The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Mind the Gap!

    SandersClintonIn Wherefore the Gender Gap, I noted irony in the fact that women greatly prefer Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders given Hillary Clinton's initial reaction to deceptively edited video purporting to show Planned Parenthood conspiring to sell fetal parts. Clinton called the dishonest video “disturbing” and refused to rule out government hearings into Planned Parenthood's practices.To her credit, she subsequently straightened course with her own video defending the heroic and beloved non-profit. Bernie Sanders also reacted problematically, but not as problematically, to the right-wing agitprop.

    The percentage of Democratic women who support Clinton's candidacy is 57% greater than the percentage of Democratic men in her camp, even though women are more likely to support choice and consider it a more important political issue than men do. Still Clinton is reliably pro-choice despite her Planned Parenthood wobble.  Accordingly, women's overwhelming preference for Clinton wouldn't be so surprising if she weren't demonstrably worse than Sanders in a number of other areas that women also rate as particularly important.

    Military Intervention in the Middle East

    According to Gallup, men almost invariably favor military intervention much more than women do. This was the case prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet as University of San Francisco Professor Stephen Zunes points out, Hillary Clinton is the only one of the five announced Democratic candidates who supported the war.

    Four years after we deposed Saddam Hussein, a disproportionate number of women viewed the war as a mistake and favored a timetable for withdrawal. But Clinton did not turn against the war until at the very earliest 2008, years after Bush had acknowledged that pre-war Iraq had neither WMDs nor a viable nuclear weapons program and was not involved in 9/11. By then, most Americans had concluded Operation Iraqi Liberation Freedom was a mistake and Clinton knew she could not defend the war itself while running against Barack Obama in 2008. Still Clinton did not, or could not, admit error until 2014.

    As Secretary of State, Clinton's did fine and difficult work cajoling Iran into negotiations on its nuclear capabilities. But, she positions herself not just to the right of Sanders, respecting an expanded American military presence in Syria, but even of President Obama. Likewise, she has backed away from any criticism of Israel's invasion and heavy-handed occupation of Gaza.

    In contrast to Clinton, Bernie Sanders opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Last year, he voted against President Obama's request for funds to help train and arm Syrian rebels. Some allege that Sanders is too pro-Israel and he was incorrectly called an Israeli citizen by NPR host Diane Rehm. But unlike Clinton, he has made clear his opposition to Israel's war on Gaza and settlements on Palestinian land.

    Environmental Policy

    Gender studies scholars have concluded that women exhibit a “greater willingness to acknowledge ecological problems and risks and to engage in actions that are beneficial for the environment.” In a Pew Research poll conducted last year, 59% of women, and only 47% of men, said the environment was very important to them. Yet the overwhelming choice of Democratic women is markedly less of an environmental champion than her top rival.

    The scientific community has concluded that climate change due to anthropogenic global warming may be the greatest environmental threat humans have ever faced. Unlike nearly every announced Republican Presidential candidate, Clinton does not deny this essential reality and supports a very significant investment in solar energy which unfortunately will require Congressional approval. But she refuses to state her position on either the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the Keystone XL pipeline; both of which the President can stop without Congress and each of which would result in significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental threats.

    Clinton denies participating in the drafting of the TPP but, while she was Secretary of State, the Department was deeply involved in this process. It would therefore seem more probable than not that President Hillary Clinton would embrace this “free trade” pact. Clinton's silence on Keystone is even more maddening. While Secretary of State, she said she would be “inclined” to approve it.  Last month, when asked point blank at a Town Hall for her position, she paused and then after a lengthy exposition said that she will give an answer “when I become President.”

    In a refreshing contrast to the tight-lipped uncommunicative Clinton, Bernie Sanders has stated early and often that he opposes TPP and Keystone and has voted against both. Bottomline: Bernie Sanders is a more reliable, credible, and plain-spoken advocate for a clean green energy future.

    Economic Justice

    Besides reproductive freedom, income inequality is the issue with the largest gender gap according to the Pew poll cited earlier. A year ago, 64% of women said income inequality is a very serious issue while 49% of men agreed. In perhaps no other area is the contrast between Sanders and Clinton more apparent.

    In 2000, while her husband was still President, Clinton supported making China's most favored nation status permanent in 2001. Sanders opposed this step. Other than the Reagan tax cuts for top earners, arguably no other political decision over the past fifty years has led to greater income inequality.

    Clinton has a mixed record on so-called “free” trade while Sanders has consistently opposed these job-killing bills. As mentioned earlier, Clinton refuses to say whether she supports the TPP, aka “NAFTA on steroids, which will increase wealth disparities, while Sanders opposes it. Sanders has joined Elizabeth Warren in calling for the break-up of consolidated banks and a new Glass-Steagall Act while Clinton opposes a return to community and intra-state commercial banking.

    When it comes to tax policy, Clinton is far more generous to the wealthy than Sanders. During the 2008 campaign, she opposed raising the capital gains rate above 20%. Since then she has recalibrated her position and now claims to be amenable to a top short-term capital gains tax of 39.6% with long-term gains taxed at the aforementioned 20%. Regarding top marginal federal income tax rates, Clinton apparently favors the current level of 39.6% which was also in effect when Bill was in office.

    Sanders supports raising the top marginal income tax rate above 50% and would also raise capital gains tax rates significantly. These two actions would greatly reduce after-tax income and wealth disparities.

    One good way to gauge the difference between the two candidates on economic justice is to consider their supporters. In this election cycle, Clinton is raising many millions from Clinton foundation donors and beneficiaries, hedge fund and private equity managers, and entertainment industry moguls.  Sanders refuses to accept super PAC funds and supports a constitutional amendment specifying that corporations have no First Amendment right to influence elections with “speech” or cash.  In the immediate aftermath of his announcement that he was running for President, Sanders raised $1.5 million from thousands of individuals donating about $43 on average.

    Death Penalty

    Historically, men have been more likely than women to support the death penalty.  Like many women, Bernie Sanders opposes it.  As appears to be her wont when asked about controversial issues, Clinton has tended to hedge and equivocate respecting execution. Still, she has never renounced the “vague support” of the ultimate penalty she enunciated in 2001 and 2008. Nor has she distanced herself from her husband's abysmal record in this area when he was Governor of Arkansas.

