The fact that it may be an effective political smear does not make it any less ugly or deceitful.
The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic — and a journalistic disgrace. It’s intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are “bros”); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).
It’s become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear that even consummate, actual “bros” for whom the term was originally coined — straight guys who act with entitlement and aggression, such as Paul Krugman — are now reflexively (and unironically) applying it to anyone who speaks ill of Hillary Clinton, even when they know nothing else about the people they’re smearing, including their gender, age, or sexual orientation. Thus, a male policy analyst who criticized Sanders’ health care plan “is getting the Bernie Bro treatment,” sneered Krugman. Unfortunately for the New York Times Bro, that analyst, Charles Gaba, said in response that he’s “really not comfortable with [Krugman’s] referring to die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters as ‘Bernie Bros'” because it “implies that only college-age men support Sen. Sanders, which obviously isn’t the case.”
It is indeed “obviously not the case.” There are literally millions of women who support Sanders over Clinton. A new Iowa poll yesterday shows Sanders with a 15-point lead over Clinton among women under 45, while one-third of Iowa women over 45 support him. A USA Today/Rock the Vote poll from two weeks ago found Sanders nationally “with a 19-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 31 percent, among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34.” One has to be willing to belittle the views and erase the existence of a huge number of American women to wield this “Bernie Bro” smear.
But truth doesn’t matter here — at all. Instead, the goal is to inherently delegitimize all critics of Hillary Clinton by accusing them of, or at least associating them with, sexism, thus distracting attention away from Clinton’s policy views, funding, and political history and directing it toward the online behavior of anonymous, random, isolated people on the internet claiming to be Sanders supporters. It’s an effective weapon when wielded by Clinton operatives. But, given its blatant falsity, it has zero place in anything purporting to be “journalism.”
To see the blatant disregard for facts in which this narrative is grounded, let’s quickly look at two of the most widely cited examples of online “Bernie Bro” misogyny from this week’s deluge of articles on the topic, smartly dissected by columnist Carl Beijar (“How many smears on Sanders supporters can we debunk in one week?”). A much-cheered Mashable article — headlined “The bros who love Bernie Sanders have become a sexist mob” — purported to describe the “Bernie Bro” phenomenon as Sanders supporters who are “often young, white, and predominantly male” and whose messages are “oftentimes derogatory and misogynistic.” It cited a grand total of two examples, both from random, unknown internet users. Here was one of those examples, left in response to a Facebook post from New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen about a Clinton rally she attended:
There are two small problems with this example. First, it’s written by a woman, not a man. Second, it’s not remotely sexist. If anything is sexist, it’s the branding of Carol Jean Simpson as a “bro” because she supports Sanders rather than Clinton. And while I’m sure it’s terribly unpleasant for a former governor and two-term U.S. Senator such as Jeanne Shaheen to have her favorite presidential candidate described as a “lying shitbag” and be told that she lost a supporter as a result, there’s nothing particularly inappropriate, or at least not unusual, about this kind of rhetoric being used in online debates over politics — unless you think the most powerful U.S. politicians are entitled to the reverence that London elites accord British monarchy.
Then there’s the most widely cited example, used by that Mashable article as well as one from the BBC titled “Bernie Sanders supporters get a bad reputation online.” This example originated with the New Yorker TV critic (and Clinton supporter) Emily Nussbaum, who claimed that she was called a “psycho” by the “Feel the Bern crew” after she praised Clinton. Nussbaum’s claim was then repeatedly cited by pro-Clinton media figures when repeating the “Bernie Bro” theme. The problem with this example? The person who called her a “psycho” is a right-wing Tea Party supporter writing under a fake Twitter account of a GOP congressman — not remotely a Sanders supporter. As Beijar put it:
What this illustrates is that Clinton media operatives are campaigning for their candidate under the guise of journalism and social issue activism. I don’t personally have a problem with that: I see nothing wrong with journalists being vehemently devoted to a political candidate. But it’s important to know what it is. As is true for most campaign operatives, they have thrown all concern about truth and facts into the garbage can in exchange for saying anything that they perceive will help the Clinton campaign win.
Have pro-Clinton journalists and pundits been subjected to some vile, abusive, and misogynistic rhetoric from random, anonymous internet supporters of Sanders who are angry over their Clinton support? Of course they have. Does that reflect in any way on the Sanders campaign or which candidate should win the Democratic primary? Of course it does not. The reason pro-Clinton journalists are targeted with vile abuse online has nothing specifically to do with the Sanders campaign or its supporters. It has everything to do with the internet. There are literally no polarizing views one can advocate online — including criticizing Democratic Party leaders such as Clinton or Barack Obama — that will not subject one to a torrent of intense anger and vile abuse. It’s not remotely unique to supporting Hillary Clinton: Ask Megyn Kelly about that, or the Sanders-supporting Susan Sarandon and Cornel West, or anyone with a Twitter account or blog. I’ve seen online TV and film critics get hauled before vicious internet mobs for expressing unpopular views about a TV program or a movie.
And while people in some minority groups are, just like in offline life, lavished with special, noxious forms of online abuse — people of color, LGBTs, women, Muslims — that has been true in basically every online realm long before Bernie Sanders announced that he would rudely attempt to impede Hillary Clinton’s coronation. There are countless articles documenting the extra-vitriolic abuse directed at women and minorities for many years before “the Sanders campaign” existed.
Pretending that abusive or misogynistic behavior is unique to Sanders supporters is a blatant, manipulative scam, as anyone who ever used the internet before 2015 knows. Do pro-Clinton journalists really believe that Sanders-supporting women, or LGBTs, or people of color, are exempt from this online abuse from Clinton supporters, that this only happens to people who support Clinton? (In 2008, Krugman used the same tactic on behalf of the Clinton campaign by claiming that Obama supporters were particularly venomous and cult-like.)
Just as neocons have long sought to exploit “anti-Semitism” accusations as a means of deterring and delegitimizing criticisms of Israel (thus weakening and trivializing the ability to combat that very real menace), Clinton media supporters are cynically exploiting serious and disturbing phenomena and weaponizing them as tools for the Clinton campaign. Online abuse in general, and toward specific groups, is a very real and serious problem; it is not a tool to be used to advance the political empowerment of Hillary Clinton by smearing Sanders supporters as particularly guilty of it.
Clinton-supporting journalists this week made much out of the fact that the Sanders campaign felt compelled to issue a statement asking its supporters to comport themselves respectfully online, as though this proved that Sanders supporters really are uniquely abusive. That’s absurd. What that actually proved is that pro-Clinton journalists at large media outlets vastly outnumber pro-Sanders journalists — that’s what it means to say that she’s the “establishment candidate” — and have collectively used their platform to spin this harmful narrative, forcing the Sanders campaign to try to defuse it.
To put it simply: if you really think that Sanders supporters are particularly abusive online, that says a great deal about which candidate you want to win, and nothing about Sanders supporters. If you spend your time praising Clinton and/or criticizing Sanders, of course you personally will experience more anger and vitriol from Sanders supporters than Clinton supporters.
Conversely, if you spend your time praising Sanders, you will experience far more anger and vitriol from Clinton supporters. If you spend your time criticizing Trump, you’ll think no faction is more abusive than Trump supporters. If you’re an Obama critic, you’ll conclude that his army of devoted worshippers is uniquely toxic. And if you opine that the original Star Trek series is overrated, you’ll be able to write a column about the supreme dark side of nerds, armed with numerous horrifying examples. Welcome to my inbox and Twitter feed:
God bless Ed Snowden. Watching CITIZEN FOUR docu. (Too bad he chose HOMO Glenn Greenwald reporter tho.)#HATEtheSTATE #NSA pukes. #Statism
— Vin DiCator (@VINDICATORofYah) January 15, 2016
Unfollowed Glenn Greenwald the homo, hope the Justice Department arrest him.
— gazarin (@ahmedgazarin) May 7, 2015
Glenn Greenwald to keynote terror-linked CAIR's annual banquet http://t.co/Vzr7JNvNBR 'Homo Hanging' to be the evenings 'entertainment'?
— David (@cupsdaddy) October 6, 2013
Guardian Whines: Glenn Greenwald's homo sex prtnr David Miranda (irony) detained under UK Patriot-type act for 9 hrs http://t.co/NIa6HcTM1G
— favete linguis (@Socialism_Never) August 18, 2013
Who's going to walk Greenwald's dogs and water his lawn and estate grounds in Gavea, Brazil now??? #laffaireGreenwald
— Jeff Gauvin (@JeffersonObama) August 19, 2013
I got all of that — and so much more like it — without having to praise Hillary Clinton! How could that happen? We’ve been hearing that it’s Sanders supporters who uniquely spew this kind of ugliness at Clinton-supporting media figures.
Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate. Therefore, she has far more supporters with loud, influential media platforms than her insurgent, socialist challenger. Therefore, the people with the loudest media platforms experience lots of anger and abuse from Sanders supporters and none from Clinton supporters; why would devoted media cheerleaders of the Clinton campaign experience abuse from Clinton supporters? They wouldn’t, and they don’t. Therefore, venerating their self-centered experience as some generalized trend, they announce that Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive: because that’s what they, as die-hard Clinton media supporters, personally experience. This “Bernie Bro” narrative says a great deal about which candidate is supported by the most established journalists and says nothing unique about the character of the Sanders campaign or his supporters.
As I documented last week, it is hard to overstate how identical is the script being used by American media elites against Sanders when compared to the one used by the British media elite last year to demonize Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters. This exact media theme was constantly used against Corbyn: that his supporters were uniquely abusive, vitriolic, and misogynistic. That’s because the British media almost unanimously hated Corbyn and monomaniacally devoted themselves to his defeat: So of course they never experienced abuse from supporters of his opponents but only from supporters of Corbyn. And from that personal experience, they also claimed that Corbyn supporters were uniquely misbehaved, and then turned it into such a media narrative that the Corbyn campaign finally was forced to ask for better behavior from his supporters:
Just as happened with Corbyn, the pro-Clinton establishment media first created this narrative about the Sanders campaign, then seized on its being forced to respond to it — the narrative they created — as vindication that they were right all along. As the media critic Adam Johnson put it this week:
It’s the exact same script. And in both cases, it’s not hard to understand. If you were a supporter of Hillary Clinton, think of all the things she’s said and done that you would be desperate not to have to discuss or defend. Several days ago, the African-American professor Michelle Alexander, whose book The New Jim Crow about the sprawling, racist U.S. penal state is one of the most important of the last decade, wrote this on her Facebook page:
If you’re a Clinton media supporter, the last thing you want to do is talk about her record in helping to construct the supremely oppressive and racist U.S. penal state. You don’t even want to acknowledge what Alexander and Coates wrote. You most certainly don’t want to talk about how she’s drowning both personally and politically in Wall Street money. You sure don’t want to talk about what her bombing campaign did to Libya, or the military risks that her no-fly zone in Syria would entail, or the great admiration and affection she proclaimed for Egyptian despot Hosni Mubarak, or revisit her steadfast advocacy of the greatest political crime of this generation, the invasion of Iraq. You don’t want to talk about her vile condemnation of “superpredators,” or her record on jobs-destroying trade agreements, or the fact that she changed her position from vehement opposition to support for marriage equality only after polls and most Democratic politicians switched sides.
Indeed, outside of a very small number of important issues where her record is actually good, you don’t want to talk much at all about her actual beliefs and actions. Watch how many progressive endorsements of Clinton simply ignore all of that. It’s much better to re-direct the focus away from Hillary Clinton’s history of beliefs and policy choices onto the repugnant, stray comments of obscure, unknown, anonymous people on the internet claiming (accurately or not) to be supporters of Bernie Sanders. The fact that it may be an effective tactic — mostly because most Democratic media figures are equally fervent Clinton supporters and thus willing to unite to prop it up and endorse it — does not make it any less ugly or deceitful.
Related:
Top photo: Actress Susan Sarandon watches as Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a campaign event at Music Man Square, Jan. 27, 2016, in Mason City, Iowa.
Brilliant and insightful. GG strikes again.
You’ll have to explain it to me. What is the fundamental logic here?
If another supporter of Bernie Sanders happens to be sexist and an idiot, or worse, several of them turn out to be, this means that I personally (who am not sexist) cannot in conscience vote for him? So that Bernie then can’t have any non-sexist people voting for him, after we’ve discovered the first sexist one?
How is that supposed to follow anyway?
Should I, if lots of Sanders’ supporters are called Jeff and I am not called Jeff, vote for Hillary Clinton because I discover that (so far) she won more support of Julians?
You can support anyone you like, of course. You can also simultaneously recognize and excoriate vigorously the blatant misogyny that has come from the Bernie camp, even if that label doesn’t pertain to you personally.
I can tell you from being a political blogger that women get really nasty sexist cant directed at them all day long. The sexism that’s oozed out of the Bernie camp can’t be denied. It’s like porn – you know it when you see it.
I’d also like to add how terribly offensive it is when our brothers in arms do this. Liberals are SUPPOSED to be more egalitarian. That we STILL have this level of sexism among so-called liberals (men and women) is astonishing. And disgusting.
I’ll leave you with this quote from Shirley Chisolm, the first woman to run for president.
“Of my two handicaps, being female put many more obstacles in my path than being black.”
Shirley Chisholm
Hillary is right to call out this sexism. Despite being tarred with her husband’s legacy, she has stood for women for 40 years and continues to do so. That she is calling it out, just as anyone should do when they see racism, is a clarion call to all women and girls that it’s not acceptable to allow vicious levels of sexism to be directed towards women in general.
Thanks for your reply. Society is at war with itself. Being a woman or not white is still considered to be a serious weakness on the world’s stage, therefore a great point to attack. Anyone of genuinely liberal or democratic mind would see immediately how harmful and impossible this is. So long as society is warring with itself in this way, with inequality, force and irrationality, democracy is impossible.
To that end, this topic and my point was, before GG wrote on it, what rationale was suggested we follow here?
So:
Some members of the ‘Bernie Camp’, whatever that may refer to, have been sexist. They fit into the category of sexist. They are in the Bernie Camp. Therefore the ‘Bernie Camp’–Bernie, campaign, campaigners, advisers, supporters, arguers, ideas–this, they, ‘it’ fits into the category of sexist, is sexist. Yet, I am not sexist, so …
You can see that this simply should not, does not follow.
Yes, we, in or out of the Bernie Camp can and should denounce racism and sexism. In this phase of the battle, however, as GG wrote, this is itself considered admission of racism and sexism, rather than the opposite.
I’m sorry you have been subject to abuse, but I do not see Hillary Clinton’s policies will be the ones which will end the war, any of them.
Keep up the good work! Please continue to shine the light on the truth.
What? What? Madeleine Albright telling women they’ll burn in hell if they don’t vote for Hilary? In Time she is quoted as saying there is a special place in hell for women that do not help each other.
This whole “Bernie Bro” meme that’s been circulating the main stream media this week is a really stark example of modern marketing theory as applied thru identity politics. If you’re familiar with Naomi Klein’s book “No Logo” this might seem familiar. It’s a branding exercise. Usually it’s applied by marketers by frequently associating some popular figure or style that people want to emulate (like an athlete or actor or model) with a particular logo and brand. The idea is to get people who aspire to being like a certain type of person to associate a company’s brand with what being like that type of person is like, so that as people become the thing they’re trying to emulate, they subconsciously associate buying and using that brand’s product with being what that kind of person does, and so they buy it. This is in contrast to the classical method of advertising in which a marketer would describe a product’s features and it’s benefits over a competitor’s product.
In this political case they’re flipping normal product branding on it’s head. Instead of trying to associate their brand with something good, they’re trying to associate their opponent’s brand with something their target audience (mainly the young progressive feminist women whom the HRC campaign is concerned have been flocking to Sanders’ campaign) despises. In this case, the typical fratboy “Bro” archetype. The idea being that if the target audience thinks Sanders supporters are like a bunch of frat bros, well then they don’t want to be like that, so they won’t support Sanders, regardless of the candidates’ respective policy platforms. And they’ve launched a fairly impressive in it’s breadth marketing campaign to spread the “Bernie Bro” meme far and wide. It’s a pretty effective way for them to go negative on Sanders’ campaign without having to go too negative on Sanders himself directly. But lest you think this is just some cheap trick, this kind of marketing is extremely effective. But like most illusions, recognizing the trick and calling attention to it, is the surest way of overcoming it’s effect.
Looking at this drove me to do some internet roaming today, and I came across this:
http://www.nolandalla.com/i-just-got-push-polled-by-hillary-clintons-nevada-campaign/
Sorry but Clinton’s refusal to be transparent about those $675,000 SECRET Goldman-Sachs speeches was the final straw and I did say something about that being suspect.
Then to read she brought in people to leave veiled threats of “hell” for women that didn’t vote for her left me saying who are they to demand I vote for anyone I have serious concerns about?
Honestly, I have far more choice concerns and comments for the members of another political party so PLEASE don’t use such ridiculous tactics to intimidate me into compromising my beliefs.
I think I have earned my rights to vote any way I believe in and if I come across as an opinionated old lady – so be it.
That isn’t illegal yet as far as I know and I hope it never is.
I spent a career defending the free exercise of our rights and I still am.
It isn’t like I’m not used to being ostracized
HUGS to all…
A rare old retired military female veteran
Im glad we have Bernie Bros. Sometimes We Dems can be so passive, submissive, easily capitulate to the smallest threat that we need Bernie Bros to fight the online wars which are just asimportant as manning campaign phone banks. Keep at it Bernie Bros. Many Dems support your efforts to bring about real change. Dont back down!!
I will add this article to my growing bibliography of Berniebros, angrily denying their own existence.
You… didn’t actually read the article, did you?
Slick-Perry, the picker of cherry.
Here is an excerpt from this essay titled ‘Progressive Sexism in the Democratic Primary’ which reminds one of the self-criticism used in the Moscow Show Trails and demanded by the Red Guards in the Cultural Revolution: coerced confessions of deviationism and political nonconformity from the Party Line. But here it is not coerced but a voluntary self-confession wedded to a political faith :
‘There has been a great deal of speculation over the last few years about whether Hillary would run again, and I was thrilled when she announced her candidacy. Finally, I thought, we’d have a great female president. Her path to the White House seemed relatively clear and unobstructed by the slew of unimpressive Republican contenders. But then along came Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, advocating for positions that I mostly agree with in his charming Brooklyn accent that distinctly reminds me of my wife’s best friend’s father. But the more I listened to the initially civil conversations between the two candidates and their supporters, the more I agreed with Hillary that what we need is someone who will continue President Obama’s work of carrying our nation toward progressive ideals one modest step at a time. Although I deeply sympathized with Bernie’s call for a more radical movement toward those progressive ideals, given the danger of genuinely fascistic bigots like Trump or Cruz winning the election, and especially given the fact that we still have not had a woman president in the second decade of the twenty-first century, I felt that Hillary was the best choice. It seemed to me that, not only was she the most qualified person for the job, but that we will never have gender equality in this country when we have not yet elected a woman as our leader.’
https://rockandrollphilosopher.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/progressive-sexism-in-the-democratic-primary/
StephenKMackSD
Hillary is Bill without the charm. An amoral, sociopathic toad for Wall St. Personally, I think it’ s high time for a woman President but not this woman. Remember that sociopath PM of the UK who said, there is no such thing as society. remember Madalyn Al bright, we felt it was justified that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died from sanctions. Victoria Nuland; a truly evil person who worked for Bush II and Obama..you know, fuck Europe after engineering the Ukrainian coup. I could go on and on. Hillary in her own book was a Goldwater girl, a woman who worked for Ford and Nelson Rockefeller and then somehow got religion after marrying the amoral scumbag Bill. Time for a Black President; Oh yeah, how has that worked out. A domestic disaster and a war monger extraordinaire. Drones murdering around the world and more prosecutions of whistle blowers than all the Presidents since Washington. Of course his Black AG has not been able to charge a single bankster but a couple of million Black kids sellin and doin weed in his jails. Of course there is Obama care transferring public money to Insurance corporations for high deductible policies for the poor and 29M still with no coverage in the richest country in the world, doncha know. Bernie with all his warts is the best thing since FDR.
Yes, Bob, you’ve summed it up, but left out the fascist coup in Honduras, which even Obama wanted to reverse, but Hillary said no, as her best friend is now ambassador to that genocidal country. And then she wouldn’t even let their kids come through our borders to escape the chaos…. immoral.
What better way for Trump’s frat-boys to hurt the Democrats and get their trolling jollies at the same time, than to pretend to support Bernie while viciously harassing Hillary.
They get their StormFront/4chan/MRA jollies harassing women, and a second round of laughs when Bernie has to deal with “supporters” who are anything but, and justifiably angry Hillary supporters. Such delicious trolling encourages more of the same.
Not saying that there aren’t real Bernie Bros, but, given the other Republican crossing of the line, I’m betting that more than a few of these Bernie Bros are likely Republicans in Democrats’ clothing.
Of course, the enervating thing is that one can so often not be sure just where internet attacks are REALLY coming from, or even how many real people there are behind all the sockpuppets. Twitter especially.
It is unlikely that the internet will be free of misogynistic language in any discussion on any issue. Most social media is interactive – we actually “talk” to one another and I can call attention to the sexist language used to criticize the former first lady and others.
Why is it that the go-to insult in American culture a word for a woman’s body part or other woman-denigrating slur? Masculine hegemony and patriarchy! This learned behavior can be unlearned. Usually, people in Bernieland are quick learners and “cut it out.” What is interesting is that the strongest defenders of their right to use vulgar language are invariably women. Some of it is cultural, or some kind of “empowerment” narrative.
Any claim that Bernie land is populated by “Bernie Bros” seems to be just completely made up. Just a Monsanto-camp tactic, as far as I can tell.
Here is what gets to me – the insult “witch” – I am a big fan of witches and I don’t like to see them dissed.
So in conclusion – yes misogyny lives in the language of insults – Bernie supporters are products of the same culture that governs discourse in America – so when these micro-aggressions occur, just speak up and say “I don’t like it” and “I deserve to be treated with respect” and “Please use polite language around me.” It’s not a Bernie thing or a Hillary thing or even a Trump thing – it is a cultural thing and the time to obliterate it is NOW. Bernie Sanders for President #drpj
Except that Bernie is now a dressing the issue by asking his supporters to be respectful.
See Steps 3 and 4 of Adam Johnson’s “Anatomy of a Manufactured Scandal,” quoted in the article:
“3 eventually Sanders camp says of course online harassment is bad
4 use this as evidence that Sanders camp “admits it has a problem””
Yes, because no one ever uses a male body part as a derogatory term, do they?
Great article an d argument well made.
Anecdotally, from most comments I’ve seen I can’t recall any Bernie Bro comment, that I could define as sexist. Quite the contrary, I’ve seen many Hillary supports claiming sexism against comments regarding her taking of money or her hawkishness. This seemed to be frequently lately, I was thinking it was a bit bazaar, but I guess that’s a tactic one might use when defending a position is difficult. It seems to me she’s playing the ‘woman card’ to much for her own good, and disparaging true equality.
Maybe Hillary’s campaign should put out a statement telling her supporters not to inadvertently, blatantly call people sexist.
again, a great article from Greenwald. When will America understand that it is time for a big change. Sanders may not be the right answer but he is different and doesn’t swim in corporate money. I hope that America will give him a chance so other countries will do the same
A big one….http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
Military to Military
Seymour M. Hersh on US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war
Barack Obama’s repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are ‘moderate’ rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration’s fixation on Assad’s primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn’t adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington’s anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped. ”
Hey where is Jeremy Scahill?
The Bernie-bros deny there’s such thing as Bernie-bros…so that’s that.
No, it’s not a cheap campaign trick. I am attacked daily for posting positive articles, Hillary’s policy stances and am yelled out by the Bernie Bros. You want erase the facts about sexism in this election. Hillary is accused of yelling, yet Bernie rolls his eye, flales his arms and yells continually during debates, but it’s Hillary that is called out. When she makes a point, it’s yelling I guess.
when did bernie sanders accuse hillary of yelling? that was a really cheap and disgusting tactic on her part and the fact that she keeps playing the woman card is alienating women like me (!!!!) from ever voting for her. it’s disgusting and cheap and unfortunately idiots fall for it. yuck
Fantastic article, Glenn.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are crony capitalist liars who will say or do anything to continue the Status Quo theft of the American Dream and it’s redistribution to the aristocratic political class that has ruined our nation.
If Hillary is the nominee Democratic supporters of Bernie Sanders simply have no choice but to vote for Donald Trump.
Such is the sad state of American politics that a T.V. reality star with no experience is a more honest choice.
Oh hush now. Criticizing Hillary on topics of political policy is just sexist.
Comparisons to the Donald? I’m not a fan of HRC, but that is a bridge too far.
This is worth reading + watching.
http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/10/06/donald-trump-is-a-master-wizard
Well, I will be voting for Jill Stein if Hillary is the nominee.
My party’s philosophical core these days lays too much worth on biographical data points like sex, gender, race, nationality, as if knowing these were a reliable shortcut to figuring out what each of us believes.
“He’s a white, cis, male, so of course he would think that.”
“She’s a POC, so she can’t possibly like Trump. What, she does?”
And now some of my cohorts on the Left are seriously considering the idea that Bernie might do more for women than even Hillary would, and that maybe this makes him the truer feminist. The question of whether that is even conceptually possible is cutting the party in half, philosophically speaking, and has thereby exposed the silliness at the bottom of all forms of postmodernism, especially identity politics.
Where a person comes from does not determine what he thinks.
“”There are black conservatives. There are Mexican libertarians. There are lesbian Christians, and there are cis-gendered, blue haired, video game playing, bisexual Quakers. And if you care about all those labels more than the ideas that the people themselves believe in, then you are part of the problem.”
~Dave Rubin
I enjoyed how you rounded the argument to include the hundreds of responses written to it. The thoroughness of this article is exemplary with regard to phenomena. and this tactic is only going to be increasing.
Tracking voter support for politicians in context to the statistical characteristics of human populations (demographics) has been standard operating procedure for decades; the analysis of voter support along gender lines addresses the largest voter blocks as there are only two criteria to consider. During the 1992 and 1996 presidential race, much was made of the voter gender gap as Bill Clinton won 54% of the woman vote (1996) which was the highest percentage to date by any Presidential candidate. More recently, Barrack Obama won 56 % of the woman vote (56% to 44%) in his own bid for the Presidency. In both cases, the talking heads spoke incessantly of the significance of the gender gap in these races. Thus it is understandable that Hillary Clinton’s overwhelming popularity among women is being heralded as “significant” as well.
