What is the non-sexist argument that Hillary Clinton who won the popular vote

[La Lioness Priyanka]

should be disappeared from politics, when there are districts she won that are currently being held by Republicans?

Like why specifically should she not campaign for the Democrat in areas that she won, but still have GOP control?

Especially when other people who have lost elections are not being disappeared from politics?

[geek tragedy]

1. Because the party needs its leaders of the future to emerge, and the leaders of its

past need to cede the stage for them and stop taking up all of the oxygen in the room.

This goes for Hillary, and for Bill, and for Bernie for that matter.

2018 and 2020 need to be about Trump and the damage he is doing and also about our party's future, not about its past including relitigating the 2016 election.


The same reason a lot of us were eager to see John Kerry stop acting as if he were the leader of the party after 2004.

The party needs to change its image in order to win over the many voters who have a negative view of it. No one in the Clinton family is going to be helpful for that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. Fair but I don't see this push back for men who are also not the future

I only see the strong desire to silence her specifically

[geek tragedy]

6. There's been quite a bit of "enough of this guy already" directed at Bernie--his fans

will tell you as much.

Part of it is that she's not an officeholder, so she doesn't have a natural platform or official role in public life. Anything she does is pretty much interjecting herself--much like Mitt Romney ex post 2012 or Gore ex post 2000. In contrast, Kerry and McCain had their day jobs as Senators which kept them in the public eye as they had public duties.

Lots of us were in agony watching John Kerry's shibacle in October 2006 and just begging him to get off the stage. Much relief was had when he announced he would not be a candidate in 2008.

And, here's the truth: presidential losers tend to elicit two strong responses from their fellow partisans:

1) you were robbed, the country let you down, you'll always be our president, we're with you

2) f@ck you, you blew it, you suck, get out of the way and let someone better step up in your place

[BainsBane]

10. She also doesn't have a batting average of 0

so there's that difference.

[bettyellen]

16. HA! I love you BB!

[Cha]

7. Hillary got 66 Million votes.. and trump was

rigged in.. the Democratic Party didn't "lose" as one pol is always saying.

They can try to silence Hillary but I think she will emerge again.. there's plenty of room for experience and knowledge as well as younger people coming into their own.

[bettyellen]

18. Exactly- we need a deep and wide bench. I think her not being a nominee will allow some people to

Get over their distaste - once she's not seen as ambitious, she's not such a threat to their egos. And she's always been involved in some aspect of public service and should continue to be.

[FBaggins]

56. How are you certain that what you "see"...

...is necessarily what is actually there?

The people you're focused on may not be the only ones affected by a bias.

Separate from personal biases, is also worth noting that the district's that she won that still have republicans representing them... Didn't go blue in November with her on the ticket.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. yes, all our biases affect what we see, including yours. not just mine.

[R B Garr]

5. The party also needs to quit propping up people who have little but negative to say

about it. That has gone on long enough and is the cause of the damage. The Clintons were popular enough, but when you run them into the ground, then this is what you get.

[geek tragedy]

8. that's a whole separate topic, I admit to sharing the sentiment

that the "Why does the party I bash resent me" types need to get with the program.

[bettyellen]

15. Since it's been explicitly explained that they've been bolstered by Russian propaganda it's time to

Admit that they are being used and shut the hell up. Be part of the solution, but stop trying to hold the party hostage. For fucks sake, it's time for some real unity.

[R B Garr]

80. Absolutely, bettyellen. There is no mistaking what happened now. There are still some

trying to force an alternate reality, but the relentless discovery of the Russian meddling just shows how they were targeted and used -- the divisiveness was exactly what the Russians were after. Phony narratives didn't work then except to attract con men who exploited them. Enough.

[Cha]

19. Precisely, RB.. I'm sick of that negative crap

I want leaders who are positive and winners!

