Saturday Morning Cartoons: Berning Sensation

Welcome to Saturday Morning Cartoons, a segment where four artists take turns delighting you with their whimsy, facts and punchlines on Saturday mornings! Our esteemed cartoon critters are Cameron GlavinAnna BongiovanniMegan Praz and Yao Xiao. Today’s cartoon is by Megan!

A brief reminder that any and all opinions expressed regarding the Dem candidates for the 2016 presidential election are solely the opinions of the writer of the individual piece in question and should not be considered an official opinion of Autostraddle the website.



Before you go! Autostraddle runs on the reader support of our AF+ Members. If this article meant something to you today — if it informed you or made you smile or feel seen, will you consider joining AF and supporting the people who make this queer media site possible?

Join AF+!

Megan Praz

Megan Prazenica is an animator/artist from Pittsburgh, PA. She now lives LA and life has been interesting ever since. When Megan isn't making art comics, or video games, she can be found wrecking havoc on the ultimate frisbee field as her alter-ego, "Bacon." Catch up with her on her website, her tumblr or tweet @MeganPraz.

Megan has written 42 articles for us.


  1. Hey, we had a female prime minister and it was super-revolutionary and feminists all love her to this day!


    • I would submit that that’s not really an ideal comparison, given that in a parliamentary system, people vote for the party, not the individual candidate for Prime Minister. In fact, I wonder if it’s actually easier under that system for a woman to become Prime Minister, because individual voters aren’t voting for her specifically, but for a particular party and their policies, which is one of that system’s strengths.

      • I would submit that any idea that that distinction in how the person is elected significantly changes the “revolutionary” (or even “progressive”, regardless in this case of the horrific content of Clinton’s politics) potential of that election is absurd, though.

        • And there’s considerable evidence that parliamentary systems have fostered a “presidentialization” of prime ministers, in that many voters will actually vote for a specific party because of the person they anticipate will become prime minister. Regardless, I agree with you, Angelica.

          • Assuming that Angelica is talking about Thatcher, she became PM in 1979- if you have a source to indicate that this “presidentialization” you talk about was in place at that time, I’d be genuinely interested to read it. Otherwise, while that argument can be made now, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to retroactively apply it to elections that were held nearly forty years ago.

            As far as the “horrific content of Clinton’s politics,” yes, it would be truly terrible for me to retain my right to access abortion and birth control, get married to another woman if I so choose, serve in the military if I so choose and not stand by and watch as my Muslim and immigrant friends and acquaintances are rounded up and deported. What a terrifying thought. One wonders how fully three million more people (at last count) could have cast votes for such an evil harpy than for Sanders.

          • @diplogeek, I wasn’t merely retroactively applying this phenomenon to the 1970s. Your initial comment was a blanket statement about parliamentary systems.

        • What is the “horrific content”, exactly?

          Also, saying Clinton will be awful because Thatcher was awful is like saying Sanders will be terrible because Hitler was terrible. Clearly all women govern alike, as do all men. What does this even have to do with anything? Clinton supporters support her because of who she is as an individual – they wouldn’t switch to Sarah Palin tomorrow just because Palin also has a uterus, and the suggestion that they would is offensive.

          • Read. That’s not what I said; it was against the idea that having a female president is “revolutionary” as the cartoon puts forward, which frankly is astonishingly shit politics.

            And lol, Diplogeek; it’s telling when the best things that can be said about Clinton are 1) positions on same-sex marriage and LGBT military service (I mean, fuck military service, but until it became sufficiently politically expedient to abandon them Clinton was defending DOMA and DADT); 2) immigration, where Clinton has been secretary of state in an administration that has overseen a *record* number of immigrations; and 3) abortion and birth control, the latter of which in particular is an astonishingly low bar for not-terrible politics, and she’s not so great on the former as pushed either.

            And that these should somehow obviate her ultra-hawkish stance and support for wars costing millions of lives?; her deep complicity in right-wing coups?; her huge role in welfare reform, one of the greatest attacks on poor and racialised ppl in the US in the country’s history?; her weird racist shit?; and fuck I’m not even going to start on her economic policies that would (and did) put her at another point in history on the right of the Republican party.

            And m8, I have little love for Sanders so you can take that reason off the table, but you can particularly get lost with the “harpy” insinuations about why someone would be sickened by Clinton.

          • Tbh, if yr going to conceptualise “harpy” as the only possible source of animosity towards Clinton, that implies some pretty misogynist assumptions about how ppl’s politics should be formed.

        • Well, Angelica, come November, you’re free to cast your vote right along with the rest of us and make your views known. And given that your post reads like a litany of dank Bernie memes and Rush Limbaugh talking points, I have a hard time taking your claim that you dislike Sanders very seriously.

          And as someone who worked for the Department of State when Clinton was Secretary of State there, yes, actually, the work she did in getting parity in benefits for same-sex couples in spite of DOMA had a huge impact on myself and my colleagues, not to mention the way she put LGBT rights front and center at Embassies and Consulates around the world. Sanders openly opposed gay marriage in Vermont in 2006, and he has said publicly that his opposition to DOMA had nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with what he felt was a constitutional problem in that he believed that the decision of whether or not to legalize gay marriage should be left up to individual states. Don’t presume to lecture me about my own interests and how I should vote when you know nothing whatsoever about me.

          Meanwhile, Sanders was happy to make sure Vermont got a huge defense contract to produce the F-35, one of the most expensive (and least-needed) weapons platforms in U.S. military history (which is really saying something), he voted to continue funding for Iraq (also to ensure continued defense spending kickbacks for his state), and his wife currently sits on the Texas Low-Level Radiation Waste Disposal Compact Commission, a commission that organizes the transport and dumping of Vermont and Maine’s radioactive waste in poor, largely Latino communities along the Texas/Mexico border, for which she earned about $5000 in 2014, according to the tax returns Sanders has released. Sanders himself was, of course, aggressive in getting the original legislation that allowed the waste dumping passed back in the ’90s.

          While in the Senate, Clinton’s record was the eleventh most liberal, and she and Sanders voted in concert 93% of the time. Your claim that she’s “to the right of the Republicans” is laughable on its face, so feel free to “get lost” yourself on that one.

          • Well, I’m not free to vote, thus the thing about having had a female PM. The claim about Rush Limbaugh talking points is bizarre (he criticises from the left, on high deportations, war, coups etc.?), and I’m not quite sure why yr lecturing me on Sanders – some things like the above are exactly why I say I have “little love for Sanders”; I might not think at contemptibly of his as I do of Clinton, but he’s a middle-of-the-road social democrat and all the failings that come with that.

            If that leaves you with some mediocre claims about Clinton’s LGBT record, against all the shit she’s done against that, and against her involvement in Iraq, Honduras, welfare reform, occupied Palestine etc., then forgive me if my utter contempt for Clinton isn’t swayed.

          • Oh, I just realised where the bizarre Rush Limbaugh accusation may have come from – that I typoed “immigrations” rather than “deportations”. Because yes: the Obama administration, with Clinton responsible for immigration oversight as secretary of state for most of that time, deported far more people than any other other presidency in history. It is on pace to deport more people than *every single president between 1892-2000 combined*. ANYONE who learns that fact and still talks positively of Clinton is, imo, beneath contempt.

    • Changing the gender of the oppressor, just as changing the race or changing the religion does not and has not changed the nature of the oppression.

  2. I feel compelled to say that while I appreciate the sentiment that the Bernie bros are rude, I don’t really think it’s less ‘inherently revolutionary’ to have the first declared socialist Jewish president than the first woman president. But I guess we’re all supposed to pretend being Jewish or a socialist is somehow a non-issue or that being a wealthy white Christian woman is a slog through endless oppression by comparison.

    What I mean to say (perhaps I’m being too negative or too sensitive, sorry) is that the representation politics of this feels icky to me. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it being somehow more symbolically important that a woman is elected than a Jew born in 1941. Heck, Hillary Clinton entered Yale the same year the last class under a Jewish quota graduated – so I’m thinking Sanders and Clinton have climbed some of the same hills during their lives.