The fact that there is a significant voter gender gap warrants further statistical analysis by age. In Iowa, Sanders carried college-educated white men by 12 percentage points and lost college-educated white women by the same margin. That represents a 24% voter gender gap among college aged voters; this gap is statistically significant because Sanders’ base of support is largely among younger voters. In narrowly translating the significance of this perceived gap there has been no substantive effort among pollsters and/or pundits to further define the issues from which it emerges; it is this lack of further definition that allows for a myriad of liberal interpretation along party lines. We can complain incessantly about how each camp exploits polling data to its perceived advantage but at the end of the day this polarized debate between talking heads presupposes a herd tendency among voters. This is why the voter gender gap between college aged voters becomes disproportionately significant; there is a latent presumption that this particular (gender/age/education) demographic is actually defined by the candidate’s position on “issues” as an elevated level of education purportedly lends itself to such ends. However, a Jan 23 DailyKos article provided some meta analysis on polling data that strongly indicated a significant voter bias for Clinton among college educated voters in general. When averaged out, this reported bias closely aligned with that of non-college educated voters. Clinton won in Iowa among college educated voters (51 to 44) – women comprised the majority of voters.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/23/1473857/-Poll-Meta-Analysis-The-Bernie-and-Hillary-2016-Coalitions-and-how-they-compare-to-2008-Obama-HRC
In a Feb 8, 2015 National review article, Ronald Brownstein noted the support that Hillary Clinton enjoyed from college educated white women and concluded that “Her greatest potential strength […] may be hiding in plain sight: her potential connection to the white-collar white women who most resemble her.”
https://www.nationaljournal.com/newsdesk/Clintons-Greatest-Political-Strength-May-Be-Hiding-Plain-Sight?mref=curated
Common sense seems to suggest that, absent a candidate with strong sex appeal (e.g. Obama, Bill Clinton), women are instinctively prone to identifying with the candidate that most closely resembles themselves.
thanks glen…i have been ranting about this bernie bro bull…these are nothing more than hillary’s head henchman david brock’s minions …hillary’s operatives are all over the web comments doing the dirty work for her
it is not bernie people….because it would be disrespectful to bernie
on the other hand people like me …will push back hard on the hillary spewing false information or just out right lies about bernie …and the weak sniviling hillary women are just not up to the task ….they a pseudo feminists
Thanks for the mansplain bro. You bros sure are providing a service, Ill think of it the next time I get swarmed and harassed by the Bernie collective who toss out RW taunts at Hillary and misogynistic slurs at me.
Never stopped to consider that these bros might be conniving, cackling Hillary vagines intending to ratfuk poor Bernie!
Thanks Glen, youre such a bro!
possibly the dumbest response imaginable.
spoken like a true coward
What’s cowardly? She (if it is a she) is calling out Courtney’s (if it is a she) BS of perpetuating the myth of Benrie Bros. They don’t exist, period. I’m an active Twitterer and it’s bullshit.
Hillary IS war.
The internet is full of idiots and trolls, I’m afraid, Sarah – and as the article points out you tend to notice attacks directed at the candidate you are devoted to; the crazier that devotion, the more intense those attacks will be, I bet.
I mean, perfect example right here. Rude, abusive, condescending? Check, check, and check. You aren’t even a Bernie Sanders supporter! How could this be?
Huh? Can’t understand you. As I’ve been saying, these trolls smell like Richard Nixon to me.
Great article. Makes you and Sam Harris could hug it out and be friends.
“I see nothing wrong with journalists being vehemently devoted to a political candidate. ”
lolz
this is all cute but you fail to mention that none of Clintons detractors name specific policies or reasons why she should go to jail or she is a liar, they just use blanket terms that are told over and over with no substance.
I realize that women can be sexist too, actually the depth of people sexism is so deep that most cant even see- even the progressive Bernie Bullies.
When challenged to name specific policies- of course I do not hear one. I can respect people having an opinion about a politician but when you resort to adjectives that are not even about their policies then that is the problem.
The Bernie Bullies can never be as respectful as the man himself and its a shame. But this self righteous bandwagon will be over soon and Bernie Sanders will not enact one single policy that is his platform, except maybe the minimum wage and lets see how hot you are for him then.
Well said. Thank you
Great article, but I really wanted to say thanks for not redacting the email address / twitter handles from the idiots making the horrific statements. For some reason people feel the urge to blank those out while simultaneously posting “Look at what an awful thing this person said on a public forum” as if the person who said it deserved some weird form of privacy.
Hillary disgusts me. She is a vile, opportunistic liar who will say whatever happens to be expedient in the moment.
Do you Hillary supporters really want such as person as your president?
yep thats not dripping with sexism.
an d yes i want her as president. as much as i want bernie sanders as president.
A bit over the top sure, but what exactly is sexist about that comment?
Thanks for the mansplain bro.
And VERY YES we do.
Do you think you could try to be more intellectually dishonest, Sarah?
A sexist comment if ever one may be pointed out. And a Hillary Supporter. Well we dont want or need you on our team.
You’d think after years and years of complaining about “purity,” mainstream Democrats with anti-“BernieBro” sentiments would be more comfortable with Sanders supporters, despite the misogyny of a few of his prominent online supporters — his impurities, metaphorically speaking. Guess not.
Congratulations Glenn! Now you understand Gamergate.
I’m an NH resident and Bernie supporter. Yesterday a group of 7 or 8 women came to my door canvassing for Hillary. When they found out I was voting for Bernie they barged in and started beating me with metal pipes. I’m bruised and cut all over. They said they knew where I lived and if Sanders won the primary they’d be back. I don’t know what to do. I called the police and gave them descriptions as best I could remember but I don’t think they’ll be able to find them and I don’t feel safe. I’m terrified, I can’t leave me house, I’ve missed work. Please Hillary supporters stop this, call them off!
As far as I am concerned the term Bernie Bro is sexist in the extreme. So once again, hrc and her supporters are projecting.
My thought exactly. How do you get to charge sexism with a sexist meme?
Did whoever photoshopped the Adam Johnson picture forget that real tweets have character limits? I’m starting to wonder how many other tweets referenced here actually link to a picture of a tweet, instead of a real tweet.
When I was on Twatter, many, many people, would post up a picture of a long text as opposed to sticking to the character limit, so its entirely possible that Adam Johnson posted what was shown. Whether he actually did I have no idea :)
The Adam Young thing is a screenshot from a Facebook post, not a tweet.
It’s a facebook post, you can tell by the friend icon
MmMmMmMmmm… Liberal infighting… aaaaaglglglglglgl…
I am so glad you are on our side. Great work and thank you.
What’s ironic is all of this is that the Clintons were accused of racist attacks on Obama in ’08.
Identitarianism can be used as a tool by anyone with any imagination. It’s especially fun when it’s a black man versus a white woman, but two white men can always resort to charges of religious bigotry or sizism… You just have to figure out which oppression you fall under.
I was really enjoying the article and how it was articulating what I have been noticing in the increasingly venomous coverage as the election cycle continues on then I hit the fucking pic of Bernie Sanders with the Star of David and simply could not continue LOL Jesus fucking Christ what kind of maniac made that!?!?!
Except Bernie Sander’s campaign acknowledged this was a problem on their own Twitter account… Also, I think you may have misunderstood the ‘BernieBro’ criticism. It is not saying all Sander’s supporters are like that. In fact, it is saying a select group who are white, male, and privileged are like that. Showing that women support Sander’s does not disprove this. This reeks of conspiracy… An attempt to conclude a legit smite critique must be a concentrated effort by the ‘establishment.’
It’s a “problem” because the Hillary Team Media made it one. Young males are the cohort most likely to be obnoxious to everyone, and they are. See the crap Glenn posted above that’s directed at him; he’s got more in his Twitter TL right now.
The Hillary Team Media didn’t make it a problem for me — in fact, I was having a problem with certain male Sanders supporters before I even heard the term “Bernie Bros.” LONG before.
Telling me I’m too stupid to know what I want in terms of my vote, especially when this kind of comment came from an astonishing number men in my life who support Bernie Sanders, actually put me off the Sanders Campaign. I was actually pretty split before I started getting this kind of treatment.
Voting against your own best interest ain’t smart.
Hillary is a horrible person. Accept that.
Thanks for the mansplain bro.
Is that all you’ve got?
This is a fair critique. I’ve seen and had my share of over-the-top supporters from all camps.
That said, as an undecided voter, I’d never let any fraction, no matter how vocal, put me off of any campaigns actual record and policies that I feel strongly about, and thus determine who I vote for.
Carol, I support Sanders, and have had Clinton supporters do exactly the same to me… calling me stupid, naive, accusing me of internalized misogyny because I don’t support Clinton based on her record.
And as for calling women stupid, Gloria Steinem wrote yesterday that young women support Sanders because they are trying to get male attention. Sexist insult from the leader of the feminist movement, don’t you think?
“Except Bernie Sander’s campaign acknowledged this was a problem on their own Twitter account…”
Said like somebody who hasn’t bothered to read the article, which directly addresses that point:
“Clinton-supporting journalists this week made much out of the fact that the Sanders campaign felt compelled to issue a statement asking its supporters to comport themselves respectfully online, as though this proved that Sanders supporters really are uniquely abusive. That’s absurd. What that actually proved is that pro-Clinton journalists at large media outlets vastly outnumber pro-Sanders journalists — that’s what it means to say that she’s the “establishment candidate” — and have collectively used their platform to spin this harmful narrative, forcing the Sanders campaign to try to defuse it.”
Exactly!!
As Usual,
EA
I guess you never bothered to actually read the article about which you are now commenting, either that or your ability to comprehend the written word is at the 2nd grade level. Either way your comment is proof that GG got this exactly right. Nice work!
Glenn,
I cannot express how saddened and disturbed I am to find that you support Sanders, a man who has consistently voted pro-war and who has in the past few months voiced his support of drones, the attack on Afghanistan, and his support of the massacre taking place in Yemen. No, I am not a Hillary fan at ALL, and agree that she’s even worse.
Just yesterday when I posted on Facebook about Sanders’ support of war, I was called a liar, a cunt, a republican, and I was poor-shamed. His supporters are extremely vicious in their desire to elect yet another pro-war candidate.
I’ve been a fan of yours for many years, Glenn, and I hope you come to your senses soon. Surely you must realize that people simply must stop supporting pro-war candidates. There are alternatives. Jill Stein and Mimi Soltysik come to mind.
I’m not one to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so I will continue to read your articles, but from now on will take them with a huge grain of salt. Supporting the US War of Terror by rubber-stamping pro-war candidates needs to stop, today. There is nothing “lesser-evil” in the Sanders-supported bombing going on in Yemen today, where in recent weeks hospitals and wedding parties have been targeted, killing many women and children and where yesterday a day care center for blind children was destroyed. As well, an estimated 500,000 children are starving to death due to Sanders’ favorite war.
I hope you will re-evaluate your position, as so many on the Left look to you for honest journalism.
Re: Jodda Mitchell Feb 2 @ 4:43 AM
Jodda,
Exactly where in Glenn’s article did he declare his support for Sanders as a Presidential candidate? His discussion focuses on the politics of vitriolic derision practiced by a fanatical minority, which is encouraged, if not originated by a corporate media in a relentless quest for market share of the uninformed masses. That Glenn’s well-documented observations appear to be at odds with your political imaginings, does not impune his veracity; nor does anything he wrote, unlike several of your assertions, constitute any form of truthful disregard for reason.
The disrespectful treatment of your personhood is, indeed, shameful; regardless of the circumstance, and I feel certain that neither Glenn, or anyone else at The//Intercept embraces that sort of gratuitous slander.
Maybe you should revisit the article with a less biased mindset.
“Work is love made visible.” KG
As Usual,
EA
The identical tactic used here in Italy against movement-5-stars political party, their leaders and especially their supporters; here in Italy we say “macchina mediatica del fango”, roughly translateble to “mediatic mud factory”.
Yo Glen, this is just GamerGate 2.0, only this time you’re closer to the receiving end and are willing to put more effort into determining the truth.
Could you post a link or two explaining what GamerGate was/is? I tried Googling it, but it seems like everything was one-sided. Thanks.
I realize this is waaaay off topic, but Glenn, what is up with this article I saw today about a secret U.S. flight over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden”??:
http://www.thenational.scot/news/secret-us-flight-flew-over-scottish-airspace-to-capture-snowden.13226
I find it supremely ironic that HRC supporters are going antisemitic, seeing as how she is firmly in Israel’s pocket when it comes to support.
As for this disgusting “Bernie Bros” meme, all I can say is that I look forward to the day a woman becomes president – but I will boo if that woman is Clinton. Her policies and stances are repugnant and not at all supportive of the majority of American citizens. I’d rather see Jill Stein take it instead of Clinton.
The irony is dazzling. For 7 years anyone who criticized the President was labeled racist, and Hillary has used this line of attack forever, the only difference is some of the poo landed on Bernie this time. You guys crack me up.
Right on right on Greenwald! So true; my routine visits to Salon confirms this horror every day. and, it’s been ongoing now for years.
This is a very good article. Thank you so much.
Welcome to the #GamerGate world, Bernie supporters. The media declaring you sexist and misogynistic to keep people from hearing what you have to say is an old tactic now. It’s something gamers found out when they started pushing for ethical reform in journalism. Journalists don’t like being investigated themselves, so you can imagine how they reacted to that.
My only advice is don’t ever apologize for you being you. Don’t engage these people in the context of trying to prove how not sexist or misogynistic you are. Instead, keep reiterating your message of support for Bernie, ignore the claims of sexism, just keep pushing through. They want to bog down the narrative and to prevent you from discussing Bernie and his message, just like they tried to stop #GamerGate from preaching for journalistic ethics reform. Don’t stop!
Although I see Bernie as a mere stalking horse for the unDemocratic Party’s predetermined choice, I agree with the main theme of this article.
I know I shouldn’t even scatter any cracked corn in your direction but this is so fucking stupid. Yes, it’s obvious that building up a big coalition of people who don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton is a PLOT TO GET PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!
You know because what you watch X Files a lot or something? I have a conspiracy theory for you. I think most people who spread conspiracy theories — the stupid conspiracy theories — have been planted so as to discredit anyone who might discover real conspiracies.
Do you like my theory?
Thank you, Berniebot. Proves my earlier comment.
LOL – you got nothin’
Undecided leftist voter here. Not all Sanders supporters are bros. Not all Clinton supporters are Wall St. apologists. Both candidates are flawed, and both are infinitely superior to the republican alternatives.
But folks like Greenwald do progressives a disservice in the toxic characterization of HRC in an effort to take her down. (Despot-embracing? Come on.) Sanders is better than supporters like this, and has his eyes on the prize (progressive victory) in a way Greenwald sadly does not. It’s a real shame.
Hillary Clinton, 2009: “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family.”
If that’s NOT despot-embracing, then the term is meaningless.
http://obpaat.weebly.com/taking-the-world-by-storm/sexism-racism-and-senator-sanders
Nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Clinton operative will skew this Independent voter toward her. As a matter of fact it’s the bringing on of the MSM attack dogs that makes me even more resolute in my support for Mr. Sanders. I find it disgusting that she’s enlisted the help of her own daughter as Rottweiler, at political gatherings.
This country desperately needs a different course, not business as usual (with corporate, monied interests taking all.) Name one institution- just one- that isn’t rotten to the core in this country. Many people are waking up to the fact that all major systems are rigged. It makes me happy to know that young people get it, and actually turned out to caucus for Sanders. Chelsea Clinton, on the other hand, is married to an investment banker. I ‘d say there’s something there to protect, via Rottweiler tactics, no?
Clintonites can brand me anyway they want. And my guess is that this holds true for others who support Sanders. Go ahead and call me a Bernie Bro- denigrate, dismiss, belittle, throw names as you wish- I’m a 56 year old female. By all standard rubrics Clinton should be blowing Sanders out of the water, and I should be supporting her. She’s not and I won’t. And that scares the **** out of them. Maybe they should be scared. Not everyone is a sheeple. And maybe, just maybe, Clinton’s generation should give it up and listen for once to the generation that’s going to inherit the mess that the Boomer political “leaders,” such as Clinton, generated through their economic, trade, political, and foreign policy blunders- to name a few.
Hey everybody, The Guardian has new Bernie Bro article up already today! It’s kind of stale stuff. Some commenters have already linked to Glenn’s article here.
Here’s the interesting part: The Guardian mods have gone mad. Critical comments about the article go up and then are disappeared — it’s hilarious because you can read them for a few minutes and then they gone, with the note that they didn’t “abide by community standards.” You will never ever believe this, but many of these disappeared comments were — dare I say civil disagreements with the premise, as well as the practice of deleting comments?
As you might guess, these “community standards” are flexible. One comment not gone refers to the “cult-like fanaticism” of Bernie & Corbyn supporters —- well yes, that comment fits with community standards. Oh yes indeed it do.
Of course it’s an excellent way to reinforce the narrative that the Bernie Bros are saying such terrible things that WE CAN’T EVEN SHOW YOU what they are.
guardian mods are always careful to remove comments that even slightly disagree with the nice, clean little political and social narrative theyve set up. Ive had a few comments removed myself because i (god forbid) politely pointed out a couple of factual inaccuracies on a poorly researched article. starting to think that if they just ignore certain bits of information, it ceases to apply in the situation. apparently they think that its alright for the media to lack object permanence
Glenn wrote there for a bit over a year, and the moderators drove me insane. They drove all of Glenn’s regulars quite mad. They call that site “Comment is Free.” But we renamed it: “Comment is Futile.”
I grew up reading the NYT in the era of Sy Hersh, it was among the many inspirations for me to become a reporter. I am sickened at the NYT for perpetuating the Clinton campaign’s myth of Bernie’s “women problem” or “women gap.” It is patently dishonest not to dispel it, let alone promote it. NYT has become a trashy tabloid. The reporters and editors who put Hillary in this protective bubble have no fucking shame.
somehow this makes me even happier:
The New York Times closed the reader comments section on the Nate Cohn piece where he explained that a tie is really a victory (for guess who) after 11 reader comments. The piece that appeared last night is still a top link from Google News.
WaPo had an article last year with Fiorina going after Hillary.
It had to do with Carly claiming she’s actually accomplished something by “flying” a company rather than just “flying around the world”.
I went to comments and, as a former long-time HP employee, complemented Ms. Fiorina on “resolutely” piloting a great company right into a mountainside on a clear day.
There was one other negative comment. Shortly after that the article disappeared only to reappear later with new comments.
That Guard story is funny; you can feel the consternation of the mods.
Pravda is everywhere.
I am absolutely amazed people are denying this phenomenon exists. Typical that so many would rather dismiss it as “media bias” instead of confronting the problem. I am just glad that Bernie’s campaign knows better.
I’ve seen this firsthand. And in some first and highly-starred (rated by users) responses to recent political posts on Gawker websites.
Goes (after any article about Sanders or Clinton): “3…2…1…here come the BernieBros!” And of course if anyone in that subthread objects to being called that, it’s just affirmation that they are indeed “BernieBros”. Why else would they object unless they are actually that? And it doesn’t even matter that the thread includes female supporters of Sanders who also object to the “BernieBros” trope. The lead post has already been presented and enough have viewed just that, to make them believe this is a real, big issue.
Narrative-machining is often nowadays on the internet getting a first post, and no matter how unfactual it may be, or stupid, if it starts collecting “likes” it’s going to be the top one, and more and more “likes” from kneejerk responders if the message resonates (including me, I’ve clicked on things I would like to agree are real and presented as such without personally investigating it, because it was the first post I agreed with and seemed right, so hell yes!)
Even if a bit further in that thread someone points out that it’s completely wrong.
Should there be a fact-checker for posters? Probably not. Should we each try to look into things before starring/liking posts? Absolutely. The new internet allows us to be lazy and just click/like things that we think are likely true.
But both the old internet, and former experience at human contact and trying to convince others, were a bit more full of actual references to claims made. Even dumb crazy conspiracy theorists were a bit more erudite and learned.
DocHollywood
Boko Haram was simply acting in self-defense to our policies of invasions, drone warfare and support for some of the worst dictators on earth when they attacked a village in northeast Nigeria. This was clearly proven by the 2004 task force report commissioned by the Rumsfeld Pentagon on the causes of terrorism:
“…….Muslims do not “hate our freedoms,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long standing, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states. Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination…..”
So, in effect, Boko Haram burned children alive and killed 86 people because of our one-sided support for Israel (and other policies). In the eyes of Muslims (according to the Task force), Boko Haram was simply practicing “truly” Muslim self-determination. Again, the Rumsfeld task force:
“……Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack – to broad public support…..”
What could be more obvious? Our policies continue to result in the death of innocent people at the hands of Muslims defending the Ummah (to broad public support). Possibly, Bernie Sanders can change all of that……
For Christ’s sake, give it a fuckin’ rest already. Jesus!
Sorry Tim, but I have had to listen to Greenwald wing out the BS that our policies are the cause of terrorism for years.
Thanks.
I didn’t know that Glenn had had you abducted and strapped to a chair, forced to read his commentary. Moreover, you are, again, indulging in a gross fallacy.
When Person G shows with evidence that policies A, B and C, make Some X angry enough to retaliate violently, it isn’t logical to make a “rebuttal” by showing that Some X also commit violence for reasons D, E and F.
“……..Moreover, you are, again, indulging in a gross fallacy……”
The 2004 Task force was indulging in a gross fallacy – and Greenwald has winged out that ridiculous statement (I quoted above) time after time after time:
“……Muslims do not “hate our freedoms,”…..”
That sweeping statement about Muslims is not even applicable (especially after the Arab Spring was initiated). The Islamic terrorists do hate our freedoms – as they have shown time and time again (remember Charlie Hebdo?).
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
So what did your pa do in the war, Craig?
I like Greenwald and I think this is partially a fair critique, but commits the very sins it is accusing the “Bernie Bro” phenomenon of: 1) it’s based on personal anecdote, and 2) it goes overboard and is dismissive of the misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton. Pointing out that Clinton is subject to rampant sexism while Bernie Sanders is not isn’t just a campaign tactic, it’s true and it’s worth discussing. Of course all Bernie supporters are not entitled white males, but sexism has definitely reared its ugly head in the midst of this otherwise inspiring #feelthebern phenomenon. Also, this bit? “Conversely, if you spend your time praising Sanders, you will experience far more anger and vitriol from Clinton supporters.” Based on my facebook newsfeed (godless socialist that I am), that is NOT true. Not even close. It’s also false based on Greenwald’s own admission that women get subjected to more anger and vitriol online than men do. Women even get subjected to more vitriol from other women, so Greenwald’s big “gotcha” point about some of the Hillary bashers being women themselves is actually very uneducated and disappointing coming from him. I’ve heard Hillary supporters say that Bernie can’t win or that he won’t be a good president, but I’ve never heard them say he’s a “lying corporate witch” or other sexist dog-whistling. In their remarks are usually prefaced by “I like Bernie, but…” Not to mention a lot of Hillary supporters are in hiding. I was, until, well, yesterday… partially because I had genuine misgivings about her, but partially because I was afraid of being accused of only supporting her because she’s a woman and of having my own morality questioned and disappointing all my lefty friends. Greenwald’s characterization of Hillary Clinton as the establishment candidate with all the media cheerleaders increasingly strikes me as bullshit. I’ve read what all the allegedly rabid Hillary supporters have to say, and frankly, it’s lukewarm. The whole “she gets things done” narrative is not exactly demagoguery.
Your comment here is most interesting because you go to
such length to portray the difference between Clinton and
Sanders as being primarily about gender inequality.
Clinton supporters choose to ignore the history of her actions
which have much more in common with Dick Cheney’s schemes
than with what her words lead people to think she supports.
“She gets thing done” when they are
the things that are destroying lives around the globe
for the benefit of the greediest and most corrupt.
Donald Trump benefits when Hillary is in power.
Sanders has a way to go before I can trust that he is
what he appears to be, but even as such, he has shown
much, much less bloodlust and smug disingenuous -ness
than has the Thatcher-istic Clinton.
I do not think she is a hapless victim or
that her history is some sort of accident which happened to her,
but this seems to be what her supporters NEED to imagine
about her and themselves.
Astutely put!!!
Yes, a terribly astute response to a fictional post that bears little resemblance to what I actually wrote.
Actually the only thing I said about the difference between Clinton and Sanders is that Clinton is subject to misogynistic attacks while Sanders is not. I think that should be pretty uncontroversial. I didn’t say that this is the only difference between Clinton and Sanders, and I certainly didn’t say that Clinton is undeserving of criticism; I merely think that sexism has played a major role in her public image and I don’t like to see someone I respect like Glenn Greenwald trying to shut down a conversation about it. I like Bernie Sanders, but unfortunately his candicacy has offered some people the opportunity to levy misogynist attacks in the name of principled progressivism.
Perhaps that is because Bernie is not a serial liar.
Hillary is dishonest. Together with Bill they have amassed $100 million while “representing” the public interest.
Me: Sexism in the Sanders/Clinton contest is real, let’s talk about it.
You: But Hillary Clinton really really is a lying corporate witch.
Me: Okay fine, let’s not talk about it.
It is irrational to attempt a rational discussion with an irrational individual such as Hillary. Lying is her trademark and it is irrational in the sense that no constructive solution may be achieved interacting with such a person.
She and Bill have amassed $100 million as politicians. We have seen how they make their money; $600,000 from one of the largest criminal operations in Goldman for a no-nothing speech.
Bernie is not like that.
I agree with you. There is a running theme through all of the comments made by Bernie Sanders supporters. They all sound alike. “Hillary gets donations from rich people”. “Hillary attacked Libya”. “Hillary voted for the Iraq War”. “The Clintons…whatever”. When I hear something different, I will take Bernie Sanders and his supporters seriously.
Well…
1 – She does get almost all of her money from big donors PLUS she has superpacs financed by big business to the tune of millions
2 – As Sec of State she spearheaded and cheerled the disastrous toppling of the Libyan government
3 – She did vote for the Iraq war and gave an impassioned speech quoting bush and cheney’s lies
That is part of her record, her judgement is faulty based on these matters and to suggest that they are irrelevant is simply to ignore reality and stick your head in the sand. Ultimately your post makes zero sense.
Bernie came, he soared, she dead. #WarWhorkWrithing #NoPromisedLandForHillary
Just in, Nate Silver predicts with 68% certainty that he will keep making predictions, down from 72% last week.
this made me laugh. (ugh, what is this outmoded system that makes me actually comment to show approval?)
But the extra effort you had to take makes it all the more appreciated by me!
At 54 I know a fairly high proportion of liberal Democrat women who are pro-Hillary. There is little reason for them to favor her now, given their stated beliefs about how America should be governed. She is notably corrupt. A tool of Wall Street interests and a constant quiet friend to the MIC. She always was a comparatively conservative politician in the context of U.S. politics as viewed over decades……… if you include the decades before Reagan.
I have a few ideas about why they continue to support her. Knee jerk ‘feminism’ is part of it for some of them, for sure. But I really think memory and history have more of a hold on them than straight up gender bias. Most of them have been fighting & losing the culture wars for decades, since about the mid-60s really. During that time, they’ve watched their tormentors crow and strut……. all over Hillary Rodham Clinton. Who was a highly visible stand-in for them. Individually. Each and every one of them. The personal identification with her is real strong in women of certain age who had to (still have to) fight to be treated with a modicum of respect in the outside world.
