Privilege is what allows Sanders supporters to say they’ll “never” vote for Clinton

[evilnel]

The latest installment of “The Internet Explodes with Hatred for Hillary Clinton” happened earlier this month. The Democratic presidential candidate, whose own record on AIDS research and funding is better than any other candidate, mistakenly said that former US first lady Nancy Reagan was a key supporter of AIDS research. Reagan was, in reality,

Comments

[hikerpoet]

I actually totally agree with this comment.

But it is not the bulk of the message the article has. She's worthy of some criticisms, for sure, from the content of the video yesterday and much more, going back years. And I am indeed seeing a few people say, "She's just flat out not far enough left for me on these couple of major points, and her knowledge and strengths are not enough to make up for it. Too many solid dealbreakers and ideological differences. This is where and how I see Sanders filling in the gaps".

But that's not most of it. The article is hardly solely about staying loyal to the Dems, who admittedly don't deserve it, especially in solid states.
It's about acknowledging how much the Republican hate machine shaped our perceptions, even if we still hate them more. It's about about acknowledging how the sexism (if not one's own, then the broader lens) shaped the perceptions. About how admitting that while we may have valid criticisms or there may be flaws in her stances, she has indeed been more consistent and honest and factual than rhetoric would have one believe, if not perfectly so.

The lack of critical thinking in the response to the piece from the freaking Examiner the other day was a good example. That kneejerk reaction to it showed it is less about the reality and facts than how we're conditioned to respond. Criticize some of her votes. Criticize some of her platform line items. But introspectively contemplate whether some of the visceral hate is coming from one's own flawless instincts or from some of the sources or hypocrisies mentioned in this article. (I'm not literally speaking to you, invisiblegirlx, but the broader audience the article is speaking to)

[hikerpoet]

I'm well aware of that, and that it is a more legit and respected source than...whatever you linked. It is still firmly right wing with a tendency towards sensationalism, though, and that's what I meant.

[hikerpoet]

And his comment was not about Obama's legacy--it was about the legacy of the obstruction and partisanship, and I thought that was pretty clear. There are *many* valid criticisms about why she may not exactly be the prime person to fix that (neither are any of the other candidates) but that wasn't the point.