Liberal propaganda: If you don’t support Hillary Clinton for president you hate women


Pro Hillary pundits continue to claim her opponents supporters are sexist while ignoring Clinton’s actual record on women’s rights

By Alex Thomas

(INTELLIHUB) — In a move that highlights the increasing desperation felt by the establishment political press, numerous leftist journalists have continued to insinuate that if you do not support Hillary Clinton for president then you are a sexist, women hating scumbag.

Fresh off a post-debate propaganda blitz that saw the entire mainstream media declare Clinton the winner despite the fact that every single online poll, as well as numerous focus groups, had Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders handily defeating Clinton, establishment talking heads are now doing everything in their power to guilt trip the American people into supporting Wall Street candidate Hillary Clinton. politics writer Amanda Marcotte is leading the way, publishing at least 4 articles that imply directly and indirectly that those speaking out against Clinton are nothing more than women haters and that Clinton is running a “feminist” campaign.

The latest in a long line of Marcotte insanity comes in the form of an article that literally insinuates that young men support Bernie Sanders because they do not want a woman as president, a claim that hinges on completely ignoring Sanders actual progressive record and his documented, diverse cast of supporters. (which do not happen to include me)

The article, complete with one of the most absurd, fact challenged headlines in history, “Let’s storm the Sanders’ he-man women-haters club: Hillary plays the gender card, while Bernie fans rage,” laughably insinuates that Clinton supporters are chalked full of little girls with dreams while Sanders supporters and other anti Clinton voters are part of the non-existent he-man women haters club.

Marcotte first openly admits that Clinton is and will continue to use the gender card to her advantage before claiming that Sanders told Clinton to stop yelling simply because she was a woman. (Note: An article published on Slate of all places also proves that Marcotte is wrong on this point)

It’s a well-noted dramatic turn from her 2008 campaign, where Clinton famously tried to downplay the gender issue. Clearly, she’s learned that doesn’t work—as the Benghazi hearings show, Republicans will never stop harping on ugly stereotypes of women as weak and mendacious—so instead her campaign is turning her gender and her feminism into a strength.

Fighting against sexism and breaking the glass ceiling of the White House was a major theme of the Clinton campaign in Iowa. Bill Clinton gave a wonky, rambling speech at the Clinton rally before the dinner, but when he joked that he’s “tired of the stranglehold that women have had on the job of presidential spouse,” the audience cheered.

During her speech at dinner, Clinton largely ignored Bernie Sanders, but she did make room for one dig insinuating he is sexist. “Sometimes when a woman speaks out,” she said, “some people think it’s shouting.”

She didn’t call Sanders by name, but it was a clear reference to Sanders suggesting that Clinton was shouting too much on the issue of gun control. It struck many people as an ugly double standard, since Sanders’s standard speaking voice is shouting. The moment even worked its way into the “Saturday Night Live” skit about the debate when Kate McKinnon, playing Hillary Clinton, says, “God, it must be fun to scream and cuss in public,” to Larry David’s Bernie Sanders. “I have to do mine in tiny, little jars.”

The dig clearly stung, as Bernie Sanders immediately went out on Sunday talk shows to deny Clinton’s insinuation that gender played a role in his remarks about “shouting” during the debate.

This claim is nothing more than a transparent lie, especially when you consider Sanders said almost the exact same thing to Martin O’Malley. Clearly, straight up lying in a lame attempt at attacking anyone who doesn’t worship at the altar of Hillary Clinton is an act of pure desperation.

Marcotte then publishes a photo she took at a Clinton rally that shows a few little girls and their families in support of Clinton before publishing another photo that shows a few Bernie Sanders supporters who just so happen to be male. Again, another transparent and lame attempt at insinuating that only men who can’t see a woman as president are voting against Clinton.

Luckily, numerous Sanders supporters took to the comments section of Marcotte’s propaganda piece to completely destroy the notion that Sanders supporters are mostly all loud and angry young men.

A sampling of the comments proves that Marcotte is nothing more than another lying propagandist who will say and do anything in order to help Clinton get elected, the facts be damned.

I would like to state as a young woman who attended the event, this is a bunch of bs. There were tons of women on Sanders side. Sure lots of women represented Clintons, but that’s to be expected. Sanders has been consistent with his stances on women’s rights, so just because Hillary says his secist, doesn’t mean he is. Please.


