"She didn’t treat me like a nuisance like the Bernie campaign did but rather an asset."

[Content Note: Disablism.]

This is an extraordinary piece by a former fervent Bernie Sanders supporter, whose attempts to reach out to his campaign on disability rights and policy were met with indifference and condescension, and whose experience with the Team Hillary were very different.

The feeling of devastating disappointment and betrayal sank in. The thought of considering Clinton felt hypocritical of me. I told myself, "How can I support someone who probably cares more about Wall Street than me?" But I certainly couldn't consider Donald Trump, who mocks disabled people and assumes we're stupid enough to think that's not what he was doing. So, begrudgingly, I told a Hillary supporter with a disability that I was now considering supporting Hillary. He immediately introduced me via email to a blind Clinton staffer. Within literally minutes, she emailed me at 9 p.m. saying she would like to speak to me about the campaign. I was so encouraged by how quickly they responded, after the months I was ignored by Bernie.

She didn't treat me like a nuisance like the Bernie campaign did but rather an asset. She wanted to know my legal and advocacy opinion on disability policy. She explained in detail how Hillary planned to initiate change for us with sophisticated, legal political strategy. And, then she asked me to come on board and help the campaign best meet the needs of the disability community through, inter alia, writing for the campaign after they were able to officially vet my credentials. I soon realized that the Clinton campaign didn't just care about the disability community; they hired us and treated us like the intelligent people we are.

My conversation with the Clinton campaign regained my hopefulness but also made me incensed that Bernie is maliciously lying to democrats about Clinton's uncaring regard for the 99%, while destroying the party from within. Bernie is adamant that Hillary only cares about corporate interests and not the typical marginalized American. But, in fact, the opposite is true.

...Coming to terms with these realizations was very difficult for me. I literally grieved and cried when I discovered that I had been so maliciously misled by someone I believed to possess such a high moral compass.

I feel so badly, and such great sympathy, that she was so terribly disillusioned by a candidate in whom she believed, and also I'm really glad, for her and for us all, that Hillary Clinton's team was so responsive, took her concerns seriously, and recognized she had something important to contribute.

Over the past few days, I've read a number of pieces written by people who were once enthusiastic Sanders supporters, and who are now expressing disappointment with him, for various reasons. Many of these people feel betrayed.

It quite genuinely makes me sad. And very angry at Sanders.

I hope many of them will share the experience of the author of this piece, and discover that Clinton is not the monster they were led to believe, but is a candidate about whom they can be excited, once they get to know more about her.

[H/T to Aphra_Behn.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

You Can't Believe It? I Can.

[Content Note: Misogyny; harassment.]

Bernie Sanders has been making the rounds with Democratic Senators, many of whom are "are privately seething over Sanders continuing to paint Clinton as the candidate of Wall Street and business and the party as corrupt." Gee, I can't imagine why.

Sanders has reached out to multiple Senate colleagues in an attempt to assuage them. Among them is Senator Barbara Boxer of California, whose keynote speech at the Nevada state Democratic convention last weekend was disrupted by rowdy Sanders supporters in a situation she described as frightening and out of control.

Boxer said she conveyed her concerns to Sanders in "a really nice talk" with him Tuesday. "I told him how bad it was in Nevada. He said he was distressed about it, and he expressed chagrin about it. I told him 'Bernie, you need to get a hold of it,' and he said he would."

"He said, 'I can't believe my people would do this,'" said Boxer, who is stepping down from the Senate in January. "He got the point."

Did he, though? Because I still haven't heard him say anything meaningful publicly. Which is what needs to happen.

And, frankly, if he "can't believe" that some of his supporters would do something like scream down Boxer using misogynist slurs, then he is profoundly out of touch with a large part of his base. And hasn't been listening. At all. Because women and our allies have been been raising red flags about this shit for almost a year.

When I wrote this piece in January about the noxious behavior of a number of his supporters, it had already been going on for months.

