The Widdershins

Activist Monday: Why Voting for Hillary Clinton is the REAL Revolutionary Act

Posted on: April 25, 2016


Good Monday, Widdershins. It’s the day before yet another Super Tuesday, and according to the AP, #FeeltheMath should be clear even to the most reality-challenged Sanders supporter shortly.

Factoring in superdelegates, Clinton’s lead stands at 1,941 to 1,191 for Sanders, according to the AP count. That puts her at 81 percent of the 2,383 delegates needed to win the nomination.

At stake Tuesday are 384 delegates in primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. This group of contests offers Sanders one of the last chances left on the election calendar to gain ground in pledged delegates and make a broader case to superdelegates to support him.

Yet it appears Clinton could do well enough Tuesday to end the night with 90 percent of the delegates needed to win the nomination, leaving her just 200 or so shy.

The Sanders campaign knows a tough battle awaits in those five states and says it will reassess its campaign after Tuesday. If Sanders fails to win significantly in the latest primaries, he won’t have another chance to draw closer in a big way until California votes on June 7.

Clinton is on track to already have hit the magic number of 2,383 by that point.

And that, my friends, should be that. Once the magic number is hit, Sanders has no ground to stand on whatsoever. Hillary will have far more primary wins, millions more votes, and all the delegates she needs. Even better, she will have won honestly. Hillary didn’t steal any voting lists; she hasn’t refused to release her tax returns; she didn’t accept millions of dollars in questionable donations; she hasn’t been smearing Bernie’s character with memes from KKKarl Rove. She has run an issues-based campaign. As usual, the most scrutinized woman in the history of our country has been transparent and followed all the rules…and unlike in 2008, this approach has paid off. She will be the nominee, and there’s nothing Bernie (aka #TheBernout) can do to stop it.

Perhaps now it’s time to examine why Sanders’ “revolution” has failed to resonate with those whom it would presumably have helped the most: Women, non-whites and those whose incomes are less than $50,000/year. These last are “the poor” that he claims don’t vote, and that’s the latest reason he’s given for losing so badly against a girl, who has, like, cooties and stuff. Unfortunately for #TheBernout, the poor do vote; it’s just that they vote for Hillary, not him.

It’s not clear that larger turnout among poor voters would have actually helped Sanders against Clinton, however.

Sanders has lost Democratic voters with household incomes below $50,000 by 55 percent to 44 percent to Clinton across primaries where network exit polls have been conducted. (He has lost by a wider 21 percentage-point margin among voters with incomes above $100,000, and by 9 points among middle income voters.)

Yes, ahem. It doesn’t seem he won either the 99% OR the 1%, when you look at it that way. Let’s recap: poor people, non-whites and women are all supporting the “establishment” candidate over #TheBernout. He has to be the most unsuccessful revolutionary “leader” in the history of revolutionary leaders.

So what is the secret of his epic fail? Sanders as a brand has a lot of problems, of course; but deep down, I think it’s because instinctively, people know who the real revolutionary is in the race: Hillary Clinton.

The fact is that Hillary’s dominance in the 2016 field is completely unprecedented in the history of Presidential politics. No woman has ever been so close to the Presidency before, and at this point, I don’t see anyone who can stand in her way. If elected, Hillary will be someone whose very presence in the White House would signal a revolution in our thinking so profound, it’s hard for us to even imagine all the ramifications.

For example: We are all aware of the North Carolina governor’s signature of a bill that excluded transgender individuals from Constitutional protection…and oh by the way, there was something in there about bathrooms too (this was a completely side issue, and not why the LGBT community reacted so strongly). The signing of this hateful bill has, rightfully, become an utter financial and public relations disaster for the state.

North Carolina’s anti-LGBT law is already costing the state’s tourism industry millions of dollars.

The bill, signed by Gov. Pat McCrory (R) last month, prevents local municipalities from passing anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. The bill also requires transgender people to use public restrooms that correspond to the gender on their birth certificate. The backlash has been swift as several musicians and groups have canceled events in the state while cities have blocked state-funded travel there.

