HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » A slightly more nuanced t...

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:46 AM

A slightly more nuanced take on whether Hillary Clinton is "establishment"

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders can be called "establishment" in the sense that they are both career politicians who served in perhaps the most exclusive club in the world: the United States Senate.

On the other hand, both Clinton and Sanders represent groups of people that have been historically excluded from the establishment generally and the presidency in particular. As president, both would be history-making trailblazers: 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.

Unlike Sanders, Hillary Clinton has chosen to emphasize the historic nature of her campaign. She does mention frequently that she is a woman, and that is important because there has never been a woman president before. I am not ashamed to admit that one of the reasons (but not the only reason) I support Hillary Clinton is because she is a woman and I believe it is well past time that this country elects a woman as president of the United States.

If I were a Sanders supporter -- and if he wins the nomination I will be -- then one of the reasons why I would enthusiastically support his candidacy is that I think it is well past time that this country elects a Jew (or any non-Christian) to be president of the United States. So ultimately the point I am trying to make would hold for Sanders as well as Clinton.

Which brings me to my point.

We all know that Hillary Clinton has used her gender to argue that she is not part of the establishment. This argument is dismissed out-of-hand by many people here. I do not think it should be. (And again, in case it isn't obvious by this point in my post: if Bernie Sanders were pointing to his religion as evidence that he is not part of the establishment, I do not believe that argument should be dismissed either. But he is not pointing to his religion, perhaps because he does not need to convince anyone that he isn't part of the establishment.)

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. But if you are going to quote me on this you had better give the full context and provide a link back to this post so people can read my entire argument, otherwise you are being disingenuous.

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.

That is the very definition of sexism. This should not be controversial here on DU -- everyone here knows it to be true. If we lived in a level gender playing field, then by now there should have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 men and 22 women presidents. Or, if we assume a slow move in the direction of equality, then we should at least see some gender parity in the last, say, four presidencies. But no. It's dudes all the way down.

It is a well-known fact that members of traditionally excluded groups need to be better than their white male counterparts in order to be taken seriously -- or even considered -- as candidates for employment. It's not enough for a woman or an African American or a Latino to be as good as the white dudes they are competing against. They need to be much better. They need to prove themselves again and again, whereas white guys are assumed, by default, to be competent.

So, if a woman is going to get ahead -- if a woman is going to climb to the absolute HIGHEST LEVEL of power on the entire planet -- SHE WILL FAIL IF SHE DOES NOT USE EVERY ADVANTAGE AVAILABLE TO HER.

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.

Hillary Clinton is, on paper, the the single most qualified human being on the planet at this moment in time to be President of the United States. Nobody else comes close. Her resume could be put next to the resumes of almost any man who has aspired to the office of President of the United States, and would not be found lacking.

That resume is evidence that she is part of the establishment. But here's the thing: She wouldn't be taken seriously as a candidate without that resume. It is a Catch 22. A woman needs to be better than everyone else in order to get the job. She needs to take advantage of EVERY advantage available to her in order to be taken seriously. She needs to forge deep ties to the people who hold the power. Otherwise, she would have NO CHANCE. Hillary Clinton has done everything necessary in order to become the first woman President of the United States. But now she is getting penalized because of it. Sorry, lady -- I know you needed those establishment ties to get where you are, but now we are going to penalize you for it. Maybe next time you can try to be the first woman President of the United States but do it without any of the traditional advantages that every previous president has enjoyed. Sucks to be you.

I totally get that we are in an anti-establishment moment, when many people are fed up with the people in power. But I think it is unrealistic to believe that we will ever have a first woman president in this country if we expect that first woman president to be handicapped by a lack of establishment ties. Imagine if Hillary Clinton was from a tiny blue state and called herself a socialist and had Albert Einstein hair...

No... F*cking... Way... would she ever be taken seriously as a possible first woman president. No way.

Hillary Clinton is this close to the presidency. But like so many women who have ever aspired to rise to the top of their chosen profession, she knows that she is still a million miles away. She may be part of the establishment, but she hasn't made it to the top. No woman has. Not yet.

194 replies, 14757 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 194 replies Author Time Post
Reply A slightly more nuanced take on whether Hillary Clinton is "establishment" (Original post)
Skinner Feb 2016 OP
closeupready Feb 2016 #1
DanTex Feb 2016 #4
closeupready Feb 2016 #7
Cali_Democrat Feb 2016 #10
closeupready Feb 2016 #11
DanTex Feb 2016 #75
SunSeeker Feb 2016 #84
BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #139
Hortensis Feb 2016 #187
BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #188
DanTex Feb 2016 #73
Gman Feb 2016 #83
closeupready Feb 2016 #86
Gman Feb 2016 #90
closeupready Feb 2016 #94
Gman Feb 2016 #127
closeupready Feb 2016 #128
Gman Feb 2016 #129
Herman4747 Feb 2016 #69
OKNancy Feb 2016 #46
closeupready Feb 2016 #63
ElliotCarver Feb 2016 #144
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #153
treestar Feb 2016 #136
Lucinda Feb 2016 #57
closeupready Feb 2016 #61
Lucinda Feb 2016 #66
George II Feb 2016 #157
George II Feb 2016 #76
treestar Feb 2016 #137
NYC Liberal Feb 2016 #117
George II Feb 2016 #122
treestar Feb 2016 #138
NYC Liberal Feb 2016 #161
Empowerer Feb 2016 #179
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #155
treestar Feb 2016 #135
closeupready Feb 2016 #140
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #2
Skinner Feb 2016 #6
Armstead Feb 2016 #51
Skinner Feb 2016 #52
onehandle Feb 2016 #91
onehandle Feb 2016 #96
RiverLover Feb 2016 #189
mhatrw Feb 2016 #180
Avalux Feb 2016 #3
JudyM Feb 2016 #16
rock Feb 2016 #5
leveymg Feb 2016 #8
dreamnightwind Feb 2016 #9
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #22
dreamnightwind Feb 2016 #29
thesquanderer Feb 2016 #12
Skinner Feb 2016 #14
Fumesucker Feb 2016 #13
Skinner Feb 2016 #15
mikehiggins Feb 2016 #26
mopinko Feb 2016 #36
hedda_foil Feb 2016 #79
whatchamacallit Feb 2016 #43
AzDar Feb 2016 #114
OilemFirchen Feb 2016 #126
whatchamacallit Feb 2016 #134
winterwar Feb 2016 #177
jillan Feb 2016 #17
elias49 Feb 2016 #40
Gman Feb 2016 #88
BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #142
Duppers Feb 2016 #181
basselope Feb 2016 #18
Herman4747 Feb 2016 #19
Herman4747 Feb 2016 #27
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #20
JudyM Feb 2016 #21
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #23
JudyM Feb 2016 #28
Skinner Feb 2016 #31
JudyM Feb 2016 #38
Skinner Feb 2016 #41
JudyM Feb 2016 #44
Skinner Feb 2016 #47
JudyM Feb 2016 #54
Skinner Feb 2016 #56
JudyM Feb 2016 #64
closeupready Feb 2016 #70
EvolveOrConvolve Feb 2016 #186
whatchamacallit Feb 2016 #45
JudyM Feb 2016 #49
MADem Feb 2016 #192
cali Feb 2016 #24
George II Feb 2016 #172
cali Feb 2016 #176
George II Feb 2016 #178
PeaceNikki Feb 2016 #25
onecaliberal Feb 2016 #30
Skinner Feb 2016 #35
onecaliberal Feb 2016 #110
Jackie Wilson Said Feb 2016 #32
livetohike Feb 2016 #33
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Feb 2016 #34
Skinner Feb 2016 #37
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Feb 2016 #39
Skinner Feb 2016 #42
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Feb 2016 #53
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Feb 2016 #89
ismnotwasm Feb 2016 #105
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Feb 2016 #111
davidn3600 Feb 2016 #158
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Feb 2016 #159
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Feb 2016 #171
Blue_Adept Feb 2016 #48
TwilightGardener Feb 2016 #50
JTFrog Feb 2016 #55
lovemydog Feb 2016 #58
bigtree Feb 2016 #59
Flying Phoenix Feb 2016 #60
DesertRat Feb 2016 #62
Armstead Feb 2016 #65
liberal_at_heart Feb 2016 #67
TBF Feb 2016 #68
Skinner Feb 2016 #77
TBF Feb 2016 #81
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2016 #71
boston bean Feb 2016 #72
MisterP Feb 2016 #74
Attorney in Texas Feb 2016 #78
Skinner Feb 2016 #82
Attorney in Texas Feb 2016 #95
Skinner Feb 2016 #99
Attorney in Texas Feb 2016 #120
Gman Feb 2016 #80
Bjornsdotter Feb 2016 #85
closeupready Feb 2016 #93
Bjornsdotter Feb 2016 #103
closeupready Feb 2016 #106
SunSeeker Feb 2016 #87
AgingAmerican Feb 2016 #92
antigop Feb 2016 #97
Skinner Feb 2016 #101
antigop Feb 2016 #108
uhnope Feb 2016 #98
Skinner Feb 2016 #100
uhnope Feb 2016 #107
Skinner Feb 2016 #113
uhnope Feb 2016 #115
Skinner Feb 2016 #118
uhnope Feb 2016 #123
whatchamacallit Feb 2016 #163
BainsBane Feb 2016 #125
uhnope Feb 2016 #133
ismnotwasm Feb 2016 #102
Trajan Feb 2016 #104
Live and Learn Feb 2016 #109
onehandle Feb 2016 #116
Ichingcarpenter Feb 2016 #112
Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #119
U of M Dem Feb 2016 #121
AzDar Feb 2016 #124
Post removed Feb 2016 #130
Skinner Feb 2016 #131
zappaman Feb 2016 #132
1000words Feb 2016 #141
BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #143
SidDithers Feb 2016 #145
Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #146
mhatrw Feb 2016 #147
Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #148
postatomic Feb 2016 #151
Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #154
postatomic Feb 2016 #156
postatomic Feb 2016 #149
betsuni Feb 2016 #150
TexasMommaWithAHat Feb 2016 #152
Empowerer Feb 2016 #160
Beacool Feb 2016 #162
FrenchieCat Feb 2016 #164
wildeyed Feb 2016 #165
Matariki Feb 2016 #166
FrenchieCat Feb 2016 #169
Matariki Feb 2016 #174
Matariki Feb 2016 #167
Flying Squirrel Feb 2016 #168
Gothmog Feb 2016 #170
Hiraeth Feb 2016 #173
Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #175
Gman Feb 2016 #182
Cha Feb 2016 #183
eridani Feb 2016 #184
betsuni Feb 2016 #185
aikoaiko Feb 2016 #190
senseandsensibility Feb 2016 #191
Skinner Feb 2016 #193
senseandsensibility Feb 2016 #194

Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:52 AM

1. With all due respect, she served on Walmart's Board of Directors for six years.

 

Basically helping to manage one of the world's biggest corporations, which is well-known as conservative and associated with Republican ideas.

She's almost literally arguing now that 'ideals are impossible, give them up', i.e., universal health care (when every other industrialized country has UHC). Why is she doing that on UHC? We know why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:55 AM

4. She's in favor of universal health care, and always has been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:05 PM

7. Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/

If you interpret that as "she's in favor of universal health care" as a presidential candidate, then we're done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:17 PM

10. There's a difference between single payer and universal healthcare....

 

The question should always be: How do we get to universal healthcare in the most effective way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:21 PM

11. Distinction without a difference, really.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:38 PM

75. Tell that to Holland or Germany.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:45 PM

84. Not true. There are countries, like Switzerland, who have universal coverage but not single payer.

Single payer is just one WAY to get universal health care coverage. There are many ways to get universal coverage. Switzerland chose the insurance route rather than single payer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:47 PM

139. As someone has already pointed out,

there is indeed a distinction AND a difference. The example used was Switzerland. See http://www.commonwealthfund.org/topics/international-health-policy/countries/switzerland

The Swiss Health System

Coverage is universal, with residents mandated under the 1996 Federal Health Insurance Law to purchase statutory health insurance (SHI) from competing insurers. There are virtually no uninsured residents. Every individual intending to reside in Switzerland is required, within three months of arrival, to take out an insurance policy, which is then applied retroactively to the arrival date. Since only those with valid residence of more than three months can take out SHI policies, the problem of undocumented immigrants remains unresolved. SHI typically applies to the individual. It is not sponsored by employers, and dependents must purchase separate policies. Many residents also purchase complementary and supplementary voluntary health insurance (VHI) for coverage of services not covered under the basic package, for free choice of hospital doctor, or for improved accommodation (e.g., an individual or twin room instead of a shared room) when hospitalized.


For profiles of health care systems in 18 countries, see international.commonwealthfund.org

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #139)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 07:15 PM

187. Much of the resistance and hostility to Hillary is die to gender.

No, not DU's illiberal left Bernie supporters, but many others, most notably the men who control our mainstream media and our political establishment.. Many studies have confirmed that women anywhere near the White House have always come under severe attack by the establishment. So, yes, Hillary is both part of the establishment, but, like Barack Obama, will never be a member of the Old Boys'Club

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #187)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 07:19 PM

188. Absolutely true ...

and the more that people insist on denying that fact actually reinforces the misogyny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:37 PM

73. Single payer and universal healthcare are not the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:44 PM

83. Are you really that clueless about what she tried to do about health care

I'm the 90's?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #83)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:45 PM

86. So what happened to her? Are you clueless as to who's been donating

 

to her campaign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #86)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:52 PM

90. I don't give a damn who's been donating to her campaign

It's rare that we ever get a candidate like her that is overwhelmingly qualified. Who donates to her is completely and totally irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #90)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:57 PM

94. And THAT is part of the problem.

 

Over and out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #94)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:05 PM

127. And it is a catastrophe waiting to happen

That you don't see why this is irrelevant

Frankly it's extremely alarming that these so-called "progressive" are donating to Sanders. That speaks volumes about the danger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #127)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:07 PM

128. Done.

 

Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #128)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:08 PM

129. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:36 PM

69. Even when she was working for WalMart? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:39 PM

46. There are two arguments against Hillary that I consider the most bogus

One is the teenage "Goldwater Girl" b.s. and the second is the board of Walmart.
She was a young governor's wife and the only female in a sea of men on that board.
She actually did good work back then, although she had little influence or power.
Also back then it was not the same Walmart as it is today.

--------
You are blind if you think there will be universal healthcare as Sanders wants it in the next 20 years.
It would have to take a very long and slow process to implement. I won't go into it, but it would have to be slow or the economy would crash worse than in 2008.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:27 PM

63. I won't lie and say 'your views are without merit'.

 

I will say that Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized how hard it would be to get racial equality in the United States. Yet, he pushed, pushed, pushed, even admitting in his "I Have A Dream" speech that, "I may not get there with you".

Yet here we are today, with a black President. And frankly, one who has been more successful than the majority of white Presidents who preceded him.

So you know, I think we all recognize that it will take time. But, no, Hillary says, "never ever". Well, I think that speaks both to her ambition and her lack of character. And lack of leadership.

As I said last week, she seems to think she's running for National Triage Nurse in Chief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #63)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:18 PM

144. this was a beautiful capsule of necessary and abiding truth <3 thank u for propagating wisdom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #63)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:52 PM

153. Okay ... you lost me ... well ... at the start; but, this post has me gone.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:42 PM

136. +1

Geez they have worked themselves up so much about this Wall Street Conspiracy of the 1% that they believe their own press, now to the point of thinking that the voters are going to care so much about Hillary being on the Board of one of those Enemy Corporations that they won't vote for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:17 PM

57. Do you know what she actually did while on the board? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #57)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:22 PM

61. Helped female Walmart hourlies to get paid overtime? Oops, nope.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #61)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:35 PM

66. How about something more relevant to the time period that she was actually on the board?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?_r=0

You may like this one more than you think.
It's pretty even handed about the pro's and con's of her time on the board.

She picked her battles back then, and made a lot of progress in some areas, not much in others and avoided employee issues other than advocating for more women in management.

So you can get mad about her not advocating for unions, and at the same time see what she was able to do, and how the connections she made helped with education issues in Arkansas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #66)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:59 PM

157. Everyone has "pros" and "cons" in their lives - everyone. Unfortunately some of Sanders'....

..."cons" have been posted on DU only to result in hides, affecting members' posting privileges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:40 PM

76. She served on Walmart's Board of Directors from 1986 to 1992 - she started...

....TWENTY NINE YEARS AGO, and left 23 years ago! How much longer is that tired routine going to be thrown out as a "criticism"? I could drag out some things that Sanders did 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but we all know it would be hidden in a NY minute.

Do you know what most board members of large corporations actually do? She didn't report to work at Walmart Headquarters every morning and leave at 5 PM, five days a week. She probably went to two, maybe four board meetings a year.

Also, I think you're exaggerating (or obfuscating) when you say she is "arguing now that ideals are impossible, give them up". That's bunk.

She has very similar ideals as those of Sanders. But she's pragmatic, she realizes that some take time, some may be impossible to achieve at this time. People seem to forget that if the ACA wasn't written the way it was, it would never have been passed. The same thing for other "ideals" and issues.

So, do you think a President should cling to ideals and not accomplish anything?

Governing involves compromising and accomplishing things in steps, it won't all happen overnight. If he sticks to his ideals, as President he probably would wind up as the most ineffective president of my lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #76)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:44 PM

137. agree, she is not actively arguing against ideals

this is just something being made up and repeated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:34 PM

117. And on the board, she fought for increased diversity and better hiring

practices, as well as for improving their other practices.

