SEPTEMBER 30, 2019
NEWS AND VIEWS
VIDEO
BERNIE RALLIES WITH CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION
LIVE FROM CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
TO UNDERSTAND SANDERS' STAND ON HENRY
KISSINGER, READ THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS FROM WIKIPEDIA. THE PART I REMEMBER
MOST OF THOSE VIETNAM WAR YEARS WAS THAT HE STEPPED BACK AND FORTH ACROSS PARTY
LINES AND THERE WAS A PERSISTENT RUMOR THAT HE AND JACQUELINE KENNEDY, JFK'S
WIFE, HAD HAD AN AFFAIR. PERSONALLY, I DON'T KNOW, BUT HERE IS SOME INTERESTING
READING.
Sanders
criticizes Pompeo for meeting with 'destructive' Kissinger
BY ZACK BUDRYK - 09/29/19
03:26 PM EDT
PHOTOGRAPH
-- HENRY KISSINGER
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
criticized a meeting between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former
Secretary of State and national security adviser Henry Kissinger, noting
Kissinger’s “destructive” legacy.
“Henry
Kissinger was one of the most destructive Secretaries of State in the history
of this country,” the Vermont senator and presidential candidate tweeted Sunday
in response to a tweet from Pompeo saying he was “always grateful for …
conversations” with Kissinger. “A Sanders administration will not be taking
advice from Henry Kissinger,” Sanders added.
Kissinger,
who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, has frequently been
criticized by human rights activists for his role in the 1973 CIA-backed Chilean military coup that brought dictator Augusto
Pinochet to power.
Kissinger
also played key roles in the U.S.
bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war, believed to have killed
thousands of civilians, and the U.S.
backing of the Pakistani military in a 1971 campaign against ethnic Bengalis
that has been described as a genocide.
Sanders has criticized Kissinger’s
record before, noting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
close relationship with him during the 2016 Democratic primaries and saying,
"I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take
advice from Henry Kissinger."
AT LEAST THREE CANDIDATES ARE USING THE
TERM "MEDICARE FOR ALL" WHILE BEING "VAGUE" OR ACTUALLY
DESCRIBING IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY FROM BERNIE'S. WARREN DID, I UNDERSTAND,
CO-SPONSOR IT, BUT SHE DIDN'T AUTHOR IT. NAUGHTY AND ANNOYING.
Elizabeth
Warren's vagueness on 'Medicare for All' isn't fooling anyone
BY
ANA KASPARIAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/29/19 08:00 PM EDT
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.),
who famously “has a plan” for everything, doesn’t seem to have a concrete plan
on healthcare. She unequivocally supports "Medicare for All" on the
debate stage, which several centrist Democrats have disingenuously done. But her take on a single-payer health-care
system isn’t quite as strong on the campaign trail.
The
latest example was when Warren referred
to Medicare for All as a “framework” during a recent town hall in New
Hampshire.
"Right
now, what we've got in Medicare for All is a framework,” Warren said in response to a question about the transition period should the
policy come into effect. “It doesn't have the details and you're right to be
asking. But the most important part of your asking is to raise awareness so we
get this right as we go through it," she continued.
In reality, Medicare for All isn’t some
vague concept at all, and it’s certainly not a “framework.” It’s a specific and
detailed piece of legislation written
by Sen. Bernie Sanders. Warren should know considering she co-sponsored it. Did she put
her name on something she didn’t read and doesn’t really support? The policy goes into detail about how the
transition period would work, and Warren could have mentioned that.
Following
the Democratic debate in September, a reporter with CBS News asked Warren if she planned to
present her own health-care proposal. Her answer was disappointing for anyone
who wants a president who will actually fight
for Medicare for All. She began her answer with “I support Medicare for All,” and immediately followed her statement
with, “I support a lot plans. Other things that people have come up with, when
they’re good plans, let’s do it.”
Warren’s webpage on
health-care uses some of the arguments
popularized by Bernie and supporters of Medicare for All, including the
statement that “health care is a human right.” But as several progressive
outlets have noted, her
website fails to mention anything too specific, including whether she would
eliminate private insurers, or what would happen with co-pays and deductibles.
