In an interview by Susan Brockes in the The Guardian (Bette & Joan starts in the UK soon) Susan Sarandon, who threw away her vote on Jill Stein and had such hate for Hillary Clinton, she will STILL not shut up about her.
Most infuriating of all, she won’t admit her mistake. Sarandon says,
“I think of myself as a humanist because I think it’s less alienating to people who think of feminism as being a load of strident bitches.
And then suddenly it became OK to say feminist… that image of the shrill woman became the definition of a feminist for a long time. And women had a right to be angry, and to feel empowered. But that was just one glimpse of a fairly emotional and strident definition, and there was a period when young women didn’t want that label.
It’s come back, and it’s gotten warped, especially with the election, where if you’re a woman you have to support Hillary Clinton.”
The interviewer tells her Katha Pollitt in the New York Review of Books recently called her “an idiot.” Taken aback, Sarandon says,
But didn’t she advocate voting for Jill Stein?
“I didn’t advocate people voting for anything. I said get your information, I’m going to vote for change, because I was hoping that Stein was going to get whatever percentage she needed – but I knew she wasn’t going to make the difference in the election.
It wasn’t a protest vote. Following Bernie wasn’t a protest.”
After the nomination, it was. And voting for Jill Stein was, by any definition, was a protest vote, no?
“Well, I knew that New York was going to go [for Hillary]. It was probably the easiest place to vote for Stein. Bringing attention to working-class issues is not a luxury. People are really hurting; that’s how this guy got in. What we should be discussing is not the election, but how we got to the point where Trump was the answer.”
She’s asked if she lost friends over all this?
“No. My friends have a right to their opinions. It’s disappointing but that’s their business. It’s like in the lead-up to Vietnam, and then later they say: ‘You were right.’ Or strangely, some of my gay friends were like: ‘Oh, I just feel bad for [Clinton]. And I said: ‘She’s not authentic. She’s been terrible to gay people for the longest time. She’s an opportunist.’ And then I’m like: ‘OK, let’s not talk about it any more.’”
But did she really say that Clinton was more dangerous than Trump?
“Not exactly, but I don’t mind that quote. I did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking, we would be at war [if she was president]. It wouldn’t be much smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.
She would’ve done it the way Obama did it, which was sneakily. He deported more people than have been deported now. How he got the Nobel peace prize I don’t know. I think it was very important to have a black family in the White House and I think some of the stuff he did was good. He tried really hard about healthcare. But he didn’t go all the way because of big pharma.”
As Brockes parts with Sarandon on the street, she shouts back over her shoulder,
“Will I get a load more hatred when this article comes out?“
The interviewer answers,
Yeah, I don’t love her anymore. I would direct you to this speech on Thanksgiving Day by the current POTUS for evidence that Sarandon is out of touch with who and what is actually more dangerous.
(Photos, YouTube; via The Guardian)