they are telling us something new and noteworthy.

>77 sturlington: Funny, and yet cringingly true.

>75 sturlington:

Just so I understand correctly, I ask if you dispute this, cited from the book's Wikipedia page, as an inaccurate statement:

(From the book's Wikipedia page)

"The eponymous essay of this book focuses entirely on the silencing of women. Specifically the idea that men seemingly believe that no matter what a woman says they always know better."

Or is your objection only to my comments which refer to that summarization?

In answer to your question, no, I haven't read the book--only the remark I read at the Wikipedia page summarizing the gist of the title essay.

>81 proximity1: Here is the essay in question: https://www.guernicamag.com/daily/rebecca-solnit-men-explain-things-to-me/

It is not that long so it might be useful to read it before you start explaining to us what it is about.

>79 RidgewayGirl: You get a new card each time you load the page too.

Maureen Dowd's column in today's NYT (2/14/2016) is an interesting analysis of Hillary's "dilemma" moving forward.

>82 alvaret:

RE "It is not that long so it might be useful to read it before you start explaining to us what it is about."

That's a cheap shot and an unfair characterization of my previous post. i never proposed to "explain what it is about" as you write. I commented on the citation's summary. I asked the person to whom I replied--and, by extension, you, since you took upon yourself to reply here-- to tell us if you reagard it as incorrect. You didn't respond (EITHER). I thus assume that you do not object to the cite's summarization. if you don't, then the fact is that, to the extent that it is accurate, I commented on it--without claiming to be dealing with the entire essay's or book's points.

You should read better and deal honestly with those whom you discuss and debate. Your example here is shameful.

>85 proximity1: Sheesh. I didn't respond because I don't consider it worthwhile to discuss books with someone who won't even bother reading them. If you want to honestly debate, do your homework.

When you're being ignored, you can rightfully assume it's because your comments aren't adding anything of value to the conversation. Well, I gave you a fair chance. I'll be blocking you now so I can focus on the real conversation here. I'm sure this will lead to whining about my "closed mind," which is pretty funny since you still haven't bothered to follow the link that >82 alvaret: thoughtfully provided and read Solnit's essay.

I've been reading this group for quite a while but it's only recently that I've seen a parade of commenters coming in here just to throw a fit. Yet women are supposed to be the overemotional and hysterical ones. SMH

>86 sturlington:

Were I to follow your shoddy logic and the example of your attitude on display here, I'd preface this comment with the snide remark, " Women explain things to me."

... "which is pretty funny since you still haven't bothered to follow the link that >82 alvaret: alvaret: thoughtfully provided and read Solnit's essay."

Even "funnier" is that a) you didn't and couldn't have known that to be a fact since, in fact, it is false--by the time I read your reply here, indeed I had read the essay at the link. Thus, b) you presumed to know--wrongly--in the act of "explaining" to me ---what you'd gotten wrong.

But, if you're true to your word, you won't see/read this since, as your reply says (you're now blocking my posts) and your behaviour here shows, you and Solnit have the same chip-on-the-shoulder attitude by which anyone who happens to annoy you and also happens to be a man is taken to be a fresh proof of your gender-based prejudices even though, of course, women can and do play the "splaining" game.

>64 RidgewayGirl: there is a real benefit in Sanders pushing Clinton into articulating her aspirations for this country, in getting her to vocalize liberal values that she might otherwise keep quiet about with an eye to the general election.

In my semi-weekly lunch with a good friend who falls into what I think of as Hillary Clinton's demographic -- successful female corporate lawyer, graduated from a women's college, liberal minded, confident, patron of the arts and donor to Democratic candidates, etc, etc, she actually said to me that she had lost confidence in Clinton. That Clinton (who she has met on several occasions) was "cold" and seemed to have buried her values "too deeply" in her goal to be successful on the national political stage. So my friend felt Sanders had more integrity, was more honest and less compromised by the political arena. Not that she wouldn't vote for Clinton if she ends up with the Democratic nomination, but she had lost a lot of faith in her.

I was surprised, and thought it was telling that Clinton could have alienated someone like her, who understands what it means to be forever compromising in male-dominated board rooms and how successful women operate to make headway in a male-dominated system.

