New Rules and Old Harriet

February 22, 2016 By: Juanita Jean Herownself Category: Uncategorized


Saturday, a distraught Bush supporter swore she’d vote for Sanders or Clinton over Donald Trump. I was immediately reminded of this lady. Her name was Harriet Christian, a strong liberal champion who just checked out for a few seconds.  Harriet went home to glory shortly into Obama’s second term, and I never heard if she ever felt that the “inadequate black male” had grown out of his inadequacy, or overcome his black maleness, but she was a supporter of Occupy Wall Street and LGBT rights, so we can excuse her anguish, if not her expression of it.

The lesson here is that anecdote is not data, and we should not expect a huge wave of Bush supporters padding our score in November.

But there’s another lesson to be gleaned here. Old Harriet lost her happy thoughts over a 2008 DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting which reversed their previous decision to exclude MI and FL delegates entirely, but still punished the states for moving their primaries too early in the competition.  The Clinton team was hoping for a delegate haul that would change the character of the race, but they didn’t get it.

All weekend long, although in your humble pundit’s opinion the character of the race is still in abeyance until March 1, the Bernie surrogates on the news shows bemoaned that fact that the Superdelegates were all in the tank for Hillary.

We can talk another time about why they exist, who they are, and what they do, but the takeaway here is that they’ve been in place since 1984, and I do not recall ANY election where the will of the SuperDs countermanded the will of the electorate so… everybody chill.

But there was a theme throughout the surrogates’ statements that the SuperD system was unfair, anti-democratic, and should be scrapped. As I’ve mentioned before, this sounds a lot like the people working the refs, trying to get the rules changed, so that a game being lost on the field can be won in the commissioner’s office.

Just like Old Harriet.

There’s a third point, though.

I like Bernie. I think Hillary is the best candidate running in either field, but I will work hard Bernie if he is the nominee, though it will be a heavier lift. But he knew what the rules were ahead of time, BEFORE he announced, and he chose not to play the parts of the game that involve either Superdelegates or SuperPACs. Fine. But if he was against the Democratic rules that created SuperDs, he should have fought against them in 1984. Or 1988. Or 1992. Or 1996. Or 2000. Or 2004. Or 2008. Or even 2012.

But he couldn’t, could he? He may have caucused faithfully with the Dems. He may have been a better Democrat than some I could name in politics.

But he wasn’t a registered Democrat until 10 short months before the SuperDs vote for their nominee. Who did he THINK they were going to go for?   And for all his surrogates running around now, whining about the intransigence of the old boys and girls network, and hinting darkly that Team Bernie may just sit home come November, I have two words for you:

Harriet Christian.


Be Sociable, Share!

40 Comments to “New Rules and Old Harriet”

  1. I just came here from the NYT website where I am continually discouraged to find so much pro-Clinton “reporting” that is clearly designed to discourage Sanders supporters (everything Krugman writes, for example, or recent reporting on how Nevada has once again tipped the scales for Clinton, etc.) So, I decided I would take a break from them for awhile.

    As I clicked over, I thought to myself, I appreciate how juanitajean’s website manages to be pro-Clinton without being anti-Bernie.

    Then I read this.

    This “you knew the rules” thing is a cop out. Bernie may have known the rules, but just as in 2008, there are a lot of Americans engaging politics for the first time, and THEY are the ones who are discovering that the Democratic nomination process is not … democratic. Imagine their surprise. Bye bye next generation of voters.

    For all I know *you* are a superdelegate. In fact, that probably explains your attitude. But consider this: your best defense of the role of superdelegates is to point out that they don’t affect the result. This is hardly a reason for them to exist (it seems more like a reason for them not to exist). And given that they are contributing to the “inevitability” meme that you are trying to advance right this minute, it’s hard to argue that the existence of superdelegates isn’t affecting the result *right now.*

    This is beneath you, Juanita Jean.

  2. Juanita Jean says:

    Oh Joel, Honey, there is nothing beneath me. I am as low as you can get!

    We’re going to have to figure out a way that people will know when I write something, I take responsibility for it, good or bad. If Primo writes something, you need to know that Primo wrote it. Most of the time, I agree with him, but sometimes I don’t.

    Primo wrote this entry. He fills in for me when I just can’t get to the salon that day, week, or afternoon. I deeply appreciate that.

    To be open and honest, I am a superdelegate to the Democratic State Convention. I have chosen to run for the position anyway because I philosophically oppose superdelegates and politically opposed the DNC.

