You're Just Wrong: Hillary Doesn't Need to Move.

Today, this turd landed in the DKos punch bowl. I think it was extraordinarily ill-advised, even if the thinking was sound. Sadly, the thinking is not sound. I’m not wading into that morass because the comments are already making my computer groan.

First off, when people tell you that your tone sucks, they’re not saying you hate women. Not understanding the difference between sexism and misogyny is like not understanding the difference in our reaction to a crappy driver causing an accident and a drunk driver killing someone. We want you to be a better driver.

No one’s calling you out for pinching butts in the break room or telling blond jokes. People are telling you that insisting that Clinton adopt the positions of the loser comes across as incredibly arrogant and tone-deaf. “You would be more successful if you were more like a man” is exactly what almost every sexist asshole says the instant a woman gets anywhere. I get that you didn’t mean your diary that way, but that’s the way it reads to me. I suspect that there are many who agree with me.

It also dismisses as irrelevant all the people — myself included — who considered the candidates and chose Clinton. When we discuss power, authority and agency, what you are doing is called erasure. Maybe you should stop and think about all the people you’re erasing.

This is why I think Kos’ suggestion that we ignore Sanders and his supporters is ill-advised. Not only does it suppress enthusiasm by continuing to insist that Clinton supporters are too stupid and naive to understand the full awesomeness of Sanders, it perpetuates the media drumbeat that Clinton sucks and is wrong about everything. News flash: we don’t think Clinton sucks.

Stop trying to litigate the fucking primary.

Which brings me to my larger point:

The essence of your argument is that Clinton’s agenda isn’t ambitious enough. I’m going to set aside the 97% overlap for a second and focus on the fact that you are not only asking Clinton to change her agenda — flip-flopper, anyone? — but you are doing so in an attempt to court the least reliable voting cohort.

Maybe you don’t remember 2010 all that well. I do. Younger voters stayed home because they didn’t get the unicorn steaks they thought they deserved. The result was a congressional map composed almost entirely of ass.

How do you think they are going to react when she can’t outlaw fracking her first day in office? What will they say when any trade agreement gets passed? Never mind that our economy relies on trade.

I can tell you exactly what they’re going to do: punish downticket Democrats with protest votes, crippling our ability to gain/keep the House. I don’t know about you, but I’m absolutely done with the Benghazi/emailgate shitshow. I would like my government to actually work for a while.

Now, this isn’t to say that I don’t think Clinton should be challenged or pushed to the left. I’m firmly of the opinion that ending drone strikes should be a day-one priority and the fact that this is highly unlikely is one of my biggest knocks against her. I’m saying that insisting she make promises she can’t keep seems like a terrible play for everyone.

Title edited to not be a callout.

Also, not staying around to defend that “diary” was pretty %$#^ing weak.