Tuesday, March 22, 2016

MSNBC's Joan Walsh has a "White Problem"

Joan Walsh

This morning, after reading an article at The Nation (What's wrong with Bernie Sanders's strategy) I got really pissed. It was written by Joan Walsh (pictured above), who not only has a "man problem", but evidently (as a White woman?) also has a "White problem" as well. (I've heard of reverse discrimination, but what is reverse racism called? She's even written a book: "What's the matter with White People")

In her recent article she noted that in 2016 there’s been a Black candidate and a White candidate — when it comes to their supporters. It’s Hillary Clinton who’s racking up the black vote and Bernie Sanders who has been leading among whites — especially the white working-class — while losing roughly 4–1 among the African-American voters (who are the bedrock of the Democratic Party.)

Her article claims that it’s Sanders who is making the political case for the importance of winning back White voters, particularly working-class Whites, to the Democratic Party — just as Clinton did eight years ago, to win back so-called Reagan Democrats to the party of FDR. The article goes on to criticize Bernie's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, saying he insulted Black voters by dismissing Clinton as a “regional” candidate who is only popular in the South (even though, so far, the actual votes shows this to be true).

First, it should be noted that, Joan Walsh is also a pundit on MSNBC, which is owned by Comcast and who supports Hillary Clinton. So anything she writes on this subject will always drool over Hillary, just like her fellow co-worker Chris Matthews does, while also trashing Bernie Sanders. Ed Schultz was fired from MSNBC the day after he criticized Hillary Clinton for her support of the TPP trade deal, a deal that the corporate media wants, but rarely reports on.

After reading her article, it has only reinforced my opinion that the Democratic Party has become the party of African-Americans who vote against their own best interests — and the Republican Party is the party of big corporations and rich people — and for the white working-class to have a political party that truly represents them, they would need a third party; because even though they have tried to be inclusive and diverse, the Black voters have been constantly working against their own best interests. Obama won with White voters in 2008 and 2012, and they were paid back with the Southern Black vote in 2016. This is not a racist "White Power" opinion, but only an observation of how the demographics have voted so far pertaining to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

The article says: "I understood that the Democratic Party owes its occupancy of the White House to the Obama coalition: African Americans, Latinos, Asians, LGBT folks, and single women [not mentioning White voters too]. Unfortunately, chasing white, working-class voters too often involves appeals that either passively neglect that coalition, or actively drive much of it away. Somehow Sanders doesn’t seem to see that. But that may well be because he is not, at heart, a Democrat."

But so frigging what if Bernie isn't a damn Democrat? That party is just as corrupt and out of touch with the White working-class as the Republicans! This is the divide: racial politics. The Democrats are more lax with immigration than the GOP, not because it's necessarily more humane, but because it is "votes" for their candidates. As George Carlin said, the polititicans don't give a damn about you. It's all about keeping themselves in power. It was a Republican who freed the slaves, but it was a Democrat who signed the Civil Rights Act. It was in between, during the 1940s, when Democrats in the South (Dixecrats) morphed into the racist Republicans they are today.

No racial group of people should have to rely on a slimy politician to pander to them and make false promises to them to get their vote based on a specific raced-based or targeted program. That just further divides and alienates, and further perpetuates the perception that the party is more beholden to one group of people over another (such as the Democrats with the Black vote verses the White working-class vote). This has helped drive White Democrats to the Republican Party (most recently, to Donald Trump).

The White working-class (still a majority in this country) is divided between to two White presidential candidates who don't get that many Black votes. If White working-class voters voted together, they would overwhelmingly win ANY election. When Obama ran, most Black voters voted for Obama JUST BECAUSE he was Black, because they voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton in 2008. But in 2016, Blacks are voting FOR Hillary Clinton JUST BECAUSE she is an extension of Obama — who says she'll continue Obama's policies and constantly praises him.

And when Bernie Sanders' male supporters criticize Hillary Clinton, they are accused of misogyny and sexism (when her husband is more guilty of this than anyone), even when these same Bernie supporters would have also voted for Elizabeth Warren. Yet many of Hillary's supporters (usually older women) are voting for Hillary Clinton JUST BECAUSE she is a woman. So who is really "sexist"?

And so, where does this leave White working-class voters? Another choice of choosing between the "better of two evils" again if the Democratic Party (which relies so much on the Black vote) nominates Clinton. Clinton or Trump? No. Bernie or Bust. Millions of Bernie's White working-class supporters (including women) and the most informed Blacks will vote for him, not JUST BECAUSE he is a man, or JUST BECAUSE he is Jewish, or JUST BECAUSE he is White, or JUST BECAUSE he is an Independent from Vermont who calls himself a "democratic socialist". It's because they will vote in their own best interests, and not vote for someone who only thinks they are "entitled" to be our next president.

Joan Walsh writes: "If the Sanders movement is going to grow, it will only grow because more of his supporters begin to recognize their racial blind spots. I continue to hope that the populist policies championed by Sanders—on trade, on union rights, on Wall Street—will win white working-class voters back from the GOP. I hope that if, as seems almost certain, Clinton is the nominee, she will continue her leftward shift that we’ve seen during the primaries, and learn from the success of Sanders’s bold message with this group."