She was described as being a "thorn in the side" during her time there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #117)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:49 PM

122. Excellent point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #117)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:45 PM

138. Exactly

this is not some simpleminded thing as is made out to be. Anyone who serves on a corporate board is THE EVUL 1%!!! It's getting ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #138)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:46 PM

161. It's like saying "Congress is corrupt so Sanders is wrong for joining it."

Well, sometimes the best way to change an organization is from within.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #161)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:15 PM

179. Excellent point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #117)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:54 PM

155. But that doesn't matter because walmart was anti-union ... or something.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:40 PM

135. FFS so what?

What it is so wrong to ever be on a corporate board of directors? That is not going to affect any voters outside GDP. Don't know why people think that argument is so effective. Only if you are already in the mindset that all corporations are evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #135)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:52 PM

140. Each voter should decide for themselves - they should know how Walmart helped her

 

while she helped them. If there's nothing there, then that's that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:53 AM

2. If Elizabeth Warren had jumped into the race before Sanders, she'd be right where he is.

So no, I can't agree that 'the only way' for a woman to be in position to possibly be the first female President is to be part of the establishment. And yes, F*ing way would she be taken seriously as a possible first woman president.

I know you want to support your candidate, but there are women out there who have just as much chance, WITHOUT 'embracing the establishment' as firmly as Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:02 PM

6. I think that Elizabeth Warren would make a fine president and presdential candiate.

I also believe that she would not have been taken seriously as a presidential candidate in 2016 if Hillary had not run a credible campaign in 2008.

Someday we will have a woman president. And if it is not Hillary Clinton, it will still be because Hillary Clinton made the first credible attempt to bust through the glass ceiling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:55 PM

51. Fair enough, but that alone is not reason to say she deserves it

 

If Marco Rubio or Ted Cruzzer get the GOP nomination, it would be a huge breakthrough for Hispanic Americans.

But that legitimate achievement doesn't convince me that either deserves to be President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #51)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:59 PM

52. I wasn't arguing that her gender alone is reason to support her.

I was was narrowly addressing this issue of her establishment ties, and how I do not think it is outrageous for her to point to her gender in her own defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:53 PM

91. If the 'Not Hillary' Party had gotten their 1st choice, Warren, she'd be doing much better...

...than Bernie.

She would have come much closer to winning than Bernie will.

As I've said before, I've given more to Warren than any other candidate ever. (That will change this fall with Hillary.)

I might have had to make a choice, but there was none to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #91)


Response to onehandle (Reply #91)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 07:25 PM

189. Thanks for your support of Warren.

My heart still breaks that she didn't go for it & run.

And I agree she'd be doing even better than Sanders at this point.

But I disagree he won't win. You see, her supporters weren't just there because she's a strong female, but because of her stance on the issues & her willingness to fight the establishment & their status quo of supporting Moneyed Interests over workers & citizens. Doing what's right is more important than getting the most political contributions from the big players of the establishment...

Bernie's right there with her on that, & doing incredibly well as it turns out! We're lucky he's willing to take this on for US.

He's not only smart & decent & honorable, he's incredibly brave.

#WeNotMe





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:23 PM

180. A long and, IMHO, devastating reply to Skinnerian behaviorism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:55 AM

3. I love and admire you Skinner, and as a woman, I respectfully disagree.

Using any means possible to get to the presidency, with an "ends justifies the means" mentality is not defensible, no matter how you slice it.

I'm not going to get into all the reasons why I don't support Hillary, but because I am a woman, I'll just say it pains me that she's traded integrity to get ahead.

Her resume is stellar but the way she 'gets things done' is not and I have real concerns she can beat the GOP nominee in the GE.

I want a woman president too, just not Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalux (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:42 PM

16. +1. Even a woman - with a trail of apparent conflicts of interest and decisions that appear to be

based more on political expediency and personal finance/power than on democratic values - yes, even a woman does not deserve the nomination when there is a high integrity and equally viable alternative.

Our party is at its heart about values. As strong a feminist as I am, by all appearances Hillary is the poorer of the two candidates on that front.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:58 AM

5. OK, Skinner

I knew you'd have a level-headed view of the situation. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:13 PM

8. Resumes often don't capture whether the candidate is actually good or bad at the job.

In this case, HRC has a proven track record of appallingly bad judgement on critical foreign policy decisions, such as her votes on the IWR and her advocacy for serial regime change in Libya and Syria that created the space for ISIS to take territory and launch global terrorist attacks.

Character, consistency, and quality of judgment -- and, on the other hand, proven bad choices -- rather than mere number of government positions held, count most.

Sorry, I can't agree. Hillary has disqualified herself from higher office, repeatedly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:16 PM

9. Your analysis seems to ignore the axiom "follow the money"

when evaluating establishment membership. Saying Bernie is part of the establishment is hilarious, sure he's been elected for a long time, and to his great credit he is still not in the pocket of large corporate interests. He's about the farthest from an establishment politician there is. Hillary, on the other hand, is the very embodiment of establishment politics, establishment policies, and establishment money, in a time where the establshment has abandoned the interests of non-wealthy citizens. Her sex doesn't undue that in any meaningful way.

I also would love to see a female president, just not this one. It's entirely legitimate to decide this based on policy and on financing. May not be nuanced enough for your view. Sometime nuance is a way to obscure more fundamental issues, and I believe that is the case here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:00 PM

22. Which stains 99% of other progressive who've worked there asses off for progressive causes

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:08 PM

29. I don't disagree

I've long been dismayed at the issues many or even most members of the progressive caucus support, and the progressive caucus is the best of them. The truth is that even they are to some degree in the pocket of forces who don't have our good interests in mind. They, like most other pols, spend more time on the phone asking corporate donors for donations than they spend governing. This is literally true.

Bernie's campaign is a huge step to correct this. Hillary could have run the primary campaign without such donations, since her main opponent was doing so, but that isn't who she is.

We really have to change how we fund our politicians. Legislated or legal change will be hard-fought, it's one of the things to work on and probably the most important, since it will enable all other reforms.

In the meantime, we need to learn to elect candidates who are willing to run crowd-funded campaigns as Sanders is doing. Only then will they be free to represent us rather than wealthy corporate interests.

Aside from that, we're left with choosing the least bought candidates to find anyone who will stand up for our interests, and that is no way to run a country. The least bought, with few exceptions, are still bought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:28 PM

12. Saying the 1st female president, practically by definition, will have to be establishement...

...is a reasonable argument. But it does not address the discomfort people feel when Hillary says, that the 1st female president, practically by definition, cannot be establishment. It comes across as suggesting that a penis is required to be part of the establishement. A female president would be groundbreaking, but if that president is stlll only willing to tinker around the edges of the status quo, she is a groundbreaking member of the establishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:38 PM

14. I would argue that in important ways she is both...

...establishment and not establishment.

Her gender puts her outside the default view of Who Is Eligible To Be President. To be clear: Almost nobody says anymore that women can't be president. But we all have a subconscious picture in our minds of what a president looks like, and that picture is a white male.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:32 PM

13. Backwards in high heels, more of us get it than you give us credit for perhaps?

You are quite right that it's not fair, do the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many?

She's not going to get the youth back at this point I think..

What does the Democratic party do that isn't going to dissuade/discourage the 18-45 group from further participation?

I get the feeling the whole world is watching and the propaganda campaigns are getting more obvious to everyone, ten years ago I was totally alone in what and how much I knew politically, now I have Facebooking grandmas hollering about feelin' the Bern and telling me why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:40 PM

15. I don't think my post gave you credit or withheld it.

I am trying to explain why I do not think it is outrageous for Hillary to hold up her gender as evidence that she is outside the group of people who traditionally hold power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:06 PM

26. Margaret THatcher was a woman

How did that work out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikehiggins (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:20 PM

36. the uk has a long history of women leaders.

does not compare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:41 PM

79. I suppose you're talking about queens of England. Not Prime Ministers who now hold the power.

Certainly, there have been great English queens who ruled in their own right. However, monarchs exist by accident of birth, and Parliament has held the power of governing the country and its policies over their ostensible ruler for a very long time.

Margaret Thatcher is still the only female Prime Minister. Merry Christmas Margaret Thatcher, the woman who killed Britain's most important labor union and pushed Dimron Reagan to her viewpoint.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:31 PM

43. Semantics

Last edited Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Trying to say Clinton is "antiestablishment" because she's not the historically established gender for presidents, is wordplay. She's a high priestess of establishment as defined in a political context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:30 PM

114. ^ This.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:04 PM

126. Speaking of semantics...

"anti-establishment" is not the same as "not establishment".

Did I say semantics? Sorry. I meant abuse of the language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #126)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:40 PM

134. Ha ok

you're right, it's not the same. That said, the fact that women have not yet been presidents does not mean they're "not establishment" in the broader sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 10:23 PM

177. Well put

I agree 100%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:46 PM

17. The thing that Hillary supporters don't get about the majority of women is that just because Hillary

is a woman does not mean that she earned our vote.

Argue with me all you want and then tell me why Bernie is winning the under 45 yo women's vote?
And why Hillary is only winning the over 45 women's vote by a small margin?

As a senior citizen and a woman it actually makes me cringe when I hear Hillary or her supporters use the gender card.
WHY? Because when I was a teenager, a college student, a 20-something.... what we were fighting for was equality.
We wanted to be accepted for the job because we were qualified, not because we were a woman.

Elect Hillary if you think she is the most qualified PERSON for the job. Not because she is a woman.