    Gay Marriage

    In 2012, per Gallup, 56% of women but only 42% of men backed marriage equality. Since the early 1970s, Bernie Sanders is on record in favor of “equality”. In 1996, Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) which President Bill Clinton signed into law. As late as 2003, Hillary Clinton said she too would have signed the law barring federal recognition of gay marriages if she were President. Not until 2013, when most women had already “evolved” did Clinton finally agree that gay marriage should be deemed a human right.

    Conclusion

    Although Hillary Clinton is weaker than her nearest opponent on virtually every issue that women say is important to them, Democratic women disproportionately support her. As primary season approaches and her positions became clearer to voters, perhaps the gender gap will close. If it does not and Hillary Clinton prevails against Bernie Sanders, Democratic women are not likely to see their issues championed in the run-up to the November 2016 general election. If Clinton rides the support of her base to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Democratic women can expect to be sorely disappointed in the country's direction under her stewardship.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Wow, thanks Hal, as you have explained above you see things much clearer than we do. And how is it we women could see things differently when the proof is, Bernie is better, he is even better on women's issues.  I mean how is it we don't see the evidence of Bernie's purity and greatness, and Hillary's succubus ways.   Do you know how often women hear that kind of BS?  You have written nothing different than your conservative counterparts. You seem to think that we need to be set straight and we just don't know the facts like you do because all we can see is gender. And if we elect Hillary Clinton we will be sorry. 

    I think you don't understand what we see. As a women I see you, a man working hard to continue to draw differences where there are no significant differences. We do understand what it is like to not just have to compromise but what it is to fight to be recognized for your knowledge and ideas and ability to get things done.  Clinton has life long issues and legislative victories that have had long term impacts on the nation even before she became a legislator, i.e. CHIP. This has had great impact children's health and when you don't recognize a great accomplishment like this, one that has had long term impact on our nation. 

    I certainly won't be sorry if she wins the primary and then the general election. If elected she will appointment liberal judges, veto legislation that Republicans use to try to wreck the country, initiate solid environmental policies, etc and so on. And we will continue our move left as a nation.  That is all I ask of a President. 

     


    You write: "As a women I see you, a man working hard to continue to draw differences where there are no significant differences." 

    1) Clinton refuses to tell us her position on the TPP and Keystone.  In the past, she has indicated she supports both.  Sanders has been upfront and open about the fact that he opposes both.  Are those not significant differences?

    2) Clinton does not support higher taxes on the rich, except for tweaks to the capital gains tax on relatively short-term investments.  Sanders supports much higher top marginal income taxes.  Is that not a significant difference?

    3) Clinton refuses to criticize Israel's settlement policies and the occupation of Gaza.  Sanders does both.  Are those not significant differences?

    4) Clinton raises money from super-Pacs and corporations.  Sanders raises money from unions and individuals.  Is that not a significant difference?

    You write: "If elected [Hillary] will appoint[] liberal judges, veto legislation that Republicans use to try to wreck the country, initiate solid environmental policies, etc and so on. And we will continue our move left as a nation."

    What is the basis for this contention?  What has she said or done that causes you to be so confident that she will move us to the left?


    That's a whole lot of assumptions there, Hal, with no real evidence to back them up.  I'll say straight off that I would prefer a Biden presidency over either a Clinton or a Sanders.  But when it comes to political know-how, I would take Clinton over Sanders, hands down. I love Bernie's honesty and his passion, and I said so long before he decided to run.  I love that he's shaking up the status quo and making them lean liberal.  It needed to happen long ago.

    Bernie doesn't have the long political history that Hillary does, so it's hard to compare them by their public reactions to past events.  With all of the attacks, both personal and political, it's a wonder Hillary isn't shell-shocked beyond repair.  Bernie has never had to deal with that.  He has never really had to answer for anything he's done or said in the same way Hillary has had to.

    Her seeming obsession with privacy comes from years of being scrutinized practically down to the amount of lint in her belly button.  Her caution with utterances comes from years of having to explain every single word that comes out of her mouth--and from years of seeing every word twisted and turned into unrecognizable pretzels.  Bernie has never had to do that.  

    Bernie talks a good game, but is that really enough?  He has no real background we can grasp to prove that, as president, he would be just the remedy we so sorely need right now.

     It's true that he would probably select more liberal/progressive cabinet members than Hillary might, but then so would Joe.  So would McNally.  But his temperament bothers me.  It makes for good showmanship but when push comes to shove, can he handle the duties of the office?  Is there a cool, calm side of him that he can draw on as the occasion requires?  I haven't seen it yet.

    Much of what you cite above is chewed-over stuff that has already been regurgitated.  She was for the war and then she was against the war.  She is too cozy with the bankers, but that could be an asset when she's president.  There is no indication that she'll turn on us as the leader of our nation and maintain the oligarchy.  None.  If you favor Bernie, fine, but we really need to stop the attacks on Hillary.  Go with the truth, but remember:  she is not the enemy.

     


    Thanks Ramona.  Regarding their political experience, Bernie has served in elected office for nearly 35 years since 1981 when he was elected Mayor of Burlington, VT.  That said, I think Hillary Clinton has one significant asset versus Sanders.  Her term as Secretary of State was, incredibly given the opposition from Republicans, by and large a success.  Even here though the praise must come with a caveat because, as I have previously written in detail, her email practices violated sensible federal rules in place at the time.  I certainly credit her with laying the groundwork for the Iran deal.  Otherwise, as I have written consistently and at length, he is superior. 

    Hillary may have good reasons to be guarded and defensive.  But she doesn't have good reasons for refusing to tell us where she stands on the TPP and Keystone.  Nor does she have good reasons for the cautious centrism - to the right of Obama - she has practiced throughout her political career.  While I agree that there isn't much new information in this blog, what I do is compare directly Sanders with Clinton on issues that women say are most important to them.  (I haven't read any other article by anybody anywhere do this.)   In every one, Sanders comes out ahead.  If you disagree, can you identify one policy area where she is better than he is on the areas that women say are crucial.

    You talk about temperament as though it's an area where Clinton has an advantage.  But you defend her obsession with privacy and wordsmithing as legitimate responses to political attacks.  That doesn't sound like a great temperament to me.  Obama has been attacked repeatedly as was Bill.  But they seem capable of telling us where they stand on issues.  Of course, I disagree with their stances quite a bit.

    IMHO - Bernie has been unfairly attacked by Black Lives Matter.  And, he has kept on keeping on.  He hasn't changed his message in response but he's broadened it.  He's acknowledged BLM's legitimate concerns but continues to stress the primary role that economic injustice plays in every dysfunction in America.  Seems like good temperament.


    I didn't say Hillary's responses are "legitimate", only that they're understandable.  Bernie was involved in local politics for those many years and I'll repeat that he's never had to endure the kind of hateful scrutiny that Hillary has.

    Bernie so far can only stand on the sidelines and report on what the people on the front lines are doing.  Hillary has been in the trenches.  I'm not making a judgment one way or the other on Hillary's political career.  She's made mistakes and miscalculations. She waffles when it would be to her advantage not to.  She already has a reputation--fair or unfair--as a liar, and now is the time for her to bury that image once and for all.  But there is no real evidence that Bernie would do a better job in the White House than would Hillary.

    My only concern is that when comparing the two candidates it's far from comparing apples to apples.  If you want to talk about philosophical differences, that's one thing, but it's unfair to suggest that the untried Bernie would have done things far differently.  We'll never know if this is true.  The truth is, no president has ever lived up to the promises he made while still a candidate.  Reality strikes when they enter the White House and they realize that there are forces far beyond their ability to control. 


    Great job misrepresenting & cherry-picked Hillary's response - you're quite the political hack. “Planned Parenthood for more than a century has done a lot of really good work for women: cancer screenings, family planning, all kinds of health services. And this raises not questions about Planned Parenthood so much as it raises questions about the whole process, that is, not just involving Planned Parenthood, but many institutions in our country,” the Democratic frontrunner said. “And if there’s going to be any kind of congressional inquiry, it should look at everything and not just one (organization).” http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-questions-planned-...

    Yes.  That is what Hillary Clinton said in response to dishonest attacks on Planned Parenthood.  I stand by everything I wrote.


    You stand by it because you're lying hack. Hal: "Hillary Clinton's initial reaction to deceptively edited video purporting to show Planned Parenthood conspiring to sell fetal parts. Clinton called the dishonest video “disturbing” and refused to rule out government hearings into Planned Parenthood's practices." Compare that bullshit synopsis with what she actually said. Having a myopic partisan shill on the left does Bernie or your vaunted causes no good. Even the traditionally biases sounding Politico reported this much more sanely and accurately. Yours makes it sound like she threw Planned Parenthood under the bus, completely the opposite of reality.

    She did call the video "disturbing" and she did not rule out hearings on funding Planned Parenthood.


    PP, please keep your comments to the issues and leave out the personal attacks.  Thanks.


    I'm sorry I called him a hack. I don't know why he's lying and deliberately cutting out most of what she said to make it look like she's throwing planned Parenthood under the bus when she's doing her best to avoid another Benghazi or Acorn attack from the right. It destroys the value of this site when someone repeatedly says "hey, look at this URL where X said Y" only to find X didn't say Y. But yes, that's why I'm giving up on this.

    PP & Ramona - I'm not offended by being called a "hack".  I don't like profanity since I think it degenerates the discussion.  Regarding my "lying", it may be hard for PP to believe since our opinions are so different, but I believe I have been very fair to Hillary Clinton.  Examples: 1) I remark positively on Clinton's video defending Planned Parenthood and her strong record on reproductive rights.  2) I note that Sanders, like Clinton, had a reaction against Planned Parenthood when he first saw the video.  3) On balance, I rate Clinton's term as Secretary of State positively.  If I wrote something that is untrue, I will be happy to correct the record.  I do not think I did so.
     


    The truth is I didn't even finish this article. You can't beat a dead horse and tell it to run. 


    Thanks for starting.


    Guess I'd say that even if I grant every policy point to you that this is not really how people select presidents, senators or dog catchers.  A president isn't just a collection of policies. Clinton has, to many people (myself included) an inspiring tale behind her.  She will make a good president and, ultimately, her decision-making and leadership abilities will be more important to her presidential legacy than the list of policy promises she gives us over one or two elections.

    In any event, you won't really convince her public to abandon her by going the laundry list route.

    Finally, her capital gains tax proposal isn't such weak tea as you describe. Expanding the time period from 1 year to 2 for capital gains treatment is a big move.  Further using the cap gains rate to prefer holding periods of 6 years or more, as she has proposed, is a major change.


    I must be a really lousy writer because my ultimate point seems lost on everybody.  Let me try again, per Fox's August 3, 2015, poll 38% of Democratic men said they'd vote for Clinton and 32% said they'd for Sanders (basically a dead heat).  In that same poll 60% of Democratic women said they'd vote for Clinton and only 16% would vote for Sanders.  This is despite the fact that, as I detailed laboriously, Sanders is more responsive than Clinton to the issues that women say are most important to them.  So my point is that women support the candidate whose policies do not reflect their stated values.

    It may well be that people don't vote based on enunciated policies.  Certain kinds of experiences and inspiring tales may make all the difference.  The person you'd rather have a beer with can determine an election.  I get all of that.  But among Democratic voters, women by more than 3 to 1 are opting for the candidate who gives less shrift to the issues that they say they care about while men split almost evenly between the two.  How come Clinton's inspiring tale convinces women by an enormous margin that she'll be a good President but not men?  Are we just chauvinists?

    Regarding Clinton's capital gains proposal, I agree it's not weak tea.  It's better than what we have now.  But, Clinton, as she has on so many issues, has changed her position.  In 2008, when it was less clear that the public wanted the wealthy to pay much higher taxes, she called for a 20% capital gains tax.  In any case, Sanders supports a much more progressive tax code than Clinton and women disproportionately say they want income equality.  So, he's better than she is on this issue if you care about reducing wealth disparities as women say they do.

    You write that her leadership qualities will be what determines her legacy not her policy proposals prior to the election.  I say that if she's elected her legacy will be decided by the legislation that she successfully champions, foreign policy, and the Supreme Court she leaves behind.  My guess is her legacy, like Obama's, would likely be a mixed one.

    Michael - if setting out in painstaking detail the policy differences (and they are significant) between two candidates won't convince people to vote for the one whose political values are closer to their stated ones, what will?  For the past ten years, I have been trying to persuade as many people as I can to vote for the most liberal viable candidate in every election.   Sounds like you think I'm not doing a good job of it.  Help me out.


    Hal, you know you're not a lousy writer. You're doing just fine.

    I'm a woman, so let me try to explain to you why more women see something in Hillary Clinton than men do.  There are plenty of women who dislike Hillary and wouldn't vote for her, but most Democratic women look at her and see someone who understands us far better than any male politician ever could or would.  She gets us.  She's a feminist from way back.  She takes a licking and keeps on ticking.  While most if not all of us women have had to endure tons of shit, we can look at Hillary, see that she's still standing tall, and marvel at her tenacity, her guts, her absolute, laser-like focus on where she's going.

    Every attack on her only makes her stronger, and here she is, still wanting to make the grueling run for president, knowing that the attacks against her have only just begun.  You can go through your list of things that give you pause, but women see strength in her.  She'll get the job done.  She won't back down.  She'll always be one of us.  She gets us.  We haven't ever had that before.  

    Just as Obama,our first black president, isn't the president for just blacks, Hillary won't be the president for just women, but the fact that she's gone through hell and still wants to be here is reason enough to give her a chance.  Plus--and this is an important plus--she's as qualified as every other candidate--and in most cases, more qualified.

    Take a look at this.  It may help


    "Just as Obama,our first black president, isn't the president for just blacks, Hillary won't be the president for just women..."

    I can't recall if anybody ever said, during 2008, that African American voters should prefer a more liberal candidate like Dennis Kucinich to Obama. Indeed, I think we saw from Sanders' first brush with the Black Lives Matter protestors what a disaster that might have been.

    Put another way, after all this time, I think there are a lot of women voters out there who are not looking for a man to tell them that they should be rational and vote for the man in the race who will better represent their policy preferences.

    Another thing to consider is policy preferences vs. ability to get things done.  You might say that Sanders has tax ideas that will more dramatically reduce income inequality and so women voters who are concerned with income inequality should prefer his policies over her capital gains tax idea.  Maybe.  But it might also be that Hillary's capital gains tax idea stands a better chance of being realistically implemented.


    Michael - I think your defense of Clinton when it comes to the capital gains tax is fair as far as it goes, although you disregard her relatively recent statement (2008 campaign) that 20% was as high as the tax should go.  But, I fail to see how her refusal to tell us where she stands on TPP or Keystone can be justified.  Regarding Obama in 2008, I thought when the primaries began he was the most liberal Democrat who could get elected and the best candidate for all Americans. 

    In retrospect, those who championed Kucinich were probably right but I don't think we could have foreseen Obama's willingness to forsake progressives in several key areas - most importantly trade and labor but also energy.  In any case, Kucinich was never more than a fringe candidate.  Bernie Sanders is clearly far more than that. 

    If Kucinich had reached 20-25% in the polls and was second only to Barack Obama, I believe a column by a white liberal - say Paul Krugman - arguing that Kucinich was better on the issues that blacks say matter most to them would not have caused as much of a ruckus as you think it would have. 


    Everyone should have known Obama was going to favor free trade deals. Progressives just didn't want to believe the evidence right before their eyes. When Obama was campaigning in Ohio and proclaiming he would renegotiate NAFTA he was also sending Goolsbee to tell Canada that they shouldn't worry about it because it was all just political posturing on the campaign trail and didn't reflect Obama's actual policy views.

    Willful blindness then and forgetfulness with a rewriting of history now.
     


    On cap gains -- isn't a 20% long-term cap gains rate the rate we had in the 1990s?  Arguing for a return to those levels, when capital markets functioned quite well, doesn't seem controversial. Combine a 20% limit with her proposal to double the cap gains waiting period and you definitely have reform that progressives should support.

    As for Keystone, since you brought it up, of course I think politicians should be open about their positions.  So, yes, strike against her.  Strike that makes me not want her to be president?  Not so much.  Obama's position on Keystone hasn't always been clear either.

    But, again, there's another issue here which is issues.  Sanders might well win on my personal scorecard, but am I convinced that he would be a better or more effective president than Hillary? Not really.  There's more to the job than taking stances and, ultimately, I still trust her judgment at 3 am


    As if you need praise from the likes of me. This is really a good post with great comments. I learned something about both of these dems. The race might be more interesting than I first thought. I thought Bernie was the socialist and Hillary the progressive (more so than her hubby)

    Thanks Richard.


    Women are realistic, Hal, and generally cast a cynical eye on policies/promises that don't appear politically viable. We tend not to believe things at first blush, looking instead at the long game - which is always complicated and often muddied by emotion. Which explains, in part, why we're not nearly as put off by Clinton's lack of charisma as men seem to be.

    Women don't need to like her, or even totally trust her, because we aren't looking for a friend in the White House. We want someone who knows the system well enough to work it. Who will stand toe-to-toe with anyone in her way without blinking and be strong enough to bend when reason requires it. Who is so accustomed to being ripped apart both personally and professionally that she won't be swayed by polls or opposition bluster - yet capable of changing her views if persuaded. We expect to be disappointed, frustrated and vocal when that person fails to meet challenges as we'd prefer and were promised in a campaign. Women expect that because it's politics, and the presidency. Above all, women appreciate a proven record of real.

    Women don't look at candidates as strictly as you appear to do here. Actually, men don't either. You seem honestly confused about why a majority of democratic women support Clinton over Sanders. The differences on paper between the two are few, it's the nuances that you're missing. For instance: Sanders wants free tuition at four year public colleges, while Clinton is proposing policies to make a college education debt free. Both are great ideas, but which seems the most politically viable? Populist -even socialist- ideas are needed, but if they can't be successfully implemented they remain moot.

