Mexico was in crisis. The bloody Spanish had invaded. The people were being enslaved and exterminated. The Church had no use for "pagans" as they dubbed the Aztecs--even though the Aztec religion called for extremes of asceticism and moral purity that made Europeans of the time seem like the most debauched sinners. And then, a miracle. An enslaved Aztec priest had a vision at a mountain holy to an Aztec goddess, Tonantzin. He saw a mixed race---European and Native American---woman dressed in a blue mantle surrounded by light. Addressing him in his own religion, she asked why he was afraid and told him

"Am I not your mother?"

Natives converted to Catholicism. Or rather, their own brand of Catholicism. They honored Mary above Jesus. They called Mary "Tonantzin." And, centuries later, when Mexico drove out Spain, they did so under the banner of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Were those early Mexicans who co-opted Mary to become their own Goddess members of a Medieval "Third Way"? Did they sully the purity of their own religion, set back their own cause--freedom from colonial rule---by working within the system? Or, did they subvert the message of the conquerers which was "Everything belongs to Spain" by finding a tiny germ of decency, a bit of common ground upon which all could stand and flourish?

It is easier to cut away the old---say, on a guillotine---than to change hearts and minds. You do not change hearts and minds by declaring much of the world---and the people who exist in it--- evil, corrupt, taboo, "corporate." It does not work for ISIS and it does not work in the US.

Hillary Clinton has been ridiculed, excoriated, damned for attempting to find common ground with conservatives via their Christian faith. But their Christian faith is the only germ of decency that many on the right still possess. When one contemplates the true meaning of Christianity, one realizes that the message is one of universal love, equality and a willingness to change.

"I have come to cast fire upon the world."

The best kind of fire does not merely sweep away the past. It lays down a fertile soil on which the future can grow. And if we are to achieve peace in our lifetime, we must be able to engage the hearts and minds of everyone. Come together.

First, I will post a real, actual, I-could-not-make-this-kind-of-shit up quote from DU today:

"her clothing doesn't register with anyone"



Oh my! How could we even consider a female candidate who is not also a fashion maven? What were we thinking?

Now, about this so called "Lack of enthusiasm", Clinton's supporters are saving it for the general----because we are 99.99% sure that she will be the nominee. Nothing that has happened this primary season has changed our minds. On the contrary. Every time her detractors rub their hands and cackle in glee anticipating that this debate or that Congressional witch hunt will spell doom, DOOM, DOOM for her campaign, she always manages to win. Every time we are told that if the election were held today and if middle school students in one state were going to select the party's nominee--we yawn. And then we get back to our lives---which includes occasionally checking in to see what the We Hate Hillary Talking Point du Jour is.

Today's talking point is "Clinton is just no fun!"

I beg to differ. These folks think there is a lot be be enthusiastic about. May I recommend the following song as you scroll through the images below:

"Chelsea's Mom Has Got It Going On"



/

















Sure, she dresses like Your Mother. But we are voting for a president, not a Super Model.

Twice as many women were killed by their intimate partners in this country between 2002 and 2012 as the number of US troops that died in Iraq and Afghanistan AND folks who were killed on 9-11. One in three women around the globe has been a victim of domestic violence. When women are beaten by their partners, folks still ask "What did she do to deserve it?"

In 1969, Yoko Ono said "Woman is the n----- of the world." Little has changed since then, especially in the third world. Women hold up half the sky--and only own a small fraction of the world's wealth. 1%, to be exact, even though they make up 40% of the world's work force. This is no accident. Women are systematically exploited, disenfranchised, denied education, mocked, beaten, raped and murdered if they try to rise up from their serfdom.

If there was a country where any single group of men contributed so much to the workforce but received so little in exchange, we would denounce that country. The way we denounced South Africa. Where is our outrage for women? Why is the Never-ending War Against Women not the first, second and third most important issues of this election?

This is a 100% real question and I would appreciate honest responses.

We all know that during the general election, we are expected to hang together (or hang separately) at DU. On the other hand...

