Thread by @AlexandraErin

Okay, now for the thread that really WILL burn down my life:

A number of Bernie's fans -- by which I don't mean the small subset of toxic ones but a larger subset including sincere, well-meaning ones -- think that mentioning his liabilities now serves no purpose but to hurt him.

Multiple times today I have seen someone replying to a tweet about his comments on Cuba and Castro or the aforementioned column with "But why bring this up? Are you trying to help Trump?" as though these were all long buried secrets unearthed by the tweet they're replying to.

Imagine Bernie is on the ticket and the column about gender roles and fantasies had come out into the open in October, the way the Access Hollywood tapes did.

If that were the case, I think there's a good chance it would tank him.

"But why would it tank him when Access Hollywood didn't tank Trump?" Because Trump is a Republican and nobody expects better of Republicans. The R voters who don't agree with him are convinced that they're fighting demons and saving babies from slaughter, or stuff like that.

Bernie's maybe got a better chance of weathering a hit like that than a typical Democratic candidate because his voter base includes non-typical voters, but he needs the typical Democrat voters to win, and D voters are more likely than R to stay home if they feel morally betrayed

With these things coming out NOW and being discussed NOW... you might think "Oh, but that gives the Republicans months to build a narrative!" They're doing that anyway? Even if we don't talk about it?

It's better for Bernie that we know what's out there and have a chance to wrap our heads around it, that his staff has a chance to counter the GOP narrative around it, than we stick our heads in the ground because "acknowledging this only helps Trump."

I've referred to Sanders as "Saint Bernard" before, not as a potshot against him but in reference to how many of his followers think the worst thing you can do is suggest he's not perfect, which I think is rooted in a need for him to be perfect.

Which he's not.

And if the preceding tweet circulates enough it will attract replies with "OH YEAH HE'S NOT PERFECT WELL I SUPPOSE WARREN IS" or "OH SO BECAUSE HE'S NOT PERFECT WE SHOULD JUST RE-ELECT TRUMP YEAH THAT MAKES SENSE."

Because the worst thing you can do is say he's not perfect.

The expression about "a hero with a feet of clay" is originally talking about a statue. The "feet of clay" reference is from the Book of Daniel, where a statue was described from a prophetic dream, representing a kingdom.

The statue was made of gold and silver and bronze and iron, metals that are beautiful, valuable, and useful. But the iron feet were mixed with clay. Which, if you think about a metal statue, that's about the worst place to put clay. A head of clay would be a choice, but fine.

The reference has been more or less orphaned from its sacred roots in modern English and is idiomatically used to refer to finding out your heroes are only human, often through some tragic failing: you build a statue to someone great, and it cannot stand, for the base is weak.

But here's the thing: the reason this metaphor works really well is that, metaphorically speaking, humans are clay. Through and through. The statue only topples at the discovery of a human flaw because clay cannot carry the weight of stone or precious metal.

If you don't make your hero into a larger-than-life idol to begin with, they can just be clay. Flawed, soft, malleable human clay. You can make a human figure out of clay that won't fall over. Well, sculptors can. I can't.

The more you build Bernie up in your mind, the more you insist that he can't be flawed, his political philosophy can't have any oversights, his plans can't have downsides, his past can't have any skeletons... well, the bigger the statue, the harder it will fall, to mix idioms.

I was disappointed by many aspects of President Obama's terms in office, but before he was elected he said something that has stayed with me: "I am an imperfect vessel for your hopes and dreams."

That's true of anybody who runs for office, and it's important.

And to conclude: if your feeling is that sure he has flaws and it's fine to acknowledge them but you think the way they're being talked about is not helpful, be the change. Try leading the conversation you think should happen instead of replying to people defensively about them.

And if you think that in replying to people you are leading the conversation in different directions... look, all of us as a species, as a people, as a website, have drastically overestimated the value of replying to somebody we think is wrong. That kind of discourse rarely helps

Trying to inject signal into noise just creates more noise. Start your own conversations. Start your own threads. The real "marketplace of ideas" on Twitter isn't found in the comments. Trust me. People's minds are changed more often by threads than by replies.

And now I mute this thread, too, and go on with my day.