Sander's problem with PP is understandable that they are seen as the only player in town and maybe we need more people/organizations looking after all sorts of reproductive health rather than just relying on PP guiding all our public discourse and dollars. Bernie was also for less restriction on abortion than Hillary Clinton was in his 2016 campaign and oh yeah, Nancy Pelosi just said you can be pro-life and a dem but please continue to hop up and down on this fake shit that Bernie is somehow behind the times white dude anti-abortion and anti-woman.…
"Ahead of an event on Thursday where Bernie Sanders, the independent Vermont senator who remains the left’s most popular figure, was slated to appear with Representative Keith Ellison, the Democratic National Committee’s deputy chair, and Heath Mello, an Omaha, Nebraska Democratic mayoral candidate, NARAL Pro-Choice America, an organization that endorsed Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary, harshly criticized the DNC for what it called the party’s “embrace” of “an anti-choice candidate.”"

On Thursday, Mello told The Huffington Post, however, that he “would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care,” if elected. Jane Kleeb, the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party and board member of Our Revolution, a group that emerged out of the embers of the Sanders campaign, said in an interview that The Wall Street Journal and NARAL had “mischaracterized” Mello’s legislative record.

“Heath is a strong progressive Democrat, and he is pro-life, and you can be both things,” Kleeb said, adding: “What Heath did actually was stop a bill to make ultrasounds mandatory by getting Republicans in our legislature to agree to make them voluntary.”…

And Planned Parenthood IS part of the Democratic Party establishment.

Will someone remind The Stranger that misrepresenting Bernie Sanders isn't helping anyone, anywhere?

I'm looking forward to Catelina complaining about "purity tests" being applied here.
Remember when the same people outraged by Sanders campaigning for an anti-choice mayoral candidate were outraged when Hillary Clinton picked anti-choice, Tim Kaine as her running mate? (Me neither)
Sanders isn't even a Democrat. Why are people treating him like he's relevant? He lost in the primary. He is an ex-relevance.
I am a passionate supporter of a woman's right to choose, and Heath Mello is wrong on this issue. However, I think the left shoots itself in the foot by having litmus tests. If a candidate is, on the whole, supportive of a progressive/lefty agenda, they should be welcome in the democratic party, and should have our support. If we had a congress full of lawmakers that were right on almost all the issues, but some wrong-headed positions were scattered amongst them, we'd be in a lot better shape than we currently are.

Too often progressives demand perfect compliance with the lefty agenda. When we attack those imperfect politicians, we do ourselves a disservice, depriving ourselves of potentially strong candidates, and causing others to operate in a defensive crouch at all times. It hurts our broader political prospects.
@4 he's one of the most popular and trusted politicians in America right now. Maybe you should stop playing like your party affiliation is the only reason people should listen to you. Or, just keep losing on every measurable metric from state and federal levels. Your choice.
Bernie is unqualified buffoon.
Remind Nancy Pelosi too:…

Sick of everyone thinking it's just Bernie's issue.
Bernie is just following the adage 'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'.
That's not how things work around here.

If a politician doesn't support 100% of your issues perfectly and forever, then you have to vote for the most OPPOSITE person just to show them how mad you are. That'll show em.

Democrats are the only ones who routinely piss in their panties when they don't get everything their way.
Let's remind Clinton while we're at it:…

Y'all are a sad ass leftist rag.
The reaction to Bernie on places like twitter is weird; why is it suddenly hugely important to call Bernie out? If I didn't know better, I'd suspect someone of using social media to foment artificial rage about a minor issue to divide and distract the left from something much more important, but I can't imagine that ever happening.
If bernie were to run again in 2020, I wouldn’t even consider voting for him.
@1 - The reason that Planned Parenthood is effectively the "only player in town", is because the Government thwarts alternatives.
A provision in the Republican health care bill would bar Medicaid patients from choosing Planned Parenthood clinics for covered care.

Planned Parenthood’s U.S. health centers serve more than 2.8 million patients annually, 79% of whom have incomes below 150% of the poverty line. And more than half of patients pay for their visits via Medicaid.