During the primary, it is fair to tout our own candidate's ability to rouse the base and win votes in the general while predicting that the opponent will be so unlovable/scary that Dems will stay away from the polls in droves if he/she is nominated?

With this is mind, are threats to withhold your own vote in the general legitimate presidential primary political tactics? Please justify your answer.

I have never failed to vote for the Democratic nominees since I first became eligible to vote (and I am a Boomer). I post at Democratic Underground, because I am a Democrat. The Democratic Party of the 20th and 21st centuries has much to be proud of. Since FDR, we have been the party of Social Security, Medicare, Voting Rights, Civil Rights, the Affordable Care Act (which did away with "pre-existing conditions" a tremendous step forward no matter its other weaknesses), Marriage Equality. We are the party of unions, of equal rights regardless of race, religious, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. From time to time, our politicians stumble. The so called "socialists" of Western Europe stumble, too. There is no perfect party. But I believe that when enough working class Americans join forces to vote as one, we improve all our lives. I believe that efforts to dissuade us from Party unity benefit only one group--the 1% which is over represented in the MSM and in campaign contribution dollars.

I believe that previous efforts to dissuade us from voting together for our nominee have been self serving--of some other party. I believe that when Ralph Nader persuaded voters that "Bush=Gore" and that a protest vote was better than a vote for the Democrat, he sold our country down the river for 4 years of war/terror/civil rights abuses. I believe that Nader's "good friend" Grover Norquist was probably laughing his ass off when Nader waged his 2000 campaign. I believe that Al Gore has proven---beyond a shadow of a doubt---that he was not and will never be just like Bush---and our country missed out on what might have been one of its most progressive, Eco-friendly and human presidencies.

I believe that if we stand united we will prevail--and if we allow ourselves to be divided, we will fail. I believe that GOP election fraud is so prevalent that only an overwhelming Democratic victory can assure that our nominee is elected---and therefore every Democratic vote counts. No one has the luxury of making a "protest vote". Your "protest vote" could send our troops into another Middle Eastern country to serve four years. Your "protest vote" could roll back the gains that have been made by LBGT community. Your "protest vote" could usher in a new round of the War Against Black Folks that the Bush DOJ waged.

We can not all agree on a candidate, but surely, as Democrats, we can all agree on one thing. I pledge to vote for the Democratic Nominee. How about you?

Forget about the top of the ticket for a moment. The Castro family is a tried and true Texas union Democratic family with not one but two brilliant young political leaders (twins no less). The Castros are the future of the Democratic Party. I seriously doubt that there are any skeletons in their closet. Their mother raised them to be good Democratic politicians.

A Castro will one day be president of this country.

Yes, this is quite a prediction. Feel free to bash me eight years from now if I am wrong. But I won't be.

Regardless of which of our fine candidates secures the nomination and goes on to win in the general, I wish to nominate (once again) Julian Castro for the position of Vice President. Your candidate will be glad that he (or she) close him. Remember, the VP's job is to rouse the base. And Castro is a proven base rouser.

"My fellow Democrats, me fellow Texans!"

Make Texas blue again!





My vote belongs to Clinton but my heart belongs to Castro!

So, someone says that Elizabeth Warren agreed with something Clinton said, and (predictably) someone else shows up to remind us that Warren used to be a Republican. Poor Elizabeth Warren! Not so long ago, you were the hope of the Anyone But Clinton campaign. And now, you too have been thrown under the “Anyone But Hillary” bus. Must be getting pretty crowded under there. Let's take a look. Hmm. I see....

Wow! Can I get an invitation? I wanna go under the bus, too.

in 2004 about Kerry. If you can not provide proof that you loudly, aggressively repeatedly denounced Kerry as a war hawk at every opportunity, that you vowed to stay home in protest at the horror of having to vote for a Democratic nominee who supported the Iraq War, if you can not give actual links---no fair saying you muttered it under your breath or mentioned it to a friend once, or thought about it real hard---if you did not blog about Kerry's war vote, if you did not carry signs denouncing Kerry's war vote, if you did not devote columns to the subject of Kerry's war vote---

--and you now insist that Clinton's Iraq war vote disqualifies her, then you have either

1) changed your mind or

2) have a double standard as in it is only wrong if Clinton does it.

Come on guys. I am waiting for the links. I am waiting to hear how much you despise Kerry. I am waiting to read about how you fought tooth and nail through the primary and how you contemplated suicide after the Democratic convention.

Tell you what. I'll google someone who has denounced Clinton as a war hawk at every opportunity. Surely our friend, Will Pitt must have had some really harsh words to write about Kerry in 2004. I'll bet he raked him over the coals...

Oh my! Look what I found:



http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/46460-william-rivers-pitt--the-trial-of-john-kerry#14451360217641&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=

Et tu, Pitt? Kerry's vote was complex. Clinton's vote was---simple? Why is that?

And look at this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x605385



You can bet I will bookmark this post.

A: If you said "The Terminator" to the first question, good guess. If you answered "Leprechauns" to number two, sorry, no. Number three should be a dead giveaway, but if you have not cracked open a newspaper in two decades you might guess "The LAPD?"

Wrong on all accounts. The person who inspires the MSM to verbal excess is none other than Hillary Clinton. As in todays example:



From the Associated Press via The LA Times.

Relentlessly, huh? When Obama piled up endorsements in 2008, he did it---what? Sporadically? Light heartedly? Distractedly? Why did he deserve his endorsements? Why does each endorsement that Clinton receive make the sinister music in the background go up a notch?

Once again, the press proves that the old adage is true---it's ok, unless Clinton does it. Clinton does not just acquire Congressional endorsements. She is The Terminator of Congressional endorsements. She stalks those endorsements. She aims her assault rifle at them and shoots them square between their poor, doe like little eyes. Those endorsements don't stand a chance, not with Hillary the Terminator on the trail.



In 2008, you scoffed when I wrote about the tropes from fiction that influence our elections. The Hero. The Mother. The Martyr. But Obama was anointed as The One Who Would Fulfill All Our Hopes--until he didn't. Clinton embraced and supported Obama as The Mother, thwarting the plans of those on the RNC who hoped she would pull a Kennedy 1980. And the press destroyed Edwards once and for all. This time around, it is even weirder. Now we have the Movie Pitch Candidacy (Sanders as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington meets Grapes of Wrath) and the Horror Candidacy (Relentless Clinton, the Terminator) and the Existential Candidacy (If Martin O'Malley is running for president but the press refuses to cover him does that make him a loser or a winner?)

Great primary! Keep up the good work! As in 2008, I will support any one of the three in the general. Just be careful not to fling so much poo in the primary that the chosen candidate will not be able to wash it off come next July.

Not just in comparison. The GOP candidates are so bat-shit crazy that they are scary. Scary, because we learned in 2000 and again in 2004 that the popular loser can steal an election if the vote is close enough and the GOP is dirty enough--and the RNC is a filthy as ever. Filthier, probably, since they can now roll around nude in vast sums of money acquired from who knows where---Seldom Adelson's casinos are a perfect money funnel for illegal and foreign donations.

So, anyway, once upon a time, a candidate like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump would not have a snowball's chance in you know what. The nomination of a flaming idiot would assure the rival party (i.e. us, the Dems) an easy victory, a la LBJ in 1964 against Goldwater. And then the impossible happened. Thanks to a not so secret vote for hostages deal, an actor became president. Ronald Reagan changed the rules. Suddenly, the last person you would ever expect to "win" a presidential election could get sworn in and run the country into the ground.

Once burned, twice shy. Twice burned, extremely apprehensive. Three times burned, no way in hell does any sane Democrat want to "take a chance". Not with our country's future. We have to live here.

And so, the more we see of the GOP candidates in their debates, the more we listen to their insane rants, the more we will (unconsciously) look for a safe port in the storm. A tested port, one who is so well defined in the public mind that all the dirty tricks and yellow journalism in the world can not change people's perception of her---or him. Al Gore would do. Joe Biden would do. Hillary Clinton will do.