How Long Must We Pay the Price for Ideologues?

28 Nov 2017
How Long Must We Pay the Price for Ideologues?

Hillary Clinton, Susan Sarandon, files labeled for reuse

Having gone silent in disgust watching the deflections of a Hillary-bashing media, I now raise my head to see a platform still offered to the reckless, rich Susan Sarandon to continue her anti-Hillary screeds.  Pundits and anchors denying culpability for Clinton’s election “loss” even while egging on misogyny and smear against her from factions left and right, foreign and domestic, are supposed to be better than this. They purport to be journalists.  Yet they push obsessive tripe to gain attention. So does Sarandon, whose fathomless views expose the dangerous influence of privileged unicorn seekers who make unattainable perfection the enemy of attainable good, urging voters who can ill afford it to follow her off a cliff.  Is it any wonder she and big media seek each other out?

Now, instead of working to enact the policies of a very competent Hillary (while holding her feet to the fire) and moving forward from the place Obama left us, we must daily fight for the Republic against a GOP so hell bent on paying off their rich donors, they don’t care who they sacrifice.  CHIP, the ACA, Net Neutrality, tax breaks for the poor and middle class, the CFPB and much more are all on the chopping block – and that’s just this week.

That’s what the perfectionism and misinformation of the Bernie or Busters got us.

Our founding fathers designed America to make incremental progress for our safety, lest demagogues like the one now in office dismantle in months what took hundreds of years to achieve. The cluelessness of Sarandon and the Bernie or Bust/Jill Stein ilk bring into sharp relief how harmful it is for voters to buy populist ideology pushed by those with no achievement to back up their ranting.

Perhaps those with a public profile who continue to bash Hillary Clinton do so in an effort to distract from the truth shared in her #1 bestseller What Happened.  Her refusal to hide out in the woods means their noses get rubbed in how wrong they were about her, her supporters, record and policy prescriptions.  Too ashamed to admit they did no homework but believed and broadcast the worst right-wing conspiracy hogwash imaginable, they’d rather cover their own asses than think about protecting ours.

But what can we expect when Forbes puts forth an article that hiring Seth Meyers to host the Golden Globes is hiring the “feminist we need to do the job”? Seth Meyers is a feminist?  I understood Meyers to be part of the “Hillary STFU” crowd even as he continued to defend Bernie, who by the way is just now “boning up” on foreign policy, something that Presidents spend 50% of their time working on.

It never ceases to amaze that we still have an inclination to protect the man (Bernie Sanders) from any sort of factual take-down but have no problem subjecting the woman (Hillary Clinton) to the worst double standard, demanding perfection from the coloratura while “applauding the tenor for clearing his throat“.

Once and for all, Bernie Sanders was not prepared to be President.  He was a one-trick pony who blamed everything on income inequality, with no competent solution to fix the same.  He broke the promise he made on national television by staying in the race too long (after losing by hundreds of pledged delegates and nearly 4 million votes). He was the “spoiler” he vowed not to be, hid away and wrote a memoir after the primaries, sucked lemons at the Democratic Convention and all too late, campaigned halfheartedly for the victor after spending month smearing her character and misrepresenting her record.  Does it not occur that “my way or the highway” Bernie did it to keep himself relevant?  Sadly, he remains a selfish, egotistical man who still refuses to join the Party he purports to wish to lead – one he can’t seem to stop bashing.  How long will people protect him and continue to buy into his behavior?

For any of this to change, if it ever will, we need to ask ourselves why we are willing to believe crackpot theories about a woman but defend a man past all reason.

By the way,  a man who ignores intersectionality, who shows no inclination to center women or PoC is no feminist.

And how can we honor a publication that puts forth the idea that a man is the feminist we need to speak for us instead of hiring a capable woman when there are so many out there able to do the job?  Anyone pushing this line has a vested interest in keeping women satisfied with crumbs at the table.

Are you going to buy it?

Of course there are male feminists and I applaud them – but men have an enormous forum everywhere, every single day. They must also have the sense to make enough room for a woman to speak for herself and moreover, to stand up and lead.

Anyone pushing this “Hillary would have been worse than Trump” garbage or continuing to protect Bernie has a vested interest in making you buy by revisionist history instead of doing your own research and sharing the truth.

Are you going to buy it?

Anyone telling you not to complain about Sanders or Meyers or Sarandon in the name of “unity”, so as not to alienate an “ally,” is also selling you a bill of goods. A genuine ally would never have a problem with the truth.

The practice of smearing Hillary Clinton, a powerful woman, will have a negative carry forward on any woman who dares to step up and do what she did. Not calling out the culprits who helped thwart her election means they or their followers will use an idealistic but ultimately empty ideology to do the same to a Kamala Harris the next time around.

Are you going to buy it?



  1. Great and truthful articles, I agree with every word, Sanders and his supporters brought us Trump, why is Sanders still talking and why we allow him and Sarandon to say a word because they are still poisoning everything that Hillary is and stands for.

  2. You are correct in everything you say. Hillary would have made a GREAT President and we would not be in the great mess we are in today. I hope she would try in 2020.

  3. Karen Saulnier Says: November 30, 2017 at 5:00 am

    Anita Finlay has written a very insightful and accurate article…
    I’d like to add that Hillary’s detractors are like a pack of wild dogs..crazed and frenzied in their
    attack of her. The attack is totally irrational, but totally VICIOUS….