    If elected, I will attend the state convention as an uncommitted delegate.

    Juanita (Susan)

  3. daChipster says:

    Joel – sorry, I forgot to sign it as “~Primo” that has been fixed. For occasional visitors, Primo Encarnacion is my nom-de-plume, mostly in fun, but also to protect me when my writings filter out beyond this board. I am he and he is me and we are they and we are all together, though none of us are Eggmen or Walruses.

    This piece is not anti-Bernie. I’m sorry you read it that way. You should read all of my work, including when, as Chip Collis, I wrote for the Huffington Post, and absolutely lambasted the Clinton campaign in ’08.

    I knew this piece would be a little controversial when I wrote it, and for exactly that reason, I decided to post it. I write from the standpoint of the game, and mean no disrespect to the candidate. Let’s talk about it!

  4. “this sounds a lot like the people working the refs, trying to get the rules changed, so that a game being lost on the field can be won in the commissioner’s office.”

    Just because something’s been around forever doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. Maybe people are trying to change things because it’s no longer working/applicable or it wasn’t a good thing in the first place. Trying to change the rules isn’t trying to cheat the system. I absolutely hate the implication that just because it’s been around a long time or it’s “tradition”, that’s the way things should stay. What may have worked in 1984 doesn’t mean it’s applicable in 2016 and beyond.

  5. Aggieland Liz says:

    Yes, but did the system just become bad yesterday? If it’s a bad system that should be addressed, but it looks a little like sour grapes if I start agitating to change the system about the time I figure out it’s not gonna help me any-whether it hurts me or not, it doesn’t benefit me!

    Politics is a dirty game on ALL sides. There’s always a lot at stake. How’s Bubba doing in the early voting JJ, any exit polls? Or is that not allowed, I can’t remember all the rules!

  6. @Joel

    Heck I thought “evenhandedness” was the hallmark of this blog errr uhh I mean “professional political organization”. We haven’t the time or energy for hating on Hillary or Bernie or their supporters. The snacilbupeR keep us up to all hours hating on them cause of how stoopid and hateful they are.

  7. @JJ

    BTW just go off and be any kinda superdelegate you need or want to be. Just bring back a nominee. We’ll get behind the nom and do the heavy lifting!

  8. No, the system didn’t just become bad yesterday but it could be that people have had enough of the system today. I don’t understand this idea that if no one was agitating for change until today, it’s just sour grapes. The system could have been bad from the very beginning and no one was listening to the few who were complaining when it was put in place because they may have been the “losers” from the new system. Now that there are more people complaining it’s still sour grapes? So when does change occur? When those in power decide that changes should be made because it will benefit only themselves? Even in sports rules change to protect the vulnerable and to make it more appealing to the masses.

  9. Pancho Sanza says:

    Is there any argument at all that that the SuperD system is fair, democratic, and should be kept?

  10. Joel,

    It’s just my humble opinion, but I always thought that Bernie initially announced his candidacy in order to get more airplay for the ideas he’s been promoting for years–if not decades–and to push Hillary to the left. That has certainly worked.

    He has struck a bigger chord than even he (probably) expected and he simply was not prepared for the entire primary campaign. In that he resembles Hillary’s 2008 campaign when she thought she could avoid the caucus states and just win the primaries. Obama disabused her of that notion rather handily.

    The Super-delegate business came about to prevent the Dems from nominating a tRump figure who would lose in a landslide and take the party down with him/her. The system failed in 1984, but not because Walter Mondale was a Donald Trump. We will always wonder if Gary Hart might have done better against Reagan; but, that is unknowable. What we DO know is that the SD’s broke heavily for Mondale.

    What I really don’t want to see here, or anywhere else for that matter, is either Bernie-bashing or Hillary-bashing. We are ALL going to have to vote in November for one of them.
    That doesn’t preclude legitimate and thoughtful criticism of either one of them for they say or do.

    I just want to leave the name-calling and slander to the Rethugs.

  11. Also, is it Bernie who is responsible for this? I haven’t followed this back to the source, but Bernie is not a whiner. If I jump up and down and freak out about Superdelegates, is it Bernie’s fault?

    That’s kind of like “If a man says something in the woods and nobody’s around to hear, is he still wrong?”

    Or somethin’….

