To the degree people think that that’s true, I would regard that as a sexist position,” he said at the time, according “The Socialist Mayor,” a book about Sanders by Steven Sofer.

Is there something wrong with that line of thinking? I happen to agree with it. I am going to vote based on what policies candidates say they would support and try to get through. Hillary isn't speaking to a whole lot of my concerns. Her gender is irrelevant to me.

candidates for US President EVER - with a whole life spent in public service, often directly benefiting those who are most vulnerable in the population.

Going to register Hispanic voters in TX in 1972 for the McGovern campaign, for instance, was a courageous thing to do, especially if anyone remembers anything of what TX and views towards its Hispanic population were like at the time. Perhaps she didn't march with MLK in 1963 (she would have been 16 at the time), but she did work with civil rights leader Marian Wright Edelman after her Yale Law School experience, remained friends with her, and her actual work with minority communities both in the US and without resonates and has continued to resonate.

Using any meme of "should we vote for her because she is a woman" in light of her quite significant qualities, accomplishments, and experience IS sexist because what it does is exactly to diminish them and her.

In my own experience as a woman with some significant professional accomplishments of my own, women have always had to be twice as good to get even half as far. So using anything even slightly resembling sexism resonates with me, just as it does with all others who have experienced it.

That said, I do not believe that Bernie is sexist himself and that charges of such are hyperbole.

And knowing how many people would vote for her based on her gender alone instead of her accomplishments is sexist. It's like none of that matters because she is a woman. I am not going to vote for her, because I like Bernie better. It doesn't mean she didn't do anything to be qualified I just think she falls short of what I want to see done.

I don't think it is unseemly, but carry on. And I do think it's wrong to play the gender card. It is completely wrong it's as if we aren't aware she is a woman and she has faced discrimination and a host of other issues. Seriously you think we don't know women have shit heaped on our heads just for being women?

That word was totally unrelated to sexism in the debate. Had a male said the exact same thing about guns to Sanders in the exact tone, Sanders would have replied in the exact same way.

How the hell is that sexist?

In her follow up speeches about the debte, couldn't she have focused on the subjet of gun control without bringing sexism into it?

Is she supposed to be "spejal" because she is a woman? I suppose Sanders should not have made his observation that the national conversation about guns becoming too emotionally overcharged and polarized, simply because Hillary happens to be female? (Which by the way, is the exact same thing Clinton has said in the past).

Sexism is wrong. But using it as a weapon for political opportunism is also wrong.

If the GOP nominates a woman, does that mean we can't speak out forcefully against her? That's the logical extension of this.

You are raising gender where gender does not exist when you say "She can't shout". This attack is a total fabrication when you use the word shout. Shouting as an issue has traditionally been used to apply to men shouting over women or shouting in general.

Shouting as a communication issue relates to men shouting not women. No woman in history has had a valid application of "When women speak out, men hear shouting.". This meme does not exist, never has existed, and never will exist. No man in history has heard women talking as shouting. Communication problems between genders relates to women not being heard, not being allowed to talk, or tone of voice. Communication issues which have thought to have been sexist have been men hearing women whine, or be shrill. The shouting referred to is always a male doing the shouting. None of them relate to women shouting.

However, the concept sounded good to some speech writer and you decided to feel offended by it for no reason at all. Think about it. You can take any line out of any speech and find something to misinterpret. You just did when you decided to make up a new way of being sexist that does not exist, be a man and think a woman is shouting when she is speaking.

That black people voted for him simply because he is Black....

Is that something you would say out loud?

eom

her gender is simply a bonus, IMHO.

She actually has the qualifications. She really didn't lose the 2008 Democratic nomination by all that much, against an especially charismatic candidate who had tremendous appeal to those most often disenfranchised, including women. By her campaign's end, Clinton had 1,640 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,763 and Clinton had 286 super delegates to Obama's 395. It was hardly a rout.

As I noted above, she is damned either way by some. She might as well use her gender as an asset. If you're playing cards and you have what may be considered a winning card, you play it. Wisely and well.