And the reality is, this has always been a top-down strategy. For him to pretend otherwise is just a deflection of accountability.

He's the leader of this movement. He wants all of the power and all of the accolades, but none of the responsibility.

[H/T to Peter Daou.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Hey, Hillary, What Are You Even Doing? Oh Right! Trying to Build a Democratic Senate Majority!

This is what building a progressive movement looks like:

Hillary Clinton, seeking a governing coalition if she wins the White House, is pumping millions of dollars into key battleground states at the heart of her presidential map and Democrats' quest to regain control of the Senate.

The Democratic National Committee and state parties are spending about $2 million initially to build coordinated campaigns in eight battleground states with competitive Senate races. The money is being raised by Clinton's campaign through her Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that allows Clinton to raise large checks of more than $350,000 from wealthy donors.

Democrats say the coordinated effort, now a staple in presidential campaigns, will try to build up the party's network of field organizers earlier in the election and work more closely with Senate, House and state and local campaigns than in previous election cycles.

The fortunes of Clinton and the Democratic Senate candidates are tightly wound. Democrats need a net gain of five seats to recapture control of the Senate, which could be pivotal for Clinton to move her agenda through Congress if she wins the White House. And many Senate candidates could see their futures shaped by Clinton's performance.

The Victory Fund has raised tons of cash, only some of which has been distributed at this point, but more will be funneled to campaigns now that the candidates have been determined by the state primaries.

And here's some cool related news: "If Democrats take back the Senate in 2016, they'll likely have women to thank for it. The party is likely to have at least six female nominees who are challenging Republican incumbents in their top-targeted states, helping them flip the four seats necessary to take back Senate control, if Democrats hold the White House. And Democrats believe they have the perfect storm brewing to help them do that—likely the first female presidential nominee coupled with a probable GOP nominee who has a well-documented history of controversial remarks about women."

(There is more about the women who are running at the link!)

I can't think of a more amazing defeat for a sexist scoundrel like Donald Trump than to lose to the first female president accompanied by a new Democratic Senate majority delivered by women.

Please, Maude: Let it be so.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Open Thread

Hosted by Judge Reinhold.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Question of the Day

With how much light do you like to sleep? Do you need it totally dark? Do you prefer a nightlight? Can you tolerate the glowing numbers on a digital clock, or do you have to cover them just to get some shuteye? What's your preference? Or do you not even have one?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Dan Hicks: "How Can I Miss You When You Won't Go Away?"

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

"Trump is the past. Hillary is the future."

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

I've got a new essay up at BNR examining the explanation for analyses which have found Donald Trump getting more positive media coverage than Hillary Clinton. (Spoiler Alert! It's misogyny!)

But there is perhaps no more relevant explanation than the basic reality that we live in a culture steeped in gender inequality.

Which is relevant not merely because Trump is a man and Hillary is a woman (although that, too), but because Trump subscribes—and appeals—to a very particular sort of retrograde masculinity, and because Hillary is a feminist woman who champions women.

Trump has become iconic of a breed of swaggering chauvinism on the verge of extinction, a Nietzschean superman who will usher in a new (old) world order by declaring "political correctness is dead."

Hillary, in contrast, talks about breaking down the very barriers that have limited the opportunities of marginalized people. She explicitly speaks to the needs of women, and people of color, and the LGBT community, and disabled people, and people in poverty.

She talks about the need to expand access for people who have been kept out and kept down. And she listens. Just the very act of listening confers credibility on the voices of people to whom she's listening—and amplifying our voices is a direct threat to existing power-brokers and gatekeepers.

Trump is the past. Hillary is the future.

Head on over to read the whole thing—and get ready, because I really didn't hold back on this one!

FLAMES.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Clinton: Trump Isn't Qualified to Be President

BOOM:

Question: "Do you think Donald Trump is qualified to be president?"

"No, I do not." —Hillaryhttps://t.co/04viDc5G7t

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 19, 2016

CNN's Chris Cuomo: Do you think that Donald Trump is qualified to be president?

