U.S. Election - Onward to New Hampshire

[TerraPrime]

I honestly don't have a problem with what Albright said. Serisouly. I know why it causes so much hurt feelings. There's a small current of Bernie supporters who resent being assumed they should support Clinton because they're women. I think this is more about that resentment than anything damning that Albright said.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

Here's an exact transcription, by me, from the direct video.

"We can tell our story about how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women don't think you have to-- it's been done. It's not done, and you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you, and just remember, there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other."

It's in the same sentence, even. It's plain as day, it doesn't require some kind of verbal contortion to get there, it's a prima facie exhortation for women to support Hillary Clinton because of her gender.

It is, yes, but I don't read that as "women who don't vote for Clinton are terrible." I think the "special place in hell" thing is a bit of a joke; Clinton herself, who cracked up when she heard it, certainly thought so. 

However, I do agree that, yes, there is a push to get women to vote for Clinton, and what's wrong with it? Straight white dudes have been playing the same game for centuries, except they usually word their pleas more subtly, using terms like "states' rights" and what have you.

[Jaxom 1974]

I could almost read Albright's comment that Hillary would be the one who wad damned if she doesn't help women .

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

Is it not sexist to say women should vote for Sec. Clinton for no reason beyond the fact that she is female?

[Inigima]

5 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

It is, yes, but I don't read that as "women who don't vote for Clinton are terrible." I think the "special place in hell" thing is a bit of a joke; Clinton herself, who cracked up when she heard it, certainly thought so. 

However, I do agree that, yes, there is a push to get women to vote for Clinton, and what's wrong with it? Straight white dudes have been playing the same game for centuries, except they usually word their pleas more subtly, using terms like "states' rights" and what have you.

Yes. She's said it before. That part was a joke. What's clearly not a joke is that she thinks women owe it to their own gender to support Clinton on that basis.

If you don't see why people -- myself included -- have a problem with being told to ignore serious political differences to vote for a candidate based on their gender, you and I are never going to see eye to eye. Clinton and Sanders have major political differences. If they were offering functionally the same politics, I think there's a case to be made that the right call is to back, potentially, the first female president. (Though Sanders would also be our first Jewish president -- which may not be insignificant, given the state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) But they aren't, and I resent the implication that those differences should be shunted aside in favor of a vote on a gendered basis.

EDIT:

It is, yes, but I don't read that as "women who don't vote for Clinton are terrible."

You are a crazy person.

[aceluby]

1 minute ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

I could almost read Albright's comment that Hillary would be the one who wad damned if she doesn't help women .

Except for the preface being "Hillary Clinton will ALWAYS be there for you...."  Since she's always there, it's obvious that she's talking about all those other women who don't know what they are doing by not supporting HRC.  This is the exact thing Bernie supporters have been chastised for for most of the campaign; assuming 'they' know what's the best way to cast your vote and what issues you should feel the most passionate about.  "How could you vote against your self interests?!?!?!"  It's insulting no matter which candidate is doing it.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Marco Rubio is the Sarah Palin of 2016.

 

So, Rubio is the Robot, Cruz is the Alien, what exactly is Trump? It's like they are building some kind of society of supervillians over there. The weirdest thing is how it humanizes Jeb. He looks positively normal in comparison.

 

 

[Lyanna Stark]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker,

Is it not sexist to say women should vote for Sec. Clinton for no reason beyond the fact that she is female?

That depends on what perspective you take. Albright is clearly seeing Clinton as important due to representation. Same as a lot of African American people saw Obama as important because representation is powerful. It's not the *only* factor, obviously, but it bears weight.

Ergo: for matters of representation, there is an argument that can be made that women should feel encouraged to vote for Clinton, yes. But again, obviously that is not the only thing to take into account when casting one's vote.

So the answer to your question "is it not sexist to say women should vote for Sec. Clinton for no reason beyond the fact that she is female?" has a more complex answer than "yes" or "no". I might add that a. I don't get to choose and b. if I got to choose Sanders is far closer to my political identity, yet in this case I feel the issue is being treated in a somewhat simplistic fashion. Clinton is a good, solid choice for white middle-class feminists (which I imagine is where Steinem and Albright would be found), while Sanders has a better fit with intersectional and socialist feminism.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Ergo: for matters of representation, there is an argument that can be made that women should feel encouraged to vote for Clinton, yes. But again, obviously that is not the only thing to take into account when casting one's vote.

What you're saying isn't wrong, per se, but I think there is a major difference between saying women should support the female candidate if all other things are equal and saying there is a special place in hell for women who don't support the female candidate, joke or no joke.

And either way the quotes from this weekend will hurt HRC in the general.

[alguien]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And either way the quotes from this weekend will hurt HRC in the general.

Meh. It seems like they always do, according to media spin. 

[Dr. Pepper]

I don't find anything particularly problematic about what Albright said.  It's a well-known and well-used phrase.  It certainly isn't as problematic as Steinem's comments about women.  She and I share the same alma mater and just going by my email chain with fellow alums and checking out social media groups with our college we are part of, women in this group are spitting mad at Steinem. Knowing that the Republicans are going to be going after Clinton's record on women - even going so far to use her reactions to her husband's sexual misconduct as proof - I think HRC should find a way to haver her endorsers, especially those who are feminist icons, be more careful with what they say about women, especially young women seeing as the millennial vote is becoming increasingly important with each passing year. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

59 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

That depends on what perspective you take. Albright is clearly seeing Clinton as important due to representation. Same as a lot of African American people saw Obama as important because representation is powerful. It's not the *only* factor, obviously, but it bears weight.

