RIP "coronation" and "her turn." Sad BS memes finally pass their expiration date.

[BobbyDrake]

Preface: If you are able to find a quote or video of Hillary Clinton saying either "coronation" or "my turn," I'll happily eat crow. But we all know you won't be able to find anything like that, so happy fucking hunting.

Goodbye, sexist bullshit with no basis in reality. Your usefulness to a bitter contingent of fake progressives has come to an end. Sadly, the people who utilized you still fail to recognize how your existence was nothing but evidence of a massive case of psychological projection. It was their candidate who was supposed to have the nomination handed to Him just by virtue of the fact that He had finally stirred Himself off of the back bench of the Senate to grace us with His holiness! All were supposed to bow before His brilliance!

But we'll always have the memories, won't we? Memories of ostensibly "progressive" individuals using sexist terms like "Queen Hillary" and "Her" to describe a qualified female politician who was exercising the same right every citizen has: to run for public office. How dare she, after all, amiright? Who cares about decades of her own hard work, accomplishments, and recognition, when she could be boiled down by misogynists into "just Bill Clinton's wife," eh? She's just a woman, what could she possibly know?

So now, pathetic and sexist memes, we consign you to the graveyard of history. No doubt, future liberals will look back at this moment through the lens of time and ask themselves, "How did people who tore down the first female presidential nominee of a major party using openly gendered terms ever fool themselves into thinking that they were progressive in any way, shape, or form?"

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, either.

[leftofcool]

1. There are very few

There are very few posts/OPs posted to DU that I save into an offline personal folder for safekeeping and posterity. This is one of them.

[mac56]

2. And the Civil War re-enactors take the field again.

Pretty soon, I hope, you'll run out of dead horses to beat.

[LanternWaste]

3. Except in this case, the dead horse is healthy, alive and still bleating.

Except in this case, the dead horse is healthy, alive and bleating. As long as we're seeing posts such as "Hillary should never have run!" "Sanders was right!" your premature diagnosis of a dead horse is just that... premature.

Unless of course, you've posted the dead-horse allegations in those particular threads as well...

[mac56]

9. When I've encountered them, yes, I have done so.

However, I don't actively seek out threads on any side of this issue.
This current one just happened to jump up into my face.

[ybbor]

133. Nothing personal, but...

You don't have to repeat your title in your text. But please keep posting, your contribution is very much appreciated! And I have nothing pro or con with your messages.



Carry on.

[BobbyDrake]

8. LanternWaste is correct...

I have looked on both the "In the end, Bernie was right" thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2636315
as well as the "Hillary never should have run" thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2635150
and I can find neither hide nor hair of one of your "enough beating the dead horse" complaints anywhere.

Almost as if your outrage is blatantly selective......

[mac56]

10. Wait a minute, you checked me out?

Whoah. I suppose I should be flattered.

No, no.... that's creepy AF.

[BobbyDrake]

21. Exposing hypocrisy is never creepy.

Those threads are publicly available, and noticing your absence from them hardly counts as "check{ing you} out."

[Madam45for2923]

97. Exactly!

LOL!

[mac56]

99. Whatever you need to tell yourself to justify your stalking behavior.

You'll understand if I don't care to engage further.

[WhiteTara]

104. Painful truth? Checking threads isn't stalking

but hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

[mac56]

105. I wondered if maybe I'd returned to DU too soon.

Seems like I have.

[Rex]

109. It's always been like this.

From day one. Ain't that something?

[mac56]

112. No, I've been here since very nearly the beginning.

Something has changed.

[Rex]

113. So have I.

Yeah there are far less people posting here now so it is a lot more noticeable. IMO.

[BobbyDrake]

145. Engage or not however you want.

You'll be dealing with my Ignore list from here on out, so have fun!

[mac56]

153. My heart will go on.

* snif *

[otohara]

83. This Is The Postmortem Forum

isn't it?

It's good to retire the bullshit hateful memes we were inundated with in order to demonize Hillary.

[Begabig]

88. It's not a useful post mortem...

... If you don't look to see how correct those ideas were.

[otohara]

91. All I See Is More Slime Being Thrown @ Hillary

and the DNC for not embracing a non-Democrat who despised our party and president.

[Begabig]

95. She deserves the blame for the loss...

... Just as she would have deserved credit for the victory.

[lapucelle]

127. The toxic element of the Sanders wing deserves much of the blame,

as does Sanders for his failure to unite that faction with the Democrats.

Weaponized votes, like elections, have consequence. They should have realized that there would be concomitant blame and contempt for helping to put Trump in the White House.

[Dustlawyer]

142. Bernie folks voted for her in huge numbers, more than she would have had if he had not run.

Bernie and Hillary stuck to the issues in their debates. His criticisms of her were fair and his policies were right out of old time Democratic positions. They had a Primary battle, these are never friendly affairs, but theirs was more civil than many.

Bernie ran as a Democrat, and the DNC allowed it to avoid a Nadar situation. I have read posts blaming Bernie for running as a Democrat, when it would have been a guaranteed loss for both if he had run as an Independent.

Now many here want to scapegoat Bernie for the loss, not only is it unfair, it's not true! We need to stop with the postmortem and move on, there are more important things to devote our time and attention to.

[lapucelle]

144. I'm not disputing the hard work that many Sanders supporters engaged in

to get Democrats elected or the fact that they predominantly voted for Hillary on November 8. I took several bus trips from NY to PA in September and October to register voters and canvass for Hillary and senate candidate Katie Mc Ginty. Several of the people I worked with (including two on my four person team) were Sanders voters in the primary.

There are several factors that contributed to the loss. I think the primary factor was Comey and the way the press covered his October 28 letter. We had a rogue element of the investigatory arm of a department of the federal government actively working to undermine a presidential candidate and issuing threats and ultimata to the head of the FBI. Where was our vaunted free press on this? Sniffing around for a sex angle that they could snicker about on the air because Anthony Weiner was tangentially involved.

In the end, however, it was the Stein voters and the no shows who could have made the difference, and there was a certain toxic element among them. It's stunning that some of them have come around here to actively gloat. It's mind mind boggling that some of them think that their actions have strengthened their own or Sanders' standing on the political landscape.

Democrats, including Clinton, Obama, and even Sanders himself begged them not to do this. They did it anyway. People who make threats and then carry them out cannot claim the moral high ground. They are not heroes. They are not right. They are ruthless, self-important narcissists. They deserve the contempt of the people who counted on them to do the right thing for the common good.

[Demsrule86]

165. Yeah...the were self fulfilling...the prmary made them happen...

Hillary would be president had Bernie never ran in the primary...and that is unforgivable.

[Begabig]

167. So....

... if everyone had just shut up, gotten in line and conformed she would have won?

It's a no brainer but not very helpful.

[Demsrule86]

168. Yes, during a crucial election year that is exactly what should have happened...now

we will be lucky to save Social Security...lost the courts too.

[Begabig]

169. That mindset is why talk about it being "her turn" or a "coronation" lingered...

Everyone should just shush and say nice things.

[Raster]

4. Once again, if you don't believe how I believe...

..blah, blah, blah.

[DFW]

5. One of your questions is easy to answer

"How did people who tore down the first female presidential nominee of a major party using openly gendered terms ever fool themselves into thinking that they were progressive in any way, shape, or form?"

Three easy steps:
1.) Bernie Sanders is a progressive
2.) I support Bernie Sanders
3.) Therefore, I am a progressive

Sort of like:

1.) Broccoli is a vegetable
2.) I eat Broccoli
3.) Therefore, I am a vegetarian

Don't forget the old saw about how some think that just going inside a church makes them a Christian.

[Paladin]

7. Nicely put, DFW. (nt)

[DFW]

15. Like Pete Seeger once said:

"Any damn fool can get complicated...."

[Cary]

12. Why are people Cubs fans?

I was a Cubs fan for one year: 1969. I grew up about 4 miles from Wrigley and I had fun in the bleachers yelling puerile insults at Tommy Agee.

Does that explain anything? No, but it's the best answer I have and I still chuckle over Tommy Agee actually getting mad at me.

[DFW]

14. Hey, my brother-in-law is a Cubs fan!

He's from Wisconsin. Talk about faith in your convictions!

[Cary]

96. Nothing against Cubs fans, mind you.

[betsuni]

6. Yes, please!

[yallerdawg]

11. One thing about the Green Party recounts.

They'll confirm how few Bernie fans it would have taken to stop giving away the election to a "billionaire" fascist.

Senator Sanders (I-VT) will have that for all posterity.

I just hope the DNC and state Democratic Parties have learned this lesson.

[Exilednight]

13. It's true they can't win without us (us meaning Democratic Party)

But we can't win without them. When we listen to their concerns, like Obama did in 2008, we win. When we do not, like 2000 and 2016, we lose.

[Plucketeer]

66. Three weeks out

it looks like Dems are gonna "stay the course". Gotta love clinging to denial as a means of going forward.

[hueymahl]

103. Yep, its all Bernie's fault

Whatever.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Almost thought this was a Rude Pundit piece

(similar style)

Bravo!