You cannot know what it was like to be a bright, hard working and ambitious young woman c. 1965. The culture was not perfectly like the show “Mad Men” but it was close in many ways. And actually skankier in some respects. The silver screen was plastered with peroxide blondes sporting massive chests and diminutive brains (as the roles were written anyway). Younger women were pressed to be like Gidget or Annette as they appeared on TV – endlessly perky and bubbly. The stupefaction effort of the MSM was amazing. Massive and endless.
Go to YouTube and search on “Burt Parks singing Miss America”. Watch one clip from the mid-to-late 60s. It may help give you a feel for the era. Women who made it out of that time are often somewhat scarred by it quite frankly. They over-relate to Hillary because of it. They feel she was their spearhead into a better world and in many ways she was.
The problem is that past doesn’t matter a damned now. Not in the context of what she’s become, and how important the Presidency is.
thank you for sharing!
I’ve long found it funny that articles abound theorizing on psychopathology of trump supporters but nobody seems to scrutinize hrc supporters in the face of her record. I do think it comes down to simple identity politics (1st woman potus was delayed by 1st aa – it’s OUR turn now!) but this helps me understand motivation in a way that at least makes sense. I’ve joked for yrs that what greater testament to racial progress could there possibly be than for 1st aa potus to be accurately described as “bush lite” so I guess in a perverse way it will be fitting when our 1st woman is every bit as owned by goldman as any of her predecessors…
you’ve come a long way, baby! {sigh}
Nice analysis.
That makes sense. There really isn’t a gender gap between HRC and Bernie, there is a generational gap. And identity politics are a profound motivator.
Though I was fuming at the questions thrown at Susan Sarandon on CNN. This idea that because you are a woman you should support a woman thing? I mean who cares that some women put policy above gender in someone they want in the presidency. I guess we have this responsibility to vote for a woman we don’t respect or agree with just because she is a woman and we are betraying the work of feminism in supporting Bernie when there is a chance for a woman presidency? In truth the candidate I wanted in the race was Elizabeth Warren. If she had run I would be behind her 100% – I like Bernie but I like Warren more, and their policies are aligned (there is a reason why Warren has refused to support Clinton and taken some subtle jabs at her as of late). I know there are many reasons why she has withheld endorsing any candidate outright in this race, but part of it is to probably not have to deal with all of the older women that will view her as a traitor.
I think it speaks a lot to the hard work of past women that the younger women of today don’t even consider gender in looking at a candidate and focus on policy (and this goes for young men too, I know of quite a few young men, my brother included, who wanted Warren for President but went to Bernie as 2nd choice, in fact according to research the majority of Warren supporters were men). I guess we, me being a woman who is 36, have that luxury to not have it be a factor so ingrained in our minds since we have been spared a lot that prior generations weren’t.
This sounds like something that happened in the fall of 2014. What was that called again? Maybe people will start to see this kind of narrative push for what it really is. I mean, when the EXACT same tactic keeps getting recycled so frequently, more and more people will start to recognize it, right?
It’s basically mimicking the #neckbeards smear about #gamergate. I supported the so-called SJW’s against gamergate, because it was pretty clear that the whole “movement’ was ridiculous and started by right-wing lunatics like Adam Baldwin. However, a lot of the people involved in the gamergate “movement’ were diverse and just annoyed with the way the game industry was being run.
This, on the other hand, is a blatant smear that is incredibly removed from reality. #gamergate was test run of this campaign strategy. Unfortunately, these idiots don’t realize that they need all these “Bernie Bros” to win the general election. Bernie supporters have been passionate and pretty aggressive in their online criticism of Hillary, but they haven’t used the underhanded tactics that the Democratic establishment has.
I think it is really disgusting that people are using the pretense of identity politics to defend corrupt politicians who have directly contributed to the militarization of police, mass incarceration, torture, government spying on US citizens and more. I am done with these pricks.
They have destroyed any good will and sympathy they gained after gamergate. They will get no backing from me whatsoever.
“I supported the so-called SJW’s against gamergate, because it was pretty clear that the whole “movement’ was ridiculous and started by right-wing lunatics like Adam Baldwin.”
but thats entirely wrong, friend. sorry the kool-aid was too enticing for you not to drink
I don’t believe for one second that any of these Hillary fanatics received online abuse from Bernie supporters. They’re the ones abusing Bernie and his supporters. It’s textbook projection.
Come on, this is the Internet. There’s plenty of abuse for everyone.
Exactly right. Sad, but true.
Hey, just went to the local D caucus. Bernie Sanders won six out of ten of the delegates in my precinct! Pretty enjoyable night. Very strange to be crowded around and counted, haven’t done this kind of thing before.
I have been checking on the Iowa results and I want to say
that even though I am disappointed that Sanders is a democrat
I am pleased that so many of the democrats in Iowa
have supported his message.
Those who stood against the wishes of the democrat “leadership”
have done a good thing tonight and
I am thankful for their efforts.
It is a small step and I am by no means confident about
what will happen next, but it is good.
Thanks, Clark. Well quite a few of us joined the party for this one purpose. Let’s see if the party joins us. I find it an odd feeling as I’ve been unaffiliated on principle since I hit voting age in the 80s — amusingly, the lady at our high school back in 1982 warned us against that because we wouldn’t be able to vote in primaries and would therefore not have as much power. I countered, probably not very coherently, that being non-affiliated was a vote of its own. I still believe that too, but its fun to be in the crowd sometimes – if I agree with enough of them and think it’s a group effort worth making.
Very pleased to hear Barrett Brown won National Magazine Award. Hope this will not make him arrogant.
If you go to “cnn.com/elections” as of right now (6:30 Mountain time zone February 1st ), and not the official CNN elections page, they have a page up with Hillary somehow amassing 388 delegates already, before Iowa has cast any. This is some Russian shit right here.
The US has a long history of rigging elections.
Those aren’t Iowa delegates, they’re convention delegates. “Of the 4,047 total Democratic delegates, 794 are superdelegates, which are usually Democratic members of Congress, governors, former Presidents, and other party leaders. They are not required to indicate preference for a candidate.”
Superdelegates can pledge support to a candidate – a majority have already pledged for Clinton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate
US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and our support for Israel led to the murder of 86 people in Nigeria by Boko Haram (US-operated New York Times):
“……..A survivor hidden in a tree says he watched Boko Haram extremists firebomb huts and heard the screams of children burning to death, among 86 people officials say died in the latest attack by Nigeria’s homegrown Islamic extremists…….The violence continued as three female suicide bombers blew up among people who managed to flee to neighboring Gamori village, killing many people……..”
It is also clear that Boko Haram is an equal opportunity employer which is contrary to what we have been led to believe by the western press.
For those who may be wondering, “wtf?”, try to remember his feelings for the dark-skinned races run really deep; so deep that sometimes he just can’t help himself. This isn’t the first time he’s given-in to the urge and blurted-out of nowhere his heartfelt concern for the “brownies” (as he has called them):
Nothing says, “I really mean it!” quite like a repetitive motif blending the terminology of excretion, copulation, and horrific violence all in the same obscene sentence.
Wouldn’t it be amazing if Sanders won the nomination, and then selected Elizabeth Warren as his running mate?
So much for the “Bernie Bros.” trope . . .
That’s what destroys the misogyny smear, Sanders supporters would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a *heartbeat* .
Glenn….thanks for writing about this matter. I’m sick of the hearing this false narrative repeated ad nauseum and I’ve felt from the beginning that it was entirely made up out of whole cloth for the benefit of the candidate with three names.
Wouldn’t it be amazing if Sanders got nominated, and then chose Elizabeth Warren as a running mate?
Where would the “Bernie Bros” trope be then?
It is good to see some minor tilts towards logic/reason/facts. To know Hillary’s history, if you really know it, and I’m not talking about listening to great little colorful soundbites from her very loyal support staff, you cannot avoid the fallout that her actions have caused. But why is it that so many people, women, people of color are completely willing to ignore these historically documented truths? That’s the thing so hard to wrap my head around. It’s really almost as bad as watching supporters for TRMP, blindly smiling, reaching out to shake his hand, with absolutely no awareness of the consequences of his past or current business actions. NONE! ZERO! ZIP!
A friend of mine was here for dinner over the weekend, along with 5 others in the group. I found myself almost scolding her to take the time to study the historical facts, the actions taken by Mr. Bernie Sanders and then study Hillary’s. The realities are starkly opposite on some very big, very important votes, actions taken. Bernie is not someone to be pushed aside out of some ignorant soundbite infection you have gotten from watching too much MSNBC or reading the NY TIMES mumbo jumbo in all out support of Hillary Clinton. It does not take a rocket scientist. It just takes a smart woman, willing to invest a little bit of time, to know the difference, to awaken to reality. Reality Bites, if you don’t really study it. Know what you’re doing. Don’t vote for the female just because you long to support feminism, or because you long to just avoid learning what reality really consists of. Please invest a little brain power. I did. I’ve never regretted learning all I could about our Senators, our Reps, our candidates. They hear from me regularly. So does the President. I have no shame. I write and call me them monthly, sometimes weekly. It is an important part of being a United States Citizen. I am proud to be “aware” of the truth. My entire family is proud that I am so aware, too. Make us all proud. Learn about our government.
Mr. Sanders has my vote.
That “last thing” (Clinton supporters want to do) paragraph is a logic brickbat, Glenn, why I love what you do.
That is truly a great comment – certainly the result of a great thought process.
Thanks nfjtakfa.
Tell the truth, you don’t actually get logic and had to look up the word brickbat.
No “bitch”
Just a right bastard
Great job Glenn!
Amen!
I’m glad Glenn mentioned the conflation of anti-semitism with criticism of Israel and Zionism. Yes, just as Zionists and the leaders of Israel have claimed for decades that they speak for all Jews worldwide, Hillary Clinton’s campaign claims to speak for all women. There are thousands of Jews who oppose Zionism, and especially the actions of Israel over the last 50 years.
But anyone critical of Israel or opposed to Zionism is immediately labeled an anti-Semite or “self-hating Jew.” I guess Susan Sarandon must be a “self-hating woman,” eh?
That’s OK. I love her anyway, especially when I read the caption.
Thank you Glenn!
Yes, isn’t he great? My new idea is maybe he could do some more TV. I know he’s stretched thin, but maybe he could delegate more – and – I don’t know, have his own TV show like Bill Maher? It would be a lot of exposure.
This was an amazing article. I have been trying to articulate this very fact for a week now. How infuriating is it to be accused of such awful behavior simply for critiquing the truth? Thank you so much for giving me something to point to when I try to voice my opinion.
We would all be royally fucked if it weren’t for the likes of “The Intercept” and their staff. This is my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Royally+fucked
Its important that white males (gasp!) become engaged in progressive politics and that is exactly what Bernie’s campaign has done. You cannot demand rigid political correctness in people and then be shocked and dismayed when they are manipulated into voting against their interests. Bernies message of income equality has resonated among people who are realizing that the Republicans have been manipulating their emotions for the sole gain of the 1%. You cannot be a smug little clique looking down your nose at those who are, in your mind, less sophisticated and enlightened than you about social matters and expect to have a truly broad revolution. Political correctness isn’t always progressive and progressive politics isn’t always politically correct. I can’t change what’s in someone’s heart when it comes to their personal beliefs but I can lay out the Sanders plan for economic equality and they will feel the Bern
Republicans have been manipulating their emotions for the sole gain of the 1%. – Sage Rat
LOL!
Another excellent analysis Glenn; thank you.
On a related note, support for the financial reforms Sanders proposes has extended beyond “Bernie’s Bros”.
170 economists and financial experts – including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC., Brad Miller, former U.S. Congressman from North Carolina, and William K. Black, University of Missouri – have released a letter endorsing Bernie Sanders’ plan to reform Wall St.:
Doc, This was covered in the last GG article.
It was. I brought it up again. I hope that’s okay.
Sorry — was just a heads up. Didn’t mean anything by it!
No worries.
Though addressed and linked in Glenn’s previous post, I think the endorsement may also have some relevance here because:
1) the considerably greater mainstream press coverage of the “Bernie’s Bros” story compared to the reportage on the arguably more informative “170 economists letter” tells us something about the mainstream press’s function in the USA,
and
2) the endorsement counters some of the comments in this thread conveying doubts about the “seriousness” of Sanders’ proposals.
Breaking News:
Mr. Trump announced he will drop out if Sanders is nominated because the Berniebros are just too mean. “I’ve got people working for me. Good People”, said Mr. Trump. “They don’t need this. Those Berniebros claimed that Hillary Clinton was part of the establishment. Can you believe it? If they’d use a slur like that against her, what would they say about me?”
It’s a tough world out there.
He’s going to drop out of the GOP and run as a dictator.
“Bring me that Meghan Kelley bimbo as soon as the dungeon has been renovated. It’s gonna be the best dungeon in the world! Everybody knows, when my name is on a dungeon, it’s gonna be the best. So much better than that Chinese crap. China! And by the way, the Mexicans paid for it. It’s the art of the steal.”
“Bros to the left of me, Bimbos to the right of me. I dunno. Maybe the Bimbos are on the left too, who knows. It’s all I’m saying. Maybe they are in front of me. I hope the Bros stay away from behind me, if you know what I mean.”
. . . You want me to wear a bra?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfONNfAjyrc
A powerfully on-point account, and it helps fulfill a desperate need for these issues to be discussed among a wider audience, but I wish you had named some names. Thus, a friendly suggestion to that effect: “To see the blatant disregard for facts in which this narrative is grounded … ” just watch MSNBC any given weeknight.
It is absolutely disgusting to watch Chris Matthews, Joy Reid, et al. in varying degrees marginalize and (only) subtly demonize Sanders by misrepresenting his record and positions and completely ignoring Clinton’s. It’s so through the looking glass I’ve had real difficulty understanding it. The only explanation I’ve come up with is that these normally smart, liberal people are beset with identity politics (in this case gender based) to such a dysfunctional degree it’s overriding their rationality and ideology. But mark these words Clinton supporters: If she wins, it won’t be long before your buyer’s remorse sets in, for she promises not but four/eight more years of war in the Middle East and Wall Street in the White House.
Let’s not forget the recent “Karl Rove’s using Sanders supporters for nefarious Clinton attacks” narrative, or the daily tweets detailing the massive tax raises Sanders wants, while neglecting to mention the universal health care aspect or other benefits.
People are forgetting that it was Clinton’s team that leaked the Jeremiah Wright tapes, and it was Clinton who started the “birther” rumors surrounding Obama in 2008.
If the couch fits … LOL!
https://mobile.twitter.com/Michael5SOS/media/grid?idx=1&tid=693909189610045442
Glenn you’re the tit’s. Keep busting chops you ass kicker.
Ditto!
Where have I heard the term “bro” before? The ugly root of “Bernie bros” is that Clinton supporters want the public to associate Bernie with inner-city blacks.
That’s definitely not the association they’re going for.
“Bro” used as a pejorative commonly refers to upper middle class privileged young white kids.
It’s a term commonly used in progressive circles to demonize any group of people they don’t like without much evidence to back up the actual demographics of the people they’re referring to.
In many ways, it’s the progressive equivalent of conservative’s use of the term “thug”, but while conservatives imagined villain is a young black kid, the progressive object of scorn is usually young, white, and rich.
“Bro” has had solid connotation with frat-boy type whites for at least a decade now. The word itself probably did emerge from black slang earlier, but I don’t know, bro.
Using it as a slur against Bernie Sanders supporters is bogus though. Do people still say ‘bogus’? It’s a good word.
Obviously the Clinton campaign and its media machine don’t realize that all of Sander’s progressive voters will vote for Jill Stein should the Secretary win the nomination.
You have that right, Annie!
A lot of the discussion seems to revolve around is he, Sanders, enough of a radical (he’s not denounced every aspect of imperialism!), VS is Sanders too much of a radical (scary communist who will hurt my stock portfolio!)
It’s interesting. When Obama/Clinton were running, I was having a laugh at all the people excited about the first black president, vs all those excited about the first woman president. Because, being literate, I’d read about what they had done, (immunized law breaking telecoms and voting for illegal invasions) and come to the conclusion that it didn’t make a hill of beans which one of the wall street backed figureheads was chosen.
This time, clearly Sanders isn’t challenging every aspect of what is wrong with America, (either he’s decided that some issues are suicidal to tackle, or more likely, he’s onboard with them. But just as clearly, he’s taking anti-establishment positions, and throughout his ridiculously long political career, he’s been consistently on the “left”. He’d be one of the few that stood out, opposing illegal invasions, and opposing telecom immunity.
When Sanders was saying that corporate law breakers should go to jail, Here’s Obama explaining why he’s voting to keep those that spied on millions of Americans out of jail:
When Sanders was opposing a war based on lies Clinton was making this speech:
As you can see, a choice between someone who believed in corporate crime, VS someone who believed in invading other oil producing nations based on debunked myths, didn’t excite me.
This time however, While I doubt that Sanders will do everything I would do, he’d certainly be on the right side of some of my issues (which are just to give some examples: poverty, peace, healthcare, civil rights, education)
On the issues that are forefront in the campaign, Sanders is on the correct side of them. And I’ve been watching him for a while now, so I can spot flip-flopping.
And if there is progress on some of these issues, then Americans will be better placed to make progress on the issues even Sanders isn’t embracing right now.
“When Sanders was opposing a war based on lies Clinton was making this speech. . .”
You mean when Sanders was pretending to oppose that war by first voting against it and then voting repeatedly to fund it.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad
Totally logical to fund taking care of our duped soldiers. Totally logical and humane…while we know the invasion was not. Many of use before the invasion because of the work of former head weapons inspector in Iraq during the Clinton administration for the IAEA. He wrote that the Clinton’s knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq. Hell head of the IAEA El Baradei came out before the invasion and said the Niger documents were forgeries. Dem Senator Dick Durbin who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee (accessing more intelligence) voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution. A clear indicator for Hillary. She knew but had her finger to the wind…clearly a political calculation, However she went on to provide us with more deadly evidence that she is a neocon war hawk by pushing for the military intervention in Libya and arming rebels in Syria as Secretary of State. She is walking over hundreds of thousands of dead, injured people in Iraq, Libya and Syria and millions of refugees on her way to her goal. I cannot and will not support a brutal war hawk. With candidates like Clinton the neocons do not need Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz to expand their PNAC blueprint for the middle east. Deadly and despicable. http://www.alternet.org/story/48729/it_doesn't_matter_if_hillary_apologizes_for_her_iraq_war_vote
“Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob that blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and her vote in favor of this war.
This issue won’t be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq’s WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq’s weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband, former president Bill Clinton, and his administration.”
“Totally logical to fund taking care of our duped soldiers.”
By voting for funding to “take care” of them by prolonging the war where they were being killed and maimed, while killing and maiming many, many others, including hundreds of thousands of innocents?
If that’s totally logical to you, you live by some very twisted logic.
Doug, you are distorting what Bernie Sanders voted for, and not being at all fair — or accurate — in claiming he was “pretending” to oppose the Iraq war. His vote against that war was real, at a time when that vote was also deeply unpopular.
Moreover, that Michael Arria article is very short, and very misleading.
Do read the whole analysis of Sanders’ Iraq war funding votes.
Bernie Sanders does take some hawkish positions that are justly rejected and criticized. It’s not necessary to manufacture more of them.
(Trying again to see if this one doesn’t get sent to TI limbo.)
Mona, don’t you see how feeble and unconvincing those arguments are? We’re talking about aggressive war here: bombing babies, displacing millions, killing hundreds of thousands, targeted killing by drone. And your excuse for the man boils down to, “The devil made him do it.”
Would you vote for a state legislator who told you this?
“I had to vote for the bill that authorized the execution of children, because that was an amendment to a bill that provided essential benefits to our poorest neighborhoods.”
Re: Doug Salzmann on Feb @ 2:18PM
Your characterization of -Mona-‘s arguments as “..feeble and unconvincing..” seems to have survived your deluded pretense that some TI editor/moderator may fear or be threatened by your obtuse and circular screed. Indeed, there are treatments for malignant narcissism, but merely patronizing the symptoms is not one of them.
Why is your absurd hypothetical in quotes?
As Usual,
EA
Oh, do fuck off, you semi-literate twit.
There’s almost noting more annoying than people who imagine they understand the English language while mangling it almost beyond meaning.
You haven’t quite made it to the word salad level, but I’d be willing to be we could get you there, just before your head explodes. Fortunately for your head, it’s not worth the effort.
Re: Doug Salzmann on Feb 1 @ 5:02 PM
Your “word salad” doesn’t appear to be getting you very far here, lest you consider quiet tolerance of gratuitous invective and pejorative name-calling the stuff of literacy. Above you conclude in part, “but I’d be willing to be we could get you there”. At first glance this assertion seems a strange construction coming from such an astute critic of language and literacy, not to mention its allusion to being written by but one of some hypothetical “we”; perchance, maybe some of your imagined confederates would like to seize this opportunity to support your quest.
As Usual,
EA
Name-calling is an example of pejorative behavior.
Italian, Ranch, Roquefort, or vinaigrette?
Re: nuf said Feb 3 @ 11;25 AM
The complete observation was:
Your cute exercise in cherry-picking…..
….is dressing enough, in and of itself. Thanks for your agreement and supplying the dressings.
As Usual,
EA
The use of “pejorative” to modify “name-calling” is not correct.
You asked if you were serving salad; reliance upon copious dressing would indicate it is little more than plain iceberg.
Very well written and I agree with what you said.
Re: JLocke Feb 1 @ 9AM
A thoughtful closing to a well-reasoned analysis, as well as an interesting response to Glenn Greenwald’s cogent observations.
As Usual,
EA
Thank you for spelling this out. As a 30-year-old woman very much for Bernie, I feel this Bernie-bro narrative has silenced my own feelings and made me feel like an outsider.
Wellcome to the “new normal” and the “new era” of the “Information Wars”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellcome Lol! Welcome, A.
Yes.
And where are the HRC supporters complaining about Steinem or Albright bashing women who are for Sanders? How is it *not* sexist to expect every woman to vote for HRC?
It’s Clinton’s campaign straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. and not just dirty tricks. Hillary’s supporters rely heavily on straw man arguments. The Guardian posted a piece the other day, arguing that if Sanders failed, his supporters would turn to Trump, rather than vote for a woman. The click bait queen of Salon, Amanda Marcotte, went a step further, advancing Hilllary as the only legitimate choice and all but accusing Sanders supporters of outright misogyny. For these writers and others who have taken similar positions, the campaign issue has distilled into a cocktail to gender, unsustainable accusations of misogyny and reverse sexism.
I just get sick. Tried to write a comment 3 times now. If the hill makes it through the valley and shadow of death, I’ll try and move off planet. HRC “game” just shows how sick our whole system is. I’d like to rant and use caps but I’m too polite.
I’d like to rant and use caps but I’m too polite. – gilbert satchell Lol! Thanks!
” I’ll try and move off planet.”
Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your kids
Another excellent article from an excellent journalist and moral human being that has devoted his career to educating and informing us. In a world of so much manipulation and propaganda The Intercept and all of your journalists give me hope – Thank you.
This “caucus” thing is still something of a mystery to me. I’m not alone, many Americans couldn’t explain the process by which candidates for president get whittled down to two.
Although it seems common knowledge (as well as cynicism) that the two official parties are highly corrupt.
So I was trying to learn more about the particularities of what actually happens in Iowa, and I came across this:
It seems, as well as being the outlier nation in terms of healthcare, America also seems resigned to being saddled with voting systems that “will never be perfect”
Now America doesn’t have the worst voting system in the world, with blatant manual box stuffing, or the above 100 percent results for the single candidate that you see in places around the world, But you do know that other advanced democracies count every vote?…right?
I wonder if the leadership of the two official American parties is quite happy leaving things ripe for manipulation and abuse. In any case, best not be victim of that margin of error, if Clinton is going to stuff the boxes (electronically with Microsoft technology of course), make sure she needs to stuff lots of them.
The Iowa caucuses are just the first step in Iowa’s ever changing
procedures for the corporate owned parties distancing from the
will of the voters.
1. The caucuses in the precincts allow voter input.
2. The county conventions then refine the selection of delegates.
3. The district conventions then refine the selection farther.
4. The state convention then AGAIN refines the selections.
5. The national convention……..
Between each step, changes happen.
See http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/01/the-iowa-caucus-is-a-classist-and-ageist-farce/
Thank you for that connection.
Endnote #2 is especially interesting to me because when
I read that Obama met with Sanders in the white house the
other day and read Obama’s praise of Clinton and
downplaying of Sanders
(“He has the luxury of…” – dismissively used twice by Obama),
I immediately remembered when Obama took Kucinich for
“a ride” in “Airforce One” and then Kucinich voted FOR
what he had previously been (supposedly) staunchly opposing.
Sanders is not in line with his own party and
THAT will not be tolerated by the craven
republican-wanna-be democrats.
Why did my comment get censored? I feel like I’m back at the old Huffington Post blog.
Sometimes it just takes awhile for comments to appear. I see that you have a comment from about 50 minutes ago…
Another good question:
Why?
“the humanist” has a good question for Michael Bloomberg” regarding his declared intention to block Sanders:
Clinton’s never-ending sense of entitlement regarding things she’s never earned is both astounding and disgusting. I’m voting for Jill Stein, not because she’s a woman and I think a woman deserves to be elected president, but because her policies are most in line with my own political beliefs and the policies I support. So what does that make me?
Michael, That makes you an example for others who vote out of fear… your example says vote for that person who substantially supports your interests. This simple concept needs to catch on if we are to ever get past fear-based voting, to voting for candidates who are not war criminals, war criminal sympathizers, quasi-Fascists, and wall street whores. Thanks. I am with you.
Hear! Hear!
HRC is modeling the type of attacks for Trump to use against her, and at the same time, avoiding the issues facing Americans which Americans want to discuss, which only Bernie Sanders will discuss.
Your comment (inadvertently) highlights the main problem
which is shared by ALL of the candidates running within
the democrat/republican/libertarian corporate owned “parties.”
The problem is that they all identify with, promote, and reinforce
the lie of “american” exceptionalism.
There is no such thing.
The craven global land-grabbing and environmental degradation
in the name of personal profits
(which are central to the corporate owned parties)
which operate out of the capitol of the Fake USA
is typical of EVERY imperialist regime which has sprung up
within the blood-stained history of humanity.
“Americans” are little different than the people who
supported (and died for) Napoleon, Louis XIV, Genghis Khan,
Charles I, George III, Hitler,…… when it comes to their vanity
and indifference to the horrors they inflict on “others.”
