Reply Private New

Replies (2) Next 10 Prev Next

Send PM Follow Ignore

Followers	59
Posts	34538
Boards Moderated	2
Alias Born	01/02/2003

Re: F6 post# 245825

Saturday, 03/05/2016 2:20:37 AM

Saturday, March 05, 2016 2:20:37 AM

That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent

Alex Hanson/Flickr

The woman who beat Bernie Sanders 30 years ago says not much has changed.

By Tim Murphy
Thu Feb. 4, 2016 6:00 AM EST

A few days before the 1986 Vermont gubernatorial election, Bernie Sanders held a rally in downtown Burlington. Sanders, then the independent mayor of the state's largest city, was trailing badly in a three-way race with Democratic Gov. Madeleine Kunin, the state's first female chief executive, and Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Smith, and he was running out of time.

So, as Kunin recounts in her 1994 memoir, Living a Political Life, Sanders leveled a tough attack against her. At that rally, Kunin wrote, Sanders declared that "he would be a better feminist than I." According to her account, Sanders shouted that Kunin had "done nothing for women." And, she recalled in her book, "When my husband, there as my surrogate (I was scheduled to speak elsewhere), rose to speak in my defense, he was booed by the crowd. Arthur's red-faced anger became the children's horror story of the campaign, which they embellished in the retelling—our private macabre joke." Kunin was already coming under attack from the right for her vocal support of the Equal Rights Amendment; now she was being hammered for not being feminist enough.

Sanders, who was elected mayor of Burlington as an independent five years earlier, had entered the governor's race with high hopes but struggled to gain traction. His fundraising was anemic, and members of the lefty coalition that formed his base in the state's largest city had discouraged him from running, fearing that a vanity campaign might hurt other progressives further down the ticket. He also found himself battling against a historic candidate—a position he finds himself in once again, as he seeks to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming the first woman to earn the presidential nomination of a major party.

"Liberals were angry I was running against a female Democrat," Sanders recalled in his own memoir, Outsider in the House. Sanders, for his part, inflamed the tensions, arguing at the time that Kunin was an empty suit. "[M]any people are excited because she's the first woman governor," he told an interviewer in 1986. "But after that there ain't much." In another interview, he suggested [ http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/interview-why-im-running-bernie-sanders-quest-for-a-grassroots-revolution/Content?oid=2434331 ] the governor was coasting by on superficial approval. "I think [her] popularity is not very deep," he said. "In other words, she does very well on television. She has an excellent press secretary."

Days before the election, a group calling itself Women for Sanders took out an ad in the Burlington alt-weekly Vermont Vanguard asking voters whether they would choose "substance or image." Sanders' record, the ad said [ http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/will-you-vote-for-substance-or-image/Content?oid=2434350 ], "is one of commitment, support, and substantive accomplishment—not just rhetoric and symbolism." The message was clear: Don't vote for the woman just because she's the woman.

the ad [embedded]:
Will You Vote for...Substance or Image? | Vanguard Press | Nov. 2, 1986
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239122994/Will-You-Vote-for-Substance-or-Image-Vanguard-Press-Nov-2-1986

Kunin won reelection easily. Sanders finished a distant third. He then used the campaign as a springboard for a congressional campaign in 1988 but lost that race. He ran for Congress again two years later—and won. In 1996, when he faced Republican Susan Sweetser in a bid for reelection to the House, he again found himself up against a female candidate. This time, feminist writer Gloria Steinem traveled to Vermont to endorse Sanders, joking that she'd come to make the congressman "an honorary woman [ http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/01/time-bernie-sanders-became-honorary-woman ]." Another speaker, a female state senator, emphasized Sanders' feminist credentials. "As we know, to be a feminist a person does not have to be a woman," she said. "A feminist is a person who challenges the power structure of this country…Bernie Sanders is that kind of feminist."

Kunin, who was later appointed ambassador to Switzerland by President Bill Clinton, endorsed Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential race, and this time around she is again backing Clinton. Noting that these days Sanders has a better haircut (which is to say, a haircut) and a nicer suit, she does have some kind words for him: "You usually say somebody's caught up with the times—the times have caught up with Bernie." She's referring to his positions on income inequality.

But she sees a parallel between the ongoing Democratic primary and her own clash with Sanders. Namely, the idea that Sanders benefits from a subtle double standard. "He'll grab an issue and because he's so determined and passionate about it, it makes it seem like he cares more than Hillary," Kunin says. "He can say things with a forcefulness that most women can't. If a woman shouted all the time with her answers like Bernie does, she'd be booed off the stage. So women still have to behave well, where men don't have to."

Hillary Clinton has all but said as much. After Sanders suggested last fall that "all the shouting in the world" would not fix the problem of gun violence, some Clinton supporters suggested it was a sexist remark (especially in light of his own propensity for shouting). Clinton herself told a Des Moines audience that "sometimes when a woman speaks out, some people think it's shouting." More recently, the top two Democratic candidates clashed over Planned Parenthood, after the organization's political-action wing endorsed Clinton in January. Sanders suggested it was only natural that the group would embrace the establishment candidate. The Clinton campaign responded by accusing Sanders of tarring a women's health organization as the enemy.

The New York Times' entrance poll [ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/01/us/elections/iowa-democrat-poll.html ] of Iowa caucus attendees revealed a gender divide, with Sanders winning male voters by eight points and Clinton winning female voters by nine. But the more telling divide was over age, not gender—Clinton won just 14 percent of voters under 30; Sanders just 26 percent of seniors. And Sanders' support among the younger generation of women has left his long-ago rival puzzled. "[NPR] interviewed a young woman who said [Sanders] could do more for women than Hillary and that astounded me," Kunin says. "I was really bothered by that, because I've been a feminist all my life and promoted issues like child care and the ERA and been fighting for that all my life like Hillary has. And for reasons that really baffle me he has attracted younger women—they like his energy and think he'll get things done."

In Kunin's eyes, the same double standard she struggled against is alive. "I think people will say they're not biased," she observes, "and I think we've come a long way in that regard, but subconsciously—and this is true of women judging other women—we have certain expectations. You'd think people would be tired of his style but they're not."