While
Bernie’s single-payer Medicare for All would cover just about everything, including mental health, dental and vision,
Warren makes clear that private industry would play a role in mental
health:
Elizabeth’s
Behavioral Health Coverage Transparency
Act would hold insurers accountable for providing adequate mental health benefits and ensure Americans receive the protections they are guaranteed by law.
She has also worked to hold the
Department of Health and Human Services accountable for improving insurers’
compliance with mental health parity
laws through an online consumer portal.
Simply
attempting to regulate private health
care as a “fix” in America’s broken system, which is dominated by corruption and corporate interests, isn’t
enough. It’s laughable to think that
those regulations won’t be rolled back by corporatists in Congress later.
In fact, that’s exactly what happened to Warren’s biggest accomplishment: the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As
soon as Trump was in charge and Mick Mulvaney had
his way with the agency, it was weakened and dismantled.
Candidates
shouldn’t get away with slapping the
Medicare for All label on whatever they want to co-opt the popularity of
Bernie’s’ plan. Voters aren’t stupid,
and progressive in particular are paying close attention to each candidate’s
rhetoric on the campaign trail. Labeling a non-single-payer health-care plan as
Medicare for All is like slanging a pair of Adidas sneakers as if they’re the
real thing.
For those who don’t think wavering on
Medicare for All is all that important, consider what her backpedaling
represents. It represents dishonesty and the willingness to pretend to
support policy because it’s popular with the intention to compromise and
concede later. It’s become abundantly clear that there is simply one
candidate who will aggressively fight for the legislation, and it’s Bernie
Sanders, the man who wrote the damn bill.
Ana Kasparian is a host and
executive producer of The Young Turks,
and host of No Filter on TYT.
Bernie Rallies at Dartmouth
50:11 Min Duration
223K subscribers
6,744 views
•Streamed live 5 hours ago SEPTEMBER 29,
2019
WE
WILL BEAT TRUMP: Trump thinks he can win re-election by dividing us up. We're
not going to let that happen. Our campaign is about bringing millions of people
together to create a country based on justice.
Streamed
live 5 hours ago
1K11SHARESAVE
HERE IS THE LATEST INTERVIEW WITH A FEMINIST
DNC ACTIVIST AND MEMBER OF CAP, OR CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, A "THINK
TANK" FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S CENTER WING. ONE WRITER IN THE LAST YEAR
OF THE 2020 CAMPAIGN DESCRIBED IT AS "NOT VERY PROGRESSIVE." ALSO,
WHILE BEING A FEMINIST IS GOOD IN MY VIEW, PERSONALLY I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A
CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF HIS OR HER RACE, GENDER OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. THOSE THINGS
ARE PRIVATE AND DON'T INDICATE THEIR OPINION ON OTHER SUBJECTS.
AS FOR WARREN'S POLICIES BEING SUPERIOR TO
BERNIE SANDERS' SHE CHOSE HER FOCUS SPECIFICALLY TO CATER TO THE SAME PEOPLE
WHO HAVE BEEN BACKING HIM. I DON'T BELIEVE SHE HAS BEEN A SINCERE PROGRESSIVE,
EITHER, SO SHE SHOULDN'T CLAIM THAT GROUND AS HER OWN. READ
POLITICO BELOW ON HER BEGINNINGS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. IN ADDITION TO
THAT, WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT ALL POLLS ARE TEMPORARY SNAPSHOTS OF A SCENE IN
MOTION, AND NOT EVEN PERFECT TOOLS FOR THAT. IT'S A LONG, LONG WAY TO
TIPPERARY, AND I'M WAITING FOR THAT FINAL POLL -- THE PRIMARIES.
DEMOCRATIC
STRATEGIST: 'SEXISM' IS MOTIVATING BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS NOT TO BACK
ELIZABETH WARREN
BY BENJAMIN FEARNOW ON 9/28/19 AT 11:11 AM EDT
A Democratic Party activist and MSNBC
guest claimed Friday that voters in support of Senator Bernie Sanders instead
of Elizabeth Warren are revealing their "sexism."
Democratic
strategist and former vice president of campaigns for the Center for American Progress, Emily Tisch Sussman, responded to
several recent polls showing Warren surging ahead and placing
herself next to former Vice President Joe Biden atop the 2020 candidates.
Speaking with MSNBC's Craig Melvin
Friday, Tisch Sussman relayed a comment about how Warren is so clearly a better candidate than Sanders that a vote
for him indicates one is simply sexist against a female candidate for
president.
"There
is a ceiling, there is nowhere to go, there is no 'up' to go," she told
the MSNBC panel Friday morning. "I actually heard someone saying something
that I thought was an interesting point. But basically, if you are still supporting
Sanders as opposed to Warren, it's kind of showing your sexism."
MSNBC pundit says if you support Bernie
Sanders over Elizabeth Warren it’s “showing your sexism.”
VIDEO -- THE CONTENDERS, MSNBC
"Because
she has more detailed plans and her plans have evolved," Tisch Sussman
continued. "I think it was an interesting point and I think there may be
something to it."
The
MSNBC discussion centered around Sanders rounding out the top three Democratic
candidates in a new Iowa poll, but beginning to
lag behind Biden and Warren. The two candidates have led the progressive
wing of the Democratic Party race for president and have long been
neck-and-neck right behind Biden in polls. However, Warren has recently pushed
ahead and even surpassed Biden in a Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom
poll as well as a Monmouth University
survey released Tuesday.
"After
trailing Biden by double digits since March in the race for the Democratic
nomination, Warren catches Biden," Quinnipiac
University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy said. "We now have a race with
two candidates at the top of the field, and they're leaving the rest of the pack behind."
A
male guest on MSNBC's The Contenders segment Friday agreed
with Tisch Sussman's suggestion that supporting Sanders over Warren is a
"sexist" move.
However, social media responses blasted Tisch
Sussman's "sexism" claim and flipped the identity politics argument
on its head in several comments. "If
supporting Sanders over Warren means you're a sexist, then supporting Warren
over Sanders means you're an anti-semite. It's only fair," replied one Twitter user. Many replies rebuked
the comment as "divisive" and "unhelpful"
to the Democratic presidential race as a whole.
Several
other replies came from "Women for
Bernie" supporters who rejected the "sexism" claim made on
the cable news network Friday and
produced statistics showing a high percentage of young women back the Vermont
senator. In 2016, many critics of Sanders' campaign against Hillary
Clinton claimed so-called "Bernie Bros" were also motivated by sexist
undertones.
"Warren doesn't have the same
policies. I will not vote for any candidate that takes corporate money period.
Warren says she will take corporate money in the general election.
That absolutely disqualifies her for my vote," responded another irate
social media user.
HERE WE GO WITH THE LOADED WORDS AGAIN,
SUCH AS DESCRIBING SANDERS SUPPORT AS "A WEIRD SLICE OF HIS 2016 COALITION."
HOW HIGH SCHOOL CAN YOU GET? PARDON ME IF I'M BEING OVERLY SENSITIVE, BUT THAT
IS VERY MUCH LIKE 538'S NATE SILVER IN HIS DESCRIPTION OF THAT SAME GROUP OF
PEOPLE (ME, ET AL.) AS A "RESIDUE." THEN, A FEW SENTENCES DOWN, THIS WAPO
WRITER REFERS TO THEM AS "A MISHMASH," ANOTHER HEAVILY WEIGHTED NEGATIVE
TERM. THAT IS SO TIRESOME. I HATE IT WHEN THE WASHINGTON POST LIVES UP TO ITS'
NEWLY ACQUIRED REPUTATION AS FREQUENT CRUSADERS AGAINST BERNIE SANDERS. IT USED
TO HAVE A HIGH RANKING IN THE PUBLIC MIND FOR ITS' HONORABLE WRITING, BUT IT IS
FOLLOWING A PATH OF SMEARS AGAINST SANDERS THIS TIME AROUND TO A DEGREE THAT
MAKES ME QUESTION ITS' STATUS.
SOME PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO DO FOLLOW SANDERS WERE
OFFENDED AT THAT TERM "RESIDUE," BUT I FIGURE IT INCLUDES WORKING
CLASS WHITES AS WELL, RATHER THAN BEING A RACIAL REFERENCE. NONETHELESS, I'M
GLAD THAT PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST 538, WHICH HAS BEEN POPULAR AS A
RELIABLE SOURCE. IT'S DISAPPOINTING WHEN RELIABLE GIVES WAY TO BOUGHT AND PAID
FOR. MY CURE FOR THIS PATTERN IS TO CALL THEM OUT AND POST OPINIONS FROM THE RELATIVELY FEW GENUINELY LIBERAL / PROGRESSIVE SITES.
Warren
and Sanders are similar. Only one seems to know what it’ll take to win.
By David Byler
Data
analyst and political columnist
September
27 at 3:44 PM
PHOTOGRAPH -- Former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) listen as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks on Sept. 12 during a Democratic debate in Houston. (David J. Phillip/AP)
At
first glance, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are
similar. They’re both older, w`hite and progressive; support Medicare-for-all;
and cast politics as a struggle between powerful elite and a virtuous public.
Neither grew up with much money.
And they both charted unlikely paths into national Democratic politics. No
wonder progressives hope that means that Warren and Sanders’s supporters will
eventually unite into a bloc that helps one of the two win the nomination and
the presidency.
But
it’s not that simple.
Sanders
and Warren have clear differences in style,
emphasis and attitude toward our political systems that have helped them
cultivate different, rather than interchangeable, bases of support in the 2020
primary. If either progressive wants to
win in 2020, they need to do more than try to pick up the other’s voters.
And Warren seems to have a better grasp on that reality than Sanders.
Warren’s
coalition is a product of both her policies and her personal style.
Unsurprisingly, Warren, does well with voters who say they’re very
liberal or liberal and
gets less support from self-described moderates. But her support isn’t entirely
due to her policy positions policy [sic]: Rather,
her hyper-wonkish approach attracts a solid number of white-collar
professionals and drives up her numbers among voters with high incomes and a lot of formal education.
Warren’s
progressivism is such that it allows her to walk the line between insider and
outsider. She’s been a Democrat for her
entire career in electoral politics*
and seems to focus more on having “a plan for that” than starting a full revolution. But she shows what seems like a genuine dislike for Wall Street, pharmaceutical
companies and the other normal targets
of left populism. That stylistic mix shows up in the polls: Warren’s
coalition is made
up of a combination of those who supported Sanders in 2016 and
those who preferred Hillary Clinton.
This
coalition has its weaknesses. Warren has
yet to fully break through with nonwhite voters. And there are a lot
of white Democrats without a college degree* who might initially prefer Joe Biden or Sanders. But overall, Warren’s
footprint seems to be growing — unlike that of Sanders, who, as FiveThirtyEight has documented, is holding on to a weird slice of his 2016 coalition rather than building his base.
Polling
suggests that Sanders is
mostly winning a subset of voters that he already won in 2016. That
includes some ideological
liberals who see Warren as an acceptable second
choice; some anti-establishment voters who like Sanders because
they think the political system is “rigged”; and some voters who liked
him last time and aren’t
paying much attention to the election yet. But it also includes a mishmash of voters who prefer him for stylistic or demographic reasons.
Sanders
has shown significant resilience
among downscale voters. He tends to do best among voters with lower incomes and less formal education. Some of these
voters probably like his specific policy
decisions. But some of them are probably just there for his style, and that style is very different from
Warren’s. Sanders’s political rhetoric is pugilistic,
direct and aggressive in a very male
way. And Sanders may be grabbing
some voters who want a male candidate. Alexander
Agadjanian, a researcher at MIT, recently found
that Sanders’s support increases with voters who score higher on the so-called hostile sexism scale*,
which measures agreement with statements such as “women seek to gain power by
getting control over men” and “women are too easily offended.” The likelihood of voting for Sanders
increased with voters who got a higher score.
