Clinton Calls Out Debate Moderators For Ignoring Women’s Health

[Little Star]

There have been nine Democratic debates so far, and “not one question” about reproductive rights.

?cache=joehdoycs9

Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) met in Brooklyn, New York, on Thursday for the ninth Democratic debate, and once again, the moderators asked zero questions about abortion or women’s reproductive rights.

The Democratic candidates haven’t received a single question on the issue during any of their debates.

Clinton on Thursday called out the media for its oversight, saying the issue was a central one that the candidates need to talk about.

“We’ve had eight debates before; this is our ninth. We’ve not had one question about a woman’s right to make her own decisions about reproductive health care — not one question,” Clinton said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-womens-health_us_57105ad1e4b0018f9cb9a380

Good for her!!!!

[revbones]

1. Meh, it was a cheap way to try to pander.

They brought it up at either the last debate or town hall. Bernie is 100% pro-choice and she is willing to "compromise on abortion".

[JTFrog]

3. This is a feminist group. We don't consider politicians actually discussing our issues to be

pandering.

But here you are trolling our group again. Certainly hope one of the hosts puts an end to your ability to do that.

[revbones]

4. Citing their actual positions is trolling?

Didn't realize that was the case.

[JTFrog]

5. No your other commentary. You know....she must be pandering since no one else is willing to bring

it up.

We see right through you.

[revbones]

6. Even the post-debate coverage was remarking on her bringing that up

because they're basically the same on it (ignoring her willing to compromise on abortion). You don't think bringing up a point during a debate where you are seen to be the same, and you don't highlight any differences as pandering?

Honestly it feels more like you are willing to bend your feminism a bit for Hillary just because she's Hillary. Would you have felt the same if it was another issue that they agreed on and spent debate time agreeing with each other?

I'm sorry if saying that I thought it was pandering seems like trolling to you. I'm not sure any non-positive comment about Hillary wouldn't though.

[JTFrog]

7. No I don't think someone actually bringing up women's issues is fucking pandering.

There is a war on women being waged by conservatives. It NEEDS to be discussed EVERY FUCKING DEBATE.

If you don't like it, stay the fuck out of the feminist groups. They are the only safe havens we have here to discuss this without having dudes like you troll us.

[revbones]

8. While I agree with you, there are a lot of issues that don't get discussed.

Should they just talk about those issues they agree on during the limited time of the debate or should they be questioned on things they disagree on so we can see the difference?

My vote is for the latter. If you seem to think it's the former, then how do you fairly prioritize those issues they agree on?

Might want to ratchet down the anger a bit. Nobody was trolling you, and I'd appreciate you not falsely accusing me.

[JTFrog]

9. I am contacting the hosts now. n/t

[revbones]

10. Hopefully they will read the thread and see your accusations to be false.

Regardless, you should still ratchet down the anger a bit.

[JTFrog]

11. I AM FUCKING PISSED ABOUT THE WAR ON WOMEN AND I SHOULD RATCHET IT DOWN!?!

Fuck that noise. Don't you dare think you can tell me to ratchet it down!

Seriously dude. You are so far out of line here.

[revbones]

12. Wow

Obviously I'm talking about your unnecessary anger here, toward someone that is an ally and anger for them expressing their thoughts politely. I'm not sure how that supports the war on women or is out of line, especially given your repetitive and unnecessary cursing.

[JTFrog]

13. How is being fucking PISSED about women's issues not having a place in the debate UNNECESSARY?

I can fucking cuss as much as I want. Especially about women's rights and reproductive rights. Especially NOW. I don't need you here Berniesplainin or mansplainin shit to me about women or minority rights being "not important". My anger is at the conservatives and those who insist that our issues are "not important".

You aren't pissed? You aren't willing to scream and cuss and do something about it? Then you aren't on our side. You are deliberately baiting me and yeah.... it's really pissing me off.

