often seems indistinguishable from trying to sabotage Clinton.The most recent example comes courtesy of The New York Times Magazine, which published Ana Marie Cox’s interview with Schultz that featured this unfortunate exchange:
Do you notice a difference between young women and women our age in their excitement about Hillary Clinton? Is there a generational divide? Here’s what I see: a complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v. Wade was decided.
Say what? Presumably Schultz is referring to the fact that women under 30 are more likely to be supporting Sanders than Clinton, but if so, her argument makes no kind of sense at all. Sanders and Clinton may differ on many issues, but one place where their views are identical is with regards to reproductive rights.
DNC chair accuses young women of “complacency” on abortion, but there’s no reason to think it’s so
">Debbie Wasserman Schultz is wrong: Young women care about their reproductive rights
It’s widely believed, by both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters, that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in the bag for Clinton. If so, she really needs to stop trying to help, because her “help” often seems indistinguishable from trying to sabotage Clinton.
The most recent example comes courtesy of The New York Times Magazine, which published Ana Marie Cox’s interview with Schultz that featured this unfortunate exchange:
Do you notice a difference between young women and women our age in their excitement about Hillary Clinton? Is there a generational divide? Here’s what I see: a complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v. Wade was decided.
Say what? Presumably Schultz is referring to the fact that women under 30 are more likely to be supporting Sanders than Clinton, but if so, her argument makes no kind of sense at all. Sanders and Clinton may differ on many issues, but one place where their views are identical is with regards to reproductive rights.