that no one there understood the optics of throwing dollar bills at a women, right after the word "whore" was all over the news. Someone should have had the sense to see that it was going to allow for talk of sexism.

They were upset about big money in politics the same way they have always been upset about big money in politics.

of money from big donors.

This bunch of cry babies are acting like the protesters were throwing condoms or feminine hygiene products.

Bet you won't like the answer though.

Or perhaps it's the ridiculously small amount that was thrown at her car was more insulting? Perhaps she only wants to listen to people with the Big Money while driving by the Little People her leadership seek to disenfranchise?

This is so hillarious. All of a sudden, everything from Bernie or his supporters is sexist no matter how "we spin it"....

The Spinzone is strong among many misinformed voters who once again will vote against their interest as well as the interest of country and humanity

Some people never lose focus on genitalia, do they?

And I thought that Bill O'Reilly's Spinzone was limited to FOX "News".

Bernie's campaign has always been about issues. It's only thin skinned Hillary supporters and surrogates who have made this into a mud fest swiftboating Sanders for then to act like victims when their lies have been debunked, but still done damage. These are the premises where neither Hillary, her sleazy surrogates and gullible supporters should never be called out on their smear and just let Hillary trample all over the party, Bernie and his supporters since she is too precious to be critized, remember, critizising a woman is sexist. Attack her policies and can hurt her feelings before the GE and are all "artful smears" while Bernie is a Jewish pinata to be kicked around like a ragdoll, where he and his supporters can be called racist and sexist indiscriminately in the Hillary echo chamber without being called out on it.
Good luck in getting all those Indy's your party leadership has disinfranchised to win cheaply to vote for her if she steals the primary. Don't think it's going to work. In fact, her dirty campaign will have a giant backlash at her if that is the scenario (sorry George Carlin - I used a banned word).

You automatically assume that dollar bills being thrown at a candidate in protest are actually about strippers.

I don't know how recent was your last visit to a strip club but the ones my partner and I go to expect $5.00 tips in the g-string on the stage show and privates are far more.

But with the theme of this campaign the context it was being thrown in was very clear. Bad image? Yes. Sexist? No.

The only people who liked it were people who already vehemently oppose Clinton. It changed no minds. Not what one wants in a protest but well done anyway. I have a spot in my heart for people who get out there and do it.

and it pissed a number of people off.

... and their 1% attitude.

Working class people don't throw money to cars

... cars while working class folk have to pay bills.

Protesters angry about money in politics throw money at cars.

Because I'm pretty sure if they weren't working class they would be in the Clooney home with Hillary

... they can afford to throw money at machines

Gotta admit though, I could afford to throw a buck to make an important point, even if I couldn't bend over and pick it back up..

considering the corporate queen is being outraised by working class people at the clip of $27 a donation. So of course only the elite could throw dollars. Might possibly be the dumbest thing said in DU today, but it's still early.

... by double in states he's losing like NY.

The point isn't to stop getting big money from the rich but to get big money out of poltiics all together ... he's the one that's SPENDING the big money.

That's a good point that he's getting the big money from small donors but so did Obama and you guys hate him as much as Hillary

donors are seeking access the same as the $353,000 a plate donors lol

The Yippees were hardly part of the 1%

I'm voting for the 99%. n/t

I throw money at cars all the time.

... don't even think like that.

and enjoyed every minute of it.

I don't think many people are intentionally racist, homophobic, or sexist, but it certainly exists in society, and I do think that many of the men who dislike Hillary also have mother issues, women issues, welcome the objectification of women on the internet and elsewhere, and in there own small ways have sexist tendencies. Why would the intensity of dislike of Hillary be greater than that for Romney? I think there is some subtle degree of sexism involved. I have never seen the amount of dislike for a candidate of the same party as I see directed at Hillary. It's pretty odd. But, I don't think those sexist Bernie supporters are conscious of what they are doing, just like most Republicans who truly don't think they are racist.

.. and leadership to stand up to this kind of attitude.

She's one tough girl, I'm starting to get excited about her... she's the grown up

Thank you!

Too much meanness, too much money - all sharp edges - I could never relate to her in a million years.

