2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTo be fair, Hillary made a good point about Bernie (I am a Bernie supporter).
This was on the central importance of the abortion issue to women's lives. I think Bernie was rightly angry at the media to jump on this issue to the exclusion of other economic issues. But he missed the larger point and Hillary explained it. Women's right to choose shouldn't be subsumed under the issue of income inequality but should be linked in. We are half the population. Reproductive freedom has suffered terribly in republican states.
Having said that, I know that Bernie is pro choice to his very core. His religion respects a woman's right to choose. And he made a warmly pro choice message after Trump's outrageous remarks.
I live in a household with a husband I love very much. He is supporting Hillary because he believes it is time we had a woman president. I am voting for Bernie in our April primary because I believe in what he is trying to do. We have mutual respect and get along fine (well, on THIS issue we do!).
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Sure he is a valiant fighter for women's rights, minority rights, but his blind spot and that of many liberal men (thank god they are on the side of good and not the side of bad) is if the issue in question doesn't affect them directly, daily, then it is secondary, often.
He missed a chance to show that he is learning from his blind spot.
ON THE OTHER HAND if the worst our candidate does is not yell support loudly enough, when the alternative in the GOP not only doesn't support but is looking to harm, then we are good.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)I guess he does well enough financially now, but wasn't he living out of his car prior to getting elected mayor of Burlington?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)and now it looks like she is in favor of putting in more limits.
It is what Hillary would actually DO that worries me, not the context in which another candidate spoke about it.
IMO, anything she says about everything is just what she feels like she must say in order to get elected, and not to be trusted.
shadowandblossom
(718 posts).
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)shadowandblossom
(718 posts)Pretty sad.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)as President can't put in ANY limits. She can only nominate judges who will shape the narrative. Maybe you don't realize it. I shouldn't be surprised if that's actually the problem here.
djean111
(14,255 posts)And - would she picking judges who would go along with her wish to put more restrictions on abortions?
I am, frankly, concerned that she would pick center-right judges.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)she's responsible for everything that was done during her husband's administration EXCEPT for the loads of liberal judges he put on the federal bench along with two very reliably liberal judges on the supreme court. THAT she'll go against. Do you even hear the hypocrisy screaming? Do you think NARAL and PP are so addleminded and ignorant that they would endorse someone who would do what you're claiming. Just how many more people are you Bernie supporters going to throw under the bus? It's getting fucking pathetic.
djean111
(14,255 posts)endorses her"?
Hillary said she is open to adding abortion restrictions. You say, well, she can't really do that. I say - then why say it? Either it is pandering to the right, or it reflects how she really feels about abortions, or she intends to appoint a judge or judges who would support her wish to add restrictions to abortion. All the rest of your reply is deflective fluff.
There seems to be a real deep anger that endorsements don't count as much as it was thought they would. Here's the thing - no endorsement can persuade me to support a candidate who is decidedly FOR war and fracking and cluster bombs and the TPP, among other things I hate. So an endorsement means absolutely nothing. ISSUES. Fucking pathetic that some don't get it.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)anyone who doesn't worship Bernie the way his DU supporters are demanding, they're thrown away. NARAL and PP are simply the latest. Or was that Rachel Maddow? Hard to keep up with you purists who think you're doing your candidate any favors.
djean111
(14,255 posts)who endorses her. They are unmoved by endorsements. Boo hoo.
What, exactly, does "thrown way' mean, in that context? Do I think any entity or person suffered because of their endorsement? No, unless they were hoping they could change other minds.
Does Rachel - who I can't stand to watch anyway, too many tics, too much repetition - still have her multi-million dollar contract? Sure she does! Why wouldn't she? The pissiness is because, IMO, Bernie's supporters won't start supporting Hillary just because Rachel does, as if real issues do not count.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)(what is it with so many of you wanting to SHOVE words into people's mouths?). Let's see, first it was African American voters, then the entire south (actually called confederate states by DUers), then all red states were anathema (until Bernie won one), then it's every single person on tv who doesn't worship the ground Bernie walks on, now it's NARAL and PP - all SHIT on by Bernie supporters for not supporting your candidate over Hillary. If you think you're doing your candidate any good at all, you'd be very, very wrong.
glowing
(12,233 posts)on this sound bite from Trump. In the meantime, they will ignore all other issues, all other campaigns, and create more juicy, salacious story for the most idiotic candidate ever to run.... I think you have to break down the context.
