Amber A’Lee Frost (boldface mine):
And isn’t that the simpler explanation of left dissent from Team Clinton? It’s not that critics of Hillary are largely misogynist or even that they’re obsessed with political purity. It’s that she’s a proven neoliberal warhawk, a Wall Street sycophant, and a consistent enemy of the poor.
It’s a strange sort of “misogynist” who condemns Clinton for her endorsement of “welfare reform,” which eviscerated a social safety net that primarily benefited women and children. And who are these misogynists who question Clinton’s time on the board of Walmart, a company known for its mass exploitation, particularly of women? What a misogyny that decrees the women of Iraq deserve lives free of American war! There’s a misogyny that advocates for childcare, healthcare, free university parental leave? O brave new world, that has such misogynists in it!
I’ve made this point before, but Clinton partisans have made a really big mistake in two ways. First, they act as if opposition to Clinton is largely ‘BernieBro driven’, as opposed to based on serious criticism. Second, the condescending hectoring about electability (more about that in a future post) does nothing to address legitimate concerns about her history, including her full-bore advocacy for welfare reform. Which is to say, deadbeats. Who, if the unofficial house organ of the Clinton administration, The New Republic, was to be believed, looked like this:
Not very intersectional.
Bill Scher is right: there are serious ideological divides in the Democratic Party, and it’s not clear that the much of the party won’t be suckered again by the Northern Strategy.