Not With Her, Still a Feminist

Also, if Bernie's with her, and you're with Bernie, you're with her then.

Check back next week.

Also, comparing her to Herman Cain and Ben Carson is so stupid even Susan Sarandon would be shocked.

Op is her own person.
I am also a middle aged female person of color who is with Bernie all the way to the convention!

or will he be a traitor to you as well?

the [strike]left[/strike] Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is under no obligation to follow our candidates in lockstep. We are free to disagree with our chosen candidates at any time on any issue.
You should try that.
It is very liberating.

What Bernie chooses to do is up to Bernie.
What I choose to do is up to me and me alone.

But whatever helps!

...that any of the Democratic presidential candidates are far better than any of the Republican candidates.

When he endorses HRC it will be consistent with that.

It won't change that he has different values than HRC, and that his values are closer to mine.

I'll vote for HRC in November, but I'll still be in opposition to her from the left.

I expect Bernie to endorse her. I always knew he would if she were nominated. I don't consider him a "traitor," because I know he'll continue to work for the political revolution. That means that, very often, he WON'T be "with" her, because she's an obstacle to progress.

I'm "with" the political revolution.

I have NEVER in my 4 decades of voting supported a candidate because someone else endorsed that candidate. I support Bernie because he's got the issues. Clinton doesn't.

I think Bernie is well aware of the fact that his supporters are not sheep ready to follow Clinton because he endorses her. We will each make our own choice.

Other women have tried, but no one has succeeded in jumping the hurdles required to be a major party nominee -- not till Hillary.

Not Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Elvena Lloyd-Duffie, or Carol Mosely-Braun. Those strong women deserve credit and their own place in the history books for their own achievements.

But Hillary is the first woman ever to be the presumptive nominee of a major party. And that is a major accomplishment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates

"Hillary jumped hurdles"

Tell me another one, pnwmom.

and what exactly is it that you want to contest? The rights of American citizens to vote for anyone other than your choice? I don't see any principle at stake that can be construed as anyway leftist, quite the opposite. A politician is not a cause. A political worldview tethered so completely to one politician is about an empty as any I can think of. If there are particular policies or reforms you want to enact, you might be able to build a broad coalition in support of them. But to insist that the only thing you care about is seeing Bernie installed in power against the electoral will of the overwhelmingly majority suggests political views far more in keeping with monarchy than social or economic justice.

Her point, as I understand it, is that while Dems were pleased to have a Black President, that we
would not have been as proud of Cain or Carson. It's the person, not the gender.

If "historic" is your criterion, then Sanders deserves your respect and support on that basis as much as Clinton.

Let it Bern! http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12302

I agree with everything you said.
Bravo!

But Bernie is dropping out in a few days and is expected to endorse Hillary. So you can be with him if you want but he will be with her.

NT

'with her'. He would never use such a stupid meme.

So I'd save the smiley. Helping her beat Trump may not mean any more than he's going to help her beat Trump.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=326927

I think this was an intentional flame-out and the OP got exactly what she was seeking.

Good for her!

of a GBCW.

As I said earlier, despite my commitment to civility, I do love a good GBCW post. THE DRAMA!

Feh! Amateur method actors ... whaddya gonna do?


PS: Now, David Tennant on the other hand ... anyone who can make his hair tremble with emotion deserves a BAFTA!

The "Going Out In A Blaze Of Glory" goodbye.

But I love the classics.

"Oh please don't go! We need your voice for the fight!"
"Don't let the door hit you in the ass.."
"Who are you, even?"
"Leaving is just what they want, DON'T GIVE IN!"

And on and on. Sigh. Maybe next time.

Well, in my book, mocking isn't civility, In this OP, the poster gave her opinion in a very clear way. Yes, OPs like this will be banned in a few days' time (not yet, by the way, though Hillary supporters seem to be trying to hide them all - so much for letting people 'get it out of their system' as Skinner said was allowed), but in the meantime, why not just look the other way of you don't like it. You (I mean you, Hillary Supporters, as a group, and obviously not all, just the 20-30 who can't stay out of any and every thread with some snarky comment) seem to have a nasty streak that you just can't put on hold.

The OP has been FFR'd. He/she was deliberately trying to flame out, which I don't think is very civil.

Second, I would never have posted the above if the OP were still with us. And I never replied to the OP directly in this thread.