Hillary Clinton: No, I do not. And I think in this past week, whether it's attacking Great Britain; praising the leader of North Korea, a despotic dictator who has nuclear weapons; whether it is saying "pull out of NATO" or "let other countries have nuclear weapons"—the kinds of positions he is stating, and the consequences of those positions, and even the consequences of his statements, are not just offensive to people; they are potentially dangerous.

Cuomo: How so?

Clinton: Well, as I mentioned—

Cuomo: Politicians talk, Madame Secretary.

Clinton: Well—

Cuomo: They say things, but then once they get in office, people believe nothing will be that different.

Clinton: Well, when you run for President of the United States, the entire world is listening and watching. So when you say, "We're gonna bar all Muslims," you are sending a message to the Muslim world. And you're also sending a message to the terrorists—because we now do have evidence, we have seen how Donald Trump is being used to essentially be a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism.

So, I think if you go through many of his irresponsible, reckless, dangerous comments, it's not just somebody saying something off the cuff. We all misstate things, we all, you know, may not be as careful in phrasing what we say. This is a pattern. It's a pattern that has gone on now for months.

And it's a pattern that adds up, in my opinion, having watched presidents, having seen the incredibly difficult work that they do and the decisions that they have to make, the thinking that goes in— Sitting in the situation room; do we go after bin Laden or not? I was part of that. Was it a clear, easy choice? Of course not. Did it have to be carefully parsed and analyzed—? And then we all gave our opinions, but it was up to the President to decide.

I know how hard this job is, and I know that we need steadiness, as well as strength and smarts, in it. And I have concluded he is not qualified to be President of the United States.

I gotta say: Lesser people, after having been attacked with a bullshit accusation of being unqualified, might be reluctant to go there with Trump, even though it is absolutely right and necessary. She knows the risk, and she did it anyway. Wow.

[Note: I also have some commentary at BNR on Cuomo's condescension toward Clinton.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Daily Dose of Cute

Matilda.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

In the News

Here is some stuff in the news today...

Today is Malcolm X Day, and would have been his 91st birthday. To mark the day at Colorlines, Kenrya has compiled nine of his "Most Important Quotes About Freedom and Justice."

RIP Morley Safer. The 60 Minutes mainstay has died at age 84. My condolences to his family, friends, colleagues, and fans.

[Content Note: Carcerality] "Chelsea Manning has formally appealed against her conviction and 35-year prison sentence for leaking a huge cache of government documents, arguing that her punishment was 'grossly unfair and unprecedented.' Describing the sentence as 'perhaps the most unjust sentence in the history of the military justice system,' attorneys for Manning complained that she had been portrayed as a traitor to the US when 'nothing could be further from the truth.' 'No whistleblower in American history has been sentenced this harshly,' states the appeal, which also alleges that Manning was excessively charged and illegally held while awaiting trial in conditions amounting to solitary confinement. It suggests that her sentence be reduced to 10 years."

[CN: Homophobia] Good grief: "In a chaotic floor vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, an amendment to a defense authorization bill that would have blocked funding from anti-LGBT government contractors was rejected after a last minute rally from Republicans. The amendment was put forth by openly gay Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney. He initially had the votes to pass the measure until Republicans made a last ditch effort to block it, which they did narrowly by one vote. Maloney's amendment would have voided a provision in the defense authorization bill passed Wednesday by Republicans which provides broad 'religious freedom' exemptions for religious and religiously affiliated organizations that receive federal contracts. Those exemptions can be used to discriminate against LGBT people." I am so sick of "religious freedom" being invoked to cloak bigotry.

[CN: War on agency] Goddammit: "Lawmakers in the US state of Oklahoma have passed a bill that would make the act of performing an abortion a crime. Under the bill, a doctor who performs an abortion could be sentenced to up to three years in prison and be barred from practicing medicine the state. Abortion is legal in the United States and abortion-rights activists say the bill is unconstitutional." And they "say" that because it is.

