Had Bernie been Bernadette — The heartbreaking truth about American patriarchy
Lauren Besser

“ The onslaught of venom directed toward a woman who played the any-means-necessary game of politics was a real trigger — where have all these player-haters been for the centuries this game has dominated our nation? Men have made Hillary’s choices, and far worse, on repeat, for all of our history, to little fanfare.”

We’ve been here the whole time. She also ran in 2008 when Sanders didn’t. I don’t see this author mentioning us when Sanders wasn’t running. It’s almost as if, for the first time in a long time, we have a politician who has a long career of boldly standing up as a progressive, and it’s now blatantly contrasting and highlighting Hillary’s “Whatever Stance Necessary” MO. I can’t remember everything from the 2008 cycle, but Hillary was accused of flipflopping even back then (i.e. torture, NAFTA).

“But there’s no denying that had Bernie been Bernadette you’d have to get tied to a stake to feel the Bern.”

Really? I’d say Elizabeth Warren would cut that claim in half had she ran. People were BEGGING her to run for president — and these were definitely not just women. And if Warren ends up as VP with Sanders, you won’t see a sad face in the crowd. It would be the dream team for most Sanders supporters.

“I want to see a massive change in our political frameworks and ideologies. A complete restructuring. Bernie embodies that in rhetoric and record. But Hillary. Hillary embodies it in package, doesn’t she?”

By “package” do you mean “her panties?” She is literally making the argument that because she has a vagina, she’s going to be a political revolution and deserves our vote. This is not feminism; this is not equality — it’s sexism. Voting for someone based on their sex is still sexism even if it’s usually sexist in the opposite direction. Just like voting for a black man because he’s black does not mean you’re not racist.

“I’m not saying Hillary would be the renegade choice if she were a man. I’m saying Hillary would be the next president if she were a man. No contest.”

So wrong. You acknowledge that Hillary does not have the record Bernie has, but then claim that the only thing that is holding her back is her vagina. Multiple times, you talk about how Clinton is just playing the game to get votes and Bernie would be the real political change, but then, you’re just going to turn around and ignore all of the problems with Hillary because she’s a woman.

“Here I am thinking Hillary is presidential, and Bernie is revolutionary. I want revolution.

But isn’t a woman’s being legitimately more presidential than her male opponent a revolution itself?

I’m confused by this last sentence. Are you saying a woman’s essence is more presidential than a man? Either way, my overall take is that we should vote for a woman simply based on her being a woman and that would somehow be a revolution. Sexism is still sexism even if it favors a woman, and sexism is no revolution. When your argument essentially comes down to, “yeah, but…she has a vagina,” it’s a poor argument in either direction. That’s not a reason to elect or not elect a candidate, so don’t say it’s bad in one direction but not the other. Let’s talk about real issues that separate the candidates. Let’s talk about how the actions of these politicians will affect the country — not about what’s in their pants.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.