    • Barbara Eaton Says: November 30, 2017 at 11:18 am

      MS. Finlay,

      Most progressives are “idealogues” as you see them, because we see that almost all the problems we face are the result of big money in our politics, and we realize that voting for candidates that take only 80% of their money from wealthy donors are not fundamentally different than the GOP establishment who take 90%-100% of their money from same. We want to get to the root cause of the problem. There is a new faction of Dems called the Justice democrats who take no corporate or PAC money. That is their only “purity test.” They do not demand that candidates agree with every Progressive, far-left policy.We just want the influence of big money out. HRC had no interest in getting the money out – only dark money and she said she would not break up the banks or reinstate Glass-Steagall.

      Yes, we will work against Kamala Harris for the same reasons we worked against HRC: she is pro-corporate candidate who takes large sums of money from the establishment media,and the MIC; companies like Comcast that is owned together with NBC by GE who is a huge beneficiary of lucrative defense contracts yet pays no taxes and is now pushing to end Net Neutrality. Harris just voted for HR2810 a bill that gave the Defense Department $60 billion more than it requested for next year, while we are told by the establishment wing of the D party tells us we cannot afford Medicare for all or cheaper college or… As for incremental change, many Dems who voted for this outrageous gift to the MIC could have begun that incremental change by saying “no” to this $60 billion dollar bonus, and instead just gave them only what they asked for. If you are getting your news from the mainstream outlets that are owned by GE and Concast and their ilk, places like MSNBC, NBC, etc. you are not getting objective coverage.

      We would be happy to support Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner or Jill Stein. So this is obviously not about sexism. It is about facing the pragmatic reality that the D party, as it exists, is so compromised by its wealthy donors it has become ineffective at implementing policies that truly help the people. And they have proven themselves to be unable to motivate 40% of the voters who are Independents and thus have been on a losing slide in state and federal offices for 30+ years. Obviously, the leadership of this party is incompetent. That HRC spent a $billion on her campaign and somehow misjudged the mood of the electorate (despite all those “focus groups”) that wanted a populist proves how incompetent the DNC establishment is.

      As for some of the Bernie supporters being “frenzied an wild”, there was plenty of that on both sides. If I recall a high level D party official made public claims that Berniecrats “threw chairs” at an event when the surviellance video of that event showed no such thing.I was attacked viciously hundreds of times on social media by HRC supporters and still get it.

      And let’s not forget that HRC viciously attacked Bernie and sent her daughter out to do the same many times stating that if he were elected people would lose their Obamacare benefits. Yet, there was no possible scenario where that could have happened if Bernie had won the presidency. When she ran against Obama she circulated photos of him in an tribal African garb to incite fear that he might be Muslim or have allegiance to Kenya. These were what she calls “artful smears.”

      HRC spent a billion on her campaign and the best they could come up with is “I’m with her.” That slogan says nothing about a policy change or a movement forward or hope or change. It just broadcasts what “side” your on and that SHE is the focus. How divisive and empty was that? A better slogan would have been “She’s with Us.” implying she has our interests at heart. She paid millions to consultants for that slogan, yet most everyone I talk to thinks mine would have been far better.

      The most recent election saw many very progressive candidates winning races all over the US. The electorate wants non-establishment candidates and they want big change.

      • Its why we will lose again.. your purity will exclude 90% of the citizens. So we will continue to get GOP.and we will not get rid of gerrymandering or win equality for everyone. Your purity will not help anyone. Racism is not caused by lack of money..lack of equal pay or equal justice are a symptom of racism, of sexism…the things you are worried about are symptoms not the major problems. But for those who see only a hammer..all things are nails.

      • Hillary’s motto was..”Stronger Together”
        You did not watch her speeches..the round tables, her major meetings with justice or security…The experts that knew her that she had in her corner…
        Her policies that were clearly created as solutions…and the amount of people, like you that made up your mind on what others said..and chose to stay and vote in ignorance.

        Can’t change your mind now..its too late. I just hope that in the future you will not be so blind.

      • I don’t know why you don’t start your own party, why try and take over a party that we’ve invested time and money into. Wouldn’t it be bold of me to walk into your house and take it over cause I don’t like the way you run it, shouldn’t I just buy my own house. As far as Nina Turner good luck with that you people are truly delusional
        She was seated her first time out and had no opponent the second time her third time she ran and lost bigly.

  4. Jennie Salva Says: November 30, 2017 at 4:23 pm

    Thank you! Something else the idealogues are forgetting, is that they are small but LOUD minority. They do not speak for nor represent the majority of us. That’s on EITHER side of the spectrum. So they scream loudly. That means WE have to keep fighting against all of them for common sense candidates and hopefully get those candidates in office.

    The far left and far right are both guilty of this. Of course, when called on it, the rest of US are “snowflakes”, “libtards”, “corporate shills” etc. As the VOTES THEMSELVES proved, we did speak, and speak loudly at the ballot box. What we said is nothing at all like the extremists would like us to be.

  5. Jim in Queens Says: December 1, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    Well said. But unfortunately, every generation, the far left has to throw a temper tantrum. It got us Trump, it got us Bush Junior, and to a lesser extent it got us Reagan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.