Copyright ©2016 Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress (emphasis in original)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/bernie-sanders-madeleine-kunin-feminism [with comments]

*

When Bernie Sanders Ran Against Me in Vermont

ASSOCIATED PRESS

By Madeleine M. Kunin
02/05/2016 03:53 pm ET | Updated Feb 05, 2016

Hillary Clinton is not the first progressive Democratic woman to be challenged by Bernie Sanders. He ran against me in 1986 when I was running for my second term as governor of Vermont. At that time he had little affinity for the Democratic Party. When advised that his third-party candidacy might result in a Republican victory, he saw no difference between Democrats and Republicans, saying, "It is absolutely fair to say you are dealing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee."

Voters did not agree. Sanders received 14 percent of the vote, the Republican candidate, Peter Smith received 38 percent, and I won with 47 percent.

By any measure, I was regarded as a progressive governor. If I was vulnerable, it was for being too liberal. As a legislator, my maiden speech on the floor of the Vermont House was in favor of ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. My first priority as governor was universal access to kindergarten. I set a record for a Vermont governor's appointees; women filled half of my cabinet. I sought out talented women, many of whom were the first women to head their agencies.

Women draw on a different network than men and can share an alternative definition of "qualified." Hillary Clinton's campaign staff, according to Fast Company, is over 50 percent female. Sanders' campaign began with a a predominantly male inner circle and continues to face accusation of keeping women out of the top ranks.

When Sanders was my opponent, he focused like a laser beam on "class analysis," in which "women's issues" were essentially a distraction from more important issues. He urged voters not to vote for me just because I was a woman. That would be a "sexist position," he declared.

Sanders has emerged as a more sophisticated and astute politician since those early days, and his message has more resonance.

Thirty years later, women and men assume that gender no longer matters in politics. Now only 8 percent of voters would declare in a poll that they would not vote for a woman president. I remember precisely the time and place when a barber in Springfield, Vermont, ran out to tell me, "I will never vote for a woman."

Rare then, even more rare today. But that does not mean that gender no longer plays a role in how we judge a woman's candidacy for the top job. Women, it turns out, are influenced by gender bias to almost the same degree as men. For example, both Clinton and Sanders have declared they are favor paid maternity and sick leave, and equal pay for equal work.

What sets them apart? I believe it is both style and substance. Sanders can shout his message and wave his arms for emphasis. Clinton can't. If she appeared on stage as angry at the "system" as he is, she would be dismissed as an angry, even hysterical, woman; a sight that makes voters squirm.

An angry female voice works against women, but is a plus for men. It demonstrates passion, outrage and power. Sanders bristled when he was accused of sexism after he implied that Clinton was among the shouters. Ironically, it is he who has, according to his doctor, suffered from laryngitis.

Gender adds muscle to substance. How will a female president differ from the men who have ruled the world?

Living in a woman's body makes the world look different on some -- though far from all -- issues.

As a new legislator, my first bill introduced in the Vermont House was to increase funding for childcare. I had young children and I knew that finding childcare determined whether or not I could leave my house and come to the capital, Montpelier. And I knew, that for poor women, childcare determined whether they could go to work and support their children. As governor, I saw to it that childcare funding was quadrupled and funding for education doubled.

Hillary Clinton's career follows a similar trajectory. Education reform was her priority as the governor's wife in Arkansas. A bill to cover children's health insurance (CHIP) was her achievement as a New York senator. "Women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights" was the message she sent to every country she visited as secretary of state. Yes, Hillary has been around, she's been a determined, consistent fighter for children's welfare and women's rights. It's part of her DNA.

She was drawn to these women's issues -- now urgent economic issues -- in the same way that I was, by our experiences as working women, wives and mothers. A number of men will protest: "I believe the same thing as she does."

What's the difference? The difference is how do they rank on the agenda. Is equal pay near the bottom of the list, or is it a priority? Is defense of Planned Parenthood an issue that saves women's lives, or is it only another institution among many? Placement on a competitive agenda is vital to achieve results.

I believe that Hillary Clinton will give high priority to equal pay for equal work, not because she has experienced discrimination herself, but as a woman, she can empathize with women who have been discriminated against. It is a kind of empathy that allows no definition, but I felt it every time I made eye contact with the women I met along the parade route or on the factory floor.

One of the criticisms Clinton has received is that she is not authentic, that she is too political (i.e. scheming) and that she has been around for a long time so that she is a captive of various institutions.

If we're counting from when Sanders was elected mayor of Burlington, he has been around for some time, too: 35 years. In part because he is a man, he can run as the ultimate outsider. Clinton can't be the outsider even as her very candidacy defies precedent. Ever since women got the vote, we believed, like the good students we are, that the path to political participation, as instructed years ago by the League of Women Voters, was to be informed, understand the system and play by the rules. That's how we could make it in a man's world.

That responsibility did not rule out reform, but it did crimp revolution. When I campaigned for governor, I believed that I had to assure voters that I would not be that different from the male governors who had preceded me, even when I knew that I would be. Being the first woman and a revolutionary would be too much for the voters to swallow.

Sanders is brave, pairing Socialist with Democrat. And I agree with him on the growing cancer in America of income inequality and a democracy-threatening campaign finance system. He is a bold truth teller, and I am grateful that he has changed the conversation. He makes the answers sound easy, which in turn, makes him look authentic. But the answers are not simple. The word "complex" does not win applause in a political speech. Nuance is not welcomed. "We need a revolution," is more powerful than "I have a plan."

I understand that voters are looking for authenticity; they always have been, asking, "Are you who you claim to be?" A woman, running for a leadership position that has always been held by a man, has to create a new persona. To succeed, she has to play the game as it has always been played, but at the same time, play it differently. It's difficult to find that sweet spot where a woman is "just right" tough enough to be commander in chief and feminine enough to be mother of the nation.

When we elected the first African American as president, we believed that an African American man would be revolutionary and bring us hope.

Barack Obama, in many ways, has changed the rules, and had new priorities on his agenda, but not to the extent that some voters had hoped and others had feared.

Still, the world seen through the eyes of a black man looks different than through those of a white man. As a result of President Obama's leadership, we look at him and ourselves differently.

And the world as seen through the eyes of a woman will not result in revolution, but it will mark a change towards greater gender equality. Visualizing Hillary raising her right hand to take the oath of office, and Bill holding the Bible, will tell every little girl and boy, that, yes, women can achieve anything.

