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

[mutive]

I think it's a bit overblown, but I've definitely seen on my Facebook feeds (and here) people stating that they won't vote at all vs. voting Clinton. (Occasionally I see the converse, although it's more unusual.) Either way, I agree - you LOATHE Clinton, don't vote for her. But considering that she and Sanders agree on a massive number of issues, I do think it's fair to examine why you hate one vs. the other. (Assuming you do and all that. I'm honestly pretty neutral between the two.)

[mutive]

I'd argue it's more on how to handle the issues that Clinton and Sanders have the primary disagreement. But considering how similar most of their voting records are, I'm disinclined to see *that* huge a difference. (And I suspect that, once dealing with the realities of office, both would *probably* handle things similarly. Again, though, that's very clearly an opinion.) Regardless, I feel fairly certain that *either* would act more like the other than they would like either Trump or Cruz

[moonshaz]

I completely agree with this, especially the last paragraph:

And I do think that at least a percentage of the criticism leveled at Clinton clearly is misogynistic and that there's another chunk that is perhaps not overtly misogynistic, but that does hold her accountable in ways male candidates clearly haven't been held accountable that should be examined.

It just KILLS me how many people who are constantly bashing her don't seem to see this. KILLS ME.

[mutive]

Yeah, me too. I mean, duh, Clinton does not have the perfect record. She's an insider, panders, and flip flops. So does Sanders.

I don't hate either of them for it. People are allowed to change their opinions. Also, they're politicians, so it's to be expected.

[spyral_out]

I don't trust Hillary because she's a proven liar, she's in the pockets of Wall Street so I can't trust her to defend marginalized groups if it isn't ~fiscally sound~, and she's a war hawk with a terrible record in the global arena. Those are all pretty substantive differences between her and Sanders. That's why I think it's really condescending to act like it's just a tantrum to not want to vote for her if Sanders doesn't get the nomination. They're two vastly different candidates.

[hikerpoet]

I don't disagree with this, even though I don't think they are exact parallels (assuming you're still bringing up that one Gallop poll that was taken at a point we haven't reached yet). And even if you count that as a fully and one hundred percent accurate representation of her broad base, these journalists and those commenters in this comm don't seem to be included in that group from everything I've seen said

[hikerpoet]

But someone being an asshole to someone on a different post on a different subject isn't what this is about

[moonshaz]

But with some, I think there is a lack of acknowledgment about how the problems mentioned in pieces like this framed a perception or affects knee-jerk reactions and erases some very valid good she's done or strengths she has.

THIS. I swear, reading this makes me want to jump up and down and point to this comment and yell, "LOOK! OVER HERE! Read this, dammit!" because so many people are COMPLETELY missing this, and it drives me crazy.

[celtic_thistle]

mte, remember the PUMAs?

[somechickxoxo]

Oh God you just gave me a flashback.