That’s
not to say that all Sanders voters are sexist — most aren’t. Agadjanian told me that only 23 percent of Sanders supporters had an
above-neutral level of sexism on this scale. But it’s plausible that sexist voters (or those who are more neutral on
gender issues) may consciously or
unconsciously gravitate to Biden, Andrew Yang or some other male candidate
rather than Warren.
Sanders
probably can’t win all of Warren’s voters, and vice versa. Warren may be too
establishment-friendly for some of the more fiery “burn it all down” style
Sanders voters, and some of the less feminist or more downscale Democrats might
not see Warren as a third, fourth or fifth choice.
And
Sanders might be too much of an old-style socialist class warrior to
bridge the gap with Warren’s affluent suburban
and older liberal fans. Progressives might want to treat Sanders and Warren
voters as a progressive plurality. But
Warren and Sanders fans are too different to naturally fall into a coalition
together.
The
right solution for both candidates is to
cast a wide net and not just look enviously at the vote share of other
progressives. For months, Sanders hasn’t had much success with this. His national vote share has been
stagnant, and his strategy is basically identical to his (failed) 2016 method.
Warren, on the other hand, has been gaining in the polls and trying to fuse
together parts of the Sanders and Clinton coalition. And that plan seems a lot
more likely to succeed than the Sanders revolution.
Read
more:
David BylerDavid
Byler is a data analyst and political columnist focusing on elections, polling,
demographics and statistics. He joined The Washington Post in 2019. Follow
"... her entire career in electoral
politics* ...."
"...she left the Republican Party in
the mid-90s because it was tilting the playing field in favor of Wall
Street."
‘Liz
Was a Diehard Conservative’
"HOSTILE SEXISM SCALE"*
Ambivalent sexism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Ambivalent
sexism is a theoretical framework which posits that sexism has
two sub-components: "hostile sexism" and "benevolent
sexism". Hostile sexism
reflects overtly negative evaluations and stereotypes about
a gender (e.g.,
the ideas that women are incompetent and inferior to men). Benevolent sexism represents evaluations of gender that may appear
subjectively positive (subjective to the person who is evaluating), but are
actually damaging to people and gender
equality more broadly (e.g., the ideas that women need to be protected
by men). For the most part, psychologists have
studied hostile forms of sexism. However, theorists using the theoretical
framework of ambivalent sexism have found extensive empirical evidence for both varieties. The theory has largely been developed
by social
psychologists Peter Glick
and Susan Fiske.
. . . ."
I'M A LIFELONG FEMINIST, EVEN BEFORE SUCH A
TERM WAS BEING USED, BUT I DON'T VOTE FOR CANDIDATES IN MAJOR ELECTIONS JUST
BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN, THOUGH WHEN I GET TO THE SECTION ON THE BALLOT FOR
JUDGES AND MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL BOARD, WHO I DON'T USUALLY KNOW WELL OR AT
ALL, I DO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS, THE WOMEN OR THE ETHNIC / RACIAL MINORITY
PEOPLE WHERE THEY OCCUR. I WAS PARTICULARLY OFFENDED DURING THE 2016 PRIMARY BY
THE SLOGAN "VOTE FOR THE WOMAN."
I VOTED FOR BERNIE SANDERS BECAUSE IN MY
VIEW HE IS MARCHING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, WAS THE FIRST TO DO IT, AND STANDS
FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITIONS AND ISSUES. HE, NOT ELIZABETH WARREN, IS THE
LEADER. I DON'T WANT A CANDIDATE WHO IS TOO COZY WITH THE VERY WEALTHY, OR WHO
SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN OPPORTUNIST.
Published on
Saturday, September 28, 2019
by
MSNBC
Pundit Who Accused Those Who Prefer Sanders to Warren of 'Sexism' Sparks Viral
Outcry From #WomenforBernie
"Not here to be vote shamed by the 1%.