If she wasn't female and wasn't a former first lady, she'd be Joe Lieberman, and would be doing just as well as Joementum did.

then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

When Bill was running for President, many believed that she was the more qualified of the two for the office even then.

I don't think she would have been a senator from NY, let alone a contender in 2008 for the presidency and certainly not SoS.

I have to admire that she took being the First Lady and used it as a springboard to her career in politics.

I just don't admire the politics and policies she supported while being in politics.

eom

The people choose Obama over HRC no matter the margin of victory

Obama came in as an underdog and came out winner

Tell the countless people who's lives were ruined by Bill's Crime Bill which directly enabled the prison state, and expanded the war on drugs that Hillary really is on their side...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-tragic-politics-of-crime/392114/

Hillary claims her positions have changed yet the for profit prison industry does not believe that to be the case.

Richard Sullivan, of the lobbying firm Capitol Counsel, is a bundler for the Clinton campaign, bringing in $44,859 in contributions in a few short months. Sullivan is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit....

Fully five Clinton bundlers work for the lobbying and law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in America, paid Akin Gump $240,000 in lobbying fees last year. The firm also serves as a law firm for the prison giant, representing the company in court.

Akin Gump lobbyist and Clinton bundler Brian Popper disclosed that he previously helped CCA defeat efforts to compel private prisons to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests.

"Hilary (sic) is one of the best qualified candidates for US President EVER ..."

Depends on what you think the qualifications should be.

I don't think someone who hob-knobs with the 1 percent over the regular folks and votes to send our troops into unnecessary wars is a qualified candidate.

But other people can't shout about guns?

That's a double standard and I do think sexism plays a role.

Someone did that, and Sanders came back and said "Oh I'm just being accused of shouting because I'm Jewish and the anti-Semites always say that about Jews who express an opinion."

That's a better comparison to this crap.

From what I read it sounds like he said that voting for someone based on gender is sexist and I agree.

Your attempt to mansplain the article to me is duly noted but you're insulting my intelligence since I can read and imo your claim is bullshit.

Although he is right, would you vote for Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina just because they're women?

Or vote for a man just because he's a man?

Voting for someone based on gender sounds sexist to me.

That's just because it is.

But this seems like manufactured poutrage du jour to me.

I wonder if they realize how silly they look when they do this?

Do they think I'm going to get all confused and emotional and switch candidates because of stunts like this?

I vote with my brain not my vagina.

I remember once that it was said women vote for the most handsome candidate among male candidates and I found that well I found that repulsive. I seriously doubt that it's true. I think women vote for who they think best represents their values and possibly their wallet.

It might be easier for some to identify with a woman but honestly I have almost nothing in common with a multimillionaire. She has no idea what it's like to struggle and live paycheck to paycheck, being just one bad week away from disaster.

My fave example: I wash and blow dry my own hair. Get a $30 hair cut about every 6 weeks. Before retiring onto a fixed income - I'd add a $15 manicure out of sheer hedonistic indulgence.

Let us consider Mrs. Clinton, for whom only the best is barely good enough.
Bottom line, as detailed and cited below: $600 for a cut & blow dry; $600 for the dye job; 20% tip adds up to $1440. And I'll bet cash money she got a mani-pedi & eyebrow shaping/tinting as well. Plus, the whole rest of the high end salon was totally shut down for the several hours she was there. Well, thank god that none of the salon's other wealthy clients were able to sneak a FREE iphone snap of Hillary and avoid the $2700 "donation" required to have a picture taken with her at one of her "Conversations with Hillary" gated-estate soirees. I hope she actually paid from her personal wealth for her cut & dye job. Since the whole salon was closed down for several hours, who made up the difference in income for all the other salon stylists/shampoo givers/manicurists/masseuses, etc.?

Also for your consideration - no waiting in line for Black Friday specials for Hill. She expects and receives the very special treatment of having an upscale store like Bergdorf's open early to provide her with exclusive private access for shopping. If Bergdorf's was in the UK, it would have a Purveyors to the Crown/Royal Warrant logo in all its' advertisements.

