February 10, 2016

This goes a long way in explaining the great divide between...

young and old women. Older, white women had sexism to overcome, but college was affordable and the American Dream was within their reach. Today, young women of all races have greater opportunities, hypocritically. They are facing a different obstacle: indentured servitude to banksters. It's important to both old and young women that they see a woman president in their lifetime. Older women are running out of time. It's not the #1 priority for younger women, suffocating debt is.

February 10, 2016

Enough Superdelegates will endorse Bernie to put him over the top

Hillary might even concede.

Otherwise, there will be blood. Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to worry about that today.

February 10, 2016

Why are all of Hillary's strategic, most high profile "brains" men, again?

Idiots like Mark Penn and David Brock. That absolutely contradicts her message. If you refuse to hire women to shape your message, you're sending a hollow message, and hypocritical.

On Edit: I originally said "advisors" so I had to be more specific because 3 women behind the scenes don't get much notice, if any. I was thinking David Axelrod, Mark Penn, Steve Schmidt ("brains&quot strategists so I totally eff'd up the original title.

February 9, 2016

You guys only see what's under your noses.

Hillary will get nothing, not even SCOTUS appointees. People hate her, stop listening to Chris Matthews slobbering about the good old days of Tip and the Gipper.

Electing Hillary is a commitment to the status quo. Congratulations, you're relatively happy with the status quo.

A Bernie win indicates the party has left you behind (to political revolution) and is a signal to the hundreds of Dems endorsing Hillary that they, like Hillary, must move with Bernie or get swept out.

You miss the significance of that, so let me repeat it. From the very start, Hillary has been forced toward Bernie, not vice versa. That's not leadership. That's playing defense, her comfort zone. She loves being attacked, she reminds us daily. You can surely expect the rest of the establishment to move toward Bernie, as well, should he win. At this point, the establishment wants to protect its interests and maintain the status quo.

The establishment would naturally think primary challenge, today. He's not a Democrat and he's a threat to the status quo, i.e., the establishment.

It's worth repeating, because this point never penetrates the shell around Hillary and her supporters: she will accomplish nothing. People think the Rs are obstructionist now? They revile her. As she's doing in this primary, Hillary is going to be playing the woman card a lot if she gets elected. For someone who wants to cozy up to Obama, she should have learned that lesson from him. He never stooped so low as to blamed racism for the attacks being hurled at him. That's leadership. "Oh woe is me" isn't.

Another thing you all miss: Obama was the change candidate, but turned into an establishment president. People want change more than ever, which is why someone calling for change for 30 years is resonating.

Finally, people are tired of Hillary's dumb wars.

February 6, 2016

She's Goliath. But she moved to her comfort zone: being defensive

Hillary let's us know time and again that her greatest quality is her defense. She's been in so many storms and she's fought off all the attacks, and "Look at me, I'm still standing and ready for more!"

That's not leadership.

For the first time, she has the upper hand. She's Goliath. The war can finally be fought on her terms. But she kept drifting and drifting from her spot, closer to bedrock, Bernie Sanders. Bernie's demonstrating leadership, here, and she's finding she's fighting on his terms and, as a result, been doing what she does best: play defense.

Her supporters want to make her "defensiveness" all about sexism, but she never fought the fight on her terms, she fought it on someone else's terms. That was her decision.

Stupid.

Because she moves away (flips and flops) from her past positions, Hillary reminds me of that guy who gets caught in a lie, and on the fly has to make up another lie to cover up the first, and so on...

It doesn't look "presidential."

February 6, 2016

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

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

Electing a woman president in 2016 isn’t just important for the present. It’s important for the future. It’s 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.

February 5, 2016

Consider this: you have Hillary, the most qualified candidate ever vs Bernie, the

...democratic socialist.

An outsider, with no understanding of the current political currents, would say: The extreme lefty better chill out and move to the center if he has any hope of toppling Goliath.

But we know that that's not what's happening, because we are cognizant of a Paradigm shift. From the very beginning, every single person, poster, and pundit UNDERSTOOD that it was Hillary who was going to have to start sounding a lot more like the (extreme or not) lefty, or she was going to be swept out to sea by the undertow.

That's all you need to know. Rejecting this, you'll continue to swat at false narratives like Don Quixote.

February 5, 2016

Lol Neither candidate will get didly-poo accomplished in the first 4 years

Hillary supporters are in denial about this. And if they're not, they're delusional. I see a Sanders election as a sign of things to come. By 2020, he'll pull those suckers to the left - JUST LIKE HE DID HILLARY - or they'll be replaced by more progressive Democrats.

February 5, 2016

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?"

February 5, 2016

The Johnny Manziel story is a perfect teaching opportunity for the country, but...

only those of you who read this post will learn a damn thing.

Johnny's bipolar, it's obvious! It's not obvious to just anyone, but it's obvious to anyone who has seen bipolar disorder and worked with people with bipolar disorder. It's such a clear cut case, Johnny's picture would be next to bipolar in the dictionary. But rather than seeking the expertise of a psychiatrist, because Americans are totally ignorant, all we see is one sports reporter asking another reporter to tell them the latest: "he's suicidal, his family took him to rehab but he left, he wasn't drinking."

It's time for the country to have a conversation about mental illness. It's ridiculous to witness how this story is being reported.