Bernie Sanders' Supporters Decry Elizabeth Warren's Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

[RandySF]

While some of Warren’s supporters see her endorsement of Clinton as necessary to stop Donald Trump from claiming the Oval Office come November, several others believe that Elizabeth Warren has betrayed her progressive agenda by siding with someone whom they essentially see as a corrupt and warmongering political leader.

As Vox reports, Warren’s Facebook page “erupted with rage and disappointment from Bernie Sanders supporters” after news of her endorsing Hillary Clinton poured in.



The disgruntled supporters are not only making their voices heard on Facebook. Even on YouTube, a chunk of Bernie Sanders’ supporters vented their ire on Warren’s decision to endorse Hillary Clinton. While many called on her to reconsider her decision, others termed her a “sellout,” a “pseudo progressive neoliberal,” and one commenter even suggested that she was similar to a “parasite” who displayed “gross opportunism” in deciding to support Clinton.


http://www.inquisitr.com/3189696/bernie-sanders-supporters-decry-elizabeth-warrens-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton-thanks-for-being-a-sellout/

[leftofcool]

1. Classy Bernie supporters calling Liz a Low life.

Pathetic

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Someone said something on facebook?

HOLY FUCK THAT'S HORRIBLE!

[shireen]

3. Sanders has hundreds of thousands of supporters

You're just hearing the opinions of a few hundred at most.

Mountain out of molehill.

[LoverOfLiberty]

45. Trust me

when I say that most reasonable people understand this.

[aikoaiko]

48. More like well over 10 million supporters making your point more meaningful

[pangaia]

51. MILLIONS of supporters...

[Ace Rothstein]

4. The far left goes after the moderate left viciously.

Especially in comparison to how they go after the right.

[AgingAmerican]

58. What far left?

Hillsry isnt 'left' b5w

[rjsquirrel]

5. Warren is an actual progressive democrat

Far superior to Sanders in every way, not caught up in fantasy 1960s campus left elite radicalism of the educated set and a laughably utopian "socialist" agenda that would have no political force even were he elected. They fought Obama almost to a standstill over the ACA. How the hell was "free college" or a public single payer health system going to happen with the current congress and courts and state governments controlled by the right? He would have been less effective than Jimmy Carter.

Warren has none of that hippie baggage. She's a clear eyed pragmatist who understands the complexity of the inequality of our present times and doesn't reduce it to Chomsky/Klein/Hedges condemnation of all free market capitalism and trashing of the wealthy as all evil people. America will not support a candidate who says no one should be rich or other Marxist "revolutionary" talk. She stands for fairness within the reality of a global free market economy in which we are not the sole superpower we were in the glorified 1950s and 60s. She doesn't demand things that can't happen or that would be anathema to huge numbers of Americans (who include wealthy and upper middle class people by the way).

The deft way she suported Clinton without endorsing through the primary and the brilliance and ferocity with which she has gotten under Trump's skin and her impressive ability to leverage her public support for her legislative agenda in the senate all make her a much more compellingly electable progressive than Bernie ever could be.

Liz Warren created an agency to defend consumers from financial abuse. In her first term as a senator. Bernie has accomplished nothing of the sort in his entire career working on the margins of a party he now believes he should control after being a democrat for a whole year.

So yeah toss her under the bus folks. It goes to prove that you never stood for more than slogans and ideology and political fantasy. America is not going to become Finland or Venezuela even IF we elect an old shool socialist from a very tiny state spouting dated campus left slogans about socialism.

Liz Warren represents a much more accurate and contemporary critique of neoliberal capitalism, one that accepts that the times have changed from the era of the New Deal in many ways and that our economy will never be based on industrial manufacturing with unionized labor holding major power ever again, and that we are no longer able to dominate the global economy as we did after WWII, ironically paying for the socialism we have by functioning as an imperial world power (no one around here seems to know this -- the Great Society was paid for by investment in Cold War military power above all, it's a basic contradiction at the heart of the far left worldview to conjoin nostalgia for the post war industrial economy with anti-imperialism. No empire doesn't mean we are all fat and happy and at peace at home. It means we are poor and easily economically dominated by world powers that didn't exist in 1959.

I've known the campus left all my life. I've sat in their teach ins and marched in their protests and read Chomsky and David Harvey and Perry Anderson and David Graeber and even spent a few days in Zucotti park and marched against both Iraq wars until my feet ached and my voice was hoarse. In its way it is as solipsistic and confirmation-biased as the far right, and has a similar ability to use "moral" outrage to bypass reason or analysis.

Every Chinese or Mexican worker making products once made by higher paid Americans wants to keep that job too.

Ironically the problem with Sanders' democratic socialist agenda is that it is effectively as nostalgically nationalist (and rooted in white privilege) as Donald Trump's movement.