This is from William Saletan at Slate who is extremely liberal.

“Hillary Clinton has found a new wedge issue against Sen. Bernie Sanders. The topic is gun control, but the angle is gender. Clinton is framing Sanders as a sexist who accuses women of shouting when they try to speak up. It’s a lie. She’s manipulating women and abusing feminist anger for her own advantage.”


Let’s be clear: This isn’t what happened. During the debate exchange, Sanders answered O’Malley with the same point about “raising our voices.” Sanders has been giving this answer for years.

He did it in July, after an O’Malley super PAC ad attacked him (“We have been yelling and screaming at each other about guns for decades,” said Sanders).

He did it again in August, after a male surrogate for Clinton attacked him (“I can get beyond the noise and all of these arguments and people shouting at each other”).

He did it again in October, after the mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon (“People on both sides of this issue cannot simply continue shouting at each other”). Sanders gives this answer to everyone.

The charitable explanation of Clinton’s behavior is that she sincerely perceived Sanders’ rebuke during the debate as sexist. But if that were true, you’d expect her to have said so in her first accounts of the exchange. She didn’t. She waited more than a week before embellishing the story. She prepared it as a sound bite for social media, and she unveiled it at a women’s forum. And it worked, so she’s still using it.

Enough. Sanders’ record as a feminist is as good as Clinton’s. No honest reading of his career or his comments about guns can construe him as a sexist. Clinton is trying to connect with women who have felt bullied by men, and to turn them against Sanders, by smearing him. And what’s true of racism and anti-Semitism is just as true of sexism: The more seriously you take the real thing, the more you should revile people who use it as a fraud.”


I am a Bernie supporter, I am also a female, and a feminist.  The groups I work with to help get Bernie elected are comprised of young and old, male and female, gay and straight and a multitude of races and ethnicities. And might I add that many of the best leaders within these groups are women.

No one in these groups is anti-woman, or anti-any minority.  And of course, why would any of us be?!  We’re BERNIE supporters!  We believe in the equal rights of ALL American citizens. And we believe that Sanders has the progressive record we can trust to really make the progressive changes that we want to see.  We do not trust Clinton to do the same.

We simply can’t trust her record.  It of course has nothing to do with her gender.  And sure, I would like to see a woman in office, but not if that means picking a candidate BECAUSE she is a woman.

As a woman with very strong feminist convictions myself, I believe Clinton is playing the gender card, once again saying whatever she needs to to play to the right people to get her elected.  Voting for Clinton because she is a woman is just as backwards as a sexist not voting for Clinton because she is a woman.  Look at her record, listen to what she has to say, and use that, and only that as a reason to vote for her or not.  I’ve done that, and I’m choosing Bernie all the way.


Since I wasn’t at the Bernie rally I have to trust the author when he said it was mostly young males. That’s somewhat surprising to me. I have over 800 friends of Bernie from all over the country on Facebook, about 60% are female and they all seem to me to be more excited than ever before in their lifetime to have a candidate that speaks for them, just like me and plan to work their butts off to elect him.

I’m 65 and the ages of my friends are anywhere from 18 to 90. The MSM is in Hillary’s corner, there is no doubt about that but this is our opportunity, and maybe our last one to take back this country and put it under control of “we the people.” There was a reason Hillary’s crowd sat silent while Bernies was fired up. Maybe you can figure it out, but if not, you will by election day.

Next up in her propaganda piece, Marcotte quotes a New Republic report that attacked Sanders supporters as conspiracy theorists for telling the truth about post-debate mainstream media bias.

These gender dynamics could have an unfortunate downside, however. Sanders went after Clinton hard in his speech Saturday night, and his supporters cheered every word while the Clinton supporters sat in silence.

Sanders supporters are a diverse crowd, but as Suzy Khimm of the New Republic notes, a huge amount of his support comes from an Internet-savvy, cantankerous crowd of young men. It’s a crowd that’s already swapping conspiracy theories about a media plot against their candidate, as Khimm writes:

“That question became pressing after the first Democratic debate aired on CNN in mid-October. When pundits everywhere hailed Clinton as the winner, and others (myself included) argued that Sanders had fallen short, the subreddit and every other social media channel went crazy with allegations that media was in the bag for Hillary Clinton. “Bernie wins EVERY poll yet CORPORATE MEDIA declares Hillary the winner  !!!” one Sanders fan told me. “Are you blind or just bought? Grow a pair and admit the truth,” another wrote to Slate’s Josh Voorhees.