[planetc]

31. The "leaders of the past" just posted a 3 million vote plurality, so ...

I think the OP's idea is for us to use our strengths (Hillary Clinton) to strengthen the new wave of talent, by getting on the same stages, and rallying voters to turn out for the new kids. I am not personally worried that the Democratic Party will ever run out of new faces who are competent, eager to serve, and ready to risk their personal comfort on the political stage with the best of the Republicans. I would remind us all that the best candidate the Republicans could field was Donald Trump. Some of his primary opponents: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush. The Republicans do not have a bench; they have a few planks floating on the sea where the ship went down.

Also, I'm personally loathe to throw Bill Clinton off the ship. I well remember that the last time this country had its budget balanced, and a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president. Both Mr. And Mrs. Clinton have unimpaired mental faculties, deep experience, and the will to serve the country. I say we say thanks to them, and try to find other roles for them to play as we try to refloat the ship of state.

[geek tragedy]

33. Clinton should have roughly the same role that Kerry, Gore and Dukakis have nt

[delisen]

35. Clinton will make her own role.

[geek tragedy]

37. let's hope she chooses wisely nt

[karynnj]

40. I would be happy if Clinton does what Kerry did in 2005 - 2008.

Consider that Hillary 2020 should be in line with Kerry 2008.

1) In 2005 and 2006, Kerry very energetically worked to elect Democrats to the House and Senate both by personal endorsements in public and via his email and he helped many raise money. He did a great job augmenting what the DNC, the DSC and the DCCC - all of which he gave money to.

2) More controversially, in 2007, he told Obama he would endorse him at the time and place Obama chose. This ended up being South Carolina after Hillary narrowly won NH. This may well have been critical because Kennedy did the same partly because of Bill Clinton comments (that might not have been made if Obama did not have a new excellent surrogate in the weeks before who countered many Bill Clinton attacks).


Hillary Clinton, like the Obamas and others, has a constituency of people who will listen to her recommendations. We know that, like Kerry, she has an email list. I know that she gave it to the DNC, but I hope it is used to send mail from her.

I think we need EVERYONE who could have an impact in moving people to support Democrats to be involved -- and both Clintons would be included in any list of influential Democrats.

[radius777]

82. False, unlike them, Hillary is an icon

of women's (and civil) rights, a symbol of female achievement in the face of withering attacks spanning decades, a role model for girls (and boys) across the globe.

Kerry and Gore were certainly men of integrity and achievement themselves, both of whom got a raw deal (especially Gore), but they are not historically significant figures in the way that Hillary is - who did win the popular vote by millions, and was clearly robbed by Comey/Rudy/Putin, etc.

[Me.]

58. Why Does It Has To Be One Or The Other

Surely there is room for both and frankly what young leader needs oxygen but isn't getting it?

[geek tragedy]

62. Clinton hasn't done much wrong (post election), as of yet.

But, setting up a political infrastructure including a PAC gives people the idea that she's still trying to remain a power-broker inside the party instead of letting someone else have their shot.

John Kerry did the same thing, and had to be pushed off the stage in 2006.

[Me.]

69. Hasn't Done Much Wrong As of Yet

What 'not much wrong' has she done as of yet. And why shouldn't she set up a PAC like so many others. She entitled to put her views forth, more so than the Mercers, Kochs and Peter Theil.

As for Kerry being pushed off the stage, did I dream he was a fine SOS, 'old geezer' that he is.

[geek tragedy]

71. I'm talking about 2006 re: Kerry

Part of it depends, w/r/t Clinton, when she's "speaking out" whether the effect is to actually move the ball forward on that issue or whether it mainly keeps her name in the headlines. Ditto Chelsea.

[Me.]

74. Truly Don't Mean To Be Insulting

However, this post has a very Chris Cillizza/ Josh Barro tone to it. And how does Chelsea come in for criticism? I mean really, what has she done to displease you? And whether you or anyone likes it, both are free to do as they please and people will be free to respond however they wish. They may even support HRC in whatever endeavor she chooses.

[geek tragedy]

75. "What has she done to displease you?"

