Hillary plays gender card against Bernie, decries 'shouting' remark.

[Sasquatch]

Hillary Clinton is nauseating.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

The 'I'm a woman' thing is really grating on me, constantly turning everything into some sort of sexist attack.

Or maybe, in a rampantly sexist society, many of the attacks lobbed against her are sexist (at least implicitly) to some degree?

Of course a bunch of young men who make up the Atlas internet bro culture are going to decry Hillary every time she calls out sexism (especially when the remark was unintended but certainly sexist). That over half of this forum portrays sexism as an extreme caricature of Tumblr feminism mixed with 4chan trolling tells all.

[Brewer]

Her tweeted comment doesn't even make any sense.  "We're not shouting, it's just when women talk, some people think we're shouting."  Is that meant to be taken literally?  Because Bernie meant it literally, right?  Does she think that men have never heard women talk before and can't tell the difference between when women are talking and when they're shouting?

Obviously this is a simple acknowledgment of how a significant portion of men are unable to come face to face with a woman expressing a strong opinion without feeling threatened by "shrillness".

[Famous Mortimer]

He said Martin O'Malley was shouting too. It's objectively not sexist in any way.

Although I suppose maybe it is under the new definition of sexism where treating men and women the same is sexist. Instead women have to be treated delicately to make up for past oppression.

[henster]

Makes me wonder how bad it would've gotten if Biden had run. She probably would've accused him of sexual harassment and dredging up Anita Hill to show he's 'anti woman'.

[Brewer]

He said Martin O'Malley was shouting too. It's objectively not sexist in any way.

Although I suppose maybe it is under the new definition of sexism where treating men and women the same is sexist. Instead women have to be treated delicately to make up for past oppression.

He didn't say any names. He used the word "shouting" directly after Clinton raised her voice while passionately decrying Bernie's defense of gun manufacturers, despite the fact that one of his trademarks is him screaming into the mic at every public forum he attends.

Perhaps if Bernie spent less time excusing his poor record on guns as a consequence of his "being in a rural state" and patronizing those who contradict him, he'd have more credibility on this issue.

[Ebsy]

The part of Clinton's speech at the J-J dinner when she "played the gender card" was probably her strongest moment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ITT: Men discussing with each other what women voters do and do not find sexist.

Classic Atlas!

It's traditional Atlas, suddenly young middle-class white men understand delicate issues of sexual politics.

Come on, it's ridiculous to claim what Bernie said was sexist. I find it disgusting how many times the candidate who ran a robocall for a corrupt male incumbent governor (Cuomo) being challenged by an ethical woman (Teachout) plays the gender card.

In last year's Lt. Governorship race, I happened to vote for the one woman out of the 8 candidates on the June Ballot, a Green party candidate, and when she didn't make top 2, abstained on the November ballot. But had nothing to do with gender.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

If he had specifically said that Hillary needs to stop shouting, I think that there would be a case. But, he didn't specify Hillary or even any party. Sanders is talking about not only Clinton, but also O'Malley and all of the Republicans as well all at once without singling anyone out. I won't be happy if Hillary refers to any criticism of her (or especially her positions) as sexism against her. That will make me vote third party in spite if she continues to do so (CA being safe Dem is nice for protest votes).

To be fair, Sanders can come off as "shouty" on a lot of things, and I'm saying this as a Sanders supporter.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If he had specifically said that Hillary needs to stop shouting, I think that there would be a case. But, he didn't specify Hillary or even any party. Sanders is talking about not only Clinton, but also O'Malley and all of the Republicans as well all at once without singling anyone out. I won't be happy if Hillary refers to any criticism of her (or especially her positions) as sexism against her. That will make me vote third party in spite if she continues to do so (CA being safe Dem is nice for protest votes).

To be fair, Sanders can come off as "shouty" on a lot of things, and I'm saying this as a Sanders supporter.

He speaks loudly to a large audience. But he's not Howard Dean.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Insinuating your primary opponent is a misogynist is a great way to win over his supporters when your going to need them in a GE. I think A LOT of Sanders supporters will be staying home next year.

I think a lot of them will be voting for Jill Stein. I'm leaning in that direction myself.

I think you both should stop blowing smoke like those pathetic PUMAs in 2008.
When election day comes and you have to choose between Hillary and Trump/Rubio/Cruz you know how you will vote.
That is unless of course you want a repeat of 2000.

[Mr. Morden]

Insinuating your primary opponent is a misogynist is a great way to win over his supporters when your going to need them in a GE. I think A LOT of Sanders supporters will be staying home next year.

I think a lot of them will be voting for Jill Stein. I'm leaning in that direction myself.

I think you both should stop blowing smoke like those pathetic PUMAs in 2008.
When election day comes and you have to choose between Hillary and Trump/Rubio/Cruz you know how you will vote.
That is unless of course you want a repeat of 2000.

I doubt Eraserhead voting for Jill Stein in New York is going to lead to a 2000 redux.

That said, most voters don't think like those on a political messageboard, and I'm assuming that there won't be any more PUMA-types this time than there were in 2008, either in swing states or safe states like New York.

[Blair]

Hillary was most likely referring to the fact that the Media/Political establishment/Society tends to accuse Woman of being patronizing/condescending/shrill etc if they talk passionately about an issue that isn't something safe like Education or Healthy eating

[Adam Griffin]

For IA and NH Hillary can't rely on non-white voters so she is trying to run up her numbers with white women. They know that it may put off some men but they have made the calculation that it makes sense for her to do it.

I think she's going to do historically bad with men next year if she overplays her gender too much. I remember the Q poll where 70% of white men had an unfavorable view of her, winning the woman vote by a decent margin is meaningless if your losing just as many men.

Yes, and what's even worse is that the trend in races often suggests that polarization does not undo itself in successive elections with different candidates. It goes back to the whole "well if this group is 1% more of the population than its opposing group and that group gives me at least 1% more support over 50% than the opposing group gives me under 50% then we win" technocrat DNC shtick. Yes, you win...and then end up with an ungovernable situation in which the country is divided on everything in a knee-jerk fashion.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

For the record, I did wince at the debate response. She needs to pull it back a couple of notches. She was accused, I think rightly, for not highlighting the importance of her running, historically in 2008. She might be trying to over-compensate.

Having said that, her run is historic and it will be an important watershed for women in public life. The issues she is campaigning on are, universal, but are based on her being a woman and her experiences. You cannot divorce her gender from her campaign. There is a way to do it well and right, because it risks alienating just as many, particularly along the lines of enthusiasm, if she starts to back-pedal too hard.

To me, what is interesting is that most female elected leaders run on the basis that their gender is, incidental, but one thing I'm enjoying is seeing a female-positive campaign. Being a woman is core to what she cares about and why. But she cannot risk putting people on the defensive unnecessarily. I suppose when someone is called "harpy" "shrill" "bitch" and "shrew" including by many so-called progressives, I kind of get why people are hyper-sensitive to anything that appears gender-based.

[Intell]

It's racist now to say that Hillary is using the woman card too much, to say she's representing change instead of talking about the issues at hand. Surely we shouldn't favour women because they're women. This is worse than Obama 08' when he 'represented' change because he was black and at least then he represented change because he opposed 'establishment' politics and the Iraq war. Sure, It was great that a 'black' guy got elected president but I'm not going to elect Herman Cain or Michelle Bachman because they represent change because they are a women or they are black.