The only women I met who support her were at the County convention, and they were all older women. Not that I'm a spring chicken, just saying.

near Hillar age to see such disrespect towards someone who looks like me. Haven't really been following the Clooney situation. I have been tuning out a lot during this election. I have been quite familiar with both Sanders and Clinton, however. I liked Bernie a lot before this. I have been disappointed in him lately. Honestly, this election is hurtful to me and has made me feel even more like women in power are just not respected in this society. It's just the extreme amount of hate that bothers me. This is not political, this is downright hate, derision, and disrespect.i feel it's more personal than political.

If Hillary does not win, frankly, I believe that it will be a long time before another woman runs or has a chance to come close to winning.

Certain words, phrases and images are insults associated with women and minorities. Using a symbol or language that has historically been used to degrade and oppress targets of discrimination is not the same as when used against someone with whom it is not a traditional slur. This is not a difficult concept.

Understanding that is the difference between staying on message and losing it because you doubly offended people with a narrative weighed down by sexist and racist stereotypes.

I am a woman. White, 70, went through a lot of sexist bullshit when I was working.

When I think of Hillary, I think - politician, liar, corporate shill, warhawk, TPP, Social Security, sent children back home to get killed, crooked, compromised by money - at no time do I think of her as a "woman". Hillary being a woman is simply not germane to the conversation. I don't care if she is a woman. I cannot excuse her on the issues because she is a woman. And playing the gender card is, IMO, just another cold and calculated ploy. That is all it is.

She is a politician. That is all she is to me. The sexist stuff just does not exist, because Hillary's gender means nothing to me.
Hope that is clear, and I do believe I am not alone in how I feel.

using policy arguments is not objectionable. Using stereotypically gendered or racial tropes to make the point is.

And eye of those who are constantly on the lookout for anything that can be twisted or bent into being sexist.

However, throwing dollar bills at her a couple days after a Sanders surrogate called her a whore is bad optics.

the FOURTEEN percent rate.

Which, FWIW, is more than 13.4 percent....

That's about seven times what Bernie made.

Democrats used to support progressive taxation. I guess now it's a bad thing.

of what "Bernie" made pays more in taxes, then the point is NOT made.

Sanders, like Romney, took advantage of the "rich get richer" aspect of the US Internal Revenue process.

I wonder if he'll ever release his 2015 taxes....or everything going back to his first days in the Senate in 06.

I'll bet he doesn't.

While the 150 million dollars Clinton has made are hard earned money hardly enough to get by with so she has a tax haven in Delaware?

The double standard is stunning.

Bernie's 13.4% tax is a huge scandal while Hillary's speeches to Wall Street shall not be scrutinized.

An account that is created to hold money briefly (literally, for moments) before it is routed to its final destination is not a "tax haven." But do keep flailing.

her donations from Saudis who later got arms deals...?

That is so funny trying to smear Bernie with his 140 000 taxable dollars per yer while trying to downplay the "measly millions" that Hillary places in Delaware.

Love this Hillarsplanations while barking at Bernie as if he was an intruder just to spoil to coronation of the queen of neoliberalism and money in politics.

My post was to point out the absurd rationale people have for corrupt politicians with and failed foreign policy stances, feeding the private prison industry conveniently with the "superpredators" Hillary supporters are now splaining to us never had racial undertones.

Reading the rationale of Hillary and her minions are sources for great comedy.

hiding those tax returns!!!!

A holding account in Delaware (American State, you see--in case you are uncertain) that is used to pass money from point A to point B is not a "haven."

LOL at you for trying so hard, though.

So it's a transit place for money Hillary and her fellow republicans don't want Uncle Sam to know about.

New York Daily News?
WaPo?
CNN?
MSNBC?

are those tools employed by Pootie to troll in these parts. The ones who flog it and don't know better have been told, and if they refuse to learn, they are willfully obtuse.

Not sure why you're portentously waving an AJ video at me while cheerleading RT....LOL.

I asked what YOU found to be more credible news sources.

Besides, I only thought I'd hear "Russian propaganda" BS from republicans.

Only shows how insanely far right the democrats have actually moved and still dare to link themselves to the party of FDR and JFK...¨

So why don't you "splain" things for me how you think that tax havens for tax evadors are a good thing?
And what makes you think that the Clinton's have their moral compass in order when having money in the same place as many of their tax evading donors?

And if you don't know what RT is all about, you'd best learn.

What's all this "far right" shit you're shopping? Who are YOU--with your Putin loving sources--to talking about what's right wing?

Say hi to your pals in the Kremlin.

That Putin has any editorial power over an entity operating in USA......
And if you think that whatever MSM sources are more credible than a story on tax havens because of the name, I have no hope whatsoever for the American public. You have sunk so low that you can only buy into cheap soundbytes by the same media that has brainwashed you the last 30 years.
And now we see the pathetic strawmen about "loving Puting" for using RT as source.

I also watch the Big Picture with Thom Hartmann, Redacted Tonight, and Watching the Hawks. They must all suckle at the tits of Kremlin, right?
Can I understand that "anytthing but RT" also means "better with Bill O'Reilly than Thom Hartmann" is the attitude here?
i think I know the media better than you. I have written for media.
And guess what! RT is far more credible as news source than Chris Matthews and Scarborough. I have watched them all. And Matthews lost credibility with me ever since he berated Bill Donahue for not beating the war drums for Bush. For many years, I thought he was republican. Witnessing the people who actually believes in his drivel, the way they vote, and their rhetoric, I wasn't wrong.

Like I said, Hillary supporters mighty as well call themselves republicans since they eat at the same trough as their fellow repubicans - the corporate trough. Your rhetoric can be confused as being all republican, since only republicans use your kind of language towards a station that has a story you don't like. Unfortunately, reality is a bit different from the la-la land of upper class, white privilege that most Hillary supporters enjoy without consequences for their poor judgement of candidates.

P.S.

GOP has had a love affair with Putin. They apparently get weak in their panties for an authoritarian nationalist who wants to use government to dictate morality and have the same geopolitical aspirations as some corporate democrats and all republicans.

ME, so give that shit up.


READ and LEARN:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vladimir-putin-russia-news-media_us_56215944e4b0bce34700b1df

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/how-the-media-became-putins-most-powerful-weapon/391062/

Keep calling people names--you won't last much longer.

It will only give you an ulcer if you do!
I don't see any relevance to the actual story but your obsession ab out Putin s if that is going to invalidate the fact in the story.

Prefering FOX "News" over Thom Hartmann because RT makes you a RWer, I presume you were serious when you said "anyone but RT nd Rush Limbaugh, that you are equally consistent when I put up Sean Hannity and Thom Hartmann from RT are being put up against each other.

Do you stand by your statement?

Or are you too gleefully busy in trying to discredit the source because the story hits s bit too close to home for the comfort of your infallible and incorruptible St. Hillary whose 150 million $ in Wall Street money has never influenced her policies?

Ah! The naivitè of some people. Are more focused on BS non issues, and blows them up in to make the bad bits they don't like to disappear. I call it living in denial.

So far, you have shown me nothing but RW tendenices and have not debunked any of my assumptions Instead you just strengthen my suspisions that the democratic has turned so far right that the average voter have lost the gyroscope on the policital landscape competely.¨¨
This political compass will give you a clue where in the political landscape people who supports belong to by proxy through your candiate!


https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

Anyone supporting Hillary's actions in Libya, Syria, Honduras, Iraq and the "Patriot" Act should not call themselves liberal, nor progressve. Anyone who calls black kids super-predators for then to take millions of dollars from bankers who wrecked the economy is not a progressive. Anyone who supports this are not progressive.
Anyone who goes to AIPAC to suck up to Netanyahu and his war mongerers and ignore the Palestinians are not progressive.


Being progressive is more than cause celebre for the day, whether it's LGBT rights or PoC. It's also about a wrecked economy, income ineauality, voting rights, the right to unionize and actually walk the walk. It's more than a cheap talking point on a stump speech. It's daily actions, attitudes and spevific policies one chooses to support on a daily basis made by your elected officials (who would have taken large corporate sums and have more time for that donor than a measly voter whose usefullness was gone after the ballot has been cast.
While Bernie stumps together with union workers, Hillary dines with their corporate owners. Not very progressive.
She says she is for immigrants, but want to send kids back to the drug war, the death squads and military regimes she helpd prop up! She can afford bombing people to pieces, but there are no room for the victims in her "progressive tent". It's filled up with corporate donors.