  12. AKLynne – I haven’t heard this from Bernie, I’ve only heard it from surrogates and supporters.

  13. Actually, Barb in DC, Bernie has always said he’s in it to win.

  14. Polite Kool Marxist says:

    For many in the “I woke up one morning” category, we should talk after the November elections. The “we” in Nevada woke up Saturday to discover ourselves part of a caucus system. Actually, some of us did know in advance. The caucus system was something Senator Harry Reid advocated for back in the days he was Senate Majority Leader. The ‘plan’ grew out of an unusual idea that “first in the nation” primaries held some magical sway in the game. Much like “super delegates” are meant to be a steadying rudder in the sea of political storms.

    Both probably good ideas at the inception, but not completely thought through. Harry will be retiring next year, after the new electives are sworn in (so he thinks.) Wrong, Harry. The “magic me” has one last thing for you to do before you retire: undo this caucus mess in Nevada. You can leave the Senate, not a problem; but before you dare think of playing a round of tennis or taking a swim, undo this mess.

    As for “super delegates” the reasoning is similar as in what began as a good idea upon further scrutiny may not seem so good. Or, we can step back and say that depends. I for one would be thrilled if Susan DuQuesnay Bankston was my super delegate. On the other hand the person who in the goodness of his heart recommended that my wife become a delegate? Maybe not such much, **if my then to be significantly pregnant wife is in Philadelphia in July.

    ** I said “if” instead of “when,” but since volunteers are in short supply, it’s probably best I begin now wrapping my head around the concept now.

  15. JAKvirginia says:

    I was going to put my 2 cents in about this issue, but I’ve decided not. But let me say this… Bernie, Hillary, or Zippy the Wonder Dog… if they are Democrat they will get my vote. All of the snacilbupeR, candidates and voters, can go to hell. (Sorry, Momma.)

  16. Joel and glf, you may be absolutely correct that the super delegate situation is unfair and that the rules should be changed (though if you had a candidate like Trump in the lead you might be really glad to have super delegates).

    But changing a rule retroactively, after the game has already started, is also unfair. If unfair rules need to be changed it should be done for next time and not done to favor a particular candidate in an ongoing election. Quite apart from fairness, this allows time to do it right.

  17. So JMO but the typical Dem grass roots are not the typical snacilbupeR grass root. So for our snacilbupeR brethren they actually need some seasoned adults who can pull the emergency brake when a candidate like tRump slithers out from amongst the weeds and from beneath rocks babbling about apples and good and evil. For them voting democratically for the primary candidate of their choice then republically selecting adult representatives who will be sure the reptiles stay under the rocks and don’t become the nominee is a party saving idea. For Dems who don’t seem to have the low IQ mouth breathers voting for candidates from other planets maybe the superdelegates are unnecessary. Although a SuperDem who could have derailed the Reagan train would have made me quite happy. Mondale wasn’t the SuperDem of who I speak. Gary Hart might have been but then we might well have been calling Bill Clinton pejoratively “just another Gary Hart”. So who really knows?

  18. daChipster says:

    Micr – let’s say there is a fierce, 3-way race for the nomination, and a youngish man with fantastic liberal bona fides pulls off an improbable win in Iowa, triumphing over an establishment, woman candidate and another youngish man, who finishes out of the money. This kicks off a months-long battle, with the two of them fighting for every delegate and Superdelegate, until he wins just enough of both by June to appear headed to the nomination.

    Sound familiar so far?

    Then, you find out that he had a daughter named Frances, born just that February 27, right before the Ohio and Texas primaries, to a woman who is most emphatically NOT his wife.

    You gonna ride that candidate all the way to a McCain-Palin Inauguration?

    Now, given a No Superdelegate scenario, in my not-improbable fable, how do you protect the Party without “destroying democracy?” You’d have to change the rules, to free committed delegates, to give the nomination to someone else, but to whom? That puts “democracy” squarely in an unmarked grave, next to Democrats.

    You wanna talk about chaos theory? The light cone from just changing Edwards to Obama in Iowa in a 2008 WITHOUT SuperD’s is 95% composed of lawsuits and 100% composed of a present too dark to contemplate.

    And not a flux capacitor in sight.

  19. The electoral college seemed a good idea to some people, but it has at least twice put a president in office when the majority of American voters voted for somebody else. (1876 was the other time than the one we’re all thinking of.) Its supporters these days say it makes candidates pay attention to all the states, but we know they pay attention only to the few swing states, so that argument fails.

    As for superdelegates, I’m not sure we need them, but I bet a lot of Republicans would go down on their knees to give thanks if they had superdelegates to send Trump back where he came from.