[CN: Abortion stigma] "Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in a New York Times Magazine interview published Wednesday tried to spin his controversial suggestion that abortion patients should be punished if the GOP outlaws the procedure. 'I didn't mean punishment for women like prison. I'm saying women punish themselves,' Trump claimed when questioned about saying in March that patients should face 'some form of punishment' for receiving abortion care. 'I didn't want people to think in terms of 'prison' punishment. And because of that I walked it back.'" 1. Bullshit. 2. Fuck you.

In totally not breaking news, Trump's a liar: Although he claims to never settle his court cases, Think Progress found 13 times he did.

[CN: Misogyny; fat hatred] I mean: "A [Louisiana] state representative proposed—then pulled—a measure in the state House Wednesday that would have required strippers in Louisiana to be no older than 28 and weigh no more than 160 pounds. Associated Press Capitol reporter Melinda Deslatte reported via Twitter that the House was discussing a bill to raise the age minimum for strippers to 21. During the discussion, state Rep. Kenneth Havard, R-Jackson, proposed an amendment to the bill that would make it against the law for strippers to be older than 28 and weigh no more than 160 pounds. According to Deslatte, state Rep. Julie Stokes, a Kenner Republican, was outraged by the amendment, telling her colleagues that she's 'never been more repulsed to be a part' of the Legislature." I can't imagine why. There's so much dignity in being part of a legislative body where your colleagues are submitting legislation based on what gives them a boner.

[CN: Video autoplays at link] In better news: NEW GHOSTBUSTERS TRAILER!!!

Whoa: "Traces of tsunamis on Mars are the newest clues yet that the Red Planet once had oceans, which could have supported life, researchers said. These killer waves might have been triggered by giant meteor impacts, scientists added. Although the surface of Mars is now cold and dry, there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that an ocean's worth of water covered the Red Planet billions of years ago."

Neat! "A new species of horned dinosaur has been unearthed by scientists in southern Utah. Remains of the animal, named Machairoceratops cronusi, suggest it was about 26 feet long, weighed two tons and ate plants. The first traces were found a decade ago in an area rich with the remains of centrosaurines—large-bodied, plant-eating dinosaurs that roamed North America and Asia 77 million years ago, during the Late Cretaceous period."

And finally! Looooooove: "Stray Dog Walks into Police Station, Gets a Job: 'Everyone loves him. He will have everything he needs for as long as he lives.'" ♥

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

It's Pretty Rich for Bernie Sanders to Complain about Democratic Party Favoritism

I'll be blunt:I am sick to death of Bernie Sanders complaining about Democratic party favoritism.

I am sick of him delegitimizing every single Hillary Clinton victory by moaning that the Democratic Party's processes are "rigged," that someone is putting their "thumb on the scale" or whatever ludicrous whinge he has today.

Because Bernie Sanders is more than fine with Democratic party favoritism. He's down with it. He luxuriates in it. He wears it. He eats it for breakfast, possibly daily, topped with cream and fine Vermont maple syrup.

Let's be clear: Democratic party favoritism and a rigged system has kept Bernie Sanders in Washington for the last quarter century.

In the 1990 House race, Bernie Sanders faced a vulnerable Republican candidate, incumbent Peter Smith. He also faced a Democrat, professor Dolores Sandoval. The Vermont Democratic Party actively discouraged Sandoval from running, as is documented by the FEC complaint file about Sandoval's dispute with former staffer Peter Freyne.

As early as March, 1990, according to Sandoval, the Chair of the Vermont Democratic Party, Violet Coffin, was discouraging her from running because of the "strength of the Socialist candidate." In a March 29 letter to Coffin, Sandoval also protests the remarks of party executive director Craig Fuller, who had described the Democratic primary candidates as weak, which, as Sandoval wrote in her letter, "shut the gate after the first two male candidates emerged." Several democrats demanded that Fuller lose his position, but as an April1, 1990 story in the Burlington Free Press notes, he kept his job.

