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

[ponyboy]

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, horrible about AIDS in every possible way. Clinton immediately apologized, then apologized again, at length. Yet we’re still seeing a wagonload of “I’ll never vote for her” claims from progressives, as if her words about Reagan trump-and I’m using that verb deliberately-her actual record on AIDS research and funding. Why?

i'm sorry but as someone who is queer, who knows queer history, and actively discriminated against as a queer person: that gaffe is more than enough for me or other queer persons to say no to hillary. her making this "gaffe" was at best, a clumsy pandering error and at worst, a calculated move to pander that backfired spectacularly. she's a white straight woman. she hasn't dealt with this discrimination and if she is a candidate who is trying to be president, she should be held responsible for this. her record means nothing if she sits up here and does this.

How privileged do you need to be to imagine that it’s a good idea to risk the actual lives of vulnerable Americans because you “hate” Clinton so much that you vow to stay home if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination? How protected from the consequences of a Trump presidency do you need to be to think your hatred of Clinton constitutes, as I saw someone say earlier this week, an “inviolable principle,” meaning that it’s more important than the lives of vulnerable Americans?

this does not consider the fact that there will be much more than vulnerable americans under hillary. non-americans will be impacted deeply by her policies*. and americans at home will also still be impacted. she's a lateral move in that aspect, and it isn't privilege to have to say, "i don't trust either of these candidates because their policies are racially and sexually harmful."

there is an element in having the freedom to not have to vote for her in a state that is blue. that is true but this article is far off the mark.

* = i'm still of the opinion that no us president will not be a war criminal of some kind, but her warhawk tendencies are impossible to ignore.

[cassiopeiaah]

Yes this! Like Hilary is a hawk

[koushiba]

I love this comment! Your second point was way more eloquent then I could've written.

[fishphile]

Yes. This.