Rather, I have seen that quote but also another. I hear there is a video. It would be helpful to see the comments in their entirety.

... IINM

He could have asked her, what do you plan to run on. Instead, he went off because she mentioned she wanted to be the second Latina senator.

... class as hard as you can and you'll win big" would've been enough ... all the rest of that wasn't needed.

Fair point ... I'll add this to the OP ...

I still don't think he was saying leave ID politics out of it or don't focus on calling others out when they inject ID politics like DPutin has.

Maybe I'm still holding out for the dude ... his primary message rubbed me the wrong way but I think his heart is in it

I have never seen a candidate refuse to concede a primary as he did...

his brand of identity politics is okay, but us women need to get to the back of the bus and don't make mention of our sex.

the right.

Hell, the second wave of feminism was a direct result of these New Left dudes treating the women like absolute shit.

The white male left is just as bad now.

I never realized that.

Nobody cares about your personal situation. It is a FACT the male left in the 1960s were assholes to women then. THAT is a direct cause of an independent women's movement. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Hell, I LIVED through the time, so I KNOW what they were like. They are STILL that way for the most part because of their blind worship of "sexual liberation." Bernie Sanders' dismissive tone toward women is proof sexism on the left is still rampant.

I hate to break it to you, but sexism is non-partisan.

Good lord, it isn't about YOU.

This includes people involved with boots on the ground during many elections. I am stating my experience. I was shocked and continue to be shocked at some of the things Bernie ( and his supporters) has said. I truly thought before this year, we had turned the page on misogyny at lease on the left side of the political spectrum.

It's a "Kinder, gentler misogyny and racism" but it's still there.

My eyes have been opened, I'll tell you that.

I always figured there were "a few" -- but so many? Damn.

Disappointing.

He'd have given up everything he believed in if he had withdrawn after Super Tuesday.

It wasn't Bernie's fault that we didn't carry the Upper Midwest. He did everything he could do to help in the fall.

Do you know what happened 53 years ago? Leave the Kennedys out of this, they did their part many times over.

And I still grieve the loss of those men, especially Bobby.

Just pointing out that it's not as though Bernie was the only candidate who stayed in.

He couldn't get out WITHOUT getting any guarantee that his principles would be included in the platform-and none of us would have expected Hillary to get out any earlier if the primaries had been reversed.

We would have included her exact wording on social justice issues(none of us ever actually called for those issues to be put on the back burner).

And if her supporters wanted to stage a peaceful protest during the speeches, we'd have been chill with that.

Didn't we?

n/t.

We knew what she was up against and we knew she'd need all the help she could get.

So what did we do?

Elizabeth Warren had all of Hillary's strengths without any of the things Hillary had been targeted for. Trump couldn't have laid a glove on her or blamed her for anything from the past.

Yet she was clearly told to "wait her turn".

A candidate nominated without serious primary opposition is always going to fall short in the fall. 2000 and 2004 showed us that. We can't win when the primary process is bland and so is the platform. And the platform of an acclimation candidate will always be bland and meaningless.

If he hadn't over-used his snide "Perfesser" schtick, rather like a Mel Blanc cartoon character, and half-way prepared for debate, he would have done better than he did on that end, too. A candidate with a sharp knife-like wit could have been her undoing.

Massachusetts has a sense of decency. That "Pocahontas" shit gained a bit of traction, but then when Scott's Bro Brigade started tomahawk chopping and using misogynistic commentaries, Bay Staters recoiled.

You think that would have been the case in the rust belt? They would have eaten her for LUNCH. "Pocahontas" would have been a FEATURE, not a bug.

People have this MISTAKEN idea that Warren sailed to victory. She did not. It was a hard fought battle and it was all hands on deck to make it happen. I drove over a HUNDRED people to the polls that day.

She hobbled to victory, held up by the MOST OUT-OF-STATE MONEY ever spent on a MA Senate campaign. Again--EVER spent. It wasn't some home-grown, truth-will-set-you-free exercise. It was cash, cash and more cash--and a shitload of outta towners coming in and organizing. She didn't do that on her own.

Facts matter. She would have been crushed, not won almost two million more votes than that Orange Anus "winner."

"Yet she was clearly told to "wait her turn..."

I consistently see that particular unsupported allegation. I'm guessing it's a placeholder until something else, valid, rational and of substance can me constructed-- 'cause an unsupported allegation ain't valid or rational.

