Bernie speaking on 1st day at Women's conference is a great idea & it's easy to show why...

[guillaumeb]

Bernie speaking on 1st day at Women's conference is a great idea & it's easy to show why...

Sanders is one of many invited speakers. I believe that the organizers were attempting to demonstrate how women's issues are issues for all of us.

Access to health care, the ability to make health care decisions, the freedom to make these decisions, the freedom to choose abortion specifically, are all issues that impact women directly and men indirectly.

Unequal pay for women, an economic issue, does not just affect women, it affects their male co-workers as well because the unequal pay treatment is a way of dividing workers.

Unequal treatment of women of color, a social issue, affects males as well because inequality for one is inequality for all. And again, unequal treatment is used to divide workers.

While women experience the misogyny directly, men are affected as well because misogynistic behavior that is not opposed has the effect of normalizing that misogyny. And we all suffer from the brutal effects of misogyny because it breeds an atmosphere, a culture, of brutality.

As many have already commented on the Harvey Weinstein story, it was the responsibility of men as well as women to speak out when Weinstein was allegedly creating a rape culture in his industry.

[DURHAM D]

1. He referred to women's issues as a "distraction"

less than two years ago.

[guillaumeb]

8. Please provide context for this assertion.

Thank you in advance.

[George II]

21. I've seen that a number of times in my internet travels. Can't post it on DU however.

[guillaumeb]

29. Yes, we understand,

really, we do understand.

[stevenleser]

62. I doubt that you do. I hadnt remembered this so I researched it.

Any DU poster that posts links will be accused of refighting the primaries since it occurred during the primaries and has all that context.

[guillaumeb]

70. I also researched it. Or tried to research it

I found multiple sources all linking to a single poster, and all referring to something with no actual links to actual statements.

So I am treating it as a, so far, unsourced allegation and assigning it all credibility that is due to an unsourced, unlinked allegation.

[stevenleser]

73. Then you didn't really try. There is an actual statement by Sanders involved. nt

[guillaumeb]

75. Feel free to send a link.

I cannot find anything at this point, nor could the initial claimant.

[stevenleser]

76. See my #62. At this point we're going in circles. nt

[guillaumeb]

77. "We" are not going in circles.

So far, 2 people have made an allegation. I am not stating that the allegation is true or untrue, nor am I questioning the credibility of the 2 posters, but I am treating it as an unsourced and unverified allegation until such time as I see a link to a source that confirms it.


Edited to add
PS:
The first poster to make the allegation has deleted the post. It was #2.

[Adrahil]

94. There are lots of things he said that underline this.

Here's a link from the Guardian about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/22/bernie-sanders-identity-politics-class-race-debate

Sanders is a socialist. Like most old school dogmatic socialists, he believes inequality is embedded in class.

The world has updated to the idea of intersectionality, but Sen. Sanders will ALWAYS take it back to class first, because he really believes that is the way to deal with other inequalities.

He's wrong.

[guillaumeb]

98. But that is not at all the same as what was alleged.

Yes, many socialists, including me, do believe that inequality is rooted in class based politics. We feel that the ownership class uses anything to divide and weaken workers. This does not imply that any one part of the working class is better or more important than are the other parts, it simply recognizes that the rich will always attempt to divide the working classes.

Racism, misogyny, language, color, religion, all of these areas are fertile ground for class-based division directed by the rich.

[Adrahil]

157. That's been dogmatic socialist thought

For over 150 years. It's not completely wrong. But it isn't completely true either. Sexism and racism and anti-LGBTQ thought has been embedded in our culture for centuries. That's not going to be eliminated by reducing wealth inequality.

IMHO, Sen Sanders is way too often dismissive of racism and sexism in favor of class politics. I think he STILL believes that TRump won because of economic anxiety among working class whites. That's poppycock.

[guillaumeb]

159. I see it as divide to conquer.

And the division is successful or it would not be used. If we can overcome the division, perhaps we can unite and gain the social and economic equality. Social equality and economic equality are not mutually exclusive goals.

[Jim Beard]

218. Make sure all of the people are afforded saftey from all forms

of Misandry too.

[sheshe2]

200. Did you read that article?

It may not have answered the exact question you asked, yet points to every reason we women are right. He should not be speaking as lead speaker at a convention that is supposed to be about women.

It pains me to have it explained to me that two organizers are WOC and I therefore have to agree with their decision and listen to their voice when thousands of women are saying this is wrong and you turn a deaf ear to how we as women feel. This was a convention for woman until it was not.

Guill, you are an intelligent man and we have had some good conversations, I ask you to sit back and think about this. Two women are backed and fiercely supported, the thousands that disagree are mocked and ridiculed and told that we are wrong. The hypocrisy is staggering on FB, twitter and some blogs that I read. Think about that.

[guillaumeb]

205. Hi sheshe

I read a Boston Globe article, an opinion piece, and linked to it in this thread. It was only the personal opinion of the writer that is being cited there as evidence of Sanders' intent and feeling. The piece is clearly identified as an opinion piece, not a news article, and while the author is entitled to her opinion, I do not accept it as the equivalent of a specific citation to anything that Sanders' himself said.

(Edited to add: reply 191)

As to the organizers, my position has been and remains that they made the decision of who to invite, and how to schedule. Obviously many people disagree with their decisions and I respect the disagreements as well as the right of the organizers to run the conference.

Thank you for the compliment sheshe, it means a lot to hear it from a longtime DU person. While we disagree occasionally, you also are an intelligent and respected member of the DU community.

And, as further praise, the trolls at DI hate you with a passion. For that alone I would give you another Star beside your name.

[sheshe2]

217. Actually I was referring to Adrahils link here, Guill.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029710507#post94

Sorry I did not make that clear. Read it...he is the wrong choice.

I find a Convention for Women, one that I assumed would be for all, is not. Yes...their choice and they deny us ours as do others that are condemning us for saying it is wrong. They announced Bernie after the cut off date for refunds. A slight of hands so to speak. The ticket price alone is prohibitive to most women. It is geared toward the wealthy if you add airfare, accommodations and food.

Also, and I have read a lot about this, the background on the organizers is troubling and I do not speak of their support of Bernie, their history with women is questionable. There is the misinformation as well. A clear cut Women's Convention and it's direction has been edited multiple time to clarify their objectives. Why would they need to clarify?

I whole heartily object, they have made it clear they have an agenda and it has nothing to do with women.

Oh, thanks...DI, lol, they nuts.