    There's a lot I don't personally like about Hillary. And the opposite is true for Bernie - what's not to like? But as a woman, a Democrat and a citizen I believe that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, experienced candidate on either side. More to the point, she will do her level best to lead this country in as progressive a direction as is politically possible - most of the time. Realism.


    I like this, barefooted.


    Not all women support Hillary Clinton.  The 185,000 National Nurses United Union, which is 90% women, has endorsed Bernie Sanders.  According to journalist Evan McMorris-Santoro on this morning's Bill Press Show, one member explained the endorsement by saying that "breaking Wall Street's hold on the White House is more important than breaking the political glass ceiling".


    A strong show of support for Sanders to be sure, regardless of the gender breakdown. I've no doubt that both he and Clinton will continue to receive endorsements from a wide variety of unions in the months to come. In fact, the American Federation of Teachers' 1.6 million members endorsed Hillary's campaign in July.

    It's vital that labor remains firmly behind the democrats (little risk there), and that they unite in their support of our eventual nominee. As must we all.


    I think the Berne got about 300,000 votes for a Senate race in Vermont. But Vermonters would vote for him regardless of what he did or said---he's an institution and we love the guy. I'm glad he's in the race, takes heat off Hillary; if she stumbles badly for some other reason than Bernie, he's backup. ​If Bernie wins the primary, I'll gladly vote for him.

    What? I'm going to vote for one of these pitiful Republicans?

     

     


    That is a great thing about the Sanders challenge -- if he loses, his supporters are not going to vote for the enemy.


    What I find interesting this year as compared to 08 is that most of the supporters on both sides seem well disposed to support either candidate. At least so far we haven't seen the vicious rhetoric from supporters that we saw during the Obama and Hillary fight.


    There is no way to know for sure right now but I suspect that the lack of animosity is la mostly due to the underlying belief of most every interested Democratic voter which is that Bernie doesn't really have a real chance anyway. If he becomes a genuine threat to take the nomination I would expect that to change, not just among common folk supporters of each but within the party power structure as well and just like it is happening to Trump now and just like it did to a large extent with Deen. 


    I think you're right.  Sanders hasn't really posed such a challenge that Hillary's machine has to actually do anything other than respect his resume and presence in the race.  It doesn't hurt, by the way, that Sanders hasn't really attacked her.

    If he takes a state or something, things will change in a hurry, as you say.  While the party may have been made up of Clinton types back in 2008, Obama was the type who they knew they could work with.  Heck, even Hillary knew that.  If Sanders seriously threatens Hillary, it will be a huge deal.  Those high up members in the party, who have now worked seamlessly through the Clintons and Obama, will be faced with a genuine insurgency.  I assume they will defend their livelihoods!


    Labor organizations should support candidates who support them.  Democrats, like Obama and Clinton (sometimes), who champion "free trade" agreements and don't favor single-payer healthcare solutions are not supporting workers.


    "Free trade" and single-payer healthcare solutions are but two in a myriad of issues that affect labor. I'm grateful that their organizations support the party that will work best for the broad majority of them, because labor unions have no desire to cut off their nose to spite their face.


    By and large, most democrats have fiddled while the labor movement and the middle class along with it have crashed and burned over the past 35-40 years.


    AS the campaign unfolds and I have learned more about Berie I have become a fan and so I like the idea of a Bernie clone as President. I like the Bernie we have as a person with political positions I mostly agree with and with the apparent courage to go against the push from the moneyed mainstream power structure. I dislike Hillary as our probable next President, just not nearly as much as I dislike the Republicans who hope to deprive her of her turn.  No need to list my criticisms of her in any detail because there would be nothing new that hasn’t been heard many times. About the only original tack I might make [original in the sense of a man arguing against a woman becoming my representative and/or leader] would be to say that as a man I KNOW, I feel it in my aching bones, that Hillary cannot possibly relate to me and to my experiences in life, and so cannot possibly be as good a representative of my interests as could a man because she just hasn’t lived with the unique challenges faced by men in our day and age. She simply doesn’t have the ability, because she is a woman, to understand, relate to, and have empathy for the special predicament that men face in the cruel world we live in. [snark alert just in case it is not obvious]

     End, for now at least, of snark. It is certainly true though that a woman is not automatically, because of gender, better in either ideology or tactic, as a leader in local or national politics than is a man. Women who are good enough politicians to be successful most often have all the unfavorable characteristics common to male politicians. Some people would argue, if they were consistent, that since the deck has been stacked against them that to be successful a woman must employ devious or otherwise bad political tactics even more ruthlessly in order to advance alongside of men. If the argument for finally electing a woman is that they are somehow more pure, then I suggest looking at actual results because many women have led other countries and I think anyone scanning a list would find examples in every category of leadership of every kind of fault and/or evil that that viewer might attribute to other men leaders whom they despise. there are even examples of women leaders at all levels who pushed policies that hurt other women. Hard to believe, I know.

    Okay, enough of that, it is mostly not meant as an attack on Hillary but a criticism of some of the arguments in support of her.

    Hillary and Bernie are both too old to be President though I would happily take a chance on Bernie, but either of them would have the very important responsibility of choosing a well qualified running-mate, one which would have the energy, vitality, and staying power to wage the terrific fight that will be faced by any left leaning President who actually had a chance and actually tried to change anything of importance.  One who will have those strengths after three or seven grueling years in office. I wonder who that might be. On the R side I make the early  prediction of Fiorino, not that she meets any of my wants, but hey women, she is a woman. Sorry, slipped back into snark mode. Looking at the Bern doesn't give me any confidence that he will be able to be a strong and vital leader at the age of 83 and I wouldn't want to have to bet that he could be. Yeah, I know that history provides exceptions that argue against my fear, but we need a younger Bernie. For now I am happy that we at least have the current Bernie helping to establish the ideas and helping them gain traction that might someday actually have a chance of taking hold. [I recall having the same belief regarding some of Ron Paul's positions] And who knows, maybe the Bern will actually get the nomination. Things almost as strange have happened before. I remember enthusiastically voting for McGovern.   

     


    I'd like to meet the woman who thinks a female leader would be more "pure", just so I could laugh in her face. Honestly, Lulu, most women would agree that much of what you've written isn't hard to believe at all. Mostly because you're right that political machinations are gender neutral - as are political successes.