Madeleine May Kunin, who served as governor of Vermont for three terms from 1985-1991, is a Marsh Professor at the University of Vermont, and the author of "The New Feminist Agenda, Defining the Next Revolution for Women, Work and Family [ http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Feminist-Agenda-Revolution/dp/1603582916 ]."

Copyright © 2016 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/madeleine-m-kunin/when-bernie-sanders-ran-a_b_9170140.html [with comments]

--

Killer Mike Made a Remark About Hillary Clinton’s Uterus. It Doesn’t Sound Better in Context.

Killer Mike, Bernie Sanders, and Illinois state Rep. La Shawn Ford on December 23, 2015 in Chicago.

By Christina Cauterucci
Feb. 17 2016 6:03 PM

Stalwart Bernie Sanders supporter Killer Mike is catching flak for using a fellow Sanders supporter’s quote—“a uterus doesn’t qualify you to be president of the United States”—in a speech [ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/17/killer-mike-defends-himself-after-uterus-comment-at-bernie-sanders-rally/ ] he made on behalf of the candidate in Atlanta on Tuesday.

At Morehouse College, the Run the Jewels rapper took aim at Hillary Clinton:

When people tell us, ‘Hold on, wait awhile.’ And that’s what the other Democrat is telling you. ‘Hold on, Black Lives Matter. Just wait awhile. Hold on, young people in this country, just wait awhile.’ And then, and then … she have your own mama come to you. Your own mama say to you, ‘Well, you’re a woman.’ But I talked to [activist] Jane Elliott a few weeks ago, and Jane said, ‘Michael, a uterus doesn’t qualify you to be president of the United States. You have to be—you have to have policy that’s reflective of social justice.’

The implication, of course, is that Clinton isn’t qualified to be president based on her actual accomplishments, and that her supporters have only rallied behind her because she’s a woman—specifically, one with a uterus. Now, Killer Mike is protesting that he can’t be held responsible for the crude phrasing because he didn’t think it up—he just parroted it. “I didn't say that,” he tweeted [ https://twitter.com/KillerMike/status/699784887461638144 ] on Tuesday night. “A progressive activist woman said [it] to me.” His fans are saying “haters” are “distorting his words [ https://twitter.com/noreallyhowcome/status/699859050679250944 ]” and quoting him out of context:

[embedded video]
tonx
@tonx
@KillerMike here’s the clip of your full quote in context to quiet the haters
9:35 PM - 16 Feb 2016
[ https://twitter.com/tonx/status/699799299509456896 (with comments)]

But Killer Mike did say that. He made a vaguely sexist, incendiary remark that paints a woman politician as little more than a 3D printer for fetuses [ https://twitter.com/bill_nye_tho__/status/512357282487615489 ], then absolved himself of all accountability because another woman said it first. In this case, context doesn’t make things better. If Killer Mike had said something like, “It’s a shame that our own backers have been saying some weird things lately, reducing female candidates to a collection of reproductive organs. For example …” or “I would never say something like …” he’d have an argument for contextual nuance. But he didn’t! He set up a straw man about gender-related arguments for Clinton’s candidacy and used the “uterus” rebuttal to knock it down. When a campaign surrogate quotes a fellow supporter to support his own statement, it’s safe to assume that he agrees with the sentiment. If he’d actually thought the wording was insensitive, he could have paraphrased.

Killer Mike and the Sanders campaign are using the same logic employed by Donald Trump, who repeated one of his fans’ remarks—that Ted Cruz is a “pussy [ http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/09/donald_trump_repeats_claim_about_cruz_he_s_a_pussy.html ]”—but called it “terrible,” and retweeted [ http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/07/trump_megyn_kelly_bimbo_candidate_retweets_sexist_slam_of_host.html ] a guy who called Megyn Kelly a “bimbo,” then claimed he’d never call her a “bimbo.” Elliott, for her part, told [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/killer-mike-sexism_us_56c48340e4b0b40245c881be?6r996bt9 ] the Huffington Post that that “uterus” remark would have been “no problem” if she’d said it, but because a man repeated her comment, the blamestream media called it sexist. That’s not true—neither men nor women should make their political arguments based on biological sex characteristics. The “uterus” comment was a thinly veiled reminder that Clinton is but a woman, one of those moon species whose unruly emotions are ruled by the tides. (Besides, unless Killer Mike and Elliott have access to Clinton’s private medical records, they do not know—nor should they care—whether or not she has a uterus.)

Elliott’s response does illuminate the strategy behind Trump and Sanders’ secondhand sexism, though: If you want to belittle an opponent through misogynist rhetoric but don’t want the backlash, don’t do it yourself—repeat someone else. But as Killer Mike’s case demonstrates, it’s hard to keep sexism at arm’s length while reaping its rewards.

© 2016 The Slate Group LLC (emphasis in original)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/02/17/the_context_of_killer_mike_s_sexist_remark_about_hillary_clinton_s_uterus.html [with comments]

--

Hillary Clinton's Defiant Defense of Women in Beijing, 1995 Reverberates In Goldman Sachs Speech, 2014

G. Roger Denson
02/05/2016 03:06 pm ET | Updated Feb 09, 2016

[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V9mHmeK7XM (as embedded; comments disabled) (another YouTube of the same { http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXM4E23Efvk } at/see {linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116779003 and preceding {and any future following})]

"What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations do as well. That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and every nation on this planet does have a stake in the discussion that takes place here."

These are the words of Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered at the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. (See the full-speech transcript below.) They are words exemplary of the principles that Clinton has made central to her public policy throughout her career. And which, as it turns out, was the topic of this September 23, 2014 talk [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lKlJ3Ed4fQ (just below, as embedded; comments disabled; speech given September 23, 2014; reference link http://www.goldmansachs.com/citizenship/10000women/index.html ) before Goldman Sachs Officials honoring 10,000 women entrepreneurs. It is one of the talks that Bernie Sanders has been asking Clinton to publicize but which has been on the web since October 2014. (Hillary Clinton begins speaking at the 3:50 mark.)

But beside considering the Beijing and the Goldman Sachs videos as testaments of Clinton's consistent concern for improving the lives of women in all parts of the world and at all economic levels, I should like to explain why so many of us care to defend Hillary Clinton's record.

Millennial voters who grew up during -- or were born after -- the Bill Clinton presidency, have understandably found the Baby Boomer loyalty to and support of our former First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of State, to be utterly inexplicable. But to the many Boomers supporting her, there is little if any mystery, given that it is Hillary Rodham Clinton's history itself that we share and that compels us to be loyal and even nostalgic. We even understand the flip flops regarding implementing liberal policies by the Clintons, given the degree of adversity facing liberal legislation required backtracking to salvage what gains could be pushed through a Republican-controlled Congress during the 1990s, all of which required giving some to gain some. Despite the compromises, we knew the Clintons were the main route for governmental progress.

Amid that history, perhaps no moment epitomizes Hillary Clinton's courage, activism, brilliance and defiance of convention and imposed authority than her challenge posed to the Chinese government when she spoke before the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing on 5 September 1995.

It was a moment I was reminded of when Clinton took on Senator Bernie Sanders in Thursday Night's Debate in New Hampshire. It was in particular the moment that Clinton finally confronted one of the nagging complaints that the Left has had about her ever since she cast her 2002 Senatorial vote sanctioning US entry into Iraq. When Senator Sanders during the debate copy-catted then-Senator Obama in his 2008 debate with Clinton by raising her Iraq vote, he no doubt wished it would sink Clinton's chances to become President as it had done then. But this time Clinton was ready with what was the most resoundingly-singular soundbite of the night, and one that rings out, and will likely continue ringing, with clarion urgency.

"A vote in 2002 is not a plan to defeat ISIS. We have to look at the threats that we face right now."

With this well-turned and agonizingly-urgent retort, Clinton finally carved out a path through the granite-like sediment of blame and condemnation that had been heaped around her by the Left for fourteen years. A blame that should never have proved so formidable an impediment to her political ambitions given that she was Senator to New York during 9/11 and throughout the years in which New Yorkers struggled to recover from the war visited on it by al-Qaeda's pilot hijackers. Clinton has been unfairly castigated considering that the majority of Congress took then-Secretary of State Colin Powell for his word when he testified that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. It was also the majority opinion of the constituency Clinton served in New York State, as well as in the country, as disclosed shortly after the 9/11 attacks, by a Gallup poll that showed 74% of Americans wanted to enter Iraq [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/6658/majority-americans-favor-attacking-iraq-oust-saddam-hussein.aspx ], with just 20% of Americans opposed. By August 2002, Gallup reported that a near-unanimous majority believed that the Iraqi government trains and supports terrorists, with 86% stating they think "Saddam Hussein is involved in supporting terrorist groups that have plans to attack the United States."

While many of us are rightly critical of Senator Clinton's vote, we should simultaneously consider that when she voted, she may have remembered how her husband had hesitated to embroil the US in the Balkans until after Milosevic's ethnic cleansing was well underway, and that he failed to even intervene on the Rwandan genocide. But while this confluence of hostilities, misjudgments, and constituency make Clinton's vote more understandable, the same man who wants us to consider that his Vermont constituency comprised of rural hunters accounts for why he voted against the Brady Bill and several other bills limiting access to firearms, he at the same time wants us to forget that Clinton too had a constituency to whom she had a duty to ensure there would never again be another 9/11 on American soil. But if Sanders persists in blaming Clinton, he also persists in blaming the majority of polled Americans who Senator Clinton was representing, that is many of us who will be voting in the primaries and the general election.

When Clinton snapped back at Sanders Thursday night about her vote, I could not but remember the firm tone she took as First Lady as she distinguished herself from all other First Ladies (with the exception of Eleanor Roosevelt) upon addressing the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women, 5 September 1995, in Beijing, China. It more than any other speech by Clinton voices her determination to right the social injustices and bigotries, the economic, racial, religious and gender inequalities of not just Americans but of all citizens around the globe.

You can watch and hear Clinton deliver her remarks in the Beijing video above while reading along from the text below.

*

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Remarks to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women Plenary Session

Thank you very much, Gertrude Mongella, for your dedicated work that has brought us to this point, distinguished delegates, and guests:

I would like to thank the Secretary General for inviting me to be part of this important United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. This is truly a celebration, a celebration of the contributions women make in every aspect of life: in the home, on the job, in the community, as mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, learners, workers, citizens, and leaders.

It is also a coming together, much the way women come together every day in every country. We come together in fields and factories, in village markets and supermarkets, in living rooms and board rooms. Whether it is while playing with our children in the park, or washing clothes in a river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we come together and talk about our aspirations and concern. And time and again, our talk turns to our children and our families. However different we may appear, there is far more that unites us than divides us. We share a common future, and we are here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world, and in so doing bring new strength and stability to families as well.

By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that matter most in our lives -- the lives of women and their families: access to education, health care, jobs and credit, the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and to participate fully in the political life of our countries.

There are some who question the reason for this conference. Let them listen to the voices of women in their homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces. There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to economic and political progress around the globe. Let them look at the women gathered here and at Huairou -- the homemakers and nurses, the teachers and lawyers, the policymakers and women who run their own businesses. It is conferences like this that compel governments and peoples everywhere to listen, look, and face the world's most pressing problems. Wasn't it after all -- after the women's conference in Nairobi ten years ago that the world focused for the first time on the crisis of domestic violence?

Earlier today, I participated in a World Health Organization forum. In that forum, we talked about ways that government officials, NGOs, and individual citizens are working to address the health problems of women and girls. Tomorrow, I will attend a gathering of the United Nations Development Fund for Women. There, the discussion will focus on local -- and highly successful -- programs that give hard-working women access to credit so they can improve their own lives and the lives of their families.

What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations do as well. That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and every nation on this planet does have a stake in the discussion that takes place here.

Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children, and families. Over the past two and a half years, I've had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my own country and around the world.

I have met new mothers in Indonesia, who come together regularly in their village to discuss nutrition, family planning, and baby care. I have met working parents in Denmark who talk about the comfort they feel in knowing that their children can be cared for in safe, and nurturing after-school centers. I have met women in South Africa who helped lead the struggle to end apartheid and are now helping to build a new democracy. I have met with the leading women of my own hemisphere who are working every day to promote literacy and better health care for children in their countries. I have met women in India and Bangladesh who are taking out small loans to buy milk cows, or rickshaws, or thread in order to create a livelihood for themselves and their families. I have met the doctors and nurses in Belarus and Ukraine who are trying to keep children alive in the aftermath of Chernobyl.