    Regardless, they’re both fine options and happy voting to one and all. Just had to get that off my chest – sorry if this is an inappropriate response to the comic.

    • If he was running as a socialist, perhaps the argument would stand that it’s equally revolutionary to have a socialist president. But he’s not, he’s using the democratic ticket, wanting it both ways.

      • He is a Democratic Socialist and are you really going to ignore him because he is using a larger platform? That’s a lame excuse.

    • Sanders benefits and has benefitted much more from the privilege that comes with being white and male than he has been hampered by his Jewishness, certainly in the last thirty years or so (namely, the vast majority of his political career). I say this as a Jewish person myself- while anti-Semitism is clearly still an issue, Sanders is able to get away with all kinds of things as a male politician that would be objectively impossible for Clinton simply because she’s a woman. From the crazy hair and unpressed suits to the very fact that he has been able to make a career for himself as an outsider at a time when it would have been ludicrous to think of a women running as a socialist and getting elected to national office (yes, even in Vermont), the fact that Sanders is Jewish does not erase the advantages that he has had by virtue of being a white guy. Even when you factor in the conditional nature of Jewish “whiteness” in American society.

    • Derp. Message was cutoff. Anyways, I can’t bring myself to like Hillary and I think a lot of it has to do with the slander, but open to an education in politics to better understand Hillary support!

    • oops i’m so sorry, so inappropriate, i probably understood the intention of the comic the wrong way *self-flagellates with a scourge made from own pubic hair in front of a Solanas icon* #mybad #meaculpa #keepthefaith

  3. I love this. <3 <3 <3 <3

    "Sorry I can't hear you! I have very good intentions!" is the majority of Bernie supporters I've encountered when I mention why #ImWithHer. I too, once tried to feel the bern…but it just doesn't always work out that way.

  4. Great comic! I love the style :)

    And the message could not be more true. I feel so much pressure to Feel The Bern 100% and exclusively all the time. It’s the fact that if I say I like both candidates and would be okay with either, then people immediately tell me I must not care that much about changing the country because ONLY Bernie will bring change, only he will be satisfactory. I could elaborate, but I wanted to keep this relatively short: yes, what he is campaigning for is very different. I like that a lot, and I also like the way Hillary wants to tackle most of those same issues too. I don’t think having ties to affluence makes her bad, nor do I think she would do more harm in 4 years than Trump. My big draw to her is that globally she has appeal too. So when it comes down to it in Nov, I can’t say for sure who I’d support/write in, but I hate the way people shame me for being open to both.

    • I relate to this so much. I mean I “feel the bern” and was going to vote for him in my state primary (alas poor timing and transportation snubbed any hope of voting) but it’s likely that Hillary will win the nomination and I will be more than happy to support and vote for her. And you’re so right, she has incredible international rep that I think will be invaluable. Honestly neither of the other candidates, trump or Bernie, come close

      • One day, someone will complete this thought, and show us what, exactly, Wall street has supposedly bought.

        • Much as reducing it to Wall Street alone is simplistic, the effect of capitalist pressure and political donations on policy-making is hardly unstudied or inconclusive. Against US public progressive preferences on a wide range of economic issues, the only significant defeat of a corporate consensus since the 1960s was the OSHA, which was subsequently utterly defanged. The overwhelming majority of campaign contributions, and even more so lobbying spending, is from businesses, frequently funding both major parties – it would be absurd to imagine that this is not money spent knowing exactly what it buys, and it’s firmly established for instance that there is a direct correlation between lobbying expenditure and tax rates affecting specific businesses.

          Imagine, though, *imagine* thinking that political expenditure from capitalist interests had no effect on policy outcomes.