>88 southernbooklady:

I wonder --because I consider it a kind of guage--if you know whether your friend is pleased enough with Obama's tenure to, if it were possible, vote for him again for the presidency. How about you?--with all you now know about his record as it is today, if 2016 were Obama vs. any Republican now in the running, would you vote _for_ Obama?

I would vote for Obama again. My guess is that she would as well.

>88 southernbooklady: Yes, I'm hearing that, too. So it becomes, personality-wise, whether we want someone battle-hardened to the point of immobility, or someone who has been able to be who they were without having to develop a tough exterior.

>90 southernbooklady: I'd vote for him again, too, but that's utterly beside the point, isn't it?

>91 RidgewayGirl: Maybe I'm just obtuse, but for me "personality" doesn't come into it so much as "would this person drive the country off a cliff if they were President?" I think most of the GOP candidates would. I think Sanders wouldn't, but he might not be able to stop it from happening. I think Clinton could maintain enough control to prevent it. Would we see massive reforms in the banking industry? No. But would we see rollbacks in healthcare, gay rights? Also no. Would women's health care come under attack at the Federal level? No.

I could live with a Sanders or a Clinton Presidency, but I fear for the country if any of the GOP ticket ends up in the White House. They all seem capable of anything.

>93 southernbooklady: Exactly. And I do give a giant side-eye to anyone who says electing Clinton would be exactly the same as electing one of the Republican candidates. Have they listened to anything these guys have been saying? Do they have any interest in the social safety net or civil liberties at all? Sanders is a candidate whose views I agree with (mostly), but with the congress we have, he's not going to get any of these broad changes enacted into law. Universal healthcare would save us money and lives, but with a congress that has voted 62 (62!) times to repeal the (essentially Republican) ACA, well, that's not happening.

Here's my rationale for asking:
I have a hunch that might be expressed in the "If A → (then)B" form: or, if a voter is strongly favoring Hillary, then he or she is also probably pleased to very pleased with Obama's performance
in office. Conversely, I suspect that relatively fewer supporters of Sanders would say they're pleased to very pleased with Obama's record--though of course some would.

>95 proximity1: Well that hypothesis is founded on the assumption that there are people in the country who are "pleased" with its political process. I don't know that I'd make that assumption.

I think the "hope, change, yes we can" message that carried Obama through in 2008 is also at the foundation of Sanders' appeal. Personally, I am pleased about some things, but very very displeased about others. But when it comes down to it I think history is going to be as kind to Obama as it will be harsh to GW Bush.

Hillary Clinton’s Candidacy Reveals Generational Schism Among Women:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/us/hillary-clintons-candidacy-reveals-generati...

As I said, I'm still on the fence re. Sanders v Clinton. But, this article has some truth in it about how women in power have to care about people's perceptions of their appearances more so than men in power have to. This does make the playing field uneven. I've seen this in business too. In the tech industry, male CEOs can show up wearing ripped jeans and flip-flops and hoodies to important meetings, they can rant, rave or be glued to their mobile devices. But, if a woman did the same, she would be severely criticized.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/12/what-bernie-sanders-were-woman/m8Z...

I'm late to this conversation but I'll just say that I'm in the over 65 group, a woman, and a Sanders supporter. I live in Vermont and he has been our Representative and Senator for many years now. I've had a chance to participate in the "town hall" meetings he holds around the state and though he has his flaws, as do we all, I believe that he is sincerely committed to increasing democracy, increasing people's participation in government, and reclaiming our country from the grip of what he calls the billionaire class. I think that sort of change is necessary if we are going to address the serious problems that affect those of us who are struggling to get by, not to mention the crisis for the planet. I am disappointed that he has been pretty much missing in action on racial justice, especially in his own state, but I don't think that Hillary has been much better on that front (she actually talked about "super predators" during Bill Clinton's presidency, when he was trying to court the white vote by being tough on crime -- and we now can see where that led).