It was also the biggest regret of his life. I go to church with a woman who worked for him towards the end of his life. This has nothing to do with what I said...we lost that election too so I guess that is not really a good example of how a bitter primary helps anyone...it gave us Reagan...and we are still trying to recover from Reagan. Trump will be much worse. It is Bernie's fault that we lost states by such close votes...the bitter primary turned voters against Hillary and enough of those voters stayed home or voted for Trump...so we lost the election. I do blame him. Had Bernie Sanders not entered the primary, we would have Pres. Clinton. WE are so screwed, but Bernie...new book...great speeches about the Democratic Party even though he is not a Democrat...yeah...he did OK.

All that would have meant was that she would have said even less and run further to the right...neither of which would have gained us additional votes. Look at 2000 and 2004 to see what THAT kind of nominating process, the reduction of the whole thing to passionless "dead zone" politics, does to our chances.

What would have made a difference for the better was to have made her economic proposals a regular part of the ads...rather than the assumption that we could win just by calling out Trump on his behavior and personality.

We won the popular vote...but we will never improve on the EC performance by re-running the exact same campaign four years from now. To do that, we need to find the language that connects us, whoever we nominate, with the people who won't win under Trump.

This doesn't mean telling anyone to stop fighting for what they fight for...it means finding a way to combine that with things that appeal to people we couldn't connect with...and to turn non-voters into voters.

Yes, let's look at 2000 and 2004. Based on what we know about those two stolen presidencies we had no excuse for diverting our attention from the essential task of securing access to polls and assuring accurate accounting. But as far as I can tell there wasn't time for any of that and now we have a reality TV star in the WH.

It was a close election...if Bernie had not criticized her every day for months and also the Democratic Party, I think we would have won. Consider, he hammered her on trade;that hurt us in the rust belt...you can say his running did not hurt her but I don't believe it...as for the rest of your post...I guess we should abandon the Obama coalition and chase racist white men...now the most important demographic in our country or so Bernie thinks according to his identity speech...who cares about civil liberties or doing what's right. Sorry, I am not on board with this and believe it will make the racists even bolder in their expressions of hatred against women, minorities, LGBTQ,undocumented workers and Muslims...tell me Ken should we come out with our own plan to register Muslims or jail LGBTQ...or perhaps abandon abortion rights? My daughter faced a gauntlet of Trump supporters after leaving a unity gathering. They had stalked the kids on facebook and found out where they met.. They were carrying hateful signs. I guess it could have been worse, Ohio is open carry. This happened at YSU in Youngstown Ohio...she was frightened. They taunted the kids and informed them they would all go to jail and then to hell for being so evil and all...these were 18 and 19-year-old gay kids...they carried signs praising the Orlando shooting... So fuck them all. I have no interest in winning 'back' such voters. I don't believe they were ever ours to lose. Seriously my greatest hope is they go where they told those poor kids they were going ...hell.

And we don't need to abandon the social justice agenda, just add class solidarity and resistance to corporate power to it.

Nobody is calling for us to endorse any part of Trump's agenda.

Her bitter primary against him was the reason for his loss. She shouldn't have run!

And she conceded before the convention. Bernie's refusal to concede when it became obvious he had lost cost us the election and will cost us more if the keeps criticizing the Democratic Party. Bernie ran her down...particularly in the area of trade daily for months...it hurt us.

was 'the biggest regret of his life'. I just finished reading his book again.

Carter really wouldn't work with Ted on national health insurance, only wanted to pass some very small part of it-- and failed to push for even that crumb. That was probably the biggest policy reason that Kennedy felt compelled to challenge him in 1980.

Pretty much the bitterness of the primary destroyed Carter's presidency...and I see a bitter divisive primary having the same effect today. We may lose more elections because of the primary.

"If only Carter had reached an agreement with Ted Kennedy and gotten that kind of cooperation with the United States Senate and House back in 1979, such regulatory legislation would not even be necessary. In those days, Carter had a plan for universal health care, but like much of his vision, that would have put the United States in a much better position today, it was never passed into law thanks to petty obstructionism in the Senate."

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3048699/jimmy-carter-says-ted-kennedy-is-to-blame-for-lack-of-universal-health-care-in-america/#hJ1QlALCCor7v75Y.99

A litany of complaints, with "Vote for Hillary" tacked on the end.

To me, that's pretty evident.

I really think he needs to team - build, not tear down. He seems incapable of doing that.

He gave lip service and then..