I liked the Hillary of 2008 a lot better than now for this very reason.

Let's compare and contrast this with another woman - Elizabeth Warren. One of the many reasons I adore Elizabeth Warren (and was devastated that she did not run for President) is because she exemplifies everything I fought for. She is a woman with great power and she got there because of who she is, not because she is a woman. She gets up on her soap box and fights for what she believes, she fights for peoples rights, and she does not back down. The fact that she is a woman is secondary.

A woman will be elected President when the voters feel she is the right person to lead our country for that moment in time. The fact that she is a woman and history will be made will be an added bonus.
If you feel that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our country at this moment in time, then vote for her. But I hope you do that because of the experience she would bring to the White House, not because of her genetics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:25 PM

40. Well stated. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:49 PM

88. Her resume is plenty of evidence she earned our vote

and it's not even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:08 PM

142. You really think to sway Hillary's women supporters by "womansplaining"

to us? Sometimes women can be very bit as misogynistic towards other women as men and sometimes even worse. Your post shows that the years and years of constant smears against Hillary have left their mark. You have bought into them.

I have been on the front line for women's equal treatment since the day in my high school science class when I was told that my grade - even though my marks were higher than almost every male in my class - would be a B instead of an A. The idea was that there could only be a certain number of As in the course. The As were reserved for males because all of us females were simply "going to get married and have babies" and the males would need the good marks because they were destined for university. That occurred in the 1950s. Even up into the 1970s in the US, those of us who were women teachers had to resign our teaching posts if we became pregnant - with no guarantee that we would get our jobs back - no matter how well-qualified or good we were.

I would bet that you never experienced those eras, but have benefited from the programs and policies that women ALL fought for on the ground then, and you now assume that the job is done. Has the GOP "War on Women" taught you nothing?

Do you actually think that we who are HRC supporters and are women support Hillary simply because she is a woman? You have got to be kidding.

By any objective measure, Hillary is the most qualified candidate of all in this 2016 election. Hands down!

I am very proud to stand with Hillary ALL the way to the WH.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 12:43 AM

181. Bravo. Well stated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:48 PM

18. Having lady parts should be NEITHER a help nor a hindrance.

 

The fact that she keeps using them to explain away her deep establishment connections and willingness to take millions from corporate interests is disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:53 PM

19. Strongly Disagree. [Consider John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, etc.]

 

Mr. Skinner writes:

Hillary Clinton is, on paper, the single most qualified human being on the planet at this moment in time to be President of the United States. Nobody else comes close. Her resume could be put next to the resumes of almost any man who has aspired to the office of President of the United States, and would not be found lacking.

You may wish to compare Hillary's qualifications with that of her successor, John Kerry. Who do you think accomplished more as Secretary of State? (I would say that one of these accomplished far, far more than the other). Indeed, who do you think accomplished more as a Senator?

Or compare Hillary to Senator Barbara Boxer, or Senator Sherrod Brown. I myself find Hillary lacking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Herman4747 (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:07 PM

27. Strongly Disagree (Part 2).

 

Hillary the most qualified on paper????

Consider Hillary to Al Gore. Nobel Peace Prize Winner Al Gore. There's no comparison.

Heck, compare Hillary to Nobel Prize Winner Jimmy Carter -- again, no comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:57 PM

20. Sanders is pure and everyone else is stained, that's a central point of his campaign...

... I don't see how any other argument can fit otherwise his credibility test that he set up for everyone else falls apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:57 PM

21. This is well thought out, no question. But it seems that you are, in effect, giving her a pass on

one of the most meaningful differentiators in this race because she is a woman.

Sanders' use of the establishment moniker isn't just about entrenchment in the system, it's a more polite way of pointing out that she has based significant decisions on political and financial expediency. It's not about status, it's about values.

Decisions about arms sales. Intervention in IRS enforcement. Etc.

Just my two cents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:02 PM

23. Which when called out on which decisions these were Sanders changes the subject every

... time because its a disengionous claim at best.

An artful smear is correct, it's a smear because he's detracts away from saying what he really means

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:07 PM

28. There are well publicized examples of evidence. He should be naming them but for whatever

reason he is choosing not to go there. Yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:12 PM

31. At the risk of throwing a bone to my detractors...

...I think that is a fair takeaway from my post.

I do not believe that the first woman president would ever come from outside the establishment.

FWIW, I don't think male presidents typically come from outside the establishment either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #31)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:23 PM

38. Choosing to play ball because she has to is one thing; choosing to personally enrich herself by

express or implied favors is quite another matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:28 PM

41. I do not think Hillary Clinton is any more compromised than anyone else who has become president...

...in our corrupt campaign finance system. Sadly, they all choose to play ball because they have to.

Bernie has chosen not to play ball, and I admire that very much. We'll see how that works out for him. I will be thrilled if it does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:34 PM

44. You think Obama is as ethically compromised as Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #44)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:43 PM

47. I think every president needs to make ethical compromises.

But there is probably not enough evidence for me to say whether she is more or less so than other presidents. I know that she has been in public life for a very long time, and has been the favored target of the media and the right-wing attack machine for that entire time. So there has been a lot more noise about her than anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #47)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:01 PM

54. She has absolutely been unfairly dragged through the mud and vilified by the Conservative machine.

Last edited Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)

It's grotesque theatre.

Their hounddogging her stands as a separate issue, in my view, from her own actual unethical - and politically unnecessary - conflicts of interest. Can't she be victimized and yet also actually, in point of fact, act unethically?

Is there any standard of values, in your view, that a politician should meet, or does anything go, based on the justification that the system is corrupt? Is the public trust completely meaningless?

Plus, she's a lawyer and so has been specifically trained in identifying and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. As awful as this sounds, she flouts it as surely as Scalia does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #54)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:15 PM

56. Of course there are standards.

If you are asking where that line is, the best I can do for you is to say that for me Hillary Clinton hasn't crossed it.

We have a shitty corrupt system that compromises almost every viable candidate from either major party. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to reform that shitty corrupt system unless we win the Presidency, and Congress, and (eventually) the Supreme Court. There are rare exceptions, but for the most part the candidates that win are the ones that use every advantage available to them. Uncompromised candidates are good, but actual officeholders are better. Maybe Bernie Sanders can be both, but he would be the exception not the rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #56)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:31 PM

64. That's fair. IMO the corruption is the most important issue.

I think nothing gets fixed until that web of cheating the public gets addressed, it's clear to me which candidate is more determined to address it. (And which is deriving huge benefit from it as it is)

{Plus I love that he's calling out the media and the Kochs and speaking truth to power in a way that is clarifying for younger voters especially, what is at stake. And homing in on tax loopholes and offshoring of labor.}

If it looked like Bernie was unelectable in the GE I'd be working on Hillary's campaign instead, because I'm with you, electability is foremost. Since they seem about even, and with the trend in Bernie's favor, I'm going with the anti-corruption stalwart. He paid his dues, too.

Thanks for the exchange, Skinner, may the best wo/man win!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #54)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:36 PM

70. +1 to your last paragraph. She giggles about the optics of being

 

a high-profile US personality. For example, when she appeared with Jim Baker on Charlie Rose - Baker fowarded some really harsh, Republican ideas about war on Iran; Rose turned to Hillary and asked her to respond; she first bust into giggles.

I mean, what kind of dignitary giggles about war, no matter the context? A dignitary who isn't very smart, or intoxicated with their celebrity status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #47)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 01:37 PM

186. I think you just pointed out why so many are supporting Sanders

People are finally saying they don't want a leader who is ethically compromised and beholden to financial and political interests that don't align with the greater good.

"I think every president needs to make ethical compromises."
This makes me really, really sad. The idea that we have to settle for unethical candidates because "that's just the way it is" is the reason many of us have dumped Hillary Clinton. We're no longer willing to settle for a less than ideal candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:38 PM

45. ... corrupt campaign finance system...

And you honestly believe Hillary will be the one to fix this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #45)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:45 PM

49. Right, this and the corrupt cronyism and pay to play in the whole govt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #41)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 05:34 AM

192. Well, actually, he's been playing ball...but quietly, apparently.

He's not just attending...he is a HOST:


http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

This was news to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:03 PM

24. Hillary Clinton, to a large and very real degree, controls the democratic

 

establishment. That's not an indictment, just reality. I read somewhere recently, that the Clintons and allies, exerted influence to ensure that she not have competition. Not the first time I've read that. In any case, I think that was a huge mistake.

Bernie absolutely has electability problems. So does Hillary and they are just as serious.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 09:54 PM

172. Well, if you're going to be as bold as to say it, why not find that "somewhere". Otherwise.....

....it's just more anti-Clinton fluff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to cali (Reply #176)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 10:23 PM

178. That's a far cry from:

"the Clintons and allies, exerted influence to ensure that she not have competition" It's more speculation than fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:05 PM

25. Afreakingmen. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:11 PM

30. She DOES have all the advantages that money can buy, and speaking as woman from where

I am sitting that is one hell of ALOT more advantages than 99% of the women in this country.