"The strength of the Socialist candidate." Gee, who could that be? The fact is that Sanders had acted as a spoiler in 1988, running as in Independent and drawing enough votes away from the Democratic ticket that Smith, the Republican, was able to win. Rather than cut off their nose to spite their face, the Vermont Dems clearly did the pragmatic thing in 1990, and quietly supported Sanders. One Republican down, and one liberal ally in office.

And did Bernie Sanders complain? Did he sputter with outrage that the Vermont Democratic establishment turned its back on Ms. Sandoval, a very liberal candidate, someone who could have been the first black woman to represent Vermont in Congress? Did he wax angrily on about the corrupt, rigged system? Did he thunder righteously at the way outsiders were being oppressed?

He did not.

He accepted the tacit endorsements of the Dems, the help of the NRA, and Mr. Sanders went to Washington.

Oh, but it did not stop there. Have a gander at Sanders' electoral history. Notice that for most of the years he was in Congress, no one with a D beside their name even ran against him. And when they did? Well, in 2004,Larry Drown was described as "not campaigning actively," and seems to have had no Democratic support. In 1996, Bernie Sanders declined to endorse Independent Ralph Nader (much to Nader's pissy dismay) and instead enthusiastically campaigned for Bill Clinton. Liberty Union party member Will Miller noted that that Sanders enjoyed the favor of the Vermont Democratic Party leadership and was seated on the stage at Clinton events in 1996. Meanwhile, The guy running with a "D," Jack Long, had to sit in the crowd. And in 1992, when "upstart Democrat" Lew Young ran against Bernie, the party headquarters was cheering Bernie on election night, not Young. Sounds like a pattern to me.

And did brave, untouchable Bernie Sanders renounce this "corrupt bargain" when he ran for the Senate? Did he fulminate against backroom deals, the evils of Democrats, and strike out his path as an Independent of perfect purity? He did not.

In 2006, the chair of the state Vermont Democratic party, Ian Carleton, explained to the press that the party was openly supporting Bernie:

State Democratic leaders are spearheading efforts to gather signatures to put Sanders on the ballot as a Democrat, even though Sanders has repeatedly said he would turn down the party's nomination if he wins the primary. At least three other candidates have announced their intention to run for the Democratic nomination in the Sept. 12 primary, but party leaders prefer Sanders to any of them.

Ian Carleton, the chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party, said the party's efforts to secure the nomination for Sanders is a concession to political reality: Polls indicate that Sanders is so popular in Vermont that no Democrat has a real chance of beating him.

Carleton added that Sanders has largely supported Democratic priorities and was the only candidate to ask for the state party committee's endorsement.If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination but declines it, he will go head-to-head with the Republican candidate. Since the Democrats technically won't have a candidate on the ballot, Sanders won't have to contend with a third candidate who could siphon votes away from him. Sanders, a self- described ``democratic socialist," has typically voted with Democrats during his eight terms as Vermont's sole House member.

Hmmm... where are Bernie's cries for an open competition? Where are his denouncements of a clearly rigged process? Somebody was complaining. It just wasn't Bernie:

Still, the party's decision to shun self-described Democrats in Vermont has led some to accuse their leaders of rigging the election. Peter Moss, a retired chemical engineer who announced last week that he will run for the Democratic Senate nomination, called the party establishment's support for Sanders ``highly unethical" and unfair to outsider candidates. ``If you're not a longstanding member of the clique, you're not only out, but they'll keep you out," Moss said.

BERNIE SANDERS IS IN A 'CLIQUE'?

*whispers* does he know?

Bernie turned down the Democratic nomination in order to officially run as an Independent, but the Vermont Dems nominated no one else and actively campaigned for Sanders. And in return for working so closely with, and mostly voting with, the Democrats, Bernie landed some plum committee assignments in 2006, assignments that could have gone to an actual Democrat by party custom and protocol, but instead were "rigged" to go to Sanders. Oh, and what's that? In 2012, he got to actually chair a committee? What a complete and total outsider in the halls of power!