"

... all.. he could've left that out and made his point clearly.

On the other hand

Give me any [enter other than white male] person who says the same thing republicans say in regards to economics and I feel the same way about them.. fuck em.

He said its not enough ... that to me doesn't mean don't target people who are disaffected and bring them along...

jus my take

That being said, I know you like Bernie...I don't...so

I'm thinking about calling the DNC and canceling my membership. I've been a member of the party since I could vote and now they are bringing in someone as leader who doesn't like the party and refuses to join; why should I be a member?

have any leadership role.

It's like a medal from the Wizard of Oz.

He's not a whip. Why? He wouldn't do the work required.

This is a faux sop to the lefties who "affiliate" with us but refuse to join. Just don't look too closely--it's not really brick and marble, it's painted plaster.

He doesn't give a SHIT about POC and women. If women and POC candidates don't pander to those stupid white dudes, they aren't worth bothering with in his view.

What a jackass. Another self-centered, entitled white male. What else is new? He needs to get out of public life.

There's a lunatic heading for the White House, and it's going to get a helluva lot worse than overseas job losses or minority elites acting like white assholes.

He can't open his mouth without saying something divisive. It's not a good look.

It's all to do with selling that book, I'm afraid. This "fire up the base and make them feel like they're screwed" game sucks when Trump does it, too. And the shitting on WOMEN schtick, again? He has a problem with women. It stinks on ice--I see I wasn't the only person to notice this, and I agree with this guy's comments:

I posted about this on FB and my aunt lectured me for talking about Bernie rather than focusing on Trump. I asked her why she didn't tell Bernie to do that. My comments might be read by 12 people, whereas Bernie's reach millions, yet I'm the problem.

He is very divisive, and he continues to direct the majority of his wrath toward Democrats and those from the most marginalized populations particularly. Does he really think the people he accuses of "identity politics" aren't hurting?

And how is it that he doesn't recognize white nationalism as identity politics?

... in this case Sanders should've been on the Obama band wagon from the get and stuck to it like glue because Obama was the person he was taking about; a person from the disaffected that had a populist economic message that was progressive enough.

I just don't read "ditch identity politics" meme being pushed in the message he was giving other than the woman part which was the wrong thing in the wrong forum.

His negative examples just HAD to feature women--and even a hypothetical "Latina."

I think it's close to time he thinks about exiting--stage left or right depends on POV, I think. I think he's so far to the left that he's come around to the right on some issues, and I'm not saying that in a nice way, either. He brings out the worst in the Bro crowd, and they've transferred their "loyalty" from him to Trump way too easily for my tastes.

I have always said that a rising tide lifts all boats--I've said it here for YEARS. Bernie seems to want to put a certain group of people in his boat, and leave the rest of us clinging to the wreckage of the ship, waiting for someone to come back for us, eventually.

He likes to play the "I told ya so" card (which a lot of his scolding brought on)? He will very probably feel that shoe on the other foot in 2018, and it might not be an easy ride for him. This is, after all, the guy who wanted OBAMA primaried--so he surely can't complain when he gets the same treatment.

Making a negative example of "that woman" or "that LATINA" is not leadership--it's a doggone dog whistle. It jumped right out at me, and I'm certainly closer to a three than a ten on the hypersensitivity to bigotry scale.

Now, I'll give it to him that he truly might not realize what he's doing; but this is just more of the same of that "Man and Woman" schtick from his bad old days. He has a mindset about women that he just can't shake -- even if he intellectually rejects it, it is visceral with him and it just pops up at the most inconvenient junctures.

It's like that old guy/lady we know from down the street who "is polite to EVERYONE" and "doesn't have a mean bone in his/her body" who PERSISTS in using the term "colored" to describe black people. or "oriental" to refer to Asians. "Oh, he/she doesn't MEAN anything by it." Yeah, maybe, but it is still anachronistic and unkind to talk that way. How hard is it to watch your damn mouth?

He's been in politics too long, IMO, for this to be anything other than an expression of his own POV. He's not a newbie, he's been doing this for years. And singling out women (to include Hispanic women) to toss under the bus, not once, but twice, is a signal to me that he's still appealing to that "white working man" to the EXCLUSION of people of color and minority ethnicity/women.

(Your last sentence).

It is all about economic class, like the good little Marxist he is. If women and POC don't put the white dudes first, fuck the women and the POC.

It is all about the white men with him. This is standard New Left bullshit of the 1960s.