Officials from the Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau said on Monday that Raleigh has lost over $3 million as backlash to the law has grown. Seven events have been canceled in Charlotte following passage of the law, resulting in a projected loss of 1,635 hotel rooms and $226,857 in direct spending over the next four years, according to data from the Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority.

At this point, it’s common wisdom that these laws are discriminatory, anti-constitutional, and deserving of financial retribution. I can’t help but rejoice about this, the way I did about the Supreme Court legalizing equal marriage. And yet…for decades now, conservative pro-deathers have, state by state, been chipping away at a woman’s right to health care for her entire body, not just the top half of it. Where are the boycotts? Where is the financial retribution? Where is the outcry against the religious insanity that provokes this fervid activism?

Don’t get me wrong. Bills and laws discriminating against a woman’s right to choose are routinely called out as “wacko” by certain female-friendly news outlets, but there’s no ensuing boycott of any of these states. I know that some of them are already poor enough that this tactic wouldn’t be effective, but what about Texas? What a big, fat target for pro-choice activists to use as an example! There’s a huge amount of sports and tourist income that could be leveraged against the legislature passing laws like this…but somehow, it never happens, because a woman’s right to health care for her scary lady parts is considered “a distraction.” Yes, sexist pig #TheBernout actually called it that! And here’s what Our Girl had to say:

Clinton slammed Sanders for — in her assessment — suggesting that Trump’s comments were a distraction from the “serious issues” facing America.

“To me this is a serious issue, and this is a very serious discussion,” Clinton said while campaigning on the campus of SUNY Purchase College.

She acknowledged that Sanders supports a woman’s right to choose, but said that abortion rights groups Planned Parenthood Action Fund and NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed her because “I have led” on abortion issues.

“I know that given what is happening in states across the country, we need a president who  is passionate about this,” Clinton said. “Seeing it as a top priority because women’s health is under assault.”

“This is a fundamental constitutional right and we cannot think it is anything other than really serious,” she added.

Sure, #TheBernout votes the right way on supporting a woman’s right to choose…but is he a leader? No. Hillary is. Hillary has been committed to making abortion “safe, legal and rare” for decades, which is why it was a no-brainer for the women’s rights advocates listed above to endorse her. Do you see how she frames it? “A fundamental constitutional right.” No one else would dare to be as bold, and no one else would be as credible, making such a statement. Clearly, with Our Girl behind the biggest megaphone in the world, the priorities of the Democratic Party would shift dramatically – and furthering the rights of women would be at the top of her domestic policy agenda. All of a sudden, the 51% majority would be treated with the respect and attention they deserve.

This is an almost unimaginable paradigm shift for our country, and by extension, the world. Democratic voters know it instinctively, and it’s worth stating out loud: Electing not just any woman, but Hillary Clinton, our tireless and brilliant advocate for women’s equality, would be a body blow to the patriarchy.

To me that sounds like a revolution. How about you?

This is an open thread. (Nice tribute to Prince by The Boss below – love the purple lighting. Oh…can’t believe he’s gone.)

Advertisements

83 Responses to "Activist Monday: Why Voting for Hillary Clinton is the REAL Revolutionary Act"

New post up…to Fredster’s point.

Excellent, MB! I LOVE that you point out that no one boycotts states that discriminate against women’s rights. Also, the Sean Bean pic is hilarious!

Great post and most excellent reminder. Hillary’s explanation of this issue is so perfect. She’s going to make sure the law is enforced — making sure women can exercise their access to a legally protected right. That shouldn’t be revolutionary, but it is.

I’ve wondered why Cecile Richards hasn’t taken this approach of boycotting states. Seems plenty sensible to me.

As for Bernie, down here in the south, he’s what we call an exceptional candidate. He would be winning “except” for the voters.

Annie, had to shout out to GoT today somehow! 😄

Prolix – I would have expected Richards to organize a boycott too. Who knows, maybe she tried and no one was interested. After all, women’s health is a distraction. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

I love the “exceptional” candidate meme! Bless his heart. 😆

@4, maybe we should be tweeting at Cecile for an answer?

I just sent an email question to the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce. Here’s the email:

Why isn’t there a boycott of states that are making it more difficult, if not impossible, for women to gain access to reproductive health care choices?

I’ll let you know what I hear back from them.

@6, Prolix, you rock!! Let us know, for sure…that group could easily be run by Repubs.

I will tweet at Cecile too. That’s a great idea.

Great idea on a boycott for those states making it nearly impossible for women to get the health care they need. I too have to wonder why it hasn’t been tried. Certainly there must be some womens professional organizations that could publicly state that they are refusing to hold meetings/conventions and the like in those states.

@6: Great idea. Yes, keep us informed if you get a reply.

Oh boy, it’s John Ford day on TCM. Nothing like seeing Cheyenne Autumn with Sal Mineo and Victory Jory playing injuns. o_O

I took a sick day and am watching “First Wives’ Club.” So hilarious.

And yet…for decades now, …[everybody! Obama included! has], state by state, been chipping away at a woman’s right to health care for her entire body, not just the top half of it. Where are the boycotts? Where is the financial retribution?

This. This, this, this, this.

And when I express the thought in public, I get blank looks. Like “We’re talking about rights here. Real stuff. Not some doctor’s appointment.”

Although I’m pessimistic about the paradigm shift. I see Hillary’s Presidency moving the country a few inches forward. Admittedly, it all happens so far underground, you never know if those are the inches that’ll make the San Andreas unleash the Big One. So who knows. And at least it’ll be in the right direction, unlike just about everything else since Raygun hypnotized the country.

quixote said: So who knows. And at least it’ll be in the right direction, unlike just about everything else since Raygun hypnotized the country.

If we can get the Senate back that will be a tremendous help. I’d love the idea of getting the House too but with gerrymandered districts in so many states I don’t see that happening now.

Can you imagine this dynamic duo being the ticket for the Repubs? Now that would scare the bejesus out of me.

Nobody does boycotts of forced-labor states which black a woman’s right to independently make decisions about her body’s healthcare because it’s not an important issue. It’s not a major issue, like all those really important issues that affect men (and also happen to affect women). /s

Same sort of thinking helped bring about marriage equality while we are still waiting for women’s equal rights. Marriage equality is about the right of men to marry other men, and yeah we’ll let women marry women while we’re at it.

The criteria to define “important” issues in our society presupposes the male as standard. We still have women doing most of the housework and childrearing responsibilities in most households, whether or not they also work for wages.

The Sanders Town Hall has started. Tellingly, Chris Hayes is using a clipboard and is keeping it strategically placed in his lap to cover up his discernibly turgid state.

Chris and Bernie sittin’ on a stage… the tree was busy…

Bernie is testy tonight. He’s short, as in terse, and kinda bullying his BF Chris.

Chris, on the other hand, has gone full bore obsequious dormouse.

Please some one watching the townhall keep count of how many “Hillary leaning and undecided” get to ask Bern a question.

@15 – Yes, exactly right. As long as activism is perceived to benefit men, it’s important. Equal marriage is perceived that way. Electing the first African-American man was perceived that way, and we were all sexist, racist harpies for saying that electing a woman is just as important. This is the patriarchy in action, as we all know too well.

Ah, Chris Hayes. I haven’t been a fan of his, ever. He is brogressive to the core.

Madamab, this is very powerful: “If elected, Hillary will be someone whose very presence in the White House would signal a revolution in our thinking so profound, it’s hard for us to even imagine all the ramifications.” Fear of those unimaginable ramifications must be at the core of the anger and nastiness toward Hillary and her supporters.