You asked for it.

1. Lost to Donald effing Trump via an incompetent campaign, terrible political instincts, and abhorrent strategy.

2. Play the fake "I accept full responsibility" game where she then lists only stuff someone else did (Comey, Wikileaks, Russia, misogyny) for her loss but of course not offering any inkling as to what she thinks she did wrong, or what her successor could do differently. No "gee maybe the fact I couldn't articulate a rationale for my candidacy was a red flag" or "maybe I shouldn't have taken voters in Michigan and Wisconsin for granted."

3. Lost to Donald effing Trump.

4. Acting more like a candidate than an issues-advocate. Forming the PAC, constantly inserting herself into the news cycle by issuing statements that are a mile wide but an inch deep--just enough to get her name mentioned, but no concerted work on any particular issue to actually show results. Contrast that to Al Gore, who chose one issue and worked his ass off on that one issue, rather than sprinting around tossing out soundbites on the issue du jour.

5. Lost to Donald effing Trump.

[Me.]

76. Damn That Woman

She lost and apparently, she wasn't the lesser of two evils. And thank you to all those so-called Dems who kicked her, and her campaign, in the face. And guess what, I'll give credibility to Nate Silver on whether or not extenuating circumstances affected what should've been her win.

And you know, again I may be dreaming but I thought I heard her talking about what she had done wrong.

Ps. I was asking about Chelsea

[geek tragedy]

77. you're dreaming

“Did we make mistakes? Of course we did. Did I make mistakes? Oh, my gosh yes,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour at a “Women for Women International” event in New York, “but the reason why I believe we lost were the intervening events in the last 10 days.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/hillary-clinton-election-trump-fbi-russia-hacking/525183/

Not. Accepting. Responsibility.

And, at this point, she is using the Russia/Trump thing as an excuse to avoid accountability for her numerous and grave blunders.

And as far as Comey being the only reason she lost, I find that suspect at best (certainly a better candidate wouldn't have been so vulnerable):

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029031360

[Me.]

79. Gotta Say, It Sounds To Me Like You Harbor A Grudge Against She & Her Family

So I'll stick with Nate's assessment.

[radius777]

83. Hillary is right on point with that comment.

I agree, her campaign was lackluster, unfocused and lacked any 'bite' to it, which, more than anything I think has to do with her loyalty to milquetoast people like Podesta (she needed someone with more of a killer instinct, like Carville or Plouffe in charge).

That said, all campaigns make mistakes and almost every legitimate political indicator (polls, models, betting markets, etc) showed her w/a >75% (3:1) odds of winning, and at least a 5% margin in the popular vote.

Comey's Hatch Act violation w/11 days to go clearly threw the models off, and swung a few electorally significant states Trump's way, as well as the senate, which Dems were also predicted to win back (by a seat or two).

[niyad]

3. there is no non-sexist argument, unless one can produce evidence that any other politician

has EVER had this said about them.

[mopinko]

9. nope, there isnt.

even gary hart still gets around.

[niyad]

12. and yet we get the pretzel-twisting to pretend that this is not true.

[mopinko]

20. denial aint just a river in egypt.

[niyad]

21. so very, very true.

[geek tragedy]

14. From 2005, re: John Kerry (from one of the most prominent liberal bloggers)

http://americablog.com/2005/05/john-kerry-needs-to-go-away.html

I’ve had it with this jerk. He was a lousy presidential candidate, couldn’t find a consistent position on the Iraq war if his life depended on it, and now the only consistent message he’s been able to find post-election is to bash gays.

Note to Kerry: Go away. You were a crappy candidate, a milquetoast Senator (Kennedy always pulled your weight, anyway), and now you have the nerve to weigh in AGAINST gay rights in your own state? Grow a pair, buddy, then come back and we’ll talk.

If you dare run for president again, I’ll be telling the world loud and clear that I voted for John Kerry for president, before I voted against him.

