Sanders is the real feminist in this race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't Sanders have an all-male senior staff?

Yep. And he had quite a gender pay gap among his Senate staff, I understand. Doesn't matter, though. The emperor has no clothes, but these folks don't care. I read the transcript of his interview with the NY Daily News Editorial Board and I was just shocked. He has no idea what he's doing on some things.

On the whole, women on his staff earn more than men. The criticism was that the top ten staffers were men. Two different issues. I am not defending him on this but it is an important distinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article on Hillary Clinton's own brand of "feminism" is pretty interesting. I especially liked this quote:

"But for proponents of this doctrine, perhaps no irony was crueler than seeing its namesake, then Secretary of State Clinton, smiling broadly in her trademark pantsuit as she walked the red carpet from her plane in Riyadh with the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in 2010. The moment brought to mind an incongruity no less extreme than if Frederick Douglass had been appointed ambassador to the Confederacy and found himself sipping tea and making small talk with Nathan Bedford Forrest. For, in Saudi Arabia, the subordination of women is as peculiar and pernicious an institution as was slavery in the antebellum South."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-record-saudi-arabia-116160

You know what's sad, OP? You're now just casting about aimlessly, desperately cherry-picking any article where the headline and first paragraph seem to support your predetermined attack line on Hillary Clinton.

It's sad because if you'd actually read the whole article you linked, you'd learn a lot about these issues you're claiming are so important to you. The article offers a richly detailed and nuanced analysis of all the difficulties and competing concerns that apply whenever the US tries to improve the dire plight of women in Middle Eastern countries. In the end, it cautiously praises Hillary Clinton for the thoughtful way she nurtured the development of women's rights in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere during her time as Secretary of State.

The case of Saudi Arabia, then, provides an important lesson about the tradeoffs involved with public advocacy of women’s rights in the international arena—for Hillary Clinton, her successors at State and whomever the next president is. Too much public advocacy breeds defensiveness and even backlash among those one is trying to influence; too little public advocacy—too much silence—suggests to the world that these issues are not important after all and leads to despair among those one is trying to empower.

Clinton is silent apparently because she does not want the Saudi kingdom to stall or reverse ongoing, if slow-moving, progress for Saudi women. That in many ways is a justified stance, especially since the royals’ fall would be a catastrophe for Saudi women. ... In the case of Saudi women, Clinton has chosen a course that appears to be penny-foolish, but is surely pound-wise.

Once again, you owe Hillary Clinton, and the people reading this thread, an apology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just show us Bernie's feminist receipts, please. Not his votes - obviously he has voted the right way. Show us what he's done. This is a guy who says abortion is a social issue, so I think he lacks some basic understanding. Demonstrate otherwise, please.

You know, it only makes you look confused when you say that his votes for women's interests and his amendments do not matter. It shows that you don't understand what we are talking about. That is one of the most effective ways possible to advocate for women. What are you talking about when you say that does nothing for women??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article on Hillary Clinton's own brand of "feminism" is pretty interesting. I especially liked this quote:

"But for proponents of this doctrine, perhaps no irony was crueler than seeing its namesake, then Secretary of State Clinton, smiling broadly in her trademark pantsuit as she walked the red carpet from her plane in Riyadh with the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in 2010. The moment brought to mind an incongruity no less extreme than if Frederick Douglass had been appointed ambassador to the Confederacy and found himself sipping tea and making small talk with Nathan Bedford Forrest. For, in Saudi Arabia, the subordination of women is as peculiar and pernicious an institution as was slavery in the antebellum South."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-record-saudi-arabia-116160

You know what's sad, OP? You're now just casting about aimlessly, desperately cherry-picking any article where the headline and first paragraph seem to support your predetermined attack line on Hillary Clinton.

It's sad because if you'd actually read the whole article you linked, you'd learn a lot about these issues you're claiming are so important to you. The article offers a richly detailed and nuanced analysis of all the difficulties and competing concerns that apply whenever the US tries to improve the dire plight of women in Middle Eastern countries. In the end, it cautiously praises Hillary Clinton for the thoughtful way she nurtured the development of women's rights in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere during her time as Secretary of State.

The case of Saudi Arabia, then, provides an important lesson about the tradeoffs involved with public advocacy of women’s rights in the international arena—for Hillary Clinton, her successors at State and whomever the next president is. Too much public advocacy breeds defensiveness and even backlash among those one is trying to influence; too little public advocacy—too much silence—suggests to the world that these issues are not important after all and leads to despair among those one is trying to empower.

Clinton is silent apparently because she does not want the Saudi kingdom to stall or reverse ongoing, if slow-moving, progress for Saudi women. That in many ways is a justified stance, especially since the royals’ fall would be a catastrophe for Saudi women. ... In the case of Saudi women, Clinton has chosen a course that appears to be penny-foolish, but is surely pound-wise.

Once again, you owe Hillary Clinton, and the people reading this thread, an apology.

I read the article and I have stated repeatedly on this thread that Hillary does some good and some bad for women. I have been pretty even-handed about her overall. I have never said that she does nothing for women. I have said that I am concerned about the damage she will do because of her history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article on Hillary Clinton's own brand of "feminism" is pretty interesting. I especially liked this quote:

"But for proponents of this doctrine, perhaps no irony was crueler than seeing its namesake, then Secretary of State Clinton, smiling broadly in her trademark pantsuit as she walked the red carpet from her plane in Riyadh with the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in 2010. The moment brought to mind an incongruity no less extreme than if Frederick Douglass had been appointed ambassador to the Confederacy and found himself sipping tea and making small talk with Nathan Bedford Forrest. For, in Saudi Arabia, the subordination of women is as peculiar and pernicious an institution as was slavery in the antebellum South."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-record-saudi-arabia-116160

You know what's sad, OP? You're now just casting about aimlessly, desperately cherry-picking any article where the headline and first paragraph seem to support your predetermined attack line on Hillary Clinton.

It's sad because if you'd actually read the whole article you linked, you'd learn a lot about these issues you're claiming are so important to you. The article offers a richly detailed and nuanced analysis of all the difficulties and competing concerns that apply whenever the US tries to improve the dire plight of women in Middle Eastern countries. In the end, it cautiously praises Hillary Clinton for the thoughtful way she nurtured the development of women's rights in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere during her time as Secretary of State.

The case of Saudi Arabia, then, provides an important lesson about the tradeoffs involved with public advocacy of women’s rights in the international arena—for Hillary Clinton, her successors at State and whomever the next president is. Too much public advocacy breeds defensiveness and even backlash among those one is trying to influence; too little public advocacy—too much silence—suggests to the world that these issues are not important after all and leads to despair among those one is trying to empower.

Clinton is silent apparently because she does not want the Saudi kingdom to stall or reverse ongoing, if slow-moving, progress for Saudi women. That in many ways is a justified stance, especially since the royals’ fall would be a catastrophe for Saudi women. ... In the case of Saudi women, Clinton has chosen a course that appears to be penny-foolish, but is surely pound-wise.

Once again, you owe Hillary Clinton, and the people reading this thread, an apology.

I read the article and I have stated repeatedly on this thread that Hillary does some good and some bad for women. I have been pretty even-handed about her overall. I have never said that she does nothing for women. I have said that I am concerned about the damage she will do because of her history.

No. You said she's not a real feminist. Are you taking that back now? Because I'm sure she's done both good and bad for women. As has Sanders. And I'm sure everyone in public life has done both good and bad for every group, in some measure. But on the whole Clinton has done a hell of a lot more good for women than Sanders. You're willfully blind to ignore that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just show us Bernie's feminist receipts, please. Not his votes - obviously he has voted the right way. Show us what he's done. This is a guy who says abortion is a social issue, so I think he lacks some basic understanding. Demonstrate otherwise, please.

You know, it only makes you look confused when you say that his votes for women's interests and his amendments do not matter. It shows that you don't understand what we are talking about. That is one of the most effective ways possible to advocate for women. What are you talking about when you say that does nothing for women??