I am supporting the only candidate who will always put the needs of people
first."
by
PHOTOGRAPH
-- "Look at all the of #BernieSanders sexist supporters!" tweeted
writer, comedian, and Bernie Sanders supporter Elizabeth Croydon on Saturday
morning alongside this photo taken with the candidate. (Photo:
Twitter/@ECroydon)
Female
supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders are not taking
kindly to a MSNBC political pundit who said Friday—in a clip
that has since gone viral—that there "may be something to" the charge
that voters who prefer Sanders over rival Elizabeth Warren are inherently
sexist.
Though
not a remark from someone as a high a profile as former secretary of state
Madeline Albright—who in 2016 said there was a "special
place in hell" for women who didn't back Hillary Clinton in that
race—the comments by Emily Tisch Sussman, a Democratic strategist and former
vice president of campaigns for the Center for American Progress, drew scorn
from the many women who work for or support Sanders for a wide range of
substantive reasons.
"I
actually heard someone saying something that I thought was an interesting point.
But basically, if you are still supporting Sanders as opposed to Warren, it's
kind of showing your sexism," Tisch Sussman said Friday morning.
"Because
[Warren] has more detailed plans and her plans have evolved," Tisch
Sussman continued. "I think it was an interesting point and I think there
may be something to it."
In
response, Sanders campaign national co-chair Nina Turner said she was having
trouble wrapping her mind around such "foolishness":
I’m truly
trying to wrap my mind around this foolishness
https://twitter.com/ibrahimas97/status/1177719744096559110 …
Briahna
Joy Gray, who serves as national press secretary for the Sanders campaign, also
weighed in:
I don’t know who needs to hear this, but
sexism and racism are too real and to important be weaponized for political
gain. : https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/09/how-identity-became-a-weapon-against-the-left …
Not
a new
phenomenon, but one of the central
critiques of charging Sanders supporters of being sexist is the degree to
which it disregards just how profoundly his agenda—including a $15 federal
minimum wage, paid parental and family leave, Medicare for All, a Green New
Deal, free public college, cancellation of medical debt, universal coverage for
reproductive care and abortion access—would
specifically improve the lives of women and reduce gender (and other)
inequities throughout society.
"Here's
the thing," columnist Arwa Mahdawi wrote for the Guardian earlier this
year: "universal healthcare is a
feminist issue. Widening access to education is a feminist issue. A foreign
policy that doesn't involve constantly bombing other countries is a feminist
issue. Refusing to cozy up to Saudi Arabia is a feminist issue. Calling out
Israel for its treatment of Palestinians is a feminist issue. As far as I'm
concerned, Sanders is the most feminist candidate in the race."
I’m a 66-year-old woman with a cardiac
condition Rent alone is equal to my Social Security check. Living off my
savings & terrified that even with Medicare, a medical emergency will
bankrupt me. I see plenty of others who are even worse off than me. #WomenForBernie #BERNIE2020 https://twitter.com/ninaturner/status/1177925970294128640 …
I'm
a #WomenForBernie
because I believe in fighting for medicare for all, education for all, a green
new deal, and a living wage. We have enough politicians... I can't wait
for an activist, leader, and public servant to be our President. @ninaturner @berniesanders #Bernie2020 https://twitter.com/ninaturner/status/1177925970294128640 …
Not here to be vote shamed by the 1%. I am
supporting the only candidate who will always put the needs of people first.#MedicareForAll #GreenNewDeal #CancelStudentDebt
#HousingForAll
The list goes on & he literally
writes the damn bills!#Bernie2020 https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/1177745546276159490 …
In
addition, female supporters argue, denying that Sanders polls
consistently well among women—especially young women and women of color—erases, in effect, all those women and
their well-reasoned justifications for backing his political vision and
presidential campaign.
For
journalist and podcast host Katie Halper—outspoken
in her support for Sanders as well as her dismay at how the corporate media and Democratic establishment figures operate to
undermine and smear him, said Tisch Sussman's comments were clearly
"offensive" but also "helpful" in terms of understanding
this dynamic.