  20. IMO, there is a difference in these 2 candidates on some issues. Unfortunately, some ad hominem-like attacks seem to be creeping in similar to what the repubs have, are and will continue doing.
    One string is the vote-for-a-woman because she’s a woman. One can substitute ‘man’ for ‘woman’. Personally, I look at whether the issues are being properly presented and addressed as well as the track record for consistency of character.
    Therefore, I think that, if Warren had decided to run back when, Bernie would not have jumped in. And I would have no trouble voting for Warren.
    I am for Bernie because of the above even if he were not to win in Nov because of his long track record of being for the middle and lower ranks. He has sent a strong message to the far right that change is a-comin’.
    He has already changed the discourse for the better especially for the young generation; the ‘ol pfharts like me ain’t gonna be around much longer.

  21. Da C The problem with your solution is that it responds in all non-emergency endorsements and pathogenically favors the establishment. The last thing in hell that the Democrats need this year is a Hillary lift over the top by super delegates. That would be the most divisive outcome possible. I expect that Super Tuesday may moot the controversy.

  22. For those patrons of TWMDBS who are not up to speed on Super Delegates and want the system changed, you need to know that the DNC would have to change the system. And, just who are the SDs? Every member of the DNC. Plus, elected officials like Governors and the like, totaling about 700 IIRC.

    It was put into place to at least assure that devoted Party people had a say in the convention. Not the worse reason, I suppose–and I say that as a one-time very low-level Party person.

    Da Chipster pointed out the kind of situation that might occur. But, the only time the SDs really mattered was in 1984. However, there were fewer caucuses and primaries back then, so the SDs had a bigger role. I expect that the nominee will emerge long before the convention and the SDs will simply endorse that person.

  23. @daChipster

    Your example and the tale to support it made me Rielle happy cause I had repressed little Johnny Edwards, along with some other bad mems on which the statute of limitations has run. Wow. You be right!

  24. daChipster says:

    Lless, I agree with you. As I/Primo wrote: “the character of the race is still in abeyance until March 1,” I’ve maintained that throughout the last week. To me, Saturday proved nothing about the race that we didn’t already know.

    It changed the legend, however – the media characterization – and woke up a few people, who suddenly realized the Long March will indeed be a long march during a long March. Turnout has been down across the early contests compared to 2008, so the narrative about an energized new electorate driving massive democracy has not yet proved out. March 1 is the last chance to sell that.

    BTW, the counter narrative the GOP and both-siders are trying to sell is equally false: lower Dem turnout vs 2008, or vs GOP turnout, does NOT point to an enthusiasm gap for Dems. Too many variables in play to make that characterization, but the main difference is this: Bernie Sanders ain’t no Barack Obama.

    Speaking as a former professional political operative, here’s some free advice on what has to happen from here on out for Bernie to win:


    Barb is absolutely right: Win the pledged delegate race, then spit in their eye and dare ’em to deny you. They won’t.

  25. Polite Kool Marxist says:

    daChipster, “Bernie Sanders ain’t no Barack Obama.” Tru dat. And, whoever is elected, Bernie or Hillary, I do not want them to experience the obstructionism that President Obama has faced.

    Still hoping for bigger Democratic turnouts for both candidates this year. Biggest problem I “see” is lack of exposure in the MSM for both candidates. We are lucky in one respect in that we have two candidates with detailed policies and the opportunity to choose which nuanced policy we like best. However, details do not excite the MSM, while the snacilbupeR food fights do.

    We need energy. Seriously. How do we motivate the inert folks? Not just to choose between two highly competent candidates, but to elect Senators and Representatives to support the policies of our winner in The Oval Office.

    And, a word of encouragement to T-Rump. Don’t quit now, please. You crippled the Bush Dynasty. Now, if you will destroy Loathsome Ted, your candidacy will be well worth the price of admission.

  26. Let’s hope there is a clear mandate for our nominee prior to the convention, in order to avoid any perception that it was predetermined. We need all Democrats to support our nominee
    in order to avoid the catastrophe of a Repuglican president.

  27. Linda Phipps says:

    They just gave us less than 12 month public school employees in Fairfax County VA the day off March 1 due to the schools used as polling places. They need our parking places, my guess. So that mean I have the whole day to vote as many times as I want to.

  28. I’m favoring Hilary, but not committed. (No, I’m not an SD.)

    My biggest concern is the “woman” aspect. I am indeed a feminist, and well aware of the subtle struggles Hilary faces due to her gender. Many good folks need to be fully aware of unconscious biases. This article does a very good job of describing those biases that both women and men might harbor. I believe it is critical knowledge voters need to have.