    Carly Fiorina was virtually invisible until her debate performance. Now, she's one to watch. Why do you suppose that is?


    Well said, barefooted and I agree that the word 'pure" was not the best one to express my point. Also, just to be clear on another point, my Fiorina prediction was for her to be the vice-Presidential candidate for the R's regardless which whacko gets their nod for CiC. Kasic might beat her out though because Ohio is such an important state. 


    You're mocking an argument in an extreme and ridiculous way without considering it  in a nuanced way in all it's complexity. Over the years I've read several articles by black authors about how African Americans understand two languages, two ways of thinking and behaving. Raised in a black culture they speak and behave with a somewhat different cultural upbringing. But living in a predominately white culture that is often inimical they must learn to think and behave in ways that take into account the somewhat different ways that many whites behave from their cultural perspective. As a matter of survival, both physical and economical survival. As a white man I'm not prepared to make that argument but when reading the articles I could see the validity of the argument.

    I think the same argument can be made for women. As a straight white male I only really need to understand what it means to be a straight white male to move through the world as the most privileged class. Empathy, if I have any, pushes me to attempt to understand the struggles of women and minorities but I don't need to.  Women need to understand white males, how they think and how they behave, to navigate the male dominated work place and the male dominated world.

    I don't think I need a white male candidate to understand the particular life and needs of us white males. But I do think that unless a male candidate has spent, with focused empathy, considerable time and thought on women's struggle for equal rights they just won't get it. It's taken me considerable time reading feminist writers to get some understanding of their struggles and I don't think I'm that slow on the uptake.

    It seems to me that Hillary understands that struggle very well as she was among the leaders when America began to make that transition from women as homemakers to women  having careers. She was challenged, questioned, and often vilified for choosing a career. I think we need a women now to take us through this part of the struggle for equal rights for women. And we need a women that has been there through this whole phase of the struggle, from the sixties when his phase began. It really is the time for a women of the sixties to take the leading role n our nation. Better now with a women who lived through the hot part of the fight than later with a women who only benefited from it.

     


    Fair point, Kat, but I sure wish it was someone else.  


    Fear of hunger of homelessness of unemployment or police abuse cut across all lines.  I don't need to be a woman or a person of color to have those fears or to recognize that others have them. Sometimes people blame their misfortunes on misogyny or racism rather than on themselves.  I'm aware of a particularly unpleasant woman (not a teamplayer, mean and ornery, a grandstander, and self-promoter) who sued a former employer (not me) for sexual harassment.  Her boss had undoubtedly made sexist remarks about her.  Here's my take:  She's so nasty and unpleasant that anybody who has had to deal with her will struggle for ways to characterize her.  Her boss, who may well have been a misogynist, attributed her obviously difficult nature to her gender.  So basically the discharge was wholly understandable but the intemperate remark resulted in an action.


    rotflmfao. Oh yes, of course the problem really is all about obnoxious women who claim sexual harassment instead of facing how totally nasty and unpleasant they are. This reminds me of the men who always appear on every thread about rape to point out the rare occasions that a women has made a false accusation of rape. As if that rare occurrence is relevant in a discussion of the epidemic problem of sexual assault.


    To what gender-specific problem are you referring and what particular solution do you propose?  As I have stated repeatedly, the economic problems we face can largely be resolved by reducing greatly wealth disparities and guaranteeing every individual and family a home, food, healthcare, education, and jobs (for those qualified) that pay a living wage.  The best way to do this affordably is to protect American jobs from foreign predators with high tariffs.  What more do you recommend?


    "As I have stated repeatedly, the economic problems we face can largely be resolved by reducing greatly wealth disparities and guaranteeing every individual and family a home, food, healthcare, education, and jobs (for those qualified) that pay a living wage."

    Hal, I happen to agree with you about this.  But this is why the Black Lives Matter protesters targeted Sanders in the first place.  There are a lot of people out there who believe, and they have a lot of evidence backing them up, that we can solve all the problems of income inequality, healthcare, education and the living wage and still have huge problems with sexism and racism. So they won't check the boxes the way you might or I might because they think we're being at best too hopeful and at worst irrational.

    And, my sympathies are with you, but I'm not so sure we're right.


    Mike and Ocean-kat - we absolutely need to protect people from discrimination without any question.  I support laws guaranteeing civil rights, LGBQT rights, voting rights, women's rights and we have all of them.  They haven't brought us to the promised land because we don't have economic rights - at least not the kind that I support - the right to a home, food, education, healthcare, etc.  Ocean-kat wrote eloquently about the specific problems that women face.  Okay, what should we do about these problems?  My answer is that the specific problems that are disproportionate to women in America today can be and will most likely be addressed by gender-neutral solutions rather than a college thesis on rape culture.  Even though, by the way, I agree that our culture does demean women in small and large ways and that this needs to be addressed.


    This is why we on the economic left are having problems with activists who should be allies. We can go to Ferguson and say "people here of all raises need good jobs at good wages," and they do!  But that good job does little good to a black person who winds up jailed on a Sunday night over some trivial matter and then misses work on Monday because of it.


    You can't be allies with someone who doesn't recognize the issues. Hal doesn't believe that harassment in the workplace is real or serious. He can't believe women see Clinton as Sanders equal and then some. He doesn't believe she understands our issues more deeply that any man ever could and then he tells us there was this terrible bitchy woman and that is his example. 

    Explain to me how I could ever consider someone an ally when they seemingly believe some women deserve the harassment they get??? Whaaaaa??? And they wrote that right here and we aren't at Redstate or Fox or Reddit. "She was particularly unpleasant", he said... you know that pushy woman, that one who demands to get the credit she deserves for her work, that woman. I'm a pushy woman. Hilary Clinton is a pushy woman.  How exactly are women supposed to react to that? I don't get warm fuzzy ally feelings, I get enemy in our midst feelings.

     


    I'd like to think he's expressing himself badly and chose a bad example that he's just not wisely backing away from.

    But, you know, I'm kind of in a privileged position to give the benefit of the doubt here, what with all my white maleness.

    But this is where the argument brings us, Hal.  If you argue from a checklist of economic priorities people will assume, at best, that you just don't get it.