"They
were offensive because they dismissed all Sanders supporters as sexist,"
Halper said in an email to Common Dreams. "Is she ignorant or
disinegenuous [sic]? Does she not know
or is she intentionally concealing that people support Sanders for many reasons
that have nothing to do with his gender? Does she really not get that economic
issues and foreign policy issues are women's issues?"
Using
the tactic of "I overheard someone say" this about Sanders
supporters, added Halper, was "cringe-worthy" detail of Tisch
Sussman's remarks.
"That is an obvious and
baseless-smear tactic," she said. "At least have the courage of your
convictions—even if they're bad ones."
In
addition to the time Tisch Sussman spent at the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank with deep ties to
the Clinton apparatus in Washington D.C. and consistently hostile to Sanders'
bold policy ideas and grassroots progressive support, many critics also
noted that her father happens to be billionaire financier Donald Sussman, a
hedge fund manager, liberal philanthropist, and major Democratic donor.
Given that Sanders at the outset of the
week unveiled in his updated proposal to institute a wealth tax in the country
and declared forthrightly, as Common Dreams reported, that he doesn't believe "billionaires should exist" in
the world, Tisch Sussman's family wealth was relevant to at least some of her
detractors.
Amy Vilela, state co-chair for the Sanders
campaign in Nevada, was having none of it:
"I
am a lifelong feminist and an ardent supporter of
Bernie Sanders," said writer and poet Kathryn Levy in a tweet
of her own. "He was marching for
women’s rights when Warren was a Republican. But of course
this isn't about sexism. It's about
his being the only candidate who is a threat to corporate interests."
As
part of her pushback, Turner called on
fellow women nationwide to share their stories about why they support
Sanders:
As
of this writing, the request had garnered over 200 responses and thousands of
likes and retweets. A small sample:
- "I'm with #WomenForBernie because I have student loans I took to buy health insurance so I could get a good job with health insurance! Then I got sicker. Now I have medical debt and student debt, and I want a better world for my adorable grandson!" (link)
- "Here in the Silicon Valley, most of the many organizers for Bernie are women & also majority Asian American. For us everything abt Bernie's history & policies evinces the strongest commitment to equality, dignity & justice for all, and that's what we care about. #WomenForBernie" (link)
- Sanders "has been on the right side of issues his entire life & for 37 years of my life. He’s consistent. He’s not a talker, he’s a doer, he acts & that’s the difference. He is the only one I trust when it comes to fighting for us. #WomenForBernie" (link)
- "How do I know my Grandma, who
passed in 2000, would be #WomenForBernie? She was smart, compassionate, and
UNION. She always looked out for workers and the less fortunate. Like
Bernie. (link)
On
the "Fight for Women's Rights" section of the Sanders campaign website,
it says, "Despite major advances in civil and political rights, our
country still has a long way to go in addressing the issues of gender
inequality and reproductive freedom."
Offering a substantive debate on the
Warren-Sanders divide, Halper this week, along with co-host Matt Taibbi
and Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson, discussed the
two candidates on Halper and Taibbi's "Useful Idiots" podcast. Watch:
Collectively,
the argument from most Sanders supporters appears not be that they dislike
Warren or her policies, but that they have come to believe that Sanders—largely based on his concept of political
power and his lifelong commitment to a host of issues and values—is a truly
unique and superior candidate overall.
"People
of all genders and backgrounds," Halper told Common Dreams, "trust admire Sanders for his
consistency, courage, and moral clarity. And they support him for his
championing of issues that politicians and
the echo-chamber media dismiss as fringe but are in fact mainstream and
popular."
And
as another female Bernie supporter put it in a tweet on Saturday, "I grew
up with a strong feminist single mother, a women's studies lecturer, who took
me marching for the Equal Rights Ammendment in the 1970s. She taught me to [make judgements] based on shared values and
integrity—not based on gender. "
And,
she concluded, "There's a special place in heaven for #WomenForBernie."
Our
work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Feel free to republish and share widely.
This
is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.
Because
of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be
won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not
your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising
dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it
alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because
every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We
Won't Exist.
Comments
Post a Comment