    Please read the article here:

  29. Polite Kool Marxist says:

    Debbo, good article, thank you. Sec/Sen Clinton faces two challenges; as a woman and as the inheritor of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome. 2008, my first chance to vote for a President, she lost to “No Drama Obama” through no fault of her own. Many chose no drama.

    If she succeeds in winning the Democratic nomination, it will be “all hands on deck” to dispel all the spurious accusations that will be hurled at her from the MSM. I have no idea what the Big Dawg did in Arkansas to deserve the full wrath of the media to such an extent that Sec/Sen Clinton is still a target so many years later.

    Sec/Sen Clinton deserves to be evaluated on HER record, as does Senator Sanders on his. But what our country does NOT deserve is any of the snacilbupeR in the Oval Office. Eight long years of Dubya should have been enough for everyone to vote and prevent that from happening ever again.

  30. There is some speculation that the RKlan will attack Sec. Clinton, if she is our nominee, on the issue of trade. Bill Clinton’s NAFTA trade agreement was not too popular with unions and the TPP, which Sec. Clinton negotiated, even though she opposes it now, is another sore spot. The arguments is that this will alienate the white workers in the rust belt swing states and either cause low voter turnout or support for Trump.

  31. daChipster says:

    PKM. “I have no idea what the Big Dawg did in Arkansas to deserve the full wrath…” He won. And he kept on winning. They HATE it when you do that.

    Also, congrats on the impending Baby Kool Marxist! I will keep a good thought for a smooth term, an easy birth and good health to all concerned.

    And remind you of all the great births in a hot Philadelphia summer: The Declaration. The Constitution. The Country.

  32. Polite Kool Marxist says:

    daChipster, “he won” that explains a lot with the snacilbupeR sour grape crowd. Plus, they’re still butt hurt over Nixon. No Democratic President will be free of their wrath and endless attempts to impeach a duly elected democratic President.

    😀 Thanks, daChipster. We’re excited and hoping everything will be as easy as it has been with our KJ. He’s a great kid! He was teething this weekend, but he was all fine with our going to caucus. His American/El Salvadoran nanny has delighted him since the day we brought him home. Nanny aka Uncle Freddie says I am a dead man, if I ever put nanny in his paperwork. But his magic with our boy is a sight to behold. Fred does a great job of running the ranch, too.

    Names, names, names. Maybe something Kool will come to us in Philadelphia. Benjamin Alexander, initials BAM! Wish me luck on selling that to Jane. I can hear her now, “sure, make our child go through school being called Bam Bam.”

  33. PKM, I echo daChipster’s good wishes. And in my personal opinion, I like BAM.

  34. a Bernie Sis says:

    Bernie made the decision to run as a Democrat rather than an Independent when he entered the race because he didn’t want to be a spoiler and cause a third party split that would have handed the election to a Republican:

    In my book his decision deserves some kudos.

  35. I’m hoping all the venom among Democrats right now is just primary jitters and we’ll unite behind our candidate when s/he gets the official nod from the majority.

    No, I don’t like the Super Delegate system. Never have and, if my prescience is working properly, never will. I don’t understand why a certain number of bigwigs [JJ excepted, of course, you are a mediumwig, if I’m not mistaken] get two votes while I only get one. But that’s not what my current rant is about, really.

    This is what I’m on about at the moment:
    If people decide to sit home rather than vote for their less favored Democratic nominee and Trump or Cruz gets elected, I hope they’ll come down to the wharf and wave bye-bye to me as I sail off for Curacao or Bonnaire this coming December. And I hope they’re unable to leave the country and get stuck here and have to live with the results of their actions.

    Seriously. It’s the Tea Partiers, fergoshsakes, who think ‘compromise’ is a dirty word! We’re supposed to be more mature than that, right? Right?

    I’m a Bernie supporter and I’ve already voted to put him on the ballot. But, by gum, I’ll be voting this November no matter who the Democratic nominee is. If it’s only the Super Delegates who put Hillary over the mark, I’ll bitch and moan – – but I’ll vote for her because the alternative will be unthinkable.

    Think about it.

  36. a Bernie Sis says:

    I’m a lifelong Democrat and strong Sanders supporter. Just as Bernie didn’t want to be a spoiler I won’t be a spoiler either and will vote for the Democratic nominee whoever he or she maybe. And I’ll do that even though I live in Texas where my vote doesn’t matter since the Republicans will carry the state regardless of my vote.