I think what PP means is that Bernie has made zero effort to lead Congress on women's issues. He voted the "right" way on some legislation, but so did 99% of the other Democrats, and even many Republicans. It shows no special courage or concern for women when Bernie brags that he voted in favor of the Violence Against Women Act, because that Act passed the House on a voice vote with no one opposing it. Bernie brags that he co-sponsored the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act in 2013, but 60% of the Senate co-sponsored that Act too, including 7 Republicans. The people who showed courage and care for women were the 7 Republicans who co-sponsored, not Bernie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article on Hillary Clinton's own brand of "feminism" is pretty interesting. I especially liked this quote:

"But for proponents of this doctrine, perhaps no irony was crueler than seeing its namesake, then Secretary of State Clinton, smiling broadly in her trademark pantsuit as she walked the red carpet from her plane in Riyadh with the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in 2010. The moment brought to mind an incongruity no less extreme than if Frederick Douglass had been appointed ambassador to the Confederacy and found himself sipping tea and making small talk with Nathan Bedford Forrest. For, in Saudi Arabia, the subordination of women is as peculiar and pernicious an institution as was slavery in the antebellum South."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-record-saudi-arabia-116160

You know what's sad, OP? You're now just casting about aimlessly, desperately cherry-picking any article where the headline and first paragraph seem to support your predetermined attack line on Hillary Clinton.

It's sad because if you'd actually read the whole article you linked, you'd learn a lot about these issues you're claiming are so important to you. The article offers a richly detailed and nuanced analysis of all the difficulties and competing concerns that apply whenever the US tries to improve the dire plight of women in Middle Eastern countries. In the end, it cautiously praises Hillary Clinton for the thoughtful way she nurtured the development of women's rights in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere during her time as Secretary of State.

The case of Saudi Arabia, then, provides an important lesson about the tradeoffs involved with public advocacy of women’s rights in the international arena—for Hillary Clinton, her successors at State and whomever the next president is. Too much public advocacy breeds defensiveness and even backlash among those one is trying to influence; too little public advocacy—too much silence—suggests to the world that these issues are not important after all and leads to despair among those one is trying to empower.

Clinton is silent apparently because she does not want the Saudi kingdom to stall or reverse ongoing, if slow-moving, progress for Saudi women. That in many ways is a justified stance, especially since the royals’ fall would be a catastrophe for Saudi women. ... In the case of Saudi women, Clinton has chosen a course that appears to be penny-foolish, but is surely pound-wise.

Once again, you owe Hillary Clinton, and the people reading this thread, an apology.

I read the article and I have stated repeatedly on this thread that Hillary does some good and some bad for women. I have been pretty even-handed about her overall. I have never said that she does nothing for women. I have said that I am concerned about the damage she will do because of her history.

No. You said she's not a real feminist. Are you taking that back now? Because I'm sure she's done both good and bad for women. As has Sanders. And I'm sure everyone in public life has done both good and bad for every group, in some measure. But on the whole Clinton has done a hell of a lot more good for women than Sanders. You're willfully blind to ignore that.

I stand by my statement that a real feminist could not have done the damage Clinton has done to poor and working class women. I am sorry. I do not see his milder position on gun control as doing even a fraction of the harm that Clinton has done to women. I find it strange that you are keeping this thread alive if you hate it so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just show us Bernie's feminist receipts, please. Not his votes - obviously he has voted the right way. Show us what he's done. This is a guy who says abortion is a social issue, so I think he lacks some basic understanding. Demonstrate otherwise, please.

You know, it only makes you look confused when you say that his votes for women's interests and his amendments do not matter. It shows that you don't understand what we are talking about. That is one of the most effective ways possible to advocate for women. What are you talking about when you say that does nothing for women??

I'm asking what legislation he introduced to advance the cause of equality for women. Is that a hard question to understand or answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article on Hillary Clinton's own brand of "feminism" is pretty interesting. I especially liked this quote:

"But for proponents of this doctrine, perhaps no irony was crueler than seeing its namesake, then Secretary of State Clinton, smiling broadly in her trademark pantsuit as she walked the red carpet from her plane in Riyadh with the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in 2010. The moment brought to mind an incongruity no less extreme than if Frederick Douglass had been appointed ambassador to the Confederacy and found himself sipping tea and making small talk with Nathan Bedford Forrest. For, in Saudi Arabia, the subordination of women is as peculiar and pernicious an institution as was slavery in the antebellum South."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-record-saudi-arabia-116160

You know what's sad, OP? You're now just casting about aimlessly, desperately cherry-picking any article where the headline and first paragraph seem to support your predetermined attack line on Hillary Clinton.