@15 NWLuna: well-said. Having a female president could turn those male-centered criteria on end.

Totally stolen from dakinikat at SD.

@ 21: That is hilarious, GAgal. Thanks for stealing it!

@ 24 That answer made me gasp. Even Chris Hayes head was tilted so far sideways he almost fell off of his chair. Then he tried to save Bernie to no avail. This will backfire on Bernie, but Melissa is right in that BNR piece. Bernie has railed against her so much, he would be a hypocrite to his supporters if he encouraged them to vote for her now.

@24, it is typical Bernie, what is his is his, what is yours is his, and what might be considered communal in his socialist mind is his. Email list — his. Fundraising list — his. Supporters — his. The mindset of someone with a streak of entitlement about two miles wide.

Oh my gosh. #TheBernout has officially imploded. The media will not be kind.

I think this might be the moment that loses Bernie his Senate seat, too.

This jerk needs to be dumped out of the Democratic Party like the offal he is.

I had to take a phone call but I’m back and can tell you I am well and truly pissed about this. I have rolled my eyes a hundred times at his bullshit, but that’s it. Not one more fucking dime from the DNC for his Senate seat, no campaigning, no fundraising. I want his committee assignments stripped after the election. As far as I’m concerned he should be primaried, too.

MSNBC is re-running the townhall and CNN is all Trump. Any media at all noticed what Bernie said? I hope Twitter is on fire.

This 2006 AP story contains an interesting little nugget:

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton shared her wealth in March, doling out $190,000 in contributions to Democrats … Clinton’s political action committee, HILLPAC, raised $272,477 and spent $327,484 in March, according to the group’s filing to the Federal Election Commission. Two congressmen trying to make it to the Senate also got boosts from Clinton. Rep. Bernie Sanders, who is running for the seat held by retiring Vermont lawmaker Jim Jeffords, received $10,000, as did Harold Ford Jr., of Tennessee.

http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-received-10000-from-hillarys-pac-to-win-senate-seat/

Wow! Bernie is such a jerk! And a sore loser…ingrate…dangerous idiot. Oh, I sooo hope the Dems primary him in ’18. When he filed to run again in ’18, he checked the “I” box, so imo a democrat should feel free to run against him. Go Howard Dean!

@21, LMAO! They nailed it!

Well I’m totally glad I missed that clusterfuck. My b.p. probably wouldn’t take it.

Prolix@16: Tellingly, Chris Hayes is using a clipboard and is keeping it strategically placed in his lap to cover up his discernibly turgid state.

I’m gonna get crude and rude: When Hayes gets home his wife better check for peckertracks in his drawers cuz I bet they’re there.

In the clip @21: At about 1:12 seconds in, I’d love to know which media is blocking him out. They’re giving him every possible break, assistance and whatever that he wants.

@35 fredster, I only saw the clip from BNR. I can only imagine what else he said. I still want to know (not asking anyone here) – how many times in these town halls are Berniebrats asking Hillary sneering questions and how many times has Birdie been questioned that way by Hill’s supporters? I guess I’ll never know because I can’t stand to watch the sanctimonious idiot. But I’ve seen it happen to her over and over. How about the tweet they shared months ago from a brat who didn’t really have a question, but accused Hillary of using 9/11 to justify her “Wall Street donations”. And the one who said no one his age liked her? I hope she blows him all the way back to VT tomorrow. rant over (for now)

@30: I want his committee assignments stripped after the election. As far as I’m concerned he should be primaried, too.

As I’ve said before, they can put him in charge of refunds from the Coke machine when it eats your money. Chuck Schumer can give him his own little cigar box to keep the change in.

And I would soooo donate to anyone who would take him on in a primary.

Blocking out Bernie? What delusional planet is he from?

Oh, I get it. He must mean all the articles focusing on how the math is against him instead of how politically revolutionary he is (or would be if the math wasn’t against him, lol.)