[guillaumeb]

219. No problem, I misunderstood.

As to the link you supplied, here was my response to Adrahil:

Yes, many socialists, including me, do believe that inequality is rooted in class based politics. We feel that the ownership class uses anything to divide and weaken workers. This does not imply that any one part of the working class is better or more important than are the other parts, it simply recognizes that the rich will always attempt to divide the working classes.

Racism, misogyny, language, color, religion, all of these areas are fertile ground for class-based division directed by the rich.

What divides us weakens us. As I hope I made clear in my first paragraph, womens rights are vital, including the right to make health decisions.

As to the conference, and the costs, most of these conferences are expensive to attend unless one lives where the conference is located.

As to DI, I feel many are trolls pushing Putin's propaganda.

[R B Garr]

99. Wow, not true. That deleted post was a video of

Bernie on stage with his wife.

That subject is easily Google-able. You can Google Latina voter and his name and see what he told her about identity politics and being a woman. There are other print articles about it. Lots of them.

[guillaumeb]

101. Feel free to send a link.

I googled the specific allegation and was unable to find any source other than multiple links based on one poster on a blog. One might wonder why the post was deleted at all.

Thank you.

[R B Garr]

115. No, one doesn't have to misrepresent the content

of a deleted post to bolster another misrepresentation. That's what makes one wonder...

If you Google "Latina voter Bernie" it will get a trove of documents. Do that and post the results.

[guillaumeb]

119. I read the post prior to its deletion.

And I read the allegation about what Sanders allegedly said.

And I stand by my Google results, results that so far have been echoed by 2 others here.

As to your suggestion, I just Googled your search term, and nothing in the links I investigated suggested that Sanders said anything like the original charge. He did say that actual positions count for more than identity.

[R B Garr]

134. You did not "read" that deleted post--it was a video

of Bernie on stage with his wife. There was a one line comment about what he did (it was a comment about setting examples, i.e., about what he did). You are falsely trying to make it about an attack on something he "said" so you can continue another misrepresentation.

If you Google Latina voter and his name, it will come up -- more misrepresentations on your part, yikes. Shameful. It was in November 2016.

[guillaumeb]

141. Yes, there was a one line comment.

And it is that one line comment that he is alleged to have made that I addressed to the poster. A one line comment that has not so far been proven.


As to misrepresentation, feel free to start a post on this issue if you feel it merits further discussion.

[R B Garr]

152. That was not what the comment was. Wow at the

desperation. Shameful.

You are also trying to pretend that there was only "one line", when there is a whole history of his problems with identity politics. What a waste to kick this thread with these tactics.

[guillaumeb]

153. Your tactic is quite clear.

Apparently 3 of us here failed to see what you claimed to see. As I said, feel free to post a new thread and defend your assertions.
You might want to read reply #35 in particular.

Good by in this thread.

[R B Garr]

190. By your standards, post #35 doesn't exist because there is no link to it, lol

This isn't even funny anymore. It's quite sad. I just Googled, "Bernie Sanders, women's issues are a distraction" and the first hit was his home state paper the Burlington Press. You should Google it and look. How absurd that post 35 and you state they cannot be found, LOL.

You should Google Bernie's positions on identity politics and how he puts them on the backburner for his pet issues of income inequality and his economic accusations about corporations and fraud.

People are upset that Bernie is appearing at a women's conference because of his past comments. It's hard to believe you are a supporter of his if you don't know his positions. They are on the internet, and can be Googled. Google those words I've included here and post the results.

[guillaumeb]

191. I did, and the Boston Globe article read in part, as follows:

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.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/04/when-bernie-sanders-ran-against-vermont/kNP6xUupbQ3Qbg9UUelvVM/story.html

Note carefully that this quote was not Sanders talking, but was an opinion held by his opponent, Madeleine May Kunin. If this is indeed your proof, we differ on what constitutes proof.

And all of your arguments seem to ignore the inconvenient fact that women organized, scheduled, and obtained the speakers for the conference.

[R B Garr]

222. My "arguments" consisted of correcting your bizarre musings about a deleted post that

was not at all what you said it was. Now you're trying to split hairs about Sanders' saying that identity politics should take a back seat to his specific economic message. Here he is explaining that being a woman is not enough, that they have to embrace his version of economic justice. That is what he, himself, said, and what that link says about a woman who ran against him in Vermont.

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/22/bernie-sanders-it-is-not-good-enough-for-someone-to-say-im-a-woman-vote-for-me/

These exact words of his own and others who have interacted or ran against him are consistent. Any Democrat has said those things listed in your OP. There is no need to have someone at a woman's conference who thinks that identity politics such as women's issues are secondary to his personalized economic message. Women can decide for themselves the content they deem a priority.

And those Our Revolution people co=opting Democrats like Maxine Waters are just promoting one politician. Looks like people have caught on to that.

[George II]

171. I sent one via DU Mail

[guillaumeb]

207. I received it and it was behind a subscription wall.

I also linked in #191 to the article. An opinion piece.

[George II]

211. An "opinion piece" based on points of fact. She didn't write "I think he said".

[guillaumeb]

212. Well, she wrote:

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.

She did not quote him, she gave her impression of what she felt was his view.

Again, only an opinion piece.

[R B Garr]

225. That is almost exactly what he says himself. It's quite accurate, and you would know

that if you are a Sanders supporter, so....

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/22/bernie-sanders-it-is-not-good-enough-for-someone-to-say-im-a-woman-vote-for-me/

“It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman, vote for me.’ No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry.”

[guillaumeb]

229. No, it definitely is NOT what was suggested here.

And the "evidence" to support the accusation was not actual words from Sanders himself, but a claimed insight into by his opponent in which she claimed to know what he was thinking.

That is called speculation at best.

[R B Garr]

232. You don't get to rewrite the entire history of his

political career. He has placed his economic message above identity politics. His own words have been linked. Reality is a thing.

This denial of reality is tedious and not sustainable, but looks like a way to kick your thread.

[guillaumeb]

233. What IS tedious

is when people confuse opinion and fact. One person's opinion is not a fact, it is merely an opinion. If that opinion could be buttressed with actual quotes from Senator Sanders saying what the opponent implies, I am quite certain that the quotes would have been unearthed and cited.

But there are none. What I see are some posters apparently assuming that because Sanders generally makes a class based economic analysis, this proves that Sanders cares nothing for any other issues.

We will probably not agree on this issue, but I welcome your analysis and political passion, and have a great Sunday.