  5. This is entirely too real. I am so tired of being told that I’m a “low information voter,” “voting with my vagina,” and on and on because I consciously and enthusiastically decided to support Clinton. I’ve known who Bernie Sanders was forever and came into this really liking him, but his campaign over the last few weeks, particularly in their tepid response to what happened in Nevada, coupled with mansplainy Sanders supporters insisting that I’m either a paid shill or only support Clinton because I’m a moron, have completely and utterly tainted both Sanders and his message for me. It no longer looks like a revolution to me, just the same old white men sanctimoniously lecturing everyone who disagrees with them.

    Once Jeff Weaver announced that none of the women receiving actual death threats from Sanders supporters “had a right” to feel threatened, I was out. It’s a damn shame, really.

    • Yeah… his message resonated with me a lot and I supported him, but I have increasingly soured on him for similar reasons. And I am so ready for the primaries to be finished because of the gamergatey misogynists (too repetitive there, you think?) who apparently love him. I am also sad to see white, straight, cis men I know whose opinions I have respected saying that *Clinton* should apologize for what happened in Nevada, with a mention that the misogyny was bad but no desire to take Sanders to task for his response, or minimizing the concerns of people who try to push for more inclusivity of marginalized identities from Sanders’ campaign, this being an example of the latter.

      • I read that article from Shiksappeal the other day- it’s really damning, IMHO, but not terribly surprising. Look at how Sanders has treated women during his campaign- despite the fact that he claims to be heavily invested in women’s issues, and many of his supporters have lectured me about how he’s “the true feminist” in this race, not one of his ten highest-paid employees is a woman. Not one! Both Trump and Rubio had more women in their top ten than Sanders did! And the two people of color in his top ten most highly-paid positions were both working in outreach roles to their respective communities. Talk is nice, but it’s also cheap, and Bernie’s actions have done very, very little to convince me that he’s actually invested in women’s issues and/or the issues that affect people of color. Quite the opposite, actually, given that he’s brushed aside identity politics as “a distraction” from the real issue of income inequality.

        I’m sorry, Bernie. You’ve got some good ideas, and I wanted to continue liking and respecting you, but addressing income inequality isn’t going to magically erase racism and sexism. That’s just not how things work. Coupling that with the fact that Bernie has benefitted massively from his white, male privilege during this campaign, I just don’t think that he “gets it.” It’s glaringly obvious that his most hardline supporters (overwhelmingly white men, from what I can tell) don’t.

  6. I do feel this. (and all of the unfair character assassination that solely Hillary has faced, likely because she is a woman)

    But I would not like to be told that I’m betraying women and my vagina by favoring Bernie over Hillary because I’ve been told that too…

    Basically both camps are doing some really shitty guilt tactics and across the board it does not work and just makes people feel bad and want to get less involved in politics overall (which is the last thing we need when we have a fascist right-wing populist to face in the general election).

  7. Ironically I’ve had the opposite of this experience, where people assume that I’m a Bernie supporter because I’ve got internalized misogyny and completely ignore me when I talk about my issues with her campaign and stances. :\ Can’t win

  8. The only positive thing you have to say about Hillary is that she’s a woman, in a comic defending why you prefer Hillary. Doesn’t that mean you kind of are “voting with your vagina”?

    Or are you trying to say that the idea of “voting with your vagina” is flawed, and it’s perfectly fine to support a candidate on the basis of gender? I don’t mean this judgmentally, I’m just not sure what you’re trying to say.

    • The fact that you jumped to that conclusion instead of considering that maybe hillarys entire platform didn’t fit into one comic is cool

      • There’s a difference between “Hillary’s entire platform” and “literally anything positive about Hillary apart from gender”.

    • I don’t think this is a fair criticism. Assuming that the author didn’t choose to include another positive point about Clinton in this comic means that she doesn’t have another positive point about Clinton is flawed.

      Nothing about this comic indicates that the author intended to include all of her arguments for voting for Hilary. The character doesn’t get to engage in a discussion about her arguments before she is labeled and shoved out the door. The comic is more of a commentary on not feeling the Bern and how that is received than “reasons why I’m voting for Hilary”.