And Bernie is gonna be really pissed at how much out-of-state money his primary opponent(s) will get from all of us “establishment” voters. I can hardly wait for it. Lots of us have loooooong memories. He’s up again in 2018. 2 years ain’t nothin’ to us!

GAgal@38: Oh I want her to wipe the floor tomorrow with his sorry old ass. I want it to be a complete blowout in each state. 😡

@41: Amen sister Luna!

I’m going to step away from this and watch dueling Barrymores on TCM. Anything just to calm down some.

Oh! And we’re probably going to live blog the primaries tomorrow night.

So tomorrow we might get to see how much truth there is behind BernBrain’s constant harangue about low turnout thwarting his winning these primaries. Well, tomorrow PA is on a glide path for over 1 million votes in the Democratic primary since there is a very competitive Senate primary. Let’s just see how old BernBrain does.

Thought y’all might like this:

@45: But how many of those people Prolix are going to be the poor people? Because by Bernie definition they haven’t gotten out to vote. If he says it, it must be true!

@ Fredster, Amen, brother! I’m looking forward to Hillary voters giving Bernie a few million birds tomorrow.

LOL! Right after my rant, my internet went down! My kinetic vibe is strong! (I had to type strong three times for that – hope it works).

Seriously, I have walked into several rooms on the same day, flipped a switch or turned on a lamp and blown bulb after bulb. Firestarter! 👿

Ted Cruz is vetting Carly Fiorina for VP… Please let it be so.

Also, someone tries to talk Tim Robbins off his ledge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/25/you-need-to-chill-out-tim-robbins/

@49, The comments there are hilarious, and pathetic. One cites a reviewer who found Hillary’s speeches “boring” (guess he doesn’t care for facts or plans with specifics) and had the bloody gall to say “She thinks yelling is passionate.” Uh huh. So how much does H really yell compared to B? And WTF, when Bernie yells. that is actually passionate and revolutionary?!

OK, must calm down, arguing with the Bernieprogbots is like arguing with Republicans. Their CDS is so bad they probably are Repugs.

Tomorrow we will enjoy victories.

My dear GAgal, you need to be calm. We don’t want you having a stroke or a heart attack. (If I seem paranoid, remember my kid just had a Grand Mal.) MadamaB is right, Hillary has this. We’re watching history being made and we all need to be “chill” and enjoy it together! xo

Going to check out the Tim Robbins article. Sounds funny!

@ 51 Don’t worry about me – my BP has always been perfect. 🙂 I try to save my wrath for the Republicans. I live in the South after all. I have been pissy at times towards Bernie, but that “burned” the end of my wick. “It’s incumbent on HER… can’t tell my supporters to vote for the establishment… WALL STREET and SPECIAL INTERESTS”. Sorry, that fucking did it. By the way, when Hillary wipes him out tomorrow, he still won’t leave. When the media gets tired of talking about Trump, they’ll ignore Hillary’s wins and talk about Birdie’s last ditch effort in California. (He can still pull it out!) And I’ll still laugh at them.

That was really outrageous what he said tonight. I really loathe him. Hope the Dems primary him in ’18.

I read the Robbins article. God, he’s loonier than his ex. I also read the comments. A few months ago I thought the comments section was dominated by pro birdie posters, but I think its more pro HIllary now, and not just wapo. I wonder if the republicans aren’t paying their troll army to shill for Bernie anymore now that its obvious he ain’t winning.

@52: GAgal, don’t forget that after having exhausted every…possible…mathematical way of winning, HE WILL FLIP THE SUPERDELEGATES!!

I’ve got to check out that Robbins piece now.

We should have a new rule now: After Hillary gets the nomination and wins the general, every time Robbins is out in public folks should start yelling “GUAM, GUAM, GUAM!”.

Reading about Robbins, this popped up. This was before the WI vote in April. I wish I’d seen it then. Bradley Whitford:

“In Wisconsin, I don’t think a lot of people understand that Hillary out-Bernied Bernie her entire life in terms of pushing the progressive agenda,” said Whitford, a Badger State native.