Not to mention 2006 when Chuck Schumer kicked Kerry out of a Democratic leadership photo after Kerry's infamous "get an education or get stuck in Iraq" comment.

http://www.upi.com/Schumer-appears-to-ask-Kerry-to-leave/27941163618381/?spt=su

[niyad]

22. ONE--do you have more?

[geek tragedy]

23. Guess who said it:

I think we have to look forward here we don't need to be refighting the 2004 election, as much as President Bush would like that to happen. What Senator Kerry said was inappropriate and I believe we can't let it divert us from looking at the issues that are at stake in our country.

[karynnj]

65. I know and immediately had a problem with the word "inappropriate" -- as it bought into the right's

view and I could think of things that the party defended for years that were INAPPROPRIATE by her husband.

[geek tragedy]

66. yep, Kerry's endorsement of a certain Senator from Illinois in 2008 was no coincidence. nt

[tritsofme]

84. You could peruse my posting history from that era!

I did not pull any punches on Kerry, I still don't particularly care for him. Wanting him politically "disappeared" is to say the least, a polite understatement.

I've also spent the better part of 10 years here supporting Hillary, but think it is time for her to largely leave the political sphere to new faces.

[LisaM]

28. Oh fer cripe's sake. Kerry came very close to unseating a sitting President.

If it hadn't been for what happened in Ohio, he could have won. Aides were actually preparing Bush for that scenario.

Anyone who has nuanced views (which I think high-placed officials should) on issues like Iraq is always accused of being inconsistent. It's beyond the reach of people who think in black and white to understand that most decisions take a very careful weighing of pros and cons. I don't think we should have gone into Iraq, but when it was essentially a done deal, the government had to deal with it.

I heard Kerry speak as the candidate in 2004 and it was an amazing speech - far better than the sound bites Howard Dean had been delivering when I saw him earlier that summer, where I think he yelled, "We're going to kick them out of the White House and send them back to Crawford!" about eight times. Least substantive speech I've ever heard by a candidate. (Note: I don't think Howard Dean would have made a terrible president, I'm just saying Kerry was far more impressive on the campaign trail).

[geek tragedy]

29. yet the party was very clearly over John Kerry after he lost.

My point is that the candidate who loses is pretty much done as a national figure in his/her own party after losing.

Al Gore took up a single cause and worked outside of politics. Mitt Romney retired to private life. McCain went back to being a generally blockheaded backbencher in the Senate.

Kerry had to be physically shooed off the national stage by Democrats.

[LisaM]

30. Nixon wasn't, but maybe he was an exception.

Mondale continued to have influence, though, even to the point of being tapped to come out of retirement and run again.

[geek tragedy]

32. Mondale went into the private sector and only ran for office

after the Wellstone plane crash.

[LisaM]

47. I know. I actually think booting experienced pols from holding power is a mistake.

Of course we need to always attract fresh new talent - just like any business or sports team - but boy I miss the days when people like Tip O'Neill and Teddy Kennedy were around. In sports, losing in a big game is considered very valuable experience and most stars have gone through that before winning a trophy (LeBron, Stevie Y, John Elway...)

[geek tragedy]

67. Clinton hasn't served in elected office since 2008. Hasn't won a November election

since 2006.

It would be one thing if she were still a sitting Senator. But she's not. Right now she's a private citizen.

[LisaM]

72. But Kerry was a senator after he "lost" in 2004.

I just think in general, we should value experience a lot more than we do. I see it in the workplace too.

[geek tragedy]

73. Experience is a benefit in governing, but a liability in national politics.

Look at the ages of Democrats who have been elected President--Obama, Bill Clinton, Carter, JFK, FDR.

Not a lot of time on the national stage for them. (LBJ and Truman became President via succession not election)


Let's look at the Democrats who have lost:

Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, Humphrey, Stevenson.

[karynnj]

68. Because the party wanted to deny him any role - they were getting ready for HRC

As to physically shooed off the national stage, you forget that his endorsement that may well have led to Kennedy's for Obama was a big deal and likely essential to Obama's victory.

