This is such a lame meme:

Bernie has never, in 30 years, talked about this. Of course, someone will invariably get a hard on over and create something that's not there. By contrast, Hillary and her army are saying "women" like Rudy Guliani says 9/11. Or, to paraphrase Joe Biden, "Subject, noun, 'woman.'" So that takes care of this.

Sanders as the first Jewish president, and Clinton as the first woman president.

For whatever reason, Bernie Sanders has chosen not to emphasize his religion in his campaign. Perhaps it is because his campaign is concerned that lingering anti-Semitism would put him at a disadvantage. Perhaps it is because he is laser-focused on his campaign message of the people-versus-the-billionaire-class to the exclusion of everything else. But whatever the reason, the fact that Sanders has not emphasized his religion has the real-world effect of limiting its discussion as an issue in the Democratic presidential primary. As a liberal and as a person who values diversity, I think electing our first Jewish president would be a great thing for this country, and it is one of the many benefits I see of a Sanders presidency.

On the other hand, as the administrator of this website, I must admit some small amount of relief that his religion is not an issue because I cannot stomach the thought of reading post-after-post about "I would like to have a Jewish president, but not just any Jew!" For one thing, it just sounds bad. On its face it's a totally non-controversial thing to say but scratch the surface and it has a certain smell to it ifyouknowwhatImean. For another thing, Duh. Nobody here wants Eric Cantor to be president of the United States.

Okay, that was the set up, now let's get to your point (that doesn't bode well for your point).

"Which brings me to my point."

Now, allow me to state outright: The Clintons are part of the establishment, full stop. It is so obvious that it does not even need to be justified or explained.

GSM

OK, this here is your most intriguing point so far.

Hillary Clinton is part of the establishment, but because she is a woman she does not have full access to the privileges that accrue to the establishment. If you think that's wrong, take a look at the long history of female Presidents of the United States. Oh wait a second, there haven't been any female Presidents of the United States.

...There is a reason why the first credible woman candidate for President of the United States has strong ties to the establishment: Because she would not be the first credible woman candidate for President of the United States if she did not. Period. Full stop.

Excellent and correct point. But here's the issue, Skinner. Hillary was more qualified than Obama in 2008. Agreed? Well, I don't believe you if you argue that point. The Third Way was in its final throes. Obama promised "change," but surrounded himself by Third Wayers. I voted for Obama, but my vote was for a Bernie Sanders type. Had I known Obama was just another remnant of the Third Way, I have no idea how I would have voted. I was excited about casting a vote that was going to be historic, which ever way it went.

But Hillary's time has past her by. This is the point people are missing. Right now, the debate should be: the failed Third Way vs a New Deal for the 21st century. Instead, people are trying to hijack it: "it's about time a woman is president." Bernie fans are saying, "Hey, let's get are priorities straight. We passed on the Third Way in 2008 because we wanted change. Eight years later, our yearning for change has grown 10xn^100th time. But you guys are saying, 'WAIT! Let's stick with the failed Third Way because Hillary is the last hanger on, and she's a woman, ergo...'

I'm about to Nader Robert Reich, who will never be mentioned on DU again without the tread being torpedoed by Hillary supporters. Reich explained it thusly:

Hillary is the most qualified candidate for the system we have today.
Bernie is the most qualified candidate for the system we should have.

Now arguments about gender and religion only detracts from the issue. The debate about "Who's the most Progressive?" is a real debate and one Hillary is trying to poo-poo.

I'll repeat, because it's worth repeating. The failed Third Way was rejected in 2008 because Democrats voted for change. Instead, the got more failed Third Way. Why in the world should Democrats vote for a candidate who's ideology was already rejected and has failed us, resoundingly.

Word

Before becoming the senior senator from Massachusetts, then-Harvard Law professor Warren joined Bill to discuss the problems facing middle-class Americans, and how “beholden” legislators may not always have their best interests in mind.

In this clip, Warren recounts a meeting she had with first lady Hillary Clinton in the late 1990s, Clinton’s position on bankruptcy legislation at that time, and how everything changed after she became a New York senator.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/11/18/flashback-elizabeth-warren-tells-a-story-about-hillary-clinton-wall-street-and-lobbying/

That's very impressive, Madam Secretary. You are qualified to teach a course at any university on foreign affairs. But you're repeated poor judgement to go to war disqualifies you from being Commander in Chief.

EDIT: Then he could double-down and say

Our involvement in Iraq and Libya have not only destabilized the Middle East and created ISIS, but it has created a never ending war, resulted in thousands of US lives lost and hundreds of thousands maimed, the displacement and death of innocent Iraqis, and has cost the American taxpayer trillions. The American people are sick and tired of your wars.

Now, what was it you were saying, Madam Secretary?

her omission.

"We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if it takes a constitutional amendment.”

Sounds awesome! Doesn't it? This is how she fools people into believing she's going to do something when she's not going to do anything at all. You've got to pay attention to what she actually says, not what you think she's saying. Our minds trick us when we listen for what we want to hear.

that guy you know who is forever getting caught in a lie then having to make up something on the spot to explain it away.

most R candidates by talking about their personality weaknesses (he's got a lot to work with), and the polls all the while never talking policy.

Iowa's radical evangelical wing is gigantic, but Cruz threw Trump a golden bone. On top of everything that's wrong with Cruz, now he's a felon!

Rubio is a boy. No match for Trump. I can't wait to see his beating.

Assuming Trump wins the Primary, his antics could be problematic for the GE. Do Americans care about policy or personality and character defects. McCain and Romney were "low energy" bafoons. Both Hillary and Bernie have huge targets. Both extremely vulnerable. It's going to take Democratic zealots to show up like the evangelical zealots did for Cruz. Trump wins the (if he drank) "he's someone if like to have a beer with" vote. That's how Americans picked Bush twice over two "low energy" Democrats. Americans have been making bad decisions for decades. We've also got to clear an historical hurdle: electing a Dem after 8 years of a Dem.

On paper, we crush anyone. In reality TV, Trump is a handful.

it doesn't fit the criteria.

It's the product of social mores. Egalitarian societies got wiped out. Greed is a behavioral product of hierarchical or capitalistic societies.

My guess is you're asking, do greedy people have a personality disorder? That's the correct question. Narcissistic, Sociopathic. Now we're talking. But greed is a symptom, not a disorder.

...in power. Republicans call themselves "Compassionate Conservatives" and we have Third Wayers calling themselves "Progressives." mom mod, post #39, talks about Gore and Kerry rolling over rather than fighting for Democrats. Today, Hillary's supporters have usurped the Republican "Sore Loserman" meme.

I've been calling it out since Obama got elected noting that suddenly, things we cared about under the Bush admin, we no longer care about. It's really disturbing.

From the loop to Wrigleyville--the north side--there's nothing but cranes and road construction. Gentrification is moving its tentacles further north and west forcing long-time residents out of their neighborhoods. In other words, more neighbors for white residents, small businesses, and trendy restaurants.

On the southside--the neglected black side of town--liquor stores and school closings. No economy and no investment. So what you do with all that reparations money is, you hire all black contractors. No contracts given to whites, they have had all the business for the past century. Then you rebuild the southside. Jobs and money flow in supporting small businesses and restaurants. Bring the schools and safe havens back. But rather than gentrify, enforce strict rent controls so that blacks are able to stay in their homes.

Jobs, businesses, education, investment. Rahm is building a massive multipurpose arena that no one wanted for his alma mater, DePaul, downtown. Chicago State University could use a multipurpose arena.

Back-to-back elections are stolen and both Dems lie down and roll over?! My reaction was visceral and spontaneous. Unable to shout in disgust, he does it for me




aside: I find it interesting and very sad that, considering everything Dems have been through with bogus election counts, Hillary's supporters are taking up the Republican "Poor Loserman" meme.

After Obama's election, I learned DU Democrats are incredibly hypocritical when it comes to their favorite pol.

Anyway, I totally get it why Hillary appeals to blacks, and more importantly, black mothers, the most loyal Democratic voting block. She's tangible. She can and has sat with them, talked motherhood, (somehow) recalls(?) her family's economic struggles (despite the fact that she's from Park Ridge and went to Latin High School), whereas Bernie is so detached from their experience; he's a professor at the lectern. 'How can he relate to my situation?' Obviously, he can't, so his burden is to find a way to appeal to them. About all he can is have black serogates carry his message to the black community, but also meet with them often (which is his M.O.) to make him more tangible. The primary system works against him in that regard. He has to spend all this time in white communities, totally ignoring blacks. That's not helping and, to be honest, it's hurting him right now. He's going into South Carolina at a tremendous disadvantage because the primary schedule begins Iowa, NH.