It's sad because if you'd actually read the whole article you linked, you'd learn a lot about these issues you're claiming are so important to you. The article offers a richly detailed and nuanced analysis of all the difficulties and competing concerns that apply whenever the US tries to improve the dire plight of women in Middle Eastern countries. In the end, it cautiously praises Hillary Clinton for the thoughtful way she nurtured the development of women's rights in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere during her time as Secretary of State.

The case of Saudi Arabia, then, provides an important lesson about the tradeoffs involved with public advocacy of women’s rights in the international arena—for Hillary Clinton, her successors at State and whomever the next president is. Too much public advocacy breeds defensiveness and even backlash among those one is trying to influence; too little public advocacy—too much silence—suggests to the world that these issues are not important after all and leads to despair among those one is trying to empower.

Clinton is silent apparently because she does not want the Saudi kingdom to stall or reverse ongoing, if slow-moving, progress for Saudi women. That in many ways is a justified stance, especially since the royals’ fall would be a catastrophe for Saudi women. ... In the case of Saudi women, Clinton has chosen a course that appears to be penny-foolish, but is surely pound-wise.

Once again, you owe Hillary Clinton, and the people reading this thread, an apology.

I read the article and I have stated repeatedly on this thread that Hillary does some good and some bad for women. I have been pretty even-handed about her overall. I have never said that she does nothing for women. I have said that I am concerned about the damage she will do because of her history.

No. You said she's not a real feminist. Are you taking that back now? Because I'm sure she's done both good and bad for women. As has Sanders. And I'm sure everyone in public life has done both good and bad for every group, in some measure. But on the whole Clinton has done a hell of a lot more good for women than Sanders. You're willfully blind to ignore that.

I stand by my statement that a real feminist could not have done the damage Clinton has done to poor and working class women. I am sorry. I do not see his milder position on gun control as doing even a fraction of the harm that Clinton has done to women. I find it strange that you are keeping this thread alive if you hate it so much.

I find it strange that you're trying to silence people who are pointig out how wrong you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that you are keeping this thread alive if you hate it so much.

The only reason I'm continuing to post is because you keep posting distortions as part of your unfair attack campaign. If you go away, I'll be happy to let the thread die.

You're just complaining now because people are overwhelming your BS with facts and debunking your untruths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article on Hillary Clinton's own brand of "feminism" is pretty interesting. I especially liked this quote:

"But for proponents of this doctrine, perhaps no irony was crueler than seeing its namesake, then Secretary of State Clinton, smiling broadly in her trademark pantsuit as she walked the red carpet from her plane in Riyadh with the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in 2010. The moment brought to mind an incongruity no less extreme than if Frederick Douglass had been appointed ambassador to the Confederacy and found himself sipping tea and making small talk with Nathan Bedford Forrest. For, in Saudi Arabia, the subordination of women is as peculiar and pernicious an institution as was slavery in the antebellum South."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-record-saudi-arabia-116160

You know what's sad, OP? You're now just casting about aimlessly, desperately cherry-picking any article where the headline and first paragraph seem to support your predetermined attack line on Hillary Clinton.

It's sad because if you'd actually read the whole article you linked, you'd learn a lot about these issues you're claiming are so important to you. The article offers a richly detailed and nuanced analysis of all the difficulties and competing concerns that apply whenever the US tries to improve the dire plight of women in Middle Eastern countries. In the end, it cautiously praises Hillary Clinton for the thoughtful way she nurtured the development of women's rights in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere during her time as Secretary of State.

The case of Saudi Arabia, then, provides an important lesson about the tradeoffs involved with public advocacy of women’s rights in the international arena—for Hillary Clinton, her successors at State and whomever the next president is. Too much public advocacy breeds defensiveness and even backlash among those one is trying to influence; too little public advocacy—too much silence—suggests to the world that these issues are not important after all and leads to despair among those one is trying to empower.

Clinton is silent apparently because she does not want the Saudi kingdom to stall or reverse ongoing, if slow-moving, progress for Saudi women. That in many ways is a justified stance, especially since the royals’ fall would be a catastrophe for Saudi women. ... In the case of Saudi women, Clinton has chosen a course that appears to be penny-foolish, but is surely pound-wise.