Just look at the comment about women you briefly touch on. There is a long line of such comments directly from him. Some days he seems to use identity politics in the same manner as Trump. Other days he rightfully uses it to highlight oppression. Depends on who he thinks he is addressing.

I am not Democrat, I've never been a liberal Democrat, I am of course a Democrat.

He is one of the most liberal and progressive senators, but keep shitting him. Sounds like a solid plan for increasing Dem numbers at the midterm.

If he makes the comments I can comment on them. There is a history of them. I don't get the infallible politician argument.

Our efforts are probably better spent attacking the right and not eating our own. YMMV

Professing his thoughts that are deeply sexist. My criticism was mild and you want to say back down. I don't get the infallible politician argument. How many people criticizing other Democrats for their sexist remarks are you telling to back down? Hence the correct infallibility assumption.

That will make for an interesting race.

Sanders wouldn't be able to use the DSCC apparatus, resources, and money if he gets primaried by a real Democrat.

This guy:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/06/meet-al-giordano-the-man-who-wants-to-take-bernie-down.html

and who now plans to employ the tactic of making threats about midterm votes needs to understand two things: they are held in utter contempt by millions, and they were brilliantly played and pwned by Trump.

Those voters could have been heroes, but they chose to be spoilers. As for Sanders, with a Democratic president and/or a Democratic senate he would have been a force to be reckoned with. Now he's just another self-interested politician who helped put Trump in the White House.

You reap what you sow.

whose supporters call themselves berniecrats or bernie-or-busters needs to pipe down about identity politic.

That HRC and Obama are like Mitt and Jeb because they're not nationalizing the means of production or heightening the contradictions like they want, or think that Democrats can just steamroll the opposition with the populist bully pulpit the way Republicans can and just don't because they're in thrall to big capital. In reality, because of too many white people choosing the Repubs either out of ignorance, perceived Dem indifference/lack of outreach, or choosing cultural issues/pocketbook issues, neither of them would have the mandate or the grassroots power to tell the plutocrats to shove it up their ass the way FDR or even Truman could.

Part of this is that they're working off aged out political analysis from a time when there WASNT a dime's worth of difference between the parties (aka when the Repubs represented Big Labor Exploitation versus the Dems representing Big Slavery, or from when there was a DLC trying to move the Dems to the right) but in 2016 the Dems are closer to a true labor party than they've ever been post FDR). Part of is that some of them secretly or not so secretly see diversity as part of the Establishment, the way a Trump voter would (I *don't* think Bernie thinks this way but I do think he feels that if marginalized groups don't shout the same slogans as white leftists they're selling out to the system and using their identity to cover it up, which is another left-wing critique (one that ignores how capital has almost exclusively been run by white cis straight(-passing) males).

Finally part of it is that the media undermines and tries to distract from bold progressive visions and seek to dampen any left-leaning ideas - people talk about Bernie got "no media coverage" but look at how the only thing they wanted to talk about with Hillary was EMAIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS and not her very very comprehensive and populist economic plan.

... rejection which seemed foolish on its face.

is a political anchor, because too many whites prioritize their ethnocultural cultural identity over the economic interests they share with black and brown workers. So even after the Bush 2008 collapse, which SHOULD have kept Republicans out of power for 40 years, the Repubs are literally at post Civil War levels of power (for the exact opposite reason), and even directly after they were barely able to get legislation through.

Until we can somehow break down these prejudices, or reach out to enough non-voters (I think that's where a Bernie-style economic populist campaign, COMBINED with strong outreach to diverse populations, COMBINED with, because black and brown workers want economic progressivism to give them a reason to fight through voter suppression, is needed) to overwhelm the angry racists at the polls, this is going to be a consistent problem.

Without social justice, only white males benefit from his economic plans in my opinion. This is why I did not support him in the primary, although I always vote for Democrats so I would have voted for him had he been our candidate...well the election is over and some may not agree with me, but I believe the divisive primary cost us the election. Bernie's comments in this video are divisive and will cause further election losses...we have the worst republican about to occupy the White House in my lifetime...why would he not stand with Democrats to defeat Trump instead of making these sort of comments? Hillary Clinton and women in general, deserve more respect from Bernie than he has shown...my opinion. Also, if you want to tell Democrats how to run the party...then join. Schumer will regret putting Bernie in leadership because he will criticize Democrats: not republicans.

trys to boss me around in any fashion about what I should think/do.

