Bernie Sanders is now getting his reward for a grievous tactical error he made in the first debate, saying the following:
"Let me say something that may not be great politics, but the secretary is right. The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!" Sanders said to thunderous applause.
Bernie wants to talk about the issues, you see. That's not how it works, though. Team Clinton pocketed that gift and then gave ol' Bernie the what-for by branding his campaign as sexist:
The once respectful Democratic primary has devolved into a slugfest about gender, with Hillary Clinton surrogates expressing outrage over how Bernie Sanders is conducting his campaign — even calling for him to fire his staff over alleged sexist remarks.
The ugly dispute has knocked Sanders back on his heels, and placed him on the defensive — an unaccustomed position for a progressive who describes himself as a feminist. And it’s sent a signal flare to Republicans, who have been reminded of the pitfalls of using the wrong language when taking on Clinton — and also of her campaign’s ability to turn it to her advantage.
“I’m stunned that a man like Bernie Sanders, who has clearly committed his life to making the country a better place, would get sucked into this very dangerous rhetoric, which perpetuates sexist and misogynistic stereotypes,” fumed Christine Quinn, the former New York City Council speaker who sits on Clinton’s New York Leadership Council and does fundraising for her campaign. “The candidate is supposed to set the tone, set the agenda. If Bernie Sanders does not want to be seen as someone who uses sexist language and perpetuates a dangerous sexist stereotype of strong women, then he should tell his people to stop. And if they don’t stop, he should fire them.”
Once you let the Clintons define what the acceptable parameters of discourse are, you lose. This show has been going on for nearly a quarter century now. You'd think Bernie would have figured that out before he decided to campaign. I've long thought that Bernie Sanders really doesn't want to be president. He's going to get his wish.
I just don't get why they didn't point out that saying "your person is going to lose, but we'll consider for VP" is not inherently sexist, and that it's asinine to claim it. You just can't concede anything with the woman I hope spends a good, long time in Waseca, Minnesota--at the correctional institution for women, of course.
Would it be sexist to call her a frumpy, power-hungry bitch? I'm asking for a friend.
No, not really. I just think it's funny how transparent the whole "language" thing is. It's power. It's all about power. Didn't the Bolsheviks use this against the Mensheviks? The Left is constantly doing this kind of thing. 90% of the time (made up stat) they use it against the Right. Come election time they use it against each other if necessary.
So then, after 8 years of not being able to criticize the president without it being racist, why in the world would anyone want to elect a female president from the Left when all criticism will be sexism? Occam's Razor suggests one reason, and it's really the only good reason to elect Clinton. It will provide an instant (and largely effective) rebuttal to all criticism. Sure, there will be criticism. That which comes from the Right will be dismissed as I've suggested. It will be useful for keeping millions of voters focused on the irrelevant. The criticism which comes from the Left will be of the "She's a corporatist/not liberal enough" variety. Most of this will be sincere criticism, except when it comes from journalists. They aren't so dumb as to not know the game.
2 comments:
I just don't get why they didn't point out that saying "your person is going to lose, but we'll consider for VP" is not inherently sexist, and that it's asinine to claim it. You just can't concede anything with the woman I hope spends a good, long time in Waseca, Minnesota--at the correctional institution for women, of course.
Would it be sexist to call her a frumpy, power-hungry bitch? I'm asking for a friend.
No, not really. I just think it's funny how transparent the whole "language" thing is. It's power. It's all about power. Didn't the Bolsheviks use this against the Mensheviks? The Left is constantly doing this kind of thing. 90% of the time (made up stat) they use it against the Right. Come election time they use it against each other if necessary.
So then, after 8 years of not being able to criticize the president without it being racist, why in the world would anyone want to elect a female president from the Left when all criticism will be sexism? Occam's Razor suggests one reason, and it's really the only good reason to elect Clinton. It will provide an instant (and largely effective) rebuttal to all criticism. Sure, there will be criticism. That which comes from the Right will be dismissed as I've suggested. It will be useful for keeping millions of voters focused on the irrelevant. The criticism which comes from the Left will be of the "She's a corporatist/not liberal enough" variety. Most of this will be sincere criticism, except when it comes from journalists. They aren't so dumb as to not know the game.
Post a Comment