[R B Garr]

235. Bernie's own words have been linked. Enough of this.

You don't get to rewrite what he said himself. His words have been linked here.

This angle is as honest as your bogus description of the deleted post in this thread. How utterly dishonest and what a bogus way to kick this thread.

There is a link telling a Latina woman that it doesn't matter if she is a woman, just repeat his economic message and that is the priority. He promoted his economic message over identity politics. That's reality.

Enough of this dishonesty. How utterly shameful.

[sheshe2]

162. It is not the source others are talkin about, yet when he ran for Gov, in 1986 he said it.

It took me one typed sentence and Google to find a source. Average time 30 seconds. The source is reliable...Boston Globe. The article is from 02/16.

[melman]

166. That's an op-ed

in the Globe, it's not the Globe itself. There's a difference.

And there is no quote in it anyway, it's a characterization offered by the author. An opinion it other words.

[sheshe2]

168. ah, so it is not true then...

K

[melman]

169. If there were a quote

It would have been linked by now. There simply isn't one.

[sheshe2]

172. ah.

former gov. is lying then. no direct quote.

[melman]

173. The op-ed doesn't even assert that it was said

It's the author's opinion.

[George II]

184. As they say, you can lead a horse to water....................

[George II]

179. And that's the issue, no matter what anyone says its "discredited" or "that's not it", etc....

And you're claiming that what she said was a "characterization" and just an "opinion in other words"......? The woman who was elected GOVERNOR of Vermont? She said it.

[melman]

182. The original claim

was that he said it. There's simply no proof that he did.


btw, I thought you had me on ignore. lol

[George II]

183. Whatever.

[George II]

167. There's an article about it on the Boston Globe site and other sources.

[Arazi]

186. Post the sources then. Easy right?

[sheshe2]

187. ...

[Bucky]

35. it's not hard to see how this distortion of his words came about

I can state with confidence that no speech from Sanders has ever had the thesis that "women's issues are a distraction." That's just not who he has ever been as a public servant.

There might be one speech somewhere in which he described some particular distraction issue (which we all know Republicans use to keep Red State voters from seeing the big picture of how Republican policies harm their interests) which touches on women's issues. But we don't get told which issue in particular he described as a distraction, nor what his actual stance was on the issue he described as less important that economic opportunity for the working and middle classes.

But people who smear Sanders (and also people who smear Clinton) don't care about the big issue. They just want to keep the Democrats divided. Everyone who trash talks Clinton OR Sanders is doing the work of the reactionary Republican far right.

[guillaumeb]

78. And unsourced allegations must be given all the credibility that they deserve.

I looked into this allegation and found multiple "sources" that all relied on one single post from one single poster. But no link to anything else.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

109. Likewise, I've yet to see a credible source for this... wonder why?

Imagine the shit storm if the proverbial "shoe were on the other foot".

[guillaumeb]

113. Speaking for myself only, perhaps my research skills are deficient.

Or, this might be one of those unsourced stories that are repeated endlessly, with each repetition serving as a citable link for others to then cite as proof.

[melman]

122. It doesn't exist

They'd post it in an instant if it did.

[H2O Man]

132. It exists

only within the imaginations of some silly people.

[Arazi]

170. +1000 Eom

[George II]

203. It wasn't a speech.

[Chasstev365]

82. And in 2008, the 2016 Democratic nominee used the assassination of RFK

as a reason to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

Do you really want to play the game of what people have said in the past?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. Hard to believe she really said that.

[Chasstev365]

118. SHE DID!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

174. I know she did... thankfully, Obama went on to make us all proud.

[Chasstev365]

175. Gotcha. Agreed!

[xmas74]

236. This.

Over and over.
Every time he's mentioned I mention this.

[elleng]

2. THANKS, guill.

[guillaumeb]

80. Pas de quoi.

Les "purs et durs" me mettent en colère. Ici, ne pas les intégristes religieux, mais les intégristes de politique.

Ce qui ressemble s'assemble.

[elleng]

155. Ah oui.

[delisen]

3. How about attending and Listening!

What a statement it would make if Sen Sanders and the men you are talking about attend the conference, be part of the audience, and Listen to the speakers and attendees.

That would be a powerful statement. I have just sent my suggestion to Sanders. I hope he listens and considers.

[lunamagica]

5. That is a fantastic idea

[mcar]

9. A powerful statement

Men listening and learning from women.

[guillaumeb]

12. Can we not all learn from each other?

It is a womens' conference, and he is only one of many speakers.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

30. We can all learn from each other---but historically, women do that. Men do not; particularly listen

To Women. Many don't even have a mental template for that.

Because men have such an ingrained response to ignore and drown out Women's voices, they especially need to see examples of men listening to and learning from women.

The archetypal Wise Woman needs to be resurrected.
She's been silenced and demeaned as useless, ugly, Not Sexually Appealing (to men).

Wise Women NEED to take the stage; Men NEED to let go of Ego.

PEOPLE need to be reacquainted with the idea of listening to--true respect for-- women.

[guillaumeb]

107. I agree. Men often do not really listen to other voices in a conversation.

But he was invited by the organizers for some reason. And that invitation, and the reasons behind it, are also worthy of respect.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

144. Yep. I didn't say what I think of Bernie being the keynote.

He definitely stirs people to care about politics. That's important, we seriously need that.

Could he have Second Speaker status? Yes that might be more appropriate.

Are there women who could whip up involvement from a demographic larger than the usual Prog/Liberal Activist population? Probably, but maybe not with his far reach and high visibility.

[guillaumeb]

148. I might have suggested Kamala Harris.

In my view she needs more visibility. Or Jan Schakowsky, a House Democrat from Illinois. But both suffer from a lack of visibility.

[pnwmom]

104. He is the opening speaker, and a woman should be the opening speaker.

Bernie has been speaking at rallies countless times over the last couple years. Let a woman's voice lead the women's convention. Bernie has plenty of other opportunities.

[guillaumeb]

108. The organizers felt otherwise.

And I respect their choice as well as your voice.

[brush]

123. Sanders should bow out. He's in the middle of too much divisiveness as it is don't you think?

He'd gain more support and respect by showing he doesn't have to be in the spotlight all the time, especially at a women's conference.

[guillaumeb]

126. But if he did refuse to speak,

could that be seen as rejecting a chance to show solidarity?

[brush]

133. How about he take the stage, say I'm here to listen, then take a seat in the audience?

He'd just about wrap up the 2020 nomination right there.