[melman]

43. You mean

on account of how it's poorly written and cringey? I agree.

[ismnotwasm]

56. Yeah I'd be cringing if I hated Hillary past the point of common sense right now

Nor saying you did, you sayin.

[BumRushDaShow]

114. Rude doesn't mince words and neither did the OP. nt

[MadDAsHell]

17. Openly gendered terms like..."I'm With Her"?

Like...picking the Jacob Javits Center for your election night celebration specifically because of its glass ceiling?

Don't get me wrong, I don't exclusively blame Hillary Clinton or her campaign staff for making this campaign almost exclusively about her being a woman and losing the support of so many votes that we needed. Like any political campaign, most of the blame can be correctly placed on the most rabid supporters who decided to make the campaign more about what they wanted than what the country needed.

With few exceptions, campaigns that are solely focused on "making history" with the skin color, genitalia, or other physical characteristics of their candidate rarely work out, because frankly, we've all been raised to believe (correctly) that those things are not what defines a person.

[Buzz Clik]

23. Way to tap into rightwing talking points! Nicely played.

If you want links where hardcore, sexist pigs have used the language you just used, let me know. I'd be happy to oblige. But, act quickly. You'll be on my tiny ignore list in a very few seconds.

[MadDAsHell]

25. My bad, you're right. Our physical characteristics ARE what defines us. nt

[JHan]

30. Pretty poor form to assume people voted for her because she has a vagina...

I have a vagina as well, that's not why I voted for her. Hillary's health care initiatives, promising tech plan, mental health care initiative and steps towards criminal justice reform were what swayed me the most.

Addressing the sexism she faced this year is important, correctly framing how her campaign addressed it is important.

When Barack Obama ran, there were similar narratives about race and religion and how to overcome it.

These were/are vital conversations we should engage.

[mcar]

26. This is completely false

HRC did not make the campaign "almost exclusively" about her being a woman. You don't seem to have been paying attention.

And picking the Javits Center - horrors! How dare the first woman nominee pick a symbolic site for what should have been a celebration.

[LiberalFighter]

61. One reason so many weren't paying attention is the media.

They played on the woman bit as if that was the only reason she was running. Along with giving Trump most of the media coverage while claiming to offer to his opponents when they didn't.

[George II]

122. Yeah, and I'll bet if she was elected she'd want to be sworn in on the steps of the Capitol!

Meanwhile, her opponent celebrated in his golden phallic symbol, Trump Tower.

[mcar]

124. How dare she!

With her womany woman-ness.

[ismnotwasm]

55. UGH

[Garrett78]

72. "campaigns that are solely focused on "making history"'

Clearly, some at DU weren't following the same campaign that I was. Clinton had a more in-depth and accurate message than her opponent on *every* issue. If you wish to argue that was her problem, that she should have lied and dumbed down the message, then fine. But it's ridiculous to suggest she simply ran on making history. Words can't properly describe how absurd that is.

[JHan]

101. this- agreed 100%

[GummyBearz]

123. If she broke that glass ceiling in the Jacob Javits Center...

If she broke that glass ceiling in the Jacob Javits Center, would her servants/maids that had to clean it up be getting paid $15/hour?

[Fla Dem]

129. What the heck are you talking about?

First of all, breaking the glass ceiling and the Javit's Center ceiling was symbolic. Did you really think they were planning on breaking the ceiling?

Secondly what do you mean by "her servants /maids"?

[Me.]

18. Wish I Could Recommend

[MelissaB]

19. What a sad OP.

Many of us who wanted someone else as the nominee because of her corporate and wall street ties, unpopularity, etc.

I voted for her in the primary, but she certainly wasn't the nominee I wanted. The fact that she is a woman had NOTHING to do with it. EVER.

[alarimer]

24. There was this sense though that it was "her turn".

The OP is wrong.

Or maybe that everyone else just needed to get out of the way, which amounts to the same thing. I heard it various places, not just here, that it wasn't for the pesky primary fight, she would have won. Which is bullshit.

[MelissaB]

28. It sure is.

[BobbyDrake]

29. She was fully qualified to run for a position that is open to anyone. Anyone else could have run.

As I noted in the preface, I'm waiting for any single one of you folks who allege that she said it was her turn to put up evidence to that effect. And yet here I am, forced to deal with no evidence and more whining.

Typical.

[MelissaB]

32. Talk about whining...

you think she lost because she was a woman? You think it was sexism that cost her the election?

[BobbyDrake]

33. Link to where I said she lost because she's a woman or stop replying.

I'm not going to put up with grade-school level debate tactics where you put words in my mouth just so you have something to argue against, all to cover up the glaringly obvious fact that you have no proof to back up the bullshit you're spewing.

[MelissaB]

41. Project much?

My "allies" never used sexist terms and that's not why I didn't want her to be the nominee. Go spew your "bullshit" elsewhere.

[BobbyDrake]

50. You're the one not acknowleding what you won't see, not me.

The fact is that you sided with sexists and now that it's not convenient for you, you want to deny all associations. Good luck.

[MelissaB]

59. Fail again, but keep trying.

For all I know you thought Hillary was the greatest candidate ever, but how would you feel if I said you only voted for her because she was a woman, had ties to wall street, loved those $XXX,XXX speeches, tested the wind to see what position to take, loved the traded deals she supported, etc. Kind of silly, eh?

My brother loves Hillary and did think she was a great candidate, however he knows that the reasons I didn't like her had nothing to do with sexism or it being her turn (if she ever even thought that).

This OP is offensive and divisive.

[BobbyDrake]

69. Well, I think the people who let their side used sexist terms is what is offensive and divisive.

Especially when the people acknowledging that they saw the sexist terms and yet did nothing about it are the ones trying to claim that other people aren't recognizing something. And then you make gross assumptions about what HRC thinks or believes as another excuse for your behavior? Utterly ridiculous.

[MelissaB]

77. Insane.

This site has administrators and a little button to click and report posts. Keep digging, though.

[ismnotwasm]

86. Because that always works right?

And who or what are you calling insane?

[JudyM]

34. Can't see what ya don't look at, I keep saying it... easier to blame than to try to understand.

[MelissaB]

49. Some people here don't even try to understand.

It's The Blame Game round 100k. Second verse, same as the first.

[JudyM]

58. Exactly right, Melissa. Apparently thinking like tRump: if you shout the same malarky over and over

people will believe it. The childishness lies in having no interest in genuine reflection, just blaming.

[BeyondGeography]

35. She came off as entitled and her negatives scientifically validated it

You are dealing in the realm of hurt feelings. Everyone was a loser here. Lighten up on the anti-Hills, they had their reasons, and they were just as valid as yours.

[BobbyDrake]

39. LOL @ your irony. "She came off as entitled" is nothing BUT "hurt feelings."

I have said before and will say again, "Bernie supporters, stop projecting your issues onto the rest of us!"

[Begabig]

111. With a tiny handful of candidates...

... only two of which were ever considered serious.

One had the the distinct impression that everyone who could have competed had been pushed to the side as part of years of preparation.

[BobbyDrake]

27. Many of you who claim that still also sat silent while your allies used those terms.

So it's hard to believe you now when you say it didn't matter, after you allowed that part of the discussion in the first place. You had a responsibility to police the words and actions of your own side and failed. Miserably.

[MelissaB]

31. My "allies used those terms"???

I'm so glad you know me and who my friends are. I saw those terms posted here, but never heard them in real life. And, I'm not a police anyway.

In addition, if you think Hillary lost because she was a woman, you may need to do some reexamining.

BTW, I'm a liberal from Alabama. I was already sick of defending the Clintons and Bill's magic penis before she won the primary.

Note: Read up thread. I freaking voted for her anyway.

[BobbyDrake]

51. You saw those terms posted here; what did you do about it?

Said nothing and used the people saying them to your own ends, apparently.

[BobbyDrake]

73. If you can't answer, just admit it.

Here you've admitted that you saw those terms being used and did nothing. You're the one who got upset at being called out about it, so mind your own damn cheerioes, OK?

[JudyM]

62. You are trying to use reason here?

[BainsBane]

90. Tell us why her "corporate and Wall Street ties"

were a concern and those of the rest of the Democratic Party and previous presidents weren't?

It's hard to understand why that suddenly became a big issue against Hillary in particular when it hadn't been in the past, and when people continue to idolize JFK and FDR, who came from extreme wealth and were entirely enmeshed within the wealthy elite.

Why was it so horrible for Clinton to acquire wealth from speeches and book sales but it was okay for those prior presidents to be born into much greater wealth?

The fact that entire standard was used against Clinton and not anyone else is what is so perplexing.

[NRQ891]

132. this is breathtaking- 'Why was it so horrible for Clinton to acquire wealth from speeches '

'Why was it so horrible for Clinton to acquire wealth from speeches and book sales but it was okay for those prior presidents to be born into much greater wealth? '


because, ummm, being born to wealth doesn't imply a direct quid pro quo like being paid $250,000 for a 40 minute speech by Goldman Sachs?