[Land Shark]

6. Loose lips may not always sink ships, but they often cost votes

To the extent anybody cares about or reads posts like yours,, it costs HRC votes because you marginalize and dismiss 40+% of Democratic primary voters.

Only Donald Trump himself, and many Internet Hillary supporters, think you can say ANYTHING you want in politics without political consequences. Just like Trump, continuing to indulge in the rhetoric of the primaries will backfire and alienate actual and potential supporters.

[tarheelsunc]

23. Actually, it's many BS supporters who marginalize 55%+ of Democratic primary voters. eom

[NurseJackie]

11. Great post. ⬆⬆⬆ EVERYONE, READ THIS! ⬆⬆⬆

Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2016, 08:31 AM - Edit history (1)

[div style="color:gray"]Edit: Added arrows and extra text to subject line.

[NurseJackie]

18. It's worthy of being reposted as an OP ...

... as long as you don't mind the likelihood that you'd be attacked and have the whole thread turn into a typical food fight.

[msanthrope]

21. I want to buy this post a drink. nt

[rjsquirrel]

24. Thanks! I'll take a gin and tonic!

It's hot!

[NurseJackie]

40. My go-to is also a tonic ... a vodka tonic.

Kettle One or Grey Goose, please.

[sheshe2]

41. Great read, thanks rj.

BTW it was a 3-4 Leave!

[sheshe2]

49. You are welcome,rj.

You got mail~

[oasis]

53. Post # 5 tells it like it is. Thank you.

[brush]

55. Great post. A dose of reality.

"Fighting the establishment", a phrase often used by Sanders himself and his supporters is straight out of 60s era campus radical phraseology, like it was retrieved from a time capsule.

[kurt_cagle]

63. Here here

I absolutely agree with every word you said. Excellently stated.

I voted for Bernie back in March, though even then I saw this primarily as a way to say to the Democratic Party that it is time to leave behind the DLC crap it embraced twenty-five years ago. Yes, Bill Clinton took the party in that direction to begin with, because at the time, it was the best way to win back the White House from twelve years of Republican domination. At the time such things as NAFTA were still experiments, and as such experiments went it had mixed results. I also think that Hillary is not Bill, and in many ways, I suspect that she will likely end up being more progressive than he was simply because she needs to distance herself from her husband out of political necessity.

I had reservations about Sanders when I voted. He is an idealist, someone who believes fervently about what SHOULD be, rather than dealing with what is. Idealism is attractive - it speaks to the hope in all of us - but it's not necessarily something that makes for a good President. I have far fewer qualms about Elizabeth Warren. She's passionate, but she's also a realist, and she's seen the world of politics from the perspective of a target while trying to make the CPB a going concern. I think that some of Sanders followers turning on her shows a very dark, even ugly, side of idealism - idealism can turn into zealotry, and zealots do not act rationally.

I want Elizabeth Warren to be Vice President, even more than I want Hillary to be President. I think they can develop a strong working rapport, can do a great deal to balance one another out, and knowing that Warren is a heartbeat away from being President is one of the most comforting thoughts I've had about the political realities I've known in years.

[Nye Bevan]

7. Here's what they're saying over at Manny's new home:

Fuck you, Liz. I believed you were better than that. But you are not. Get some Maddow fake eyelashes to complete the picture of pathetic. Flap them for Hillary.

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?13298-So-Warren-has-endorsed-Hillary

[NurseJackie]

12. What a cesspool!

[tarheelsunc]

25. That website is no better than Free Republic in my book. Pathetic. eom

[stonecutter357]

28. Disgusting.

[Tarc]

34. lol, how many DU-centric forums does Jackpine have over there?

[sheshe2]

50. Ugh!

[TwilightZone]

54. Just wait until Sanders endorses Hillary

[AgadorSparticus]

66. That'll be fun. 😨

[AgadorSparticus]

67. Not sure what to say to something so....vile. 😨

[KitSileya]

10. Elizabeth Warren were some BS supporters' claim that they weren't sexist

Whenever it was pointed out that what they said about Secy. Clinton was sexist, they would claim that they weren't, because they would be happy to support Senator Warren for President. It was only Clinton they didn't like, they didn't have a problem with women politicians, nosiree!

However, the moment Senator Warren shows that she is not their blank slate to imagine whatever they want onto - the moment she shows she is a person with agency, opinions, and the spine not to be pushed into anything, they throw her under the bus. They wanted a mannequin they could use as a shield, someone they claim they would have voted for as President, yet they don't respect her opinions and actions at all. They would have supported her for President, but they don't think she is capable of saying no to Hillary Clinton when they claim that she endorsed her because she was afraid of the "Clinton machine". They hold her up as the perfect woman candidate, yet harass her when she won't do exactly as they want. If that isn't sexist, I don't know what is. Melissa McEwan said it best - "She was only their hero when she was silent." For some BS supporters, women are only acceptable if they shut up and do as they're told.