Ergo: for matters of representation, there is an argument that can be made that women should feel encouraged to vote for Clinton, yes. But again, obviously that is not the only thing to take into account when casting one's vote.

So the answer to your question "is it not sexist to say women should vote for Sec. Clinton for no reason beyond the fact that she is female?" has a more complex answer than "yes" or "no". I might add that a. I don't get to choose and b. if I got to choose Sanders is far closer to my political identity, yet in this case I feel the issue is being treated in a somewhat simplistic fashion. Clinton is a good, solid choice for white middle-class feminists (which I imagine is where Steinem and Albright would be found), while Sanders has a better fit with intersectional and socialist feminism.

Lyanna,

Why should anyone be shamed into voting for a candidate based upon anything but their political opinions?  Why do externals like sex and race matter?  Second, how is this anything but an individual's call and isn't "shaming" just wrong?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, alguien said:

Meh. It seems like they always do, according to media spin.

True. What I was thinking about is how it could be used at the start of an attack ad that undercuts HRC's record on various issues important to women.

[Dr. Pepper]

Yup, I can just imagine some ad creator gleefully rubbing their hands together as they now splice together everything from the 90's 'bimbo eruptions' to today's 'women like the Bern just for the boys' as a way to portray HRC as the anti-woman.  

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

Except for the preface being "Hillary Clinton will ALWAYS be there for you...."  Since she's always there, it's obvious that she's talking about all those other women who don't know what they are doing by not supporting HRC.  This is the exact thing Bernie supporters have been chastised for for most of the campaign; assuming 'they' know what's the best way to cast your vote and what issues you should feel the most passionate about.  "How could you vote against your self interests?!?!?!"  It's insulting no matter which candidate is doing it.

I did say "almost".  And I still think it could be looked at that way.  "Hillary Clinton will always be there for you, and just remember, there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other" can be twisted that because Hillary is always there, one should expect she will be helping women.  If not, hell might have a place for her.  Just saying.

[Kalbear]

37 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Lyanna,

Why should anyone be shamed into voting for a candidate based upon anything but their political opinions?  Why do externals like sex and race matter?  Second, how is this anything but an individual's call and isn't "shaming" just wrong?

When you're a white man externals like sex and race don't matter. You cannot be this naive. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

They 

If you don't see why people -- myself included -- have a problem with being told to ignore serious political differences to vote for a candidate based on their gender, you and I are never going to see eye to eye. Clinton and Sanders have major political differences. If they were offering functionally the same politics, I think there's a case to be made that the right call is to back, potentially, the first female president. (Though Sanders would also be our first Jewish president -- which may not be insignificant, given the state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) But they aren't, and I resent the implication that those differences should be shunted aside in favor of a vote on a gendered basis.

 

Sanders and Clinton do not have MAJOR differences in policy opinion. They barely have minor ones. They have differences in how they wish to approach said policies and who they want as backers, but the actual policy isn't particularly different. 

[Kalbear]

And the rare triple post, because I thought it was really good: Medium gets into the meat behind that viral  video about Warren slamming Clinton - and what was left out. It also gets into how Clinton is 'beholden' to wall street mostly because she has a ton of individuals who work in New York. 

Quote

 

Now I deeply respect and admire Elizabeth Warren — but it seems she left out some important details from her account. Clinton, in fact, worked with other members of congress to include amendments that addressed Elizabeth Warren’s concerns. And the bill passed 83–15. So why didn’t Warren mention this? I really have no idea — I’d love to ask her. Maybe she became so locked into this anti-bankruptcy bill stance, she couldn’t free herself from an oppositional frame of mind. Maybe Warren didn’t feel these amendments went far enough (but if that were true, why not mention that?) For whatever reason, the story Warren tells in this interview is incomplete. Clinton’s position on this bill was no different than that uber-conservative, Barbara Boxer.

Here’s what happened next — the bill went to the Republican controlled congress, they stripped out those amendments, sent the bill back to the senate, the Democrats filibustered the bill, and Clinton voted to uphold the filibuster. Another version of the bill later passed that Hillary opposed. So that woman Warren describes in the first part of her interview — the woman who “really gets it” — turns out that woman never changed after all (and currently, Warren speaks very highly of Hillary).

That’s an interpretation, anyway. Another interpretation is that, well, no, she really was beholden to those special interests on Wall Street, but she only offered all these amendments to fool us into thinking she cares about people. I guess it’s up to you to decide whether or not that interpretation is plausible.

My experience has been that whenever you closely examine the attacks on Hillary, whether they come from the left or the right, they break apart under scrutiny. That is, if you’re so inclined to scrutinize. Scant few are. Many, however, are steadfastly unwilling to view Clinton through anything other than the most severe and cynical lens. If one bit of evidence against her breaks down under examination, then another must be found. If that one fails to pan out, there’s always some other way to interpret her record that satisfies the harsh narrative we’ve chosen for her.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yup, I can just imagine some ad creator gleefully rubbing their hands together as they now splice together everything from the 90's 'bimbo eruptions' to today's 'women like the Bern just for the boys' as a way to portray HRC as the anti-woman.

Taking money from brutal dictators that oppress women would certainly make it in the ad.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Taking money from brutal dictators that oppress women would certainly make it in the ad.

Why? And who is going to make that ad? Sanders has supposedly held the 'principled' view that he won't do attack ads - if he does that he loses a lot of his moral high ground. 

Is Trump or Cruz or Rubio going to go after the women's vote? That'll be fun.