There is always a religiosity to this imperialism and with
people who identify as “americans” it REQUIRES a willful
blindness to their own desperation and an insistence
that they are honoring something which they themselves
are actually preventing from happening.
It is typical and it is pathetic.
If you insist on finding proof of the fake “american” exceptionalism,
I guess it can be found in the fact that
no other imperialist monstrosity has ever had as many examples
of the dangers of seeing themselves as exceptional
which they proudly ignore in their lust for domination.
It should be clear by now that the poseurs pretending to be journalists are clear about what their job entails. They get paid to shill for the crooks at the top of the pyramid scheme. At the moment, they’re running around with their hair on fire because their darling Hillary just might lose to Bernie Sanders. That possibility is unthinkable to them thus the need to pull out all the stops in order to destroy him. I suspect we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
As others have said here, Bernie is not the perfect candidate. But obviously he’s seen as enough of a threat to the ruling status quo to warrant what ever sleazy tactic they can find to sling at him. That’s enough reason for me (a woman in her 60s) to support him.
Here are some young ‘lipstick’ feminists supporting Sanders – Music, lyrics and moves…
http://youtu.be/_R4qdn1Wz2k
“Talk to Me Bernie…”
That was really weird. We live in such a weird country. It reminded me of that “Obama Girl” video. And all those writhing, nubile twenty-something chicks squirming around on the ground fantasizing about “getting it” from a seventy-year old guy? WTF?
I wonder if the Sanders’ campaign strategists are down with this. Does sex really sell?
Well it won’t affect my opinion. I still support Bernie and I just made another contribution.
It’s not enough to just say there are trolls in the ranks of any candidate’s supporters, and Sanders is not responsible for comments made by his supporters. It may be a wash in the comments section, but I do not see professional journalists directly attacking the supporters of any other candidate the way that pro-Clinton writers have taunted Sanders supporters. The first time I heard the expression Bernie Bro was in the Atlantic article by Robinson Meyer, 10/17/15. Labeling Sanders supporters as ” toga wearing” “futureparkinglotattendant bros,” it was puerile tantrum better suited for a high school cafeteria than a national media outlet. Within 24 hours Amanda Marcotte was flailing away at Sanders supporters making them out as paranoid hysterical leftist hipster conspiratorialists. If you read the comments section of either of those articles, they were not well received. It’s patently obvious these two were hacks for Clinton and there was a tone in both articles that reminded me of HRC–the frustration/outrage that the electorate was not thinking the way they should be. It’s as if we have all f**ked up their chance to be smug and they’re angry about it. I do not think it is an effective strategy. It brings to mind the excellent critique of the US media in the final chapter of No Place to Hide. They are a bunch of hacks, getting it wrong, patting themselves on the back, and trying to adopt the demeanor if a “media insider.” Their condescension and disdain for the naivety of media outsiders is most pronounced during election season. But so far all the dismissiveness has not dampened public support for Sanders and I suspect it may be fueling it in some cases.
You can’t be that obtuse. You seriously think that the Bernie Bros don’t make up fake twitter and facebook accounts with which to spew their invective?
Soft, soft “journalism,” Glenn. If this is your ‘standard,’ you’ve slipped. You’re not even phoning it in. This is awful and lazy.
Your comment is stupid. Post links and quotes to support your argument. Post specific examples. Otherwise you’re just a troll.
The criticism isn’t exactly constructive, but I can’t help but notice that nearly every comment on this board is positive. So, this response feels almost like a breath of fresh air.
I’d say your response is childish. :D
Greenwald is one of my favorite journalists, but no one is above criticism and its nice to know that the Intercept readership is not some weird cult.
It’s actually a great article that efficiently highlights and condemns corporate media’s smear tactics whenever the preferred establishment candidate is challenged. That is the focus of this piece and it’s true.
I do agree that there are groups of Men’s Rights Activist types and roving groups of cliques who have an attack-and-harrass m.o. on reddit and twitter. They are vile and hurtful. I just don’t know how prevalent they are, it is a cloudier issue to pin down than the quite straightforward issue of MSM trying to delegitimize challengers to establishment candidates. To my knowledge Greenwald has not addressed the former issue, only the latter.
I support Bernie. I agree with him on 99% of things outside of pay equity for women.
They are using victim hood, and honestly, feminism, against Bernie. This is why cult like religious ideologies like feminism can cut both ways, like religion they can do a lot of good, and some harm as well. In some cases it’s very much a snake eating its own tail.
The truth is, Bernie is even pandering to the routinely debunked gender pay gap myth, when the data says otherwise. I think he really believes this too, but it is pandering. Female demographics are key when it comes to pandering and marketing.
People are tired of Hillary playing the woman card and pandering. I suspect many of these include men who have been told because they are straight and white, they are the scum of Satan, despite the fact that white men make up a big contingent of his fans. When you tell a culture decade after decade that women = good men = bad, this is the kinda funny weird shit you start to see.
Studies show women under 35 make 108% to what men do. They are 2:1 more likely to be hired in stem fields. Most scholarships that are gendered are for women despite women make up the vast bulk of graduates. Men make up the majority of the homeless and the no wage workers as well as 4 out of 5 suicides. Male disposability is real in the west.
The truth is the gender pay gap uses very basic broad averages without taking in remotely enough variables into account *and* it confuses wages, with earnings. It turns out women tend to pick lower paying careers, don’t push for higher salaries (most of the country is poor as fuck anyway). They also tend to take far more time off from work, which is a *choice*. When more variables are taken into account, even this broad average shrinks to negligible numbers.
Don’t tell the raging feminists that, especially those who are helping Bernie.
I got this far and stopped – because I didn’t think I’d missed repeated studies that show this claim to be true.
So I went and looked – and I hadn’t. In short, you are cherry picking the evidence to fit your narrative. This was confirmed by reading the narrowness of the rest of you comment, such as:
I’m all for basing things on how the world actually is, so please, provide to us all several studies that support these claims, and the summation of yours:
Because I’d be happy to change my views if you can provide enough evidence to support my doing so.
Read this interview Claudia Goldin, Professor of Economics at Harvard, for an honest account of the earnings pay gap and why discrimination doesn’t explain why women earn less than men. http://freakonomics.com/2016/01/07/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
Why? Because this?:
I know it’s a complex subject, but, as Pedinska pointed out, the OP didn’t even include any of that complexity in their assertion – just over-broad and I’d say discriminatory statements as to how “after accounting for the complexity the difference between men and women are negligible.”
That’s a click-bait take-away that does little to help. The rest of the interview, does shed more light by citing just these types of complexities:
It goes on the delve into these complex matters, offering more nuance from others, to wit:
Continuing again to drill down into the very idea that the original commenter wants buried:
So it seems to me that reading that article, after all, did more to confirm my initial take on this matter – not that new evidence might change the situation over time – as it indeed has – but that contrary to the original comment and the entreaty to become more informed by you – it just hasn’t changed as much as was claimed.
When you control for variables like occupation, the gender gap does decrease (though it does not disappear.) But see, occupation is part of the issue. Is occupation just a choice?
They also tend to take far more time off from work, which is a *choice*.
So, should you be fortunate enough to convince a woman to make a *choice* to bear your children, she should get her ass back to work ASAP after birth because nine months of sacrificing her body to your, um, *deposit* wasn’t punishment enough to allow her to expect to be able to recover – and bond with the child you BOTH made a *choice* to have – without losing her job and/or advancement?
I ask that in all sincerity and as a female in the workplace who never had kids, so didn’t have to make those kinds of *choices* – and who volunteered to work a lot of off hours so that both the men and women I worked with who had families could be home for holidays – yet still made less than males in my chosen field, including some that I trained while they were students.
If it’s actually true that women under 35 are making what you say they are, then it’s likely because they’ve figured out that men like you aren’t worth *choosing* to have families with since they expect them to take the entire economic hit of raising them, which includes time off work for things like doctor appointments and school conferences, let alone caring for aging parents etc. Yup, women should most definitely get paid less for caring about shit like that enough to *choose* to take time off work so their partners/spouses don’t have to.
I hope you aren’t relying on the kindness of a daughter to care for you in your old age. Because she’s not going to have time for your sorry wrinkled ass if she has to survive under the rules you think equitable. She’ll be too busy putting time in earning that humongous salary you think she doesn’t deserve. :-s
@ Pedinska
Ouch! That’s going to leave a well deserved mark across his chauvinist backside. : )
Speaking of “ouch” moments… Did you see that Juan Thompson was was outed by the Internet as a fraud? Apparently, my contest of his published claims (and your defense of them) proved to be justified after all.
ok I get but superdelegates strengthen the argument for the Green Party and Jill Stein.
Please tell me how many superdelegate Bernie can buy, and when he will support Palestine against the illegal occupation.
Also explain why so many Green and 3rd party forums were swarmed by BERNIEBOTS who kept returning with fake accounts after they were kicked out. Bernie is NOT a Green or 3rd Partyy Candidate. It would have been interesting to see him vie for the Green Party nomination. Because of his support of Israel, it’s unlikely he would win it. he’s not the savior that his words seem to indicate.
He’s been coached by the sharpest minds to present the idealist’s dream candidate – and he’s a stalking horse for Hillary – nothing more.
SUPERDELEGATES.
Interesting. You bleat that BERNIEBOTS returned with fake accounts…AFTER THEY WERE KICKED OUT!
So, they committed the crime of idiological impurity against the Green party?
Like extreme Christians embarrass Christianity, extreme Green party supporters like you and Jayne Cullen at Salon embarrass Jill Stein, whose platform is very reasonable.
Apparently it was our colleague here who committed crime of stifling the discussion, maybe not understanding that grassroots democracy depends on the discussion, rather than the discussion is something to suppress in a grassroots democracy situation. What is with the name calling. What is with this calling people bots. Why is it always the formula shills who try to call other people bots.
as I was saying when I was cut off, and you started shouting and imputing actions that were not mine —- these were not people interested in discussion at all. They just dropped their memes and tried to recruit – from a group of Green Party members to the Democratic Party. We also have tapes of these recruiting attempts done by phone. The shameless behavior of these Democratic Party professionals will not be forgotten. It does not reflect well on Sanders. I think he made a bad choice, and wittingly, because he will not be able to change the unDemocratic party. He is being used as a stalking horse.
There, now you have a 2nd chance to read my first comment and rationally respond, though I have more to say I’ll hold on and give you a chance. You don’t have to yell. Feel better now?
INDYRADIO The future of radio belongs to us. The newest playlists are linked at http://ch0.us
Are you upset about something? When someone tries to hijack a discussion forum, they need to be kicked out. A discussion forum for “3rd Party Candidates” does not have “Feel the Bern” as it’s topic, and preponderance of posts. When justice is done, what does a superficial change of identity prove? I know you won’t answer this, and it’s OK with me if you choose to act like a fool in front of the whole world rather than have an intellectual disagreement. Thank you for the neat demonstartion of the phenomenon I have described.
There is a reason for the existence of 3rd parties, (Why bother explaining this to you? I won’t start. Pearls to swine!) and Sanders’ campaign has worked hard to destroy the Greens. Yes, there is bitterness.
How about if I go to one of the Sanders’ forums right now and try to recruit for the Green Party while completely ignoring all the existing threads? How long will I last? Get a grip – on your medicine bottle and take as directed.
Mashable has de-evolved into a bull horn for the business tech world offering content creators, as well as politicians a very sereptitious way of “sub rosa marketing” their products or their political candidates.
Mashable’s “Brand Lift Program” is intended for ‘brands’ to work with Mashable and its ad agency partners (DigitasLBI and Vaynermedia) to create content assets that will appear on Mashable directly. I guess the new “product” they are pushing is “Hillary” !
Sad really: if you can’t trust an advertising platform masquerading as a major blog, than who can you trust ? No wonder ZetoHedge.com still keeps expanding its readership.
Betsy Reed is Editor-in-Chief of The Intercept. She is also the editor of the essay collection “Nothing Sacred: Women Respond to Religious Fundamentalism and Terror” published in 2003.
Dang The Intercept screams need some rules of the road. Done!
An excellent addition to that body of work I call analyzing the “mechanics of disinformation.”
I read nearly all of the 300 comments here (except the interminable exchange between Craig and Mona ;) and there is an impending sh1tstorm that has been missed. Having gotten into the mix at the Atlantic on Conor F.’s article defending Bernie on reparations I feel that I have a civic duty to warn the
Hillbotssupporters of former Secretary [of State] Clinton that they must grow a thicker skin just in case their candidate fulfills her inevitable destiny.If you think Bernie’s idealistic, youthful supporters are intolerable you are in no way prepared for the virtual himmicane that will issue forth from the impending Stormfront when Mr. Trump becomes the Republican nominee. I suggest short visits to RedState.com to build up a little immunity to the wave of ubertrolling that will incessantly blow hot wind and rain acid upon your ladylike parade towards the promised land.
Just sayin’…
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Against Republicans i think Hillary supporters would have a thicker skin, but among their alleged more liberal peers, the assault is somewhat different. These “bernie bros”, or more aggressive “emo progs”, etc, are usually young very agro white males that are in their same party engaging in ugly behavior online while claiming they are progressive, as opposed to the typical “hillary for prison!” gop wing nut.
The most interesting thing about the displays of
nastiness is that it all helps hide the fact that there
is no real reason to believe that the actions and policies
which would happen under a Clinton presidency
would be much different than what would happen under
a Trump presidency. They both are outstanding examples
of arrogant indifference and corruption in which craven
vanity is celebrated as if it is the hallmark of integrity.
Of course, this is quite typical of human history and that
is part of why they are supported by the most “pragmatic.”
While HRC is whipping up some Republican style false outrage about mean things said by anonymous posters on the internet.
Bernie Sanders is using his own time, to continue talking about the things that Americans are yearning to hear discussed, which nobody else will discuss, hence his endearment to the people – and his unassailable sincerity – which by the way all the Karl Roves in the world not only cant stop it, your efforts to tamp down the aspirations of Americans will backfire.
Considering the stuff BernineBros say *about Hillary*, if you cant’ take the heat, stay the hell out of politics.
You’re all on crack if you think either of them aren’t a hundred times better than the best Republican. Quit your goddamn bellyaching and vote for whichever of them wins. This election is too damn important for your petulant teenage tantrums.
I don’t trust anybody trying to jump this argument ahead to the November election – so don’t think about the task at hand. Why exactly would you be doing that now? Let’s see.
As someone who is married to a Dominatrix and thoroughly believes in Female Supremacy, i would LOVE to have the opportunity to vote for a qualified female candidate. That being said, Hillary’s record speaks for itself, so i can’t, in good conscience, pull the lever for her.
They brought no discussion. the repeated campaign slogans and did not participate in the stated purpose of the forums.
It was exactly the way Republicans stomped all over the Democrats and Greens USENET forums in the old day – just post and post your party slogans and then try to recruit then to join YOUR party.
Imagine if someone came into YOUR politcal party’s live meeting, ignored everyone there, shouted their partisan slogans and then tried to recruit for their party.
NO, sorry you must leave.
I don’t see the superdelegate controlled Democratic Party as viable unless it is fundamentally changed. Bernie is a loser, by his own choice.
Sigh. Here’s how you do it: yep, many attacks on HRC are insanely sexist. She’s still a terrible corporate imperialist candidate and Bernie is better.
Here’s how you don’t do it: eye roll, eye roll, eye roll, eye roll, eye roll, on-line misogyny is kind of a thing but everybody gets attacked on the internet, so whatevs!
Remember Sarah Palin? She was awful. Simultaneously, many attacks on her were insanely sexist. Saying so didn’t make me a Palinista.
Saying that HRC *isn’t allowed to use* sexism as a campaign theme is, well, sexist. Or that her supporters aren’t allowed to notice and remark on sexism in attacks on her… I mean, again, I was able to do it even for Sarah Palin, with whom I did not agree on anything.
A long impassioned rant about how phony and ridiculous it is for her supporters to be doing this — what’s the point? A case can be made against HRC and for Bernie so easily, the motivation for instead needling away at one of the things she’s actually totally right about (sexism is in fact hugely relevant to her campaign for the presidency) feels like, oh yeah, there’s exactly that thing her campaign is talking about, right there. In a box with a bow on it.
“The troubling thing about all the histrionic “Bernie Bro” allegations is not that they’re hurting Sanders’s campaign. (I don’t think the weak tea of progressive journalism has quite the effect on the electorate that writers and readers often assume.) The danger here is that in erasing left feminism, consciously or not, progressive media is pitting class against gender—making socialism (or Cold War social democrats, whatever) look sexist to feminists, and making feminism look fucking bourgeois to working people.”
That’s Amber A’Lee Frost writing in December 2015.
http://thebaffler.com/blog/my-kind-misogyny
Another excellent thing Frost does in this article is link to the work of a number of other women who also are not playing along with this routine. Here’s that section:
“Roqayah Chamseddine has been trying to get the self-appointed gentleman’s league of Clinton supporters, #HillaryMen, to acknowledge her existence, culminating with the exasperated “Have either of you responded to any nonwhite women tweeting at you, you insufferable bastards?” Alas, the Hillary Men appear to be accountable to only one woman.
Rania Khalek also called out Hillary Men, tweeting, “When will the Feminist Hillary supporters condemn the terrorist Hillary bros among them?” (#HillaryMen cofounder Peter Daou, it turns out, is not only a former Clinton employee, but also a proud former member of the Lebanese Forces.) Elsewhere, Khalek has detailed Hillary’s “feminism of exclusion,” and summed up her opinion of the politician rather neatly with this: “Capitalism is a rapacious death cult with an insatiable appetite. Hillary Clinton wants to save it from itself.”
As Abi Wilkinson puts it, “Reasons for left-wingers to be critical of Hillary include things she’s done & said and the fact she’s in competition with a left candidate. It’s nonsense to deliberately ignore all of her female critics to make out criticism is just a gendered thing.” “
Except when the charges of sexism take this form:
http://www.shakesville.com/2016/01/the-inherent-misogyny-of-sanders.html
Wow, that column was specious throughout and occasionally vile – an illustrative example of the problem, Bigsby.
Love that note above the comments section. The Orwellian possibilities for the term “safe space” get clearer all the time.
Clearly, Bernie’s misogyny is that he is not female. If he were serious about not being misogynistic, he would be female.
McEwan pulls a neat little trick there, asserting in the first paragraph that a woman who has served in the Senate and who is paid six figures to give speeches to the men of Wall St isn’t, somehow, part of the highest echelons. What she’s actually getting at becomes clear in the second paragraph, where she elides being a member of the highest echelons with sitting at the head of the table.
Her conclusion that the only way one can argue against this is by discounting Clinton’s gender – as opposed to deeming her unfit because of the results of her actual policies – is insulting to anyone who’s been paying attention to what people in the highest echelons have been doing to the rest of us.
No, Ms. McEwan, but neither do you get to wish away her entire history as part and parcel of the highest echelons.
Is there misogyny aimed at HRC? Absolutely. But there are also a lot of folk who have been paying attention to actions as well as words, and that’s where Clinton falls far short, and the makeup of her gonads have little to nothing to do with it.
I read that last line with a single letter change.
screen wipe aisle 5, please
The first impression I had of Hillary was formed during her ’60 Minutes’ appearance, sitting next to Bill. With his shit-eatting grin, Bill told America his marriage was strong despite his philandering.
I thought, “This guy’s a lying shitbag and Hillary will put up with him because she wants to ride his coattail to the White House. What a piece of work she must be.”
26 years later and my opinion of Hillary and Bill has only slipped further.
“A woman must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.” – Charlotte Whitton, mayor of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada in the 1950’s and early ’60s.
I use that as an illustration of how to handle misogynists. She was lesbian, social conservative, racist, and competent. What her attitudes today would be, who knows?
The democrats are getting tired and irritated.
They want their predatory “queen of chaos” or some
other republican enabling “pragmatist” fraud.
It is not possible for me to believe that Sanders isn’t in on the game.
After all of those years of Caucusing with the democrats,
he is either really dense or he is as devious as the
democrats he embraces.
I have been around enough of them to know they
are primarily about gaining power, just like their
republican counterparts.
Bernie’s words sound great, but he has arranged for those words
to come out of the mouth of a democrat and history clearly
shows that the democrats will say anything for power
and then their words have little relation to their actions
when in power (except when they proudly call for more
corporate corruption and militarized atrocities).
This is the most pathetic election season I’ve seen so far.
I’m waiting for when he turns his supporters/delegates over
to the democrat’s predator du jour.
Time will tell and all I can do is wish that he had the
integrity to denounce the corporate party he has chosen.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
LOL Dave.
I really wish you had asked me for permission before immortalizing me the way you did glen. She is a liar but I could have edited it prior too at least…
You can’t unring a bell. Doubly so on the internet. Hey besides I’d be proud of that comment if I were you!
One of my favorite essayists, Christopher Hitchens wrote a short book about the Clintons, “No One Left to Lie To”
All things being equal I would choose a woman because as my PM stated “it’s 2015″. Well, all things are not equal, this woman is NOT a Progressive and her husband did untold damage to working people in general and minorities in particular. How the Clinton’s get the Black vote is beyond my comprehension but how Republican conservatives get the working class vote is even more so. In both cases it’s mostly dog whistle politics and in the rep case, the ongoing culture wars, with the gay issue lost and the gun and abortion ones alive and kicking. Black people voted for Obama, the corporate lawyer and has he ever been good for them…not. Well, Clinton I fooled you and Obama too; think before you make the same mistake three times. A vote for Shillary is a vote for Lloyd Blankfein and the Pentagon war machine. How about voting for yourself this time and letting your Congressperson and Senator know you vote Progressive and will support her/him if they are Progressive because it takes more than a POTUS to affect real change. You could start by accepting that American Exceptionalism means no Health Care as a right and no Paid Maternity leave and a job in the Precariat; the country can do better by it’s people.
The republicans, libertarians, and democrats belong
to the same “exceptionalist” church of Free Market Capitalism.
The main difference is HOW they lie and seduce the voters.
Vintage Glen, rips on everything! Keep going you’re doing great. Too bad I don’t have time to read all the comments, I’m sure there’s some good ones…
Vintage Glenn is right. His takedowns are so matter of fact in their tone. They’re never couched… in anything. Absolutely hilarious.
> ” Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate). ”
It’s your own fault as a media fascist for making your bed with the people who condone this kind of “logic.” Tell me again about how Donald Trump is a racist xenophobe?
TRUMP / SANDERS 2016
Bernie bros has racial and dumb shadings, reminding of ‘thugs’.
Yeah, no and hahahahahh “racial”. It’s perfectly fitting for the men who I have seen call Hillary Clinton a “bitch/slut/whore/cunt” and have called the people who support her the same things for hopping on the “tampon train”. I’m voting for Bernie but I feel like the Bernie bros have ruined what was a inclusive movement.
Simon Head at New York Review of Books. A good read:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/
Lot of reasons I’d never vote for Hillary Clinton. This above is just one of many.
While I agree with the bulk of your post, I feel that if she gets the nod, I’m forced to vote for her, and I will add that she is as corrupt as they come, however, the aging of the Supreme Court is a large part of what is not considered. The fact that we have a “corporate friendly” court tells me that it must be brought back into a more balanced system. Our best chance for that to happen is to cast a vote for the Democratic front runner even if this shill gets the nod.
If you’re worried about SCOTUS justices, then direct your efforts and concerns toward the Senate — the body that actually confirms them. The President doesn’t select justices. S/he merely nominates them, and only nominates justices with a reasonable chance of being confirmed by the Senate.
Nobody is forcing you to vote for a war criminal.
By the way, correct me if I am wrong, don’t the Democrats have a say in who gets on the supreme court? This is a serious question that I do not know the answer to.
Can’t they block a nominee if that nominee is particularly Fascist.. even if they are in the minority? Or must they simply roll over and show their bellies when the Republicans are mean to them?
This is the party that lets elections get stolen from them, does nothing about it, and still politely reaches out to the “other side”. This a party of cowards and war crime enablers.
If you are worried about a corporate friendly supreme court, how could you even consider voting for HRC?
“First of all we encounter high-placed, aged and experienced people who in their youth were themselves dilettantes in political freedom — a distinguished and rich man takes a piquant pleasure in speaking about freedom and equality, and in doing makes him twice as interesting in business. These men now try to hide their physical and spiritual laxity under the seal of that much abused word, ‘experience’, now that their former interest has left them along with their capacity for youthful vitality.
“There is no profit in speaking with these people: they were never serious about freedom and freedom for them a religion which offers the greatest pleasure and the highest bliss only by means of the most extreme conflicts, of the bitterest griefs, and of complete, unconditional self-denial. ”
— Mikhail Bakunin
Thanks Glenn.
One of the easiest ways for the grassroots to educate each other and coordinate messaging is through commenting on articles that concern the election, especially ones about their candidate. I don’t think these comments are unusually vitriolic. More likely, some of these pundits are just shocked to hear criticism from their own fan base. Krugman is especially disappointing for his own vitriol and hypocrisy. He’s had his own cult of personality for so long he can’t stand the heat when it’s turned on him.
I, for one, will keep commenting despite this “Bernie Bro” nonsense. I’m black, too!
Yep. Ideological whip lash. Liberals are extremely uncomfortable being criticized from their left. It’s perceived as an “attack”, because identities are wrapped up in political spectra. It’s a crisis of authenticity, deflected through identity politics.
Replace “Sanders supporter” with “Republican” and you could easily write the same article for the coming general election (or the last several).
But no-one outside of right-leaning media will. And no-one outside of left-leaning media will right the converse article, either.
And so it goes on, this tribal politics we have. My tribe is noble and virtuous. Your tribe is demonic and evil.
Cavemen with computers.
I’ve said many times that even Bernie Sanders is a highly flawed candidate for liberals/progressives particularly anti-war liberals. Primarily, and from my personal perspective, that is because of his positions regarding the dubious GWOT and American imperialism/desire for economic global hegemony.
Sorry for the blockquote closing error. Typing too fast.
Great points. I’m with you completely. Personally, I’m not on board with Bernie’s foreign policy agenda either. But the redeeming quality of Bernie, when compared to other politicians is that Bernie is someone on whom pressure can be brought to bear by “facts.” Most politicians only respond to the pressures of financial contributions.
He is talking so little about foreign policy that I think he’s doing that on purpose. The war machinery that is the MSM will go ballistic when they find out his real position. That’s my theory.
Hillary is simply awful on foreign policy, and out-Zionists Zionists. Bernie Sanders has the cred on Israel to do an “only Nixon could go to China.” Given his record of being fact-based and principled, he’s the best shot of any of the viable candidates on that issue.
I think you’ve been conned are buying into a very improbable “hope and change” scenario, Mona.
= = = = =
Dear Bernie,
This letter explains the matters of conscience that have led me to resign from your staff.
I believe that every individual must have some limit to what acts of military violence they are willing to participate in or support, regardless of either personal welfare or claims that it will lead to a greater good. Any individual who does not possess such a limit is vulnerable to committing or condoning abhorrent acts without even stopping to think about it.