He and Jane said they'd release their taxes. They still haven't.

I think there's a possibility that he's all (or much) talk and maybe not so good on the walk and that's why he kept stalling--that was just egregious, but I guess the "new normal" on that score--thanks to two white men who ran for POTUS--is "We don't have to be transparent."


I don't go for "Do as I say" politicians. We KNOW Trump is one. Sanders needs to release those documents simply to satisfy his own constituents, assure them that he's not a bullshitter.

As for Sanders' "leadership" position, it sounds more like a vanity title than anything else. "Outreach" is not an established leadership hat--it''s a made-up one to keep him occupied and satisfy those people in his base who want to co-opt a party they can't bother to join. Schumer doesn't take shit, either--he can be pretty acerbic when he wants to be.

It is very possible that Sanders will be primaried in 2018. He had better be prepared to be more forthcoming than he has been to this point if he wants to hold on to his seat, because if this happens, he will be challenged on all these issues and more. Or maybe, just maybe, he'll retire and let some new blood come to the fore in VT.

Doesn't he have to release them now since he is in leadership?

It's like "Secretary of Explaining Stuff."

I don't think it comes with more staff (which is the key to leadership positions that are real). He might get to "borrow" a person or two from the minority leader for a specific task.

And nothing substantial done.

He voted with Democrats and shares a lot of ideals, but Bernie is not a leader...at least not a good one.

The primaries are over, so I'll stop bashing.

We lost the general because Hillary failed to address the false republican accusations on her emails quickly or thoroughly enough.

Their smear campaign worked.

A campaign tweak here or there could've helped, like being a little more pro gun or more pro coal/energy/farms...but in the end the smear campaign is what did it.

THEIR postmortems. They admit they gave Trump too much unquestioning column inches and airtime, and shit on Clinton for sport.

And Comey drove the final nail. His name will go down in history right after Benedict Arnold's--assuming the good guys survive this soft coup and take back and restore our "decent" America.

They are businesses that make money on advertising. Trump brought in money. If they want to tarnish their reputations, like they have, that's their prerogative. I stopped watching them on November 9.

I still think Hillary could've put it all to bed earlier.

I think Comey is most certainly to blame and I post-mortemly partially blame Obama for appointing him and I blame myself for thinking we could trust some republicans like him to not be partisan.

Please.

They have an obligation to journalistic integrity, and they failed--grossly--in that obligation.

They admit it--not sure why you can't.


https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/12/hillary-clinton-we-failed-her-sarah-churchwell

In the end, it's up to the voters and the candidates.

The news networks are businesses.

They hurt their reputations by putting Trump surrogates on and going for ad revenue. If we were talking about non profit news, that's different, but they made a business decision.

Trump brought ad revenue to the stations, Hillary negative news didn't. Trump clearly outplayed Hillary on modern news platforms and what they want. Should it be that way? No. But that's how it is and I can't blame the media for doing what businesses do...bring in revenue.

Ethics vs. Capitalism, capitalism wins


I think Hillary ran a decent campaign, not great, but decent. I think she'd be a much better leader than a campaigner and I also had more faith in humanity. I personally believe failure always stems from the top and I start looking internally when something fails instead of externally.

Hillary lost because of Hillary.

Just as most people don't know that Hedy LaMarr had a brilliant mind and we should thank her every time we use a cellphone or log on to the internet--because the media never told us--most people don't know what a civil rights activist and children's rights advocate HRC has been for her entire life.

Her story got pushed down; Donald as his father's heir got photos that were quarter page sized in NYT and WAPO, among others, and his life story was puffed and plumped and rounded out with outright lies all designed to make him look good.

The media DID this. They own it. "Hair Furor" is a creature of their own coddling and curating of his story. Oddly enough, they helped elect the very asshole who could drive them from the public square. Sieg Heil Trump.

She was the best candidate of any this year.

My vote was for Hillary, I jumped on her bandwagon at the first debate. I think Bernie is a joke, I like EW though.

If Hillary didn't control the media like Donald did, that's her fault. Media wants ratings and she didn't give them it, except in negative press.

I think America is insane for voting for Donald, but she lost PA, Florida and Ohio. Leadership takes the blame when there's failure. She knew the media was going to harp on emails. Nobody knew Comey was going to come out like that, but she left an opening by letting the emails go so long and not responding in a way America relates to.

Hillary lost because of Hillary.

Blaming external sources for your failure is bad practice.

That's only accurate when there isn't any theft going on....

