Sanders is the real feminist in this race

[Anonymous]

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

So I'm supposed to feel good about the fact that the legislation he introduced as a US Senator was likely to disproportionately benefit rich Northeastern states? No thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

So I'm supposed to feel good about the fact that the legislation he introduced as a US Senator was likely to disproportionately benefit rich Northeastern states? No thank you.

You know... "rich Northeastern states" have poor people and middle class people too. You are just trying to find fault. Now let's see... Here are the three bills that Clinton sponsored. Hmm... VERY IMPRESSIVE!!!

S. 1241: A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York. Bush signed the bill Dec. 3, 2004.

S. 3613: A bill to name a post office the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building." Bush signed the bill Oct. 6, 2006.

S. 3145: A bill to designate a highway in New York as the Timothy J. Russert highway. Bush signed the bill July 23, 2008.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

Is he? Provide a link please. His website only refers to THIS legislation. Which again, only benefits the states that don't really need it, at least at first. I don't see anywhere on his website that he is trying to improve childcare for the entire country. Or primary and secondary education.

As for him introducing this legislation - congrats to him since it got exactly nowhere. It does not show that he cares about providing childcare to those who desperately need it, and it doesn't show leadership skills because this piece of legislation was never voted on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you know the single biggest killer of pregnant women?

Homicide.

You know how those homicides are committed?

With guns.

Sanders has a worse record on gun control than Clinton. Of course he does, because he's from a rural state with a robust gun culture. So, how is it not bending to political expediency when Sanders does things like support the Minute Men or block gun control?

If you want to come down on Clinton for political expediency, you need to look very closely at Sanders on those issues as well.

I believe there is a significant difference in suicide methods based on gender. Males use guns far more often than females. And females use drugs (overdose) far more often than males.

PP was talking about homicides and you changed the subject to suicide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

The point that other posters are making is that legislation is the "start" of leading an effort, but it's only potentially the start. Very often, as I know from being a Hill staffer who crafted and introduced "platform legislation", a bill is crafted and introduced for no other reason than for a Congress member to be able to show they've done something on an issue. The real effort and leadership comes from negotiating with the relevant committee leadership to get the bill taken under consideration and bringing other members on board to vote it out of committee and then onto the floor (these steps are based on House rules, I know the Senate works a little differently, but I think the process is similar). Anyone can introduce a Bill, but from first-hand experience it's a lot of work to make the other stuff happen.

Again, though, I don't think anyone (well, not most people) would say Sanders is insincere on the issues. I suspect he very much does care about affordable chilcare and early childhood education...and maybe his ideas are better than HRC's, withholding judgment on that one. But the reality is that being an effective leader, especially in the Executive Branch and especially as the head of the EB, requires building coalitions and compromising. Despite how many people hate and slander Clinton, she has been able to do that. And I think that's important. And I also did work in the Obama WH, so I know how many missed opportunities there were due to his not being able to do that (and also that his selection of Biden as VP was brilliant in that it gave him someone very close who did have that ability). If you disagree with the assessment that this is an important quality in a candidate for POTUS, it would be great to explain why...especially since there are some posters who vehemently argue the opposite, compromise is a huge liability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

The point that other posters are making is that legislation is the "start" of leading an effort, but it's only potentially the start. Very often, as I know from being a Hill staffer who crafted and introduced "platform legislation", a bill is crafted and introduced for no other reason than for a Congress member to be able to show they've done something on an issue. The real effort and leadership comes from negotiating with the relevant committee leadership to get the bill taken under consideration and bringing other members on board to vote it out of committee and then onto the floor (these steps are based on House rules, I know the Senate works a little differently, but I think the process is similar). Anyone can introduce a Bill, but from first-hand experience it's a lot of work to make the other stuff happen.

Again, though, I don't think anyone (well, not most people) would say Sanders is insincere on the issues. I suspect he very much does care about affordable chilcare and early childhood education...and maybe his ideas are better than HRC's, withholding judgment on that one. But the reality is that being an effective leader, especially in the Executive Branch and especially as the head of the EB, requires building coalitions and compromising. Despite how many people hate and slander Clinton, she has been able to do that. And I think that's important. And I also did work in the Obama WH, so I know how many missed opportunities there were due to his not being able to do that (and also that his selection of Biden as VP was brilliant in that it gave him someone very close who did have that ability). If you disagree with the assessment that this is an important quality in a candidate for POTUS, it would be great to explain why...especially since there are some posters who vehemently argue the opposite, compromise is a huge liability.