Anyone not supporting fracking, TPP, money in politics, illegal wars, imprisonment for flag burning, govt. spying, punishing whistleblowers, sleazy dog whistle campaigns and Karl Rove like surrogates in a super PAC shouldn't call themselves liberal nor progressive.
And unlike spineless "democrats" who ran away from the term in the 90s, I have carried the term Liberal as a badge of honor and as a spiritual legacy from a highly liberal and beloved grandfather (RIP).

And this veteran will not support or advocate for any candidate with a policy wrap sheet as hers, and I find it strange that the ones supporting this call themselves liberals or progressive. Some Hillary supporters have spoken up against young democratic voters and come to the defense of "good citizens" as Loyd Blankfein, Albright and Kissinger as victims of "leftists who hates rich people for having money.
I will not vote for anyone who goes after whistleblowers and protect the real criminals who sent kids to kill or be killed for a morally nefarious cause.

If you look policy to policy and compare them to republican policies, you will find that Hillary is far closer to GOP than Bernie ever has been. Unlike her, he has never voted together with GOP against progressive principles. Bernie has always caucused with the dems. And now, petty Estblishment democrats do not want his support nor his LEFTIST voters....And the term "sexist" is flying from the Hillary camp at every chance they get. Bernie goes to Rome? He must be anti-LGBT since the pope is not a fan! Bernie must be racist! He doesn''t resonate with AA voters the same way as Hillary does! Her pandering skills have improved.

"You can fool some people some times, but you can't fool all the people all the time, cause now we see the light, we better stand up for our rights"....

mentioned here.

Maybe it's been WAY too long since I've been at a strip club, but even so - Hillary???
EWW.

It's about the money. They threw money. And it is fucking hilarious.

It would have never even occurred to me. I doubt it occurred to the protesters either.

I did think it was related to her gender.

That said, you all are good at arguing, and when I read the less vitriolic comments, I can see your point. What we'll never know is what was in the minds of those that actually arranged the stunt.

Doubling down on calling any woman something offensive and demeaning as the term 'whore' is just as much a sexist slur as shouting the n-word at a black person is a racist slur.

It makes no difference that the protesters might have been behind the Occupy Movement, those people have made some very poor decisions that have been well publicized, so there is no bragging right that earn them a free pass. There is nothing inaccurate or belittling in tagging Mitt Romney to corporate monied interests, and if protesters had done the same thing to Clinton, I'd have no argument.

But they didn't stop at campaign money, yeah? They lowered the bar and based their attack on her gender, an unchangeable characteristic that a plurality of down ballot Democratic candidates and a majority of women voters identify with. THAT is what makes this demeaning tactic a mockery of the Progressive Movement.

I understand it was just as dull as that remark.

Expecting honesty from the hillbots on this board. Not gonna happen.

With Citizens United, unless you play the number$ game you will lose. Hillary has no intention of losing, and she is playing very much within the law as it stands today.

CU only gets overturned at the SCOTUS level -- the POTUS can't do this, or Obama would have "vetoed" it. Seriously, the president can't do this. All the prez can do is appoint new justices if someone retires or dies, and that's with a willing honest Congress, which we do not have right now.

Which brings us to the freaking down-ballot races. The Clooney fundraiser specifically will benefit mostly down-ballot races, which need $$$$$ to run campaigns too, and Hillary is the Name that got the donors there.

You Remember what St Bernard of the Clean Hands said when asked if he was going to share his campaign chest with down-ballot Democratic candidates? Remember?

"We'll see."

Whatta guy.

buy you are falling into their game by even questioning this.

Just ignore it. It's troll bait.

George Clooney was eloquent about why the money needs to be raised. Sanders hasn't offered an explanation of how he'll raise the money that HE and the Party will need for a GE.

Protesting a fundraiser where the money was mostly going to the DNC and the states for their candidates?