Assuming, of course, he doesn't take over the franchise entirely in the next 4 years.

My fear is the voters he managed to acquire in the primaries will not come back to the Democratic Party.

and I voted for Hillary along with my wife, my aunt and my 95 year old grandpa.

But it's hard when it keeps feeling like I'm being blamed for the loss and accused of sexism, racism and misogyny for having been a Bernie supporter.

He didn't get the Senate leadership job because he is sweet, or accommodating, or worries about the feelings of this group or that. He got it because he is a tough and unyielding negotiator, and a street fighter when it gets real rough and tumble.

He's also smart--he understands full well that you keep troublemakers close. It makes it harder for them to plot against you, and if they do, they look churlish and ungrateful.

In any given situation. He fought for civil rights, yet seems to be completely blind to how inherently racist and sexist governments formed the very economic system flaws he is fighting against.

So he says this shit. It pisses me off--because by now he should know better--his words were easily manipulated by Trump--to the point a few of his more, I don't know, unstable is the best word I can think of right now, followers thought it was a fabulous idea to vote for Trump.

He fanned the sparks of Hillary hate quite deftly, he sought to end the Democratic Party as we know it--even has an alternative--when he knows the process of change wouldn't have happened in any reasonable time frame without Democrats, and within the system he hates. Though his revolution never showed up at the polls, Many of his people think that Hillary stole the primary. They think Bernie would have easily beat Trump. They think Bernie would have pushed his ideas through a Republican congress.

Then crap like this. Why, Bernie, Why?

who think that pushing "identity politics" made it "acceptable" for racists whites to, in their minds, play "tit for tat". Basically the reverse racism argument again. While I actually think *some* rhetoric used by marginalized people (especially on blogs/campuses) is tactically nonexpedient, that doesn't make white people victims of racism.

Consider that Reagan started the white identity politics with 'welfare queen' comments...although Nixon and his Southern strategy really began it all... we have had rightwing talk radio blowing that dog whistle for years...how about the anti-Obama song Rush played...'the Magic Negro' ...sick song too...what should we do ignore more than 50% of the electorate to concentrate on those we have lost for good due in large part to racism as well as trade. The GOP signs trade agreements and such people voted for them before Trump so trade/jobs is only part of the issues for many. As for the sort of leftists you refer to...they cost us another election ...that is three since 2000. They have no problem electing the GOP which makes me think they are spoilers and not leftists. And Tulsi Gabbard is apparently going to work for Trump.

She'd fit right in with that wackadoodle LGEN Flynn. She hates Muslims. She really does not belong in our party at all.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

themselves. When you are all too willing to sell minorities, women and a generation of Americans down the river rather than vote for a woman running on the most progressive platform ever presented by the Democratic party, there is an explanation, and unfortunately it is the easy and obvious one.

He calls himself a "socialist," but his myopic view of politics undercuts this. He sees everything in terms of economic class. He is a Marxist, which immediately disqualifies him from ever being a serious candidate for the presidency.

Women and POC can go to hell as far as he is concerned.

Does that disqualify her from being a woman or a person of color?

I think that was the poster's point.

That people want to put up candidates and vote on them based solely on race? Like there's some kind of quota. He is playing on the fears of those who think Affirmative Action means unqualified people will coast in. That bolded part shows it. Oh, no! If Dems don't go beyond "identity politics" Then who knows! Maybe those brown people might do dumb stuff like ship your jobs away! That whole speech was filled with dog whistles. He seems to think that he's the white guy who's brave enough to tell it like it is, and that's why "The Working Class tm" * will listen to him, and it's such a shame Dems didn't pick him and that's why they listen to the only other white guy brave enough to tell it like it is. If only the Dems would learn this lesson!

*That would be another one of of those dog whistles. Because minorities work, too. They're part of the working class. This plays on the notion that minorities are lazy.

His entire world view is that everything revolves around economic class. He willfully ignores there are other political classes, including race and sex. That is because he identifies far more with white dudes than he does with POC and women. He is one of those white dudes.

There is a reason the second wave of the women's movement started. It has to do with men like Bernie Sanders in the New Left who treated women like shit.

The "left" still has a lot of that hatred for women.

What they don't realize is the extent to which capital was built on the exploitation of women as well as black and brown bodies. Without taking into account that exploitation, their class analysis is woefully incomplete. This is why even the elevation of an economic center-leftist such as Hillary (or Obama for that matter) has revolutionary potential, because it pulls out more of that revolutionary potential in those same groups, seeing one of their (or our) own overcome structural racism.