Not to mention, he succeeded in being the best Secretary of State in the last 50 years -- where both the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal would not have happened without him. Between them, they are a large part of Obama's legacy and a bigger legacy than many Presidents have.

PS McCain was not and is not a back bencher -- block headed, I will give you.

[geek tragedy]

70. Kerry was a great success as SoS. I think he was a much better statesman than he was

as a politician or even as a Senator.

I see McCain as having his former role as he did when he was The Maverick, only without the phony media gloss that he enjoyed back in the day. Not much of a player in any kind of legislation or policy-making. Especially in Trump's GOP.

[karynnj]

48. I have had the good fortune to meet both Howard Dean and John Kerry after 2004

I expected to be impressed by John Kerry, but I was surprised by how impressed I was not just for his vision, his intelligence and his eloquence. I was old enough that I saw all that way back in 1971. I was surprised by how down to earth, likeable he was and how he seemed to want to hear what everyone had to say and to respond very thoughtfully. I was unprepared to see how focused, serious and motivated he was to make a difference on the environment and on foreign policy. From friends I met who worked for him, I have yet to meet any who have not made a comment that he was a very good person -- something very rarely said of anyone.

Last week, I noticed this cool John Kerry/Vanessa Kerry interview of each other. Now, after being a terrific Secretary of State, who very likely made the difference in there being both a Paris Climate Accord and the Iran deal - thus having made a difference on the major environmental threat and probably prevented another middle eastern war, it is interesting that when speaking of accomplishments, he speaks of things he did to help his Senate and State department staff balance work and life - http://www.globalmomschallenge.org/2017/05/service-families-around-world/ Reading this, I understood why so many people worked so many years on his staff and speak of him as they do. His daughter is pretty amazing as well.

I met Howard Dean in Burlington Vermont. Again, I was prepared to be very impressed, but I was actually somewhat disappointed - and this was with a local crowd. In fact, Madeline Kunen, who was also there, was a far better speaker and far more charismatic. She was also much better talking individually to all the people there. I know many people that know both well -- they both live in the area -- and this is not an atypical take.

[LisaM]

53. That totally tracks with the speeches I heard.

The Kerry speech (granted, by then he was the actual nominee) was focused, detailed, interesting - and completely geared to the region (Pacific Northwest). It was not a cookie cutter speech. He had policies for every issue that matters here - fishing, logging, the climate, you name it. Dean was not the nominee, obviously, and his speech was pretty cliché-ridden.

I also heard Hillary speak in 2008. She wasn't as detailed as Kerry, but she also spoke of things that were important in this region, and her charisma in person (she almost has a glow about her) and obvious love for issues and people was highly evident. She does not come across on TV at all the way she is in person.

It's really to our loss if we don't capitalize on the knowledge both Hillary and Kerry (and Dean for that matter) have and treat them as respected statesmen for the Democrats.

[radius777]

86. Agree, Kerry/Edwards was a strong ticket that lost narrowly,

and isn't given the credit for what it nearly accomplished, unseating a sitting wartime (9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq) administration.

Only Kerry, as a combat veteran and elder statesman, had the gravitas to do this, and Edwards (who had his issues also as a candidate, failure to take on Cheney strong enough, etc) provided that sunny youthful optimism (a la JFK) needed.

[LisaM]

87. Yes, the downfall of John Edwards still irks me.

I still like his two-America message, but he certainly made a mess of things.

[Cha]

4. If the candidate wants her and Hillary wants

to.. then why not, indeed?

Hillary bounces back.. that's what she does.

[StevieM]

25. Hillary has historically been the ultimate rebounder.

Barack Obama made a comment about that during the 2008 primaries, when he couldn't finish her off. He made a joke, when playing basketball against a kid, about how "this kid is good. He keeps coming back. He's like Hillary."

