For months, Sanders supporters have objected to what they perceive as highly biased coverage by mainstream media. The media has been condemned for its abbreviated coverage of the Clinton email scandal (including notable failures to ask follow up questions of Clinton) as well as a steady drumbeat dismissing Sanders as a serious challenger. Now, New York Times reporter Yamiche Alcindor has infuriated even non-Sanders supporters with a bizarre suggestion that Sanders is sexist for merely opposing Hillary Clinton. Despite widespread ridicule, Alcindor insists that Sanders was the one in the wrong for expressing legitimate shock at the insulting question. She later tweeted: “Some women think @BernieSanders will be standing in way of history tmrw if HRC wins & he doesn’t concede. He got testy when I asked; Oh well.”
Sanders legitimately bristled at the suggestion that continuing to challenge Clinton is sexist and asked “excuse me” several times to the overtly hostile question. Various reporters have been trying to convince Sanders to leave the race for months, but Alcindor is the first to suggest that he might be sexist for continuing to fight (despite the fact that Sanders and his supporters view the primary process as “rigged” by Democratic leaders to guarantee Clinton’s selection). (Indeed, many supporters are irate that in a rare exchange with reporters this week, not a single reporter asked about the highly critical email report but instead asked about how historic her run for the White House is).
The question was loaded, fairly hostile, and facially ridiculous: “What do you say to women that say you staying in the race is sexist because it could get in the way of what could be the first female president?” Sanders could have asked Alcindor if Clinton running against him meant that she is anti-Semitic. Instead, he asked the question that most of us had in our minds: “Is that a serious question?” and noted that it would mean that any man running against Clinton would be by definition sexist. Alcindor persisted in suggesting that fighting to the convention could be viewed as sexist despite the obvious and significant policy differences between Sanders and Clinton: “My point is that if she has more delegates than you tomorrow, for you to stay in the race, is it sexist?”
The tendency to define any criticism or opposition to Clinton as sexist is becoming a parody of the campaign. There are ample reasons to oppose Clinton, particularly for Sanders who has faced what many view as an unfair campaign by DNC and democratic insiders. The question also reinforced the view of many that the mainstream media is closely allied with Clinton in seeking to eliminate or marginalize Sanders. Most importantly, Sanders has major disagreements with Clinton on her use of corporate money and changes in positions on issues ranging from trade deals to military interventions. Finally, with scandals swirling around Clinton from the emails to the Clinton Foundation, it might be viewed as prudent to continue the fight to the convention to maximize the Sanders delegate count to avoid a dark horse candidates like Joe Biden in a convention switch. None of those reasons are in the slightest sexist.
bettykath: “Bernie is sticking to the issues and Hillary’s record on the issues.”
Sanders isn’t bright enough to know that the system he favors (state socialism) always ends up with undemocratic fake “elections” with preordained results, just like Hillary is doing.
Lisa N.,
Neither Obama nor Clinton are liberals. They are totalitarian, corporatists as are Trump and Sanders (along with most others in the US political class. Conservative and Liberal are labels which simply don’t fit any longer.
Everybody knew that when Obama was elected president , liberals would throw the race card at any or all whom disagreed with him. And with JanineGarafalo, it began.
Now we all know that liberals will do the same if a liberal woman is elected president. They will accuse everyone of being a misogynist, if they disagree with their chosen female candidate and bully people with it to make them feel guilty if they don’t vote or disagree with her.
Next on the liberal agenda will be a gay or transgender presidential candidate. And if anyone doesn’t agree with their agenda, there will be a barrage of name calling and labeling. I’m so over it.
Darren and Slorss29……I checked the requirements of the states for getting on the general election ballot.
The numbers (percentages of registered voters) are suprizingly low in many states; it looks like the 5-6% mentioned by Darren would be more than adequate on most states.
I think Perot got on the ballot of all states in 1992, after he announced that he would run if his supporters got him on the ballots.
He ended up with c
19% of the vote. He was very short on specifics and carried no electoral votes, but if the states’ rules are similar today, it looks like the barriers to ballot access are generally low, at least as far as the number of petition signatures required.
There are other hoops to jump through, and the mechanism is somewhat different than what Darren spelled out, but it looks doable if an independent candidate starts early enough to meet deadlines.
Darren’s ideas sound great to me… how do we get them started? No sense in wasting time… DarrenPAC? The NO-PAC PAC?
She asked a legitimate question.