I really appreciate when you post because you are talking about reality and not just making baseless statements. I respect your opinion even though I disagree on priorities. I am not even going to argue because we mostly just disagree on who would get more done and that is a matter of opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article sums it up for me well. If the question is one of policy and not identity, then Sanders is the real feminist in the race.

Clinton helped champion her husband's gutting of welfare funding which plunged hundreds of thousands of women and children further into the downward spiral of intergenerational poverty. She has been mostly silent on the abuse of women's rights in U.S. supported regimes like Saudi Arabia. She has put corporate interests first ahead of human (women's) rights. I don't even want to get started on NAFTA and TPP. I have always said that at least Clinton has been consistent on Planned Parenthood but this article points out that even her position on abortion, that is should be "safe, legal, and rare" makes me wonder if she can also be swayed on this if it suits her politically.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kshama-sawant/bernie-vs-hillary-whats-a-feminist_b_9367996.html

I must agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article sums it up for me well. If the question is one of policy and not identity, then Sanders is the real feminist in the race.

Clinton helped champion her husband's gutting of welfare funding which plunged hundreds of thousands of women and children further into the downward spiral of intergenerational poverty. She has been mostly silent on the abuse of women's rights in U.S. supported regimes like Saudi Arabia. She has put corporate interests first ahead of human (women's) rights. I don't even want to get started on NAFTA and TPP. I have always said that at least Clinton has been consistent on Planned Parenthood but this article points out that even her position on abortion, that is should be "safe, legal, and rare" makes me wonder if she can also be swayed on this if it suits her politically.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kshama-sawant/bernie-vs-hillary-whats-a-feminist_b_9367996.html

I must agree.

I am not going to defend Hillary’s policies about anything since I am not really sure where she stands on anything.
But, to question one’s words about abortion being “rare?” Really? So, you don’t believe that the taking of an unborn life should be rare? You think it should be frequent? Or commonplace?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article sums it up for me well. If the question is one of policy and not identity, then Sanders is the real feminist in the race.

Clinton helped champion her husband's gutting of welfare funding which plunged hundreds of thousands of women and children further into the downward spiral of intergenerational poverty. She has been mostly silent on the abuse of women's rights in U.S. supported regimes like Saudi Arabia. She has put corporate interests first ahead of human (women's) rights. I don't even want to get started on NAFTA and TPP. I have always said that at least Clinton has been consistent on Planned Parenthood but this article points out that even her position on abortion, that is should be "safe, legal, and rare" makes me wonder if she can also be swayed on this if it suits her politically.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kshama-sawant/bernie-vs-hillary-whats-a-feminist_b_9367996.html

I must agree.

I am not going to defend Hillary’s policies about anything since I am not really sure where she stands on anything.
But, to question one’s words about abortion being “rare?” Really? So, you don’t believe that the taking of an unborn life should be rare? You think it should be frequent? Or commonplace?

No, it should not be commonplace but the language that one chooses when reproductive rights are under attack is pretty important and that concerns me. The fact is that abortion is not "rare." That doesn't mean anyone wants more abortions but "rare" is a strange choice of words. Anyway, I really don't want to harp on that issue. Make of it what you will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article sums it up for me well. If the question is one of policy and not identity, then Sanders is the real feminist in the race.

Clinton helped champion her husband's gutting of welfare funding which plunged hundreds of thousands of women and children further into the downward spiral of intergenerational poverty. She has been mostly silent on the abuse of women's rights in U.S. supported regimes like Saudi Arabia. She has put corporate interests first ahead of human (women's) rights. I don't even want to get started on NAFTA and TPP. I have always said that at least Clinton has been consistent on Planned Parenthood but this article points out that even her position on abortion, that is should be "safe, legal, and rare" makes me wonder if she can also be swayed on this if it suits her politically.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kshama-sawant/bernie-vs-hillary-whats-a-feminist_b_9367996.html

I must agree.