Hillary Clinton goes on private shopping spree at Bergdorf’s

Hillary Clinton went on a private shopping spree at Bergdorf Goodman early Tuesday morning, sparking further speculation that she’s suiting up for a 2016 presidential run.

Hillary was spotted entering the posh department store by a side entrance at 9 a.m., with a small entourage of security and assistants. . .Bergdorf Goodman opens to the public at 10 a.m.

I bet she has no idea how much groceries cost or what it's like to go without medicine because you have to pay the bills.

As evidenced by her poor-mouthing their situation as "dead-broke" when they left the White House, although they both had multi-million dollar book deals locked up.

No matter how this campaign turns out for her, she & Bill have more than sufficient wealth to continue to live the lifestyle of the One Percent.

so yes, she spends a ton of money on her hair because if she had one hair out of place and/or one grey hair and no one would pay a attention to a word she said. For comparison here is a picture of the oldest member of the US Senate from about a year and a half ago.

In other words, she does not have to spend "a ton of money" on basic hair care.

"A hair out of place" or "one gray hair" are inexpensively remedied by hair spray and a monthly roots touch up.

There's also this marvelous service where a hairdresser comes to your residence. Because you don't need the most socially prominent hairdresser, just a good basic stylist.

And there are wonderfully natural looking wigs - which you perhaps may be aware of if you have any friend who has lost their hair due to chemotherapy.

But the main point of my post/examples was that Hillary Rodham Clinton, splurging over a thousand dollars a pop at the elite Bergdorf salon, and having such a store open up for her to shop in total privacy, is woefully out of touch with the economic realities of the vast majority of Americans - both men and women.

you would be saying the same damn thing. Wigs are not a good solution and that should be apparent when you look at the men who wear toupees.

It's impractical to have a stylist come to your house - but it certainly wouldn't cost +$1400 a pop. And she's on the road most of the time, so needs to use salons in various places. Do you really think her secret service team can't protect her in Bergdorf's without closing a salon and elevator bank completely down?

And I repeat, there are some very attractive wigs available - if I hadn't known a friend had lost most of her hair to chemo, I would never in a million years have guessed she had on a wig.

Hey, HRC has access to multi millions, both personally and via her campaign sponsors. She can spend as much as she wants on her personal appearance/hair.

However, that level of spending, not to mention (which you did not comment on) having a high end store like Bergdorf's open solely for your private shopping spree (and this was before she declared her candidacy), and lifestyle puts her quite out of touch with the vast majority of Americans.

Vile doesn't being to describe what I think of the Hillary campaign.

That's exactly how John McCain's campaign thought - that Hillary's supporters were simply voting based on gender. That's pretty demeaning.

Sarah Palin - a grifter with NO qualifications whatsoever to attract former Clinton supporters? That worked well, didn't it?

And Fiorina is a traitor to her gender.

We women do have enough intelligence to see the significant differences.

Basing your vote on gender is sexist no matter who the candidate is.

difference between the GOPers you cited and Hillary?

I'm done with you.

You're putting words in my mouth and pretending to be "done" with me because you can't refute my point.

Amusing but predictable.

All hat no cattle

I'm not serious because you say so, amirite?

Star Member MannyGoldstein (34,106 posts)
38. Clearly, Cali_Democrat is not a serious poster. nt

That was bizarre.

Now they're imagining that you sent them pms and called someone weird?

But no one would ever do that to Bernie supporters, would they?

polly7
Who are you? is just one of your PMs to me so.

Who are you????

I just looked through my sent PM's - not there, I know even without looking I have never sent a pm to you!

POST IT.

You sure blew this one!!!

no polly you sent this to me

You know the mods can see i have one name to my IP?

Strange I have none anywhere with your user name.

I posted that to msanthrope. Why would I post anything to you regarding the death of my son, I don't know you? Post the one you sent me that I obviously replied to there then.