I will concede to your point about there never being a woman POTUS.

HRC has had every advantage in her life, include a fine education. Women today, are at a much more distinct disadvantage than she ever thought of being. Elizabeth Warren would be a much better example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:18 PM

35. Every serious candidate for president enjoys ALOT more advantages than 99% of this country.

I'm not about to penalize Hillary Clinton for enjoying some of the same advantages as virtually every person who has ever served as president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:17 PM

110. I don't penalize her for it whatsoever. I do, however,hold her accountable for championing corporate

America's agenda over the agenda of those poor and suffering women, of which there are millions.
Also, the safety net and assistance to give people a hand up, that POTUS Barack Obama was able to take advantage of is mostly gone today. My point is the opportunity to move up has been removed, and Mrs. Clinton doesn't seem to concerned about doing anything about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:12 PM

32. I remember how much, how deeply all republicans hated her when she was First Lady.

That hate has grown and along with the hate a massive effort to discredit her and keep her out of the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:14 PM

33. Thank you Skinner! n/t

😊

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:15 PM

34. Bernie's a Jew like I'm a Catholic: not practicing, born that way

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #34)


Response to Skinner (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:24 PM

39. Hang in there, Skinner. I'm doing this piecemeal. I don't expect rapid response

 



I'm at this point. Your best so far.

but because she is a woman she does not have full access to the privileges that accrue to the establishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #39)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:30 PM

42. OK.

I will self-delete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:00 PM

53. OK my friend. I have completed my counter argument. It won't disappoint

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #39)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:51 PM

89. Regarding gender...

 

The first thing I see is, "White Women" still vote Republican. The second thing I see is, "Having the first woman President isn't that important to young women." With respect to the latter, again, this goes to my theme above about priorities: Young women have placed "indentured servitude to banks" above "first woman president." As for white women voting Republican, that's fucked up on so many levels. I know it's filed under "Cultural War," but white women have to carry the day, here, to get women across the line. And if that's not bad enough, it gets worse: every single demographic is moving further to the left except white women. They won't budge. There was a graph posted here a while ago. The article was celebrating the fact that the country is becoming more democratic. Sure enough, every demographic (but white women has moved to the left). In its exuberance, the article failed to address the white woman vote.

Bernie has 2-3 million donors writing $30 checks to his campaign. No one expected that. But since he can do it, Elizabeth Warren can do it. Why Warren? Because she's a change candidate. Why, as you note, does Hillary have to rely on the establishment to get ahead? Because she's part of a failed establishment. Again, I reject your premise, Skinner. Hillary needs the establishment because she is the hanger-on of a failed ideology. Warren, by contrast, could conceivably garner $30 checks from 6-10 million donors.

It's about priorities, and young women are a reflection of where Democrats are today.

I'm about to Nader Neil deGrasse Tyson, so the next time his name appears in a thread at DU, the thread will be torpedoed by Hillary supporters.

On Bill Maher, deGrasse Tyson said (paraphrasing), "There are more women than men. You can control everything. Why don't you?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #89)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:12 PM

105. Then why didn't she?

Why, do you suppose did Warren dod not run? And your argument does not preclude the actual sexism Hillary has experienced not only in her life as s female, but her life as a public figure.

Why don't women rule the world? In a word? Patriarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #105)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:19 PM

111. I haven't had that conversation with Elizabeth. When I do, I'll post about it at DU

 

Yeah, the sexism she's faced was Skinner's point. Not mine. I said that argument missed the mark.

Before we talk about ruling the world, white women are going to have to start voting for Democrats in large numbers. That's a (more?) reasonable place to start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #111)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:20 PM

158. Seeing a woman in the White House isn't the top priority for most women

 

When I ask a woman what is most important issue facing the country, I have NEVER heard one of them say we need a woman president. Not a single one. The only women that feel that is the biggest issue is maybe some radical feminists.

If you think scores of Republican women are going to all of a sudden vote for the Democrat party because Hillary is nominated, then you have a very poor understanding of how women vote. I know Republican women in my own family that despise Hillary. They will never in a million years vote for her no matter what I say to them. There is just no way. They will vote for Ted Cruz before they will vote for Hillary Clinton. It is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #158)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:26 PM

159. You're creating an argument based on something you wish I had said? People let you get away...

 

with that? This must have been proven successful in the past.

"If you think scores of Republican women are going to all of a sudden vote for the Democrat party because Hillary is nominated"

Try to find that in my posts! If you want to start your own thread based on this--your premise--go for it!

That was so lame...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #158)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 08:32 PM

171. News to you and your wife and her friends and everyone your circle has ever spoken to

 

So in 2013, EMILYís List launched "Madam President" - our campaign to put a woman in the White House.

Electing a woman president in 2016 isnít just important for the present. Itís important for the future. Itís important because right now, women are considerably less likely to even consider running for office. A woman in the Oval Office would prove there is literally no position too high, or too important, or too powerful for young girls and women to compete for.

To many women, it's the #1 priority.

I knew this. Women here knew this (most, if not all, deny it). The whole world knew this.

http://www.emilyslist.org/pages/entry/emilys-list-introduces-madam-president


Here's a good article that sheds light on the young vs old woman disconnect I've been talking about for two days.

Sixty-nine percent of Democratic women and 46 percent of Democratic men hope to see a female president of the United States in their lifetime, according to a new Pew Research Center survey on women and leadership.

<I don't care about Republican women>

As much as I hope (and believe) we will elect a woman to lead the free world in the next decade, I don't hope it enough to vote against my principles.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-women-president-voters-political-party-balancing-20150114-column.html


The upshot is clear (isn't it?): There's a direct relationship between age and priorities (i.e., wanting to see a woman president).

Taken together, you and your wife and her friends and everyone you've ever met and spoken to really aren't that tuned in.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:44 PM

48. I'm NOT fed up with the people in power

I'm fed up with the REPUBLICANS in power.

I'm largely pleased by what Obama has been able to accomplish with the barriers in front of him. Not 100% on everything of course, but the bulk of it.

But I'm fully supportive of the candidates that I, in my state, can vote and work for. That means Warren, Markey, and a solid host of true blue house reps that we send here from MA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:45 PM

50. I don't penalize her for the titles on her resume. I penalize her for how she conducts herself

once on the job. I think she consistently demonstrates poor judgment. I think she consistently demonstrates a higher interest in guarding her own ambitions and promoting her own reputation than in actually throwing herself into her work. The Secretary of State position was merely an image-building position for her. She appears to have accomplished little beyond pushing Obama in bad directions (along with other advisors) regarding Libya and Syria. And I don't care if the rest of the country does not care about her email issue--that's the final disqualifier for me. The arrogance of setting up your own SERVER, hiring your OWN IT GUY to run it, and refusing to archive or turn over the emails to your own AGENCY until it's demanded of her--I can't imagine why she should be President after that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:05 PM

55. HUGE K&R!! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:17 PM

58. Very good points here.

I feel the more extreme criticisms against her are completely over-the-top. As Sanders said at the debate last night, both he and Hillary are a million times better than any republican candidate for President. And that's based on their policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:18 PM

59. k&r

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:20 PM

60. With all due respect...

 

Clinton is establishment like bee on a bonnet.

There is no question about it. You can spin it all you want until it redlines, but at the end, it will not have a good result

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:24 PM

62. Excellent analysis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:34 PM

65. To be honest I think Bernie tosses aorund the term Establishment too loosely, BUT

 

I would also say that despite her gender, Clinton is an enabler of the suppression of the majority by the minority because she is a member of the Oligarchy.

Most of us are members of The Establishment in some way or another. But in terms of this you have to use different filters to define that. There is a Gender and Ethnic Establishment, true, the White Males Club. And Hillary is definitely not a member of that.

There is also the generic Establishment, or system. Most of us are memebrs and participate in it, and even support it. And even most progressives and liberals are fine with people who have achieved success and reap the rewards to some degree.

But there is also the Establishment that has become an Oligarchy over the last 30 years. It is comprised of a narrow layer of elites who benefit from, and contribute to, a system of Class Suppression of the majority through the control of Money and Power. She is a member of that.

It does not mean that she is a bad person. Many members of that version of the Establishment are perfectly nice people, who may believe they are doing the right thing.

But the benign and the more malevolent members of that Elite have taken over all facets of life, and raised the ladders behind them by systemic policies, values and behavior they advance and endorse. That is how we end up with, for example, economic advisors who are skewed to the interests of Big Money. It's a form of inbreeding in which politicians step into multi-million jobs as "consultants" and huge speaking fees from the corporations they were supposed to regulate. Or they cycle back again into government when it's time to "tweak" policies back in their favor.

If you simply look at the people who are running and supporting her campaign, it demonstrates the interconnectedness of those at the top who will use any means necessary to hold on to and expand their personal and corporate power.