Once again, you owe Hillary Clinton, and the people reading this thread, an apology.

I read the article and I have stated repeatedly on this thread that Hillary does some good and some bad for women. I have been pretty even-handed about her overall. I have never said that she does nothing for women. I have said that I am concerned about the damage she will do because of her history.

No. You said she's not a real feminist. Are you taking that back now? Because I'm sure she's done both good and bad for women. As has Sanders. And I'm sure everyone in public life has done both good and bad for every group, in some measure. But on the whole Clinton has done a hell of a lot more good for women than Sanders. You're willfully blind to ignore that.

I stand by my statement that a real feminist could not have done the damage Clinton has done to poor and working class women. I am sorry. I do not see his milder position on gun control as doing even a fraction of the harm that Clinton has done to women. I find it strange that you are keeping this thread alive if you hate it so much.

His selling out on gun control is not the only way he's hurt women. How about voting to poison the poor women with toxic waste? How about just not making them a priority at all? How about doing absolutely nothing for the rights of women abroad? Oh right. It's a lower bar for him. If he just sits there and votes the right way, that's good enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just show us Bernie's feminist receipts, please. Not his votes - obviously he has voted the right way. Show us what he's done. This is a guy who says abortion is a social issue, so I think he lacks some basic understanding. Demonstrate otherwise, please.

You know, it only makes you look confused when you say that his votes for women's interests and his amendments do not matter. It shows that you don't understand what we are talking about. That is one of the most effective ways possible to advocate for women. What are you talking about when you say that does nothing for women??

I'm asking what legislation he introduced to advance the cause of equality for women. Is that a hard question to understand or answer?

I posted the link to his 2011 childcare legislation earlier in this thread. The argument was made that it never got anywhere but to say that he never introduced legislation is a lie. I also posted the three bills Clinton spearheaded: one was to name a highway; one was a historic sight; and one had something to do with a post office.

And yes, it is too much to ask me to find more at this moment because I am working...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article on Hillary Clinton's own brand of "feminism" is pretty interesting. I especially liked this quote:

"But for proponents of this doctrine, perhaps no irony was crueler than seeing its namesake, then Secretary of State Clinton, smiling broadly in her trademark pantsuit as she walked the red carpet from her plane in Riyadh with the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in 2010. The moment brought to mind an incongruity no less extreme than if Frederick Douglass had been appointed ambassador to the Confederacy and found himself sipping tea and making small talk with Nathan Bedford Forrest. For, in Saudi Arabia, the subordination of women is as peculiar and pernicious an institution as was slavery in the antebellum South."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-record-saudi-arabia-116160

You know what's sad, OP? You're now just casting about aimlessly, desperately cherry-picking any article where the headline and first paragraph seem to support your predetermined attack line on Hillary Clinton.

It's sad because if you'd actually read the whole article you linked, you'd learn a lot about these issues you're claiming are so important to you. The article offers a richly detailed and nuanced analysis of all the difficulties and competing concerns that apply whenever the US tries to improve the dire plight of women in Middle Eastern countries. In the end, it cautiously praises Hillary Clinton for the thoughtful way she nurtured the development of women's rights in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere during her time as Secretary of State.

The case of Saudi Arabia, then, provides an important lesson about the tradeoffs involved with public advocacy of women’s rights in the international arena—for Hillary Clinton, her successors at State and whomever the next president is. Too much public advocacy breeds defensiveness and even backlash among those one is trying to influence; too little public advocacy—too much silence—suggests to the world that these issues are not important after all and leads to despair among those one is trying to empower.

Clinton is silent apparently because she does not want the Saudi kingdom to stall or reverse ongoing, if slow-moving, progress for Saudi women. That in many ways is a justified stance, especially since the royals’ fall would be a catastrophe for Saudi women. ... In the case of Saudi women, Clinton has chosen a course that appears to be penny-foolish, but is surely pound-wise.

Once again, you owe Hillary Clinton, and the people reading this thread, an apology.

I read the article and I have stated repeatedly on this thread that Hillary does some good and some bad for women. I have been pretty even-handed about her overall. I have never said that she does nothing for women. I have said that I am concerned about the damage she will do because of her history.

No. You said she's not a real feminist. Are you taking that back now? Because I'm sure she's done both good and bad for women. As has Sanders. And I'm sure everyone in public life has done both good and bad for every group, in some measure. But on the whole Clinton has done a hell of a lot more good for women than Sanders. You're willfully blind to ignore that.

I stand by my statement that a real feminist could not have done the damage Clinton has done to poor and working class women. I am sorry. I do not see his milder position on gun control as doing even a fraction of the harm that Clinton has done to women. I find it strange that you are keeping this thread alive if you hate it so much.

His selling out on gun control is not the only way he's hurt women. How about voting to poison the poor women with toxic waste? How about just not making them a priority at all? How about doing absolutely nothing for the rights of women abroad? Oh right. It's a lower bar for him. If he just sits there and votes the right way, that's good enough.

Do you know anything about Hillary Clinton?? Please do not get me started on the environment. That is a fool's game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article on Hillary Clinton's own brand of "feminism" is pretty interesting. I especially liked this quote:

"But for proponents of this doctrine, perhaps no irony was crueler than seeing its namesake, then Secretary of State Clinton, smiling broadly in her trademark pantsuit as she walked the red carpet from her plane in Riyadh with the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in 2010. The moment brought to mind an incongruity no less extreme than if Frederick Douglass had been appointed ambassador to the Confederacy and found himself sipping tea and making small talk with Nathan Bedford Forrest. For, in Saudi Arabia, the subordination of women is as peculiar and pernicious an institution as was slavery in the antebellum South."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-record-saudi-arabia-116160

You know what's sad, OP? You're now just casting about aimlessly, desperately cherry-picking any article where the headline and first paragraph seem to support your predetermined attack line on Hillary Clinton.

It's sad because if you'd actually read the whole article you linked, you'd learn a lot about these issues you're claiming are so important to you. The article offers a richly detailed and nuanced analysis of all the difficulties and competing concerns that apply whenever the US tries to improve the dire plight of women in Middle Eastern countries. In the end, it cautiously praises Hillary Clinton for the thoughtful way she nurtured the development of women's rights in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere during her time as Secretary of State.

The case of Saudi Arabia, then, provides an important lesson about the tradeoffs involved with public advocacy of women’s rights in the international arena—for Hillary Clinton, her successors at State and whomever the next president is. Too much public advocacy breeds defensiveness and even backlash among those one is trying to influence; too little public advocacy—too much silence—suggests to the world that these issues are not important after all and leads to despair among those one is trying to empower.

Clinton is silent apparently because she does not want the Saudi kingdom to stall or reverse ongoing, if slow-moving, progress for Saudi women. That in many ways is a justified stance, especially since the royals’ fall would be a catastrophe for Saudi women. ... In the case of Saudi women, Clinton has chosen a course that appears to be penny-foolish, but is surely pound-wise.

Once again, you owe Hillary Clinton, and the people reading this thread, an apology.

I read the article and I have stated repeatedly on this thread that Hillary does some good and some bad for women. I have been pretty even-handed about her overall. I have never said that she does nothing for women. I have said that I am concerned about the damage she will do because of her history.

No. You said she's not a real feminist. Are you taking that back now? Because I'm sure she's done both good and bad for women. As has Sanders. And I'm sure everyone in public life has done both good and bad for every group, in some measure. But on the whole Clinton has done a hell of a lot more good for women than Sanders. You're willfully blind to ignore that.

I stand by my statement that a real feminist could not have done the damage Clinton has done to poor and working class women. I am sorry. I do not see his milder position on gun control as doing even a fraction of the harm that Clinton has done to women. I find it strange that you are keeping this thread alive if you hate it so much.

His selling out on gun control is not the only way he's hurt women. How about voting to poison the poor women with toxic waste? How about just not making them a priority at all? How about doing absolutely nothing for the rights of women abroad? Oh right. It's a lower bar for him. If he just sits there and votes the right way, that's good enough.

Do you know anything about Hillary Clinton?? Please do not get me started on the environment. That is a fool's game.

Oh. Hon. I know far more about environmental policy than you will ever know. She's a reliable supporter of the enviro side.

[Anonymous]

This is not a thread to discuss fracking, Monsanto, offshore drilling, oil companies, etc. This is a thread about feminism. So I am going to refrain from clogging the thread with environmental concerns.