MSNBC's Joan Walsh has a "White Problem"

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.