     


    What some of us are assuming about Hal has nothing to do with his economic priorities.


    Hal isn't " wisely backing away from" his example because he thinks it proves his case. I think it proves mine. What we have here is a liberal democrat who generally supports all the liberal policies but when we get down to the nitty gritty he hasn't taken the time to truly think about what it's like to walk in the shoes of women on a daily basis. Not just the big deal discriminations like 75 cents for doing the same job a man gets a dollar for  or getting passed over for promotion but the endless small indignities a women constantly faces in the work place or for just walking down the street.


    Sorry Hal, I'm not much interested in discussing whether or at what degree some women are sufficiently unpleasant that making misogynistic comments about them are understandable. I'm also not clear how this anecdote relates to my reply to Lulu's comment. But since you decided to share this story I think that the time it would be acceptable to make sexist comments to unpleasant women would be never.


    I don't see the point of your anecdote, Hal, or whether it's intended to aggravate or mitigate your argument. You state that the boss "may well have been a misogynist" who "undoubtedly made sexist remarks" about a female employee, fired her and was in turn sued for sexual harassment. Got it. It's when you seem to imply that the employee's personality or character has relevance that you lose me.

    I'm choosing not to arrive at the conclusion that any of it reflects on why you hold the opinion that it appears you do of Hillary Clinton.


    My point is that we should not immediately assume that a bad thing happened to a particular individual because of her gender, race, or ethnicity.  It may be because of her actions.  In the real case I describe, sexist remarks were made about the discharged employee thereby giving rise to an extremely costly, time-consuming, and ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit.  The discharge was found to have resulted from the employee's poor work performance.

    Ocean-kat argues that it's taken him a lot of time and effort to be able to understand what women go through in sexist America.  I believe that our emotions and reactions to various circumstances can often, but not always, be universalized.  A great writer can draw a complete picture of a person of the opposite sex.  So, Tolstoy's Anna Karenina is fully-formed.  Likewise, the most true to life, to me at least, character in Edith Wharton's House of Mirth is the Jewish arriviste Simon Rosedale, even though Wharton was not Jewish and came from fading American aristocracy.

    I'm not always convinced that we need to contort ourselves to understand people who are different.  As Shylock said, "if you prick us do we not bleed?"  We're actually all a lot more alike than different.  If we can guarantee each other economic security and fair treatment, we'll have gone an awful long way without having to wear each other's high heels and work boots.  In fact, I don't have to put on high heels to have a pretty good idea that they're darn uncomfortable.


    I'm gobsmacked by what you wrote up there Hal. Are you serious, he may have been a misogynist but it was her fault?  I honestly can't believe you wrote that. As someone who has been sexually harassed by a superior at work, did you think maybe that is why she was so pissed all the time? You have no clue what it is like to wake up and dread going to work and seeing that person one more time, some days you can't even get out of bed you dread it so much. You have no clue what it is like and yet you just blamed her for him being a total dickwad.  Having to put up with that kind of BS changes you. You don't blame the target for being harassed? Or does that not apply to women?

    I'll tell you what though, that paragraph up there certainly tells me all I need to know about your view of women, and from now on your blogs will be relegated to the, don't bother reading ever pile.

     


    I'm "gobsmacked" that you can't find both of these possible: 1) The employee was difficult and performed unsatisfactory work. 2) The employer terminated her for those reasons but wrongly attributed her poor work habits and performance, in part, to her gender.


    Hal, take MW's advice and stop digging.  It was an off-hand gratuitous example which doesn't hold water---and that's the least offensive thing I can say about it.  

     


    Oxy Mora - I went back over what I wrote several times because you have been a long-time supporter of my posts and if you see a problem with something in one of them, then there's probably a problem.  So let me try to make the analogy just a little bit clearer.  Hillary Clinton has been villified by right-wing commentators for all sorts of unacceptable reasons and they use sexism as an ugly tool against her.  Likewise, the fired woman's boss in the example I provide used unacceptable sexist language to attack her in memos and meetings before and after the fact.  But in the final analysis, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be President despite the fact that bad people don't like her and the employee in my example was justly fired despite the fact that sexist pretexts that were used to justify the discharge.


    Well, stated in that manner, the comparison has a certain logic to it. What bothers me is that the original example. as written, is textbook sexist---the boss is just "intemperate" but the woman is hell on wheels and the moral of the example that jumps out at me is that the boss should have been fired---he is obviously failing at his job---and not that the woman's behavior was irredeemably bad. ​I know of so many situations where the male boss is hopelessly unaware of his own behavior and the women in the office have to put up with it, that I was dumbfounded by your example as written. And even in your example, my sympathies are with the woman because in my experience reacting to sexist male behavior is maddening---I know, because i have to help her decompress just about every day. 


    Tmc welcome to the club.  I tried to drop the hint up thread with my 2 lines.  *Sigh* 


    Hal, are you sure that you don't want to walk this one back? Swap in some other discrimination victims and maybe you'll see how this reads:

    • "I'm aware of a particularly unpleasant black man...his boss had undoubtedly made racist remarks about him..."
    • "I'm aware of a particularly unpleasant Jewish man...his boss had undoubtedly made antisemitic remarks about him..."

    If a boss expresses racist, antisemitic, or sexist ideas--what you euphemized as  "intemperate remarks"--in the workplace, that's grounds for a lawsuit even without an employee's termination, regardless of the employee's congeniality or work habits.


    Michael - You raise two interesting points to which I will respond in my last comment on this blog.

    1) Regarding your question about black or Jewish "victims".  Let me flesh out the examples using what might be considered stereotypical negative traits about each former employee.  

             A) Starting with the black man, let's say that this employee was habitually 15-20 minutes late which sometimes caused problems for coworkers.  His immediate supervisor spoke to him about the problem on a few occasions and finally warned him in writing that if it continued, the tardiness would be grounds for discharge.  On a couple of occasions, the immediate supervisor, who's white, spoke to her supervisor, who's white, about this problem and even once made a joke about CPT - colored people's time.  The employee continued to arrive late after being warned in writing and was fired.  The former employee learned about the CPT remark and filed a lawsuit for reinstatement.