At least half of its 600-plus health centers operate in areas with a shortage of medical facilities, and many are in areas officially designated as medically underserved.

Right. Because everyone clearly remembers how, during the last six years of the Obama Administration the GOP entered into an unprecedented era of bipartisanship; how the House and Senate majority leaders set aside their political differences with the President and refused to block, slow down or outright kill almost the entirety of his agenda; how, acceding to the demands of the electorate for affordable health care they readily accepted the enactment of the ACA and refused to shut down the government when it wasn't overturned; how they so quickly approved Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court, even though the President's term of office was set to expire some ten full months later, etc., etc.

Those are just a few examples of how the Republicans have stepped up and placed the interests of the nation ahead of petty political ideology, even when they didn't get everything their way. Yep, definitely no panties-pissing (such an un-misogynistic turn-of-phrase, that!) routinely occurring on THEIR side of the aisle, yah-sure-you-betcha...
Ladies and Gentlemen and nowadays more than ever, everything in between I give you Click Bait!
You just proved my point.

Democrats refuse to work together to defeat the republicans unless they get everything their way.

Republicans, on the other hand, frequently work together to thwart democrats, even in the face of disagreements in their own party.

Democrat voters will pout and stay home if the democrat candidate doesn't perfectly match their ideal.

Republican voters will reliably come out and vote for the republican, even if they hate him.
Hi, hello, vagina haver here. Thought I might add a bit of pertinent input to what appears to be a sausage fest?
My civil rights and physical autonomy are not up for negotiation.
You either believe women are people or you do not.
This is not the perfect being the enemy of the good, this is saying my civil rights can be used as a bargaining chip and that is not a road you can go down and call yourself a progressive.
@19: Okay, then what do you propose on how to end these stalemates and help move legislation that benefits everyone forward?

Hardcrore Bernie supporter and noted possessor of cock and balls.

I disagree with Senator Sanders on this issue. A woman's reproductive rights are and have to remain a cornerstone of any socialist program.

Let me repeat: I am absolutely in the tank all the way for Bernie Sanders. I eat, shit and breathe his speeches and even listen to that godawful album he made back in the 1980's- and I like it. And I unequivocably, absolutely, without any doubt in any part of my XY chromosome having male self support women's rights without any reservations or qualifications. I am a socialist because socialism is the only political philosophy that has since its very inception supported full equality for all genders and sexes in every sphere of life.

And I STILL want that man as President, even though I disagree with him on abortion.
@14: I'd be surprised if he's even alive in 2020. he's really old - he'd be 79 on election day 2020. he knows that's too old.

@20: elect Democratic majorities.
Bitching about Sanders at this point is like bitching about politics in popular culture. It's a way of feeling like you have power and agency in a time when we're outgunned and basically powerless to stop most of the Trump/GOP agenda. Democrats are still score settling because it's something they think they can have an impact on, while the Republicans happily dismantle the country. It certainly beats getting hit by a police baton, tear gassed or doing the hard electoral math.
Call Jane.
It would be interesting journalism to dig into who's promoting this story.
I can imagine voting for an anti-choice Democrat in an election where the opponent was an anti-choice Republican. Painful, but okay.

I cannot imagine endorsing or stumping for that candidate though.
Bernie Sanders has embraced his own press and has come to believe that he must be the next Democratic messiah. He believes he has special insight that I guess can only come from not participating in the Democratic party. But he is not a subtle guy. He is neither a subtle speaker nor was he able to recognize the chauvinistic dog whistle of his own "Bernie Bros" - not that he cared. Young people are attracted to his simpatico elderly, white man persona who recognizes and rejects the culture's economic and cultural contradictions. Ultimately Bernie has nothing to offer the Democrats because deep down in his little heart-of-hearts he believes one day we will all join the Socialists. He will never be a Democrat and I know this because he still makes reference to the "Democrat" party, which was a needle cooked up by the Republicans. Just too subtle for him I guess.

Sure, older white woman who wouldn't have supported Hillary so ardently had she been brown. For sure.
@19 Even Hillary disagrees with you. Your rights are negotiable.

