Home | About | Donate

The Absurd Identity Politics of Establishment Pundits Critiquing Bernie Sanders



"Methinks thou doth protest too much" is what I hope the youth pick up from the M$M messaging complex.


Hillary Clinton's support for centrist male Democratic candidates in New York over progressive female candidates blows a hole in her and her backers premise that Hillary is a feminist and a progressive. I'm sure the false meme that Sanders' supporters don't support women is weak tea. It's just that Sanders' supporters don't support center-right anti-progressive, corporate candidates no matter their gender.


The other day I saw a man begging for money on a street corner; he was a Vietnam War veteran. If Hillary gets elected, she'll put that white male in his place! Right where he is now. Oh, I almost forgot the homeless females: Hillary will keep them in their place too. I didn't want to be sexist. Sorry.


I'm really losing patience with pundits who claim that voters aren't supporting Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. I'm a woman, a Baby Boomer, a retired lawyer, a life-long Democrat and a fiscal conservative. While I may fit the profile of a typical Clinton supporter, I support Bernie Sanders, and it has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with my belief that Sanders is honest, truthful and authentic, and Clinton is not. Why is it so difficult for some pundits to believe that voters actually have valid, gender neutral reasons for choosing a particular candidate?


What kind of journalists, with all the huge issues before them in this election, would choose to focus on the gender of the candidates? It is just a distraction from the real issues, and the Hillary favoring corporate-owned media hopes voters can again be led away from the truth if they all jump on this sexist bandwagon.


Hey now! I seem to recall few years back that Straddelin Madeleine claimed Jewish heritage. "a special place in hell"? I was under the impression that the Jewish faith did not believe in the concept of hell. That comes from the Christians. Is she still speaking from her rectum? Peace and blessings to all. Tom Evans




Suddenly, the many aspects of Sanders and his campaign, which make it
inspiring, become issues of contention, and as “Bernie Bros” defend
their candidate against this wild argument, Clinton benefits because
they are “sexists” and “misogynistic” for not accepting this theory as

Could Mark Joseph Stern, Madeleine Albright, Catherine Rampell, or Rebecca Traister consider a male such as myself, who defends the US Green Party platform as the only truly progressive one and who were to insist on supporting Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala should they be the already likely GP candidates, a misandrist? My personal decision since the initiation of the candidate selections for the US presidency was to vote in the DP primary for Sanders and, if he looses, I will vote for the GP candidates, who I sincerely hope include Dr. Stein, for the GP candidates even if it is unlikely that that party can win the presidency. Will my following this course of actions effectively inoculate me from being labeled a misogynist for not voting for Clinton simply because I consider her a power-hungry, avaricious, mendacious, self-serving, murdering, dangerous, callous, and all around duplicitous human being?


My "demographic" would be a Republican's dream bot, but I would vote for Liz or Bern with equal zeal!


The idea that young women vote for Bernie to get male attention is shocking coming from Gloria Steinem.
Hillary has always used her gender when she's in a tight spot. She did it when she ran against Obama. Madeline Albright thinks we are going to hell if we don't vote for Hill because she is a woman. What nonsense. This country is more mature than we are given credit for. First we would never vote for a black man. Then we would. Now we won't vote for Hillary because she's female. Maybe we just don't want another war hawk in the White House, male or female. Hillary has never been as attractive a candidate as they think we should think she is. Run Elizabeth Warren and see if we would vote for a female. She shouts too. Ah ha.
I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted by these yapping morons.


It is true that appearance is taken more seriously in women. However, a lot of noise was made at one time about John Edward's hair.

On the other hand, it's fascinating how the Frank Luntz-George Lakoff Word Analysts have turned the gender matter around to turn it into an indictment of those who don't intend to vote for Mrs. Clinton.

What's ironic about the following is that typically it's the male who is identified with head and all the cold, rational policies that patriarchy is noted for. And it's typically the female, in the form of nurturing mother, who is connected to the heart.

"She notes many young voters in Iowa said their decision came down to head versus heart. Clinton was what their head told them to vote for, and their heart told them to vote Sanders."

It takes a "Lady Macbeth" to invert that head-heart arrangement, and THAT is the real reason why many people do not want to vote for Clinton. And how about the fact that the U.S. is no longer a scion of the British Crown? That in theory, we don't DO family dynasty here?

This, from the article, is PRECISELY right-on:

"To conclude, the dominant trend in establishment media is to give a platform to columnists to guilt others into voting for Clinton because it will benefit women. However, as writer Roqayah Chamseddine has argued, these commentators are not “looking for women to dismantle an oppressive system but to join it, to become a part of the establishment class. This isn’t liberatory political consciousness but the politics of superficial preservation for those at the top.”