Just looked again to be sure ........ nothing, no received, no sent .......... nothing. Hopefully I'll hear back from the Admins/Owners.

And you sent me that PM I did not send you a pm at all .

I need help for what?

Now post all the 'others' I'm supposed to have sent.

Why would I have nothing in my sent folder to you?

but i did forward them to the Admins,

I don't have any 'others' in my sent folder either.

POST THEM. Why are you afraid to, and why would there be 'others' if you never pm'd me back???

You never answered, what am I supposed to need help for?

I hope you have a grate day

Like I said, no worries ......... I'll get this all straightened out.

Too afraid to say what you think I needed help with?

Just one? of my PMS to you, eh! Funny, not a single one to you in my sent folder. I know by heart who I've sent pm's to, it's very few people - some friends, a lot more than one.

Now POST 'one' to 'you'.

edit .............. mmmmkay, you had your chance.

be taken seriously?

first response was yours .

candidate because he is a man?

It does not happen.

It is insulting.

You really don't get the difference between voting for Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton?

or

Barack Obama and Ben Carson?

Can you imagine if people suggested voters were selecting Bernie just because he is Jewish?

Totally out of bounds.

Come on stop with the defense of Bernie if you can and look at this from a wider perspective.

Well that and the strawmen you guys keep throwing at me:

and no one is telling me to vote for a woman solely because she is a woman. I agree that alone would not be a sufficient reason to vote for someone. I do not believe anyone is voting for another just because she is a woman.

You asked if Cha would vote for Fiorina or Palin because they are women as if somehow one woman is interchangeable with another solely because they are women. I object to this thinking.

It's a simple question.

solely based on gender I would consider it sexist. And idiotic.

I know men and women that do base their votes on gender.

It sucks but that's the reality.

Done being grilled by you bmus, why don't you give a little? Why don't you explain to me how it is OK to ask, suggest, raise the point that people vote for a woman because she is a woman but no one does the same to men? Do you see anything unequal about this treatment?

Since it does happen it's not an imaginary slight against women to consider the possibility.

It's a valid point, voting based solely on gender is sexist.

I can find a million other examples of actual sexism to be outraged about.

This is a manufactured scandal.

treatment is OK in your book and not sexist at all.

I can find lots of other examples of sexism too. So what.

If I said it's only sexist when women do it you'd have a point.

So much outrage over something that doesn't exist in my posts.

Thanks for wading into this, scottie.

What Bernie is quoted as saying has nothing wrong with it. And it sure doesn't match the title of the OP.

Then we have two people who happen to be women tearing into him with unknown motives (and I'm not going to bother to dig into them), quite a bit or vitriol, and no documentation, at least as presented in the OP.

And this is supposed to reflect badly on *Bernie*?

Oooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

And an epic fail for the op since the sources are a Hillary employee and a Republican homophobe.

If I was him I'd delete it and spare myself further embarrassment.

I count both you and bravenak as, if not exactly friends, at least people whose handles I recognize and whose history I know at least sorta.

This OP was BS. And I don't mean Ernie Anders.

Should you support Bachmann for office because she is a woman?

Should Ann Coulter never be called out because she is a woman?

For example, his allies, the Vermont Progressive Party have 9 members of the state legislature. 5 are women. All 5 endorsed him.

Reminds me of this.

Ms. Ferraro, the former congresswoman and vice-presidential candidate who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, told The Daily Breeze, a newspaper in Torrance, Calif.: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

I thought our first women President would be a dove. Instead she's a hawk.

Disappointed that she will continue to bring death to so many innocent people.

"That's a stereotype. People complain that Jews are too loud, whenever they express an opinion. It's an anti-Semetic stereotype."


Oooooo I can just see what the reaction would be if Sanders ever said that. Or sent out surrogates to say that.

Not any different than complaining the he used the words "shouting about guns" in a damn debate.

in the world . . . "

She wasn't shouting, or advocating shouting. So why did he say that?