I think that Bernie's appeal to the young -- and to people of all ages -- is that he lays out an aspirational platform. Of course he won't be able to accomplish it all. Neither will Hillary. Neither has any candidate, once elected. But if you start with aspirations and values of democracy and human dignity you open up space to move. If you start with a limited vision of what is possible, rejecting things out of hand because they aren't "politically possible," you end up with next to nothing.

>98 jennybhatt:

I went to read your link's report but found (again) that to do that requires a reader to register; while it's probably free to do so, I'm really fed up with having to register just to read what would be free to view for those who do register. But, I note the interesting title of the article,

"What If Bernie Sanders Were a Woman?"

and I ask: "Where is his female counterpart? And, indeed, if there isn't one, Why isn't there one?"

Do we seriously suppose that a female "clone" of Sanders' political views could not appear or, if she appeared, could never advance and come to the attention of the national news media?

That, too, is a pregnant question. What, if anything, is stiopping women--esp. young women, many of whom admire Sanders, but actually women of any age--from becoming active in politics and carrying his causes just as he has done? There are some? Where?, please.

>32 verncox:

Vern, Sanders is in no way, shape or form a Communist and your calling him one makes you look ridiculous, not Sanders. I could have subscribed to your comment there had it not been for such nonsense.

>42 verncox:

And, speaking of looking ridiculous, ...
Note: the plural form of "_ussy" is not "_ussys," it's "_ussies." LOL.

>98 jennybhatt:

"In the tech industry, male CEOs can show up wearing ripped jeans and flip-flops and hoodies to important meetings, they can rant, rave or be glued to their mobile devices. But, if a woman did the same, she would be severely criticized."

Even if we granted your assertion that there are no comparable cases of women in the Tech industries, I ask:
is such an example of one of the motivated reasons to prefer HRC for president of the United States over Sanders?

Do you seriously imagine that all male CEOs are "equal" in so trivial a sense? Some, like Steve Jobs, (who I regarded as despicable as a person as well as a CEO, and certainly no model for others to emulate) had no concern for whether he conformed to conventional modes of business attire; this was only partly because, being such a unique "visionary," he felt no interest in following such herd-like behavior. But the fact that he didn't in no way signifies that there weren't (and still aren't) plenty of other men who, even as CEOs, are constantly & anxiously fretting over keeping to the dreary rules of conventional business "dress-for-succes" because, unlike Jobs' self-image, these men don't regard their genius as so dazzling that their careers are safe, come what might.

But any woman CEO of such a self-view as that of Steve Jobs could, yes, dress as she liked without care for what others thought about it.

Your example objection here of such "inequality" between men and women shows us what is so typical of a certain feminist view of where the problems are and where progress is to be found. "Men don't have to fetch coffee at the office (they don't --ever?!), so why should 'we'?"

Obsessions with such small-bore stuff is what keeps all of us mired in the status quo and takes trivial things as being progress when, affer all, they mean very little compared to matters of life and death.

>102 proximity1::

"is such an example of one of the motivated reasons to prefer HRC for president of the United States over Sanders?"

I never said that. And, the rest of your comment so completely misses the point of both the article and my own comment that I am going to have to just pass on by. Not to mention that your condescension and negativity are absolutely not inviting any reasonable dialogue/discussion.

>103 jennybhatt:

I could have responded to your post >98 jennybhatt: by taking similar offense at your comments. I could have alleged that the comment was not only intellectually insulting but also intended as such. But I didn't claim that because, although I find your apparent reasoning @ 98 indeed intellectually insulting, I don't believe you intended your comments to be taken that way. In short, I do not simply assume that every member of the opposite sex who disputes my opinions is always and only bent on insulting me. I get the definite impression from some feminists that they think so. As if any man who disputes their views could only do so because he's obviously a sexist jerk.

..."your condescension and negativity are absolutely not inviting any reasonable dialogue/discussion."

My comments directly addressed your own and did so as reasonable dialogue inviting discussion.

Rather than reply with reason and argument, you took offense and imputed that I intended that you should .


You claim you want equality and equal treatment. You say women seek only to be seen and treated as equals with men--their peers or not. Well, here, above, I have read and responded to your comments no differently than I should have done toward any other person, man or woman.

