funds and have day jobs, lives to run, kids to raise and no staff. And are not Machiavellian anyway.

It's not their day job to outthink the likes of the Koch brothers. That is what they were taught/brainwashed that their choices in voting booth, their elected representatives and their donations to the IRS to support their elected representatives and their respective staffs and lawyers and accountants and strategists, etc. would do for them.

Sometimes I blame them/us, most times I don't.

FYI, the reality is that Hillary does happen to be the wife of a former President and she seems to have chosen to run for President herself. Certain things do and will inevitably flow from that, especially given the way they have both behaved around that issue and the importance of the office.

First, in 1992, he and she both sold his candidacy as getting two for the price of one. Her supporters tried to sell her 2008 candidacy the same way, with no demurrer whatsoever from her (or him) and her supporters have already been selling her seemingly likely 2016 candidacy the same way.

Meanwhile, she herself has referred to his administration with words like "we" and "us," including while she was running for President in 2008 and since then. For example, when questioned at a 2008 primary campaign event about how her husband had run on equal rights for gays, then treated them badly (I assume that referred to DADT and DOMA), she replied, "I thought we did pretty well."

Additionally, during her 2008 campaign, she cited her experiences as her husband's first lady as though they added to her own qualifications to be President.

I have not heard her disavow anything her husband did. To the contrary, she has praised her husband's administration. So, I am not at all sure how associating her with the things he did, good or bad, is unfair or sexist or any of things claimed about it.

Meanwhile, he was her campaign surrogate in 2008, though they played good cop, bad cop when something he said got attacked.

Bottom line, though, neither the Clintons nor their supporters should expect to have it both ways, or every which way on this issue.

(Obviously, if Hillary had been President first and Bubba had behaved about her administration and his experience as First Gentleman the same way as she has, the exact same realities would obtain.)

Please indulge me by reading these two posts of mine.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396835#post7


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6411462

And, if you are still willing to read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026410455#post183

great white snark to which I was replying.

That post implied that those whose principles will not allow them to vote for the Democratic nominee cause their fellow Americans to suffer. The point of my reply was that voting for, even electing, the Democratic nominee does not automatically prevent suffering.

I cited actions of the Clinton administration simply because it was the most recent Democratic administration before Obama's and I did not want to debate the current administration. My post didn't even fucking mention Hillary or any other woman.

Should I have gone back to the 1970s for the Democratic administration before both Obama's and Clinton's? Is that is what is really necessary these days to avoid a charge of sexism on DU?

Or is any criticism of any Democratic administration at all going to be deemed sexist now because the Democrat who seems to be running for President currently happens to be a woman?

By the way, Sanders, O"Malley and Webb have all made noises about running for President, too. Was my point that voting Democratic does not necessarily prevent Americans from suffering also anti-white male?

I have been the victim of sexism quite a few times, but my reply to great white snark has zero to do with sexism. It's not even in the same universe. If you really thought the post was sexist, you should have alerted, rather than make an ad hom attack on me. That's what the jury system is supposed to be for, to conceal ugly posts for the benefit of all who read DU posts.

And, of course, heaven forbid you should even attempt to address any fact stated in my purely factual post, when you could just ignore everything my post actually said for the pleasure of insulting me for things my post never mentioned at all.

However, let me not do to you what you did to me by totally ignoring the substance of your post, scant and utterly misplaced and ad hom as it was. Besides, I've seen this issue come up before with other posters.

As already stated, my reply to great white snakr was about voting (or not voting) causing our fellow Americans to suffer. It was not about Hillary. However, your reply certainly was, so I will address that.

FYI, the reality is that Hillary does happen to be the wife of a former President who seems to have chosen to run for President herself and certain things do and will inevitably flow from that, especially given the way they have both behaved around that issue and the importance of the office.

First, in 1992, he and she both sold his candidacy as getting two for the price of one. Her supporters tried to sell her 2008 candidacy the same way, with no demurrer whatsoever from her (or him) and her supporters have already been selling her seemingly likely 2016 candidacy the same way.

She has referred to his administration with words like "we" and "us," including while she was running for President in 2008 and since then. For example, when questioned at a 2008 primary campaign event about how her husband had run on equal rights for gays, then signed DADT and DOMA, she replied, "I thought we did pretty well."

Additionally, during her 2008 campaign, she cited her experiences as her husband's first lady as though they added to qualifications to be President.

