"Elections Have Consequences" and "If You're Against Clinton, You're A Privileged Sexist".... AKA Thanks for pushing me away when we should be coming together

I've heard a lot about how Clinton won the primary so Sanders supporters should fall in line.  I've heard a lot over the last 9 months about anybody being against Clinton being a sexist and an enemy of women.  I've heard, more than a few times, that we (Democrats/liberals) should be in favor of Clinton because she's the most qualified and/or because she's a woman.

Let's start with the last and go backwards.

I don't believe in voting for someone because of their sex.  I'm blessed to have my mother for my mom and, at different periods of my life, my school committee member, my state representative, and my state senator.  I am extremely happy to have Senator Warren representing me in D.C.  And by the way, I'm explaining these two because I feel that if I don't, I'll be attacked for being anti-women in office... and even after saying these, I feel I still will.  I would have loved for Barbara Boxer to have run for President, or Elizabeth Warren for that matter.  But they didn't.  Clinton is by far the most experienced candidate this year.  She has her years in the White House as First Lady (which counts for something when you're an activist as she was), her years as US Senator in New York, and her years as Secretary of State.  She's held a variety of positions, giving her a wide variety of experiences, all helping her become extremely qualified from a background position.  But you don't hire someone just based on their previous jobs, you look further at them to determine whether they're a good fit for the position you're offering.  You ask whether they are as liberal as you'd like.  You ask if they're as much in favor of peace and as disinterested in war as you'd like.  And Clinton isn't either of these for me.  I said in 2008 when I said that she and Obama were far to centrist for me and I've said it again for the last year.  She's a centrist and she's a war-hawk.  That isn't to say she's not better than the centrist-but-racist-lunatic that the Republicans have nominated.  I dare say she's much better, but I pray that she doesn't embroil us in further wars, either fighting Russia in Eastern Europe or fighting terrorists in the Middle East... or some other force.  There's more to my decision than my sexism, which you've determined I have just because I wanted Sanders.  There's more to my decision than my male-privilege that allows me to say that I'm just as not interested in a female centrist war-hawk as I was the male centrist war-hawk that ran as the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008.  When you tell me I'm sexist and privileged, it doesn't make me more interested in our candidate.  In fact it makes me less enthused.  And when you ignore the reasons I'm not in favor of her and tell me that I have other reasons, that doesn't make me listen to you and think about your statements any further, it makes me angry with you and makes me feel that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You know what else makes me less enthused?  When people tell me to get over it or that "Elections have consequences."  Of course "elections have consequences," but let's just take a moment to remember that we don't always know the consequences of elections immediately.  Take this Presidential election, for instance.  Yes, I believe Clinton will be the Democratic Nominee.  Yes, I will be voting for her in November.  But we don't know a few things: 

1) Who will be elected President.  

2) How the utter dismissal of Sanders supporters' feelings and arguments will affect the young left-leaning members of our society and their future voting patterns.  

Let me address the first unknown first, because it's a little quicker to get to the point.  A recent poll has Trump ahead of Clinton.  Say what you want, but that is a very scary thing to me... even more scary than Trump's speech last Thursday.  What's even more scary to me is that Clinton supporters have been ignoring that Trump has been gaining on her for the last 6 months.

And then there's the second point.  Yes, elections have consequences and Clinton won the Democratic nomination (o.k., I'm assuming a bit but it's not a hard assumption to make), but that doesn't mean you should dismiss the hearts and minds of those you need in your camp, just because you don't see another option for them to choose. We should be coming together now, not hurting each other. Choose your words carefully, especially in public, especially to reporters, for your words will be heard and not just by those that agree with you. My words, I feel extremely confident, will be heard by those that do not agree with me.... and to those who disagree with me on this, I ask you to consider whether you really want to come at me and draw me toward that dark side that anger leads to or if you would rather follow the words of Clinton and work with love and compassion and work together to defeat Trump. Yes, I am angry at the DNC, yes, I understand you don't care, and yes, you should let me have my feelings and understand that they are not your own and that I will do the right thing in the end.

Starting now, with this first day of the Democratic Convention, we're supposed to come together as a party.  But instead of the "let's get this done together" that should be filling my Facebook feed and that I should be hearing from my Clinton supporting friends, all I'm hearing are things like "suck it up", "your candidate lost so you should be excited for Clinton now," and "you're a sexist, privileged, white man."  The Republicans just displayed their discord... I guess it's our turn now.  Thanks for making it easy to feel good about getting behind our candidate.