Look, my point is not that Bernie Sanders is corrupt, at least not by my standards. This is all smart politics, and he's been able to carve out an incredibly unique space in the American political landscape. I don't begrudge him this. But let's call it what it is: a rigged system, and, yes, a system that functions to keep different people, actual outsiders, from ever even having a shot at Sanders' seat. (Vermont is one of only three states that have never elected a Congresswoman. It has never elected a person of color to Congress, nor an openly queer person, nor....)

But, it's an arrangement that's had benefits for the both the Democrats and for Sanders, and that's how politics works. It's meant a reliable, usually liberal, vote rather than a Republican one. I don't begrudge that to either side.

What I do begrudge is Bernie Sanders' incessant moaning about "rigged" Democratic party processes, about insiders, about party officials who are eeeevil oligarchs bent on keeping the little guy out of power. Bernie Sanders is actually fine with all of that. As long as it benefits him.

Like Claude Rains in Casablanca, he's shocked, shocked that there is gambling in the establishment, even as he pockets his winnings. What's sad is that he's taken so many people for a ride, convincing them that he's somehow a magical outsider, a critic of a system he's actually been on the inside of for 26 years. I can't decide if he's a monumental hypocrite, or whether he believes his own bullshit.

Because here's the thing. Maybe an actual Democratic Party primary DOES feel unfair to Sanders. After all, he's never actually had to win one. He's always gotten his name on the D-ticket, effectively, without having to compete.

There's definitely someone in this race who is used to showing up and getting a coronation from the Democrats. Someone who is totally out of their depth when faced with a very liberal opponent who is not taking this for granted. Someone who is acting hugely entitled and freaking out because they actually have to follow the rules of the party whose nomination they want.

And that Someone is not named Hillary Clinton.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

YES PLEASE!!!

Hey! Speaking of female-centered TV shows! Remember when I was lamenting The Good Wife going off the air? I said: "My favoritest favorite is Lucca Quinn, played by Cush Jumbo, who is amazing. Can we please get a spinoff of Lucca Quinn? I'm begging you, CBS. I can't say goodbye to Lucca yet! I'M NOT READY."

WELL CBS HAS HEARD MY PITIFUL CRIES!

The Good Wife Spinoff to Star Christine Baranski and Cush Jumbo:

The verdict has been announced: The Good Wife will get a spinoff!

The new series, set to premiere in the spring of 2017, will pick up one year after the events from the finale episode of The Good Wife.

Christine Baranski will reprise the beloved Diane Lockhart, a role which earned her six Emmy Award nominations. She will be joined by fan-favorite Cush Jumbo as Lucca Quinn.

The series will be available exclusively on CBS All Access, the Network's digital subscription video on demand and live streaming service. Following Star Trek, it will be the second original series developed specifically for CBS All Access.

I'm pretty meh about its being on CBS Access (what even is that? I guess I'll figure it out!), but I'm excited that Robert and Michelle King, who created and executive produced The Good Wife, will co-create and executive produce the spinoff. Yay!

MORE CUSH JUMBO AND CHRISTINE BARANSKI FOR EVERYONE!!!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

"Yeah, it’s men."

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

This is a really fascinating—and infuriating—piece by Walt Hickey at FiveThirtyEight about how male reviewers are sabotaging the online reviews and ratings of female-centered television shows:

"Sex and the City" [a show that has seven Emmys and a suite of Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild awards, and which ran 94 episodes through six seasons] has an overall rating of 7.0 on a scale from 1 to 10 — the average score of an English-language television series with 1,000 or more ratings is 7.3. So why did a show roundly considered seminal in the now ubiquitous genre of driven-New York-women-make-a-go-of-it programming score so low?

Yeah, it's men.

...When you rely on the wisdom of the crowd on the internet, you risk relying on the opinion of mostly men. ...Now, if men didn't feel compelled to crap on shows that plainly aren't aimed at them, this might not be a problem.

That doesn't appear to be the case.