I have not heard her disavow anything her husband did. To the contrary, she has praised her husband's administration. So, I am not at all sure how associating her with the things he did, good or bad, is sexist. So, neither Hillary nor her supporters can have it both ways.

But, again, that is my response to only hint of substance in your post to me. My reply to great white snark had dealt with none of that. It spoke only to whether voting for one Party or another prevents human suffering. All the other nonsense was in your mind, not mine.

(Obviously, if Hillary had been President first and he behaved about that and his experience as First Gentleman the same way as she has, the exact same realities would obtain. So even in your imagined version of what my post never said, the charge of sexism is wholly unwarranted.)

You really should think twice before you call any DUer bigoted. That is a very serious charges and require grounds other than merely your ability to fling about the term. Speaking as one who has endured sexism, I must add: Do you really think accusing male and female DUers of sexism willy nilly is going to help the cause of any female running for President, now or in the future, or the cause of any female, period?

Sorry, your ad hom reply said a lot more about you than it said about me or about the cause of equality for women.

On edit, this post was probably an overreaction, but no apology or deletion. If you call people bigots willy nilly, you get whatever reaction your charge gets.

strategists like Shields and Shrum, the folks at MSNBC.

A far better question from people who are sincerely seeking truth in this matter might well be, who in a position to have inside Democratic Party info has been saying there should be vigorous primary challenges to Hillary? Or actively encouraging other candidates to run?

Remember, in 2008, all we heard about a primary that Hillary chose to extend well beyond the point at which she had any mathematical chance of winning whatever, was not that it wasted time, money and energy that Senator Obama could have spent battling McCain. It was the the primary had been so wonderful for voters, Obama and the Party. Now, all we hear is that a primary challenge is the worst possible thing for a Presidential candidate. Double think?

Given that so many professional politicians do aspire to be President someday, it is extraordinary that, as early as 2012--before Obama was even re-elected, I was hearing on TV almost daily that the 2016 nomination was Hillary's, if she wanted it; and, if she chose to run, no Democrat would even bother to oppose her in a primary.

When has that EVER been said about a Presidential primary in which no incumbent is running?

What do people like Shrum and Matthews have to offer anyone if it is not their credibility on political matters? Why would they risk their bread and butter on such an unprecedented kind of statement?

Why are the same people who were saying how the 2008 primary was the best possible thing for the party and its Presidential candidate now saying a Presidential primary would be the worst possible thing for the party and Hillary?

And who the hell ever said publicly that primaries were not about party voters, only about "the Party" (whatever the hell that is, apart from voters) and its anointee?

Why are so many supposedly typical Democatic posters here saying it?

Come on, isbm, you're so much smarter than your framing of that question.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-the-2016-debate-this-country-needs/2015/01/19/7bb4ac34-a022-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/08/11/137550/-Senator-Schumer-no-longer-supports-primaries#

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Jerry-Brown-Hillary-Clinton-primary-unhelpful/2015/03/13/id/630099/

WAPO, as confirmation that Jerry Brown thinks primaries are not a good idea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gov-jerry-brown-says-2016-democratic-nomination-is-hillary-clintons-if-she-wants/2014/05/28/de3d0e0c-e5cc-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html



http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/barney-frank-vigorous-primary-challenge-for-clinton-doesn-t-help/17w8apd08



Because elections, even primary elections, should not be about what's best for voters, only what's best for the anointee.


So, we have to bury the old yellow dog Democratic joke:

"But, you said you'd vote for any Democrat, even a yellow dog."

"Not in the primary."

If Republicans try to claim they are the party of religion, family values, patriotism (really jingoism), defense, etc., try to beat them at their own game (as they defined it).

So, the DLC encourage Democrats "not to hide" their faith. And, when asked why Kerry lost the Presidential, Clinton pointed out that Obama had begun his Senatorial campaign with his pastor at his side. (Yes, we know how that turned out, but this was right after the 2004 election.) And, after Kerry lost he reportedly said something like "I got the religious thing wrong, didn't I?"

Obviously, Democrats can go only so far with religion, without bumping into anti-abortion and homophobia. But, apparently, they can bring their disciplines along for mixing church and state, semi-deifying the military, being "strong on defense," etc.

Meanwhile, increasing sanity on the issues of choice and equal rights has been prevailing throughout the nation, among both rank and file Republicans and rank and file Democrats, esp. in the younger demographics, though the war is far from won yet.

I am going to be interested to see what happens when those cease to be the lines in the sand between the parties as a whole.