He suggested she was shouting even though she only spoke assertively. Why would he have perceived her that way other than sexism -- i.e., expecting women to hold to standards of demure behavior that men don't expect of themselves.

And he certainly doesn't expect it of himself. He never holds back from shouting when he thinks it's called for. But somehow he thinks it's fine to lecture her for it.

Here's the exchange. Again, what's his reason for talking about her shouting, if it isn't garden-variety "soft" sexism?

The only question is why?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-clash-over-guns-democratic-debate

Cooper then asked Clinton if Sanders was being tough enough on guns. She replied:

No, not at all. I think we have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence. This has gone on too long, and it's time the entire country stood up against the NRA. The majority of our country supports background checks, and even the majority of gun owners do. Senator Sanders did vote five times against the Brady bill. Since it was passed, nearly 2 million illegal purchases have been prevented. He also did, as he said, vote for this immunity provision. I voted against it. I was in the Senate the same time. It wasn’t that complicated to me. It was pretty straightforward to me that he was going to give immunity to the only industry in America—everybody else has to be accountable, but not the gun manufacturers, and we need to be able to stand up and say enough of that, we're not gonna let it continue.

Sanders responded:

As the senator from a rural state, what I can tell Secretary Clinton is that all the shouting in the world is not gonna do what I would hope all of us want, which is to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns, and end this horrible violence that we are seeing. I believe that there is a consensus in this country. A consensus that says we need to strengthen and expand instant background checks, do away with this gun show loophole, that we have to address the issue of mental health, that we have to deal with the straw-man purchasing issue, and that when we develop that consensus we can finally do something.

He always mentions shouting when he talks about guns.

Did he not respond to her statement immediately before his? Of course he suggested she was shouting -- even though she neither shouted nor advocated that anyone else should shout.

It's right there in black and white. He said it, and he said it to her, in direct response to her statement.

The only question is why?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-clash-over-guns-democratic-debate

Cooper then asked Clinton if Sanders was being tough enough on guns. She replied:

No, not at all. I think we have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence. This has gone on too long, and it's time the entire country stood up against the NRA. The majority of our country supports background checks, and even the majority of gun owners do. Senator Sanders did vote five times against the Brady bill. Since it was passed, nearly 2 million illegal purchases have been prevented. He also did, as he said, vote for this immunity provision. I voted against it. I was in the Senate the same time. It wasn’t that complicated to me. It was pretty straightforward to me that he was going to give immunity to the only industry in America—everybody else has to be accountable, but not the gun manufacturers, and we need to be able to stand up and say enough of that, we're not gonna let it continue.

Sanders responded:

As the senator from a rural state, what I can tell Secretary Clinton is that all the shouting in the world is not gonna do what I would hope all of us want, which is to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns, and end this horrible violence that we are seeing. I believe that there is a consensus in this country. A consensus that says we need to strengthen and expand instant background checks, do away with this gun show loophole, that we have to address the issue of mental health, that we have to deal with the straw-man purchasing issue, and that when we develop that consensus we can finally do something.


__________________

P.S.

It's also not true that he "always" talks about shouting when he talks about guns.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/02/445312778/the-last-thing-bernie-sanders-needs-right-now-is-a-conversation-about-guns

"I think guns and gun control is an issue that needs to be discussed," Sanders said in an interview with NPR's David Greene. "Let me add to that, I think that urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law-abiding people."

I think that urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law-abiding people.

"I can understand if some Democrats or Republicans represent an urban area where people don't hunt, don't do target practice, they're not into guns," Sanders continued. "But in my state, people go hunting and do target practice. Talking about cultural divides in this country, you know, it is important for people in urban America to understand that families go out together and kids go out together and they hunt and enjoy the outdoors, and that is a lifestyle that should not be condemned."

It's 100% bullshit to claim this is sexism. Hillary should apologize for claiming that it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251728582

For him to say, "Senator Cinton, all the yelling in the world . . . " in response to her statement will OF COURSE be perceived as either extremely hypocritical or as sexist, or both.