    But I think the delegate system needs revamping. As I understand it the super delegate system came into existence to prevent future McGovern type campaigns. Since I’m old enough to have also been a McGovern supporter I haven’t liked the super delegate idea for most of my voting career. I guess I’m just simple and believe in the concept of “one man, one vote” and even though I’ll always vote the Democrat ticket, I kind of resent the party determining the nominee instead of me, the voter. And I think that as long as the super delegate system remains in place we will continue to have a rigged system instead of a democratic system. But a moderate Democrat, made, at least temporarily, more liberal by a Bernie candidate, is better than a Ted Cruz candidate so I’ll continue to hold my nose and vote for what I consider to be the lesser of two evils.

    However, I do think Sanders, by running as a Democrat instead of as an Independent, is entitled to seek changes in what he and I and many other voters perceive to be a rigged system. Especially since Sanders has and will continue to admonish his supporters to actively support whoever the Democratic party selects as the nominee.

  37. The latest Quinnipiac national poll shows that Hillary is not capable of defeating ANY Republican in a theoretical November one-on-one matchup, while Bernie wins by wide margins against any of them, including Trump.

    For America’s sake, I hope Bernie is the nominee. Otherwise, the GOP will take back the White House.

    Speaking as someone who has supported the Democratic party with my vote for 35+ adult years — before Bernie entered the race, I was prepared to sit out the 2016 presidential race altogether, for the first time since I came of voting age in the 1980’s.

    I’ve been voting for “the lesser of two evils” for 35 damn years and I’m sick of that nonsense.

    TPP promises to be 1000 times worse for American jobs than NAFTA. That is why, come November, my vote will go to the candidate OF ANY PARTY who I believe can be counted on to truly oppose TPP — and by “oppose” I mean AFTER winning election. Overturning Citizens United is also important, but I don’t think the president will have as much affect on that issue as he/she will have on TPP. If I don’t believe that either the Dem or Rep nominee will oppose TPP, then I won’t vote for either one. TPP is just too important. It will not only wreck havoc on American workers, but it threatens our national sovereignty itself, putting Corporations above nations.

    Bernie has opposed TPP from the get-go, for all the right reasons.

    Hillary supported TPP until she began losing her lead in the polls, then she became opposed to it “as it is currently written.” If that caveat does not make you shudder, you are very young or have a short memory.

    Her caveat makes me flash back to Bill Clinton’s campaign in which he evaded openly supporting NAFTA until after winning the White House. Then, he rammed NAFTA down our throats, aided by Republican votes in Congress. It is too easy to predict the obvious scenario in which, following a few word-changes here and there (so that it is no longer “as written”), President Hillary rams TPP down our throats… with Republican votes in Congress. On everything else, she will encounter partisan gridlock (“No We Can’t!”) but on TPP, she’ll score a “bipartisan victory” with a few traitor Dems and the whole GOP voting block.

    Regardless, I have cast my last vote for a “lesser of two evils.”

    If I remain a member of the Democratic Party in future years, it will only be so that I can try to help improve it by terming-out Blue Dogs and so-called “New” dems in primaries.

  38. Polite Kool Marxist says:

    Free online Progressive Summit starting tonight. Might be worth a listen to meet some of the candidates. With the snacilbupeR crowding the mic around T-Rump, we have not had much of a chance to hear the candidates in the other races.

  39. Marge Wood says:

    Hurray for Deb! and for all y’all and your clarity of vision and your courage in saying what you think without sounding like Trump.

  40. Elizabeth Moon says:

    Sanders and Clinton are both in trouble with voter segments any Dem candidate needs, largely because of their supporters.

    White male Sanders supporters have been going after women and people of color who want more specific commitments from him (going after has included the white-male-fanatic’s usual threats of rape for women) on the grounds that issues immediately important to women and people of color aren’t as important as class/economics, and should be put aside so as not to dilute the message. (As a woman who was adult in the ’60s…we heard that then, too. Liberal men who wanted women–and people of color–to wait until *their* issues were won and then maybe ours were worth working on.)

    With Clinton it’s her white women supporters who are annoying the heck out of some black women by talking down to them the way that white academic feminists did to both black women and working-class white women in the ’60s.

    So there’s a large lump of “we educated middle-class white people know best what’s good for you and if you don’t agree you’re stupid” among the supporters of both candidates, and it’s eroding support for both exactly where they need it.