[revbones]

14. Yes, you can do whatever you want. I didn't try to say you couldn't,

I just asked you to ratchet down the anger you are expressing toward someone that should be seen as an ally. I didn't comment negatively or deny that conservatives have a war against women. I commented on Hillary using that to in my opinion score a cheap political point. I have not demeaned women's issues in any way by saying that she capitalized on them in the debate. Hopefully once you calm down, and step back you'll realize that.

Should I scream and stamp my feet about every issue that the candidates in a debate agree on and didn't get asked about? I think that's wasted effort. The topic was brought up in the previous town halls I believe, but I think a debate should focus on issues where they can highlight their differences. I definitely think women's rights will come up in the GE debates - because there is a stark difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Again, though yelling and cursing at an ally, won't create more allies.

[JTFrog]

16. NOW IS THE TIME TO YELL. NOT AFTER THE ELECTION.

If you don't like it, tough. Don't come into the feminists groups and tell us to sit down and be quiet.

Not gonna happen.

There is nothing cheap or pandering about actually TALKING ABOUT THIS SHIT at a time that people are actually deciding who they want for president. Why are you so threatened by her talking about it? Why don't you think it should be hammered every debate? Why shouldn't it be a top priority when considering Supreme Court Justices. The only thing the other candidate talks about is Citizen's United.

Just please stop.

[revbones]

17. Well, I didn't do that did I?

I just asked that you not yell at allies such as myself. Feel free to yell at opponents on women's rights all you want.

Also, please don't paint what I did as what you just said. I never told anyone to sit down and be quiet. Again, if you'd calm down, step back and re-read this, I think you might feel differently. At least I hope so.

[JTFrog]

18. I am yelling because you are in my safe place.

Making me incredibly uncomfortable.

And I am obviously much more invested in these issues than you, being as how you feel Hillary is being cheap and pandering by bringing them up when no one else is. That it's a "wasted effort". That's beyond being insensitive to women's issues.

[revbones]

19. Using women's issues to pander is being insensitive to them.

I think you're more upset that I said something negative about Hillary - since I didn't say anything negative about women's issues.

Again, weren't those issues brought up in the last town halls where everyone talked about them not being brought up before? Stating facts, doesn't demean women's issues, and neither does stating my belief that Clinton was only pandering at the time she brought them up. Regardless, I only made the point that using an issue for cheap pandering doesn't do anyone any good, and a debte is meant to highlight differences for voters - Bernie & Hillary mostly agree (except for her statement where she's willing to compromise on abortion). How many issues that they agree on so much should be brought up during the limited debate time? This is a democratic debate not the general election debate where there will be a huge difference that needs to be highlighted.

Being unwilling to even have a legitimate dialog with an ally without accusing them of all sorts of stuff all while cursing at them, is probably not a method you're going to find rewarding.

[JTFrog]

20. If you call it pandering, you are absolutely saying something negative about women's issues.

You have not once since you've been here done anything to prove to me you are an ally.

I wish you would just respect the space you are posting in.

[revbones]

21. Again I think you're more concerned over a slight to Hillary rather than fact.

But you're free to re-interpret what I say however you like. Just know that you're far from the actual meaning.

If you truly believe that her mentioning it during the debate was a noble effort with no political calculation on her part whatsoever, then you certainly are free to hold that belief.

And accusing me of not respecting the space, when you're cursing at me is in poor taste to say the least.

[JTFrog]

22. You know what's in poor taste?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=329889&sub=trans

Seems to me that you are only here to try to jab at Hillary. I have a hard time believing you really care about the issue she raised.

[revbones]

23. Honestly

that's a bit of a badge of honor when you actually read what was hidden... If you don't think both sides alert way too much in the hopes of a friendly jury, then you may not have been paying much attention lately.

Still, you won't find anything there negative toward women rights if that's what you were trying to allude to.

[JTFrog]

24. "This is a safe haven group, for likeminded members. If people don't like it here, they have the,

This is a safe haven group, for likeminded members. If people don't like it here, they have the right to trash the group and forever we will be out of sight for them. We get a lot of trolling. Thank you for your consideration.

I do not think you are going to find any likeminded members of this group who agree with you that Hillary is cheap or pandering when she brings up the issues most important to the members of this group.

[revbones]

27. I don't believe that I said anything that violates this group.

I believe you are trying to insinuate that I did because I said something not entirely positive about Hillary, but I have said nothing negative about women's issue or this group.

You are trying to conflate the two as a weapon against me here, probably in your effort to get an ally banned because of a disagreement on whether Hillary was pandering or not. I have not demeaned women's rights in any way, shape or form and resent your implying such.

[JTFrog]

30. How on earth do you not see that calling attention to women's issues "cheap and pandering" is

insulting to everything this group stands for?

Yea, I know how. Your Hillary hatred has been painted on the walls of DU since the day you joined.

[revbones]

32. I'm sorry but we obviously disagree on what I said.

You are obviously free to reinterpret what I said however you want though, and continue to take liberties in that regard.

If I felt Hillary was truly bringing up the issue then I would not have said "pandering". But she brought it up in a debate with an opponent that is actually even more on that side than she is (since she is willing to compromise on abortion). She brought it up after it had already been discussed in the town hall, and it took time away from a debate which is intended to highlight differences.

Again, I feel that you're more perturbed about a slight to Hillary, than anything else. Enough so to twist it up to try to say I was maligning women's rights, when I wasn't - I just dislike those people that pander to various groups without real meaning behind their statements and I feel that's what Hillary did last night. I get that you feel that any mention, regardless of motive furthers the cause, but you ignore that I feel that cheap pandering does not further this cause. We can disagree without cursing at each other and alienating one another on an issue we should have common ground on.

Would you have felt the exact same way if Bernie had just randomly brought it up even though Hillary agrees with him? I would.

I guess maybe you and I understand the definition of a debate differently. Do you really see it as a platform to yell agreements at each other?

[JTFrog]

33. I find all of your comments in this thread condescending and insulting.

You better believe we disagree.

[revbones]

34. And I find all of your comments here to be antagonistic and insulting.

In addition to the childishness of cursing for no reason and twisting what I said. That's in addition to your debasing women's rights when you conflate pandering with legitimately fighting for women's rights. So yes, I guess we do disagree.

A suggestion would be to step back and re-read this thread. You have a disagreement with an ally who also believes in women's rights. Is the disagrement at least heightened because of it involving Hillary? Could my point not be valid as well whether you wholeheartedly agree or not, can you at least set the Hillary aspect aside and see any validity there? My guess, and I could be wrong, is that if Bernie had done this, you would think it was pandering.

Either way, perhaps going forward, trying to educate someone you feel is missing the point would work better than yelling and cursing at them might work better.

[JTFrog]

35. Quit calling yourself my ally.

Seriously. And quit telling me what reactions I should or shouldn't have.

You are not going to sway me at all.

[revbones]

36. I wasn't referring to you specifically, but more toward women's rights in general.

Much as I am an ally for LGBTQ rights and attend Allies group meetingsevents. Sorry if the context was confusing.

Have you not been telling me what reactions I should or shouldn't have during all this?

I think, rather than trying to "sway" you, I've been trying to entertain an honest discussion and get to some middle ground and understanding. If that is not a possible goal for you, and you just want to go back to the yelling and cursing, then you are certainly able to continue to do so.

[JTFrog]

37. Oh gee, thanks for your permission.

Condescending and insulting.

Just go ahead and admit that you are only calling it "cheap" and "pandering" because of your blind hatred for Hillary since the rest of us have already figured that out. If you gave a shit about the issues, you would be happy to see someone bring up the difference between our candidates and the clown car and stress the importance of women's rights and women's reproductive rights and the major impact of appointing a supreme court justice who will uphold roe v. wade to a wide audience. Do you think only Democrats watch these debates? Do you not think that the debates are when these issues should be presented to undecided voters?

I'm now going to just go ahead and put you on ignore, because this isn't the first time that you've baited me and then alerted on my posts.

[revbones]

39. No, I was just having a discussion

which apparently was obvious enough for 7 of 7 members of the jury to see. Fortunately labeling it as condescending and insulting doesn't make it so.

So are you admitting it's more about Hillary than the actual pandering? I already said I'd feel the same if Bernie did this in the same way that Hillary did.

I was happy to see the issue come up in the town hall. While I can't claim to fully understand, I have enough women in my life to at least understand the seriousness of the issue, and I can be objective enough to note pandering whether it's my candidate or their opponent that does it.

That's just the thing though. This was blatant pandering. It was brought up gratuitously when the people on the stage both agreed on the issue (again, aside from Hillary's willingness to compromise on abortion). To your clown car comment, I even previously mentioned the legitimacy of comparison to the republican party's war on women, as well as when debating someone that doesn't share the same opinions.

I don't recall alerting on your posts, and generally try not to alert at all. I consider it a poor response in most, if not all cases. I'm assuming it was you that alerted on mine here though, so I will say that I personally think saying all that and then doing just that is a bit hypocritical if it was you.

If I'm on ignore, so be it. Just wanted to answer to your comment.

[Goblinmonger]

38. Jury Results

Full disclosure: I was #1. Looks like somebody can't alert for 24 hours.

On Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:15 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

And I find all of your comments here to be antagonistic and insulting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=59149

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This guy probably shouldn't be trolling a feminist group and insisting that discussing issues important to them is pandering. Obviously disruptive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:21 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a civil post, and does not in any way violate DU rules. If it is inappropriate for this group is a matter for the group hosts to determine - not for a jury.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: OK, so I missed that this was in HOF when I first read it, but I have no idea how this is over the top or hide worthy. This seems like a pretty level headed discussion of how they see things. I'm sure they'll be banned from HOF shortly, but I'm not going to hide this. This would be a love poem in GDP.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing in that post for a jury to consider. Not rude, OTT, etc, etc, etc. if the host of the group thinks the poster is out of line, they can ban them from the group.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not hide worthy.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[revbones]

40. Thank you for posting the results about that.

I had originally replied based on seeing the topic in the latest posts, and had not paid attention to the group it was in. I'm still a little confused as to how it's germane to "History of Feminism" but I could easily be missing something.

I did want to question your statement "Looks like somebody can't alert for 24 hours." since I had suggested something similar in the Ask the Administrators group about a month ago. Is it now the case that if an alert isn't justified by the jury that person can't alert for 24 hours? Is there a post explaining this somewhere I could read? Just curious to see how similar the implementation was since I had suggested something akin to it.

[Goblinmonger]

41. From my understanding, it is only on a 0-7 jury

that alerting rights are pulled.

That's why if you alert, you can't alert again until your first jury comes back in case it is a 0-7.

[revbones]

42. Ah. Makes sense.

That is a bit different from what I had suggested.

I had suggested that in order to stem the tide of overzealous alerts, that if a majority didn't back up the alert that you got a time out from the site for 24hours for the first failed alert. And then increase the time-out period based on the number of failed alerts in a specified time period like 30-90 days.

My assumption was that something like that would make people think twice before they alerted, and cool off the number of questionable ones.

Anyway, thanks again.

[BainsBane]

43. Like your "unnecessary anger" toward Clinton about Wall Street?

Funny how the rights of over half the population fall under "unnecessary," compared to what you see as the necessary reverence for one member of the political elite.

He has dismissed women's rights time and time again, like you are doing in this thread by insisting speaking about them is "pandering" and unnecessary. I am not interested in discussing your determination that Bernie is too important to be criticized. Leave this group. You are violating the SOP.

[revbones]

46. What anger have I expressed here in this thread? None.

Did I mention Wall St here in this group? No.

While I am voting for Bernie, I didn't bring it into this group. I talked about my personal opinion that a politician pandered when during a debate they brought up a topic that had been talked about in the town hall already and that both candidates agree on (except for Hillary's being willing to compromise on abortion). I expressed my opinion that a debate was for highlighting differences and a much better place for this and other areas where Bernie & Hillary mostly agree, would be in the general election debates against those that disagree and are actually waging the war on women.

Please show me where I dismissed women's rights here in this thread or anywhere as I don't believe that I have. And please show me where I violated the SOP. I'm also not sure why this entire topic is in the group named "History of Feminism" but perhaps you can enlighten me on that as well.

It's also a tad hypocritical in a sub thread which is about Hillary's pandering by bringing up a topic they both agreed on, and my being lambasted by you & JTFrog about it, that you would not be "interested in discussing your determination that Bernie is too important to be criticized." since it was only Hillary being criticized - and quite tamely I might add.

[JTFrog]

48. Apparently people can't even be bothered to read the SOP.

If that poster had read the SOP he would understand exactly why he is out of line and exactly why we discuss these issues here. Issues that are most important to us, issues that need to be brought up in every single debate he labeled "pandering" "cheap" and "unimportant". He certainly reflects the attitude of his candidate. It's incredibly demeaning and insulting.

Statement of Purpose

The History of Feminism group serves as a safe haven to discuss, and learn the history of feminism. Apply the lessons of historical and modern day feminist struggles to current issues and events that impact women. This group will also serve as safe haven for women (and supporters of feminism) to openly and honestly discuss and learn how the patriarchy affects women individually and collectively.

[BainsBane]

49. Amazing how he feels entitled to tell us

what we are supposed to be satisfied with while his concerns and his candidate matter so much more than what we care about.

No, actually it's not amazing. It's typical of what we have seen this election cycle and demonstrates why we and many others won't be voting the way he demands.

As far as I'm concerned, the sense of entitlement displayed by Bernie and his supporters is what convinces me how essential it is that they not be able to impose their rule over the subaltern.

[JTFrog]

50. Completely agree. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

53. What the fuck is going on in here?

I know this group has died, or almost, but I've NEVER seen anything like that.

[LanternWaste]

54. Your bias compels you to pretend she panders while Sanders, doing precisely the same thing,

Your bias compels you to pretend she panders while Sanders, doing precisely the same thing, is merely doing outreach.

Unless of course, you can provide peer-reviewed, objective evidence that is is in fact pandering and not simply a concern being voiced, yes?

[Gamecock Lefty]

2. Funny that . . .

I’m betting if Grandpa Bernie had brought this up he would have been bold and appreciated by his flock. But Hillary brings it up and she’s pandering?

I’m glad she’s concerned over choice whereas BS seems to be fine with pointing and lecturing.

I hope she kicks his ass Tuesday!

[JTFrog]

15. Yea, the "pandering" comments are pissing me off.

Because you know, we have so many people on the stage right now hammering how important women's rights are NOW.

You better believe she will kick ass on Tuesday.

[BlueMTexpat]

25. They are thoroughly pissing me off

and have when they use "pandering" about HRC and any group!

Dare one suggest that Bernie may be "pandering" to Catholic voters in making his trip to the Vatican and disingenuously letting it be known that the Pope invited him. This is certainly a situation where the term "pandering" is apt, IMO.

[JTFrog]

31. Exactly. n/t

[BainsBane]

44. always

[apcalc]

26. It's about time

Good for her

Maybe it will be included from now on, especially against the R's.

[thereismore]

28. I highly doubt she would admit her willingness to compromise on the right to choose.

She would just lie anyway.

[BainsBane]

45. Bernie has dismissed our rights as "a distraction"

from "real issues." He has called Planned Parenthood "establishment" and defended misogynist comments by his surrogates. This is the history of feminism group. The name of the group is not "women are liars" or "Bernie comes first."

Your profound observations on gender and truth can be expressed in one of the main forums or in any number of other groups on this site, but not HOF.

[awake]

29. Of the two people on stage last night only 1 is 100% pro choice the other not so much

One feels that the Goverment has no (zero, nada) say in a woman's body or what she chooses to do with it the other one feels that the Goverment may have a reason to step in to a woman's choice. Guess which one is 100% pro choice with no if ands or buts, that one is Bernie!

[seabeyond]

47. Sing it loud sister. Good for her. Nt

[noretreatnosurrender]

51. She Did It

to get applause because she was losing the crowd at that point. Once again she used us for her own political benefit. Not impressed.

[ismnotwasm]

52. K&R