Also sad to say (from personal experience with many male progressives) - a huge attraction for men on the Left, especially young men on the left, is the idea that religion and conservative values are restricting male sexual access to women, so by supporting progressive politics that seek to undermine patriarchal controls on female sexuality, they would garner access to willing girls and women "freed" from the shackles of their conservative parents. That is the key aspect of Bernie's early writings - ostensibly sex-positive and trangressive of restrictive mores, but written with a prurient eye toward the sexual possibilities of liberated women. And of course, while those norms are undoubtedly oppressive, destroying them not for the sake of female liberation, but for cynical pursuit of lust, is definitely wrong.

A lot of the veiled hatred for women on the male Left stems from the fact that their female "comrades" were too independent and didn't just put out on demand. Marx himself stated that the movement would take on characteristics of the oppressive wider society, and the New Left had that problem in spades.

Perfectly stated

All they give a shit about is sexual liberation despite the cost to women. That is why they are so big on porn and prostitution, and never mind those are human rights abuses. These guys don't give a shit about women unless they "put out."

Women on the right really aren't that dumb about how shitty left-wing men can be. They figure it is better to be screwed over by one man than by ten or twenty. Not to be screwed over by some dude isn't an option in their eyes.

Sexual/human rights issues are the achilles heel of the male left.

not inert vessels for male desires and anxieties to be projected onto. The fact is, our understanding of "sexual repression versus sexual liberation" has largely been from an exclusively male-oriented perspective.

Also a deep irony to this is that in a more equal society, everyone would likely be having a lot more sex and a lot better sex, because sexual wants and needs are hidden behind layers of socially constructed bullshit and double standards.

WE can't and shouldn't get beyond identity politics as long as women, Latinos, AA. and other marginalized people are considered a lesser Identity in this country.

This is a problem not just in politics -- it's about equality.

I like Bernie but he is missing the point here. We NEED more Women, We NEED more Latinos/Latinas, We NEED more AA people -- we Need more of anything that isn't a white man.

Saying identity politics isn't important is a way to dismiss people who choose to make history because they have been suppressed historically in society.

We are not there yet. Identity politics -- it still means something to a lot of people. Keith Ellson is a perfect example of identity politicians. He never strayed from the fact that he was a Muslim.

I deeply disagree with Bernie about this and have for a long time.

So......

His "Rage, rage, against the dying of the white" run for office did his legacy no favors, IMO. It revealed a problematic element of his persona with regard to women/nonwhites that was heretofore not widely known.

Thing is, when he announced his candidacy, even BEFORE, he was talking about "cutting out" the disaffected "white working man" from the rightwing fold and appealing to them--DU discussed this, on this very board. He initially thought he could grab that segment of the population and get them to join in with the rest of us--unfortunately, that group has a lot of racists and sexists in it, and they wanted their "share" at the EXPENSE of women and nonwhites, not along with them.

Chamberlain and Quisling "worked with" a monster to achieve what they believed was a common good.

That did not work out too well.

Since even millions of liberal/progressives have been tagged with the racist/privileged label, there may not be many to talk with/to.

Incidentally, achieving a common good doesn't "normalize" anything but the common good. I'd hate to think obtaining health care for all was dependent on agreeing with everything the "opposition" believes in. Tolerance ain't supposed to be easy.

BTW, how would I stack up, sitting across from that table from you?

Anyone who wants to lie down with that dog will find themselves with a case of fleas that will bite them to death.


By their actions we'll know them--if they enable a racist, they condone racism. If they enable a sexist, they condone sexism. If they enable a xenophobe, they participate in a culture of xenophobia.


This really is not a complex concept. We're not talking about differences in economic policy, here--we're talking issues that go to the heart of humankind.

Anyone who can't quite grasp this is probably better off in the Trump camp--they can throw in their sorry lot, and see how much they'll get out of that pig. It won't even be a slice of bacon, but they'll have to learn the hard way.

No quarter.

We'll see those regretful asses who would rather put their privileged status ahead of their fellow humans who are melanin-enhanced and culturally/orientation diverse on the flip side. And they will come back and cry about the error of their ways, once they realize they've thrown in with an incompetent con man who is a puppet of Putin.

Actually, I was speaking more generally, about tolerating others with whom we disagree so as to solve common problems. Old notion, I suppose.