[SunSeeker]

140. That was what she got paid for giving speeches. What is wrong with that?

What Goldman Sachs got for that $250k was the same thing everyone else got who paid Hillary to come do a speech for their group: a speech.

Male politicians, both Dems and GOP, do that all the time. That is how high profie politicians and other famous people make money. Why was it only a problem when Hillary did it? Would you prefer she had made her money building hotels?

[NRQ891]

143. because many see it as a laundered bribe nt

[SunSeeker]

148. "Many" would be right wingers, like the poutrage over Benghazi and emails. nt

[NRQ891]

149. I guess you're counting Bernie as one of those 'Right Wingers'

Oct 8, 2016 - Sen. Bernie Sanders, who during the Democratic primaries had demanded Hillary Clinton release transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street ...

the amount of McCarthyism on this site is scary

(McCarthyism = labeling anyone you disagree with)

[SunSeeker]

150. Bernie is not a Dem. His bullshit personal attacks on Hillary were gleefully picked up by Trump.

When Bernie made those fact-free personal attacks, insinuating she was a puppet of Wall Street even though her voting record and campaign policy positions clearly showed she is not, he disregarded the harm he was doing to Dems. He poisoned his followers against Hillary and it hurt her in terms of turnout, helping Trump steal the election. And he did it for very selfish reasons: just to win the primary of a party he did not even belong to. If he helps right wingers, what does that make him?

And spare me your lecturing on McCarthyism. Even though I have been on this site for years, I had to endure throughout the primary being called an authoritarian, bot, shill, and worse, just because I supported the most qualified candidate the Democratic Party has had in my lifetime.

[NRQ891]

151. but you said the 'many' are 'right wingers, you didn't say 'not Dem' nt

[SunSeeker]

152. Yes, many are right wingers. That is an accurate statement. nt

[BainsBane]

154. What was the quid pro quo?

Where is it reflected in her policy or voting record? Even Sanders himself, who ginned up those accusations to advance himself, could point to nothing. He was the one who granted immunity to gun corporations, who voted for hundreds of billions in corporate welfare to Lockheed Martin for the F-35. Yet the focus was not on action or policy but a politically motivated smear.

[NRQ891]

155. in the courtroom of the election secret ballot

'appearances' are admissible evidence. It's not the voter who is on trial. Never forget that. 'Trust' is earned, not owed

[BainsBane]

156. That is not quid pro quo

Which means your prior statement is false. I understand your position, however. You think giving enormous amounts of money to corporations is fine. Being a billionaire is fine. But earning $250k from a bank is not. Well, it is for everyone except Hillary Clinton. I hope you're happy with the billionaires in Trump's cabinet. At least you don't have to worry about "quid pro quo." They make no secret about their intent to use the national treasury to line their pockets.

Your allegation about a quid pro quo is false, as demonstrated by your immediate pivot to appearances. You think nothing about resorting to dishonesty, and yet you have the nerve to attack Clinton's ethics.

And appearances are absolutely not admissible in a court of law. Of course voters can make decisions based on anything they want--including lies--which is why we have Donald Trump as the next president. Better billionaires that hand everything over to Wall Street than a woman with a detailed policy about regulating it.

[NRQ891]

157. 'And appearances are absolutely not admissible in a court of law'

that's my point. the secret voting booth is not a court of law.

and even in a court, you cant sue someone for trust you feel they owe you

[BainsBane]

158. Your defense for your blatantly false allegation

is that voters can do whatever the fuck they want. Yes, they can. And in the primary they voted for Hillary.

The question in this subthread was not about how GE voters fell for a con man but why Democrats here insist on holding Hillary Clinton to a standard they apply to no one else.

[NRQ891]

159. ' And in the primary they voted for Hillary.'

so therefor, she won the GE

why aren't you out celebrating?

[BainsBane]

160. One does not' follow from the other

and none of what you have said justifies the double standard or your dishonest claims about a quid quo.

[heaven05]

20. very true, on all counts

we were our own worst enemy this election. No doubt.

[duffyduff]

22. I couldn't have said it better.

Sexism even more than racism was the big issue this campaign, and it went on with BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

Appalling. Some won't like the truth in your post.

[JudyM]

36. Pure supposition. Just because people dislike a candidate doesn't mean it's because of gender.

[duffyduff]

64. It is fact. Sorry. n/t

[JudyM]

70. There may have been legitimate concerns, and gender had nothing to do with it. Ardent feminists

are "allowed" to have values beyond gender identity.