The great challenge of this conference is to give voice to women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard. Women comprise more than half the world's population, 70% of the world's poor, and two-thirds of those who are not taught to read and write. We are the primary caretakers for most of the world's children and elderly. Yet much of the work we do is not valued -- not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders.

At this very moment, as we sit here, women around the world are giving birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running countries. Women also are dying from diseases that should have been prevented or treated. They are watching their children succumb to malnutrition caused by poverty and economic deprivation. They are being denied the right to go to school by their own fathers and brothers. They are being forced into prostitution, and they are being barred from the bank lending offices and banned from the ballot box.

Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility to speak for those who could not. As an American, I want to speak for those women in my own country, women who are raising children on the minimum wage, women who can't afford health care or child care, women whose lives are threatened by violence, including violence in their own homes.

I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good schools, safe neighborhoods, clean air, and clean airwaves; for older women, some of them widows, who find that, after raising their families, their skills and life experiences are not valued in the marketplace; for women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, or fast food chefs so that they can be at home during the day with their children; and for women everywhere who simply don't have time to do everything they are called upon to do each and every day.

Speaking to you today, I speak for them, just as each of us speaks for women around the world who are denied the chance to go to school, or see a doctor, or own property, or have a say about the direction of their lives, simply because they are women. The truth is that most women around the world work both inside and outside the home, usually by necessity.

We need to understand there is no one formula for how women should lead our lives. That is why we must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to realize her own God-given potential. But we must recognize that women will never gain full dignity until their human rights are respected and protected.

Our goals for this conference, to strengthen families and societies by empowering women to take greater control over their own destinies, cannot be fully achieved unless all governments -- here and around the world -- accept their responsibility to protect and promote internationally recognized human rights. The -- The international community has long acknowledged and recently reaffirmed at Vienna that both women and men are entitled to a range of protections and personal freedoms, from the right of personal security to the right to determine freely the number and spacing of the children they bear. No one -- No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse, or torture.

Tragically, women are most often the ones whose human rights are violated. Even now, in the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict. Women and children make up a large majority of the world's refugees. And when women are excluded from the political process, they become even more vulnerable to abuse. I believe that now, on the eve of a new millennium, it is time to break the silence. It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and for the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights.

These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words. But the voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loudly and clearly:

It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.

It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution for human greed -- and the kinds of reasons that are used to justify this practice should no longer be tolerated.

It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire, and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.

It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.

It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes by their own relatives.

It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.

It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely -- and the right to be heard.

Women must enjoy the rights to participate fully in the social and political lives of their countries, if we want freedom and democracy to thrive and endure. It is indefensible that many women in nongovernmental organizations who wished to participate in this conference have not been able to attend -- or have been prohibited from fully taking part.

Let me be clear. Freedom means the right of people to assemble, organize, and debate openly. It means respecting the views of those who may disagree with the views of their governments. It means not taking citizens away from their loved ones and jailing them, mistreating them, or denying them their freedom or dignity because of the peaceful expression of their ideas and opinions.

In my country, we recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of Women's Suffrage. It took 150 years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence for women to win the right to vote. It took 72 years of organized struggle, before that happened, on the part of many courageous women and men. It was one of America's most divisive philosophical wars. But it was a bloodless war. Suffrage was achieved without a shot being fired.

But we have also been reminded, in V-J Day observances last weekend, of the good that comes when men and women join together to combat the forces of tyranny and to build a better world. We have seen peace prevail in most places for a half century. We have avoided another world war. But we have not solved older, deeply-rooted problems that continue to diminish the potential of half the world's population.

Now it is the time to act on behalf of women everywhere. If we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families too. Families rely on mothers and wives for emotional support and care. Families rely on women for labor in the home. And increasingly, everywhere, families rely on women for income needed to raise healthy children and care for other relatives.

As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace everywhere in the world, as long as girls and women are valued less, fed less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled, subjected to violence in and outside their homes -- the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.

Let -- Let this conference be our -- and the world's -- call to action. Let us heed that call so we can create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and stable future. That is the work before you. That is the work before all of us who have a vision of the world we want to see -- for our children and our grandchildren.

The time is now. We must move beyond rhetoric. We must move beyond recognition of problems to working together, to have the comment efforts to build that common ground we hope to see.

God's blessing on you, your work, and all who will benefit from it.

Godspeed and thank you very much.

The transcript presented here was made available by American Rhetoric Top 100 Speeches [ http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hillaryclintonbeijingspeech.htm ].

*

Copyright © 2016 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/g-roger-denson/recalling-hillary-rodham_b_9168818.html [with comments]

--

Clinton Coverage Goes Off The Rails -- Again

She "Shouts," She's "Angry"; Shades of 2008

ERIC BOEHLERT
February 8, 2016 11:23 AM EST

Searching for campaign infractions real and imagined, the media's etiquette police have been busy writing up Hillary Clinton for numerous violations lately.

"She shouts," complained [ http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/03/bob-woodward-and-joe-scarborough-attack-hillary/208346 ] Washington Post editor Bob Woodward last week on MSNBC, deducting points for Clinton's speaking style. "There is something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating, and I think that just jumps off the television screen."

"Has nobody told her that the microphone works?" quipped Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough, who led a lengthy discussion [ http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10909354/morning-joe-hillary-clinton-shouts-bob-woodward ] about Clinton's voice (the "tone issue"). Scarborough and his guests dissected Clinton's "screaming," and how she is supposedly being "feisty" and acting "not natural."

Over on Fox, Geraldo Rivera suggested [ http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/03/foxs-geraldo-rivera-pushes-conspiracy-theory-th/208367 ] Clinton "scream[s]" because she "may be hard of hearing." CNBC's Larry Kudlow bemoaned [ http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/05/cnbcs-larry-kudlow-attacks-hillary-clinton-for/208398 ] her "shrieking."

During last week's debate, Bob Cusack, editor of The Hill, tweeted [ http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/04/editor-in-chief-of-the-hill-when-hillary-clinto/208392 ], "When Hillary Clinton raises her voice, she loses." (Cusack later deleted [ https://twitter.com/BobCusack/status/695754091620913152 ] the tweet and apologized.) During a discussion on CNN about Clinton's volume, David Gergen stressed [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpTy-DPTnZU ], "Hillary was so angry compared to Sanders."

The New York Times' debate coverage [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/democratic-debate.html ] pushed the same "angry" narrative, detailing "The ferocity of Mrs. Clinton's remarks," and how she appeared "tense and even angry at times," "particularly sensitive," and was "going on the offensive." (By contrast, her opponent "largely kept his cool.")

Media message received: Clinton is loud and cantankerous!

But it's not just awkward gender stereotypes [ http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10909354/morning-joe-hillary-clinton-shouts-bob-woodward ] that are in play these days. It's a much larger pattern of thumb-on-the-scale coverage and commentary. Just look at what seemed to be the press' insatiable appetite to frame Clinton's Iowa caucus win last week as an unnerving loss [ http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-iowa-performance-218607 ]. Pundits also inaccurately claimed [ http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/02/media-falsely-attribute-clinton-iowa-caucuses-w/208330 ] that she had to rely on a series of coin tosses to secure a victory.

As I've noted before, these anti-Clinton guttural roars [ http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/05/the-clintons-and-another-media-guttural-roar/202770 ] from the press have become predictable, cyclical events, where pundits and reporters wind themselves up with righteous indignation [ http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/18/the-clinton-foundation-witch-hunt/203685 ] and shift into pile-on mode regardless of the facts on the ground. (And the GOP cheers.) The angry eruptions now arrive like clockwork, but that doesn't make them any less baffling. Nor does that make it any easier to figure out why the political press corps has decided to wage war on the Democratic frontrunner. (And publicly admit [ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/8/1383349/-Politico-admits-media-is-primed-to-take-down-Hillary-Clinton ] that they're doing it.)

Sure, the usual nutty anti-Clinton stuff is tumbling off the right-wing media branches, with Fox News suggesting [ http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/05/fox-anchor-hillary-clintons-campaign-to-be-firs/208396 ] her campaign was nothing more than "bra burning," while other conservatives mocked her "grating [ http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/03/foxs-katie-pavlich-i-guarantee-you-that-vladimi/208378 ]" voice.

But what's happening inside the confines of the mainstream media is more troubling. Rush Limbaugh advertising [ http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/04/rush-limbaugh-hillary-clinton-is-a-screeching-b/208386 ] his insecurities about powerful women isn't exactly breaking news. Watching Beltway reporters and pundits reveal their creeping contempt for Clinton and wrapping it in condescension during a heated primary season is disturbing. And for some, it might trigger bouts of déjà vu.

It was fitting that the extended examination of Clinton's "tone" last week unfolded on Morning Joe. As Think Progress noted [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/03/3745884/morning-joe-sexist-hillary-discussion/ ], that show served as a hotbed for weird gender discussions when Clinton ran for president in 2008: "Scarborough often referenced the 'Clinton cackle' and another panelist cracked a joke that Clinton reminded everyone of their 'first wife in probate court.'" (The crack about probate court got lots of laughs [ http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/01/23/all-male-morning-joe-panel-laughed-as-barnicle/142264 ] from Scarborough's all-male panel at the time.)

The toxic put-downs during the heated Democratic primary in 2008 were everywhere. (i.e. Candidate Clinton was a "hellish housewife [ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30dowd.html ].") At the time, Salon's Rebecca Traister detected [ http://www.salon.com/2008/01/09/hillary_nh/ ] among male pundits "a nearly pornographic investment in Clinton's demise."

And that was not an overstatement [ http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/05/a-comprehensive-guide-to-sexist-attacks-on-hill/199700 ]. From [ http://presidentialgenderwatch.org/2016-outlook-gender-bias-media-and-the-cause-for-concern-in-presidential-politics/ ] Dr. Dianne Bystrom, director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University:

She was referred to as a "white bitch" on MSNBC and CNN; a blood-sucking "vampire" on Fox; the "wicked witch of the west" on CNN; and "everyone's first wife standing outside of probate court," a "she devil" and the castrating Lorena Bobbitt, all on MSNBC.

That Clinton was unfairly roughed [ http://www.shakesville.com/2013/08/hillary-sexism-watch-115.html ] up by the press in 2008 isn't really a question for debate anymore. Even the man who campaigned against her, President Obama, recently noted that "there were times where I think the media probably was a little unfair to her" during their Democratic primary battle.

I wonder if Obama thinks the press is once again being unfair with its primary coverage.

For example, as the press continues to focus on the issue of Clinton's speaking fees as a private citizen, the New York Times reported [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/goldman-sachs-hillary-clinton.html ], "The former secretary of state has for months struggled to justify how sharing her views on global affairs could possibly fetch $225,000 a pop from banks. "

The former secretary of state can't justify her large speaking fee, even though former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, among others, have all pocketed [ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590#1 ] large, six-figure speaking fees?

Author Carl Bernstein said [ http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1602/06/cnr.09.html ] at CNN, "Now, you've got a situation with these transcripts, a little bit like Richard Nixon and his tapes that he stonewalled on and wouldn't release."

Over the past week, media outlets have been trying to explain how Clinton's hard-fought win in Iowa wasn't really a win.

During the run-up to the vote, Iowa was often described as a state that Clinton absolutely had to win (electorally, it wasn't [ http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-17425328 ]). And so then when she won, what did some in the press do? They claimed she didn't really win Iowa, and if she did it was because of lucky coin tosses.

False and false [ http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton ].

"Even if he doesn't actually win, this feels like a win for @BernieSanders [ https://twitter.com/BernieSanders ]," tweeted [ https://twitter.com/llerer/status/694375109222596608 ] Associated Press reporter Lisa Lerer the night of the Iowa vote, echoing a widespread media talking point [ https://news.wgbh.org/2016/02/02/politics-government/media-spin-iowa-caucuses-big-wins-rubio-and-sanders-what-will-mean ]. The New York Times repeatedly referred [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/us/politics/democratic-race-iowa-clinton-campaign.html ] to her Iowa victory as a "tie [ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/02/in-iowa-caucuses-victory-extends-beyond-first-place/ ]."

Note the contrast: In 2012, when Mitt Romney claimed to have won the Iowa Republican caucus by just eight votes, The New York Times announced unequivocally [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/us/politics/santorum-and-romney-fight-to-a-draw.html ] that Romney had, in fact, won Iowa. (Weeks later a recount concluded [ http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/santorum-wins-iowa-officially-111713 ] Rick Santorum won the caucus by 34 votes.)