James Comey took away her ability to rebound, to a large extent, with his actions throughout the investigation. He shattered her.

It is to her credit that she ran such a good campaign that she was still able to bounce back on a number of occasions, even as her favorability could not.

I hope we don't turn Comey into some kind of a martyr.

[Cha]

88. Oh, thank you for that, StevieM.. I know President

Obama appreciates Hillary's strength and fighting spirit!

comey is two-fold.. he fucked up the 2016 Election but he shouldn't have been fired for investigating trump.. and given a false reason why he was fired.

That's trump bullshit.

[Orsino]

11. I'm not convinced she shouldn't run again in 2020.

She would be unprecendentedly old, and frankly I'd be surprised if she'd still have us, but she is a terrifically popular politician that it took billions to bring down.

[niyad]

13. not just billions, but chicanery and treachery of the first order.

[NCTraveler]

17. I can come up with an ageist argument.

But others have already beat me to the punch.

[ismnotwasm]

24. There is none

There is no way to divide the sexism out of this mess.

[Voltaire2]

26. In general you get one shot.

You lose and somebody else gets a shot. I think the last multi fail democratic candidate was William Jennings Bryan.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. At the presidency, not at speaking out or campaigning for others

[Voltaire2]

49. Sure. The presidency Glad we agree that it's one and done.

There would be nothing sexist about Clinton not getting another nomination. It would instead be exactly the same as other failed candidates going back 100 years or so.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. that's not what i asked about. you seem to be answering a different question altogether.

[TheFrenchRazor]

39. maybe, but that presumes a clear-cut loss; HRC got 3M more votes, even with russian hacking. nt

[Voltaire2]

50. Nope. Gore had the election clearly stolen.

And yet he too was one and done

[delisen]

34. Presidential Candidates Used to Be Selected in Smoke-filled Rooms

Then we decided to be more democratic and let whoever the hell wants to run-run.

I get a kick out of democrats trying to re-produce the smoke filled rooms by becoming petty rule makers on who should or shouldn't run-as though they have the right to control or limit other people.

I also get a kick out of democrats who want to get heart throbby over candidates and turn one of the most important jobs of a citizen into becoming judges in 1950s style Atlantic City Beauty Contest or a more modern America'a Got Talent show.

I am perfectly happy to have them express their opinion though (everyone has a right to be shallow or fight for shallow). All have the right determine their own criteria.

Who runs for the presidency will be decided by the potential candidate, whether they have or can build a following, and whether they can afford whatever type of campaign they decide to mount.

Whether. they win will depend on a number of things, including circumstances that are not even known today.

Clinton is actually the most powerful political actor in the USA. Our election hinged on Putin's hatred of her. She stood in his evil way. She made human rights visible and viable as a national and international goal.

Trump still fears her and what she represents--He can't stop talking about her.

The Republican Party hates her and has been trying to destroy her for 25 years.

....and we're supposed to make life easier for the Putins, the Trumps and the greedy Republican haters?-by disappearing past candidates?

When Democrats turn on their exceptionally well-prepared candidates and try to disappear them we do the bidding of the enemies of democracy.

Anyway, of course Clinton should and is free campaign if she and a local candidate want her to.

As far as winning the popular vote, I think she won the election.

Voter suppression is the new face of Jim Crow and the the old poll taxes--this crap is going to keep coming back until the the Republican Party, in its present form, is crushed.

[brooklynite]

36. Because the people voting for the Democrat don't need her...

...and the people who didn't vote for her but MIGHT now vote for the Democrat will see her as a reminder of "establishment politics".

[geek tragedy]

38. +1

very few people are going to turn out for Democrats in 2017 and 2018 because of her, but her ability to hurt candidates downticket will be much sharper

[Proud Liberal Dem]

42. After dealing with the Trump disaster?

Really?


And let's stop all of this stupid IMHO "Establishment" stuff. Trump isn't "Establishment" and, frankly, this country is now worse off because enough people went and elected a dimwit in part because he wasn't "Establishment" and that he would "change" how DC operates (which is true but in the WRONG sort of way). I'll take a sane and competent "Establishment" candidate over Trump any day of the week, month, or year.

[geek tragedy]

43. the question isn't whether someone is better than Trump, the question is who is best able

to persuade voters to come around to our side.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

44. So, who is?

Hillary won millions of votes (3 million more than Trump). Evidently, she's popular among Democrats. Bill is still pretty popular among Democrats as well.

[geek tragedy]

45. Any Democrat will be popular amongst Democrats.

There aren't enough Democrats to win based solely on Democratic votes.

There were a lot of people who voted for Clinton because she wasn't Trump, and there were a lot of people who voted for Trump because he wasn't Clinton.

We need to keep the former category in our camp while winning back some of the latter category, or at least discouraging them from voting.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

51. Anybody whom thought that voting for Trump was a good idea

simply because he wasn't Clinton was dumb, misguided, etc. and probably unreachable by any Democrat. And even if they get so mad at Trump that they decide to take their anger out at Republicans in 2018 and 2020, who's to say that they won't turn around start voting Republican again once Trump is out of office and no longer a consideration? I mean, Democrats cleaned up in 2008 with Barack Obama but in two years the Republican Tea Party whipped up enough anger at him and Democrats over ACA and various other petty smears that Republicans took over the House and 4 years later also re-took the Senate.

[geek tragedy]

59. There were Trump voters who had previously voted for Obama.

It's grossly unfair, but Clinton is very much not popular amongst swing voters. And we need someone who can inspire our base while winning over swing voters.

More than anything, the party needs to show it's changing and evolving. No one named Clinton--not Bill, not Hillary, not Chelsea--is going to be able to deliver on that.

[JHan]

46. Then Obama should disappear as well? Because he's also "establishment".

Maybe Democrats should dismantle the absurdisms of the "establishment" narratives last year.

[brooklynite]

52. Here's a simple answer: "it depends"

Why do we assume a Clinton, or Obama or Warren or Sanders will have a positive result irrespective of the district characteristics.

[JHan]

60. But it's not just endorsements of future leaders or representatives...

.. and voters don't seem to care about endorsements anymore.

The Clintons, Obamas, and whoever else can use their "privilege" to advocate for issues in direct (and indirect) ways. Since the Trump presidency is so unusual, we will need all hands on deck. I'm all for it.

I don't want them to be quiet. And I'm hopeful that Obama and Holder's aim to make gerrymandering a national concern bears fruit.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. not just gerrymandering but voter restrictions..

[JHan]

64. yep ++++

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. none of them are good in all districts, however, it seems sensible that she should be in districts

she won handily.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

54. and how do you know this?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

41. I don't think she should be "disappeared"

The Democratic Party would be left perilously adrift if we just told all of the party elders to just "get lost". Hillary won lots of vote in two Presidential elections, including 3 million more votes total than the current occupant of the WH in this last election, and she (and we) need to make sure that the needs and concerns of her voters in the last election are heard and acknowledged, especially since all the MSM wants to talk about are Trump voters and what they think and what their "concerns" are and we need the experiences of both younger and older members to help ensure the long-term viability of the party.

Hell, we were forced to be subjected to constant coverage of the LOSERS of the 2008 election for many years thereafter. McCain has had his own slot on Sunday morning "news" for forever. I don't want to hear people complain about Hillary Clinton.

[WellDarn]

78. To be honest

I can't even think of a sexist reason why she shouldn't do anything to help that she feels is appropriate.

Who is saying otherwise?

[m-lekktor]

81. Did today's LA Times OP ED by Doyle McManus inspire this thread?

I won't link to it because a negative Hillary piece would surely get removed but he title of it implies she has a right to be a major voice in politics but maybe she should move on. I didn't read it yet so I have no idea if it is sexist or not.

[LexVegas]

85. I haven't seen one yet in this thread.