          B) Now, the Jewish man.  Let's say he works as a salesman.  He's pretty good but not a superstar.  He generally meets his quotas.  But his expenses tend to run a little high.  If he can charge a lunch as a business expense he will, even when it's clearly not appropriate.  After the entire sales team was urged to cut costs where possible, he continued to charge cab rides to business meetings on his company credit card even when public transportation would have been equally or almost as fast.  After several times warning him that he was abusing his company credit card and that this had to stop or he would be discharged, his boss fired him.  The employee sued for back wages and alleged he was fired for discriminatory reasons.  In a deposition, the employee learned that his boss told his boss that the employee sure wasn't a cheap Jew bastard when it came to the company's money.

    In both cases the employer should not be forced to reinstate the employee.

    2) You write: "If a boss expresses racist, antisemitic, or sexist ideas--what you euphemized as  "intemperate remarks"--in the workplace, that's grounds for a lawsuit even without an employee's termination, regardless of the employee's congeniality or work habits."  This can certainly be the case if the remarks rise to the level of creating a hostile work environment.  I don't think either of my examples rise to that level.  Even if the work environment could be shown to be hostile, that would not mean that reinstatement of either employee was appropriate.


    Wow. You really know your bigotry.


    This is getting weirder and weirder. I was trying to point you a way out, but you doubled down. Why are you pooh poohing workplace bigotry?


    Okay, we've all been here.  You write something on the internet -- you reasoned over it and believe that you used facts to reach a contrarian conclusion and you bring it to a place like Dag, a place full of perceived allies and it flops.

    So you set out to defend it and, along the way, you wind up reinforcing the absurdity of your original argument and...

    We've all been there at least once, right?


    Yes, we have all been there. I'd just like to add that I appreciate the fact that Hal takes the time to write and puts his convictions out there. He is also very respectful of others.

     


    And the key is knowing when to let go.

    It's okay to be wrong on the internet.

    It's okay for other people to be wrong on the internet.

    It's even okay to change your mind about stuff!

    But, that all takes time.

    I'd say it's time to move onto other topics... Not locking down the thread of anything, just suggesting that the relevant points have been made, and quite well. Both arguments have had their best hearings.


    The problem is Mike, and I am addressing this to both of you, this particular blogger has in his past two blogs addressed women, and why women don't understand that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be president. To further his visceral hatred of Clinton he then brings in an example of a woman who sucks and deserved any misogyny she got. I and the four other  women who hang out at Dag occasionally see someone who doesn't see women as equals. And he will use any absurdity to attempt to prove why women shouldn't be trusted and that they are just dumb for supporting Hillary Clinton.

    I won't speak for all four of us, but damn does his anti-woman pro-Bernie post wreak of irony, and doubly so that apparently he really believes this stuff. He really believes we don't understand our own issues, he really thinks his example demonstrates how women are, you know we just take advantage of men, weakened by the law. Ugh.. I think Kat might be right about this giuy's MRA status, and that freaks me out to. MRA's don't respect women at all, they don't believe we are equals. I mean, what are we supposed to think about this blogger as women?

    In short I don't believe he made a mistake in his reply I think that when people tell you who they are you should believe them. I'm pretty sure I know what this guy is saying to us, and it isn't that  he respects women or our issues at all. 


    I'm with tmac. This particular post and some of his comments reinforce a suspicion I've tried to push aside, in fairness to Hal, for some time. It's not about Clinton or Sanders - there is an underlying theme to his writing that I cannot ignore any longer. And that, as they say, is that.


    I guess I need to speak up here since I'm one of the four or five:  While I think Hal delivered that anecdote clumsily, and while I don't agree with his attempt to tell women they shouldn't vote for Hillary, I don't see Hal as a misogynist.  I see a Hillary-hater, but I don't necessarily see it as a sexist issue.  It's possible to dislike Hillary without attributing part of it to the fact that she's a woman.

    I've found Hal to be polite and respectful in all of his comments here, even while being attacked from all quarters.  He has a right to air his opinions and we all have the right to respond, but this has now moved far away from the original thought and is heading into bashing territory.

    I think it's time to stop.

     


    " ...an example of a woman who sucks and deserved any misogyny she got. "

    Hal doesn't come close to writing that. I agree that some of his responses in this comments thread are clumsy cringe worthy lame, but your over the top mischaracterizations don't help.


    yes


    The underlining premise in Hal's comments is that the only thing that happened is a couple of jokes about colored people's time, or jew bastard, of whatever misogynistic jokes he hinted at in the first comment. I don't believe it. Any boss so insensitive as to make such offensive "jokes" is surely creating at the very least an unpleasant work environment. It may not rise to the legal standard to be deemed a "hostile" work environment but it certainly would create an environment that was at least unpleasant.  It spreads through the office. For example even though I wouldn't be the target of the joke I would be faced with the uncomfortable choice of laughing along to get along or confronting my boss for his racism or misogyny.


    Dealing with bullying issues of late, it's very interesting how the pack aligns and how that means showing sympathy for the abused gets you bullied, while even the former-bullied can get accepted in the alpha's group (at least to some extent) by joining in the bullying of the new victim. I think this dynamic informs our politics, our cliques, etc.

    Michael - please respond to Hal's comment before I bite my tongue off.


    Well, I'm glad to see that there's real enthusiasm for Hillary. Given what feels to me like a lackluster or energy-less campaign, I was starting to despair. Not sure how those who follow these things closely feel, but we in the hinterland have been wondering where the hell she is.

    It's been pretty clear to me that most people don't vote on the basis of "the issues," except in a vague sort of way. Most people don't understand the issues (e.g., TPP) and don't have anything but a bumper sticker opinion on them. So Hal's puzzlement that women seem to be doing this is puzzling to me.

    The biggest point to me is that Bernie is untested in these shark-infested waters. Isn't this one of the drawbacks to Obama's presidency--a certain idealistic naivete about what happens when you become president? Having the best positions doesn't count for much. Anyone here could draw up a platform with the best positions. So what?

    I suppose one way to test Bernie's effectiveness would be to look at his legislative record. For Congress, he's pretty far on the left. How much has he been able to get done?