= = = = =
Balance at linked source.
I don’t think so, Doug. 1. Bernie has decades of adhering to his principles, a record that Obama never had. and 2. He hasn’t made any “promises” on foreign policy on which I rely. My hope is based purely on his fact-based, principled history.
Well, we’ll see, Mona, and I hope you’re right and I’m wrong.
It’s true that Bernie has adhered to his principles, mostly. It’s also true that his principles haven’t prevented him from advocating for American exceptionalism, supporting targeted killings, offering only the mildest occasional criticism of Israel in the face of its ugliest aggression against the Palestinians, voting against the Iraq invasion, but then voting to fund the ongoing war and occupation, proposing more support for military adventures by KSA in the Middle East, etc. I have a long list, as you might expect.
Again, I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve seen and heard this play so many times, over so many election cycles . . .
Doug, that’s all true. But on much else he’s the best we’ve seen in since forever. If he wins, this is somewhat like going back to FDR. Almost as if the Democratic Party could be actually, sharply different from the other one.
Bernie Sanders is not Jeremy Corbyn. Bernie Sanders is the outer-most left that has a snowball’s chance of winning in the United States. For now. The 65 and older all have to die off. And couple million kids facing bleak futures has to join the electorate.
Moving that Overton Window is critical, and Bernie Sanders is both the cause and effect of that happening.
Ditto!
@ AtheistInChief
I hope you are right. I hope he’s rope-a-doping the MSM and MIC by giving some limited supportive lip service to their general agenda. But I’m not at all confident in that idea. I think like most Americans he believes in our purported “exceptionalism” and that it is necessary that America be the world’s singular “leader” or policeman.
I believe there are some exceptional things about America. Better in some ways than other nations, but much worse in many others. I also don’t believe, given America’s ugly history, that it should go around pontificating to the rest of the world about much of anything given it doesn’t really have the cultural or moral authority to do so.
As far as America’s economic system, it’s always been great for the relatively rich and crummy for the relatively poor. Which is not to say the relatively poor of America (which is the majority) are necessarily as bad off as the poor of other nations. But if that’s the bar for our faith in our economic “exceptionalism” then that seems like a ridiculously low economic and moral bar for a nation i.e. “Well gee America is exceptional because our poor don’t have it as bad as the poor in the Democratic Republic of Congo. You see our poor can criticize the government, vote in elections without having any meaningful effect on national policies, they aren’t starving in quite as high a numbers and/or don’t have less access to habitable housing and clean water as citizens of DRC.”
That’s a pretty absurd notion for a nation as purportedly “exceptional” as the USA.
Hell I’d trade my American citizenship for Canadian citizenship in a heartbeat. Only problem is Canada doesn’t allow immigration for very many American lawyers. Now last time I looked if hung sheetrock or was a pipefitter I might have a bit better chance of them taking me.
So I guess as the saying goes, “you go with the citizenship you got, not with the one you’d like to have.”
I’d say I’m a patriot rather than a nationalist, at least in the sense of striving for America to live up to its aspirational ideals rather than “my country right or wrong”. The latter I find both dangerous and absurd. But I certainly don’t feel any particular affinity to a “nation” just because I’m a product of a genetic lottery that gave rise to my birth in this land as opposed to the DRC or Canada. The whole idea just strikes me as very odd for any human being. But hey different strokes for different folks I guess. But I have and will always see myself as a human being first rather than as an American first.
Yes I do agree. In some ways, Canada is a lot more exceptional than America. But you’re wrong about Canada not allowing immigration to American lawyers. As an immigrant to Canada, I can attest that Canada does not discriminate on its immigration policy and has a favorable policy of allowing immigrants with a professional background. I’m pretty sure you can move anytime :).
But America is a great country also. I’ve traveled a lot. And I spent 10 years in America. It’s a great country. There is no country on earth that has a fair foreign policy, or treats its minorities or its women fairly. America does better than most. But because it has such great power, it’s misguided policies can affect more people. But then it has people like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Bernie Sanders, not mention Glenn Greenwald. So there’s hope :)
What kind of American, even a left liberal, would want the end of the American economic hegemony? It means the collapse of our society as we have it today. There are probably more peaceful means of maintaining this hegemony but as U.S. citizens we are interested in being the center of power, yes.
Sanders has been pretty quiet on the foreign policy front, but I’m hoping that his domestic policy prescriptions will ultimately preclude more huge expenditures on the MIC; that, by implication, more being spent on the domestic front will mean less spent on the military and foreign policy adventures. Fingers crossed anyway…
yep over at Hardball’s fb page Hillary supporters heads are exploding when challenged with facts about Hillary’s war record. Which of course Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, Joy Reid, Melissa Harris Perry will not go near. Journalist….who play softball on this critical issue. Well or do not play at all..more like it Never bring it up. Hardball with Chris Matthews
4 hrs ·
MSNBC to host New Hampshire Democratic debate on February 4
http://on.msnbc.com/1Pr5WN5
https://www.facebook.com/hardball
Thanks for this. I’ve had trouble countering this narrative that somehow terrible people didn’t exist on the internet until Bernie Sanders became a threat to Hillary Clinton. The problem is that the claim is made on nebulous evidence; it’s hard to argue against someone’s subjective experience. Some talking head makes the claim, people reading it realize, “oh yeah, I have seen that happen…” and they internalize it.
What’s amazing is that it’s just patently, obviously untrue. The right-wing anti-Hillary attacks online are far above and far beyond anything Sanders supporters say. The latter usually stop at “lying shitbag”, the former pull no punches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-C1Jwc25sA
Great peace by the way. Way to point out those damning Clinton accomplishments. What an utter mess.
I wrote peace… obviously it should say… jesus
“Great jesus by the way?” That doesn’t sound atheist…
Kidding, AIC. I homophoned that one the opposite way, piece when I meant peace, just a couple days ago.
Glen please keep up the work the internet is desert of repetitive nonsense with no end……Thanks for the clarity.
I’m a 55+ year old white female who is dreading the primaries out of fear that Clinton will beat Sanders. Frankly, I don’t know what the hell I’ll do then. Is Sanders perfect? Hell no. But he’s better than Clinton, and a dead bouquet of roses is better than any Republican.
Glenn, I am sorry that you are constantly exposed to such ugliness, and thank you for your determination to continue in a world that is generally so unappreciative of your work.
I am a 52-year-old female supporter of Bernie and I feel the same way. I hate the dirty tactics the Clinton campaign has been engaging in since the polls became basically a tie, and if he loses, I’ll be so depressed. I’m not going to vote for her just because she isn’t Trump — I’ll write in a third-party candidate or vote for Jill Stein instead.
A lot of the “journalists” Glenn talks about, like Jamil Smith or Emily Nussbaum, aren’t journalists at all. They don’t do their own research, they don’t bother interviewing people, they just have decent followings in old-brand publications and they think their opinions actually matter because they get dozens of retweets. It’s really sad to see.
Yes I don’t know how you endure the abuse. So sorry this vitriol is heaped upon you.
Below Ms. Monahol wrote:
“……As a public service, allow me to inform one and all that Glenn Greenwald has been (appropriately) harshing on Hillary Clinton for many years, well before most people had any idea who Bernie Sanders is……”
I’m not sure why this comment belongs at the head of a thread Mona, but sometimes we overrate our importance. The point I made was that the Intercept is staking a position in the US elections. There have been numerous stories by various authors (Schwarz, Fang, Greenwald etc.) rightly belittling Hillary, but nothing that I am aware of that takes Bernie Sanders to task. Sanders is a status quo US Senator albeit economically to the left and generally a progressive (i.e., a liberal). He is no extreme left winger.
This in not rocket science. Clearly the Intercept is anti-corporate, anti-war, anti-inequality and anti-American (while providing absolutely no solutions to any conflicts). Elections clearly matter. Even US elections where the Democrats are no different than the Republicans as we have been told numerous times. This is a concerted and coordinated effort to (unofficially) support Bernie Sanders by the Intercept staff regardless of past efforts by Glenn opposing Hillary Clinton. That’s irrelevant.
He’s a socialist. Probably more economically to the left than I am. But if he’s “status quo,” I like the status quo. Granted, he’s not a Maoist, but then who is?
You keep saying this:
Ok?
Doubtful. Glenn does not work “in concert” with the other writers here to support or target anyone. And he’s been slamming Hillary Clinton for almost his entire public writing career. This is not remotely new.
Glenn clearly would find more to like in Bernie Sanders than in any other candidate in either party. Ditto for Lee Fang and Jon Schwarz. And that would be true if Fang and Lee were not at the Intercept. Both have always been in that vein. And?
You are working very hard to imply dark wrongdoing where there is none.
“……..You are working very hard to imply dark wrongdoing where there is none…..”
I have never implied anything dark. There is nothing dark here. You are looking for more than sometimes I provide. My comments have just stated the obvious. Glenn says that Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same yet the Intercept is clearly staking a position. I’m just stating the obvious – elections matter. That’s all.
There is plenty of other things to take issue with which I have deferred for the moment like:
“…..Just as neocons have long sought to exploit “anti-Semitism” accusations as a means of deterring and delegitimizing criticisms of Israel (thus weakening and trivializing the ability to combat that very real menace)….”
This is such bullshit, but typical of someone who refuses to recognize that Jews were targeted during the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Indeed, no one throws out the race card like Greenwald article after article. That is classic far left rhetoric which goes back to the days of Columbus to accuse the west of racism. Greenwald even quotes Mischelle Alexander later in the same article ironically enough winging the racist card at Hillary and Bill. Obama did the same by the way in 2008. Sorry, if antisemitism is politicized so is just about every other kind of bigotry and racism.
Ok, Craig, you are seriously slipping into Twilight Zone territory. I’d not heard that the Charlie Hebdo staff was slaughtered because they were Jewish. Do tell.
@ Mona
He’s conflating the Jewish Deli murders as generally being part of the Charlie Hebdo murders. That’s all.
In which case his very conflation rebuts his point. World leaders did not turn out to march in France to the hashtag #JeSuisDeliJuif. Like most, Glenn wrote about the phenomenon that world leaders did turn out for, and the corresponding hashtag.
“…….I’d not heard that the Charlie Hebdo staff was slaughtered because they were Jewish. Do tell……”
Jesus Mona. You say your comments are fact based. How is that possible when you don’t even know what the facts are?
Craig, you dweeb. No Jews were targeted “during the Charlie Hebdo massacre.” The same day the same terrorists killed some Jews at a Paris Deli. It wasn’t the Charlie Hebdo massacre, a slaughter which reverberated around the world. You know, #JeSuisCharlie.
Then why did you start yet another one? When one thread gets quite long and old, it can make sense to move the convo to the top. But not when, as here, there is only one comment.
>”This is not rocket science.”
Well then, don’t just sit there like a knot on a log Craig. I don’t recall you telling us whom you’re rooting for? Speak up … if you have anything worthwhile to say about it.
I don’t believe you’re a ‘Trump’ bro (too uncouth for your polished silverware)? Rubio? Cruz? … Bush III, if he’s still in it?
Surely, you’re not a closet Clintonian … sulking over Glenn’s stinging barbs of criticism and pouting like a school girl!?
Granted, Jill Stein probably wouldn’t take you.
*I only ask because I really don’t think you’re that stupid (I don’t care what they say.)
To be honest with you I don’t care all that much. I just know that I won’t vote for Hillary or Bernie. I cannot stand Hillary, but I like Bernie (at least on a personal level). I’ll vote Republican as you might guess.
Craig, you are planning to vote for Donald Trump? Or possibly Ted Cruz?
Seriously? Donald fucking Trump, Craig?
The smears and labelling also bear a string resemblance to those dished out by Zionists against anyone who has even the mildest criticism of Israeli Apartheid. Antisemite must now be the weakest and most meaningless label.
John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill said this already in their 1859 book “On Liberty”:
“With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely, invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions. “–On Liberty, chapter 2.
WaPo: Bernie Sanders’s latest eye-popping crowd in Iowa
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/iowa-schools-cancel-classes.fb52?source=c.fb&r_by=15080297
Please promote this petition to encourage Iowa schools to let their students vote and cancel classes on monday. A disturbing number of students have been reporting that they aren’t allowed to skip class. thank you
Wow, just wow. This reads like a gamergater screed – another privileged white man using his position to downplay the suffering of women.
Glenn, your vitriol here (those last two paragraphs of virulent misogyny really should have been cleaned up by an editor) has only made it clear that the “Bernie Bro” phenomenon is real. You’d have to be some kind of conspiracy theorist to think that ALL of those journalists are working together to propagate this kind of narrative – just face the facts, namely that Bernie’s supporters are mostly hate-filled white men.
Glenn Greenwald’s “last two paragraphs” slightly edited for a reason which will become obvious:
“if you’re a Clinton media supporter, the last thing you want to do is talk about his record in helping to construct the supremely oppressive and racist U.S. penal state. You don’t even want to acknowledge what Alexander and Coates wrote. You most certainly don’t want to talk about how he’s drowning both personally and politically in Wall Street money. You sure don’t want to talk about what his bombing campaign did to Libya, or the military risks that his no-fly-zone in Syria would entail, or the great admiration and affection he proclaimed for Egyptian despot Hosni Mubarak, or revisit his steadfast advocacy of the greatest political crime of this generation, the invasion of Iraq. You don’t want to talk about his vile condemnation of “super-predators,” or his record on jobs-destroying trade agreements, or the fact that he changed his position from vehement opposition to support for marriage equality only after polls and most Democratic politicians switched sides.
“Indeed, outside of a very small number of important issues where his record is actually good, you don’t want to talk much at all about his actual beliefs and actions. Watch how many progressive endorsements of Clinton simply ignore all of that. It’s much better to re-direct the focus away from Clinton’s history of beliefs and policy choices onto the repugnant, stray comments of obscure, unknown, anonymous people on the internet claiming (accurately or not) to be supporters of Bernie Sanders. The fact that it may be an effective tactic – mostly because most Democratic media figures are equally fervent Clinton supporters and thus willing to unite to prop it up and endorse it – does not make it any less ugly or deceitful.”
***
Please point out where you see “misogyny” in those two paragraphs. Be specific.
There will be no answer for the reasons already noted by GG in the article, and note that he also predicted this. Which is no great accomplishment: it’s more certain than gravity, unfortunately.
Stop erasing the many, many women Bernie supporters. Most non-GOP women under 45, and 1/3 over.
I’ve been writing agitprop for Bernie Sanders in the comment sections for several months now at various sites, Wapo and The Hill mostly. I try to keep it above the belt most of the time. Usually, I list some of the things he wants to do, like tax Wall Street, break up the big banks, create 13 million new jobs etc. and so forth.
We try to keep a positive message going. Chris Goodman, a commentator, at The Hill keeps plugging away. Recently, The Donald came out in favor of letting Medicare negotiate drug prices, like Hillary, and Bernie and probably O’Malley. So we are having some effect. Soon the H1-B visa abuse problem will explode into the political system. Bernie will have to make an accommodation there.
It seems like most millennials are creating their own media these days. They are at Reddit of TYT.
Republicans are already talking about a Special Prosecutor in Hillary’s email case. Is that hitting below the belt?
Of course leftists are going to stab BernieBros in the back.
Their miserable leftists. Cannibalism is like a hobby for them just run your fingers over all the scars on your back.
“Lost & Found, can I help you? You are looking for your miserable leftists? Oh, sorry. You are looking for their miserable leftists. Let me see if anybody has turned something in. What color were they? They were cannibals? Cannibal leftists? Just a sec………..My manager said nobody has turned in their miserable leftists today. If you leave your number I’ll let you know if their miserable leftists show up.”
actually it’s about ethics in primary campaigning
Top kek, as they say
I am a Sanders volunteer. In phone banking seminars we are trained to be friendly and mindful. I have become a more courteous driver because I have a Bernie sticker on the back of my car. Commenting on online sites has turned around drastically,as Bernie rose in the polls. You can easily tell what people work for the Clinton campaign. Their profiles are completely hidden. They were friendly and compassionate and usually very knowledgeable. As Sanders grew closer in the polls, team Clinton became more aggressive, using scare tactics and accusing us to be Trump supporters. Now it is downright ugly with comments such as “don’t breed”.
What the Clinton campaign doesn’t understand is that this backfires. We are connected on fb and the Sander’s Website by the hundreds of thousands. You attack us or worse, Bernie – we donate until it hurts.
Below, Mr. Craig Summers wrote:
Apparently, the site software is again killing comments with more than one link. I replied to the above, with links, to old Greenwald Salon pieces on…Hillary Clinton.
As a public service, allow me to inform one and all that Glenn Greenwald has been (appropriately) harshing on Hillary Clinton for many years, well before most people had any idea who Bernie Sanders is.
Because Hillary Clinton holds — and has endorsed — many repugnant views, over the course of decades, Glenn Greenwald finds, and has long found, Hillary Clinton terribly objectionable. Quite apart from the 2016 election.
A comment I put up on Meet The Press fb page this morning:
” Finally this morning on MTP, Tom Brokaw brought up how no one is talking about foreign policy with candidates…including you Chuck Todd. Then Brokaw (clearly a Hillary supporter) takes an opportunity to take a shot at Sanders who he did ask about foreign policy and Brokaw said was “all over the place.” Sanders has repeatedly said the U.s. needs to focus on IS. What Brokaw and all of the other people around that discussion table have completely failed to do is ask Hillary Clinton about her very deadly war hawkish stands as a member of the Senate voting for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 and her continued aggressive and deadly push as Secretary of State for a military intervention in Libya and arming rebels in Syria. All three of these regime change efforts have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, injuries and millions of refugees. Yet somehow you Meet The Press folks and MSNBC folks have failed to bring this neocon war hawk stance of Clinton’s to the fore front. How convenient, selective and oh so telling. What it tells is that you have played softball or no ball at all with Clinton’s aggressive and deadly war policy. Even Joy Reid played the game and said that Rubio’s neocon status was to be examined. Yet Joy Reid completely failed to bring up Clinton’s deadly neocon war record. Nothing brought up about this critical issue on Melissa Harris Perry’s show either where Joy was a guest. Joy said progressives are upset with Obama based on his cave to Wall Street (Eric Holder and Obama Wall Street players, along with Hillary), not getting Single payer. What Joy failed to do is bring up people being rightfully pissed off with Clinton (Iraq) and Obama and then Secretary of State Clinton’s deadly war strategies in Libya and Syria. A huge and calculated over sight by Joy…. Shameful and dishonest on all of your parts. Does not reflect a healthy or unbiased media…….Not sure why Sanders has not gone after Clinton based on the facts with Clinton’s war record. h I still support him based on his voting record, his focus on the corruption in this country and he is far more reasonable than Hillary Clinton on foreign policy. Far more”
Was beat up a bit for this comment but mostly support, Stayed as Top comment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jan-schakowsky/why-this-progressive-is-r_b_8998288.html
“Kathleen Galt ·
“Believing that a woman will be a more empathetic and progressive candidate because of her gender is another form of sexism”
As far as Hillary protecting women and children talk with those still alive in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Ask them about Hillary’s vote for the 2002 Iraq war resolution giving the green light to the Bush administration’s efforts to invade Iraq on a “pack of lies” Ask the women and children subject to the disastrous intervention in Libya and the Obama’s administration decision to arm rebels in Syria…fomenting the violence there. Hillary as Secretary of State pushed for all of these deadly disasters. So much for Hillary’s support for women and children.
Not sure how Rep Schakowsky voted on the Iraq war resolulution or on breaking up the banks. However her definition of a progressive including HIllary is a far cry from what I consider progressive.
Senator Sanders is the closest we have gotten to a real progressive in a very long time”
Re: this: ““Kathleen Galt ·
“Believing that a woman will be a more empathetic and progressive candidate because of her gender is another form of sexism””
Bingo. It’s just narcissism, really. In a certain context, most Jews would love to be considered somehow innately smarter. But not innately cheaper. Same logic — prejudicial — but the complimentary one is joyfully accepted whereas the insulting one is rejected with anger. All-too-human, of course; limited to no granfalloon.
Thanks for this important piece. Die hard Hillary supporters go blind when you challenge them with facts. I have been attacked when I bring up HIllary’s war record.
Comment and responses at Hardball fb page Kathleen Galt wonder if any of you MSNBC folks will grow some and ask Hillary about her aggressive and deadly neocon war hawk actions Iraq war vote, Secretary of State push for intervention in Libya and arming rebels in Syria…all ending up in deadly fiasco’s (especially for the people of these countries). When will you ask her straight forward questions about her war hawkish stands and actions. Chris you have recently been trying to spin her as “center left” What a bunch of bshit. In the past you have been willing to be honest about her very radical war hawkish stances. Clintons and Comcast have you by the cojones? $$$$$$? You get quite the paycheck falling in line
Like · Reply · 3 · 58 mins
Joy Gale
Joy Gale Really Kathleen? If you want to go after Hillary, we first must put Bush/Cheney & Rumsfeld in prison for war crimes. I love how everyone keeps going after a woman, but forget all the men who have destroyed this country.
Like · Reply · 11 · 51 mins
Joan Borrelli Califano
Joan Borrelli Califano get lost, Kathleen Galt…ur a repug and u have the nerve to degrade Hillary…
Like · Reply · 3 · 44 mins
Joan Borrelli Califano
Joan Borrelli Califano Joy Gale … i agree with ur post, but it’s no sense trying to talk sense to a repug…
Like · Reply · 4 · 42 mins
Kathleen Galt
Kathleen Galt Joan Borrelli Califano Die hard Dem with a conscience which Clinton does not have…and Bernie does. Facts really Bern you too bad you have such a hard time with the truth. Don’t worry the talking heads on so called progressive outlets are protecting Clinton’s bloody war record too…so not to worry
Like · Reply · 32 mins · Edited
Richard Citron
Richard Citron Ask the simple questions. Like: What did Goldman Sachs get for their $600,000 for three speeches fee?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 37 mins
Kathleen Galt
Kathleen Galt Joy Gale I have relentlessly gone after Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rice etc in D.C. and elsewhere. However why is it that blind Dem’s want to conveniently forget Clinton’s role in giving the green light to the Bush administrations invasion of …See More
What Hillary Clinton wants you to forget: Her disastrous record as a…
salon.com|By Jack Mirkinson
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 32 mins
Kathleen Galt
Kathleen Galt Richard Citron Why not also ask her about her war record? What are they afraid of…..? Access to her?
Like · Reply · 29 mins
Kathleen Galt
Kathleen Galt Joan Borrelli Califano You are so wrong it is comical. Challenge a Hillary supporter and this is what you get…irrational responses…no facts
Like · Reply · 16 mins · Edited
Kathleen Galt
Kathleen Galt http://www.thenation.com/article/hawk-named-hillary/
A comment I put up on Meet The Press fb page this morning. No one willing to mention Hillary’s war record. Talk about the elephant in the room.
Staying up as a top comment…https://www.facebook.com/MeetThePress/?fref=ts
Kathleen Galt Finally this morning on MTP, Tom Brokaw brought up how no one is talking about foreign policy with candidates…including you Chuck Todd. Then Brokaw (clearly a Hillary supporter) takes an opportunity to take a shot at Sanders who he did ask about foreign policy and Brokaw said was “all over the place.” Sanders has repeatedly said the U.s. needs to focus on IS. What Brokaw and all of the other people around that discussion table have completely failed to do is ask Hillary Clinton about her very deadly war hawkish stands as a member of the Senate voting for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 and her continued aggressive and deadly push as Secretary of State for a military intervention in Libya and arming rebels in Syria. All three of these regime change efforts have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, injuries and millions of refugees. Yet somehow you Meet The Press folks and MSNBC folks have failed to bring this neocon war hawk stance of Clinton’s to the fore front. How convenient, selective and oh so telling. What it tells is that you have played softball or no ball at all with Clinton’s aggressive and deadly war policy. Even Joy Reid played the game and said that Rubio’s neocon status was to be examined. Yet Joy Reid completely failed to bring up Clinton’s deadly neocon war record. Nothing brought up about this critical issue on Melissa Harris Perry’s show either where Joy was a guest. Joy said progressives are upset with Obama based on his cave to Wall Street (Eric Holder and Obama Wall Street players, along with Hillary), not getting Single payer. What Joy failed to do is bring up people being rightfully pissed off with Clinton (Iraq) and Obama and then Secretary of State Clinton’s deadly war strategies in Libya and Syria. A huge and calculated over sight by Joy…. Shameful and dishonest on all of your parts. Does not reflect a healthy or unbiased media…….Not sure why Sanders has not gone after Clinton based on the facts with Clinton’s war record. h I still support him based on his voting record, his focus on the corruption in this country and he is far more reasonable than Hillary Clinton on foreign policy. Far more
Have very low expectations and no desire for a better future for yourself, your children, and your fellow Americans?
Vote Hillary.
Hillary may lose the White House again, and it will be because she only thinks about herself. Her attacks on Bernie Sanders show how out of touch with Americans she actually is. Why support Hillary?
Hillary Surging with Americans Harboring Low Expectations, No Ambition for Better Future
http://www.theniladmirari.com/2016/01/democratic-presidential-candidate-former-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-surging-with-americans-with-low-expectations-no-ambition.html
“low expectations” is what she is pushing….sad.
Bernie is talking about building upon Obamacare (hillarycare, Romney care) and Hillary wants to halt that movement. Do we know how many private insurance companies have donated to her campaign?
Sanders would be yet another steward of American imperialism. Or at the very least, Sanders would be a slightly less hawkish steward than Hillary. If you’re running for POTUS, you’re running for imperialism. It’s in the job description.
But if we examine what animates the structure of imperialism, in the long term, domestic policy has a profound effect on foreign policy.
The excellent Stephan Gowans makes the point, on Libya and beyond:
https://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/libya-imperialism-and-the-left/
And here’s Deep State Zbigniew Brzezinski, along concurrent lines:
The GWOT represents a major coup in that regard. After the fall of the USSR, America’s identity vacuum filled with an alien force that can never be defeated, only contained, within a perpetual state of emergency. This engenders exactly the sort of nationalism that precludes examination of class, and its relationship to democracy, as the starting point of any holistic politics.
There’s that old saying (was it Twain?) “Empire abroad, Empire at home”.
But its backwards. Empire at home, empire abroad. America’s heritage as a colonial slave state still acts on the phenotype. It’s not vestigial. It’s here and now. Long term, the universal content of socialism at home effects the imperial interest abroad. Precisely because the imperial interest is a capital interest. And so the task is to level that interest. I’m not saying Sanders is necessarily the answer here. As others have noted, he’s a New Deal Democrat in socialist garb. But any socialist movement in capitalist politics, even nominally speaking, agitates against imperialism on a fundamental level that is, in return, fundamentally obscured. This is an ameliorative argument to be sure, but short of collapse/revolution, the “national interest” will remain a class interest.