That establishment is blind to sex or religion or color. They are not supporting her because she is a woman, or because of some civic virtue. They are purchasing an office. They don't much care whether it is occupied by a male or female.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:35 PM

67. That argument may have worked in the 70s or 80s but not today.

Elizabeth Warren has not bought into the money interest establishment to get where she is. I realize she is not running for president but she would have one hell of a resume on her side if she did. We now have 20 female Senators serving. Lots of women are CEOs these days. Believe me as a woman I know there still is sexism out there. It will always be there. Things are changing so rapidly in this country though. The Millennials are changing everything. I have no doubt in my mind that we will have a female president within the next ten to twenty years. But I will not sell out my daughter's and my son's future to get there. Hillary wants my daughter and my son to work to qualify for financial assistance for school. That puts my daughter and my son at a disadvantage when it comes to school. First of all working a few hours a week won't pay for tuition or books. It will barely pay for lunch. Secondly, going to school is a full time job. Statistically those who work while going to school don't graduate. I know some make it but most don't. Rich kids are not working while going to school. I believe the reason Bernie is outside the establishment is not his religion. It is because he refuses to give in to the influence and pressures the rich put on our politicians to serve the rich and not the average American. He is standing up for my children and for me and my husband. My husband and son are both on disability. Because we spend trillions on war which Hillary supports by the way Democrats keep having to cave to cuts to social services during budget deals. Bernie not only says no to this. He fights to expand social services. The reason I am voting for Bernie is because he represents me and my family, not banks and military contractors. Sorry, but you just won't convince me otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:35 PM

68. You're asking us for special treatment because she is female?

And you'd like us to overlook her ties to the banking industry? Ok, if Bernie were not in the race I could potentially do that. I could look at all the candidates and see their various establishment connections and it would be a no-brainer.

But this time it's different. We actually have an alternative. Additionally, I am both female and Jewish. So you see it is not always so easy to put aside other values and just focus on gender.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #68)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:40 PM

77. I'm not asking you to do anything.

I have no illusions that anything posted here will change anyone's mind on anything.

I'm just explaining my own view. If it helps other people understand where I am coming from, that's the most I can hope for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #77)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:42 PM

81. Fair enough,

I hope our answers provide illumination to you as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:37 PM

71. Hillary supporters bragged about her support by the establishment until it became an issue.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:37 PM

72. Can ypu let us know if your OP was alerted on?

Many times discussing these things are extremely offensive to some.

I however thinks it's a great post. Thanks for taking the time to write it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:37 PM

74. once we had a president who was the first to not pander to the WASPs--his religion was even

one of the most pacifist around; he was uncomfortable talking to people and yet appealed to the working class and even dialogued with the hippies; the intelligence community and the WH Wise Men quickly turned against him once he tried to evade their grasp and squeezed him out, completely alone and in the cold

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:41 PM

78. You place too much faith in Elizabeth Warren's hair style when you say there is no way a socialist

from a small blue state in New England with Albert Einstein hair could never be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

I do not doubt that there is sexism (of course there is) or unfair appearance bias (of course there is), but nobody is judging Justice Ruth Ginsberg or Senator Warren by their hairstyles:





If Sen. Warren's hairstyle took an unforeseen swerve toward the Einstein, it would not significantly affect her electability (and she is a fair ideological match with Sanders and equally electable as Sanders).

I would take Sen. Warren seriously (she'd be my first choice) in 2020 even if the next four years are especially unkind to her hairstyle. You sell Americans short to suggest they would feel otherwise.

Are there some minority of assholes who are judging candidates by their hairstyle? Yes, I don't doubt that there are a few.

However, just as the Tea Party birthers have mostly had to give up that prejudice now that a Canadian won their Iowa primary, I think the same assholes who are judging candidates by their hair style are going to have to surrender that bias based on the Republican who's going to win New Hampshire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #78)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:43 PM

82. Nobody is judging them on their hairstyles...

...because their hairstyles are well within the acceptable range for adult women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #82)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:57 PM

95. Neither of us wants to head down a slippery slope of pointing out well loved female public figures

who are well loved notwithstanding out-of-the-mainstream hairstyles.

But are you seriously arguing that if Elizabeth Warren's hairstyle migrated toward the direction of Indira Gandhi's, that Sen. Warren would simultaneously migrate from electable to unelectable?

I have too much faith in the Democratic party to believe that the few people who would judge Elizabeth Warren by her hairstyle caucus with our party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #95)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:03 PM

99. I am arguing that if she was from a state smaller than Massachusetts,...

...and if she called herself a socialist, and if she had messy hair, she would not be considered a viable candidate for president.

As it happens, she is from a medium-sized state, she does not call herself a socialist, and she has perfectly normal hair. She will also benefit from the fact that Hillary Clinton has already shown that a woman can be a credible candidate for president. So Elizabeth Warren will be fine if/when she runs for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #99)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:38 PM

120. One reason (not the predominant reason, but a reason) why I support Sanders is that - win or lose -

a strong performance by Sanders will undermine the argument going forward in future primaries that a candidate like Sen. Warren is too liberal to be be nominated. This is a more important barrier to push than breaking the bad-hair glass ceiling.

To me, the fact that Pres. Obama was the first black president was an added bonus that made his victory even sweeter, but it played no factor in my support for him (just as I'll be glad if Sanders is the first Jewish president, but his ethnicity plays no part of why I support him or just as I find Dr. Carson implausible as a candidate but his race is neither a plus nor a minus in my assessment). Clinton is great; not my first choice, but great. Her gender does not tilt me her way or tilt me toward Sanders (just as gender is not a factor in my rejection of everything Carly Fiorina and Sarah Palin stand for).

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether Sanders getting a pass on his Einstein 'do is a reflection of the bias in his favor as a male candidate. But we certainly agree that women in politics (and every other American endeavor) suffer from prejudice and unfairly applied standards which include, but are not limited to, biases based on their appearance. And we agree that, if Clinton wins in both the primary and then the general election, the fact that she is a woman will make the relief at avoiding a Rubio-Trump-Cruz presidency even sweeter.



PS: Maybe - just maybe - Sanders' candidacy will also break down the glass ceiling that has favored the follically blessed (like Reagan or Bill Clinton) over the hair impaired. But if Sanders does not upset Clinton to take the nomination, I am going to join the ranks of the hair bigots:


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:42 PM

80. Great post. But...

you just became the enemy in your own website.

I'm putting your thoughts on my back pocket to be used when I hear the usual Hillary is establishnent crap. It's pretty hypocritical for anyone to deny what you say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:45 PM

85. Hillary was born into the establishment

....and has far more advantages than most women.

Hillary grew up in Park Ridge, IL an upper class suburb of Chicago. She attended Maine South High School, a school I taught at during the '80's. Most of the students were in the upper class and more than a few drove Mercedes Benz, wore designer clothes, and went to Europe skiing on winter break.

Hillary was born into the establishment and she has never left it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjornsdotter (Reply #85)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:57 PM

93. I'm originally from that area - isn't Park Ridge the little

 

jurisdiction where there are no property taxes? I recall a real estate acquaintance of mine mentioning this, adding that this fact helped contribute to high property values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #93)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:08 PM

103. I grew up in the general area also...

I thought places like Rosemont, Schaumburg, and Gurnee had low property taxes because of the amount of business in each community.

Park Ridge was going to raise their property taxes by 22% in 2014 and I'm not sure if they went ahead with it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjornsdotter (Reply #103)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:13 PM

106. oh ok - I know it was one of those tiny villages near O'Hare -

 

can't recall which one, I guess. I thought it was Park Ridge.

Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:46 PM

87. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 02:56 PM

92. "The Establishment" is a small group who control a larger organization

 

Anyone who does not belong to The Establishment may be labelled an "outsider"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:00 PM

97. No. she is NOT "the single most qualified human being on the planet."

Having a resume doesn't mean you were good at your job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #97)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:05 PM

101. That's why I added the qualifier "on paper." (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #101)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:16 PM

108. That "paper" doesn't mean diddly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:03 PM

98. Skinner, words have meaning. It's cringeworthy for Clinton to say she can't be the establishment...

 

...because she's a woman. It just plain doesn't make sense. It's like she doesn't understand the meaning of the word.

It's like saying rich people have nice hairdos, and Trump's hair is a mess so he can't be a rich man.

It's apparently mixing up the words "establishment" and "traditional" or just "different." We have no tradition of electing a woman for president. That would be different. But Clinton is just about the definition of a member of the establishment.

Skinner you go far afield in your post, and by the end you are way off topic, when you say that we can't expect the first woman president to be anti-establishment. No one said that. Hell, most people would vote Obama a third term even though, as president, he is technically synonymous with the establishment.

Hillary is not "being penalized", as you say, because she is a member of the establishment. She's suffering repercussions because she is so disingenuously or confusedly claiming she can't be a part of the establishment for the simple fact that she's a woman. It's bizarre & kind of nuts to make that claim, which she's doing pretty often now, and level-headed people are stuck in cringing mode over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #98)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:04 PM

100. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the only people cringing...

...are people who are already solidly in the Sanders camp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #100)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:15 PM

107. I wish that were true but it's not.

 

While I would always have problems with any of the politicians like Clinton that led us into the worst worldwide debacle in recent memory that was the Iraq War, since she is an odds-on favorite to win, I desperately want her to be a decent choice. I want to feel okay with the idea of her in the WH. But she is making that difficult, & this whole I can't be establishment because I'm a woman thing is incredibly embarrassing for me as a dedicated Democratic voter.