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/275190-west-wing-actor-clinton-the-most-qualified-candidate-of-my

From that WaPo article:

I mean, voting machines are not dropped off by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the back of a U-Haul. They’re operated by cities and counties all over the place. The suggestion is, I guess, that there’s a common software system that was somehow edited? That someone snuck into the warehouses where all of these things were stored and tweaked something? Or is it that boards of elections in a dozen states agreed to lie about the results?

Man…Robbins must have done a shitload of serious drugs back in the day because his brain is fried.

A photo of a 2nd line held in Treme as a celebration of Prince’s life.

Same sort of thinking helped bring about marriage equality while we are still waiting for women’s equal rights. Marriage equality is about the right of men to marry other men, and yeah we’ll let women marry women while we’re at it.

I agree with this so much. And I honestly think that if they could have figured out a way to extend the marriage right to men while withholding it from women, they would have done so.

@59 – I honestly think the idea of women marrying each other barely registers when people think about marriage equality. That’s probably why the lawsuit was successful. If the majority of LGBT were seen as being “L,” I think it might still be lingering on the Supreme Court’s docket.

Heh heh heh…#TheBernout admitted during that town hall that it’s going to be very difficult for him to win without flipping superdelegates.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-admits-hes-unlikely-flip-superdelegates

And yes, MSNBC is also quoting him about how he isn’t going to do anything to mobilize his “movement” in favor of Hillary. But I noticed something else.

When asked if he were to galvanize the movement to participate in the general election, regardless of whether he was the Democratic nominee, Sanders said the onus was on Clinton to win over his supporters.

“I think that most Democrats out there, more than anything, correctly so, want to make sure that some right wing Republican doesn’t become president of the United States,” Sanders said.

The way MSNBC conflated those two comments…do you see how it could be assumed that he was referring to Hillary as a right-wing Republican?!

UnbeLIEVable.

@59 & 60, I believe you are right when you say men are top of mind in what people think about when marriage equality is discussed. That is a shame.

One-half of the named plaintiffs in the Obergefell case were women. Michiganders April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse and Tennesseans Valeria Tanco and Sophy Jesty were just as central to the case and were plaintiffs. For purposes of economy, all cases get a lead name. Obergefell happened to be it in the marriage equality case. Legally, women had just as much to do with the victory.

@63 – I doubt that the men just “happened” to be first, Prolix. I’m not trying to take anything away from the women who were an integral part of the suit – as if I could! I’m talking about unconscious bias and the patriarchy. I’m actually in a class about this right now!

@64, MB, the women were just as much a part of the style of the case as the men. It is a function of the naming protocol conducted by clerks in the clerk’s office. Perhaps I’m being to persnickety, but the style of the case has nothing to do with men or women. There is a rule of procedure administered by clerks’ offices that dictates the style of the case.

I don’t argue that there is unconscious bias and patriarchy — there’s plenty of real examples. This isn’t one.

Just got an answer from the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce on why there aren’t boycotts of the states denying access to reproductive health care. Not really an answer:

That’s not a question I can answer but individuals can make a difference via blogs, etc.

That’s it, nothing else.

So I guess we are doing our part according to them.

Men were asked to read aloud real tweets made by other men to female sportscasters. We know this kind of language gets hurled at Hillary and her supporters, too.

Well, that’s not the right video.Try this:

MB@60 and 64: Well let me ask: who was the plaintiff in Windsor v United States?

I mean, this wasn’t the case to allow same sex marriage but it was the case to strike down DOMA.

The case for “Perfect plaintiffs” ?

@69, Fredster, there were dozens of other plaintiffs, men and women, in the companion cases. These were the plaintiffs in just the Pederson v. Office of Personnel Management case:

Joanne Pedersen and Ann Meitzen of Connecticut.

Geraldine and Suzanne Artis of Connecticut.