“far less hawkish” Clinton was terribly and deadly complicit in the invasion of Iraq. As Secretary of State she continued with the neocon agenda in Libya, Syria. All resulting in hundreds of thousands of dead, injured and millions of refugees.
Sanders is far less hawkish. I will not vote for a woman who has demonstrated that she is as blood thirsty as Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz…come on. How is she different than these warmongers.
“Believing that a woman will be a more empathetic and progressive candidate because of her gender is another form of sexism”
Having caught a Bernie Sanders speech last week (I live in Iowa), I can say that whenever people say “he’s not as radical as he advertises himself” have no idea what they are talking about. Essentially they create a straw man to beat up in various ways, either by claiming he is “too” radical or is a “fake” radical.
Here, so it can’t be mistaken:
SANDERS DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE A RADICAL.
The hour-long speech I saw, which so far as I know was representative, made such charges unrecognizable. He emphasizes that his ideas are NOT radical — that they are expected policy in many other countries. He does reference the idea of foreign threats to America in the speech I saw and elsewhere. These are not my favorite parts. He does not pretend to be a radical peacenik. I happen to be a radical peacenik myself. At the same time, what BenjaminAP and Kathleen both point out is that Sanders is unusually non-hawkish for a contender. I agree with that.
I believe if the USA put vast energies into fixing infrastructure (economic, environmental, physical) and making the whole place more economically inclusive, that would be a move for peace too.
I know some of the people who want Sanders to make certain kinds of statements or not run as a Democrat are sincere, and I am also pretty sure that some of them are just running interference for — I have no idea, honestly, it’s not like they like Clinton, right? They might believe in that old notion that merely partial improvement will just forestall the real revolution, the one that’s always coming (and never here). Frankly, I don’t have a lot of hope in that real revolution around the corner. I’m happily compromising, folks, on this bandwagon until the wheels fall off or it gets to the White House. I figure I can always gripe later.
People need to realize that all these gender and identity politicos operate on the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy, in their heads they cannot comprehend that someone whom they claim they are speaking for could disagree with their opinions, so instead they either pretend they aren’t real, or pretend that their dissenters are white straight males posing as non-caucasian/LGBT/women (aka ‘Sockpuppets’).
I am not a member of the media, but I do have many friends who support Bernie and I have participated in some public threads discussing Hillary vs. Bernie. Bernie supporters are far and away the more abusive and hostile of the two. As somebody said, Bernie doesn’t have supporters, he has believers. I like Bernie, but the attitude of many of his supporters is a turn-off. And I am SO done with them painting Hillary as the devil incarnate.
This is a welcome perspective on the groupthink/hive tendency of the conversation to devolve into frivolous banter.
I’m glad there’s somebody out there with a platform taking it on. I wish there was an effective mechanism to more quickly snuff this stuff out as it seems, quite cynically, that the damage is largely done on a calendar that is not practicably responsive.
Nothing in your thorough, albeit unabashedly biased, blog erases the direct experience I’ve encountered on multiple sites from people who claim to be Bernie supporters. The emphasis with these folks has been decidedly misogynistic and mostly contained ad hominem attacks. Not sure how you ‘splain those.
Another Sanders supporter, Robert Reich, may have something to worry about as well.
http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2016/01/ucop-ordered-spyware-installed-on-uc.html
It seems Janet Napolitano, a former colleague of Clinton on the Obama cabinet, now wants to read UC professors’ e-mails. Story in today’s SF Chronicle. Reich is a professor at UC Berkeley, BTW.
Glenn Greenwald suggests that I made up the idea that he is quiet when it comes to Sanders support for US military actions in Muslim countries while he consistently thrash Clinton and Obama for those actions. Yet, nobody including himself can provide me with one (1) article he wrote bashing Sanders for that reason.
“Do you really need me to provide links to the times when I have pointed this out, or can you just save me the time and admit that you made this up?”
Glenn Greenwald
I am still waiting Greenwald. You have to make me stupid or you will be the one looking stupid.
Lenk, please stop making new threads with this goal-post moving. Thanks.
It’s a reasonable question.
Glenn never claimed that he “bashed Sanders for that reason.” Glenn stated, correctly, that he has repeatedly noted that Sanders has a more militaristic foreign policy than Glenn endorses.
Moreover, whether lenk’s question is good or not, we don’t need constant new threads asking it.
“…….Moreover, whether lenk’s question is good or not, we don’t need constant new threads asking it……”
Then answer the question and he won’t…….
The actual question has already been answered. Lenk didn ‘t like the answer so he moved the goalpost, and no one here is playing that frequent lenk game. But to repeat: Glenn never claimed that he “bashed Sanders for that reason.” Glenn stated, correctly, that he has repeatedly noted that Sanders has a more militaristic foreign policy than Glenn endorses.
Mona, I notice that Glenn won’t talk about the Lusitania coverup or the Richard III controversy.
Coram, I’m almost positive Glenn has never publicly held forth on Lochner. Do you suppose he approves of it? Does Bernie!? Let’s get lenk and Craig to do some dot-connecting.
How do you know that’s Lenk?
Lenk has posted as Samantha before, and doesn’t deny it. He never denies his new accounts. The LOLs and name-calling are stylistically Lenk. He’s pretty obvious.
Thanks Mona, and now you will know that I didn’t post “How do you know that’s lenk?” to you as well. Well, maybe “know” is too strong a word.
I do kinda sorta appreciate this sort of thing artistically, kinda sorta, after all I have advocated posting false info on Facebook, although I didn’t go so far as to advocate hacking other people’s accounts and pretending to be them.
Um, ha ha ha, I’m all cool with the tomfoolery of namechanging and all, but
I use my ACTUAL NAME here, and the person who wrote “how do you know that’s Lenk?” is NOT ME.
I think at the very least there could be that much control over posting conventions on this site? My name is linked to an email address. Don’t just let anybody use my name.
I presume the site doesn’t allow just anyone to post as “Glenn Greenwald” correct? How about extending that courtesy to other commenters too.
(No, this is not Glenn Greenwald speaking… just testing your hypothesis… let’s see if this posts)
So I was wrong. This is better than the early 70s. It’s “Free To Be You & Me…and Anyone Else You Want to Claim to Be, Including Me.”
They….they might want to do something about this.
That is a very reasonable question. Why does Greenwald write so many articles against Clinton and I can’t find any against Sanders? Clinton was a public servant and Sanders is still an elected official.
Another legitimate question is how do you know Samantha is Lenk? Unless you have access to our IP address there’s no way you can know who a commentator is. Maybe I am Craig or I am the real Lenk. I know this is your tactic to get people banned here when they make you look stupid, but I doubt anyone here authorized TI to share that information to you.
The ‘lenk’ person has a distinctive voice. I’ve heard it too.
It’s a weak sauce what-about, why-haven’t-you, coupled with ESL issues that just stand out.
Samantha is free to engage in conversation to demonstrate she is not an ignorant.
That is a very legitimate question. If she is wrong and Glenn did in fact write articles criticizing Sanders, then he should share the links as he stated he could. What is the problem?
Another legitimate question is how do you who she is? The only way you can know that is that if you have access to her IP address. Does TI give you the IP addresses of commentators here? Are you aware that would be illegal unless you are part of TI? Finally, what do you mean by ” we don’t need”? Who are “we”? Do you represent commentators here? You definitely do not represent me and I do not care whether you ask a question 500 times!
I’m quite sure that has been accomplished.
Axiomatically, even.
No he didn’t. He explicitly stated that you were wrong.
This is what he said to you:
Continuing to assert that something didn’t happen when it actually did simply makes you a fool.
Sanders voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution. Since congress did not have to vote on the military intervention in Libya or arming the rebels in Syria that Obama and Clinton completely supported. How is it that you can provide evidence where Sanders supported these bloody and deadly interventions that provided more open space for IS to flourish?
Clinton’s vote for the 2002 Iraq war resolution provided the green light for that deadly and immoral invasion. Clinton continued her neocon war hawkish strategy (that she went along with in Iraq) in Libya and Syria
Proof that Sanders supported Libya…Syria?
Pr
“Sanders voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution.”
And then he voted, repeatedly, to authorize funds for the war — gotta “support our troops,” ya know.
It’s an old scam and it works because voters and “journalists” can’t be bothered to check voting records thoroughly.
He supports targeted killings by drone, too. Wanna challenge me to prove it?
EXACTLY.
Glenn Greenwald, your analysis is well done. Maybe I missed something, it doesnt appear that you are endorsing Sanders or any candidate? I respectfully request that if you are going to endorse any candidate make it perfectly clear. I dont want to waste my time on a piece that promotes anyone that I dont care about.
I doubt Glenn will endorse a US candidate, but he does have favorites. By endorsing a status quo candidate like Sanders (especially one that supports Israel), he might lose his counter establishment MO.
Do you get paid to post your blithering nonsense online? Lol!
Craig, Sanders is far left.
And I am both social conservative and democratic socialist. Depending on the pressing issue ;-) So your point, Mona, is?
Or is it ?: both democratic socialist and social conservative?
Left brain. Right brain. Or is it: Right brain. Left brain? BRILLIANT! on so many levels, imho. Thanks for the heads up!
Bernie Sanders – The President We’ve Been Waiting For
Grassroots for Bernie Sanders 36,868 views
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=645mtthz8Io
Well, Craig insists Glenn and I are both “far left.” But I imagine he thinks well of Ron Radosh, and as my link shows Radosh says Sanders is far left. Why Craig disagrees with Radosh and insists Sanders is “status quo” certainly bears some explaining.
By US standards – at least economically speaking – he is a far left candidate. Politically, I don’t know where he stands on a number of issues. If he believes that Islamic terrorists are really the victims, then he is an extremist. If he won’t recognize that Jews were targeted during the Charlie Hebdo massacre, then he is an extremist. If he believes that Jews have no right to self determination, then he is an extremist. You tell me.
Now, now Craig. You claimed Bernie Sanders is a “status quo” candidate. Yet, here you claim that by U.S. metrics he is, indeed, “far left.” Further, you announce ignorance of his views on 3 of your favorite pseudo-issues. So, it’s awfully odd that you started out claiming to know he’s “status quo” (and that this is why Glenn wouldn’t endorse him).
“……..Further, you announce ignorance of his views on 3 of your favorite pseudo-issues…..”
OK Mona. Can you give me one Greenwald article where he mentions that Jews were targeted as a part of the Charlie Hebdo massacre? And how is it a pseudo issue if YOU don’t believe Jews have a right to self determination, Mona?
“CraigSummers and Mona”: I think you both ought have a get together. Primarily because you both “feed off each other”.
We have spent a good deal of time arguing the issues. We do get together – here.
Thanks.
Play with yourself(ves) online if that’s what you require. Lol!
Well, I’ve (mostly) stopped replying to any of his bullshit about the (genuflecting) Great and Glorious State of Israel. My doing so was annoying readers, and I agree it had all been said, over and over.
If many still think it would be better for me to just ignore Craig, I’ll do that. He’s just among mes divertessements.
FAR LEFT !!! … maybe he’s far left for the U$A … out here in the ‘Rest Of The World’ Bernie is a model moderate conservative.
you guys think anyone who wouldn’t sell their child to the Catholic Church for a dollar is an anti capitalist / socialist.
get a grip … or at the very least, a sense of perspective.
… the reason the U$A Empire is descending in ever smaller circles is that it has two right wings – pretty soon your head will catch up with your arse and you will disappear up your own fundament(als).
Owen, I don’t actually believe Bernie Sanders is “far left.” But Craig should. Instead, Craig claimed Sanders is a “status quo” candidate. He can’t reconcile these things so he wants to change the subject to his pet pseudo-issues.
“…….He can’t reconcile these things so he wants to change the subject to his pet pseudo-issues……”
You are lying Mona – again
No Craig. Read your posts again. You really did write that Bernie Sanders is a “status quo” candidate, but can’t explain how that fits with him also being “far left.” Additionally, you really did toss in non sequiturs to distract from that hole you had dug for yourself.
Right Mona – and you still have not found me an article at the Intercept calling Bernie sanders to task, right (speak about changing the subject)?
Mr. Greenwald
Someone needs to tell Mona that the Intercept (and you) are campaigning on behalf of Bernie Sanders – even if unofficially. This little diatribe is a classic example:
“…….If you’re a Clinton media supporter, the last thing you want to do is talk about her record in helping to construct the supremely oppressive and racist U.S. penal state. You don’t even want to acknowledge what Alexander and Coates wrote. You most certainly don’t want to talk about how she’s drowning both personally and politically in Wall Street money. You sure don’t want to talk about what her bombing campaign did to Libya, or the military risks that her no-fly-zone in Syria would entail, or the great admiration and affection she proclaimed for Egyptian despot Hosni Mubarak, or revisit her steadfast advocacy of the greatest political crime of this generation, the invasion of Iraq……”
Yea, the US penal system is all Hillary’s doing. Your article is not pointing out anything new. Whether the elections are in the primary season or during the campaign for President, smearing in national elections is generally based on either desperation or just a close race. That includes the perpetual use of the race card by Democrats when the race gets close (not to mention your perpetual use of the race card which also cheapens the accusation). Accusations of racism are also tossed about liberally during the primaries by Democrats (see the 2008 Obama campaign, for example). The more important point is that the next President of the US is no longer anointed to a Clinton. Hillary is falling behind and so the Clinton machine starts rolling smearing along the way. Who would have expected a different result?
“……Welcome to my inbox and Twitter feed….”
What’s new? When it comes to bucking the status quo whether in national elections or in the Intercept comments section, smearing is a common tactic to discredit the individual. Unfortunately, in your position, that is going to happen.
Perhaps Mr. Greenwald and The Intercept staff are engaged and invested in something far more important than simply trying to “make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear” ? I like food for thought :-).
That’s true on one level, in the sense that there’s nothing new under the sun. But it is new that the media — that’s mostly on Team Hillary — is manufacturing this “Bernie Bros” controversy. That’s what Glenn’s column is about, and it’s not only new, it needed saying.
“…….that’s mostly on Team Hillary — is manufacturing this “Bernie Bros” controversy. That’s what Glenn’s column is about, and it’s not only new, it needed saying…..”
Really? Didn’t Glenn give poll numbers which showed significant support for Sanders by women? Apparently women aren’t getting the “Clinton” message. The article is strictly about discrediting Hillary. Elections are important Mona. Only this comes after years of Glenn saying that the Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same.
No Craig. the article is about what Glenn said it was in his lede sentence: “The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic – and a journalistic disgrace. ” See those words, Craig? “Journalist” and “journalistic?” That’s what the article’s primarily about.
Craig, you remain a useful foil.
“…..Craig, you remain a useful foil…..”
Mona, you remain a useful foil.
But Craig, you never effectively rebut me. All you do is provide me and others endless opportunities to restate Glenn’s point, and to add more information that undermines your preferred narratives. It’s unclear why you would continue to be of such assistance, but you do.
“……..But Craig, you never effectively rebut me. All you do is provide me and others endless opportunities to restate Glenn’s point, and to add more information that undermines your preferred narratives…..”
Sorry Mona, but nothing you say undermines my preferred narratives except that the Intercept continues to carry article after article deriding Hillary while never saying anything negative about Bernie. And you are going to stick with this is only about journalism? The INTERCEPT is ass deep in this election, OK? When are you going to figure that out? This is a conscious effort to expose Hillary in support of Bernie Sanders. I am fine with it because I cannot stand her.
But I am open to you showing me an article in the Intercept which derides Sanders. You are nothing but a tool of the Intercept, Mona.
Thanks.
Craig, this is where you should have stopped: “This is a conscious effort to expose Hillary.” Glenn’s been exposing the foulness of Hillary Clinton since before he or I knew the name “Craig Summers.”
Craig, that literally made me laugh out loud. I am a “tool of the Intercept.” HAHAHAHAHA
WTF can such a thing even mean? No don’t answer that. Or yes, maybe do. It’s good either to imagine what you mean, or to see how you elaborate.
“……..WTF can such a thing even mean? No don’t answer that. Or yes, maybe do. It’s good either to imagine what you mean, or to see how you elaborate…..”
Or even change the subject because you cannot find ONE article that criticizes Bernie sanders. I would go so far as to say that this is a conscious and coordinated effort on the part of the Intercept (because US elections matter).
Craig, let’s say that’s true, so what? I mean, how is this bad? Obviously, among all the candidates running in ’16 Bernie Sanders most closely tracks Glenn Greenwald’s views. No one is trying to hide this. What are you on about!?
And Craig, do, oh please do, tell us all what this means: “You are nothing but a tool of the Intercept, Mona.”
On the subject of Greenwald being pro-Bernie, I’ll just respond directly with a quote from the post:
“… I don’t personally have a problem with that: I see nothing wrong with journalists being vehemently devoted to a political candidate. But it’s important to know what it is. As is true for most campaign operatives, they have thrown all concern about truth and facts into the garbage can in exchange for saying anything that they perceive will help the Clinton campaign win.”
In other words, this isn’t about who you support, but about poor journalistic practices. Journalism isn’t neutrality of opinion, but neutrality of facts.
The rest of your comment seems to be saying, in short, “yeah, but everyone does it” as a dismissal of the problem. It’s a problem, even if similar things have happened in the past. This is an attempt to counteract poor journalism.
He wants to blame Hillary for the omnibus crime bill her husband signed into law which expanded private prisons along with mandatory minimums for non violent offenders, expanded death penalties and trying 13 year olds as adults.
However, he neglects to mention Bernie voted “yea” for that horrible crime bill.
Meanwhile, another former cabinet colleague of Sec. Clinton is in the news today. It seems Janet Napolitano, in her current capacity as president of the Univ. of California system, has spyware on UC faculty e-mails.
http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2016/01/ucop-ordered-spyware-installed-on-uc.html
Fun fact: Robert Reich, who has endorsed Bernie Sanders, is a professor at UC Berkeley. See, e.g.,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/27/want-to-reverse-sky-high-inequality-bernie-sanders-is-the-pragmatic-choice
Thanks for this. I wish it wasn’t necessary.
Glenn, I’ve followed you since your Salon days, and followed even though I often haven’t agreed with you.
Maybe you can learn from this experience what people like me have been telling you about “men’s rights”, and even “gamergate”.
A lot of gross distortions made with impunity by well, the establishment and repeated endlessly by the media.
Thank you for all your hard work to bring truth to the people! We will not forget!
The most ‘frightening’ aspect of Glenn Greenwald is that he gives other people a voice. Frightening to those who only want to listen to their own voice. I would like to thank Glenn Greenwald for giving me a voice.
I see we’re still feeling the Bern at TI.
~Peace-loving Senator Sanders in an interview with FOX news host Bill O’Reilly.
Who Cares
Everyone with a brain should care.
Why don’t you?
Sanders isn’t running as the “peace-loving” candidate, and there’s none of the false self-advertisement that you imply. Mind you, he’s hardly running as a xenophobe or expansionist either.
Transforming American foreign policy has not been a promise of his campaign. There’s no “gotcha” there, Doug.
AND, Clinton and the Repubs want to deal with Russia militarily.
Winston Churchill, loudly quoted by Repubs and New Labour idiots in Blighty, said “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”…the pinko.
Do you think sanctions are something other than an act of war? Were you OK with the US sanctions on Iraq that caused about a million premature deaths, half of them children?
Do you, like Madeleine Albright, think it was “worth it?”
Pete
“…….AND, Clinton and the Repubs want to deal with Russia militarily…..”
Maybe you should attempt to define how the Repubs and Clinton want to use the military – or just quit your bullshitting, OK?
Russia did illegally annex part of a sovereign nation because their puppet was removed from power. Putin is supporting an insurrection against the state of Ukraine. Are you saying there should be no consequences for Putin’s actions?
Craig, are you suggesting that interfering in the affairs of other countries in order to bring about government overthrow is wrong on principle?
“……Craig, are you suggesting that interfering in the affairs of other countries in order to bring about government overthrow is wrong on principle?….”
I don’t think I ever said it was wrong on principle. After all, we invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden (who ran the terrorist training camps responsible for murdering people everywhere on earth). It just depends Jose. But clearly the Russian incorporation of a part of a sovereign nation crosses that line, right?
I don’t know. Maybe they have the noblest of intentions, as I’m sure they claim. Absent any principles on such matters, how can one tell if a country has a right to intervene in the affairs of other countries?
Oh, nonsense. Crimea has been Russian since 1783, when Sevastopol and the Black Sea fleet were both founded under Catherine the Great. The fact that it was administratively assigned to Ukraine by Khrushchev doesn’t change that centuries-old reality.
The US fomented a coup, with real, live Nazi shock troops, to overthrow the elected leader you refer to a a puppet. That’s the reason for the annexation of Crimea (with which Crimeans are generally delighted) and the insurrection in the Donbass — in Russia’s natural sphere of influence, by any geopolitical measure except the one used by American jingoists.
What you’re seeing are the consequences of Victoria Nuland’s, Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s actions (with a little help from their NATO puppets).
All that means is that Bernie Sanders is not exactly radical. Especially on foreign policy, his views are conventional by US standards. On economic policy, he’s nothing more than a “New Deal” type of leader — someone trying to save capitalism from itself, essentially. But he is quite different from the rest of the field, no doubt about it.
“………On economic policy, he’s nothing more than a “New Deal” type of leader — someone trying to save capitalism from itself, essentially…..”
I am always amazed at people who say these ridiculous things. How did the US create such wealth?
You really don’t know? WWI and WWII were major boons to the US (which is perhaps why Americans love war.) The world wars destroyed much of US competition. Geographic isolation helped the US avoid the widespread destruction that took place in Europe and Asia. Just prior to WWII, the US did have the highest GDP in the world, but not by much. After WWII, the US had 50% of the world’s GDP. US planners decided it was important to preserve that GDP disparity, and that is what has driven US imperialism in the post-war period.
There are other aspects of economic development that are often overlooked. For example, much of the computer technology around us comes from public investment, primarily in the US but also Europe.
We can go quite a bit further back than WWI to answer that question. The Half Has Never Been Told
Also…
“……..US planners decided it was important to preserve that GDP disparity, and that is what has driven US imperialism in the post-war period…..”
You have to love that statement. So by supporting globalization, the US was interested in preserving the disparity? By signing NAFTA and other trade agreements, the US was preserving the disparity? You can make up all you want but the US has supported growth through support of free trade. Capitalism works. Why is that so difficult to see?
Capitalism has had a pretty good run of about 300 years. It has produced some results. But like systems before it, such as Feudalism and Slavery, it will come to an end and be replaced with something better. Is that difficult to see? Capitalism is a very unstable system with significant problems in terms of accumulation of wealth and the political power that comes with that.
The story of how the US created such wealth is mostly the story of massive wage theft by capitalists.
A system that is based in private property but which values freedom is consistent with the existence of a dependent underclass of workers.
Without intervention or regulation, the Invisible Hand is prone to grabbing as much as it can.
“…….The story of how the US created such wealth is mostly the story of massive wage theft by capitalists……”
Right on, Karl. Now China which has the second most billionaires in the world is practicing the same methods of wage theft lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. Isn’t capitalism grand?
What China did 30 years ago is exploit Western capitalism, and it worked. Basically, they very intentionally decided to use their skilled labor force to become the manufacturing base of the world (mainly Europe and the US).
About 80% of China’s top companies are owned by the government, though. That’s a lot more than many countries considered socialist.
He’s a standard-issue, run-of-the-mill, American exceptionalist, supporter of empire and friend of the MIC.
And a completely phony “socialist” — a liar.
That totally disqualifies him for me.
You indeed should not support the straw Bernie Sanders you have invented, Doug. Never vote for candidates who don’t exist.
Along with the crime bill Clinton signed the dissolution of glass-steagall just to allow Citi group to buy travelers insurance but became the foundation of the biggest economic collapse since 1929.
Here is a great invest $650,000 by goldman sachs to HRC to keep the zero-low interest borrowing from the treasury slop trough open.
if you want to judge these candidates on what they have done and not the shit they can lie about go to;
http://votesmart.org/
compare HRC voting record to Sanders.
This article stinks of partisanship. “Both sides do it” is a terrible argument, and the kind of deflection which I do not expect from the usually principled Mr. Greenwald.
Yes, both sides do it, absolutely. A black Republican undoubtedly receives tons of racist abuse from people who identify as progressive. That hardly means that both sides have equal issues with racism, which is basically your argument in a nutshell.
And while the BernieBro narrative is undoubtedly being pushed hard by the Hillary campaign, they hardly had to invent it from whole cloth either. It’s a phenomenon noted by actual women, rank-and-file average women on the Internet, long before the media picked up on it. The reason it’s picked up steam so quickly is that it rings true to women’s actual experiences, which you might want to read up on.
This is a highly partisan piece from a writer I respect to be above that sort of thing.
CNN getting in on the shoddy journalistic practices…again:
http://us10.campaign-archive2.com/?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=3b10355175&e=125eb6368d
Identity politics is stupid, foolish, and almost always counterproductive. I’ve heard so many women say, that while they like Sanders’s policies better, they’re voting for Clinton, it makes me want to puke. That’s selfish, phony progressiveism if I ever heard it.
I too would like to see a much higher percentage of women in elected office, including the White House. But what’s far more important than the office-holder’s gender, race, or religion is their policies and ideologies. Would these women support Sarah Palin or Margaret Thatcher? Sheesh, get a clue!
If you want to support a woman for president, you should have convinced Elizabeth Warren to run. Clinton is a pro-corporate war mongering yuppie, and anyone who votes for her against Sanders loses any claim to being progressive.
People who use the term “identity politics” are almost invariably straight, white and male. I wonder why that is.
LOL!
I’m quite sure you have heard the replying slogan “all politics is identity politics!” but whatever.
People who benefit, possibly the most, from the rise of “identity politics” include the straight, white, male & rich. Also: every flavor of rich.
There’s never been a better scheme for dissolving activist class-consciousness, the possibility of forming meaningful coalitions for political change (just keep sub-dividing, all politics is identity politics you see, and class is NOT allowed as an identity — that’s the white privilege talking, fella.)
It works on so many levels. It’s welcome, endorsed and encouraged as an “edgy” option at the Corporate University nearest you, since it threatens the power structure in Absolutely No Way Whatsoever. Classes about any kind of oppression – except of course class oppression are there for the taking & sometimes required. Talk of “political correctness gone mad” gives conservatives something to pretend to freak about, and reinforces the alleged radicalism of the original gestures. Everybody performing in this little show is happy.
Bingo. It’s “objectively” reactionary — if, of course, taken to a ridiculous extreme. It’s not like any and all raising of issues of race, gender, etc are by definition this kind of toxic identity politics, of course, but you’re spot on about how it’s used far too often.
The so-called Bernie Bros phenomenon represents the mingling of several fallacies of reasoning, which Mr. Greenwald was very apt to pick up on.