I'm surprised that's your only response, instead of addressing the points I made, but whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #107)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:20 PM

113. My entire OP is a response to your post.

I am arguing that this whole I can't be establishment because I'm a woman thing is in fact a legitimate response for her. She is part of the establishment, but she is not in a very important way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #113)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:32 PM

115. so re Rich-White-Male-Protestant-WallStreet-ProWar-FreeMarketCapitalist-Political-Elite

 

she isn't one of those, and that's important. Okay, I got your point.

I don't agree. I don't think that's very important at all, in that argument. (And my point was her claiming to not be establishment at all is disingenuous & a bit weird).

I do agree that a woman in the White House would be symbolically important. That, of course, would be true of Fiorina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #115)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:34 PM

118. That wasn't actually my point.

But if that's what you got from my OP, the failure is mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #118)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:55 PM

123. thank you for your patience.

 

I err on the side of the opinion that worthy points can be summarized into a couple sentences. Maybe that's not possible in this case, or I'm just not getting it enough to do that summarizing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #113)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:48 PM

163. I guess in her purposely narrow frame (establishment = male presidents)

she could say "I can't be establishment", but that's not the facet of establishment she gets called out for, so it's just a lame dodge IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #98)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:03 PM

125. Doesn't make sense for someone whose been in power in DC 25 years to

claim he isn't part of the establishment, but people fall for it.

Hillary is not "being penalized", as you say, because she is a member of the establishment. She's suffering repercussions because she is so disingenuously or confusedly claiming she can't be a part of the establishment for the simple fact that she's a woman.


You're splitting hairs. There is no establishment of women presidents because there has never been a female president.
There is no question the level of vitriol toward her, greater than toward any other US politician, despot or even genocidal dictator, would not be happening if she were male. As you well know, there are people who claim to be on the left who speak more favorably of Putin, Assad, and Quaddafi than they do of Clinton. To pretend her gender doesn't play a role in that is absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #125)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:37 PM

133. your argument is not sound & you are confusing concepts & words

 

As I said in reply #115, in terms of the Rich-White-Male-Protestant-WallStreet-ProWar-FreeMarketCapitalist-Political-Elite establishment, the third descriptor doesn't cover her. If you think that's important or makes her not the establishment, I guess that's just your call. I see it as a strike just about right down the middle of the plate, and you see it as ball four.

This sentence shows confusion about words:
There is no establishment of women presidents because there has never been a female president.


"The establishment" is concept comprising the concept I linked above. Perhaps you didn't fully read the post you replied to, this part which I will repeat:

It's apparently mixing up the words "establishment" and "traditional" or just "different." We have no tradition of electing a woman for president. That would be different. But Clinton is just about the definition of a member of the establishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:06 PM

102. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:12 PM

104. Look, David ... The fact of her womanhood is immaterial to our quest

 

As much as I want to see that barrier broken down, we have other HUGE structural problems in the body politic that calls out LOUDER and CLEARER for remedy ...

The financial basis for the middle class is withering away ... The deft motions of the Lieutenants of Industry and Finance over the last decades (decades that included Clinton as President for eight years, and Obama now well into his second term) have decimated the livelihoods and wealth of our precarious middle class citizens ...

Yes, Hillary is a woman, and we would love to see a woman finally break through that steel door, but, frankly, looking at the overall careers of both the Clintons, and of Obama, of late: Where are the actions taken by the Clintons and Obama to alleviate the inequalities that women experience in regard to PAY? ...

My point is, the needs of women AND their families at home have ALWAYS been a concern to those who care (It's presumed we all care), yet, during that time, when given a chance to make changes to help eradicate those inequalities - nothing of substance was attempted to change that ... Why?

We got three strikes ...

We got NAFTA ..

We got the DMCA ...

We got a Private Prison Complex ...

For all the wonderful that the Clintons are (I voted for Bill twice) ... What was done to alleviate the inequalities that now bedevil us?

Is that what it takes? .. Just four more years, and we PROMISE to care about the little people?

Fool me once, shame on me ... You know the rest ...

Bernie has my vote ... No, I won't withhold my vote if Bernie is taken down by the 1% media empire, but I will not extend my enthusiasm for the party I have been part of all my life ...

What use is the Democratic Party to regular working families if THEY keep selling us out for filthy lucre?

Nobody is being fooled here ... And that is Hillary's problem ... The old lines aren't working anymore ...

No wonder the rich and powerful are all confused ...they have no idea what happened ... We know ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #104)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:16 PM

109. + a gazillion. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #104)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:33 PM

116. You're in luck! Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama are running for President. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:19 PM

112. Not Once did you mention Iraq

and her and bill's speeches and letters to the public promoting that damn stinking war.

Her 'experience you tote for her never mentions her bad judgments.

Omission of the truth is not cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:36 PM

119. I don't have much to add right now, but I want to say that this

is a great discussion. It's a throwback to old times. Thanks for this, all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:46 PM

121. Nuanced take or no, the ends do not justify the means.

Like you, I would love for this world to be gender equal, but as you say, HRC is the establishment candidate in this most paramount of Presidential races.

HRC's establishment credentials, albeit limited in some ways by her gender, are in other ways made more dangerous by the same fact. HRC has an almost automatic "under dog" appeal that her gender allows.

There is a natural desire vacuum of having a woman president which seems to trump decision making from a policy perspective. It is in my opinion, the same bait and switch tactics from the election of Obama*. The establishment used his minority status and social reform promises to smokescreen the continued plunder of taxpayer coffers by the MIC and wall street with more unending wars and secret trade deals. *IMO Obama gets important things right but he is by no means the reformer that we all wanted.

There is a strong air of cognitive dissonance in your argument, that I believe many HRC supporters hold. You simultaneously posit that HRC: the female liberal candidate is to be desired for her femininity (among other things), while HRC: the establishment politician is undesirable for her history and ties to the 'war and plunder' establishment.

Giving her the keys to the car still keeps the establishment and their financiers in the driving seat in their continued race to the bottom of the economic, environmental, and social realities for the vast majority of people in our country and abroad.

We have a responsibility after allowing our house to get so messy, bloody, and broken. The Friedman / Reagan / Clinton / Bush establishment house party , brought to us by the MSM, Wall Street, and the MIC is over, and it is time to clean house.

It is time to get on board with the political revolution that Sanders is only the beginning of. We are due for it in the worst of ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:00 PM

124. Truly one of the strangest and most misguided things I've ever read in the more than 10 years I've

 

been on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #130)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:34 PM

131. What a hideous picture.

Not cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #130)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:37 PM

132. Well, aren't you special.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:16 PM

143. A very hearty thank you to you, Skinner!

*******THIS*******

Imagine if Hillary Clinton was from a tiny blue state and called herself a socialist and had Albert Einstein hair...


Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:20 PM

145. DU rec...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:24 PM

146. I believe the examples of both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren eviscerate your argument.

Bernie is not in a virtual tie despite having to overcome every Establishment advantage held by Hillary because he is a funny looking old Jew from Vermont. He is succeeding despite that. His ideas and character resonate with the American people because we are tired of being screwed by both parties and our country. He is winning by merit.

If Elizabeth Warren had run people would have flocked to her as well, not because of her gender but because of her character and ideas. I would also have been excited about her becoming the first woman president, but only as an ancillary point to her meritorious platform and public service.

Hillary does suffer from sexism, of course, but that is far from her main problem. She is being judged on her character and public service and found wanting. Jesus said you can't serve God and Mammon. I say you can't serve Goldman Sachs and the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:29 PM

147. Two word response: Elizabeth Warren

In hindsight, who would have been the better candidate for 2016, establishment Clinton or anti-establishment Warren?

We are in 2016. Marijuana is legal is several states. Gay marriage is legal in deep south. Yes, i would love to see the woman President, but Hillary Clinton's Presidency would not be setting some sort of historical precedent. In fact, Edith Wilson already served as President nearly one hundred years ago.

It is anything but historic for wives of former male leaders to ascend to the highest levels of national leadership. Dynastic royal families have been around since the dawn of civilization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:36 PM

148. Establishment politics in the context of the US is defined by who receives corporate money.

Sanders does not fit that bill...no pun intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jefferson23 (Reply #148)


Response to postatomic (Reply #151)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:52 PM

154. Tell ya what, you name them, and I will explain how no matter what they gave

none received favors....because he has opposed every single piece
of legislation that enables theft by the elite.

He has received money from unions, you believe they
are part of the problem too? I would hope not.

If you're listening to what he is saying it is clear
what establishment means in US politics. The
political revolution is not about free stuff, it is
about what blocks legislation.

Why did Obama have a terrible time with health care?
Why did Obama have a terrible time with Frank Dodd?