Re: a constitutional amendment banning late term abortions: "I could compromise on abortion if it in…
#27: Yeah, I'm sure he think he's the next messiah. Give the drama a rest. Clinton ran a shit campaign and now we're stuck with the worst president in the history of the nation.
@19 Omaha has a primary system where the top two candidates survive to the general (similar to what we have here in WA, if I understand correctly). It sounds like you would not vote for Stothert (assuming she toes the Republican line on abortion) and you would not vote for Mello. Not that it matters except for the sake of discussion, but I'm curious what you would do. Would you write in a name? Abstain in protest? Considering how important you say the issue is to you, would you have volunteered for the other Democrat or independent in the primary (I don't have their positions on abortion handy)? Would you have run yourself?

I admit I don't know what I would do. Organizations like NARAL can afford to dramatically weigh one single issue above others when making endorsements but we voters often have to make the best of the limited options we have. Your post is half complete: you've outlined the problem, but what do you propose the solution in this case should be?
#5 If a candidate expressly supported paying white men less than everyone else simply because they were white males but was progressive on all other issues would that be acceptable? Basic rights are deal breakers. You can't call yourself a progressive if you are willing to compromise women's basic rights. And so what if you are "pro-choice". Would you like a medal? Big deal. That "progressives" can't come up with candidates that won't compromise other women's rights is pathetic. If society cannot manage to grant women full rights then society does not deserve to survive.

Yeah, their spectacular repeal of the ACA being the perfect example of how well Republicans can "work together"...
@19- I thought you voted for Hillary "prochoice with common sense restrictions" Clinton? If being un-abatedly pro-choice was your criteria the Bernie's record in votes, campaign platforms, and public statements is much stronger than Hillary's.

@21- Bernie didn't say he was pro-life. What are you talking about?
@32- ". If society cannot manage to grant women full rights then society does not deserve to survive."

So basically genocide for everyone but Iceland? Get a fucking grip. Abortion rights were won and expanded with prolife democrats at every level of the party. The VP candidate last cycle (it seems so long ago) was "personally pro-life". A local mayor candidate with the same views does`t merit damning our whole civilization.
since we're still attacking candidates who lost the election, can we remind Hillary Clinton while we're at it? she's pulled the same shit.

or are all the bloggers at The Stranger still holding onto their "H" schwag for 2020?
You used 'belied' wrong

He has not. However, his endorsee has.

Bernie has been alienated by the Establishment Democrats ever since his campaign began last year. The DNC rigged the election against him, as we saw from the Podesta emails. Donna Brazille flatly admitted to feeding questions in advance of the debate to Clinton, and stated that she did so to offer her an unfair advantage over Sanders. She then herself became interim DNC chair, a further sub and a display of total insensitivity to Sanders' supporters.

Since the election, their focus has not been on self-reflection or any attempt to discover what went wrong so they can do better next time. Rather than talk about where they-and Clinton specifically- could have done better to win voter confidence, they're attacking the voters themselves for hurting Clinton's feelings. Almost every article I see in the Atlantic these days is along the lines of "Is Hillary okay?" and "The Voters really let Clinton down".


Since when is it the voter's duty to look after the well-being of any political candidate? No, its the candidates' jobs to look after the voters, not the other way around. This country doesn't exist to serve Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton ought to exist to serve this country. And if she did, maybe she would be POTUS right now.

With Dan Savage already oooing and ahhing over her leather outfit, completely avoiding any serious discussion of what she actually said, it seems clear the House of Clinton isn't going away the way most failed candidates do. John Kerry and Al Gore moved on after their losses, and re-emerged in vibrant roles as Secretary of State and the Face of Environmentalism. Clinton's already campaigning for 2020. If she wins the nomination again, we will have the second term of Donald Trump. Her ego is possibly the single largest object in the universe, whose gravitational pull has captured the media even if the voters themselves have rejected her.