First, this is comparable to the “concerns of Reddit sexism are legitimate” scam. Reddit, for those that don’t know, is a popular online forum (with an estimated half a billion visitors a month), which requires no personally identifying information to participate, not even so much as an email address. So it stands to reason that any number of mysogynists out there would be represented among the userbase. The scam lies in dismissing legitimate concerns, on the basis that a visible component of the discussion takes place on Reddit, and there is a noticably sexist presence in the discussion.
Second, the accusation of sexism is misleading given the degree of provocation involved. For someone like Clinton, who has laughed gleefully at the gang rape and murder of an individual leading to the subsequent chaos in his country, and who had destroyed the peace in more than one country, it would be surprising and inappropriate for her and her supporters not to be met with words of disgust and vitriol from some. Indeed, one could make the case of sexism by Clinton supporters, due to the fact that they’ve ignored the consensus in favor of peace in the within the countries which she’s afflicted, in favor of the more divisive mechanics of accountability.
Third, this goes hand in hand with the “Republicans are Nazis” campaign that “establishment” Democrats are using to monopolize the vote. Yes it’s true that some of the Republican candidates have been promoting Nazi-flavored ideas during the campaign, and yes it’s disturbing. However, it should be noted that the Nazi rhetoric has been spearheaded by Trump, a man with at least as much ties to “establishment” Democrats as to the Republics. More importantly, it should be noted that the wave of Nazi sympathy was preceded by Obama’s backing of the neo-Nazi movement in Ukraine, and his refusal to recognize the Soviet army’s liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camps. Indeed, the Nazi sympathy exhibited by the Republicans is concerning, but to be sincere, the blame must be shared by the Democrats.
It’s a well-known psychological phenomenon that people put blinders on those they see as “different”, and do not always treat them fairly, even if they believe themselves to be well-meaning. As a result, legal fameworks tend to build around notions of rights, which provide mechanisms for people to be treated equally even if people aren’t inclined to approve of them. What’s the priority here, to preserve the appearance of not being sexist, by sheilding a candidate from criticism because they’re female? Or to protect the right of people to act autonomously and to be able to level criticism, even if it’s in support of a non-establishment candidate? If anything, Sanders’s calls for respectable behavior amongst his followers should be perceived as a willingness to accept accountability and faults, rather than any kind of admission of wrongdoing or blameworthiness.
The biggest concern I have is that this isn’t yet another game of swapping political masks. The nature of the beast is slow to change, so this discussion may be little more than a rhetorical exercise, with little practical difference coming from whoever is ultimately selected to the office. It’s somewhat of a moot issue in my family, though – if I were to buck “sexism” by voting for Clinton, I’d be out-voted by the (far more sexist?) women in the family.
People are generally attracted toward like-kind, irrespective of gender. Intimate attraction; however, is something else entirely. Your command of the written word is exemplary. Blessed u ‘r :-).
Thank you for saying so. I try to cram in as many ideas as possible in hopes that it covers for my writing deficiencies. :)
Yes, intimate attraction is a strange beast. I think even then people are best served by building some kind of aura of commonality, but I don’t consider myself an expert on it.
LOL! I’ve never thought of “intimate attraction” as a strange beast. I can still recall *my earlier days* when I once had occasion to fall in love with a lover primarily because of the way I perceived his mind worked. Still think of him fondly :-).
“And you are a Sanders media supporter (Greenwald)”
“I am?” Glenn Greenwald
You definitely would not underline that Sanders does support the bombing on Muslim countries (Syria and Iraq), right? What happened Greenwald? You trashed Obama for bombing Muslim countries, but you are mute about Sanders support for those bombings?
“Do you really need me to provide links to the times when I have pointed this out, or can you just save me the time and admit that you made this up?”
Glenn Greenwald
Please, can anybody send me the link of one article Greenwald wrote about Sanders support for US military actions. Greenwald wants to make me look stupid. Please help him!
PLEASE!! PLEASE!! PLEASE!! PLEASE!! PLEASE!!
I want to see one (1) ARTICLE written by Greenwald dedicated to thrashing Sanders for his support of US military actions. I am not asking for two or three or four articles dedicated to thrashing Hillary or Obama for the same reason. I just want one article he wrote about Sander’s poor judgement in supporting US military action.
Samantha, you dug a hole for yourself below and got quickly overwhelmed with sound rebuttals, and yet you kept digging. You will not fare any better with this gambit.
Your exercises in whataboutery and straw men does not alter that Greenwald’s analysis of the media’s contriving this inane “BernieBros” “controversy” is appalling.
As is Hillary Clinton.
It’s campaign season, and Greenwald is knee deep in the US elections opposing Hillary i.e., supporting Bernie.
“got quickly overwhelmed with sound rebuttals”
LOL!! Who are you? Oh yes, you are the one who answered the question how much Sanders plan would cost with a quote from Clinton.
Just take Greenwald’s dogs out!
Samantha, this happens to you in your every incarnation here. You quickly get trounced and then resort to infantile name-calling and endless “LOLs” & on like that.
Make sure you give them a shower as well. Greenwald will be proud of you. And again, make sure you pay attention at your ECON 101 class so you do not make a fool of yourself whenever somebody asks you an elementary question.
Samantha,
You raise an important point. Bernie Sanders foreign policy is too focused on the military. Sanders has not been as much of a war hawk as Republican candidates. He has not made sociopathic commentary regarding the brutal beating and murder of his ‘enemies’ such as Hillary Clinton’s “We came, we saw, he died. Ha Ha Ha.” However he has not taken advantage of the analysis of groups, such as the National Priorities Project, to showing alternatives to the US over-bloated military spending. Nor has he spoken out against the US practices of drone killing, crowd killing, or mass murders by US special operations. I would like to see his campaign staff, his supporters, and voters in general pressure him to come out against US excessive militarism and in favor of diplomacy and broader efforts at promoting peace, justice, equity, and sustainability
Nonetheless, I encourage people to support Bernie Sanders because his election can help move us a little farther on the long, long, long path towards social justice.
Bernie Sanders quoted Fredrick Douglas’ observation that:
“If there is no struggle there is no progress. . . Power concedes nothing without a demand.”
Sanders is correct in noting that a political revolution is needed in the US. It won’t end with Bernie Sanders, but we can take a bigger step in that direction if he is elected.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/638688520341716992
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/689065583984398337
BRILLIANT! on so many levels, imho. Thanks for the heads up!
Bernie Sanders – The President We’ve Been Waiting For
Grassroots for Bernie Sanders 36,868 views
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=645mtthz8Io
So women over 45 just…don’t count.
Because ew, gross, right?
Because obviously women over 45 don’t count. Ew, gross, amirite?
Unless, women of color turn the tide on their own:
If we think it’s ugly now, just imagine how much more vitriol will be spilled if Black women supporting Bernie Sanders make inroads in turning Hillary’s presumed “firewall.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/29/i-thought-sanders-was-bad-for-black-people-these-women-changed-my-mind/?postshare=221454069663195&tid=ss_tw-bottom
Brand Sanders itself is a weapon of the 1% wielded against politically-uneducated people. Sanders is a charlatan. His entire campaign is about keeping disaffected people in the tent of the pro-war, pro-ruling class, pro-Wall St Democratic party, and to keep the masses ignorant about the necessity of class struggle. Sanders helps the ruling class maintain the public’s confusion about how change happens.
Sanders has openly and repeatedly signed on to the Big Lie of Fighting Terror. He doesn’t call for widespread tax resistance, or mutiny in the military. He doesn’t call for strikes, for walkouts. He doesn’t call for armed resistance by communities terrorized by the brutal police state.
He smiles, he grandstands, he hangs out with some pro-Democratic-party people of color, he stays silent about Washington’s collaboration with fascists and neonazis and jihadists. He doesn’t condemn the Zionist genocide against our Sisters and Brothers in Palestine. He won’t connect inequality and repression here in the US to the violence of AFRICOM, NATO, the US military, or CIA.
I liked what Arundhati Roy had to say in 2004:
excerpt:
Chris Hedges wrote in Empire of Illusion:
That said, the only position for which Clinton is qualified is as a defendant in a war crimes tribunal, on trial for her life.
“Nazis were executed for precisely what Washington is doing today.”
– Paul Craig Roberts
What, specifically, is Washington doing today that Nazis were executed for?
They hung the Nazis for starting WWII – for invading and occupying countries that posed no threat to Germany.
I would note that supporting both sides in a civil war, as Clinton and much of DC do (bombing ISIS and arming rebels), is also a war crime.
She’d have to stand in line.
Bernie Sanders is the archetypal progressive before they assume power, and Hillary Clinton is the archetypal progressive after they assume power. So I think the DNC is in good shape, since it has both the younger and older demographics covered. So ultimately it doesn’t matter whether the Bernie Bros or the Hillionaires prevail.
Well, benitoe bro, that does not bode well if Obama is the archetypal progressive in power imo!
*in fact, read an interesting little Graun piece this am about how the Bernie bros and the Hillionaires are both competing for Obama’s magic legacy!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-bernie-sanders-us-election-2016
I don’t know about that. I never bought into Obama’s progressiveness. A lot of people did but they were projecting. It never came from his own mouth or actions on the campaign trail or in office. Sanders claims and owns it.
>”Sanders claims and owns it.”
Well (& assuming the opposite of a ‘progressive’ is a regressive), I hope so GStorm!
Yet, why then, as the article I linked above suggests (& advises against), is Sanders so eager to claim the mantle of Obama’s ‘progressive’ legacy?
Sanders bid for Single Payer and Glass-Steagall implicitly repudiate that legacy though. Obviously Sanders’ campaign is being circumspect about it, symbolically speaking. The “legacy” they want to preserve is the political space for reform, which Obama won, and then deliberately squandered. But low information voting means a significant amount of cost cutting, rhetorically speaking. That’s politics, no? The symbolism still carries weight, and POTUS is still relatively popular, for better or worse. But in substance, Sanders’ domestic policies suggest Obama didn’t do enough, if not the wrong thing entirely.
“Sanders claims it and owns it.”
Well, if you have a broad enough definition of progressive to include support for the Israeli occupation of, and brutal attacks on, Palestine, I guess he owns it.
And if promoting more arms and money for Saudi Arabia to assist in the never-ending wars in the ME is progressive, I suppose F-35 Bernie (see how I slipped a little support for the US MIC in there?) owns that, too:
“A USA Today/Rock-the-Vote poll from two weeks ago found Sanders nationally “with a 19-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton, 50% to 31%, among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34.”
Okay, so it’s not just Bros. It’s Bros and Hos. Yes?
Just kidding of course. But it is true that Hillary is entitled to the US presidency by virtue of her alleged vagina. The same way libruls are entitled to all black and colored votes by virtue of… Of what?
Thanks Glen-it’s good that someone digs into the veracity of the narratives we get from our media.
Well now … I can still recall vitriol, harassment and cyber bullying via the internet as far back as 1999. And shortly thereafter it ratcheting up to the level of cyber terrorism. But, having stated as much, with the introduction of terms such as “lipstick on a pig” as a part of the so-called “political discourse” – the American mainstream media and internet of things(?) began to reach a new low and it made a decidedly nasty turn. Too bad.
Glenn
Thanks for your incisive and straight shooting takes on the presidential spectacle called the presidential primaries. Clinton supporters are a witty, clever lot with their “Bernie bro” slinging. It’s probably too much to ask that we have more constructive and reasoned (intense is okay) debates/dialogues about what the candidates represent and will most likely advocate, absent our involvement in the political process. Let’s ask ourselves: who would be the best commander in chief? You are on the mark and it’s appreciated by those of us who read The Intercept. I’ve never subscribed to the NYT, even for $.99/week!
Who cares who would be the best commander in chief? How about who would be the best at being chief executive? Who would be best at taking care of the citizens of this country, not who would be most aggressive about bombing citizens of other countries.
Congress, and congress alone, has the power to levy war. Congress controls the purse strings. NO ONE is going to invade or attack the US with military units. Commander in chief ability is irrelevant to ability to run the executive branch.
In the interest of reasoned, rational discussion, here’s a question: What will Hillary do if Putin asks her why Bill liked Monica better? Discuss!
I’m sure even she knows the phrase “mudak idi na huy”.
I’m a nader fan, and I will never forget what the democratic party did to he’s campaign. they aren’t interested in what the working people need or want, only in power. I will never vote for Clinton or a billionaire. in fdr’s last election the people did not want Truman, he was propped up by the party.
The “establishment” is in a frenzy!
Fearful of even the mildest suggestions that their silver spoons may have to made with less silver, they have gone into overdrive.
Corporate media, and employees at the Corporate Congress have been ordered to mount a vigorous campaign to defend their owners – at all costs.
Corporofascism candidates – Hillary, Cruz, etc. – must win! Perpetual war on the citizens of the world depends on this!!
@ gator, son-brother (an Appalachian term of endearment.),
Glenn bro mentioned the Jews in passing, but nary a word about the poorest of the poor mountaineers who can barely keep their families fed! And I’m not talking Beverly hills hillbillies, swimming pools and everything, neither.
*this is what I’m talking about : http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/12/beattyville-kentucky-and-americas-poorest-towns
Appalachians today, excluded from national political pandering since Jessie Jackson stumped in Hazard, probably have more in common with the tribal folks in the mountains of Afghanistan than our presidential ‘candidates’. *Dang nation, Pedinska & Fred are the only people around here brave enough to even come visit!
Where was I? Oh yeah, this may the first article by Glenn, ever, that is somewhat hard [for me] to understand in that the subject matter, ‘bernie bros’, seems a bit cockeyed? I thought “bros” was a good thing … a left-over vestige of the black&hippie lexicon from the age of Aquarius?
As best I can tell, Glenn is saying Bernie ‘bro’ is some kind of slur … and Hillary is some kind of subtle, vindictive bitch for calling him one?
Pedinska & Fred are the only people around here brave enough to even come visit!
Not only did we visit but we promoted cross-cultural exchange by wearing our Vibram Five Fingers shoes to a clogging hoedown! It was educational – all around – and a shit ton load of fun too. :-)
And don’t get us started on soup beans, the Appalachian equivalent of kimchi in the houses of grandmothers across Korea!
The most strikingly unique thing we found down in them thar hollers were the people who, for reasons passing strange to us, enjoyed hanging from slender ropes over the edges of all the lovely cliffs you have. I would note that this seemed to be an imported affinity, largely eschewed by the local fauna who, like us, seemed to prefer keeping their feet on the many lovely trails where one can find the peaceful solitude that provides much-needed balm to souls weary of the bluster of city life.
That place is a true gem bah. We probably shouldn’t talk about it so much. ;-}
Dear Glenn: Might you share an updated photo of yourself and your darling soulmate, David; together with your dawgies some time in the near future? I need to snag more photos of my favs;-)
We’ve seen those tactics before with that Gamergate nonsense. Gawker Media successfully spun anger at their ethical failures on their video game site as woman-hating, only to mention later during the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that that wasn’t the case and those kids were actually protesting.
It’s a hell of a tactic though, it worked then and we’ll see if this false narrative about “bernie bros” sticks now.
Umm … there is a mountain of evidence of deep misogyny, doxxing, rape threats, death threats, etc., directed at feminist critics of sexism in the video game industry. GamerGate was spawned by a jilted ex-boyfriend’s vicious public attack on a woman who committed the evil, evil crime of deciding not to fuck him anymore. Your comparison is invalid.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the “woman” is paying 3 800$ lawyers now desperately trying to get her own ex parte 209a order taken in order to prevent her having to explain triple perjury in front of a judge.
10/10 bait. Exactly the same as the BernieBro narrative: completely non-factual. Reads like a conspiracy.
I’ve had some pretty serious bones to pick with a lot of things you’ve written but this is a fine bit of work.
Another insightful article. It may be unnecessary to point this out, but Hillary’s tactic is borrowed from her erstwhile mentor: a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall-Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Barack Obama is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by racism.
As is true for most campaign operatives, they have thrown all concern about truth and facts into the garbage can in exchange for saying anything that they perceive will help the Clinton campaign win. – Glenn Greenwald
My comment: Last I checked the less-than-honorable term describing a group and/or an individual as “morally bankrupt” was, and remains, gender neuteral. Lol!
Please, Bernie and supporters: Do NOT simply turn Sanders votes over to Hillary, for any reason, period. If ya don’t like Hillary and Sanders don’t get the nomination, write Sanders in – or vote third party. Thanks.
absolutely!!
I agree with most of that, but what I don’t agree with–depending on what Sanders does if he loses to Clinton–is writing in a Sanders vote if he endorses Clinton; which he almost certainly will.
Third party means a GOP president, basically. At this point we’re not voting Democratic to make progress but to prevent the GOP making things even worse than they are now.
Derogatory terms such as “Bernie Bro” directed at a group of people are coming from a mindset not that far removed from those who use ethnic and racial slurs.
While not expressing the extreme hatred and certainly not as damaging as the examples Glenn showed from his twitter feed, the use of terms such as “Bernie Bro” is still a mindless effort to assign unique inferior qualities to a group of people and cast them aside as less important than “us” due to those perceived inferiorities. (I think those of us who have kept up with Glenn have seen this concept in action a time or two over the years.)
One would hope those such as Krugman, who I assume back Clinton at least in part due to her perceived support of gender equality in terms of rights and opportunities, would refrain from using terms making distinctions between genders – and false and unfair ones at that.
I remember talk about “Hillary Harpies” in 2008 on a very limited basis, but nothing near this “Bernie Bro” stuff. Imagine how that would go over. Krugman would be the first one after it.
Support for gender equality would in no way be a reason for a rational person to support Hitlery over Bernie. Sanders’ record on this issue is actually better than Hitlery’s.
As someone who supports Sanders and do not support Clinton for many of the reasons Glenn Greenwald has cited, people who use the term “Hitlery” only encourage people to support her. It makes you sound like the knuckle-dragging neanderthal half-wits who carry posters of President Obama as a Zulu Warrior with a bone through his nose. It doesn’t make any sane human being equate her with the German dictator who murdered millions of his own fellow countrymen.
I’ve contributed to Sanders. If you actually are for Sanders (and that’s a big “if” these days and your references to “Hitlery” don’t exactly allay these concerns given the subject Glenn’s piece), telling someone they must be crazy if they support another candidate is probably not the most effective way to convince someone to support your candidate. Also, if you are sincere, I suggest you read comments more carefully before responding.
Excellent article Glenn, as usual. I do hope your articles will help bring out more Sanders supporters, and vociferous ones at that, otherwise the Clinton vigilantes will kill off all Clinton “dissenters”.
The contempt that supporters of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton feel for each other is no doubt justified. I don’t believe they should simply bottle up their mutual hatred, as repressing negative emotions is not healthy.
That said, I believe that supporters should limit themselves to name calling. Otherwise, the situation can easily escalate, and people might start telling the truth. This article may very well have stepped over that line, as many of the statements it contains about Hillary Clinton are demonstrably true. That’s hitting below the belt (excuse the sexism), since how is any candidate supposed to defend themselves against the truth? Mrs. Clinton is particularly vulnerable in this regard, so I believe that all parties should explicitly agree that the truth is off the table.
Using the term Bernie Bro for Sanders supporters seems perfectly legitimate. Everyone hates their own nickname, but it really just helps endear them to others. I happen to disagree with all of Mr Sander’s policies, but I’ve taken to supporting him on social media, since I enjoy being labeled a Bernie Bro. So I can’t imagine why someone who actually agrees with his policies would drop their support just out of fear of being called a name. However, if Mrs. Clinton’s supporters believe it will, more power to them.
Everyone should keep in mind that in the United States the political process is a charade, so there’s no use becoming too emotionally invested in it.
Otherwise, the situation can easily escalate, and people might start telling the truth.
Fair point. I’ve been searching for a name I can turn into an epithet for Hillary’s supporters. Anything -bot is too overworked to be interesting. Maybe someone would offer a contest to re-work the self-applied PUMA from the last Democratic primary. Everything old can become new again! Which prompts me to wonder who Joan Walsh was supporting in 2007/8. Gonna have to go look.
People
United for
Maternal
Ascendancy
:-)
Matriarchal.
Otherwise known as Hillaramazons. ;-}
If she were vulnerable to the truth, my friend, she’d be in jail.
Since politics claims to be a science (as supported by the fact that colleges and universities, some even reputable, offer degrees in Political Science) perhaps the upcoming election should be viewed as an opportunity to conduct an experiment. Might I suggest that the null hypothesis to be tested is: H0: A woman can be as bad a president as a man. We have now two data points that allow us to fail to reject the hypothesis that a black man can be as bad a president as a white man, so there is no loss of generality in characterizing all men as equal, insofar as presidential competence is concerned.
Eight years ago, the Clinton campaign took a page from the Rethug playbook, and attempted to suppress voter turnout:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/29/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-student-voters-grinnell-college-2016
And this year are using the Bernie Bros tactic.
Good catch. Had forgotten about that one.
This year someone (David Brock?) floated a rumor that Bernie was going to bus in young folk from Minnesota and elsewhere to pack the caucuses. The Iowa press asked Bernie about it at breakfast.
I have watched alot of Bernie in the last 6 months, now I can truly say I have seen Bernie get angry. It’s on With All Due Respect 1/29.
While I agree about selective attention and confirmation bias there is a demographic difference between Clinton supporters and Bernie supporters. Clinton supporters are more likely to be over 50 and they probably use social media less. I saw a poll that suggested Bernie support was approaching ~80% in the 18-44 cohort which explains why Reddit is overwhelmingly supportive of him.
This is also a story about generational poltical alignment according to their interests. The economic circumstances of people under 40 are different from those that are over 50
Therein lies a great paradox, that is certainly not restricted to the democrat branch of the party: why the 50+-ers tend to strongly support the very people who are intent on undermining their primary source of income, which is Social Security. It just goes to show how powerful a motivator fear is, that older people can be convinced to vote against their own self interests by fear of change.
Randy Newman I’m Dreaming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvLeQbwuKys
A splendid Bernie promo video hot off the griddle:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=645mtthz8Io
I notice that the poll between the under 45s and older women indicate that the Fox News democrats support Hillary.
What Fox Democrats?
Thank Glenn for writing something so obvious yet so important right now, with people like Lena Dunham claiming that “all” of Hillary Clinton’s criticism is sexist… because obviously using well known musoginistic slurs like “corrupt” and “out of touch” is definitely sexist towards women, while describing Sanders as wanting to take all your money is not antisemitic at all… just imagine if everytime someone attacked Bernie Sanders he claimed antisemitism!
One is obviously a principled candidate and the other a sleazy politician. And it has nothing to do with their gender or religion.
Hi you may want to change your use of socialist to describe Bernie since that is not correctly what he is. I would appreciate it if you could change it to democratic socialist in your article. Thanks.
I’m pretty sure that Glenn used that rather than Democratic Socialist because that is how those who are trying to demonize Sanders and his “bernie bros” want Sanders depicted because that sounds more scary and ‘insurgenty’ than Democratic Socialist.
Thank-you so much for writing this. I have been so bothered by the claims that Sanders supporters are these rabid, aggressive kooks–when I see how Sanders has tried to set a surprisingly respectful, non-combative tone in his campaign (for example, see how he refused to use Bill Clinton’s shenanigans against Hillary, or how he defended her against Trump). I couldn’t even begin to articulate it nearly as clearly as you do.
Glenn: I am watching the Melissa Harris-Perry show as I type, and Joy Reid just insisted that HRC is embracing the Obama legacy, which most Democrats prefer. She opined that Bernie, being the “outsider”, will find this problematic. Of course this is the same Joy Reid who led the MSNBC charge against Ed Snowden after he blew the whistle. What a disappointment from a supposedly ” progressive” network. They have all but officially endorsed HRC.
I’ve called it MSDNC for a while now. And…Joy Reid? Merely a grossly overrated Obamabot.
Amen. Although some of the hosts have challenged Obama’s policies over the years, I can’t think of one instance that she has done so. With all her Ivy League education, she is blind to the credibility issue.
Glenn, just want to take a minute to thank you and The Intercept for your stalwart dedication to actual journalism over these past few years. Ed Snowden chose correctly in trusting you to tell a complex story that much of the US power structure would rather we didn’t hear. Now you’re punching through layer upon layer of nonsense to get at the truth of what Bernie’s political revolution is about. From one “bro” (a term i detest), I sincerely thank you for your courage.
Glenn, just want to take a minute to thank you and The Intercept for your stalwart dedication to actual journalism over these past few years. Ed Snowden chose correctly in trusting you to tell a complex story that much of the US power structure would rather we didn’t hear. Now you’re punching through later upon layer of nonsense to get at the truth of what Bernie’s political revolution is about. From one “bro” (a term i detest), I sincerely thank you for your courage.
That cheap tactic worked so well against gamergate. With absolutely no evidence whatsoever, they’ve been so demonized that they get kicked out of gaming conventions, banned and censored from websites, sent a dozen bomb threats in less than three hours cause some journalists dared treat then as human beings. The list goes on, but pretty much every day there’s a new article using that cheap tactic on us and it sickens me.
Calling it: It will be Hillary v. Trump and Hillary will win. Sanders will take the NH primary, though (but lose the Iowa caucus). Trump will win both Iowa and NH.
Thank you for your incisive, brilliant comment that has nothing to do with the column.
You’re welcome.
Macroman —> FiveThirtyEight Bro.
;-}
This has become a disturbing pattern for Clinton, this playing the gender card at the drop of a hat. Glenn gets it right comparing it to knee-jerk accusations of anti-Semitism. This is very different from Obama, who never personally played the race card to deflect criticism or avoid responsibility. Unfortunately, this is a problem not just with Clinton, but tends to be a pattern in 2nd and 3rd wave feminism in general. Elevating these divisive and base tactics to the highest office would be quite destructive in addition to the many other serious reasons Clinton is a horrible candidate (i.e. in bed with Wall St., AIPAC, hobbled by scandal, etc.).
Don’t pretend that entire waves of feminism play the gender card in the same disingenuous way, especially since the third wave and Gloria Steinem popularized the term “intersectionality.” I agree with your points and logic but that’s a needlessly broad statement based on anecdote, just like the BernieBros.
Indeed. Silly feminists should stop worrying their pretty little heads about gender.
Thanks for proving my point.
It’s not 2nd or 3rd wave feminism; it’s bourgeois feminism.
Bingo, Threadzilla. It’s a move not limited, though, to this or that wave of feminism. I see it all over the really-existing left, and it’s not only red meat to the right, it severely limits the reach of the left. If “being on the left” is simply about weaponizing real injustice for obvious personal gain and “movement discipline” — whether by HRC (no, she’s not “left” in my book, but my book isn’t relevant here) or people on the Gaza Freedom March or in an Occupy general assembly — why would anyone not content with what the right has to offer want to bother dealing with the really-existing left: a bunch of whining, narcissistic finger-pointers obviously more concerned with declaring themselves Holier Than Thou than actually, like, achieving real goals in the real world.