Gerald “Gerry” Passaro II of Connecticut.

Damon “Jerry” Savoy and John Weiss of Connecticut.

James “Flint” Gehre and Bradley Kleinerman of Connecticut.

Janet Geller and Joanne Marquis of New Hampshire.

Raquel Ardin and Lynda DeForge of Vermont.

In the related case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, there were 8 same sex couples, both male and female, and three widows or widowers.

There was Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services that was a veteran who wanted his male spouse to be buried beside him.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg of the plaintiffs in the companion cases. Edie Windsor was chosen because her case raised the question upon which the grant of certiorari was given and most closely represented it, but the style of the case is just a function of the clerk’s office. When you go to the reporters, the companion cases are listed under the one that is the citation to Windsor v. U.S.

@70: Well I was just trying to get the point across that in the DOMA case Edie Windsor was the (?) named plaintiff? It will be her name that’s always associated with the case and ruling.

Evidently, Jeff Weaver has sent a fundraising memo (does he send out any other kind) saying that Trump is pulling for Hillary and thinks she would make a great president. It has that picture of the wedding reception with Trump, Hillary and Bill in it. Sounds like they are pretty desperate for some $27 love.

I’m looking for the story.

Here’s the article:

http://newskar.com/2016/04/26/sanders-fundraising-email-includes-photo-of-the-clintons-at-donald-trumps-wedding/

From it:

“Over the past few days, Hillary Clinton’s campaign and some of its top supporters have launched an odd new line of attack against people like you who stand with Bernie,” said the email signed by Jeff Weaver, Sanders’s campaign manager. “They are saying that by continuing to campaign and fight for every vote, for every delegate, that we are helping Donald Trump.”

“They’ve used language reserved for traitors to our country, saying we are ‘giving aid and comfort’ to Trump,” Weaver continued. “They are emailing supporters with the subject line ‘What Trump loves about Bernie.’ Let me be clear, there is one candidate in this Democratic primary who Donald Trump said would make a ‘great president,’ and it’s not Bernie Sanders.”

@73: Jeff: it’s time to head on back to the comic book shop, check inventory and get ready to take on full-time duties there.

@73: Jeff can just go suck one.

Sanders’ campaign is really something. You’d almost think they weren’t on the same side, somehow….

@66: Translated, that means it’s not seen as an important issue. It’s a lesser issue. Some have even called it a “distraction.”

76, I wonder that more and more. Suspect a fair number of rodent-copulators are in that group, and voting with them.

Luna@77: Sounds like a reply you get from the cable company when you email them to gripe about their lousy service.

We’ll have a live blog coming up shortly for the primaries tonight.

Wishing for Hillary’s Big Win Tonight!! Go Hillary, Go!!!

Prolix, that response from the Chamber of Commerce was horrifying. I think it’s obvious that group isn’t interested in matters of such little import. (Eyeroll)

@77 & 82, I’m intrigued now. I’m not leaving this alone. I feel as if I’ve been blown off. I’m not going to let this go. Unsurprisingly, I’m like a dog who has been on Science Diet too long and someone has just teased me with a bone.

Why aren’t we boycotting these states who are, in essence, punishing poor women for being poor? Hubert Humphrey, one of my heroes, said that from his death bed talking about this very issue.

Comments are closed.

Keep Up

Atrocities Documented:

What the F*ck Just Happened?!

Victories Won:

Your Victories Against Drumpf!

Wanna Be A Widdershin?

Send us a sample post at:

widdershinssubmissions at gmail dot com

Our Front-Pagers

I’m ready. Are you?

Blog Archive

April 2016
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Our 2016 Ticket!

Our girl is gonna shine

Busted: Glass ceiling

HRC bumper sticker

She’s thinking “Less than 2 weeks I have to keep seeing that face”

Yeah I can make it

The team we’re on

Women’s March on Washington!

Right-click the pic for more info

Kellyanne Conway’s new job