That last statement is so patronizing and condescending (trying to win over Bernie supporters with that rubbish?) that I'd like to barf on her face. Why would I vote for someone (Hillary Clinton) who co-opted a message from someone else (Bernie Sanders, who has rung this bell their entire life), just to vote for a well-known pathological liar?

Joan Walsh concludes: "Winning more working-class whites would make Clinton’s job easier in November—and might help Democrats reverse their terrible midterm election declines. But Clinton should also learn from Sanders’s experience with black voters, and from her own in 2008. A multiracial coalition that relies on either dog whistles or kettledrums to win white voters isn’t worth building, and can never succeed."

Hey Joan, go F yourself. Bernie Sanders and his supporters aren't making the dog whistles. You're the one who is ringing the racist bell; and in doing so, giving more people another reason not to vote for Hillary if she becomes the anointed Democratic nominee.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I supported Obama in 2008 against Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary (so as a White person, I'm not a racist). I supported Obama in 2012 against Mitt Romney (because as a progressive, I hate Republicans). I supported Elizabeth Warren running in 2015 (so as a man, I'm not a misogynist). I support Bernie Sanders now (so as a Catholic, I'm not anti-Semite). I vote according to the issues, what a candidate stands for, and judge them by their integrity, honesty and character. PERIOD. So if I despise Hillary Clinton, it has nothing at all to do with her being a woman. It's everything else about her (and her husband) that I can't stand.


  1. Compared to frontrunners in previous presidential primary races, Trump and Clinton's unfavorable ratings (57 percent and 52 percent respectively) are the highest in CBS News/New York Times Polls going back to 1984, when CBS began asking this question.

    Most Democrats have negative views of Trump and a majority of Republicans view Clinton unfavorably. But more than half of independents have unfavorable views of both candidates.

    Forty-six percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, compared to just 28 percent who view the Republican Party that way -- matching the lowest rating ever in CBS News/New York Times Polls. Sixty-six percent of Americans view the Republican party unfavorably, a record high in CBS News polling.

    At 15 points, Bernie Sanders' lead over Donald Trump is larger than Hillary Clinton's, partly due to his stronger support among independents. (Clinton has a 10-point lead over Trump among registered voters, but her lead narrows to just three points against Ted Cruz.

    61 percent of younger voters [who want a future to beleieve in] under age 45 say they would back Sanders over Trump.

    Older voters back the Republican candidates in head to heads against Clinton, but it's a closer race among this group between Sanders and Trump.

    Republicans most fear a Clinton presidency (68 percent) than a Sanders presidency (56 percent).

    White voters back a Republican candidate in hypothetical match-ups, while African Americans support the Democrats.


  2. PER THE L.A. TIMES: George Clooney [net worth $180 million] will host a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. The April 16 event — hosted at the actor's Los Angeles home with director Steven Spielberg [net worth $3 billion] and Kate Capshaw [net worth $20 million], studio exec Jeffrey Katzenberg [net worth $957 million], Haim and Cheryl Saban [net worth $3.6 billion]— is expected to be a major moneymaker for Clinton, with tickets going for $33,400 a a pop. Clooney and the Clinton campaign are also holding a contest for supporters to meet the actor, his wife and the former First Lady during the event.


    [Golly gee! If I were super rich, I could meet a real-life Hollywood celebrity and the former First Lady! I could probably meet Bernie Sanders at a Walmart.]

  3. A MUST READ article for Bernie Sanders his supporters explaining how voting laws and the media is influencing the election.


  4. The Guardian -- Mocked and forgotten: who will speak for the American white working class?


    My comment at The Guardian and Tweet


  5. #KatrinavandenHeuvel at #TheNation likes #JoanWalsh's anti-man & anti-White posts, because I keep getting the same ones in their newsletter.


  6. A very touching campaign ad by Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii for Bernie Sanders, who discusses the true cost of war. Gabbard is a 2 tour Veteran of the Iraq War. She resigned as vice-chair of the DNC so that she could endorse Bernie and campaign for him.


  7. Hillary Clintons' new campaign strategy against Bernie Sanders is: "Disqualify him, defeat him, and unify the party later." When Bernie Sanders's campaign manager Jeff Weaver was asked about this, he told CNN’s Jake Tapper, "This is what I would say to Clinton’s campaign: Don’t destroy the Democratic Party to satisfy the secretary’s ambitions to become president of the United States [if] you want to have a party at the end of this we can unify.” MSNBC pundit Joan Walsh (who hates White working-class men) said Weaver's remark "was arrogant, condescending, and, yes, sexist." In an article at The Nation she notes all the votes and delegates Clinton currently has, and writes: "How did her ambition come to be the one that’s called destructive"? I'll tell her how: By using dirty campaign tactics to "disqualify and defeat him", Clinton is alienating millions of Independent voters and other Bernie supporters that Clinton would need if she wins the Democratic nomination to defeat a Republican. That's not being "sexist", that's just a fact. It's Joan Walsh who is being a sexist ass.