If someone did want and need an easy escape from your reasoned arguments, you demonstrate clearly that all he need do is pretend to offer offense--with complete confidence that you'd take offense and, in disengaging, let him completely off the hook.

That kind of comportment -from anyone-does nothing to inspire respect--again, from anyone.

In so many things, it makes not a damn bit of difference whether one is a man or a woman--nor ought it.

>103 jennybhatt: The Hillary Clinton discussions seem to have attracted a certain type of commenter. We recently had a discussion about the berniebro phenomenon--I believe it was in the mansplaining thread--although we've gotten them from both sides. Anyway, ignoring them seems to be the best recourse. Eventually, they wander back wherever they came from.

>105 sturlington:: Yes, you're right. The block feature that someone mentioned above and I did not know about (figured it out through Help) is proving, well, helpful. :) Thanks.

>99 Eschwa:

Everything you said.

>99 Eschwa:

Thanks so much for sharing that. It's really nice to hear from one of Sen. Sanders' constituents in Vermont. Politics aside, it sounds like he has done right by you folks.

I think that Bernie's appeal to the young -- and to people of all ages -- is that he lays out an aspirational platform. Of course he won't be able to accomplish it all. Neither will Hillary. Neither has any candidate, once elected. But if you start with aspirations and values of democracy and human dignity you open up space to move. If you start with a limited vision of what is possible, rejecting things out of hand because they aren't "politically possible," you end up with next to nothing.

Pretty much my view exactly, and one that is echoed by this well-argued piece:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-pragmatic-case-for-berni...

With all due respect for Secretary Clinton (who I will support 100% if she gets the Democratic nomination), I just don't think she that if she becomes president she's going to fight for the things that matter to me most the way that Sanders will.

>100 proximity1:

Where is his female counterpart?

In Massachusetts. Her name is Elizabeth Warren. She sat out this presidential election, more's the pity. If she hadn't, we probably would not be having this conversation.

>108 artturnerjr:

Art, thank you for that reply.

I'm very pleased that Warren ran for U.S. Senate and defeated her Rep. opponent, Scott Brown. But Sen. Warren isn't merely sitting out this race for the White House; her Wikipedia page says of her,

"Warren is a leading figure in the Democratic Party and is popular among American progressives.(4)(5) She was frequently mentioned by political pundits as a potential 2016 presidential candidate. However, Warren has repeatedly stated that she has no intention of running for president."

(emphasis added)

So one of her other distinguishing features (besides being a woman) is that she won't run for the office of the presidency while Sanders will. Also, comparing their political careers we find that Warren came quite late to the Democratic party (i.e. to her current rather lefist (which is good!) politics). Prior to that she was a Republican and, in addition, she's been a Harvard Law professor. Now, that reminds me of someone else.... It's historically an extremely conservative profession where even the "left-wingers" are what I call "center-right" (at best) in their politics. Still, I consider her exceptional in many--all good --ways. I fear, however, that she'd prove to be as president an Obama-style disappointment--but I'd favor her hands-down over Hillary Clinton for any elective office.

But she apparently won't take on this race's challenge.

Next?

So now, on the Republican side at least, it's come down to who has the biggest penis. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/opinion/five-big-questions-after-a-vulgar-repu...

>110 sturlington:

It would be nice to think it's something only those on the right are susceptible to, but I've become certain it's common to any sausage-fest.

Lots of them manage to talk the "equality", "justice for all" talk like they mean it (and some no doubt believe they mean it)--but let, say, a woman in their midst and just watch how fast and vilely they gang up on her.

Nothing is to be expected from men, which is why everything must be demanded, constantly.

Without explicit, vocal, direct, practical support to those fighting oppression, they are pretty much all just a bunch of wankers stroking their... egos.

I increasing feel as though I am trapped in a really, really bad nightmare that I can't wake up out of. You guys wanna be president? Quit behaving like fucking ten-year-olds, for starters. Being a man isn't about the size of your dick, for fuck's sake.

Yep. Just think, I thought the candidacy of Dubya was embarrassing. Then there was Palin... now this...

