"No more dynasties"--for women, that is

[Ken Burch]

53. I've never said that nobody's opposition to HRC was based in sexism.

That was what anti-HRC sentiment from the RIGHT was largely about.

Ascribing left opposition to HRC mainly to sexism, rather than to her stances on some issues, seems to me to be an excuse to avoid having a real discussion of what did and did not work in the 2016 campaign. Those who preferred her main primary opponent did so mainly because they agreed more with what he had to say-NOT because he was male. Why is it still seemingly impossible for you to accept that?

We need an honest, respectful conversation about 2016-and we can have such a conversation WITHOUT dismissing Russian interference or vote suppression as factors.

What purpose do you feel is served by insisting that the main reason ANYONE, even people on the left, opposed HRC in the primaries, or might not be enthusiastic about Chelsea as a future candidate, was fear of a female president?

Are you going to keep pressing this point until everybody says "ok, there was no good reason for ANYBODY not to support HRC from the moment she declared her candidacy"?

If not, what is your objective here?

HRC would have been a fine president- but she's never going to run again. If she ran in 2020, it's likely that Trump would immediately find some pretext to put her in jail. Since that would probably put us under fascism for the rest of eternity...why risk it?