Everyone who hasn’t already drunk the Kool-Aid or doesn’t need to adopt the social markers of the really existing left can see the charade for what it is — they see how morally empty and opportunistic it is, and they think that the Left actually has zero moral superiority. And the Left then loses that person.
Not good, but since it stems from those into a kind of inevitable moralizing self-preening that any left movement will necessarily attract (and which probably helps fuel getting real work done as much as it causes serious problems, truth be told), it will always be around.
Why Greenwald’s piece is so great is that the only possible cure is simply not being a woos about it. Go ahead and call bullshit, loudly, and don’t worry at all about being called a racist, sexist, white privileged, yadda yadda.
And, finally, as GG states, yes, there are severe problems with racism, sexism, etc. Just as there’s real and savage antisemitism out there…and that’s why the ADL makes us all sick; using a real human group insanity, antisemitism, which took out a few million Jews not too long ago and probably isn’t “gone forever” after a millenium of practice (mostly by Europeans, mind you), as an all-purpose political weapon sets up the possiblity of being accused, rightly, of crying wolf. Which will be cover for the very evil you’re pretending to care about when you weaponize such things.
It’s bullshit, plain and simple. Self-interested, opportunistic, often quite toxic bullshit. Good for GG pointing it out.
So…what’s wrong with supporting Oakland’s Barbara Lee? Black, intelligent and honest. Oops…black woman…not her turn yet? Hillary’s entitled?
From what I know of Barbara Lee (which, admittedly, is not a great deal), she is an admirable person. I’m not aware of anything that would be “wrong” with supporting her.
It’s not about 2nd or 3rd wave feminism; It’s bourgeois feminism. https://www.roqchams.com/2016/01/16/rejecting-bourgeois-feminism/
It’s not 2nd or 3rd wave feminism, it’s bourgeois feminism.
You are a truth teller. Thank you.
I am watching this unfold from a safe distance in Scandinavia but it is very obvious what is going on. Compared to what I’m used to here, it looks like an extremely undemocratic process. This is straight out of Bernie Sanders core campaign message. Europe is cheering for Sanders – his presidency will also have a positive effect on the political climate in Europe, where corporate power is growing as well.
“If you’re a Clinton media supporter, the last thing you want to do is talk about her record…You most certainly don’t want to talk about how she’s drowning both personally and politically in Wall Street money. You sure don’t want to talk about what her bombing campaign did to Libya, or the military risks that her no-fly-zone in Syria would entail, or the great admiration and affection she proclaimed for Egyptian despot Hosni Mubarak, or revisit her steadfast advocacy of the greatest political crime of this generation, the invasion of Iraq. You don’t want to talk about her vile condemnation of “super-predators,” or her record on jobs-destroying trade agreements…”
And you are a Sanders media supporter (Greenwald), then the last thing you want to talk about is how he intends to pay for a single payer healthcare system, how he intends to pay for free schools. You definitely would not underline that Sanders does support the bombing on Muslim countries (Syria and Iraq), right? What happened Greenwald? You trashed Obama for bombing Muslim countries, but you are mute about Sanders support for those bombings?
You may campaign for your candidate under the guise of journalism and social issue activism, Greenwald. Your followers are as stupid as Trump’s!
Samantha is typical of anti-Greenwald girls. They are uniquely obnoxious online.
I can only presume, you’re opposed to tax payer funded health care and education? As for foreign policy, neither Sanders nor Clinton are good. But, in the spirit of LOTE-VOTE-ism:
Don’t forget that she proposed a no-fly zone over Syria.
The big talking point for Sanders on foreign policy is that he voted against the Iraq war. He then proceeded to vote to fund the very war he was against.
This is what garners the most focus in this realm, while forgetting or ignoring the other atrocities he has voted for, such as the funding of Israelis, the vote for the Iraqi sanctions in the 90s which killed 500,000 women and children, the bombing of yugoslavia, and the vote to authorize Ws war on terror.
How much better is his ‘judgement’? Miniscule, in my opinion.
Sanders has released his Medicare for all plan. It’s a 2.2% payroll tax on individuals and a 6.4% tax on businesses. 90% of Americans would save money for coverage for EVERYONE and with no out of pocket expenses like copays, deductibles, and premiums. It’s all online.
Nonsense! Sanders voters *love* to talk about how to pay for single payer health care. I’m not sure he *wants* to do the things we want him to do, probably not, but the point is, we feel like he’s more likely to than anybody else.
What we’re seeing right now in U.S. medicine is a racket. It’s not a secret that Americans pay more and get less. It’s not a secret why we pay more and get less – it’s because medicine is being run by a bunch of crooks writing regulations to give themselves more and more weird ways to stand between you and whatever you need and charge you everything you have before you can get there. More and more indispensable middlemen turn up to help guide us through this jungle of wasted human flesh, some of whom are beneficial in the sense that we wouldn’t get there without them, all of whom are unnecessary in the sense that a strong will, a strong arm, and a machete would clear the path just fine.
How do you clear a path between all Americans and necessarily treatment? Well, how do you clear a path for a new oil pipeline across the country? Eminent domain. If a bunch of scheming shysters buy a generic and jack up the price two thousand percent, well, you know how much it was actually worth in a fair market. If a cure for hepatitis C is being sold to a few people at extraordinary prices, you know that the company isn’t getting any profit on the people it’s not treating and you can estimate the maximum revenue they could wrack from the few who buy. One way or another, just as when laying the oil pipeline… you can come up with a number. If you set that number so that their company makes a profit on its legitimate operations – research, development, administration, regulation, but not conniving legal cases and saturating the TV stations with ads that teach patients to recite the one ridiculous little symptom that is used to recommend their expensive drug over a generic alternative – then no matter how they wail and moan otherwise, there is no way those businesses are truly being confiscated or put out of business. They just have to adapt to the strange notion that they’re actually making products meant to be used rather than trying to trick or extort money from sick people.
If we have the nerve and the will to claim a right to live as a higher priority than a right to market exclusivity because you were the first to file administrative paperwork about a public domain drug with the FDA (cf. URL Pharma/colchicine), then we can make single payer work and we can make it work as efficiently as in all the other countries of the world. The rest is profit — for us.
That’s absurd. Making Medicare universal is not akin to walking on water, and almost every other liberal Western democracy has managed to send it’s young not just K-12, but K-university. Why should the U.S. be different?
Even Hillary doesn’t say universal Medicare can’t be paid for. She just claims the GOP will never permit it. Has anyone paid attention to the populist economic policies of a certain guy named Donald? Do you think the GOP might be getting a message?
Do not tell me if Denmark did it so the US can do it. TELL ME HOW MUCH IT WILL COST AND HOW YOU WILL PAY FOR IT. That is a very important information you should know before you put him in the White House.
Excellent comment, Mona. GG is excellent in this essay but I don’t think the people who need to comprehend it will ever read it. If black people vote for Hillary, they will deserve their fate at her hands. I still contend that Bernie Sanders will be remembered as the shill who got progressives out to vote for Hillary. What a waste of a good man with mostly sound ideas.
“I still contend that Bernie Sanders will be remembered as the shill who got progressives out to vote for Hillary.”
Where do I begin ridiculing this comment.
Okay. So suppose it’s between HRC and Trump. Who would you vote for? And you can’t abstain.
In that case I vote for Jill Stein.
*haha* I knew you’d cheat. I’m leaning Trump. How fucked up is that?
You knew I’d cheat? Well you’re one up on me, since I didn’t realize I was talking to a fucking moron.
You have an odd idea about how voting works. Neither I nor you nor anybody else is obligated to vote for one of the two parties in November.
I know this will shock you, so sit down and take a but I’ve actually done it quite a few times: voted for a member of a third party for president. I know, it’s shocking, but there are people who actually do it.
Do not tell me if Denmark did it so the US can do it. Tell me how much it will cost and how he will pay for it. That is actually a simple question. It is just extraordinary that none of you seems to be able to answer it while you clearly want to vote for him.
<>
More here: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/friedman-memo-1.pdf
I found this by googling “bernie sanders health plan how to pay for it”. Google is a great tool; you should try it.
Whoops, I forgot about that HTML thing: here’s the quote I put between carots (or whatever those things are) in actual quotes:
“Paid for by a 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers, a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work, limiting tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax, and savings from health tax expenditures.”
The usual way, that is: you make a prioirity of Policy X and find the money via taxation, shifting of other budgetary priorities, and the like. Now, you may say this can’t work economically or politically — or whatever — but what you can’t say is that Sanders has no plan. He’s a conduit for all kinds of actual progressive ideas that have been around forever, at places like U Mass’s more radical economics orgs, like PERI, etc. Just as Hillary is a conduit for formerly Republican, now “centrist Democrat” ideas.
But, yeah, that’s the plan. Against a backdrop of the richest nation in the history of the species — about a 17tn-dollar GDP, I believe. Seriously — it’s a law of physics that we, uniquely, cannot have a national health plan? Bullshit. But noting how that’s bullshit is the last thing HRC or anyone else not for single-payer wants you to realize. Realizing such things is called being “naive.” :)
The plan above is a moderate, well-known one. That said … you can’t really give the specifics on what something will cost until you have a bill actually pending a vote. There are too many saboteurs looking to derail the project and tip some of the money their way. So while it’s important to try, I suspect that real progress will demand smaller, ad hoc measures that try to bring various specific aims into the public domain one at a time, like free childhood vaccinations, free hepatitis C treatment for all, free basic diabetes treatment etc. These measures can be pushed on the basis that they prevent much greater expenses later. Each racketeer in the medical industry is only interested in his own profit, so they can be broken one by one while their colleagues look on in dismay but are unwilling to commit real money to fighting someone else’s problem.
I would very much like to NOT see a 6.2% employer tax. In my opinion, we should tax all companies according to how much profit they make, or even REDUCE their tax burden on a per-employee basis, not increase it. They should get a tax credit even for all the per-employee paperwork they do. We’ve had an unstable system where companies want to hire two person and work them an extra half-shift of mandatory overtime each rather than hiring three, and then society has to deal with the costs of the third person while the other two are harried and miserable. Obamacare had a kind of opposing effect by creating a perverse incentive for short workweeks, but that is a bureaucratic loophole, not a rational policy. What we want is to have market conditions that make companies WANT to divide their labor among the full labor pool available, giving everyone a roughly fair share of earning potential and a roughly fair share of free time.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
How Much Will It Cost and How Do We Pay For It?
How Much Will It Cost?
This plan has been estimated to cost $1.38 trillion per year.
The Plan Would Be Fully Paid For By:
A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.
Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.
A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.
Revenue raised: $210 billion per year.This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan.
A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.
Progressive income tax rates.
Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:
37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)
Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.
Revenue raised: $92 billion per year.Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000.
Limit tax deductions for rich.
Revenue raised: $15 billion per yearUnder Bernie’s plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions.
The Responsible Estate Tax.
Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax.
Savings from health tax expenditures.
Revenue raised: $310 billion per year.Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related “tax expenditures”) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.
Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.
Denmark? Let me quote someone:
Bill Clinton. 2009. On CNN. I guess he had an idea how to pay for it, eh?
Your comment is worthless. What does it mean? Clinton said it, then it must be true?
Economy 101:
Governments finance public services with tax revenues or debts and in some cases governments might own companies that provide revenues (example Venezuela).
Use this comment as a hint to answer my question.
Samantha, deliberate obtuseness ill becomes you. Bill Clinton is many things, but stupid is not among them. At a time when he had no reason to do anything but state the truth, he articulated that single-payer not only pays for itself, it saves money. No one serious who likes Sanders more than Hillary is running from that; that includes this site.
Now, do you see why your initial claims are so silly? Hillary is, in fact, running from her atrocious record and positions, and, along with her media supporters, prefers to focus on this manufactured “Bernie Bros” inanity. That you dislike Glenn’s pointing this out doesn’t change the reality.
Let me know when you pass that ECON 101 class, then I shall pay attention to your comment.
Hint: You lose all credibility to laugh at a Trump’s supporter when you are incapable of evaluating how the candidate you intend to vote for will implement its promises.
Samantha, my academic record is not at issue here. You are flailing, badly. Sanders supporters simply do not, as you claimed, generally run from the topic of the economics of his health policies. You were simply wrong.
You are also wrong about the astute media criticism that is Greenwald’s above column. The in-the-tank-for-Hillary media made this “Bernie Bros” “controversy.”
Tell me how much it will cost and how he will pay for it.
Since you’re, apparently, resistant to telling you how it gets paid for (or, you just hate the idea of tax payer funded health care), how about we just tell you how much it could possibly save?
$375B
I am not an idiot (like you). Everybody wants cheap healthcare at the top hospitals. Everybody wants to go to good schools for free!! That does not mean that a politician who says he will do it can or will do it.
1) Sanders Plan is NOT like Medicare. The government absorbs all the costs in his plan, which goes beyond the limits in coverage from Medicare.
2)The plan requires $13.8 trillion from 2017-2016. The Center for Medicare Services estimates that healthcare will require $47.4 trillion of spending for the same period.
3) The plan estimates a reduction of $6.3 trillion in healthcare spending through price control and healthcare rationing. However, none of these price controls and rationing are specified. That is quite a lot of money they intend to save without providing specifics on how they intend to do it.
4) Ask the French, the German, the Danes, the British, the Canadians….what happens when everybody gets universal health care. DEMAND increases. The plan does not take into account increase in demand while Sanders constantly uses these countries, which have to adjust their plans because of high demand as examples
5) Without considering the increase in demand and without providing specifics on how they will save $6.3 trillion in ten years, they estimate an increase of federal spending by $28 trillion in ten years!! Just because the US is the most powerful economy in the world does not mean it has carte blanche to increase its deficits without consequences!
Healthcare is very expensive, all costs included it will be +/- 6.000 usd p.p year for Denmark and rising. In the US is not so different; $6000 what it costs average insured one way or another
Look to the way single payer is done in Canada. It’s the country just to the North of the continental US…so you should be able to find it…a map would help.
Would I get Canada’s budget on the map as well? About its tax system, revenues? Would the map compare its healthcare costs with its population?
Samantha, let’s recall that your comment which started this thread began: “And you are a Sanders media supporter (Greenwald), then the last thing you want to talk about is…” As you’ve seen, it’s very easy to discuss the issues you raise; indeed, the Bill Clinton quote is taken from an Intercept article on Sander’s proposed healthcare policy.
So, it remains true what Greenwald wrote, that Hillary is running from the myriad appalling things in her record that she very much does not want to discuss. And I assure you, there’s no way she wants to focus on Bernie’s less than stellar foreign policy positions, because Hillary’s are so much worse.
Instead, she and her campaign , as well as media supporters, are focusing on this contrived “Bernie Bros” bullshit.
And you are a Sanders media supporter (Greenwald),
I am?
Do you really need me to provide links to the times when I have pointed this out, or can you just save me the time and admit that you made this up?
She’s not really into Google. Or the truth.
One final thing: Politics is almost always a matter of judgment in a situation of imperfect knowledge. Another meta-value worth considering — that is, if you want to let go of false liferafts like Rules That Always Hold And Are Simple Enough To Write Down On A Business Card.
Example: even Chomsky is for air support (by the US or Russia or anyone) for Kurds, the only real force fighting ISIS. He was also for the Cuban intervention in Angola, if I recall correctly.
Circumstances are almost dispositive, to steal a word from GG, much of the time. And judgment calls are just that — one thing the left does well is split up over difficult judgment calls. Why? Because, I think one has to conclude, it’s a lot easier to simply, say, bash Syriza than figure out a way to help the Greeks get out from under the yoke.
Again, not that Syriza is free from error or shouldn’t be critiqued. It’s a matter of balance, perhaps even of maturity.
That said, once again I wonder whether it’s possible or even desirable to take the irrationality out of politics. Perhaps you have to be slightly unrealistic to make the full-on commitment to try to do something more than comment on a blog, which is what I mostly do when not giving money or showing up for this or that protest.
Anyway, less about me than about trying to be publicly honest about a possible and obvious weakness in what I’m urging, though on balance, I’d put my money on more rationality, less manipulability, and all that.
When you don’t have a real scandal to exploit, like Bernie didn’t in regard to Hillary’s emails for instance (can you imagine the Hillary camp doing the same if Bernie’s emails were being invested by the FBI?) and you play dirty, then you must do your best to try to manufacture a scandal. TRY being the optimum word here, because anyone with an ounce of intelligence is not buying the “Bernie Bros” BS attempt to make a scandal.
God I love you GG. In this odd world of Quantum Morality I am terribly thankful for the observers who keep us from buying more cat food when the box begins to pong.
Random thoughts:
1.
Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).
Me thinks those “accusatory reactions” – should they appear – will pretty much identify the people who have not bothered to read this column before commenting.
2.
It really is intriguing, to me, that the myth of exclusive/never seen before/ascended fully formed from the gates of Hell/totally anomalous BernieBro abuse has such traction. Where have all of these poor victims been? Did they just recently discover the internet and online commenting forums? I find it genuinely astounding that they’ve missed the Mommy Wars, the Pit Bull Wars, GamerGate, FreeRangeKids Debate, Bicycles vs Cars…. which have all been churning – often viciously – on the internet for years.
3.
re: Adam Johnson’s manufactured scandal
I guess that’s the next level default when manufactured consent (ie; the claim to better “electability”) fails.
4. As a parallel piece, let’s not exclude from the general conversation is the Get off my lawn! nature directed at some of those young folk who have challenged Hillary, or her supporters.
http://mattbruenig.com/2016/01/27/get-off-my-lawn/
Where the age divide exists, can’t be ignored, and can’t automatically be characterized as sexist, the alternative is to assail the “entitled”respeto for his/her gracious abuela.
Good random thoughts, THG.
For those unfamiliar with the abuela “hispandering” fail:
http://fusion.net/story/248809/why-hillary-clintons-abuela-campaign-backfired-with-latino-voters/
“Bernie Bros” is a relic of a campaign of shaming white male Sanders supporters that Markos Moulitsas aggressively employed last summer at DailyKos. Eventually he had to stop it because it had earned him little but derision from his readers and new polling showed that Sanders had acquired plenty of female and non-white supporters. But even though Moulitsas stopped doing it you still hear echoes of it from Krugman and others. It’s not quite a shaming strategy anymore, but it’s still a noxious stereotype.
Huge admiration for Greenwald but even the great and the good need a really good, disciplined editor. This reads like a first or second draft, banged out under time constraint. Better to have someone red-ink your work to achieve more clarity and brevity and bring it in a few hours later. Just saying
“Exact same” problem as always, “literally.”
Whoops — forgot to say that my comment was “needless to say.” So naturally, I said it.
Agree. I feel this every time I read Greenwald.
I presumed it is my lack of understanding of the language , since English is not my first.
Excellent article exposing the media myth of the Bernie bro for what it really is: a desperate, cheap shot from the Clinton campaign. Thank you for countering that poisonous and wrong narrative. The facts don’t lie.
Michelle Alexander could also have pointed to HRC’s effective support of the KKK through her “interpretation” of Reconstruction–how it “victimized” whites so no wonder they resisted and continue to do so.
No, the cornfields are not full of dumb blondes (except when Fox News shows up), but it truly is hard not to be sexist in Iowa.
For example, I think it’s reprehensible to take tens of millions of dollars from murderous kingdoms and dictatorships and then waive restrictions on selling them weapons including the weapons that Saudi Arabia has been using to slaughter men, women, and children in Yemen. And this makes me a sexist, or so I’m told.
In my view, parroting every war lie of Bush and Cheney was disgusting enough, but then pretending you meant well and didn’t understand, even though once the war was begun you voted over and over again to fund it, is literally criminal as well as a moral abomination. Taking so many millions of dollars from war profiteers just makes it worse — at least in the eyes of us sexist fans of Jill Stein.
Serving the health insurance and drug industries by smashing every attempt for decades to create a civilized health system like those in the rest of the wealthy world is also murderous by any straightforward empirical measure. Millions have died, and many billions of dollars have been diverted from better use as a result. But mentioning it turns out to be sexist. Tasking your daughter to give speeches lying about it shows, on the contrary, deep respect for women.
Pushing policies with your husband to create mass incarceration and then pretending it just happened like the weather, ramming through NAFTA and pushing more corporate trade agreements at every opportunity (but pretending momentarily to oppose the TPP), defending the Wall Street crooks who trashed the economy and taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to give them speeches promising to protect them and refusing to make public the transcripts, pressuring the White House for a war on Libya for reasons of oil and looting, facilitating coups in Honduras and Ukraine, stirring up hostilities with Russia, talking of obliterating Iran, insisting on yet more, counterproductive war in Syria and Iraq, pushing for massive bombing in Syria, giggling about murdering Gadaffi and the people (including female people) of the entire region be damned, turning the State Department into a marketing firm for U.S. weapons companies and U.S. fracking companies, taking many millions from corrupting interested parties while claiming to be dead broke, supporting unconstitutional spying and retribution against whistleblowers, corporatizing the Democratic Party and proposing that it should “represent banks,” defending any and all of this by yelling “9/11,” and suggesting that opposition to any of this makes someone sexist — that all seems outrageously reprehensible to me.
The people Hillary Clinton would kill, the people she would deprive of healthcare, the students she would deny a free quality education, the families she would deny a decent income, the workers she will deny jobs, the generations she will deny an inhabitable environment — are they going to feel better because she’s a woman?
And how are the poor people of Iowa going to feel if they’re responsible for supporting her?
Every morning, I read 10-20 articles about this race. This one stands out as truly exceptional in terms of its overall quality. Thank you for creating a bulletproof response to any accusation that bad online behavior is specifically tied to a polarizing viewpoint.
Every move HRC’s Campaign makes in desperation seems to be backfiring.
Awesome article. Thanks Glenn!
“It’s much better to re-direct the focus away from Hillary Clinton’s history of beliefs and policy choices onto the repugnant, stray comments of obscure, unknown, anonymous people on the internet claiming (accurately or not) to be supporters of Bernie Sanders.”
Glenn, you are amazing, keep up the great work.
It is painful to watch the progressive momentum being squandered by the Democratic party. They should be building on it rather than marginalizing Mr Sanders and his movement.
The Clinton camp is shameless and craven and utterly unwilling to promote an effective progressive agenda. They clearly seek to be elected for personal gain rather than the common good.
How utterly uninspiring of them.
@Glenn – “people in some minority groups are, just like in offline life, lavished with special, noxious forms of online abuse – people of color, LGBTs, women, Muslims”
That the founder of The Intercept, of all people, would omit Jews from a list of minorities subjected to noxious online abuse is kinda funny. Not funny-haha, though; more like funny-strange.
Those were examples only. There are lots of other groups that one could have included. Of course Jews get online abuse. I included an example of an anti-semitic posting from a Hillary supporter in the article.
Gator, I’m surprised at you. What do you think that Sanders picture with the Star of David shows? Do you seriously think Glenn has not received all kinds of antisemtitic vitriol? But, from what I’ve seen, the haters more often focus on the “fag” aspect of his identity.
Moreover, and has he almost always does, when he denounced the neocons for disingenuous accusations of antisemitism he declared that the actual thing exists, and is of great concern.
@Mona – “Do you seriously think Glenn has not received all kinds of antisemitic vitriol?”
He probably has. He also maintains an online comment board where antisemitic vitriol has long been commonplace. Which made the omission of Jews from his list of minorities who experience online abuse kind of funny-strange to me. But maybe I’m just in a bad mood because I like HRC.
That’s, at best, an exaggeration. The spewing about “jihadis” and Muslims is greater.
Glenn walks a fine line between allowing wide-ranging discussion, but not so much vicious trolling that it undermines robust exchange of views. The antisemites are not more significant than a lot of the other filth.
Exaggeration my ass. And, as I’ve said before, the difference between the Muslim-bashing that goes on here and the Jew-baiting is that commenters are generally quick to challenge and denounce the former. The latter, not so much.
Bigotry toward Jews and bigotry toward Muslims both appear here frequently. But only one is considered unacceptable.
It makes sense that he left anti-semitic off that list, as to do so he would need to also mention the most vile anti-semitic trope of all, that I suspect he is bombarded with continuously – the myth of the “self hating Jew”. This would derail the entire article, as it would need an article of its own to give proper treatment to.
I believe Glenn failed to mention teenage girls, too.
The outrage …
This sounds like the new blueprint for an establishment candidate in the social media generation.
The parallels between the media treatment of Sen. Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are astounding.
One other good reason to support Sanders is that in a very real sense, you can’t lose. The further he gets, the better (the more people learn about left-of-really-existing-Democrats); the more vicious the attacks become (as they will in the event he keeps gaining support), the more people will see what’s actually behind the curtain — and that should radicalize them further.
And Sanders should be both supported and critiqued. Rational, reasonable friendly (or even not-so-friendly) critique — not just the kind of jabbering silliness in far too many comments above — is, in fact, support. The essential tension, as it were.
Apparently, this is too tough for far too many people — to resist both falling in love or in hate with a candidate. Understandable, since billions are spent on the multimedia cacophany aimed at one thing, and one thing only: selling candidates like toothpaste or pop stars based entirely on emotionally potent oversimplifications and straight-up emotional manipulation.
But it needs to be resisted, along with moralizing, which is, actually, in the real world, immoral. Yes, it’s appalling that Sanders won’t entirely take drones off the table. It makes him, technically, a supporter of war crimes — soon to be a perp. And, on the other hand, he’s miles beyond anyone else on that issue, so if you turn your nose up at him, you’re guaranteeing way more droning.
I am probably being either reduction or entirely obvious and unoriginal, but I still think the twin issues for people when dealing with the psychology of politics is the understanding of how one’s own narcissistic tendencies can be very easily manipulated (by anyone of any ideological stripe) and perhaps even more fundamentally this emotion-driven need to form all questions as mutually exclusive binaries. Few things in complex human life are so “digitial” — 0 or 1. Some are, I’m sure; most are not. But this mutually-exclusive binary thing seems almost a sort of hard-wired cognitive-emotional phenomenon. (I mean, why two? Why not three? :) )
But that aside, it runs very deep. I notice that when I get all worked up (about anything in any domain) I fall into that kind of “metronomic” thought-style. It really needs to be resisted.
One of the greatest moral responsibilities is to the truth, period, regardless of what one would want it to be. It’s the (at least partial, probably temporary) overcoming of the self, the basis for any human ethics.
That’s the reason I dig Greenwald — and Chomsky and many others: they err as much as possible on the side of “old-fashioned,” pre-postmodern rules of intellectual engagement. Sanders, too, honestly, though I’m aware that he’s a pol — and a savvy one, at that.
That’s the sort of meta-value I think the left abandoned at its own peril — all the weak have is a moral appeal to others on the basis of an exposed reality. If you think reality must be put in quotation marks or if you’re obviously more concerned with your own lil self than others, well…you won’t “convert” a “soul.”
Puncline: Yes, I fail at living up to this at least as much as anyone reading this. :)