Don't you think Bernie is a little sick of doing interviews where all they do is ask him about Donald Trump or if he will support Clinton when he drops out? It's not as if they ask him about the differences in their platforms. They have been dismissive, nasty, and showing their corporate stripes. I think 2016 is showing the public just how manipulative and disgusting our media really is. And boy do I miss Jon Stewart pointing it out!!!
riversedge
(70,195 posts)again. I am glad he messed up.
glowing
(12,233 posts)You can read another post I wrote about concerning the subject and exactly what I think about Donald Trump and the media pretending it cares about women's rights. Ha! If that isn't a joke!
This media we have acts like a bunch of school yard gossips. Our media sucks. People from other countries wonder how we know about anything since they cover absolutely nothing if world affairs or items that tell the American people anything.
Who before Donald states women should be punished for having an abortion if it's banned, didn't already know he was the biggest asshole walking. He started his campaign by calling Mexican people's criminals and rapists... Really, we are shocked about his views on women at all! Why is he being elevated as a relevant candidate for president. It's a serious job that inpacts people around the world.
I don't think spending a week on this or trying to claim Bernie hates women is exactly productive of the media. But it does waggle the tongue and coin a narrative. They will get who they want in that President seat whether thru mass manipulation or stolen vote, the corporate elite will install their choice!
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)with exactly what you said. If he wins WI the press will look very silly for their mischaracterization of his campaign...
shadowandblossom
(718 posts)And there are some advantages for him in the area. So prepare for happy news would be my guess.
shadowandblossom
(718 posts)Please don't dismiss this. We all understand his point, but the fact is that he is one who is really missing the point.
glowing
(12,233 posts)I feel he didn't get the point! In fact, his tone and answer the first go around with Rachel's question was stronger than Hillary's reaponse IMO. Now, the media making Donald Trump the first place contender for the Republican Party is absolutely disgusting. What is the likely hood of Trump being able to pass a law like that anyway? And why isn't it being pointed out that many of the freaks left within the Republican Party are only fringe people and they agree with Donald Trump. Why isn't the media saying that the Republican Party is dead? It's a harmful fringe group that knows how to win elections and screw the people over. It should have been done with like the Whigs after the Bush years. Any sane, rational person now describes themselves as Independents or Democrats (half the problem with the Democratic Party is corporate interests taking over).
I don't think anyone missed the point. I think beating up on Bernie has been purposeful and disgusting. To try and turn this man into an image of white, privileged, patriarch, that is really a misogynist and a racist has been enough to make me want to puke. All for what, a candidate on the Dem side who would agree with a constitutional amendment banning late term abortion... Not a law; but a damn constitutional amendment! Soak that into y'alls brain on what some of of party politicians are willing to give up. I guarantee we will end up with vouchers for
Medicare and privatized social security, along with TPP.
Absolutely disgusting... And yeah, I'm a woman. I get it. And Donald does too, he know what his base wants. Who else is #2 for that freak show of a party, Ted Fucking Cruz. He's even more extreme on social issues. Shoot, he'd probably think the death penalty was a good show of force for an abortion... It's murder after all, as their little pea brains believe. Look at how they kill Drs performing their jobs?
Awesome rant.
glowing
(12,233 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She even used right wing terminology calling late term abortions "partial birth abortions":
LAZIO: I had a pro-choice record in the House, and I believe in a womans right to choose. I support a ban on partial-birth abortions. Senator Moynihan called it infanticide. Even former mayor Ed Koch agreed that this was too extreme a procedure. This is an area where I disagree with my opponent. My opponent opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions.
CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. Ive met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course its a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a womans choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
Some champion.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He trusts women, she doesn't.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)the supporters of The Other Candidate would be clamoring for him to drop out NOW! Yesterday, even.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He would be treated worse than Trump.
But Hillary says she'll compromise and it gets a "meh".
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Oh my fucking GOD, the shit-losing would have been volcanic.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Yesterday he denounced Trump's comments and basically said we need to stop paying attention to the msm/trump circus and get back to all of the issues, but from the fauxrage here you'd think he said he would personally overturn Roe.
It's unreal.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...and I recognize that compromise is how thing get done...but I am tired of Establishment Dems prenegotiating with themselves.
To be fair, I think the MSM love putting Dems into that trap.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)It is just as important but no more important than other women's issues such as health care, WIC, food stamps, SS, education, wages, family leave, and less war. Women are still the primary care givers in their families and every issue that affects her and her family is a woman's issue.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)suffragette
(12,232 posts)Split in their vote between Bernie and Hillary.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)to support Hillary and I voted for her in our primary back in 08.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Acrimonious.
I appreciate that you you focus on the issues and the debates in a fair manner.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Pro choice v. anti-abortion is one of the few issues in which there has been no shortage of news coverage, and is politically prominent.
It should be.
However, the economic issues -- and related issues of Wealth and Power and the decline of the status on the lower 90 percent, has been ignored for many years.
For example, whenever the Supreme Court is brought up, the "litmus test" and debates are always over abortion rights....NEVER whether a judge sides with workers,consumers,the public good over the private interests of corporations.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)and I am strongly prochoice and I used to work at Planned Parenthood as a major gifts officer...
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)research and first watch Rachel's full interview with Bernie before spouting her shit please. Sorry for the "tone" but what Rachel did really pisses me off!
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Can't stand to watch here anymore
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)CTyankee
(63,903 posts)I'll try to find it.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)blm
(113,044 posts)we have nothing but respect for the differences, since those are not as wide a chasm as some would like us to think.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)blm
(113,044 posts)old buddy. ; )
cui bono
(19,926 posts)to choose, to be in control over her own body.
Don't have the link right now, but she said she would compromise. Not good enough, Hillary.
.
shadowandblossom
(718 posts)(like screaming at the Tv at the top of my lungs angered.) She hit the nail on the head. I hope he issues a public apology.
I know he's pro-choice but personally I think women's issues are such a big part of his platform because of who his competition is. Basically, I see him as pandering to women voters on that front. Just my personal perspective.
I know he's serious about economic inequality though.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He he is too narrowly focused to be POTUS, IMO, though, of course, I would support him in the fall, should he win.
My wife thinks I'm wrong, but if I am, he did nothing to change my mind with that comment.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)with to get anything done. It's frustrating. But I am hoping Dems will win Congress back...
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Did you know that Hillary said she'd consider restrictions on abortion if the life of the mother was taken into consideration?
She's talking out of both sides of her mouth, again.
Medicare for all would cover medical procedures including abortion. Every woman, regardless of income, would be able to get one if she chose to do so. That's what I want, and that's what Bernie wants.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)Now we argue about which litmus test is the most litmus-y.
The abortion issue is not separate from economics. If a woman with means wants an abortion, she can afford one if it's available, and if it's not available, she can travel to where it is available. France is always Nice this time of year.
The travel may not be an option for a woman without money.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)medical procedures is:
YOUR BODY IS YOURS. PERIOD> EOD.
ALL medical procedures for ANYONE should stem from this philosophy, imo.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)moral choice on abortion -- for and against -- then they are not treated is full human beings with that ability.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)YOUR BODY IS YOURS> Doesn't MATTER what GENDER.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I'm still not sure who I'm voting for.
He laughs at me because I argue for both Hillary and Bernie --I argue with the TV. He says I'm going to be a mess come vote day. April 26th.
He and I have great conversations because we talk about both the candidates what we like/dislike. When our kids are around it's even better.