Patriarchal Capitalism will only tolerate Women, Latinos, and Black citizens who are DEFERENTIAL to the existing system--and that includes the Big Banks, Global Corporate hegemons, and MIC.

That means it's still about tokenism. And the questions as to why more women don't attempt to ascend to the American throne are largely financial and logistical. Women still make less money than men do; they don't hold proportionate positions in congress, the senate, the Supreme Court, on major corporate boards, or on university academic boards.

There's the cultural aspect, the financial aspect, the logistical aspect... and yes, the religious aspect since most conventional religious bodies still grant primacy to males.

These are far deeper causative factors than how the woman looks before the cameras. I mean, Sarah Palin is photogenic but that doesn't change the fact that she's a complete dingbat.


A President Clinton would raise up the women of the U.S. to the precise degree President Obama has lifted African-Americans.
These 'pundits' would experience a near-fatal case of whiplash if the contest were Warren v. say, Lieberman in the current political climate.


The job of pundits is to SELL their case.

Can you imagine if the media spent as much time on Hillary's REAL record (and the bloody impacts of her policy decisions) as it does on all this trivia?

Right wing interests opposed Affirmative Action so they dreamt up the rival argument--essentially inverting the Spirit of Affirmative Action to focus on the LETTER of the law--that white males were thus penalized as a minority.

The old white conservative boys' club recognizing that U.S. demographics would soon overwhelm it used the backdoor tactic of re-designing voting districts (gerrymandering), and then went to the Supreme Court and ended up with the decision that sends Voting Rights back decades.

There's a reason why top universities have departments in Public Relations and Neuro-linquistic studies. Very smart people come up with alternative narratives and due to the influence of those who wish to deploy them, it's these counter-narratives that end up all over the airwaves and thereby replace the discussions that NEED to take place.

It's amusing that those who don't care about women's rights are playing the Gender Card in order to get the Establishment Candidate into a position of power.

Since Mr. Sanders is a threat to the Big Banks and Wall St., these entities will use their Influence and capture of media to repeat stories that work against him.

Remember: we are living in a time of absolute counterfeits.

Citizens United? That's what giving U.S. elections away to billionaires is called?

Healthy Forest Initiative? That's what cutting down every tree is about?

Enhanced Interrogation... to offset the TRUTH of torture?

The list is long.


Gender IS a real concern in this country since so few women ARE in positions of power, and the lack of gender (as well as racial) parity plays a role in the type of politics and the decisions it comes to.

But... there's a world of difference between a Barbara Lee/Jill Stein/Elizabeth Warren AND a Hillary Clinton. And that's what isn't being discussed... enough!

I think it would be a strategic time for Mr. Sanders to announce a FEMALE V.P since that would help offset the LIES being told that turn his supporters into supposed sexists!

He could even joke about his age... the subliminal message being, SHE would be next in line to the throne. That would defuse the Hillary Camp's inverted use of gender.

I hope that this issue doesn't become a touchstone for the forum's closet sexists to whine about women's rights since until there IS genuine equality, women have a right to demand greater representation in all sectors of society, culture, and the Power Establishment.


All things being equal a woman president is worth a try - patriarchy doesn't
seem to cut it - hence this "sleep-walk to extinction". It does
depend on the woman though. Look at the disaster that was Thatcher – she had to
out-tough the men. You can see another potential "Iron Lady" in HRC
and that's the worst option. The issue of Ukraine /Crimea and also Putin’s
actions in Syria will have to be addressed by a new president. We need wise
women not a woman who will insist that she has balls.

The support from Pelosi and many older women in the democratic establishment
smacks of cronyism. They are cronies not crones.


Kevin Gosztola nails it with this brilliant piece, especially when he writes: "as writer Roqayah Chamseddine has argued, these commentators are not “looking for women to dismantle an oppressive system but to join it, to become a part of the establishment class. This isn’t liberatory political consciousness but the politics of superficial preservation for those at the top.”

So many critical issues to discuss, so many attempting to divert attention from them......


This arguing that Sanders support due to sexism is very much the Anti-semite arguement repackaged.

Note there a coordinated attempt by multiple newspapers to advance this meme and the public is lead to believe that this all came to each of those writers separately. On the contrary it suggests to me someone in a backroom cooked this line of attack up and issued their marching orders to these various papers. Those that work to preserve the status quo and the privilege of the 1 percent are hard at work. Hillary is their gal.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Not even Madeleine, let alone the other Hillarybots "shares Madeleine's view". While Madeleine knows its total BS, she also knows that desperate situations require desperate measures, and vitrol is the only ammo left in the Clinton campaign war chest.

If Madeleine really believed her own BS she would have been stumping for the highly qualified female third party presidential candidates we have had the opportunity to vote for in recent elections.