Why was Iowa dubbed a loss [ http://www.vox.com/2016/2/2/10892802/iowa-caucus-bernie-sanders-tie ] by so many for Clinton? Because Sanders "was nowhere a few months ago," as CNN's Wolf Blitzer put it [ http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1602/01/se.05.html ] the night of the vote.

Actually, if you go back to last September and October, polls showed [ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html ] the Iowa race was in flux and occasionally veered within the margin of error. More recently, CNN's final Iowa poll [ http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/iowa-poll-full-results-cnn-orc/index.html ] before the caucus had Clinton trailing by eight points in that state. So the idea a close Iowa finish was "surprising [ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/02/in-iowa-caucuses-victory-extends-beyond-first-place/ ]," or constituted a Clinton collapse, doesn't add up [ http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/ ].

Meanwhile, did you notice that when the Clinton campaign accurately predicted that it had the votes to win the caucus, members of the press were quick [ https://twitter.com/DylanByers/status/694370422691745792 ] to mock the move. Even after Iowa officials declared her the winner, the Clinton campaign was attacked as being "disingenuous [ http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/02/media-really-dont-want-to-declare-clinton-the-w/208322 ]" for saying she was the winner.

And then there was the weird embrace [ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/coin-toss-decides-clinton-sanders-tie-iowa-precinct-article-1.2517022 ] of the coin toss story, which was fitting, since so much of the Clinton campaign coverage these days seems to revolve around a very simple premise: Heads she loses, tails she loses.

© 2016 Media Matters for America (emphasis in original)

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/08/clinton-coverage-goes-off-the-rails-again/208433 [with comments] [also at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/-clinton-campaign-coverag_b_9188182.html (with comments)]

--

The sexist double standards hurting Hillary Clinton

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

By Dana Milbank
February 12, 2016

Much of Hillary Clinton’s difficulty in this campaign stems from a single, unalterable fact: She is a woman.

I’m not referring primarily to the Bernie Bros, those Bernie Sanders supporters who fill the Internet with misogynistic filth about Clinton. What drags down her candidacy is more pervasive and far subtler — unconscious, even.

The criticism is the same as in 2008: She doesn’t connect. She isn’t likeable. She doesn’t inspire. She seems shrill. “She shouts,” Bob Woodward said [ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/woodward-clinton-shouts-needs-to-get-off-this-screaming-stuff/article/2582265 ] on MSNBC this month, also suggesting she “get off this screaming stuff.”

Joe Scarborough, the host, agreed: “Has nobody told her that the microphone works?”

At that, Clinton supporters hollered — about the double standard that condemns her but not Sanders, who bellows at the top of his lungs. The episode was part of a constant stream of commentators (generally men) taking issue with Clinton’s demeanor and conduct — “She’s got to become herself,” David Gergen advised on CNN before Thursday night’s debate — in a way they don’t do with Sanders.

At a Clinton rally last week in New Hampshire, I discussed the decibel dilemma with Jay Newton-Small of Time magazine. “It’s very hard for a woman to telegraph passion,” she explained. “When Bernie yells, it shows his dedication to the cause. When she yells, it’s interpreted in a very different way: She’s yelling at you.”

That’s not about Clinton; it’s about us. “It is a subtle kind of sexism that exists that we don’t recognize,” said Newton-Small, who literally wrote the book on the matter. “Broad Influence: How Women Are Changing the Way America Works [ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1618931555 ],” out last month, includes a chapter on Clinton. “When women raise their voices, people tend to get their hackles up. People I talk to at Clinton events put her in a maternal role: Why is she screaming at me? Am I in trouble?”

Campaigning While Female also deprives Clinton of the ability to make lofty promises. Sanders, for example, has a $15 trillion non-starter of a health-care plan. If Clinton floated such a plan, the media would mock it as patently absurd. But Sanders gets a pass.

Why the double standard? “Men are the guys who want to go out and buy the motorcycle, and women are the purse-string holders,” Newton-Small said. “It’s a very traditional role we are putting women into by making them the one saying, no, we can’t do all these really fun things. This is a very stereotypical box she gets put into, which then makes it very hard for her to be inspirational.”

This is the essence of Clinton’s trouble: If she can’t plausibly offer pie in the sky, and she can’t raise her voice, how does she inspire people? This hurts particularly with young voters — the same segment that shunned Clinton in 2008.

Clinton’s “likeability” problem also has something to do with her lack of a Y chromosome. It’s a direct consequence of the imperative that she demonstrate her toughness. Men can be tough and warm at the same time — think Ronald Reagan — but for women, it’s a trade-off.

In 2008, she played down gender and positioned herself as “ready to lead on day one.” This time she took a softer approach but eventually found herself back in the position of arguing that she’d be a better wartime leader than Sanders. For Clinton, “it’s a really tough needle to thread to be tough enough to be a commander in chief and still be likeable,” Newton-Small said.

I disagree with those who scream “sexism” every time somebody criticizes Clinton. But there’s no denying that women are more often the victims of online savagery. That was true long before the Bernie Bros (who could be heard booing a mention of Madeleine Albright at Thursday’s debate). Sanders objects to the Bernie Bros but may encourage them when he talks about the “drama” Clinton creates and her “shouting [ http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/11/bernie-sanders-bros-are-coming-for-the-hillary-clinton-bots.html ].” It’s also hard to imagine a male candidate being faulted for his wife’s misbehavior the way Clinton is blamed for her husband’s.

There’s not much Clinton can do about this. But she can make the case that while Sanders talks “revolution,” her presidency actually would be one, because the first female president would govern differently from her 44 predecessors.

Clinton has been at the vanguard of the women’s movement for decades, but the movement has been so successful that young voters, even women, don’t realize how much has changed — and how having a woman as president could complete that Quiet Revolution.

“Women in general are better listeners, are more collegial, more open to new ideas and how to make things work in a way that looks for win-win outcomes,” Clinton told Newton-Small [ http://time.com/4166539/hillary-clinton-woman-governing-campaigning/ ] in “Broad Influence.”

Now that’s something worth shouting about.