There are idiots, lots of them, who believe it is sexist to oppose America’s first woman president. These are the same kind of idiots who accuse/d anyone who criticized Obama of being racist. Sanders should take on these types of idiots, up front, with forceful and accurate argumentation. After taking down the statement through the use of logic, there’s nothing else to say. At that point, I would say I have made my case and won’t answer any further accusations. From my experience, facts will not convince these types of people. Nevertheless, one should not let such idiocy pass unaddressed.
There are legitimate claims of sexism being used against Hillary Clinton. Those are not justified, ever.
Most importantly, I will agree with Darren’s very well stated position above on the affairs of this nation.
The Clintons have a well-oiled machine working with the press, so the press is getting the talking points and going after Bernie with the only questions they are allowed. The press is not allowed to think for themselves.
Bernie is sticking to the issues and Hillary’s record on the issues. That is not being sexist. I would love to see a woman president but I won’t be voting for Hillary because of her record.
Not all states have primaries, some have caucuses. Each party within each state has its own method of choosing delegates to the convention where the nominee is selected. Even those, parties and states, that have primaries have different rules on how candidates get on the ballot and who gets to vote.
About voting, here’s something that a states should be moving toward. But watch the algorithms being used, some stack the votes in unfair ways.
http://time.com/4352797/ranked-choice-voting-maine-donald-trump/?xid=fbshare
The reporter merely expressed the sincere beliefs of feminist Hillary fanatics. For some of us more urbane people, it is no surprise. But, for some on the fence, people who don’t follow politics, it is shocking. That question moved many voters on the fence away from Hillary. So, thank you for the question, Ms. Alcindor.
Is the reporter the daughter of Lew Alcindor?
It is “sexist” to suggest that a male who opposes Hillary is wrong for opposing her simply because he is a male. Sexist can go two ways. Alcindor is probably “bent”. Ask her what that means.
Clinton, Trump & Sanders are Zionists
Israel, Zionist Jews & American Traitors did 9/11
http://buenavistamall.com/bernie.jpg
Welcome to the new reality where unqualified, idiotic, and coddled millennials are getting into positions of influence. This is your brave new world.
Yamiche Alcindor is not ready for prime time. Send her back to the minor leagues.
Obama was the sexist who needed impeached. But for him the cgi would aready run the world…..oh wait…..
T. Nash,
Thank you for your thoughts. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that primary elections have evolved through changes fostered by both parties to exclude all but the Democratic and Republican tickets. It is especially such that the primaries in many states, if not most, reduce the general election choices to the two top candidates; conveniently to be filled by one of each party or two of one party. Third parties have almost no chance in building momentum to become major candidates since they must become fully supported by half the voters quickly. Unfortunately, most people also believe that their voice will not be heard if they vote for a third party knowing it will not matter and when this belief is collectively held, there is great disincentive to vote other than the duopoly.
A better alternative I propose is that the primary election is repealed and in its place a system where signature drives are made in the locality where any legally eligible citizen who can obtain perhaps five or six percent of the registered voters to endorse a candidate (and no other candidate) then those candidates obtaining the requisite number of signatures will appear on the general ballot.
This will have the effect of allowing multiple persons with various ideas to come into the political arena and there would be far less disenfranchisement of third-parties.
Our state is somewhat of an analog in this where we have citizens’ initiatives. If a threshold of the number of valid signatures is reached, then a proposal forwards to the general election.
If such an election framework could be established an equally important compliment would be for each of the candidates who are to be placed onto the general election, the federal or state government provides each person with an equal share of dollars to spend on their campaigns and advertising with no outside money permitted. That way each has an equal voice and it is the ideas that persuade the voters more than the money, and there is less opportunity for political payback expected of politicians for the
bribescampaign donations they receive.Thanks, Darren. I’m working through the possible outcomes of the system you propose.
One thing that might “carry over” from the existing is that candidates with an established infrastructive would be most likely to get ballot access by getting the most signatures.
But the 5-6% threshold would in fact open up the primaries to more candidates, especially independent candidates.
It’d be interesting to see how that system played out.
There are a lot of practical, sensible elements in your proposals…….which is why they’d never be adopted.😊
Darren…50 years ago, I don’t think that there were more that 10-15 states that held presidential primaries.
I think all 50 states now have them. The idea in expanding the number of primaries was that it was “more democratic” than the smoke-filled backroom selections made by party officials.
And being more democratic, it was felt that the primary system would produce better candidates.
It is in fact a “functioning democracy” that produced the 2 candidates we’re stuck with.
In my view, the problem goes well beyond those two candidates.