But cheer up, art, there's always Canada! :)

>113 LolaWalser:

Funny, I was just reading about that...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/move-to-canada-trump-clinton.html

I think the ambivalence of this essay captures how a lot of us feels. There are no easy answers this election cycle.

https://medium.com/@laurenbesser/had-bernie-been-bernadette-the-heartbreaking-tr...

Yes, it's a pity we can't see what the response to Sanders would be like if he were a woman.

There are no easy answers this election cycle.

Don't want to be flippant, but in the worst case, I think anyone sane would do well to go with "anyone but the Republican".

I was cheered by this artwork titled 'Feminism at Work'. It shows 12 pioneering feminist women sitting on that high iron girder, similar to the popular "Men at Work" poster we've seen many times. Most of these women are, of course, from the socio-political field.

http://www.womenyoushouldknow.net/inspired-illustration-feminism-at-work-pays-tr...

Part of this is x-posted to Pro & Con, but since I know some of you avoid that place...

Contemplate the travails of the dinosaur of our times, the misogynistic, racist white man, that natural-born fascist:

As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men

For all of you pulling the "it's the economy, stupid" card, consider this: these same shits supported her when she ran against a black man; these same shits express readiness or outright support for Republicans--EVEN TRUMP.

But, see, suddenly it's all about private e-mails and her wealth and privilege--the latter of which, somehow, doesn't prevent them from going to the Republican side!

It would be even funnier if it weren't so transparent...

Just to re-cap my personal position (because I've been told it can get confusing)--I'm not American, my opinions reflect purely theoretical sympathies rather than practical, i.e. voting choices, politically I align with better and would support Sanders any day of the week over Clinton; BUT; now that he seems no longer to be an option and Clinton is emerging clearly as the Dem candidate, what's also emerging clearly are the reasons of those opposing her.

And they are, for white men in particular, above all misogyny and racism, not some honest, plain-talkin', salt of the earth, "working class" concerns.

The QED is in their past behaviour (as I note above)--but also in who IS voting for Clinton. If Clinton were insufferable to the poor and the economically beleaguered, she wouldn't be getting support from black men and women, Hispanics, and women in general either. Blacks and Hispanics are still poorer demographics than whites--and yet they support her over the Republicans. Women are still poorer than men, and yet they too would support her over the Republicans.

Just about the only demographic that prefers any Republican shit, as long as it's someone with a dick--are white men. Not All White Men, but enough so's you'd notice.

lol!

This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest

I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

>119 southernbooklady:

Some types in Pro & Con would take a bit of shocking.

>119 southernbooklady:: When this popped up in my Facebook feed, I was so tempted to share it with those friends who bash Hillary Clinton for this "honesty" lark. I restrained myself because, quite honestly, I just don't have the energy to discuss this issue there -- too many personal relationships would die off, I think, if I did. :)

Hillary Clinton Should Be Allowed to Boast: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hillary-clinton-should-be-allowed-to...

Analyzing the research, Moss-Racusin and Rudman conclude that, “professional women face a Catch-22: They must overcome negative stereotypes about women by “acting like men,” yet when they do so they risk being penalized for violating gender prescriptions. In fact, self-promoting women are seen as more dominant and arrogant than self-promoting men, whose behavior is consistent with stereotypic expectations.” That double standard, they write, “is a critical barrier to women’s equitable treatment because self-promotion is necessary for career advancement, yet only women risk penalties for it.”

>122 sturlington: it sucks there's no winning. It's similar to how women's voices are discussed in politics. Trump has already aid her voice annoyed him, but there's no winning. If women in politics are assertive they're shrill, if they're less than aggressive they're weak.

Some of you wanted Sanders but now she's clinched enough pledges to win the nomination it will be interesting to see how people rally to support her to ensure you don't get a Trump presidency. Will people like Susan Sarandon firmly come out in support of her.

>123 wifilibrarian: Hillary Clinton has enough delegates to become the official presidential candidate of the Democrat party and our first woman to be nominated for president by a major party. A historic moment. Bernie Sanders has yet to concede.

Hillary Clinton Claims the Democratic Nomination http://nyti.ms/1TUzUI1