[ismnotwasm]

87. I would argue that "ardent" feminists

Never deny that gender is a factor when women push for power of any sort.

[JudyM]

93. Gender is not automatically a factor in someone not voting for a woman. Particularly so if the voter

is an ardent feminist.

[ismnotwasm]

102. No, but dismissing sexist barriers is not the hallmark of an ardent feminist either.

[JudyM]

106. No dismisssal, in fact there has been widespread acknowledgement of that general state of things,

yet the specific situation was viewed as legitimately larger than the gender issue by some very ardent feminists.

[Ligyron]

117. and yet a whole bunch of women voted against her.

What was that all about?

[Shemp Howard]

37. You really want Bernie's supporters to leave the party?

That's what I'm getting from your "don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out" comment. As that old saying goes, be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Make Bernie's supporters feel stupid, guilty, and unwanted, and they just might go Green, permanently. Then its the GOP in the White House for decades to come.

[BobbyDrake]

44. This post is addressed to the memes. FFS, reading comprehension much?

I never said anything about pushing anyone out of the party. This year was about Bernie's supporters not being able to handle the loss in a democratic primary and then continue working with the party through the general election. It was about a hissy fit of nation-damaging proportions. The endless list of bullshit conspiracy theories, when Bernie's campaign was the one to hack the DNC, was the one to use AARP and LCV logos in mailers without permission, was the one to send campaign workers to impersonate union members in Nevada, and was the one who used fake news paper endorsements in television ads that aired in New Hampshire, is just sickening.

And if your threat is that the GOP will control the White House for decades to come without your help, well, if this past election was WITH your help, we're getting the same result anyway, so it's an empty thread, actually.

[Shemp Howard]

52. You do make a good point here...

...in that some Bernie supporters did not do enough to help HRC once she won the nomination.

But, yes, I took the "you" in "don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out" to refer to actual people, and not to some meme. And that's what most people take the word "you" to mean. It refers to a person, or to people. So I'm not too concerned about my reading comprehension here.

Regardless, I stand by my White House comment. Let's think going forward for a moment. The Hillary wing of the party needs to respect the Bernie wing. And the reverse is also true! A lasting split would be very harmful. Both sides need to realize that.

[BobbyDrake]

53. Agreed. nt

[melman]

82. That's how the 'you' was intended

Clearly. It's bait.

Then when you take it as it's meant, you're told you're stupid for taking it that way. That's textbook trolling.

The thread is over-the-top hostile, and meant to provoke and insult. Same as every single other post from this poster.

[FairWinds]

139. yep, I have a major problem with Bobby's . .

total lack of civility - on display here.

And much else.

He only joined DU in May, and has averaged almost ten posts per day.

Divisive is the word.

[MelissaB]

46. Exactly right! I voted for the corporate candidate this time, but don't keep pushing me.

It was hard enough this time around. The Democratic party needs to take a long, hard look at why it lost and try to fix it. Hint: it wasn't sexism.

[ismnotwasm]

71. Hint: it was sexism

The purity part of--I am assuming you are a Democrat--the Democratic Party needs to take a long, hard look at the part they played in this loss--perhaps a civics class to help understand how politics actually work

[hueymahl]

135. Please educate me

How exactly does politics work?

[ismnotwasm]

60. If Bernie supporters leave because they can't take criticism

Or acknowledge their part in this debacle, not much we can do. Dems are already are getting together a ground game to fight back.

[Shemp Howard]

76. There is a difference between criticism and insults.

But I will try to avoid being too judgmental of the OP. We received quite a jolt on November 8, and it will take awhile for everyone's heads to clear (mine included).

[ismnotwasm]

85. There is plenty of blame to spread around

I see everything through a feminist lens, so the sexism that was very apparent in the primaries and the election is a sore spot.

On the other hand, you are correct. It will take a while, this head-clearing --possible until the inauguration--and then we can focus on regaining what we lost.

[Indydem]

121. Yes. Leave.

The lack of action by Bernie supporters, and the straight up BS you and your candidate peddled in the primary was a major contributor to the loss we suffered.

Bye.

[ismnotwasm]

38. Exactly

"I'm not sexist but"

"I want a woman president but the right woman president"

The discriptors using slang for female anotomy.

The incredible combing over and cheery picking every possible moment of her like life AKA "Goldwater girl"

Many more, so much bullshit and just enough time to sit side by side with the worst of republicans to stop her.

The actual exodus of "progressives" to third party, not out of ideology, but out of actual, visceral hate for Hillary Clinton.

If she had been male her faults would have been debated heatedly, angrily but not fire-melted--exaggerated into unrecognizable shapes and forms.