Bernie could win in 2020. He would need a younger VP to do it, preferably a woman and a progressive, since he's really really old and anyone in the VP slot needs to be acceptable to voters as POTUS material. However, he also has to stay relevant. That's not easy, given the way Tom Price backs away from him whenever the two appear on camera together. I can already see the DNC screwing him again in the primaries of 2020. So, he's reaching outside the mainstream DNC for people who could support him in turn in 2020. That's who this guy is. Unfortunately, to get this guy under his wing, he's had to endorse someone who's political position on abortion is disgusting and wrong. I don't think Bernie would have done this if the DNC weren't forcing him into this position, but it's still bad.

Also, keep in mind that the thing that separates us from the Clinton Robots is that we are free to disagree with each other as well as the leadership (including Bernie). I can and will think for myself, and while I agree with most of what Bernie says, I deeply disagree with this person he has endorsed. I feel that women's equality is absolutely central to socialism. It has been since the beginning. Marx was an early endorser of women's equality, so was Robert Owen. The most influential socialists of the early 20th century were women- Margaret Sanger, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Mother Jones, to name a few. Women's equality is non-negotiable to any real socialist platform. And I would never endorse anyone that felt otherwise. Bernie has, and I disagree with his decision.
I guess Bernie has never been to a "Slut Walk"!
Dudes, dudes, and still more dudes.....
@40 - Genderless facts, Genderless facts, and more Genderless facts:…

Bernie Sanders is a more ardent feminist than Hillary Clinton, this "story" is an attempt to assassinate his character by the people who lost the election to Donald Trump.
@41 Agreed. The people who failed us in 2016 don't want to loose their paychecks and influence. Thus, they trash real progressives. Meanwhile, the Democratic party continues to loose numbers - both elected officials and voters.
#40: Is that really an argument? Because it really doesn't look like one.

Argument: "Sanders hates women because he endorsed an anti-abortion Dem and doesn't offer unqualified support for abortion"

Counter-argument: "The Sanders description also describes Clinton to a tee"

Counter-counter-argument: "Beep Boop. You all have penises. Ergo, facts are irrelevant."
Can't wait to see 'Big Tent' voices who support 'pragmatic party diversity' when Bernie campaigns for a candidate who is anti-LGBTQ rights ... or anti-Black Lives Matter ... or anti-immigrant rights ... or ...

"just one issue! What's your problem?"

Yes, the GOP are solidly unified on one thing - destroy women's right to make decisions about their own bodies.
That's #Unity.…
@41: Uh huh. Is this thread made up almost entirely of dudes or is it not?
Are there any other women in this thread besides me?
My observation is sound.
I voted for Sanders in my state primary FYI, and I am allowed to be disappointed in his casual disregard of my human rights. My bodily autonomy is an issue he feels comfortable compromising on, compared to other issues upon which he has campaigned.
If he doesn't want his character impugned then he should show more of it.
@43: You are correct. My comment was not an argument. It was an observation of the makeup of this thread and an expression of exhaustion.

Let's reframe your comment shall we, and perhaps put it in perspective for you.

Argument: "Clinton is anti choice because she chose a Catholic running mate whose past history includes legislation restricting abortion."

Counter-argument: "Sanders, in the name of political expediency, is supporting a candidate with a similar legislative history, which is indicative of what he values, and what he values less."

Counter-counter-argument: Beep Boop When Sanders compromises his values it's ok because we're trying to build a better world, ergo your human rights will have to be less of a priority.

You want to call yourself a progressive, then be one, and stop excusing this sort of behavior because Clinton did it toooooo.

@44: Thank you for the link. @43: I invite to click on it for a fuller explanation.
@45- I didn't question your assessment of the genders of people in this thread. I have no idea.

It just doesn't matter.

Bernie did not, as slandered, endorse an anti-choice candidate. That's the fact, an event that has no gender of it's own. The Stranger ought to retract this story, but they won't because The Stranger's leadership is anti-Sanders for reasons beyond rational comprehension.

Clinton didn't do it too. Clinton did it. Sanders didn't.
@45- And I apologize for thinking you voted for Clinton in the primary.
@48: Thanks :)

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.