A case can be made that once again Hillary Clinton is facing a mountain's worth of Media Sexism in the 2016 presidential campaign. In 2008 at least there were dueling and overlapping issues of racism and sexism that magically seemed to almost cancel each other out, the same cannot be said about 2016.
In 2008, the piping hot media sexism was laid out for all the world to see. It was the male dominated late night show talk hosts who were ALL making Hillary Clinton jokes. Then there was Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and MSNBC going way overboard to attack Hillary Clinton. CNN joined in the fray as well. There was also a female contingent consisting of Arianna Huffington, Oprah Winfrey, Donna Brazile, even Nancy Pelosi and Maria Shriver played a significant role in making sure Barack Obama was the nominee instead of Hillary Clinton when the more prudent course of action would have been to wait on the sidelines and then support whomever won between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
But this time around all of the above have been on much much better behavior, which has mistakenly led the media into believing they are not being sexist against Hillary Clinton. But what is happening is Hillary Clinton is being double and triple vetted and condemned by insinuation while her male democrat counterpart Bernie Sander's can't make a mistake if he tried, and he has tried.
An example of media sexism is the claim that Hillary Clinton receives speakers fees from wall street and therefore she is influenced by the deep pockets of Wall Street into making anti populist decisions. Yet her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has been outspending Hillary Clinton since the middle of January 2016 while Hillary Clinton continues to win more of the popular vote and delegates than Bernie Sanders.
My question is, How can the "populist" candidate Bernie Sanders spend more money and get less of a result than Hillary Clinton and still be called the populist candidate? Answer is he can if he is running against a woman who is perpetually being savaged by media conservatives on one side, and former conservatives turned progressive media on the other end of the political spectrum. Yes, it is media sexism to anoint the male candidate as the populist underdog when he continues to spend more money for a lesser result than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton IS the populist candidate because she is raising less money while getting a better result than Bernie Sanders but nobody is reporting it that way, instead it is the male candidate who is the underdog populist.
In 2008 Hillary Clinton did remarkably better in Pennsylvania and Ohio than Barack Obama even though Obama spent at least double to triple on television advertising while still losing to Hillary Clinton in both states. Yet there too Barack Obama, another male, was portrayed as the populist candidate while also spending more money than Hillary Clinton and getting a lesser result.
Can a populist "for the people" candidate, Bernie Sanders, raise more money for the months of January and February 2016 than his female opponent while getting less votes than his female opponent, and still be called the populist candidate. The answer is a resounding NO, unless the opposing candidate is a female candidate, in which case the media champions on that the richer, "more cost per lesser vote received" male candidate is still the populist underdog.
Is there any chance in heck that we will see even one media outlet anoint Hillary Clinton as the underdog who is getting more votes while spending less money than her male opponent. I haven't seen it yet.
The next area of media sexism is the vetting of the candidates spouses. Bill Clinton was attacked for having a foundation that is spending millions of dollars on a yearly basis helping the impoverished all over the world because it gives him inside access to political figures from all over the world. The things the U.S. could have done better while Bill Clinton was president regarding U.S. farming competing with third world farmers he is trying to make amends for now. Yet the attacks and insinuations of insider dealings are all we hear about from the media. There has been no balance and little mention of the good that Bill Clinton's foundation has done and continues to do.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sander's wife, Jane Sanders, apparently may have a very checkered past in which while president of Burlington College from 2004 to 2011 she may have used institution funds to write checks to a resort vacation island run by Bernie Sander's best friend. What then followed was an alleged 200,000 dollar golden parachute firing of Ms. Sanders as a gentile manner of eviction from her job when she possibly could have been indicted instead. Has this story been vetted by the media? I check Snopes.com and this story has not been "Snoped", yet the media does nothing. Is it not media sexism to vet Hillary Clinton's husband while not vetting Bernie Sander's wife? Just another example of media sexism against Hillary Clinton.
And finally, Bernie Sanders has been making over 150,000 dollars a year as a politician for the past 20 years. His wife was probably making at least 100,000 dollars a year at Burlington College. So would it not be safe to say for at least a 7 year window of time, and presumably longer because people don't go from unemployment to 100,000 dollar a year jobs, that the Sanders were making the Equivalent of 1,000 dollars A DAY (not counting Saturday and Sunday) for a very long stretch of time. If you agree that yes, the Sanders were making a thousand dollars a day for the past 7 to 10 to maybe 15 years, why does Bernie Sanders have between 20,000 to 50,000 dollars worth of credit card debt?
The Bernie Sanders credit card debt is a Carny trick. Bernie Sander's credit card debt creates the illusion that he is broke like the common man or woman. If Bernie Sanders and his wife were making 1,000 dollars a day for a decade or longer, why does Bernie Sanders have any credit card debt? Again, no vetting by the media.
And why is Bernie Sanders credit card debt such a big deal? Mr. Sanders is paying between 5,000 to 10,000 dollars a year in "interest payments only" on that revolving credit card debt. For a politician who wants to spend MORE of other people's money to help the needy, Mr. Sanders is voluntarily paying 5,000 to 10,000 dollars a year to the banks in interest rate charges on his credit card debt!
If Mr. Sanders had no credit card debt he could take the yearly 5,000 to 10,000 dollars in interest rate charges he is currently paying and start donating that interest payment money to charitable causes that ask for 19 dollars every month to help a war veteran, a child with cancer, abused animals, and so on.
Mr. Sanders has instead chosen to "Carny" his credit card debt for maximum political advantage and in the process has basically blown off helping 25 to 50 charitable organizations on a monthly basis with all that interest rate money he has been paying to the banks year after year.
Mr. Sanders has willfully chosen to pay the banks interest rate charges rather than pay off his credit card debt and use the interest rate charge savings to help war veterans, kids with cancer, and abused animals. There is no stretch here, it's either keep credit card debt for political advantage and therefore keep paying thousands of dollars in interest rate charges every year, or use that very same money to help several dozen in need people and animals through various non profit groups on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Sanders, why have you chosen paying the banks interest rate charges rather than paying off your credit card debt and then donating the savings to dozens of non-profits that help the truly needy?
If Mr. Sanders can't get the little things right, how can he be trusted to get the big things right? If Mr. Sanders wife has behaved in the very same manner that Mr. Sanders abhors on wall street, is he not the ultimate con artist for concealing it from the public? If Mr. Sander's is not vetted on these issues, and vetted soon, than Media Sexism will have once again roared to life in the 2016 democrat race.
Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by
by clicking here.