I am not going to defend Hillary’s policies about anything since I am not really sure where she stands on anything.
But, to question one’s words about abortion being “rare?” Really? So, you don’t believe that the taking of an unborn life should be rare? You think it should be frequent? Or commonplace?

All she cares is that abortion is convenient and unlimited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article sums it up for me well. If the question is one of policy and not identity, then Sanders is the real feminist in the race.

Clinton helped champion her husband's gutting of welfare funding which plunged hundreds of thousands of women and children further into the downward spiral of intergenerational poverty. She has been mostly silent on the abuse of women's rights in U.S. supported regimes like Saudi Arabia. She has put corporate interests first ahead of human (women's) rights. I don't even want to get started on NAFTA and TPP. I have always said that at least Clinton has been consistent on Planned Parenthood but this article points out that even her position on abortion, that is should be "safe, legal, and rare" makes me wonder if she can also be swayed on this if it suits her politically.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kshama-sawant/bernie-vs-hillary-whats-a-feminist_b_9367996.html

I must agree.

I am not going to defend Hillary’s policies about anything since I am not really sure where she stands on anything.
But, to question one’s words about abortion being “rare?” Really? So, you don’t believe that the taking of an unborn life should be rare? You think it should be frequent? Or commonplace?

No, it should not be commonplace but the language that one chooses when reproductive rights are under attack is pretty important and that concerns me. The fact is that abortion is not "rare." That doesn't mean anyone wants more abortions but "rare" is a strange choice of words. Anyway, I really don't want to harp on that issue. Make of it what you will.

I think "rare" is a fine choice of words if you look at her whole position. Clinton's position is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare BUT that contraception and sex education should be universal. She wants abortion to be rare, only insofar as it is not necessary because people have access to the education and contraceptives they need not to become pregnant to begin with. Because we know even the best contraception fails, abortion should be safe and legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article sums it up for me well. If the question is one of policy and not identity, then Sanders is the real feminist in the race.

Clinton helped champion her husband's gutting of welfare funding which plunged hundreds of thousands of women and children further into the downward spiral of intergenerational poverty. She has been mostly silent on the abuse of women's rights in U.S. supported regimes like Saudi Arabia. She has put corporate interests first ahead of human (women's) rights. I don't even want to get started on NAFTA and TPP. I have always said that at least Clinton has been consistent on Planned Parenthood but this article points out that even her position on abortion, that is should be "safe, legal, and rare" makes me wonder if she can also be swayed on this if it suits her politically.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kshama-sawant/bernie-vs-hillary-whats-a-feminist_b_9367996.html

I must agree.

I am not going to defend Hillary’s policies about anything since I am not really sure where she stands on anything.
But, to question one’s words about abortion being “rare?” Really? So, you don’t believe that the taking of an unborn life should be rare? You think it should be frequent? Or commonplace?

No, it should not be commonplace but the language that one chooses when reproductive rights are under attack is pretty important and that concerns me. The fact is that abortion is not "rare." That doesn't mean anyone wants more abortions but "rare" is a strange choice of words. Anyway, I really don't want to harp on that issue. Make of it what you will.

It's not a strange choice of words. Planned Parenthood does more than just abortions. And there are programs that can be implemented to reduce the frequency of abortion - such as making birth control easy to access (including the morning after pill), quality sex ed in schools, making condoms easy to access, etc. HRC supports these programs in addition to supporting womens right to access safe and legal abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

The point that other posters are making is that legislation is the "start" of leading an effort, but it's only potentially the start. Very often, as I know from being a Hill staffer who crafted and introduced "platform legislation", a bill is crafted and introduced for no other reason than for a Congress member to be able to show they've done something on an issue. The real effort and leadership comes from negotiating with the relevant committee leadership to get the bill taken under consideration and bringing other members on board to vote it out of committee and then onto the floor (these steps are based on House rules, I know the Senate works a little differently, but I think the process is similar). Anyone can introduce a Bill, but from first-hand experience it's a lot of work to make the other stuff happen.