They are where they are because of a “more democratic” process…..i.e., voters in primaries made their choices.
Not a new thought, but we get the kind of candidates and leaders we deserve.
I don’t see any difference between suggesting that a fruitless endeavor in opposing Hillary is sexist, and the theme eight years ago that anyone not voting for Obama was racist. And when Obama secured enough delegates to become the nominee, Hillary bowed out, so as to not stand in the way of the first black president.
A lot of liberals, including liberal women, thought it was more important to have a black president than a female president, so they voted for the uniquely unqualified junior senator instead of the much more experienced Hillary. And if you think that sexism doesn’t continue to be a significant barrier for women, look no further than the 3d post on this blog, where a Mr. Aarethun devoted 1/3 of his comments to Hillary’s weight, without a single reference to candidate Sander’s personal appearance.
This presidential election cycle has brought much shame onto us as a nation. Several years ago President Carter stated that the United States was no longer a functioning democracy. He garnered much backlash against him at the time, including from myself. Since then I reversed my opinion of his remarks. I believe if reminded of his thinking many would agree presently.
This reporter’s actions are more in the fashion of political professional writers who write content onto websites, appearing as ordinary readers, to extol a person or politic. We have seen this during the previous two presidential elections where many on the left assigned any criticism of Candidate Obama as being racist; an almost entirely baseless attack designed to not only deflect answering the question the person requested, but having a two-fold undertone of silencing the critic and to also dissuade anybody else from daring to question the candidate.
The amount of bias shown by most of the major news outlets also reflects badly upon our nation in the election cycle. The ones that a heavy donors to the Hillary Clinton campaign are the ones offering her the best support. In fact, when Donald Trump effectively secured the requisite number of pledged delegates there was hardly any fanfare or headlines announcing this newsworthy event. Yet, today big headlines were abound in large font for Hillary Clinton winning the same accolade, one of which with a very large American flag canvassing the background–in striking resemblance to the opening scene of the film “Patton”.
Mr. Sanders is a legitimate and well supported candidate for the presidency, and despite all the attempts at incapacitating him he continues to remain relevant. For all that he has been through, it is to me remarkable he has performed as well as he has.
In the article, there is mention that reporters are stating that he should drop out. That is also crossing the line and blurring another relating to what the role of the reporter should be. If these reporters wish to express such opinions, they might be of better service writing op-ed pieces or transferring to the editorial section of their news medium.
The height of stupidity and Mother Gumpism has been reached. To DNC people charged one of the DNC candidates with sexism for opposing Hillary Clintonite. The very LAST thing a Democrat should ever raise is sexism and with it marital fidelity , morals, values and standards. At least not those commonly held by decent people. I’m wondering if the two of them were put up to it by Wasserman. Not that Hillary isn’t tha stupid herself.
Comrade Sanders will probably remind them that such activities do not exist with in the party and refer to them to some Leninist quote.
Although…..Waddle (from WwotL or Wicked Witch of the Left does personify the prototypical full potato sack figure of the Peoples heroines from years gone by. That’s pronounced Waddles by the way.
That is a sexist remark based on fact. But hard to refute or is it all those chicken and dumpling dinners? I’ll leave the apoligies to Hillary …to the women she failed to defend against a sexual predator.
Mother Gumpitis or a Mother Gumpism is of course Stupid Is as Stupid Does. another reason Hillary would never countenance such a remark. She needs no reminders in her low polling status based on that affliction. She should never have played that card. but……SIASD.
This whole episode did have the taint of a Wasserman plot. Things are not well in Mud ville.
Interesting process, watching psychopaths like Hillary and Trump and their sycophant supporters, when there really is a viable option and decent human being in the race, Bernie Sanders. HE isn’t sexist. The REPORTER is.
No class question.
From: JONATHAN TURLEY To: jimkuden@sbcglobal.net Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 9:06 PM Subject: [New post] New York Times Reporter Asks Sanders If He Is Sexist Due To His Opposing Hillary Clinton #yiv8360748798 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv8360748798 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv8360748798 a.yiv8360748798primaryactionlink:link, #yiv8360748798 a.yiv8360748798primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv8360748798 a.yiv8360748798primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv8360748798 a.yiv8360748798primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv8360748798 WordPress.com | jonathanturley posted: “For months, Sanders supporters have objected to what they perceive as highly biased coverage by mainstream media. The media has been condemned for its abbreviated coverage of the Clinton email scandal (including notable failures to ask follow up que” | |