[KitSileya]

31. Oh, those words are in full force on BS-only sites.

Those on JimJones Radical believe fiercely that calling Clinton a c--t is acceptable, to the extent that they threw out a poster who objected to the use of the word. They try to clothe it in acceptability by claiming British use of the word, or only using it on Clinton and no one else, but that's just the Emperor's new clothes.

They abstain from the use (mostly) on open sites, and cry censorship and persecution for it. Many so-called progressives have never understood that using slurs to attack our opponents, such as using b-tch and c--t for Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, is just as bad as using them on any other women. It denigrates all women when women aren't allowed to be as awful as men are without being denigrated because of their gender.

A certain segment of Senator Sanders' supporters showed early on that they were willing to use GamerGate tactics on those they perceived as their opponents, which makes them sexists and misogynists regardless of whether they would have voted for a woman for President if she wasn't Hillary Clinton. Which, of course, their treatment of Senator Warren shows was a lie - they aren't interested in supporting a woman unless she is a Stepford candidate.

[Turin_C3PO]

38. Absolutely agree!

I can't stand those types of websites. The Bernie sites, are unfortunately, fill with sexist comments and other types of bullshit. It reminds me of the 2008 Hillary Clinton-only websites that were filled with racists and racist slurs. It sucks.

[reformist2]

14. I still <3 her, but yes, Lizzie did sell out this week. She's just playing the game.

And even though I believe strongly the nomination was stolen, I understand if many haven't come to terms with that yet.

[reformist2]

17. Bernie didn't do anything "wrong". Even if you believe he lost (I do not), why can't you just say

that more people found Hillary more qualified, more electable?

The never-ending Bernie-bashing isn't going to win us over. I don't expect it to stop, though. I know the animus toward his supporters is too strong.

[obamanut2012]

22. Warren asked HRC in 2014 to run for President

She didn't sell out or play a game or be afraid or anything. What she did, endorse the person whom she asked to run for President, was logical and rational.

[peace13]

30. It's not logical or rational for Warren to endorse a person with ......to put it nicely...

....Wall Street ties. If I believe warrens words, these two should be like oil and water, especially with a candidate who who shares Warren's sentiment on the ballot. IMO Warren and Obama have jumped the gun here. Just my opinion.

[TwilightZone]

44. There's more to politics than Wall Street.

Clinton and Warren agree on the vast majority of issues, and Warren encouraged her to run in 2014.

The ideological chasm between the two that some DUers vehement insist exists is nothing but a fabrication.

[MoonRiver]

26. Who cares what they think?

Even if Hillary chose Bernie as VP they'd still attack her, so forget about those whiners.

[CrowCityDem]

27. I wonder how many of them realize Bernie fails the Bernie purity test too.

[stonecutter357]

29. wow

[sufrommich]

33. Welcome to DU.Enjoy your stay.nt

[Time for change]

36. So your belief is that

a presidential candidate should be held responsible for anything that ANY of his supporters say?

That's real classy too.

[dinkytron]

43. All these rabid Hillary fans have buyer's remorse. That's where all their vitriol comes from. They

will make a meal of anything and connect any dots they want. That's why they are pining for Warren. They want progressive credentials so bad.

[Adrahil]

56. LOL... NO!

I am DELIGHTED she got the nomination.

And the vitriol seems to be directed at any progressive who DARES not to toe the BoB line.

[Turin_C3PO]

37. Those kind of people

represent the fringe and won't have an impact on the election. They're there every election season. They sure don't represent any Sanders supporters that I knew irl.

[sheshe2]

42. K&R

Thanks, Randy. Great OP!

[jillan]

52. Oh NOES!!!! Someone posted something a twitter!!!! Call the cops!

[AgingAmerican]

57. Facebook drama?

[Betty Karlson]

59. Well, they are done with politics as usual, so I'm not surprised at their dismay

Warren may be picking her fights carefully, but even she should know that there is a large section of the voters ready to pick a fight with the status quo at every turn.

[Night Watchman]

60. So Sad

Too bad. It's done.

[youceyec]

61. Sanders supporters are

very childlike and immature. At least the the ones that troll facebook. Clinton won. Its over. Get on board. Dont sabotage.

[Lord Magus]

62. Bernie supporters are no more a monolith than any other group.

Individual supporters are doing this, that doesn't mean all of Bernie's supporters feel that way. It doesn't even mean a particularly significant number of them do. Remember that over 12 million people voted for him. Dozens of Facebook accounts isn't a relevant subset of that 12 million plus.