[guillaumeb]

139. That is a possible thread winner.

But I feel that he should step aside for 2020 and allow another generation to move up. I feel as a 66 year old that I can say that without fear of a charge of ageism.

[brush]

145. Agreed.

[Demsrule86]

163. The organizers should have told folks before the time to get a refund passed...I am out over $100.00

and will never trust this organization or support them again. Certainly, I will not attend a conference billed as a woman's Convention where a the person opening the event is not a woman.

[guillaumeb]

181. I can understand your anger, and I sympathize. eom

[mcar]

117. It's a women's conference

Maybe that's a good venue to let women speak and men learn.

[guillaumeb]

120. Organized by women.

Invitations presumably extended by women.

A schedule presumably made by women.

So are you saying that these women are at fault?

[mcar]

124. I believe they made a mistake

I do not presume to know their motivation.

I do find it curious that they waited until after the deadline for refunds had passed before they announced it. Also they seem to only have promoted Sanders slot until the criticism began.

IMHO, they should have known there would be blowback. Many worthy women would have been a good choice.

[guillaumeb]

128. I understand, and I am not saying that I totally disagree.

I appreciate your contributions to this discussion.

[mcar]

129. Thank you

[guillaumeb]

10. Do you counsel all men to be silent in the face of misogyny?

Or, would you welcome our voices in support of a common fight?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

105. I agree... this should be an issue we can ALL agree upon and unite against.

[guillaumeb]

110. It should be.

And the women who organized the conference, and the women who invited the speakers, their voices should also be respected.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

112. Absolutely!!

[delisen]

146. Men have always participated and

been welcomed.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. How about listening to the actual real-life activists who put the convention together?

Instead of the slactivists throwing a fit on twitter?

I see a lot of mansplaining and whitesplaining.

It's clear from the comments most didn't know the first thing about this convention before Bernie's name was brought up.

Comments like:

They should have invited Hillary!!! -- they did

They should have invited Harris -- they did. She is busy fundraising

They should have invited Warren or Gabbard!!! -- they did.

And the most telling comments:

They should have a woman keynote!1!1!1! -- Maxine Waters is the keynote.

Beyond ridiculous.

[MuseRider]

20. Thank you, I kinda thought that

this would be what the entire thing looked like.

I do understand the unhappiness about having men talk to us about our concerns. I also understand we need men to help us and we need men who are unafraid to speak out about our issues. Personally I would rather not see a man speaking at this but it is not the end of the world nor is it getting us all measured for burkas as some of the freak out would lead you to believe.

I was holding out before commenting because I just could not believe that a woman's group would do this. I feel better now knowing that it is not what the Bernie No's are complaining about. If there is going to be a man there I am glad it is him. Let them continue to beat their little heads against the wall until someone finally wakes up and reads what you posted, nevermind. That won't stop the crazy hate either.

[guillaumeb]

31. Well spoken.

If the male invitee had been President Obama, would we be reading the same posts?

[TexasTowelie]

74. Do you think that Bernie will stick around to listen to the speeches of the activists

or will he make an appearance for a couple of hours then leave? A sign of a great leader is someone who listens.

[BainsBane]

199. mansplaining

after insisting a man should headline the conference, you accuse women of "mansplaining." It's cute how you use words with no awareness of their meaning. Of course, true "feminism" is accepting the fact that women's rights are just too "divisive" to be a priority and that we must sacrifice them for to promote the privilege of those who already sit in the top 0.3% of global incomes, men who are oppressed by our "identity politics lives."

Maxine is not the headline speaker. That's one of many of Nina Turner's lies. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=461623

[Hassin Bin Sober]

208. I'm not insisting anyone speak.

I'm just saying listen to the actual real life activists. You know the women who got off their asses and put together this convention. Not some phony baloney slactivists throwing bombs from twitter.

[BainsBane]

226. There are many activists who do not agree with the choice

and I understand you are excited to see a convention to promote Bernie. There is nothing wrong with the organizers doing that, except for the fact they raised money under false pretenses and waited until after the return date to announce his role. And now they refuse to return that money. They could have organized a conference entitled women for Bernie, Bernie 2020, or even simply declared from the start that it was to be based around him and his 2016 supporters. They instead chose to conceal that fact and take money from people who they knew, or should have known, would not contribute to that cause. Of course they did something similar with the women's march. They hid their intent to use the event to attack Clinton and thereby justify Trump's placement in power. Only women all around the country made it about women's empowerment and resistance to the sexual predator in the Oval Office.

While you may think the only worthwhile activism on earth involves promoting Bernie's career, there are all kinds of women who do the "establishment" work of risking their lives to get reproductive healthcare to the poor, who do community organizing in the poorest communities in America, and otherwise focus on issues that don't revolve around Bernie Sanders. You may consider them and their causes inferior, but they are nonetheless activists.

You invoked "mansplaining" and charges of racism to attack criticism of the planners by women, many of whom are themselves women of color. I haven't once seen you express concern about racism or women's rights, though I did see you agree with WillyT's Stockholm syndrome comments about African Americans. https://www.democraticunderground.com/1251688729#post241 I also remember your being enthusiastic about the anti-choice candidate in PA, and IIRC you likewise supported Keith Mello's candidacy.

Abortion rights are a baseline for women's rights. Evidence shows that when women lack access to abortion, their likelihood of dropping into serous poverty greatly increases. And when women are poor, so are children. Then there is the minor matter of staying alive. By all but eliminating access to reproductive healthcare, Texas quickly gained the distinction of having the highest pregnancy mortality rate in the developed world. Abortion rights are not "wedge issues" or the "culture wars." They are essential to the survival of women, to feed ourselves and children, and to live beyond early adulthood. Deprioritizing reproductive rights threatens that and is unacceptable to the vast majority of women in this country.

[ehrnst]

23. Yes, it would be a great idea. (nt)

[Kahuna7]

102. That would be a novelty. nt

[lapucelle]

177. To be fair, some people were invited to attend

and listen.

"Organizers said they invited many elected officials to attend the convention, including Hillary Clinton, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), but the event did not work with their schedules."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/13/womens-convention-faces-backlash-after-prime-speaking-slot-goes-to-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.2f5b89784bcd

Last year our local middle school students held instructive workshops on astrophysics and invited Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Michio Kaku to attend, so they could listen and learn. They were all busy that night too.