© 2016 The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sexist-double-standards-hurting-hillary-clinton/2016/02/12/fb551e38-d195-11e5-abc9-ea152f0b9561_story.html [with comments]

--

Bernie Sanders wags his finger a lot, and people are starting to talk about it

Video [embedded]
Bernie Sanders's many finger wags
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wagged his finger at many comments made during the PBS NewsHour democratic debate on Feb. 11. Here's just a few instances of his fervor for the finger wag.

By Justin Wm. Moyer and Jenny Starrs
February 12, 2016

It’s a gesture familiar to anyone who’s ever been warned, cautioned, scolded, told they are not very nice or otherwise belittled. A hand, often the dominant one, is raised. An index finger is extended skyward. The finger moves from left to right in a workmanlike arc or, for those with more rococo tastes, a flamboyant circle. Sometimes, a pen adds gravitas to the motion. Though the tempo and exact meaning may vary, the message is always similar, and always at least a little bit threatening. I know better than you. You are making a huge mistake. Back off.

No politician in modern memory seems to favor the finger wag as much as Democratic presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). And people are starting to talk about it.

“Sanders … likes to wave his index finger in the air like he just don’t care … although it’s clear when he does it that he actually does care very, very much,” Alex Gladu wrote at Bustle [ http://www.bustle.com/articles/141423-bernie-sanders-finger-wag-returned-to-the-debate-stage-with-a-vengeance ]. “The gesture is sort of a mix between scolding his opponent — typically Clinton — and screaming for attention.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders at Thursday’s debate.
(PBS NewsHour)

Though no official count was available, Sanders wagged his finger, at minimum, 13 times during Thursday night’s debate with Hillary Clinton in Milwaukee. He wagged when discussing the costs of his health-care plan. He wagged during a heated foreign policy discussion with his rival. He wagged when she cited his past criticisms of President Obama.

“Do senators have the right to disagree with the president? Have you ever disagreed with a president? I suspect you may have,” he shot back, finger in full force.

Of course, Sanders is not the only politician in history to have a signature gesture. Indeed, legacies are often made or broken by body language. Consider: Theodore Roosevelt’s chiseled smile. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s grimace, usually wrapped around a cigarette holder. Richard Nixon’s scowl — and the scowl that cost George W. Bush a debate against John Kerry in 2004. Bill Clinton’s thumb-pointing. And Donald Trump’s contemptuous shrug.

But in the hard-fought winter of an election year, gestures mean a lot. And Sanders caught some flak for a move some thought condescending.

“I think wagging a finger has an implications [sic] of shaming or pretend authority while waving arms is more expressive,” one commenter on a Mother Jones piece from last month wrote [ http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-health-care-fight-democratic-debate ]. “I wish he’d do it less, it makes me think of Nixon.”

Sanders, disagreeing.
(PBS NewsHour)

Worse: In a debate against Clinton, who’s trying to become the first woman president, a little bit of wagging can be perceived as sexist.

“Sanders showed his disdain for a powerful intelligent and assertive woman with that damn finger wagging,” one Clinton supporter wrote on Twitter [ https://twitter.com/shadylady1031/status/697999353915420672 ].

Some Clinton critics complain about her tone, saying she comes off as nagging or shrill. (Recently from the Huffington Post: “People Won’t Stop Criticizing Hillary Clinton For Raising Her Voice [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-yelling-shouting_us_56b47ebee4b01d80b245d417 ]” and from the New York Times: “Hillary Clinton Raises Her Voice, A Debate Over Speech and Sexism Rages [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-sexism.html ].”)

Isn’t Sanders guilty of the same thing — and getting a pass because he’s a man? As another Twitter user boldly put it [ https://twitter.com/sadydoyle/status/697984498315689984 ]: “IF YOU [Expletive deleted] WAVE YOUR FINGER ONE MORE TIME WHILE SHE IS SPEAKING I WILL PERSONALLY BOYCOTT THE STATE OF VERMONT FOREVER.”

Gender Watch 2016
@GenderWatch2016
How would Senator Sanders' body language - more hand gestures, finger wagging - be received if it were a woman candidate? #genderwatch2016
9:00 PM - 11 Feb 2016
[ https://twitter.com/GenderWatch2016/status/697978577812398080 ]

James Downie
@jamescdownie
It's pretty amazing the number of people who (RIGHTLY) get mad at talk about Clinton's tone, then complain about Sanders's finger wag.
9:52 PM - 11 Feb 2016
[ https://twitter.com/jamescdownie/status/697991620235563010 ]

Others, however, thought Sanders should wag with pride. Perhaps he just can’t help it being from Brooklyn, one comment on Twitter [ https://twitter.com/AmberALeeFrost/status/698005175492075520 ] suggested. “They talk with their hands!”

On a less serious note, some noted the wag’s similarity to that of former NBA basketball player Dikembe Mutombo.

john r stanton
@dcbigjohn
Bernie Sanders just gave Hilary the Mutumbo finger wag
7:08 PM - 11 Feb 2016
[ https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/status/697980492348583937 ]
--
Kyle Sammin
@KyleSammin
@dcbigjohn pic.twitter.com/vcVF5rBM7E
9:21 PM - 11 Feb 2016

[ https://twitter.com/KyleSammin/status/697983796558188544 , http://gifsoup.com/view/1931376/nope-not-in-my-house.html ]

Whatever the implications of the Vermont senator’s go-to maneuever, it’s clear that his supporters will follow wherever his finger leads them. As one Sanders enthusiast put it Thursday night: “If I could get a Bernie Sanders “Finger Wag” GIF tattoo; I’d freaking get that thing TOMORROW!”

One last finger wag from the Vermont senator.
(PBS NewsHour)

© 2016 The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/12/bernie-sanders-wags-his-finger-a-lot-and-people-are-starting-to-talk-about-it/ [with comments]

*

Bernie Sanders Refuses To Police His Eyeballs During Democratic Debate

02/04/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-eyeballs_us_56b4239be4b04f9b57d9215e [with comments]

--

History Lesson For a Young Sanders Supporter

Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07

"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790

F6

Keep Last Read

Replies (2) Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Volume
Day Range:
Bid Price
Ask Price
Last Trade Time:

Boards:

Quotes:

Boards

News

Market Data

Markets

Discover

Discover

Boards:

Quotes:

Join the InvestorsHub Community