Over and over and over, in every aspect of our culture, from online TV ratings to feminist blogs to presidential elections, any space or medium or person who fails to center the most privileged men gets attacked.

And, in each and every case, there's always an excuse. That TV show is crap. That blog is garbage run by a misandrist monster. That candidate is a bitch. Sure. Of course. It's all crap. All the blogs are garbage run by misandrist monsters. All the female candidates are bitches. (Except for that one you'd totally vote for, who just doesn't happen to be running.)

Everything by and for women is totally the worst, which justifies treating all of it—and us—with seething hostility.

But misogyny doesn't exist, and we're just looking for things to get mad about.

Yup.

[H/T to Deeks.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

What Are You Doing, Bernie? Today's Edition.

Yesterday, Bernie Sanders probably did not get the media coverage for which he was hoping. Sure, there was some tepid coverage of his gossamer "momentum" after winning Oregon, but, mostly, there was a lot of "dude, take responsibility for your supporters" going around. I read at least a dozen pieces in major media outlets taking Sanders to task for not meaningfully condemning some of his supporters' increasing mutiny and his redirecting blame onto the Democratic Party.

And in a perfect indication that Sanders doesn't listen, or doesn't care, his campaign manager Jeff Weaver continued the assault on Democrats by going after Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz personally, and accusing the DNC of favoritism:

Senator Bernie Sanders's relationship with the leadership of the Democratic Party and his colleagues on Capitol Hill was strained further on Wednesday as he and his campaign remained defiant over the way they say his success is being belittled and undermined by people in the party who are loyal to Hillary Clinton.

...Mr. Sanders's campaign manager took to cable news on Wednesday to assail the party and Ms. Schultz.

"The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, it is clear almost from the get-go she has been working against Bernie Sanders — there's no doubt about it, for personal reasons," Jeff Weaver, Mr. Sanders's campaign manager, said of Ms. Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC. "She has been the divider and not really provided leadership that the Democratic Party needs," Mr. Weaver added.

Weaver continued this refrain later in the day, again on MSNBC with Chuck Todd, asserting that the process was rigged. And even Todd, no reflexive defender of Hillary Clinton or the Democrats (to put it politely), felt obliged to push back, pointing out, as I have done many times in this space, that if the process was "rigged" for Clinton, then Barack Obama couldn't have defeated her in 2008.

But, you know, just for shits and giggles, let us suppose for a moment that Team Sanders has a point and that the DNC has indeed shown favoritism toward Clinton. Okay. So what if they did?

I frankly don't care.

I don't believe that they showed her favoritism, but, had they, it would be eminently understandable, given that she has been a Democratic Party rockstar for decades and is also a history-making candidate.

I want the Democratic Party to be a party that champions women. And Democrats!

It wouldn't be unreasonable to me if the DNC were more interested in seeing a longterm Democrat and a female candidate get elected than in seeing a Bernie-come-lately white dude get elected.

And, to be honest, if Sanders really thinks about it, I bet he wouldn't really want every Democratic candidate getting the same treatment, anyway. Would he seriously argue that the DNC shouldn't have had a preference for him over Jim Webb, if he'd been the frontrunner and Webb had had a better showing?

Because I sure wouldn't argue that!

Anyway.

This is truly just the biggest bunch of sour grapes. The Democratic Party gave Sanders access to their platform, resources, and infrastructure, and this is the thanks he gives them. It's just the grossest ingratitude.

UPDATE: And I just read this in the New York Times:

Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, said the campaign did not think its attacks would help Mr. Trump in the long run, but added that the senator's team was "not thinking about" the possibility that they could help derail Mrs. Clinton from becoming the first woman elected president.

"The only thing that matters is what happens between now and June 14," Mr. Devine said, referring to the final Democratic primary, in the District of Columbia. "We have to put the blinders on and focus on the best case to make in the upcoming states."