Look at them now.

[BobbyDrake]

47. HRC left the GOP at 19, Elizabeth Warren waited until her 40s. Who's the progressive icon?

That tells me all I need to know about this phony "revolution."

ETA: And I say "left the GOP" in the sense of "became an adult, went to college, and moved out of her Republican father's household where support for the GOP was expected.

[ismnotwasm]

54. Oh so many example of hypocrisy--so little time.

And you know what else? It will be the Democrats, the ones who have been and still are reviled as "corporate sell outs" who will have to fix this mess. And fix it we will. And we'll get criticized for not doing it right.

At least they know what a real corporatist looks like now.

[mcar]

125. The endless criticism of her clothes

her voice, her smile or lack thereof. Her lack of "likeability," and "charisma," and "it" factor....

[MadDAsHell]

40. So Sanders supporters can be labeled as "pathetic" and "sexist," but Clinton supporters can't be? nt

[MelissaB]

48. I think you've got that right.

[BobbyDrake]

57. That's not even a real arguement. It's nothing but a poorly-constructed straw man.

Some Sanders supported used sexist language in their attacks on Clinton. No one on the Clinton side was saying, "Bernie shouldn't run because he's a man."

[liberalnarb]

107. Who on the Sanders side said Hillary shouldn't run because she's a woman?

[ismnotwasm]

65. Some could

Clinton wasn't a perfect candidate but niether was she flawed to the point of unelectability. Sexist memes and lies from all sides had a huge part in this. Time to own up and get ready to fight.

[radical noodle]

45. K&R

Well said.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

67. So the GOP is a mirror to the DNC

They had the tea party. We have Bernie Bros. Both have establishment. I guess identity politics won't go away soon. Nor will Dems come to a consensus. How about rallying around the Roosevelt's? She progressive and the liberal? Leave Bernie out of it.

[MelissaB]

68. This OP is offensive and divisive.

(Repost of what I said upthread).

For all I know you thought Hillary was the greatest candidate ever, but how would you feel if I said you only voted for her because she was a woman, had ties to wall street, loved those $XXX,XXX speeches, tested the wind to see what position to take, loved the traded deals she supported, etc. Kind of silly, eh?

My brother loves Hillary and did think she was a great candidate, however he knows that the reasons I didn't like her had nothing to do with sexism or it being her turn (if she ever even thought that).

This OP is offensive and divisive.

[BobbyDrake]

74. Then trash it, instead of cutting-and-pasting the same reply over and over.

No one's forcing you to be here.

[MelissaB]

75. LOL! I've been here a LONG time, dear.

It's pretty clear nobody is forcing me to be here.

Keep posting OPs like this. It's great for the Democratic party and this website as well.

[ismnotwasm]

79. Hmmm.

[MelissaB]

80. Hummm. You think I'm going somewhere?

[ismnotwasm]

81. No you reminded me of someone right there

[MelissaB]

94. Must be a really great poster

who usually doesn't get into this kind of yip yap.

[TwilightZone]

100. Hmm...

Now that you mention it. lol

[Rex]

110. That's the point.

SSDY

[Ligyron]

118. I agree, it is offensive and divisive.

It's everybody's fault but Hillary and the DNC's.

It's those mean sexist's fault she lost. But those sexists aren't going anywhere so what do we do? Complain? Attack fellow Dems?

No, too many people voted against her in the right places, that's why she lost.

Plus, she was not trusted and disliked by a LOT of people because of thirty years or more of a RW smear campaign. Unfair, I know but politics is a contact sport.

[KPN]

78. Way off base man!

Sounds like a lot of sour grapes, scapegoating to me ... not to mention inaccurate judgement.

[LexVegas]

84. Great post. Rec. nt

[mike_c]

89. passive aggressive pasture puck....

This isn't directed at progressives, only progressive memes.

Bitter much?

[NRQ891]

120. I love the Hillary 'Deal with it'. gif in the OP

does no one else note the irony of that, given that she lost?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

92. She never said that, and no one ever claimed she said it.

But there were plenty of political cartoons showing her on her way to a coronation, and plenty of statements everywhere about it being her turn this year. There was certainly a lot of: Now that we've elected a Black President, next we need to elect a Woman President either overtly said or clearly implied.

So to try to clutch your pearls because she didn't say those things it a bit disingenuous.

[Madam45for2923]

98. Misunderstand much!?

[StevieM]

126. I think you misunderstood the intention of the OP with this post.

They were trying to make a similar point to the one you are making.

[BlueProgressive]

108. Don't worry--- "SHE's GOT THIS!"

You can throw that one out too, while you're at it.