      • The character gets to say whatever the author chooses to let her say. It’s not like the author wrote the character trying to talk about other things she liked about Hillary, but being interrupted by the doctor labeling her and shoving her out the door as soon as she brought up gender at all. In fact, the line about gender is the only place in the comic where she drops the premise of the character genuinely wanting to be convinced to support Bernie.

        • but the job of the artist and the storyteller isn’t to make a political point, but to tell good stories and make good art. you can’t fault her for making creative choices instead of political ones, even if the creative addresses politics as a topic.

          • do i need to write a five paragraph essay on how i understand what fiction is to have the right to criticize it

            First of all, this piece is clearly trying to be satire – like, this is a scenario where supporting the candidate who’s less popular in the author’s social sphere is treated as a disease, there’s no way in hell it’s just supposed to be an account of a fictional event. She is obviously not seriously trying to write a teen dystopia premise with a Bernie Sanders twist. She may not be trying to say that Hillary is better, but she’s absolutely trying to say that Hillary supporters are treated unfairly. There’s nothing wrong with trying to make a point, or trying to make this point, but it’s disingenuous to pretend that this is not what she’s trying to do.

            If your work is trying to make a point – as this one clearly is – it’s a stronger work if it’s clear what you’re trying to say and your arguments are set up to support it. For an entirely non-political example, look at the same author’s comic about how the protagonist’s girlfriend acts like a cat. We see three separate examples of cat things she does, and then at the end she does another cat thing by getting bored and leaving when the protagonist shows affection to her. The punchline’s pretty clear and obvious! If the character was argued to be acting like a cat for reading fanfiction or chopping an avocado, it would leave the audience feeling confused (unless we get some kind of coherent justification for why this behavior is catlike). The joke relies on the audience’s prior understanding of what’s self-evidently Cat Behavior, and would likely be incomprehensible to people from a culture with different stereotypes about cats.

            But here, what’s going on? Well, we have the doctor severely failing to stay in his lane about gender, that’s for sure. On the other hand, how are we supposed to interpret what the protagonist is doing? Does she have reasons to prefer Hillary’s platform? Is it that prioritizing gender so much isn’t great, but the doctor is much more in the wrong for judging a woman for caring about sexism? Is it that prioritizing gender so much is perfectly valid? How much are we supposed to see this character as her own fallible person, and how much are we supposed to see her as a direct representation of the author’s beliefs? The “I should be supporting Bernie” premise really gets in the way of any sort of justification for anything the protagonist is doing.

            And what’s up with the one honestly pro-Hillary line being about how it would be good to have a woman president? Most Bernie supporters I know agree with that and think that all else being equal, a woman president would be preferable. They just think that in this situation, all else isn’t equal.


     “The Clinton-brokered election did indeed install and legitimate a militarized regime based on repression. In the interview, Cáceres says that Clinton’s coup-government, under pressure from Washington, passed terrorist and intelligence laws that criminalized political protest. Cáceres called it “counterinsurgency,” carried out on behalf of “international capital”—mostly resource extractors—that has terrorized the population, murdering political activists by the high hundreds. “Every day,” Cáceres said elsewhere, “people are killed.”
    Interestingly, Hillary Clinton removed the most damning sentences regarding her role in legitimating the Honduran coup from the paperback edition of Hard Choices.”
    I really encourage folks to read this article, no matter where you stand on HRC. She undoubtedly has faced a lot of misogyny throughout her career and so do her supporters, but there really are valid reasons to criticize Clinton and to question what kind of impact her presidency would have. In addition to her involvement in harmful foreign policy, she has made racist remarks (see: her “superpredators” comments”, has been evasive and/or condescending when confronted by Black Lives Matter activists, and made historically inaccurate and insensitive remarks w/r/t to the Reagan administration’s complicity in the AIDS crisis, and more.
    I don’t think electing HRC would be revolutionary at all; I don’t think we can vote our way to revolutionary change period and it irritates me that Bernie’s campaign uses the language of revolution. Bernie Sanders is a reformist and that’s okay– I plan to vote for him if possible– but the tl;dr here is I think we should be critical of politicians and remember that electoral politics are the most limiting kind.

    • No!! As long as she’s not an actual fascist (albeit supporting actual fascism overseas to shore US interests), then her election would be revolutionary!, would transform the whole political landscape of the country!

      Honestly, I cannot get my head round the idea of politics so incredibly shallow that this could be considered to be the case. It’s absurd enough for Sanders and the weird conception of what can call itself “socialist” in the US, but for someone who is possibly the most quintessentially establishment candidate the country has ever seen (and all the right-wing politics that go along with that)?

  10. Good thing it’s a comic! Cause this really is a joke. Don’t worry Hillbots, the game is rigged.

  11. Not to be nitpicky here, but … the California primary is June 7. If you wait until June 13, you’re going to miss out on the whole thing.

    • I thought that was maybe part of the joke, the doctor not wanting her to vote?

    • Right?, I mean I’d consider her involvement in policies leading to millions of death and enormous-scale suffering to be more glaringly huge, and I think it’s a massive failing for a supposedly progressive-or-whatever site to be indifferent to that, but even within the sphere of domestic LGBT politics she has a pretty extensively awful record.

      • I feel this a lot. But honestly, I’m disappointed but not surprised at the lack of critical views towards Hillary on AS. There are so many positive posts about Obama and it just hurts. Like last week when AS posted “President Obama Showed Up For Transgender Americans In a Big Way Today,” and every comment was pro-Obama, I felt sick because the day before, news broke about Obama (aka deporter-in-chief) making plans for ICE raids focusing on mothers and children immigrants. So yeah, when I see uncritical views of Obama-when he’s continuing US imperialist programs in my homeland and all over the world and in this country where he wants to deport my friends and members of my community-I just feel disappointed that even though AS is supposed to be so “progressive,” in so many ways, it’s really not. So yeah, it doesn’t surprise me to see so many Hillary supporters and non-critical views of Hillary. I guess I’m still just looking for an actual revolutionary website/space for LGBTQ women since AS doesn’t often go past identity politics…

        • Ugh, this is such a relief to read amongst all the terrible apologism. And absolutely and almost identically about Obama – despite record deportations, despite huge expansion of the scope of US special forces, despite an attack on education way to the right of No Child Left Behind, despite repeated responses to police brutality etc. that blame poor and Black families for the violence against them, despite by any measure the largest transfer of wealth from poor to rich in the history of the world, despite the re-adoption of the (Bill) Clinton Doctrine on military interventionism — seeing ppl still cheer Obama (and Clinton) makes me feel so, so ill. I think particularly so for the fluff pieces – seeing all the above ignored while cheering for middle-of-the-road liberal support for LGBTQ rights is one thing, seeing it ignored while they’re made into fun memes about how cool and smooth they are is another still.

          It seems v much like I keep being reminded that “queer community” – which in general posits itself as “progressive”, even “radical”, as a norm – is almost always overall profoundly liberal, including deeply right-wing (in some ways, to the right of the general population, reflecting class associations of that community as a whole) on a lot of issues. Recalling long threads of people overwhelmingly speaking in defence of the value of landlords and a particular exchange about how terrible it was for a waiter to break some plates while quitting their awful job.

          And on the one hand I really really want that site/space with decent politics for queer+LGBT women. But I’m finding it hard to imagine how that could exist; it feels like a lot about how something like Autostraddle exists depends on its size, and I don’t think something similar but less right-wing-liberal would be sustainable under current political conditions. And so insofar as a site rooted in actually more radical politics existed, all I find it possible to realistically conceptualise is something that is just specifically articles about radical queer politics as that’s the niche – but that kinda thing already sort-of exists, whereas really I want all the pop culture fun, the throwaway stuff, the news, the advice and community, but just without terrible politics. Sigh.

    • I’ve lost a lot of respect for people in the broader AS community because of their refusal to critically examine Hillary beyond making a martyr out of her for the misogyny she’s experienced. This entire comment section is a glaring example of how HRC is the peak of white capitalist feminism, and it’s been really disappointing seeing how many prominent AS people support her.

      I know there are Sanders supporters here as well, but why aren’t their voices being amplified? I would love to see a roundtable on here with Sanders vs Clinton vs Neither supporters discussing their opionins on Democratic policies.

        • It’s a bummer because AS does publish a lot of really important queer content that I don’t see much of on other LGBT websites, like the interview with Vivek Shraya and the disability lit syllabus as recent examples. I guess that’s why I’m always a little thrown for a loop when I see things like HRC endorsements on the same site.

          • I mean, I’d like to see a bit more criticality towards Sanders too, who is hardly a shining socialist by any standard outside the baffling quagmire of US party politics and media, but absolutely my brain is stacking up names of people who are endorsing things wayyyyy beyond the pale for me in praising Clinton, and generally being repeatedly disillusioned about the possibilities of “queer” spaces of the kind that Autostraddle represents.

            Likewise, O.Rose, I feel the Clinton endorsements as a jarring slap in the face every time, but at the same time when I take a step back for just a moment they’re really not such a surprise. I’ve learned again and again that when it comes to questions actually at odds with liberalism (not in the weird sense of being synonymous with “left-wing” often used in the US), having good expectations is foolish. While there’ll be consistent support for marginalised subject positions, as with the disability lit syllabus etc., I’ve seen professed “progressive” or even “radical” queer communities overwhelmingly take positions that to be honest are to the right of what I’d expect if I were to just canvas my colleagues when it comes to matters of property (a 400-comment thread about the professed social good of landlords is lodged firmly in my gut). And consistently with liberal politicians: queer community may faiiiirly consistently acknowledge racism, say that war is bad, poverty is bad, immigrants should be welcomed — but when it comes to politicians literally responsible for crimes against humanity on these fronts, they become no big deal :(

          • I know I keep on but: still can’t get over, “What if a liberal woman president would be inherently revolutionary and could cause immeasurable cultural change?” This is literally a line I would come up with if I were writing a comment mocking the absurdities of Clinton apologism, and even then it would be hyperbole. It’s utterly exquisite in its detachment from reality.

    • I have nothing to add that hasn’t been said already, but I am very grateful for this thread.

  12. Let’s face it, if the Republicans really want to win they need to let Trump keep hanging himself and keep the money for later. History has shown once one party wins three primaries in a row they end up losing for two more. The republicans in power just need to let Hillary win since no one really likes her. They just realize she is the best both sides have to offer. And that is a bad thing. If Romney had tried to run this primary he would way ahead in the polls right now. But since the best the right has to offer is a cult leader then Hillary the carpetbagger is a shoe in for a win.

  13. I’m?!?! is it being insinuated that only white people are down with voting for Bernie Sanders?!?
    cause seriously Hillary pandering to black people after that “super predators” video while repeatedly talking down to those who have confronted her about these comments does nothing to convince me that she’s not a racist

    &honestly it’s dumb to get in a fight with anyone over who they’re voting for but like I have not seen ,as someone above pointed out, a single criticism or call-out…maybe that’s Autostraddle’s desire not to really get involved but it honestly makes me nervous like yay she’s a woman but she’s still a white woman and y’all* should be critical of certain comments and behaviors(especially if you’re going to continue using AAVE)

    *=not a specific y’all, a general y’all

  14. Uh, this is actually NOT funny. Stop disrespecting Sanders supporters. NEWSFLASH: He is not being treated fairly by DWS who should resign as DNC chair immediately for her obvious bias towards Hillary who is struggling head to head a/g DJT.

  15. Wow, so much controversy! I mean, I’m a Bernie supporter, but I still smiled at this comic. I don’t really think it was saying anything negative about either candidate, just about the stereotypes directed toward Hilary supporters.

  16. Really disappointed in how divisive the democratic race is this year. I know politics have gone into bizarro world with Trump, and the stakes are high, but how has it come to the point where I feel like I have to keep my mouth shut about who I support for the dem nominee?

Comments are closed.