If saying they're putting on "blinders" to avoid thinking about any negative consequences in forcing Hillary Clinton to campaign on two fronts, despite the fact Sanders has no chance to win, doesn't expose that this is nothing but an ego trip at this point, I don't know what would.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

EgyptAir A320

[Content Note: Airline disaster]

EgyptAir jet missing:

An EgyptAir jet carrying 66 passengers and crew from Paris to Cairo disappeared from radar over the Mediterranean sea on Thursday after swerving in mid-air and plunging from cruising height. French President Francois Hollande confirmed the aircraft "came down and is lost".

Egyptian Prime Minister Sherif Ismail announced a search was under way for the missing Airbus A320 but it was too early to rule out any explanation, including an attack like the one blamed for bringing down a Russian airliner over Egypt's Sinai peninsula last year.

Officials with the airline and the Egyptian civil aviation department told Reuters they believed the Airbus had crashed into the Mediterranean between Greece and Egypt.

In Athens, Greek Defence Minister Panos Kammenos said the Airbus had first swerved 90 degrees to the left, then spun through 360 degrees to the right. After plunging from 37,000 feet to 15,000, it vanished from Greek radar screens.

Greece deployed aircraft and a frigate to the area to help with the search.

...In Paris, Hollande also said the cause remained unknown. "Unfortunately the information we have ... confirms to us that the plane came down and is lost," he said. "No hypothesis can be ruled out, nor can any be favored over another."

The Guardian has live updates as new information becomes available.

My sincerest condolences to the family, friends, and colleagues of the people lost in the crash.

As always, let's keep this an image-free thread, if and when images of the crash and/or grieving survivors are published.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Open Thread

Hosted by jalapeños.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker masculine_lady: "Have any of your wishes ever come true? Which ones?"

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Lily Allen: "Fuck You"

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Wednesday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by shoes.

Recommended Reading:

Anne: [Content Note: Misogyny] A List of Things in Literature, Music, and Art That Are Actually Metaphors for Women

Anand: New ACA Rule Bans Anti-Trans Discrimination in Health Care! What Does This Mean for You?

Angry Asian Man: [CN: Racism] Stop the Racial Profiling of Chinese American Scientists

Cat: [CN: Fat hatred] Why I Don't Care about Health

Ragen: [CN: Body shaming; objectification of girls] Discovery Girls' Spectacularly Failed Apology for Body-Shaming Kids

Jim: [CN: Sexual harassment and abuse] Excusing Sexual Harassment and Abuse

Jessica: [CN: Misogyny] Honey Pot: The Super Fun Experience of Writing a Female-Driven Action-Comedy

Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Hillary Is Listening

I've got a new essay up at BNR about Hillary Clinton and her dedication to listening:

"She's a listener" is a thing I have read again and again, from people who have worked for her and people who have met her, even if it was only the briefest of meetings.

And should they meet her once more, she remembers the details from their previous encounter. Because listening, for her, is not a gimmick or a party trick: It's the way she comes to understand the world, and the people who inhabit it.

Even her most fervent detractors will begrudgingly acknowledge her enviable breadth of knowledge on a vast variety of subjects. That expertise didn't get absorbed from the ether. She is, famously, a voracious learner—and to be a learner is to be a listener.

Her likely opponent in the general election, Donald Trump, seemingly likes to listen to nothing but the sound of his own voice. And it shows. He famously cited himself as his chief foreign policy expert: "I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things. …[M]y primary consultant is myself."

By contrast, I believe if Hillary had the time and opportunity to sit down with every potential voter in the nation to listen to their stories, she would.

...In a Buzzfeed profile of Hillary, she details her preferences for townhall events—and even smaller venues—because they allow her to be physically close to people, to achieve "a level of intimacy that you don't get unless you're somehow in somebody else's space." The sort of intimacy which provides "a sense of being anchored in your life as well as other people's lives."

Click through to read the whole thing.

I feel really fortunate to have the opportunity to support a candidate who truly gives a shit about people, on a very personal level, and proves it routinely by prioritizing the importance of listening.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!