Prism
(5,815 posts)And Bernie should seize upon that. I agree, he didn't grasp it and didn't understand it. I think he believes it's a stand-alone issue (and the media certainly treat it as such). But it's not. A woman's choice is the core of her being able to live and decide a whole host of issues.
When a woman has the right of full decision over her body, she has the right to full decision over her life.
Bernie can do better here.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)nonsense is.
In fact, it was Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd who IMMEDIATELY spun the meme you speak of. Note both ignored that Sanders was actually truer to the left's position that no new restrictions on abortion should be considered than Clinton who spoke of a possible "common ground" change on late abortions if the health of the woman was considered.
In fact, I think Bernie's comments stung both of these newscasters who have spent far more time than reasonable on Trump. Remember, this is the network that did not cover Bernie's comments after some contests because they were WAITING to cover Trump - and they covered him live for at least 45 minutes -- not breaking away for HRC's speech. They later played the entire HRC speech (as they should) -- Bernie's was covered by no one.
Bernie was not saying that right to chose is not important, he was blasting the fact that he and HRC were asked multiple questions on Trump's idiotic comment.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)the media's lack of coverage of Bernie. Ihope they are now embarrassed by their sheer lack of depth and attention to what is going on in the Democratic Party...THEN, when Bernie starts winning they become interested...
I[m watching this whole thing unfold on MSMBC when I watch Morning Joe with my coffee. What a turnaround! But as usual they were a day late and a dollar short...
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)learn.
Response to CTyankee (Original post)
pantsonfire This message was self-deleted by its author.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)And it helps to read my OP. I stated very clearly that I am supporting Bernie and voting for him in our primary.
I will thank you for acting more civil next time we meet here.
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)We are all pro choice.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)which is that he tends to tie everything back to economic issues. I think this is an area that also hurt him with AA voters - he doesn't seem to acknowledge that racism exists separately from poverty/economic injustice. That black people are getting shot in the street not because they're poor, but because they're black.
I'm not trying to dredge up the AA issue again, but it's another example of Bernie's exclusive focus on economic issues not allowing him to address other issues that are of real concern to many Americans.
Disclaimer: I am a Hillary supporter, but will gladly vote for Bernie in Nov if he gets the nomination.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)he listened to the Black Lives Matter women who took his mic and spoke their piece. He listened to them and did not respond in anger. That showed me what a good man he is when interrupted and put on the spot.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Listen, I don't think Bernie is racist any more than I think he's anti-choice. He holds the correct beliefs on these issues. I'm talking more about the tone of his campaigning - when he was asked questions about race issues, he almost invariably tied them back to economic issues.
Another point: I like Hillary and I think she'll make a great president, but she's not a brilliant campaigner (as she admits), and I don't think Bernie is either. Bernie's got one message, and he's lucky it resonates with a lot of people, but it's not EVERYONE'S central issue. I think he could do better on inclusion of other issues that are important to people. I think Hillary could too - she addresses a lot of different issues but is not good at making them into clear "sound bite" messages that the average American understands. She tends to over-explain and it sounds like she's rationalising. Neither of them gives the majority of Americans the "included" feeling that Obama, for example, was able to get across. The "he/she speaks for ME" feeling. I get that from Hillary on women's issues, and obviously a lot of people get that from Bernie on economic issues, but women's issues and economic issues aren't the central issues for a lot of people.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)His tone is passionate but never condescending.
BTW, I loved the "mansplaining" skit Kimmel did with her. Bernie is never like that and as a woman and also old like him, I appreciate his tone!
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I meant the thrust or focus of his campaign.
Sorry for confusion.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)blunt manner (which I don't believe is a problem with him). I just love to hear him talk, but then I love New Yorkers!
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I like his accent too. But then, I'm from Philly, so I'm predisposed to like East Coast accents!
I think the Hillary campaign was referring to "negative campaigning" when they took issue with his tone, not his blunt manner of speaking.
But I wasn't referring to either of those (I forgot "tone" was a hot button word these days) - I meant the focus of his campaign. Wrong word choice.
Thanks for civil conversation.