[Arazi]

4. I'm pretty excited about going and hearing as many as I can

Bernie, Maxine...everyone.

It's time we ended this stupid divisiveness. We're stronger together

[guillaumeb]

11. Of course we are.

As union members are told, but at times forget, an injury to one is an injury to all. If we (meaning men here) remain silent we are agreeing with misogyny.

[likesmountains 52]

13. I agree. I will be there to listen and learn as much as I can.

[murielm99]

42. You won't be learning much from Bernie.

He will give his same old stump speech.

[likesmountains 52]

223. I can always learn something.

[SMC22307]

6. Agree. (n/t)

[leftofcool]

15. Whatever. I have cancelled my plans to go

The organizers can do what they please as far as I am concerned. I don't have to listen to it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. That's too bad. You will be missing out.

Were you really exited to go before you heard about Bernie speaking?

Maybe you made some posts here on Du to register your excitement about going???

[leftofcool]

50. I was excited until I found out men were speaking.

I don't give a shit about Bernie, I just don't think old white haired men have any place speaking at a conference for women. But, that's my opinion and I'm an old feminist of 76 years so in the progressive reality show, it doesn't matter.

[Not Ruth]

81. I can understand it if Trump were speaking, but this is Bernie

[leftofcool]

156. Is he not a man?

I wouldn't care if it was Jesus Christ speaking. No men should be speaking period.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

176. I respect your opinion, but disagree... we need to rally around what unites us.

[guillaumeb]

32. You might miss an opportunity to network and learn.

But no, no one is forcing anyone to attend.

[SaschaHM]

96. You should go and let your displeasure be known during the speech.

I'm sure that you can find a healthy sized contingent willing to loudly do the same.

[leftofcool]

158. Not interested in protesting when no one is listening.

You really think those organizers give a shit about what most women think?

[SaschaHM]

164. Not in the slightest, but I think the speaker should be booed heavily.

[Demsrule86]

165. I cancelled too. The organizer shows a real lack of judgement.

[LostOne4Ever]

16. There are peeps who so hate Sanders that if he said breathing was a good thing...

That they would hold their breathe until they pass out. Some their hate runs so deep that they would find a way to hold their breathe even when unconscious.

Personally, I want Bernie to issue a statement against imbibing yellow snow...

[guillaumeb]

33. As Frank Zappa wisely said:

"don't you eat the yellow snow".

[pnwmom]

17. Would Bernie have agreed to go if his speech wasn't put in such a prominent position

as the opening speech?

I think it would have had much less danger of rubbing women the wrong way if this man was perceived as just one of many speakers, and not the opener.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. It's kind of hard to downplay his speech. He's the most beloved active politician on the planet.

Just think of him as the warmup act for Maxine.

[tammywammy]

25. "most beloved active politician on the planet." Link? n/t

[pnwmom]

27. That's such hyperbole. It isn't even a fact in the US, much less "the planet."

The only poll that purported to show that included 4 US Democrats and 5 US Republicans. And it didn't include Joe Biden or John Kerry, neither of whom have announced their political retirements, and both of whom are well known throughout the world.

John Kerry, speaking French, German, Italian, and Norwegian.

[brush]

142. And we as a country passed Kerry up for W. Blackwell in Ohio must have gotten a huge deposit...

in an offshore account for his treachery.

[George II]

39. No he isn't.

[guillaumeb]

41. But the (D) is STILL lacking.

That must never be forgotten even as the GOP continues suppressing, and gerrymandering, and framing the issues.

[delisen]

140. Sanders promoters seem to make everything about

Sanders.

I am not that into Sanders and sometimes I find it sad to see so many people fall in line to be just followers.

There are the followers who show up at rallies and cheer "Bernie" and the more savvy corporate-style marketers of Bernie as a product. (Bernie did this, Bernie did that....press releases). What we see here is the tendency of male-dominated organizations and societies to form a hierarchy-a pecking order -and line up under someone whom they want to promote as the Alpha male.The rest derive their status from their closeness th Mr. Alpha.

Democracy requires that people think for themselves and not search for saviors or engage in hero worship which is different from respect.

The issues-especially those central to equality - seem to get lost in the hero worship.

Reformers want a kinder, gentler version of inequality-the Bernie movement is a reform movement. Reform movements are great but they have never achieved full equality for the majority, and often they lose ground-they ebb and flow-but the basic integral Inequality remains the constant.

We need a Revolution of Equality, where all women and all children, all otherized people count the same as men (and in western societies this generally means white men).

Bernie, Bernie followers, and Bernie marketers are not revolutionaries and when it comes to the fundamental issue of human rights, we need the revolution.

[guillaumeb]

147. I was a Sanders supporter.

I believe in his message of class based inequality, and what it entails. I believe that the rich need to divide the workers and in the attempt to divide, they use everything that they can. Sex, race, religion, language, ethnicity, all are used.

Unless and until we realize that we are literally all in the struggle together, we will remain divided and vulnerable to power.

[murielm99]

44. I know that is not true.

This thread proves it.

[lunamagica]

64. Oh wow, just wow

[Me.]

69. On The Planet?

Yuk, yuk, yuk

[TexasTowelie]

71. LOL!

[leftofcool]

79. Maxine does not need a "warmup" act.

And Bernie is the most beloved politician only to his supporters. The rest of us have others we like much better.

[guillaumeb]

34. Would the same comments be posted if it were another male?

Perhaps Barack Obama, a well known male person?

[pnwmom]

49. YES. No man should give the opening speech at a woman's conference.

Any more than a white person should give the opening speech at a conference for black people.

[guillaumeb]

54. The organizers of this event obviously did not agree. eom

[pnwmom]

58. Whoever made the decision must have thought it was a wise one. Many women disagree. n/t

[LanternWaste]

237. Who is obviously arguing the organizers did agree?

Who is obviously arguing the organizers did agree?

No one, it seems.

So I understand your desire to repeat that pat reponse over and over again.

[smirkymonkey]

83. Thank YOU!

Amazing how so many of these men just don't get it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

97. Oh please.

[Skittles]

22. no thanks

[SeattlePop]

24. Amazing How Unpopular Fighting For Economic Justice Is Here

Keep at it anyway Bernie.

I know you are, will be, and have always been on my side.

[Skittles]

26. let me get out my xray glasses

[guillaumeb]

36. Welcome to DU, and the discussion.

To some, the utter lack of the (D) behind Sanders' name is a real issue.