Again, though, I don't think anyone (well, not most people) would say Sanders is insincere on the issues. I suspect he very much does care about affordable chilcare and early childhood education...and maybe his ideas are better than HRC's, withholding judgment on that one. But the reality is that being an effective leader, especially in the Executive Branch and especially as the head of the EB, requires building coalitions and compromising. Despite how many people hate and slander Clinton, she has been able to do that. And I think that's important. And I also did work in the Obama WH, so I know how many missed opportunities there were due to his not being able to do that (and also that his selection of Biden as VP was brilliant in that it gave him someone very close who did have that ability). If you disagree with the assessment that this is an important quality in a candidate for POTUS, it would be great to explain why...especially since there are some posters who vehemently argue the opposite, compromise is a huge liability.

I'm a Sanders supporter and actually think this is a reasonable argument. I think the divergence happens with what people believe Clinton wants versus what Sanders wants, and what's compromise versus sacrifice.

To me, the ability to get things done is pretty much a toss up between the two. Much of it depends on the make up of the Congress they're working with and the political capital they get with a won election. These days, that's not much. I just have more trust in what Sanders wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article sums it up for me well. If the question is one of policy and not identity, then Sanders is the real feminist in the race.

Clinton helped champion her husband's gutting of welfare funding which plunged hundreds of thousands of women and children further into the downward spiral of intergenerational poverty. She has been mostly silent on the abuse of women's rights in U.S. supported regimes like Saudi Arabia. She has put corporate interests first ahead of human (women's) rights. I don't even want to get started on NAFTA and TPP. I have always said that at least Clinton has been consistent on Planned Parenthood but this article points out that even her position on abortion, that is should be "safe, legal, and rare" makes me wonder if she can also be swayed on this if it suits her politically.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kshama-sawant/bernie-vs-hillary-whats-a-feminist_b_9367996.html

I must agree.

I am not going to defend Hillary’s policies about anything since I am not really sure where she stands on anything.
But, to question one’s words about abortion being “rare?” Really? So, you don’t believe that the taking of an unborn life should be rare? You think it should be frequent? Or commonplace?

No, it should not be commonplace but the language that one chooses when reproductive rights are under attack is pretty important and that concerns me. The fact is that abortion is not "rare." That doesn't mean anyone wants more abortions but "rare" is a strange choice of words. Anyway, I really don't want to harp on that issue. Make of it what you will.

I think "rare" is a fine choice of words if you look at her whole position. Clinton's position is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare BUT that contraception and sex education should be universal. She wants abortion to be rare, only insofar as it is not necessary because people have access to the education and contraceptives they need not to become pregnant to begin with. Because we know even the best contraception fails, abortion should be safe and legal.

As a very vocal pro-choice person, I absolutely agree that abortion should be rare. And the very last resort as a form of contraception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

The point that other posters are making is that legislation is the "start" of leading an effort, but it's only potentially the start. Very often, as I know from being a Hill staffer who crafted and introduced "platform legislation", a bill is crafted and introduced for no other reason than for a Congress member to be able to show they've done something on an issue. The real effort and leadership comes from negotiating with the relevant committee leadership to get the bill taken under consideration and bringing other members on board to vote it out of committee and then onto the floor (these steps are based on House rules, I know the Senate works a little differently, but I think the process is similar). Anyone can introduce a Bill, but from first-hand experience it's a lot of work to make the other stuff happen.

Again, though, I don't think anyone (well, not most people) would say Sanders is insincere on the issues. I suspect he very much does care about affordable chilcare and early childhood education...and maybe his ideas are better than HRC's, withholding judgment on that one. But the reality is that being an effective leader, especially in the Executive Branch and especially as the head of the EB, requires building coalitions and compromising. Despite how many people hate and slander Clinton, she has been able to do that. And I think that's important. And I also did work in the Obama WH, so I know how many missed opportunities there were due to his not being able to do that (and also that his selection of Biden as VP was brilliant in that it gave him someone very close who did have that ability). If you disagree with the assessment that this is an important quality in a candidate for POTUS, it would be great to explain why...especially since there are some posters who vehemently argue the opposite, compromise is a huge liability.

Thank you for this, you've been able to articulate well what I have always thought.