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

[Ken Burch]

175. Go ahead. I don't hold either of those views. Never have.

As to the Kennedys, the one I admired was Bobby...who was, as it turned out, also born to wealth, but who responded to his brother's murder by massively growing in human empathy and becoming a fighter for justice. As to FDR, yes he was wealthy, but he made it clear in his policies that he didn't give a shit about the Daddy Warbucks-Thurston Howell the Third types he'd have known down at the yacht club-although in 1932, if we hadn't had the Electoral College, I might have voted for Norman Thomas(who could potentially have won that year, had we had direct presidential elections.)

And if you thought I was the sort who wouldn't have backed HRC in the primaries but would have been fine with Biden or another wealthy MAN, that's totally wrong. I call bullshit on that kind of thinking as much as you would. I backed Jesse in 1984 and 1988 against wealthier male opponents, Kucinich in 2004 against John Kerry, and then switched to Obama after Kucinich dropped out in 2008 when Obama was, to my knowledge, the least-wealthy person remaining in the race-and I'd have done the same if that had been an Obama v. Biden contest.

In 2016, I'd have supported Bernie against any MAN running on the same program HRC ran on-and I'd say that that was the case among basically ALL of the Sanders people I knew.

Sexism is something that still has a major effect and that it must be called out, but HRC's political difficulties can't ALL be put down to that. Bernie didn't 43% of the primary vote(and a majority of the women's vote in New Hampshire) entirely or even predominately due to male progressives being unable to tolerate the idea that of nominating a woman for president-and saying that they can actually does a disservice to her if you are among those who want her to run for something else in the future or want to actually ELECT a Democratic woman to the presidency the next time such a candidate runs.