[emulatorloo]

114. You are too intelligent to pretend this dif of opinion means DU'ers are against Economic Justice

So please don't do so, even if you might think it is a "good" rhetorical tactic

[guillaumeb]

116. I did not make the charge, but the lack of the letter is a huge issue for some.

And given how progressive Sanders' positions are, he is a natural ally, and is in fact accepted as such by the Democrats in Congress.

[emulatorloo]

127. You endorsed the sentiment and rewarded it.

It is sort of a pet peeve to me. Folks disagree on something minor, then others hurl hyperbolic nonsense.

[guillaumeb]

135. My actual response was to extend a welcome, something that I received quite a bit

as a DU newcomer. And I appreciated it and I like to return the favor.

After the welcome, I said:

To some, the utter lack of the (D) behind Sanders' name is a real issue

And it is easy to see the proof of that at DU. As to the charge by the poster, I agree with you, and the charge can be easily disproven and one hopes that the new poster will realize this.

[emulatorloo]

138. Thanks for clarifying appreciate it

We may disagree about the (D) thing applies to everyone who is troubled. Some are having legit problems w the (XY) chromosome combo. I agree that having a guy open a women's conference is a little weird. And I mean ANY guy.

Take care and have a great night!

[guillaumeb]

143. And you.

[emulatorloo]

111. Every fucking DUer is for economic justice

So stop with the strawman

[JCanete]

28. I love how people here who love Maxine Waters, are refusing to attend because Sanders is speaking.

That be some crazy shit right there.

[guillaumeb]

37. All part of the reaction to another stolen election. eom

[murielm99]

38. Bernie has never stood for women's issues.

I regard him as a poor choice. I will not forget his magazine article about women and rape.

What is this? An ill-disguised attempt to get BS out front for a 2020 Presidential bid?

Bernie was divisive and remains so. All the threads here only reinforce that.

[guillaumeb]

43. Name me a politician with no detractors.

If we are insisting on the perfect, we are looking for what does not exist. The same "what about this issue" arguments were raised against Hillary Clinton as well.

[murielm99]

46. The only people demanding purity tests

are those on the far left. You see it here day after day.

I see so much crap here about Clinton, Pelosi and Feinstein that it is not funny. Notice anything about them? All women.

It is okay to promote Biden as a Presidential candidate, though, or Bernie. But not those women leaders? Too old!

[guillaumeb]

48. My statement stands unrefuted, or unanswered.

There is no perfect candidate. Except possibly for me.

[murielm99]

52. What statement?

You have made several unfounded assertions in this thread.

Are you a woman? Are you going to this conference?

[guillaumeb]

56. #43

And in response, no, and no.

[pnwmom]

53. We didn't need a politician with no detractors. We did need a WOMAN to open the WOMEN"s convention.

[stevenleser]

68. They keep steering around that point. I wonder why?

[SaschaHM]

95. We all know why.

At this point, I think that every woman that thinks that a man shouldn't be the opening speaker should attend and make their protest heard loudly during his speech.

[murielm99]

60. I answered you.

You do not read and listen.

[guillaumeb]

65. I was asking for a name.

Which you did not provide.

I do read.

[MrsCoffee]

40. "But that's not important"

Anyone pushing the notion that abortion shouldn't be a litmus test for Democrats and endorsing anti-choice candidates while thumbing their nose at progressive candidates does not need to be speaking at a conference for women's rights.

[guillaumeb]

45. If one asks 10 people, there might be 10 so-called "litmus tests"

and we might find that there is no candidate who passes all 10 tests.

If you were a W. Virginia Democrat, would you refuse to vote for Joe Manchin?

[murielm99]

47. I believe all candidates should be challenged.

I go to town halls and campaign events and ask candidates to explain their votes and positions. Yes, even Democratic candidates.

[guillaumeb]

51. As we should.

But if the choice is an anti-abortion Democrat or an anti-abortion Republican, on balance, the Democrat is the better choice.

[murielm99]

55. No Democrat should take an anti-abortion position.

If they are opposed to abortion personally, they should still be very clear that they support the law of the land.

This is a deal breaker for me. Support women's rights across the board, or go home.

[guillaumeb]

59. Google Daniel Lipinski, from the 3rd Illinois District.

An anti-abortion Democrat who voted against the ACA.

[MrsCoffee]

61. You realize you just made the case for not allowing anti-choice candidates in the party.

Why on earth should we run anti-choice candidates if they are just gonna act like Republicans?

[guillaumeb]

66. See #63

[MrsCoffee]

67. I've seen all I need to see, thanks.

[guillaumeb]

72. It might not be the explanation that you wanted, but it is political reality in the US. eom

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. Bernie passes your test then, but the Democratic Party doesn't insist that all Democrats do n/t

[MrsCoffee]

57. That wouldn't be the choice if we stuck to our party platform.

I don't see why anyone thinks we have to run an anti-abortion candidate against an anti-abortion candidate. That's just fucking losing right out of the gate.

[guillaumeb]

63. US parties are not parliamentary type parties.

In Canada, one supports every party position or one cannot run on a party slate.

That is not the situation in the US.

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. So that rules out Nancy Pelosi then

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-democratic-candidates-should-not-be-forced-to-toe-party-line-on-abortion/2017/05/02/9cbc9bc6-2f68-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html

Pelosi: Democratic candidates should not be forced to toe party line on abortion

"The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump."

“This is the Democratic Party. This is not a rubber-stamp party,” Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters.

[guillaumeb]

89. Welcome to DU, and the conversation.

I agree. Mens' voices must also be raised about these issues that affect all of us.

[Billsmile]

85. Saw Bernie Speak 3 Times

And I can attest that among the loudest audience responses were his calls for equal pay. I wouldn't remember it like this if it didn't make an impression.

[guillaumeb]

91. Agreed, an economic issue that is used to divide workers. eom

[pnwmom]

106. Women don't just need equal pay. They need to have their voices heard.

Having a man leading the conference speakers isn't helpful.

[smirkymonkey]

86. God, if there is one thing I am so sick and tired of it is men telling women how

we should feel about things. We don't give a shit about your opinions. Ours are the only ones that matter in this instance.

[guillaumeb]

92. No one is telling women how they should feel.

But many men recognize how important these issues are, and how conservatives use these human issues as wedge issues.

[emulatorloo]

125. You're telling women who think a man opening a Women's Conference is tone-deaf and a bad idea

are wrong. That's their opinion, it has a legit basis and it is valid.

At this point, I am personally interested in hearing what Bernie has to say to the convention. It is a good challenge for him to present a coherent vision of women's issues, equal rights, health and reproductive rights. He's lately been focusing on Trump voters, white working class, making odd comments about "identity politics" aka equal rights. This gives him an opportunity to clarify where he stands and a good start to be a vocal advocate for women.

[guillaumeb]

131. I make no claim of right or wrong. I do not feel that it applies.

And your last paragraph quite clearly and excellently lays out a reason to go and observe Sanders' performance.

Thank you for your insights here.

[emulatorloo]

136. Of course

I do think it was wrongheaded to have Bernie on opening night but also look forward to what he has to say. Took me a couple days to figure out what I thought.

[SixString]

90. DURec

[guillaumeb]

93. Thank you. eom

[guillaumeb]

121. Okay. Thank you for your input. eom

[H2O Man]

130. Recommended.

[guillaumeb]

137. Thank you. So far it is an excellent discussion. eom

[RandySF]

149. We could have had a woman president

Just sayin’.

[guillaumeb]

150. Absent voter suppression, and gerrymandering,

and Putin's support, and corporate media connivance,

we would have.

[PoliticAverse]

151. It seems it's gotten the Women's Conference a lot more publicity than it otherwise would have gotten

So it was a clever move on their part in that way.

[guillaumeb]

154. And probably not a bad result either.

They might receive more publicity as well.

[RandySF]

160. While this all looks fascinating, we have elections coming up in a few weeks.

Just a reminder.

[guillaumeb]

178. True. And many coming in 2018, 2019, and 2020. eom

[BainsBane]

161. How nice of you to tell me which rights I'm supposed to care about

and that I need to accept that the only rights I need are determined by a male politician who has argued that the party needs to deprioritize reproductive rights because they are too "divisive" and alienate the more important "white working class" Trump voters, whose incomes average $100k a year. Despite earning the upper 0.3% of global incomes, they are oppressed by our "identity politics" lives.

Seems to me if men like you are so excited about that conference, it should be renamed to represent its true intent. Then you all can pay the money to stage it and the organizers can return the $100k they took from women under false pretenses. Now they refuse to return that money, as con artists do.

But Bernie headlining that conference sends an important message: It is men who are fit to determine which rights women are allowed to have or even care about. It's clear you took that message to heart, since you've decided it's up to you to tell us what rights should matter to us. Women's rights are fine, as long as they benefit men and don't inconvenience them in anyway.

[guillaumeb]

180. If I in fact were telling anyone that, I would accept your comment.

But I did not, and I am not actually saying anything of the sort.

And your argument should properly be addressed to the organizers of the conference, and the schedulers of the speakers, and anyone who had a hand in this affair.

And as far as I can determine, at least according to this link, the organizers are women.

Here is the link:

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2017/08/14/womens-march-convention-coming-detroit-october/566307001/

So your arguments are with them, not me.

[BainsBane]

192. I understand they are women

and I also know they tried to use the women's march to attack Hillary and thereby justify Trump's election.

Women helped Harvey Weinstein lure his victims. Women are actively involved in making abortion illegal. I have known a significant number of women who are misogynists in my life time. The fact is some see their fortunes as tied to men, and they are perfectly happy remaining permanently subordinate and ensuring that other women do the same. Sarah Palin and Kellyanne Conway are women. I have no intention of submitting to their view of who can speak to my rights anymore than I do the organizers of that conference.

I saw the list of speakers. Clearly the point of that conference has little to do with women's rights and everything to do with providing a captive audience for their chosen presidential candidate, as if we only had to hear the same speech one more time and we would finally see the light.

And of course many women have tried speaking to the conference organizers, only to be told they won't refund the money. They got to fund their campaign rally, and that's all they care about, even if they lied to do it.

You made a point of writing this OP to tell everyone why Bernie was the perfect choice to tell women about their rights,or rather, speak to the more important male audience about which rights for women benefit them--which is really what matters. I do not accept his version of what rights I am allowed to exercise and defend, or which are just too "divisive" to be a priority. You decided it was up to you to tell women here that we are wrong to feel slighted that a woman isn't headlining that event, and that all of don't see as a champion for our rights was. That is why I said what I did. And of course it's not the first time you've done it, as evident in your previous posts on the party's deprioritizing abortion rights. You see, that is the baseline for women's rights. It keeps women from dying and they and their children from sinking into desperate poverty. The only way that can be considered a mere "cultural issue" is if the survival of women--75% of the population simply doesn't matter.

[guillaumeb]

198. First, I titled it as a great idea, not a perfect idea. An important distinction.

As to your response:

You made a point of writing this OP to tell everyone why Bernie was the perfect choice to tell women about their rights. I do not accept his version of what rights I am allowed to exercise and defend, or which are just too "divisive" to be a priority. You decided it was up to you to tell women here that we are wrong to feel slighted that a woman isn't headlining that event, and that all of don't see as a champion for our rights was. That is why I said what I did. And of course it's not the first time you've done it, as evident in your previous posts on the party's deprioritizing abortion rights. You see, that is the baseline for women's rights. It keeps women from dying and they and their children from sinking into desperate poverty. The only way that can be considered a mere "cultural issue" is if the survival of women--75% of the population simply doesn't matter.

Addressing the 3 bolded parts:

First, I did not say he was the choice, perfect or otherwise, to tell women anything about their rights. One assumes he will choose what to say.

Second, I did not tell anyone that they were wrong to feel anything, I simply noted that the choice was made by the organizers.

Third, if the Party is deprioritizing abortion rights, is it only the males who are doing this, or are there females involved also? An obvious rhetorical question because we both know the answer.

If you do not feel that Sanders should have been invited, you are not alone, but the organizers made the choice and I am explaining why I feel that it was a great choice. Not a perfect choice because there are no perfect politicians.

[BainsBane]

214. Depriortizing abortion rights

Last edited Sat Oct 14, 2017, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)

My view: Some see the election of Trump as a golden opportunity to roll back women's rights and civil rights. That some women may be involved in this effort to further subordinate women does not excuse it. It is bigotry, pure and simple, an effort to clear women from public life so that men don't have to compete based on merit.

Third point. It's not up to you to decide who is a great choice to speak to women. Naturally someone who is comfortable talking about stripping over half the population of basic rights and reducing 75% to poverty as a result thinks a great choice is a man, one who has never prioritized women or their rights.

Obviously many women don't feel he should have been invited, which is precisely why you wrote this OP.

Your continued canard of claiming some injustice is okay if you can find some women that support it is the typical justification for oppression. It's weak and transparent. There are always people who cooperate with their own subjugation. Hierarchy and power depend on it. It's as though the existence of Clarence Thomas obviates the need for Civil Rights. And really, I don't care to hear your arguments on that one. I will simply point out that I see through it.

[guillaumeb]

216. My post made it clear that I was expressing my personal opinion.

And I started my comments as follows:

Sanders is one of many invited speakers. I believe that the organizers were attempting to demonstrate how women's issues are issues for all of us.

Access to health care, the ability to make health care decisions, the freedom to make these decisions, the freedom to choose abortion specifically, are all issues that impact women directly and men indirectly.

As to how some see the election of Trump, I agree with you. But, as my citation shows, I do not agree with your part titled "third point". My citation from my opinion piece refutes your point.

Your final point one assumes is your opinion of the organizers. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is obviously not a unanimous one.

[JI7]

224. "the $100k they took from women under false pretenses."

i think people should always be suspect when these certain names pop up.

it says a lot they waited until after the no return date to announce Sanders. and if he is so popular as people claim they would have announced it as the start since based on what htey say it would help to get more people to buy tickets for it.

i can actually kind of understand Hillary Clinton not be there since she is no longer in elected office. but none of the currently serving women senators are going to be there. and it's still a question about whether they were even asked.

and then there is the issue of how fucking expensive it is to attend and that's without taking into account the cost of getting and staying there.

and linda sarsour has a questionable history when it comes to raising funds.

[samnsara]

185. it was totally inappropriate...women cant have anything...

...without the daddy figure?...without the 'Father Knows Best" message? Would a woman have been invited to speak at the Million Man march?

BS speaking at that gathering was the biggest insult ever. No No No...he should not have been invited to give the opening speech....nope.

[Arazi]

188. There were several women speakers at the Million Man march

May want to delete that

[BainsBane]

193. Was the keynote speaker a woman?

[USALiberal]

196. No, but Rosa Parks was. Is that OK with you? nt

[BainsBane]

204. She was the headline speaker at the Million Man March?

I don't feel it's for me to proclaim which speaker should headline a man's march. I'm not a man. Yet somehow men feel perfectly comfortable telling women who should represent their rights and which rights they are allowed to have.

Parks was part of a session entitled "mothers of the struggle." She did not headline and was not the keynote.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Man_March

[USALiberal]

220. OK, so she doesn't count as a women. I get it. Maya Angelou was there too. Not a woman? nt

[Arazi]

197. The keynote speaker at this conference is Maxine Waters

Louis Farrakhan was the keynote speaker for the Million Man march iirc

Edited to add link, and yes Farrakhan was the keynote speaker.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Man_March

[BainsBane]

202. False

Farrakan is not a woman.
And Maxine waters is not the headline speaker.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=461623

[Arazi]

206. Maxine Waters is the keynote speaker

Even your link shows that. It's appropriate a female is keynote here just as it was appropriate for a male to keynote the Million Man march.

The Million Man march had several female speakers, just as this event has some male speakers. Nobody lost their shit about this for the MMM.

This is just more divisive shit. 2018 is upon us. We desperately need to unite

[guillaumeb]

209. We all have different needs.

Excellent replies, by the way.

[Arazi]

213. Thanks. This everlasting grudge v Bernie is probs my last hurrah here

I'm so over the posters perpetuating this divide

People need to get the fuck off their comfy chairs and get cracking on 2018. We need these Sanders supporters. The organizers were right to include him - the clock is ticking HARD, right now and we need his people

[guillaumeb]

215. Unity is far more important than endless argument over what makes an authentic Democrat.

And which positions are the true positions that cannot be debated.

With each segment of the Party determined that their issue is the most important.

Agreed. And I feel much of it is amplified by the recent stolen election. While the GOP also has division, they are focused on retaining power.

[bettyellen]

227. Unity would consist of men whom heartedly prioritizing a woman's right to autonomy

when it comes to her body. There's no possiblilty of unity with the majority if the Dem base without that. There's no possibility of it being "set aside" or "deprioritized". So if you want unity, get on it.

[guillaumeb]

230. And as I began, in the body of the post:

Sanders is one of many invited speakers. I believe that the organizers were attempting to demonstrate how women's issues are issues for all of us.

Access to health care, the ability to make health care decisions, the freedom to make these decisions, the freedom to choose abortion specifically, are all issues that impact women directly and men indirectly.

We agree, and I believe that Sanders also agrees.

[bettyellen]

234. Sanders has been problematic in his willingness to deprioritize and dismiss women's health concerns.

That's been the subject of dozens of articles in reputable new sources , not just a few "opinion" pieces as you have claimed. Those who follow the issue and care know that. And that's all we're saying, not the best choice when choice is on the table.

[guillaumeb]

189. Perhaps you should address this complaint to the conference organizers.

The women who organized, and scheduled, and invited the speakers. Those organizers.

[BainsBane]

194. You are arguing on their behalf

and now insist you should face no criticism, after telling everyone why a man is the perfect speaker. It doesn't work that way. If you didn't want to face criticism, you shouldn't have posted the thread.

[guillaumeb]

201. The word perfect is a misreading of the title of the post.

And I am not unfamiliar with criticism, but once again, I did not use the word perfect. If you wish to criticize the choices, or the post, or both, it would be nice if you actually criticized what I actually said.

[USALiberal]

195. Wow, many women spoke at the million man march. Do some research before posting. nt

[Donkees]

221. Montpelier #WomensMarch - Bernie Sanders' Speech (Complete)

Published on Jan 21, 2017
Bernie Sanders spoke today at the Women's March in Montpelier, Vermont. What an amazing day!! So full of love and hope.

[guillaumeb]

228. Thank you.

I never said that Sanders is the perfect choice, but he is a great choice. My actual words.

He has been accused by some few here of suggesting that women's rights are less important, but the "evidence" for that is confined to an opinion piece by a political opponent. An opinion piece wherein the opponent claims some insight into what Sanders thinks while offering no evidence that what was said is anything other than an opinion by another.

Some here impute motivation and other things to the organizers.

[Donkees]

231. This episode is not unlike the previous episode of Sen. Sanders agreeing to debate Graham, Cassidy

on CNN and being accused of grandstanding, poor judgment, planning to deliberately sink the ACA to push his own egotistical agenda, etc.