Third, the mocking replies I posted above are meant to be representative of EVERY GBCW post, ever. Nothing to do with this primary. They're all the same. They were the same since the beginning of this website.

Finally, a little harmless snark is a bit different from outright nastiness.

All of that said, if my post offended you, please accept my apology. I meant it as a joke; perhaps I got the tone wrong.

whether the poster was attempting to 'flame out' - something you can't know - mocking is still mocking. also irrelevant oif the poster is 'still with us' - they can still read what's on the board and the replies to the post.

but 'harmless' snark, repeated over and over, ad nauseum, ad inifinitum, is nasty is my book. But in truth I only replied to you because I think you do at least attempt to keep it civil, the rest of them, i wouldn't bother with.

Trying for a bit of levity - it's important for me to remember that people are still very upset and joking might not go over very well! Thanks for the reminder.

day. Rather easy to make happen as has been discussed as a plan on another site that 'her' supporters visit and dis DUers. Hides these days are easily come by and have nothing to do with violating TOS just getting enough like minded jurors to vote to hide. Thank gawd Skinner is working to fix the system.

getting PPR'ed being a "sacrifice for the revolution"?

I got all teary ... as the patriotic music played.

the OP is alive and well and her transparency reflects nothing.

I think this type of post reflects more about your than her.

Edit: I just double checked, and as of this morning it appears that this person's account is still "flagged for review".

... It wasn't hard to miss, Paula.

And it was quite a show.

woman isn't the same thing as saying that you'd vote for any woman.

is supporting her only because she's a woman.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

My reading comprehension seems to be a bit bad today. This is the second time I misread a post.

Just kidding. I'm actually vegetarian.

NT

Just like "vegan".

One is not a feminist just because one declares that one is. If you're a "feminist" who goes around denigrating women who have spent their lives fighting for equality, if you don't take great care to be conscious of and to fight the misogyny that you have inevitably absorbed by living in this society, then, IMHO, you are not a feminist. If you are a woman who thinks Hillary is "an embarrassment" and will declare so on a public forum, comparing her to Cain and Carson, if you will call her illegitimate despite the millions of votes she got, if you will go so far as vote against Hillary in the general election, then, I'm sorry, but you are anything but a feminist.

I suspect that Rebkeh is very young -- so young that she has not yet experienced sexism and does not understand that that is what she is buying into, even as she calls herself a feminist. Being young, however, does not make it OK to dismiss hundreds of years of struggle that have come before you and to refuse to listen to other voices.

Feminists -- real ones, anyway -- believe, without question or hesitation, that women are the equal of men and do not want or require special treatment. We did not struggle for hundreds of years to be recognized as the equal of men to now claim that Hillary should be given a pass BECAUSE she is a woman. Believing that a woman should not be held to the same standards of integrity and accountability as a man, or that men -- or other women -- should not call her record, positions or trustworthiness into question because she is a woman is NOT feminism.

And, Rebkeh stated in her post that she is middle-age, so your condescension is ridiculous. Talk about denigrating other women.

An 80% male Congress is "equal treatment"? 79 cents to the male dollar is "equal treatment"?

I would call it special treatment in favor of men. But of course, our society is perfectly fine with special treatment that benefits those in power: white men. People not only don't mind, but they don't even take notice when white men benefit from special treatment.

No one said Hillary should be given a pass because she's a woman. You are making up straw arguments to make your own position look less biased. A much higher standard is being applied to Hillary because she's a woman. Just look at how people say she hasn't really won the primary because she hasn't won enough pledged delegates to not need any superdelegates to vote for her. That criterion has never been applied to anyone else.

It is clear that Bernie supporters who hate Hillary hate her because she's a woman. There is nothing rational about such visceral hatred. It is a demonstration of precisely what is wrong with our sick society. It's sickening that they then turn around and accuse those of us who stand up for Hillary of being sexist. Accusing your opponent of your own crimes is a tactic straight out of the Republican textbook, and it is sickening to see progressives using it.

Reread Rebkeh's OP if you want to see an example of what it means to denigrate a woman. Pointing out that another woman is not feminist is not "denigrating" her; it's stating an honest opinion. And if Rebkeh is not very young, well, in that case, I see even less reason to tolerate her extreme hatred of Hillary.

First of all, I am not biased against Clinton because she is a woman. I would put my record as a feminist up against yours or anyone else's any day of the week. I have been banging my head against the goddam glass ceiling my entire career, so don't you dare tell me that I am "just fine" with the status quo or with policies that benefit rich, white men. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Do you really believe that electing Clinton President is going to magically fix the gender inequality in this country? Did electing Obama magically erase racism?

Does Clinton even have fixing the wage gap as part of her platform? If so, this is the first I've heard of it.

Were people biased against Palin as McCain's VP pick because she was a woman or because she was a HORRIBLE choice as a VP? It is possible to support or not support a woman based on her own merit -- AS IT SHOULD BE -- and not simply because she is a woman. I evaluated Clinton as a candidate in the same way & manner that I evaluate ALL candidates, and I found her lacking in several areas which are very important to me in elected officials (her integrity for one), and her positions do not align with the path I believe our government should take -- she's too hawkish for one thing, and she does not display sufficient concern for the welfare of middle and lower income families.

Second, yes you were condescending to Rebkeh in your post. You asserted that she held the position she did because she was "very young" (i.e., too inexperienced in the ways of the world & politics to make an informed decision). This is a nasty denigration of another woman, even *if* she is young, but it was even more insulting since Rebkeh identified herself as "middle age" at the very beginning of her post. You might as well have tied it up in a pretty bow by accusing her of being a Sanders supporter just so she can meet men (as one of Clinton's formal surrogates did).

But, hey, no worries. In 4 short days you will have the Clinton echo chamber you so desperately desire. All the riff raff (myself -- a 35-year registered Democrat who has volunteered in multiple campaigns and even served as a delegate to the State convention -- included) will be silenced.

Yay, Democrats!

He lost. So you are either with Trump or with Clinton...those are your only choices.

Only in your mind.

A little. I actually can only lose. I can vote for someone who reflects my views but has little chance to win, or I can vote for someone who can win but will enact or continue policies that I see as destructive, or I can not vote with the same end result.

Hypothetical question. If GHWB had defeated Bill in 1992, would we have gotten NAFTA, the Crime Bill, Welfare Reform, Bank Deregulation, Austerity? I don't think it's a given that those things were inevitable. Dems without the cover of a president might be more conscious of maintaining the brand-the contrast with Republicans on those issues. I realize it's heresy to ask such a question, but I'll ask it anyway.

Trump shouldn't make anyone feel safe, especially PoC, but are we sure Clinton and Democrats will make the country safer for PoC. One of the biggest problems is police violence towards PoC. Outside of rhetoric, how have Clinton and Democrats responded? Some of the cities where this problem is systemic are cities that have been controlled by Democrats for decades. Baltimore, San Francisco, Chicago. That conversation never happened this primary season outside of a few photo-ops. And that includes Bernie.

Trump is convenient for those who want BAU. Because he presents such an existential threat, we don't have the hard discussions needed to develop workable solutions. We don't need to come to terms with Democratic policies and actions that have created or worsened intolerable social and economic conditions. And we didn't need Trump's help in maintaining the spineless political will Dems have become so famous for. That was already well established. All we need to do this election cycle is keep Trump out of the White House.

yes I like ghost busters...however...that is a bit over the top...haha

where do these stairs go? They go up.

I am a middle aged, educated (? why should it matter) woman. I am not with Bernie. The Democratic primary voters have already spoken. I will be damned if I would back someone who thinks it's okay to lobby a few to overturn 3+ million voters.

Were you upset when the Supreme Court chose W?

Were you just as upset when Hillary was pushed to exit when she did at a much closer margin?

If not, that's completely hypocritical.

Nothing to do with Bernie.

Nothing Bernie does can get me to support a candidate who is for war and fracking and the TPP and cluster bombs and saying no to single payer. Just to name a few issues that I abhor Hillary's stances on.

I think the whole primary is/was a rigged clusterfuck.

In any event, my dislike of a candidate is based on issues that affect all Americans. Sorry that yours is not based on issues.

Where did I say that I was a non-issue voter? Oh, that's right...I didn't.

This primary was not rigged, I've seen rigged up close and personal. Just because your preferred candidate did not win doesn't make it rigged.

You were not going to back him anyway, then, so this is kinda dramatically disingenuous.

If I said this -
"I will be damned if I would back someone who thinks it's okay to lock up superdelegates before a single vote is cast"
that would imply that this is why I will not support Hillary. I think it despicable, but I will not support her because of the issues. The rest of the chicanery is just illustrative of character.

She's against the TPP, wants to put us on a clear path to ending fracking, wants to negotiate peace whenever possible, and would support expanding Medicare to younger voters (one group at a time).

I don't know her position on cluster bombs, but based on the rest of the hyperbole here, I doubt she's "for" cluster bombs.

the TPP and she has said single payer is never going to happen.


Does Hillary Clinton support fracking?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/13/bernie-s/does-hillary-clinton-support-fracking/





Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/


Far from challenging fossil fuel companies, the emails obtained by The Intercept show that State Department officials worked closely with private sector oil and gas companies, pressed other agencies within the Obama administration to commit federal government resources including technical assistance for locating shale reserves, and distributed agreements with partner nations pledging to help secure investments for new fracking projects.

The documents also reveal the department’s role in bringing foreign dignitaries to a fracking site in Pennsylvania, and its plans to make Poland a “laboratory for testing whether U.S. success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different country,” particularly in Europe, where local governments had expressed opposition and in some cases even banned fracking.

The campaign included plans to spread the drilling technique to China, South Africa, Romania, Morocco, Bulgaria, Chile, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Indonesia, and Ukraine.

snip

As for warhawk, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc, enough said. She is a humanitarian bomber, like Power, Albright, Rice, etc. Empiric war projection with bogus altruistic covers.

Democrats, this is why you need to fear Hillary Clinton: The NY Times is absolutely right — she’s a bigger hawk than the Republicans

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/






TPP, I am sorry, her recent conditional semi-reversal is well overweighted by her previous fundamental support of it. It is, IMHO, pure political opportunism, and is one of the biggest reasons I was not happy with her as the pick, which I do admit she now is, and I will support her over Trump. That said, I fully expect the TPP to rammed down our throats.


45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/

Chamber of Commerce expects Clinton to support TPP as president

http://digbysblog.blogspot.se/2016/02/chamber-of-commerce-expects-clinton-to.html

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, will she support TPP anyway? Clinton has been pro-"free trade" deals, including very pro-TPP until just recently, when she announced her opposition.

How strong is that opposition? Tom Donohue, chief of the powerful pro-business lobby Chamber of Commerce, thinks it's not very strong at all. He expects, if elected, she will follow her husband's earlier lead (he actually brought that up) and get "practical."

Here's a clip:



This is the essence of money talking about money at a place where money's private jets have gathered (the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland). From the Bloomberg News introduction:
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue discusses his stance and outlook for the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. He speaks from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on "Bloomberg ‹GO›."

In the conversation above, note first that the reason he thinks the Senate can't approve TPP until after the election is that too many Republican senators would be made vulnerable by voting to approve it. Before the election those senators couldn't vote for TPP and still preserve their seats. After the election, or in a lame duck session, that restriction is lifted.
In other words, he knows and admits that even Republican voters hate TPP. But the wealthy want it anyway, and they're willing to wait a few months to get it. Even if it wins by "two votes," as he explains above, it still wins, as do they. Second, he thinks Clinton will revert back to the family pattern — remember, "two for the price of one" was a Clinton claim — and become "practical" once she gains power and frees herself from having to make promises to voters.


snip


Single payer

Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/


Just a few days before the Iowa caucuses, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton stressed to voters in Des Moines just how unfeasible she considers her opponent Bernie Sanders' plan to pursue a single-payer health care system.

"I want you to understand why I am fighting so hard for the Affordable Care Act," she said at Grand View University after hearing from a woman who spoke about her daughter receiving cancer treatment thanks to the health care law. "I don't want it repealed, I don't want us to be thrown back into a terrible, terrible national debate. I don't want us to end up in gridlock. People can't wait!"

She added, "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."

Also, Hillary originally supported the TPP that was under negotiation; but she doesn’t support the final version.

You are ignoring her proposal to expand Medicare. See the NYTimes link below.

It’s ridiculous to say that Hillary is more of a “war hawk” than the Republicans, though she may be more interventionist than Obama.

And The Intercept is a libertarian anti-Obama and anti-Clinton publication put out by Glenn Greenwald.

From your politifact link:

Here’s how Clinton detailed her position during the March 6 debate in Flint, Michigan:
"I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — No. 3 — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.
So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated."




http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-health-care-public-option.html?_r=0

But as she tries to clinch the nomination, Mrs. Clinton is moving to the left on health care and this week took a significant step in her opponent’s direction, suggesting she would like to give people the option to buy into Medicare.
“I’m also in favor of what’s called the public option, so that people can buy into Medicare at a certain age,” Mrs. Clinton said on Monday at acampaign event in Virginia.

Glenn Greenwald – The Intercept
https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/

Glenn Greenwald is one of three co-founding editors of The Intercept. He is a journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times best-selling ...

I find every so much left out.



The Salon article is written by Ben Norton-- too much there to unpack on DU, but he hates Hillary and is full of shit.

The "single payer will never ever happen" is enclosed in this quote



The TPP has been in the works for 10 fucking years. She is allowed and encouraged as far as I'm concerned to criticize it or praise it as negotiations unfolded. People toss out "TPP" likes it's a meme, instead of a complex trade negotiation.

She was utterly instrumental in negotiations at the highest level when it was being crafted. She is going to pull her typical spinneroo and try and shove it through, Obama is on boards and we know goddamn well so are the rest of the corporatist Rethugs and Dems.


Fracking



The fracking companies BUY acquiescence, methane and water contamination are FAR from the only problems with fracking and chemical disclosure is meaningless if they are harmful to any degree.

The ACA, if it fails to work out long term (a distinct possibility) pretty much scuppers any attempt at single payer as the old "look, we gave the government a role in health care and look at what happened, they bollocksed even that up" meme is going to be trumpeted from very right wing gully-dwelling source imaginable, thus pre poisoning the well.

As for her being a warhawk, THAT is my number one issue with her. I understand why you have to do a throw-away swipe at the author of that article, as your case that she is not an ultra aggressive in military projection and temperament is just ludicrous on its face She has Kissinger for a mentor and ROBERT FUCKING KAGAN, a despicable principal neocon and war criminal (IMHO) as one of her biggest foreign policy boosters.

Robert Kagan: Republican, Neocon, PNAC co-founder endorses Clinton

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/25/1491609/-Robert-Kagan-Republican-Neocon-PNAC-co-founder-endorses-Clinton


also

How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html






I UTTERLY stand by all my characterisation of Clinton's policy and the outcomes

those I addressed are either right wing or corporatist or non productive in terms of advance universal health care

So, in the binary world that this election is, who are you with? ... Recognizing, of course, that not choosing, is "settling" for whomever others pick for you.

either that of a willful refusal to actually look at his record. Of course we've seen an enormous amount of just that.

Bernie, while sympathetic to some women's issues, is far from a feminist.

But for me, Hillary vs. Trump is a no brainier. Trump wants to put anti-abortion candidates on the SCOTUS. Most likely they'll be anti-birth control too, as many of the rabid anti-choicers are. I don't see how a feminist could not do everything possible to keep Trump from nominating SCOTUS candidates.

Bernie would have done great, but more people voted for Hillary. That's just the way of elections.

No one but Hillary and Trump has a choice. That is also just the way of elections, at least in the US.

I'm just working with reality.

Wish there were many more ....like you.

And I agree...we shouldn't let fear sway us from our beliefs.

I've had the first disputed recently (albeit with laughable ineptitude), but so it goes. I'm not supporting Hillary because her views and actions don't match up at all well with mine. On some issues, they're absolute deal-breakers. In comparison to those issues, a first woman president lands in "wouldn't it be nice" territory in terms of import.

Not gonna settle.

who are with Hillary, though.

There's not a single "in spite of" in my vote. I've followed her career for decades and actually only during her last run began to appreciate the incredibly long and powerful fight she's waged for us to be able to disagree and still get things done. And that's vital.

Feminists are all over the map on Hillary Clinton...and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.

Someone who is feminist to their core would understand what it took to get women the right to vote and would understand how absolutely insane it is that there has never been a female president in this country and how that affects women and their daughters. A true feminist would never pretend that getting female representation in the highest office in this land is a "nice to have." They would realize it is an absolute necessity. I get tired of conservative women who do their best to take women's rights away and then pretend they can claim the "feminist" mantle. I get just as tired when I see progressive women saying they are feminists and yet work to keep the status quo--like keeping more white privileged men in the white house -- and try to prevent the first viable woman in our nation's history from reaching the presidency.

because of the struggle we have had to get the right to vote....Hillary is NOT the woman I want to represent me and the struggle I have personally waged for Peace, Choice and the right to work at equal pay and equal rights. I don't see her as a feminist at all. You may and more power to you if you do.

However, no one here has once said a Woman Should NOT be President - I would love to see a woman be President and think woman are as qualified as men to be the President of the United States. Being a woman alone is NOT a good enough reason to vote for Hillary Clinton.

I have been alive a very long time and there are a lot of women who claim to be feminists who are not..Hillary is one of them.

No offense, but I would never take seriously anything a woman says who is trying to prevent the first viable female candidate for the presidency of this country from reaching the White House. I won’t listen to your rationalizations for why you are doing what you’re doing or why you’re trying to hinder women’s political progress in this country. So I certainly wouldn’t believe you if you called yourself a feminist or claimed Hillary wasn’t one.

And btw: the issue isn’t whether Hillary is a feminist. Her feminist “credentials” are irrelevant. The issue has always been how women in this country will benefit literally and symbolically from finally having political representation in the highest office in this land. Lucky for you that it's a luxury to have female representation in government. For other women, it's the difference between life and death. From the life-threatening encroachment of the government into women's bodies to the stifling poverty single mothers are struggling to survive because they are paying over half of their wages to childcare so they can go to work, gender is most certainly a political issue. And, so long as women have less than 20% representation in our government, the personal will remain deeply political.

Can women who work to obstruct women’s political progress expropriate the feminist label? The answer is unreservedly: no. And as far as I’m concerned, self-hating women who are proud they are not voting for Hillary because of her gender are just victims of patriarchal ideology—colonized minds who unwittingly participate in their own oppression.

You would be voting for Trump?

That's the only way your logic holds up.

You cite progressives who "say they are feminists yet work to keep the status quo--like keeping more white privileged men in the white house."

The sad reality here is that so many careerist feminists think that the only dimension of "the status quo" is physical identity--change that, and presto! (And then they conveniently ignore Sanders' historic "firsts," like being the first Jewish POTUS candidate to have this much popular support.) Both Clintons' welfare reduction, incarceration policies that disproportionate harmed minorities, wage and job demolishing trade policies, and late-night financial-deregulation have harmed hundreds of thousands of women, particularly women of color, and that's just in this country.

What good does it do a battered women with children to know that "the first viable woman in our nation's history" is the president when she can't afford to get out because the safety net's been pulled out from under her, she's too exhausted from working minimum wage jobs to figure out any other solution, the police have gotten more powerful with "drug war" money and if she's partnered with an African American male he'll face far more than normal justice if she calls the police on him.

The real privilege is people thinking a biological female as POTUS is enough to address the deeper patriarchal realities we all face. A man can be more of an actual feminist than a woman, and one of those men is Bernie Sanders.

All that needs to be said in response to that, really...

Like Sri Lanka, India, Israel, Mongolia, China, and other non-white countries. Let me mansplain this to you: We all have a choice, no one has an obligation.

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

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

Hillary acknowledges that a lot of young people are for Bernie, and Gloria Steinem told us young women are supporting Bernie to meet boys.

You seem to be very good at starting a flame bait thread and then never posting on it. Keep stirring the shit, next week it ends, and I can hardly wait to see this kind of hit and run shit end.

]Girls across the world.

This is truly truly sad. Glad I saw through the nicey nicey stuff the first time we met here on DU. I kinda watched and thought to myself, my oh my, how did she get past our stalwarts here? I better stay way far away from what ever op is going on that so and so is interested in before I say something that will will get me in trouble with my fellow AAs here again. This glorious melodrama is well worth all the tongue biting I did to myself.

I don't understand the head patting need.

You put my thoughts and feelings into words and did so beautifully. Especially about what the media did, and how sad that the first woman to be declared the presumptive nominee of a major party is such a profoundly flawed individual who got herself there in ways that no one could be proud of.

It is sad and, yes, it is embarrassing.

I do not remember Obama playing up his race once he was designated the nominee, if anything he downplayed his race.

But I could get a Hilary magnet with a picture of Hillary and the words "History Made" for a minimum contribution of ten bucks.

I have been very critical of Obama, particularly for his exclusion of advocates for a universal HC system beginning with his first WH summit on HC. Unfortunately if one was critical they were also considered a racist, now we'll just be considered sexist.

Well stated, thx!

Entitled to our own opinions.

You are to yours, and me to mine.

IF you don't want to vote for Hillary, that's your choice. Good deal.

I will be voting for her and happy to do so come the fall. I'm happy with my choice .

What are we to make of all this?

move up and run for Presidency. She's made such a difference already and her politics mirror mine. I would have been proud for her to have been the first. I voted for Obama but his lack of experience in Congress proved to be a detriment. Had he spent more time in the Senate, he would have been even better.

Becoming a President isn't about the person but about the nation and what they can do for the country. I think Clinton has come a long way thanks to Sanders. I hope she can get it done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512149735

I do not support her. I do not see her as a genuine champion of people like me.

This evening I had dinner with a dear friend of mine (gay man a decade older, which shouldn't matter but it does) who honestly cannot understand why I'm not switching automatically from Bernie to Hillary. He's focussed, as so many are, on the Trump v Clinton aspect, and doesn't understand her fundamental flaws. I suggested that the choice between the two was rather like a choice between Idi Amin and Adolf Hitler. So I exaggerate a little, but my point is that neither one is a good choice.

And THAT'S what so many don't get. They think that now we have the Democratic nominee sealed in stone, of course I'll vote for the Democrat, because what choice is there?

I'll tell what choice there is: For far too long I've been told I need to vote for the lesser of two evils. Well, at this point I'm DONE with that. If I can't vote in a positive way for the candidate I really want, then fuck this. I won't vote in that category. And I WILL NOT accept any responsibility for the outcome of the election. That is on all of you who actually do vote.

Hillary is beyond flawed. And all of those who support her need to think about this, and think about it without just waving your hands and saying, "It doesn't matter." Because it does. She has real flaws, real deficits, real things that will come back to bite her.

The email thing is NOT a figment of someone's imagination. It's real. And even if it doesn't result in some sort of indictment (which it should) it displays a real character flaw, an arrogance of "I'm SOS and I can do whatever I please, screw National Security" coupled with a genuine lack of understanding of technology, how it works, or how it matters. And that's genuinely dangerous in this world.

Not to mention she brings along a lot of baggage, mainly in the form of her attachment to Wall Street and investment banks. It's ludicrous to believe she can take enormous donations from them, or accept huge sums of money to speak to them, and walk away not influenced by that money. If you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

She simply does not understand, and has almost no sympathy for, ordinary citizens. As First Lady she opposed the bankruptcy law being proposed in the late '90s. As Senator, she voted for that same law. What changed? Figure it out yourself.

In a similar manner, we all had very high hopes for Barack Obama in the beginning, and he's betrayed those high hopes in many ways. He was for health care reform, but then took Single Payer off the table at the very start. And while ObamaCare started out well enough, the increase in premiums is scary. Let's go back to Single Payer, shall we? Oh, Hillary has said that's a nonstarter. So much for her vaunted defense of women and children and all others who need protection.

There are so many other issues at stake: the TPP, fracking, Glass-Stiegal, that it's pretty depressing.

I no longer hold out any hope that she will actually support the kind of legislation that will help me or anyone else who is not already wealthy.

Go ahead and vote for her, but do not be shocked when she tells you that the cost of wars means we can't begin to cover health care, and we might need to scale back Social Security and Medicare.

Keep in mind that this is the ONLY first world country without some sort of universal health care. Is it only a coincidence that we spend more money on our military than the entire rest of the world combined?

Think about it.

I am gonna miss posts like this!

Hillary is involved in a historic phenomenon....as a woman....it is too bad you cannot appreciate that. Sanders supporters and even Bernie's campaign staff are coming to help and support Hillary and work for her. Hillary is our nominee and will be supported on DU....and on the 16th, if you cannot support her, you will not be welcome here.

I want a woman president. A GOOD president. Hillary is not she.

I hope a woman who would actually be a good president will be nominated in my lifetime.

I wouldn't vote for any bad choice because of a "historic phenomenon."

And I despise identity politics.

I hope you find some reason to join team Blue against tRump.
He is more of a clear and present danger than anything else.

with you, and some others who have also expressed agreement in this thread.

A great post!

The choice is now between Clinton and Trump. You've said you will not support Clinton, which means you've decided you prefer to see Donald Trump as president. Your choice, of course. This site, however, is for Democrats. And Clinton is the Democratic nominee. She beat Bernie by a wide margin. You don't have to like it, but it is a fact. Even his own campaign staff knew two months ago that Bernie couldn't win, as the Politico article published this week disclosed.