Conspiracy theories rapidly proliferated, alleging that major outlets were deliberately undercutting Sanders by suppressing favorable poll numbers and deleting pro-Bernie comments. “We have an explicit example of the corruption of money in politics,” one Redditor wrote last week. “Time Warner is a top donor of Hillary Clinton and they own CNN, and CNN is censoring Bernie Sanders to alter his message.”

Take note that the New Republic article that Marcotte quotes literally labels the documented fact that CNN was deleting pro Sanders comments from their Facebook page after the debate a conspiracy theory. The author of the article even goes as far as to link to a Reddit post claiming comments were deleted rather than to actual news articles that confirm this fact.

Only in the mind of an authoritarian liberal would a known but inconvenient truth be called a conspiracy theory. The fact that Macrotte and the New Republic think it is sexism that people are exposing corporate media bias is a very telling window into their mindset.

Wannabe Hillary Clinton PR spokeswoman Marcotte then ends her fact challenged hit piece with yet another paragraph chalked full of straight up bullshit.

Despite this, it’s heartening to see so many young women eagerly turn out for Clinton’s feminism-heavy campaign. Not surprising, of course—feminism, which has grown tremendously due to the internet in recent years, is hip these days—but still heartening.

It’s easy to grow cynical and dismissive of what it would mean to have the first female president, especially since so many other countries have already had female heads of state. But standing in a crowd of mothers who brought their daughters out to see the woman who could do it here (as well as Katy Perry), I felt my heart soften a bit. How much it would mean is debatable, but it still means something to be able to finally give this to the little girls in that crowd.

There you have it! If you do not support Clinton for president you hate women and are destroying the dreams of all the wonderful mothers who brought their daughters out to see Clinton. Absolutely pathetic.

Ironically, the claims that those speaking out against Clinton are simply sexist anti-feminists totally ignores the fact that Clinton and her families foundation have accepted millions of dollars from countries who force women to listen to their husbands under the threat of violence. In fact, the only thing in Clinton’s record that would even indicate that she is an actual feminist is that she is a woman. Besides that, Clinton’s record is absolutely not pro women.

In an article I recently published detailing Clinton’s new sexual harassment campaign ad, I detailed her long history of attacking her husbands female victims.

“In perhaps the most tone-deaf campaign video of the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton has released an ad in which she claims to be a defender of woman who have been sexually assaulted.”

“The problem? Hillary has a long, disgusting history of vengefully attacking any woman who claimed they were sexually assaulted by her husband and former president Bill Clinton. This fact makes the campaign ad borderline psychotic and shows just how fake Hillary actually is.”

“The entire world knows what she has done to woman like Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick yet she actually looks into the camera and claims she is “with” survivors of sexual assault.”

“Don’t let anyone silence your voice?! But wait Mrs. Clinton, didn’t YOU and your close advisor James Carville have an actual strategy to destroy the woman who spoke out after being attacked by your husband? What? You don’t remember the whole “nuts and sluts” defense strategy?”

Think about this for a second. Propagandists like Amanda Marcotte are doing everything they can to guilt trip the American people into voting for Clinton in order to support women’s rights when in reality Clinton herself has personally done absolutely horrible things to numerous women who were involved with her husband. If that is not disgusting I do not know what is.

Hit pieces like the one written by Amanda Marcotte and quoted above are the acts of desperate establishment pundits who see Clinton’s chances of winning the election dwindle each day and who will do anything and everything they can to slow the onslaught of negative press up to and including ludicrous and transparent insinuations of sexism.

This article originally appeared on

About the Author

Alex Thomas is a reporter and opinion journalist who has worked in the alternative media for over three years. His work has been featured on numerous news outlets including Infowars and RT. You can contact him hereAlex is an exclusive weapon of IntellihubRead more articles by this author here.

Feel free to post the above article in part or in full on your website or blog leaving the byline and all original links intact.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0 US)