Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to PunchyPossum's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Sunday, February 07, 2016

Glen Greenwald

The "Bernie Bros" Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism

The concoction of the "Bernie Bro" narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic -- and a journalistic disgrace. It's intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are "bros"); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate). read more

Friday, February 05, 2016

New York Times:
Hillary Clinton raised substantially less for her presidential campaign in January than her Democratic rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, according to an unofficial tally Mrs. Clinton released on Thursday. The totals provide something of a psychological, as well as a financial, boost for Mr. Sanders and his supporters as he seeks to defeat Mrs. Clinton in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.

Mrs. Clinton raised $15 million in January, while Mr. Sanders raised $20 million. Mrs. Clinton also raised another $5 million in joint efforts with the Democratic National Committee. But while that money will aid Mrs. Clinton if she becomes the nominee, it is unavailable to her during the nominating battle. read more

Here's what Hillary has going for her -- and not.

The Good

As in her (losing) 2008 run against Barack Obama, Hillary's strategists are selling competence and experience. "A progressive who gets things done," she is calling herself.

Scratch a little, however, and there's precious little evidence of substantial things she actually got done. Googling phrases like "Hillary Clinton's biggest accomplishments" yields lists that include "most-traveled Secretary of State" and "gave a speech in Geneva standing up for gay rights."

Hillary's "achievements" are activities, not accomplishments.

Fortunately for her, most voters don't question the Been Everywhere, Done Everything meme. She does have one hell of a resume: First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State. Though, for the life of me, I don't understand why Bernie's Mayor, Congressman and Senator resume (longer in total, more reelections) doesn't count..... read more

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Robert Reich: History shows us you need a movement, not a dealmaker-in-chief. In 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama promised progressive change if elected president, his primary opponent, then-senator Hillary Clinton, derided him. "The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect," she said, sarcastically, adding "I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. Fast-forward eight years. "I wish that we could elect a Democratic president who could wave a magic wand and say, 'We shall do this, and we shall do that,'" Clinton said recently in response to Bernie Sanders' proposals. "That ain't the real world we're living in." So what's possible in "the real world we're living in?" read more

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Michael Moore: When I was a child, they said there was no way this majority-Protestant country of ours would ever elect a Catholic as president. And then John Fitzgerald Kennedy was elected president. The next decade, they said America would not elect a president from the Deep South. The last person to do that on his own (not as a VP) was Zachary Taylor in 1849. And then we elected President Jimmy Carter. ... Do you ever wonder why the pundits, the political class, are always so sure that Americans "just aren't ready" for something -- and then they're always just so wrong? They says these things because they want to protect the status quo. ... And now, this year "they" are claiming that there's no way a "democratic socialist" can get elected President of the United States. read more


Bernie Bros is a Clinton backers myth.


all Bernie is saying here in your article, is he doesn't want his supporters to harass people, he is not verifying that Berniebro's exist.
not much of a news story really

"To see the blatant disregard for facts in which this narrative is grounded, let's quickly look at two of the most widely cited examples of online "Bernie Bro" misogyny from this week's deluge of articles on the topic, smartly dissected by columnist Carl Beijar ("How many smears on Sanders supporters can we debunk in one week?"). A much-cheered Mashable article -- headlined "The bros who love Bernie Sanders have become a sexist mob" -- purported to describe the "Bernie Bro" phenomenon as Sanders supporters who are "often young, white, and predominantly male" and whose messages are "oftentimes derogatory and misogynistic." It cited a grand total of two examples, both from random, unknown internet users. Here was one of those examples, left in response to a Facebook post from New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen about a Clinton rally she attended:

"Carol Jean Simpson, I am no longer voting for you. You should have supported someone with integrity instead of a lying ---- bag like HRC.
#feel the Bern"

There are two small problems with this example. First, it's written by a woman, not a man. Second, it's not remotely sexist. If anything is sexist, it's the branding of Carol Jean Simpson as a "bro" because she supports Sanders rather than Clinton. And while I'm sure it's terribly unpleasant for a former governor and two-term U.S. Senator such as Jeanne Shaheen to have her favorite presidential candidate described as a "lying -------" and be told that she lost a supporter as a result, there's nothing particularly inappropriate, or at least not unusual, about this kind of rhetoric being used in online debates over politics -- unless you think the most powerful U.S. politicians are entitled to the reverence that London elites accord British monarchy."

Here you go DOC the answer to why he voted a couple of times to fund the war

"His voting record on the bills that funded the Iraq war show that he voted against them more often than he voted for them. Additionally, his ‘yea' votes show that there were other considerations at play.

The Bush administration, backed by a Republican-controlled House and Senate, made a nasty habit of funding its disastrous occupation of Iraq on an emergency basis in order to minimize Congressional scrutiny, circumvent legal limits on the federal government's debt ceiling, and understate the true cost of the war. The first time Sanders voted ‘yea' to an Iraq war spending bill came in 2006 when the bill included funding for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. The second time he voted ‘yea' was when an amendment he inserted into the bill giving a $1 million grant to the Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) to help returning veterans cope with their health care and mental health needs upon returning home. The third time he voted ‘yea' was when the legislation incorporated a massive expansion of G.I. Bill benefits that Sanders co-sponsored and the Bush administration opposed guaranteeing full scholarships to veterans, including activated National Guard troops and reservists, with three years of service attending any public, in-state university and expanded benefits for students at private colleges and for graduate schools. The last time he voted ‘yea' was when he gave his consent, along with the entire U.S. Senate, to fund the Iraq war's end as President Barack Obama removed all U.S. troops from the country.

So is it correct to say that Sanders voted in favor of authorizing funds for the Iraq war? Yes it is.

But it is equally correct to say the exact opposite: Sanders voted against authorizing funds for the Iraq war.

The point here is this: whenever you come across an article that makes some visceral, outrageous claim about something Bernie Sanders allegedly did or said, don't jump to any hard and fast conclusions for or against him without first studying what he did and why. Then and only then can a sound political judgment be made.

Perhaps the most important metric for assessing whether these votes were right or wrong is to figure out how many living, breathing veterans would he have helped by voting against war funding bills that contained pro-veteran amendments? The answer is zero. And so while peace activists are lining up to condemn his campaign, veterans are lining up to join it."


Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable