Brazille considered replacing Clinton with Biden last September

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

For many traditionally minded American voters, it's always going to be an excuse of "that woman." A lot of men in this country won't vote for a confident, "bossy" woman. Why? Because it makes them feel inadequate. Most men don't feel empowered by female leadership.

You're projecting your delusions on others to an embarrassing degree. Many Trump supporters voted for Sarah Palin. Many Sanders supporters voted for or supported Elizabeth Warren or Nina Turner or Tulsi Gabbard, etc.

+1 Thank you.

You insult women massively when you pretend that Hillary had the exclusive mantle of female leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

For many traditionally minded American voters, it's always going to be an excuse of "that woman." A lot of men in this country won't vote for a confident, "bossy" woman. Why? Because it makes them feel inadequate. Most men don't feel empowered by female leadership.

You're projecting your delusions on others to an embarrassing degree. Many Trump supporters voted for Sarah Palin. Many Sanders supporters voted for or supported Elizabeth Warren or Nina Turner or Tulsi Gabbard, etc.

You insult women massively when you pretend that Hillary had the exclusive mantle of female leadership.

+1 Female here. I do vote for intelligent, capable women with strong leadership qualities but don't feel empowered by bossy women at all.

[Anonymous]

Donna had been one of the most loyal Clinton supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary's tribute to the Twin Towers following the 9/11 Memorial didn't go over so well with anyone but the most ardent kool-aider.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.28559e513cbf

According to the article's summary of the book, Biden/Booker was who she would have gone with.

They would have won.

Their odds would not have been better than Clinton's. Believe me. I'm from Michigan. Trump voters actively wanted to vote for him...and Biden-Booker would not have been more appealing.

It will likely be shown that some Michigan votes were manipulated.

Not sure what you mean by this. But Michael Moore, who is from Michigan, said long before the election Trump was going to win. This was based on his conversations and observations of the political climate in the state.

Michael Moore did exactly what the Clinton campaign refused to do. He was in Michigan talking to real people about the issues affecting them, not solely relying on data. Had the Clinton camp left their out-of-touch perch in Brooklyn and actually connected with everyday people, things could have been very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

The funny thing is, "that woman" will never be electable. She will always be "too shill." "too unlikeable.""too ambitious." etc etc etc.


Do you think it only happened to Clinton? LOL forever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

For many traditionally minded American voters, it's always going to be an excuse of "that woman." A lot of men in this country won't vote for a confident, "bossy" woman. Why? Because it makes them feel inadequate. Most men don't feel empowered by female leadership.

You're probably aware that Hilary also lost the white female vote? That's a big voting block - would you say a bossy woman makes them feel inadequate too?

+1

No, they just did what their husbands told them. Like good little wives. Women can be each other's worst enemy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

The funny thing is, "that woman" will never be electable. She will always be "too shill." "too unlikeable.""too ambitious." etc etc etc.


Do you think it only happened to Clinton? LOL forever

No one will EVER come close to Hillary R. Clinton.
No one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The attacks against an African American woman by liberals is pathetic.

All she did was to surface the nefariousness of Hillary and DWS and for this she is be castigated with comments about her physique and the size of her posterior - quite apart from questioning her motives.

Calling someone a liar and opportunist is not racist. Try again.

What did she lie about? She told the truth about the role of the DNC in supporting Hillary though they were supposed to be neutral. She said that DWS was a stooge of Hillary.

And you are ignoring the comments about her physique. Such hypocrisy!

She presented a standard agreement, effective for the general election, which was also given to Sanders, as something nefarious. It was not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary's tribute to the Twin Towers following the 9/11 Memorial didn't go over so well with anyone but the most ardent kool-aider.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brazile-i-considered-replacing-clinton-with-biden-as-2016-democratic-nominee/2017/11/04/f0b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.28559e513cbf

According to the article's summary of the book, Biden/Booker was who she would have gone with.

They would have won.

Their odds would not have been better than Clinton's. Believe me. I'm from Michigan. Trump voters actively wanted to vote for him...and Biden-Booker would not have been more appealing.

It will likely be shown that some Michigan votes were manipulated.

Not sure what you mean by this. But Michael Moore, who is from Michigan, said long before the election Trump was going to win. This was based on his conversations and observations of the political climate in the state.

Michael Moore did exactly what the Clinton campaign refused to do. He was in Michigan talking to real people about the issues affecting them, not solely relying on data. Had the Clinton camp left their out-of-touch perch in Brooklyn and actually connected with everyday people, things could have been very different.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

The funny thing is, "that woman" will never be electable. She will always be "too shill." "too unlikeable.""too ambitious." etc etc etc.


Do you think it only happened to Clinton? LOL forever

Look around you. There are other women holding political offices. Not just the one you wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Or an electable woman.

It's not women, it's "that woman."

For many traditionally minded American voters, it's always going to be an excuse of "that woman." A lot of men in this country won't vote for a confident, "bossy" woman. Why? Because it makes them feel inadequate. Most men don't feel empowered by female leadership.

You're probably aware that Hilary also lost the white female vote? That's a big voting block - would you say a bossy woman makes them feel inadequate too?

+1

No, they just did what their husbands told them. Like good little wives. Women can be each other's worst enemy

I'm sorry that you know women who are that easily led. In fact, you're trying to make women who didn't vote for YOUR candidate sound like Stepford wives. You really need to get out more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

Bringing up sexism here, when there are clearly other concerns, sounds more and more like Kevin Spacey coming out as homosexual to deflect from charges of sexual assault.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton was more qualified than Biden. Would Biden have won? Maybe. Would a man with Clinton’s qualifications have won? Absolutely. I don’t think we understood how sexist this country is. The 2020 dem nominee needs to be a white male if the Dems want to win.

What on Earth does that mean? And why on Earth would it matter? People did not trust Hillary, and Brazile revelations make it clear that they weren't imagining things. That lack of trustworthiness makes her a poor choice.

Don't be an idiot who thinks that Hillary is anything like the best woman that this country can find. The fix was in make her the nominee and presumed President for decades. It hit the public with the Linda Bloodworth-Thomason interview, but it had been in the works for longer.

Well said. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

I'm seeing Brazile getting skewered in my FB feed...which consists primarily of my fellow bleeding heart liberals. The most common comment: how can anyone believe this woman who lies about herself and fails to lead an authentic life?

Question: does Brazile think she's going to gain sympathy or respect from what she's now saying, or is she just trying to sell a book and pad her retirement? I don't see how this can end well for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm seeing Brazile getting skewered in my FB feed...which consists primarily of my fellow bleeding heart liberals. The most common comment: how can anyone believe this woman who lies about herself and fails to lead an authentic life?

Question: does Brazile think she's going to gain sympathy or respect from what she's now saying, or is she just trying to sell a book and pad her retirement? I don't see how this can end well for her.

I think she is marketing her book but I also think she is genuinely disgusted with the Clinton campaign and its nefarious conduct. She knows that Hillary is a woman who is only in it for herself - and this has been her MO right from the start when she became a public figure. So she had no problem demonizing the women that her husband sexually harassed or assaulted because it was protecting the Clinton brand. She changes her position willy nilly to adjust to what she thinks will sell. She is a grifter of the first order.

Brazile knows Hillary and probably thinks that she is attempting a comeback and she wants to do her part to prevent it because she knows it will be disastrous for the Democratic party.

In terms of accomplishments, there is nothing that she has achieved of note because she is a policy wonk - not someone who actually gets things done.

If she cared one iota for the party she would be working to encourage the next generation of leaders in the Democratic party but she will not do that because she sees herself as the savior of the party.