I don't know of many feminists who want to see women imprisoned for having abortions, but there is a first time for everything I suppose.

Elections are a choice. Perhaps Bernie was ideal to you, and supporting him didn't involve settling. Perhaps you've been a long supporter of immunity for gun corporations, an opponent of waiting periods for gun purchases, and a big proponent of funneling $1.5 trillion dollars to Lockheed for the F-35. Perhaps you've always been a fan of the Minutemen and an opponent of immigration reform. Perhaps you like politicians that repeatedly claim they don't have superpacs, all while having key staffers move immediately from campaign positions to Bernie superpacs. Perhaps you think it's good for candidates to take junkets to Rome, charter private planes and dine on luxury meals paid for by contributions from ordinary citizens, a plurality of them jobless, according to the NYTimes. And perhaps you like the idea of a candidate who funnels 15% ad placement fees to his wife, who has been cited by the FEC for tens of millions in illegal campaign contributions. (Sources for the preceding points available through my journal). Perhaps you see all of that as something that is ideal, that doesn't require "settling." That was of course your choice during the primary, but we now have a candidate and after Tuesday Bernie will no longer be an option for the presidency. If you live in DC, you can vote for him Tuesday. After that, he will no longer be on the ballot.

That leaves you with Trump, whom you evidently feel is the best choice for a "feminist" who doesn't want to "settle." Have at it. Nothing surprises me anymore. It turns out that some Bernie supporters don't actually care about improving access to healthcare, expanding Social Security, overturning Citizens United, reforming the financial sector, making higher education more affordable--all positions that Clinton shares with Bernie. It turns out the only thing that some truly care about is an abiding resentment toward Hillary Clinton and the 16 million Americans who voted for her. People don't always vote according to policy concerns. In fact they more often vote for other reasons. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?_r=0 It turns out that a lot of them aren't liberal at all but liked the fact he wasn't a Democrat but rather than independent who attacked the Democratic Party. It makes sense that some of those voters wouldn't be inclined to support Clinton or any other Democrat.

For my part, I'm going to focus on working with people whowant to see the Democrats win the White House and make gains in congress. You've said that doesn't include you. So be it. I can only work with those who want to see liberal policies enacted. That will include the vast majority of Sanders supporters, who ultimately care more about doing what they can to make the country better than indulging in animosity.

Now that the nomination has been decided, I hope some Sanders supporters take the opportunity to look at Clinton's actual policy positions outside the heated rhetoric of the campaign. I think they will find they bear little relation to the characiatures circulated during the primary. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

The first women president just might get us in to WWIII. She sure as hell is not going to usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.

We don't need a women as tough as a man. We need a president who celebrates life. One who will grab the helm and make a hard turn left.

Breaking the glass ceiling should be monumental and create major change. Not, more of the same.

Would you follow suit?

I'm not settling, either.

who support Bernie's policies.

I will vote for Hillary in the general election against that bloviating buffoon Trump. But her campaign needs to work to win support from Bernie's voters, many of which are new voters or have previously felt like no one spoke to their issues.

I am on your side Rebkeh!

and its ultimate result. When a woman who behves like the worst of the men is elevated to "feminism's achievement" or "the final breaking of that glass ceiling" it may forever discredit genuine achievers. The continuation of the status quo (including all its heteronormative and female-hostile elements) is NOT what shatters that glass ceiling. It may rather reinforce it.

Love,

Betty

All the ooohing and aaaahing about that glass ceiling - makes me nauseous. Hillary does not represent me and never will. As you so aptly said, she's embarrassing.

Is so explain your difference in thinking

I'm disappointed beyond words that she is to be our first female presidential candidate.

Of course, anyone can choose to be both.

But being a Clinton supporter doesn't mean you are required to be a feminist.

And being a feminist doesn't mean you are required to be a Clinton supporter.

We're not talking about supporting women, plural.

We're talking about supporting a woman, singular.

And if you're not on board with what she is proposing, that is your right. It is not a statement about all women, unless you want it to be. Some people have chosen that option, that it is not possible to believe in women's rights without a vote for Clinton. Clearly, you haven't, and I find it refreshing.

Excellent post.

Thanks for the thread, Rebkeh.