The other side is so in the bag with special interest money
and our side is catching up. This is about having a functioning
democracy. Establishment politics falls under that definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jefferson23 (Reply #154)


Response to Skinner (Original post)


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:37 PM

150. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:47 PM

152. Her picture is in the dictionary next to the word

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:29 PM

160. Skinner - this is, hands down the best piece I've ever read on DU in the time I've been here

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:46 PM

162. Hear, hear!!! I was trying to make that point yesterday.

"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.

That is the very definition of sexism. This should not be controversial here on DU -- everyone here knows it to be true. If we lived in a level gender playing field, then by now there should have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 men and 22 women presidents. Or, if we assume a slow move in the direction of equality, then we should at least see some gender parity in the last, say, four presidencies. But no. It's dudes all the way down."

I find it disturbing that many people here are dismissive of the historic significance of electing a woman president. As you pointed out, it wouldn't be just any woman either:

"Hillary Clinton is, on paper, the single most qualified human being on the planet at this moment in time to be President of the United States. Nobody else comes close. Her resume could be put next to the resumes of almost any man who has aspired to the office of President of the United States, and would not be found lacking."

She is the most qualified candidate now, and I'll go to my grave thinking that she was also the most qualified candidate in 2008. It seems that no matter what she has accomplished there's always a "but". Now it's the charge of not being progressive enough for the purists on the Left. The hell with that!!!! Despite the decades of attacks from both the Right and the Left, I have no doubt that Hillary will prevail in the end. Her time has finally arrived.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:59 PM

164. Well reasoned, and a good read.

I like both candidates, but believe that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, bar none, and due to her Foreign policy chops, is also the best well rounded, even when comparing her to anyone on the Republican field. Her qualifications allows to knock down any unforeseen and unplanned foreign policy disaster that may occur anytime between now and November. We do not control these occurrences, so we certainly shouldn't naively act like nothing will happen, because one can only win if one is totally prepared in case it does.

I am quite concerned with those on Bernie's side who constantly sell the notion that Republicans will come out just to vote against Hillary....as many don't apparently want to understand that what would invigorate a large Republican turnout EVEN MORE than Hillary Clinton running, is a Radical Socialist calling for revolution and running on the premise of redistributing the wealth by taxing for spending and growing government bigger than ever before seen (which is exactly how they will frame Bernie Sanders, most likely even worse....unfortunately) and it would be true.

Also, I find that Bernie's approach of continuously holding up all other European countries as the shining beacon as to what the US should be, is flawed, as it incites the opposition (as much as they seem to be down in America) to become that much more nationalistic. That is not the best approach to get more Americans to vote for you.

The person who will win the presidency, is the person who isn't downing this country so much, and instead provides an optimistic message that, under Obama we have done much better considering where we were, and that we should build on that, as we can make this country even better. A positive frame, much more worthy than day in, day out, highlighting only how terrible this country has become...which is already the GOP's message. As well, Sanders proposing to re-fight healthcare, an issue that has so divided this country is chancy at best, and a dangerous calculation at worse. It only generates that much more zeal for Republicans to come out in droves....because now they are fighting a real government type healthcare like what they attempted to say Obamacare is, when it ain't.

The bottomline is that this a much more important election than some want to admit, which is why so I don't understand the so many who are saying if it ain't Sanders, I'm not voting. They are more invested in teaching everyone a lesson, than caring about how their action will only directly hurt the exact people that Bernie Sanders is supposed to be so passionate about helping. In addition, it is a divisive statement that almost sounds like blackmail. Of course voting or not voting is everyone's right, but to use it as a bludgeon is totally unhelpful to Sanders' cause d'etre!

AND from both candidates, we need to hear much more on the "HOWs" they plan on making the changes they promise. Anytime Bernie highlights a problem, and promises what he'll give us, I always scream at my TV screen....BUT HOW will you do this? Yes, I know; Sanders' offerings sound awfully good, but it simply isn't enough to propose what's wrong and what would be better, if one cannot specifically provide a reasonable plan of HOW all of this legislation would occur to make these awesome changes, besides an unreliable Radical Revolution.

As for this Revolution...it could certainly continue regardless of who the nominee is, and in fact encouraged, as it shouldn't be solely about Bernie having to be President in order to change things.

AND, we should be taking note that, in Iowa anyways, voting was down by 30% for Democrats and up 50% for the Republicans, and that was with the Radical Revolutionary guy on the ticket....so there's that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1146153

I'm thinking that young people, the most unreliable voting bloc there is, have only experienced how easy it is to win, but that's because they primarily remember Obama; but neither Sanders nor Clinton are Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:09 PM

165. It's true that women need to work the system more skillfully

than men do. But I do not think that a politician being "establishment" is necessarily a bad thing.

To get great social policy passed, a politician needs to be part of the establishment. They need the relationships and to be able to work the system. LBJ did and so did FDR. Carter was an "outsider" and was also Republican roadkill. Tea Party are "outsiders" and get nothing done after they are elected.

Like it or not, politicians need to know how to pull the levers of power and that requires insider knowledge of the system.

I get that people are fed up with the system and the people running it. But what I think they miss is that you kind of need to be your own hero to fix that. To really get involved and agitate. That is how civil rights got done. And gay marriage. Activists who bugged the crap out of "establishment" politicians.

So for me, establishment politicians are not necessarily the devil. I just need someone I can work with as an activist.

I also think there is a TON of under-the-radar misogyny going on in this campaign already. I cannot tell you how painful it is for me to begin realizing how little some of my "progressive" male "allies" respect women. I can deal ok with the disdain from RW sources, but it is harder to ignore from people you thought were your friends.

So it helps to be reminded of the double standard involved for a female candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:09 PM

166. I wonder, if Elizabeth Warren had "Albert Einstein hair" and called herself a Democratic Socialist

I'm thinking support for her would be just as enthusiastic. Who knows?

But you are making a fair point about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #166)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:21 PM

169. If Obama had ran his campaign like Sanders,

he wouldn't have been elected!
The same holds true for Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrenchieCat (Reply #169)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 09:57 PM

174. What aspect of the way Sanders is running his campaign do you mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:13 PM

167. Skinner, apart from her gender, I genuinely would love to her your other reasons

for supporting Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:16 PM

168. If that were the only knock against her

 

Then your post might have moved me. It sucks for her that she's played by the old rules all this time and now the rules are changing just at the wrong time.

But this election is not about her, and it's not about women in general (except insofar as they will benefit from the policies that will be pushed by the eventual nominee). This election is about a sea change that is long overdue, change that we thought we were getting in 2008 but were sadly mistaken.

This election is about what the Democratic Party has become due to ALL Democrats playing by the rules of the game Clinton has played by.

Also, on a personal level, I don't like her or trust her or believe her. If there were no alternative candidate that I did like, trust and believe, I'd support her in spite of that.

But there is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:23 PM

170. I think that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate running for POTUS

I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified candidate running this cycle. I am also the father of two daughters and I would love to see a female POTUS. There remains a great deal of discrimination in face for females in both the working world and politics. The concept of female POTUS appeals to me and I believe that Clinton would be a good role model

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 09:56 PM

173. Secretary of State is the Top of The Heap. Any Man Would be Thrilled to end his political career

on that HIGH NOTE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2016, 10:06 PM

175. Good points, all.

But I honestly believe that if we were discussing an Elizabeth Warren campaign right now, the conversation would be totally different.

SOME of what you mention- "she needs to take advantage of every ... Etc to be taken seriously" is undoutbtedly true and linked to her gender.

But some of it is hard-baked into the Clinton approach to politics. The equivocation, the refusal to take bold stands or articulate potentially controversial proposals. The flip-flopping when the polls give permission. The "inauthenticity", as dana milbank noted ithe widely touted- by clinton supporters- wapo op ed.

And yes, one area where she has taken a potentially risky stand is on the topic of gun control, which is traditionally a problem for our candidates in national elections. But that is the exception, rather than the rule.

the problem to my mind is her approach, not her chromosomes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 02:32 AM

182. I actually turned around a Sanders supporter with this tonight

Thanks for your thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 08:16 AM

183. KICK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 09:01 AM

184. Her resuma includes the Iraq war

There are no recent wars that she has not wholeheartedly shilled for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 09:13 AM

185. Kick. (Wish I could share links to DU as I used to but can't, too embarrassing)

Too much right-wing hateful crap. Sad. I used to recommend DU all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:19 AM

190. Now I'll have to reconsider Margaret Thatcher as anti-establishment if I agree with your OP



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Original post)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 02:03 AM

191. She's a victim of sexism as are all women

I'm a woman, and I know. But I want a leader who will fight for me and other women (and men) in the ninety nine percent. She has shown no sign of doing so. So I won't vote for her based on gender alone. Frankly, it's insulting to me that some suggest I should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senseandsensibility (Reply #191)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:22 AM

193. I have not said that you should. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skinner (Reply #193)

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 01:32 PM

194. You're right, but "some" have, from surrogates

like Albright, to people here on this board. However, your OP made me think about the fact that Bernie is Jewish, and in that
sense an outsider, too. Do other Jewish people feel pressure to support him because of this? To me it's a plus, but hardly a deciding factor. It wouldn't make me vote for him unless I agreed with him on the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread