General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The hypocrisy of the latest round of Bernie-bashing [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It's pointless to get into an argument like "is reproductive freedom more important than correcting a militaristic foreign policy, exemplified by the Iraq War" or "how important is income inequality" or "within the area of income inequality, how important are single payer and free college and Glass-Steagall and TPP compared to each other" or... etc.
You would also have to factor in the office. How much can a Mayor do about reproductive rights? I don't know the setup in Omaha. It's probably not as much as a President has to do with imperialistic wars of choice. If a Democratic nominee opposed single payer, I'd care more about that in a race for Congress than in a race for Mayor.
You ask, "Are you suggesting that any of those issues are equal in stature to a woman's right to control her own body? They are not in the same league." I don't think it's useful to try to reach agreement on such questions. If you want my view, though, I'll note that there are scores of thousands of Iraqi women who no longer have the right to control their own bodies, what with them being dead and all. For some people, Clinton's vote for the IWR, even with her belated confession of error, was a deal-breaker. They would say that, regardless of whether these issues are in the same league, they would not (and did not) vote for Clinton just because of that one issue. I'm saying it's hypocrisy for Clinton supporters to denounce those Stein voters as "purists" who helped elect Trump, but then turn around and proclaim their own single-issue deal-breakers.