[sheshe2]

115. Woah!

Thank you Bobby Drake.

[TheFrenchRazor]

116. yep, a lot of dems bought the RW propaganda, or were flat out sexist. no surprise. nt

[brer cat]

119. K&R

[azmom]

128. Bad memes, bad memes.

[aikoaiko]

130. Not HRC, but someone with the gravitas of Donna Brazile acknowledged the "coronation"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/11/donna_brazile_if_hillary_clinton_gets_in_the_race_there_will_be_a_coronation_of_her.html

Brazile:
"If Hillary Clinton Gets In The Race,...

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: No question about that, but there does not appear to be all that much competition, yet understandably, with Hillary Clinton out there kind of freezing the field.

DONNA BRAZILE: I don't think so. Martin O'Malley has made some noise recently that he's interested. Of course we have Joe Biden, Kristen Gillibrand, the senator from the great state here of New York. Elizabeth Warren, there is a lot of buzz around her, and of course, Governor Cuomo here from New York. A lot of talk. And let me not forget Joe Biden, because he will call me this afternoon and remind me.

So while I do think it's too early to handicap the race, there is no question, if Hillary Clinton gets into the race, there will be a coronation of her, because there are so many Democrats who last time around supported her, who I think are anxious to see her back out there again.

All HRC had to do, said the would be DNC chair, is get into the race.

Do you think Donna Brazile was peddling bullshit sexist memes?

[EffieBlack]

131. I think I'm in love . . .

[FairWinds]

134. I have alerted the Mods on this post . .

Last edited Sat Dec 3, 2016, 01:20 AM - Edit history (1)

How is it not divisive ?

Bobby(Drake) has a history here . . .

He smeared Bernie just yesterday . .

And I also don't appreciate his total lack of civility.

Bernie has every right to take part in the Dem Party process, and so do I.

Bobby always runs and hides whenever anyone asks what he has personally done
to support the party, or even to make the world a marginally better place.

How does Bobby think it will help Dems if he is able to drive out all the
leftist progressives from the party?

Is that what he wants?

[akbacchus_BC]

141. Why would you alert his post?

[FairWinds]

162. Dear AKB . .

I alerted Bobby's post because it breaks the civility rule, specifically

"No divisive group attacks
Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures. Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like.
Why we have this rule: Substantive disagreement on important issues is always welcome on this website, but our members should not be made to feel unwelcome simply because they hold a different point of view. Democratic Underground welcomes all people who are members of the Democratic coalition, including the full range of center-to-left viewpoints and supporters of all Democratic public figures."

Bobby does not deal with substantive issues - he just claims that those he disagrees with are bad people.

I would not even have seen the post except that it would up on "Greatest Threads."

Great it is not.

[BobbyDrake]

146. ROFLMAO

You could populate all the corn fields of the Midwest with that man straw men.

[Starry Messenger]

136. k&r

[FairWinds]

137. These are BobbyClark's anti-Bernie smears from yesterday . .

(It is just a collection of right wing nuttiness, and should have no place on DU)

"bobby clark" wrote . .

The "rape fantasy" essay. The "orgasm boxes." The lack of a job until his 40s.

The stealing electricity from his neighbor. The support for South American communist dictators.

These are things that not everyone in America would shrug off the way his more zealous supporters did.

And he smeared HRC with allegations of being corrupt with no evidence, implying that giving a speech made her owned by the group she spoke to, and all of the other mindless "establishment" nonsense that was repeated over and over.

[BobbyDrake]

147. It's "BobbyDrake," actually. But thanks for the bumps.

[FairWinds]

161. Come on Mr. Babby, put up . . !!

Ever gone door to door for Dems?
Phone bank?
Work on platforms?
Write campaign lit?
Drop off or collect yard signs?
Act as campaign treasurer? (Yes, it is scary to do that)
Run a campaign?
Host HRC and/or Obama field workers in your home?
Donate?

Seriously, what have you actually done for the party?

As a fighting keyboarder, all you do is trash people who are much better Dems than yourself.

And you only trash progressives - never seen you going after the Reich.

[JudyM]

163. Right there with you on this.

[BobbyDrake]

164. Another free bump? Yes, please!

[mac56]

166. If you haven't figured it out yet for Babby, it's all about the attention.

Reminds me of someone else we've all heard of.

[FairWinds]

138. Gaff alert . .

Ahem, well as you may have noted, I got the moniker of the poster of this thread wrong.

That person is "BobbyDrake"

Profuse apologies to all the honest, forthright and upstanding BobbyClark's out there.