Thanks for admitting that you want to hate but not actually doing so.

I also like your expansion of your argument against First-Lady-as-experience. You’re right; if she’s going to use it, it’s legitimate to poke holes in it. I just don’t like the misogyny that often creeps in when people say it. (Not saying you intended that. I believe you like women.) I’m not going to argue for or against her and I’m not sure if her campaign is saying this, but is it conceivable that every new administration is going to have some debacles and gaffes? That these are necessary to the learning process of how to govern? This would, in fact, be an argument for hitting the ground running on Inauguration Day. That’s the main reason I supported Hillary before I realized that Barack was more like me and that HIllary was too mean for my tastes.

You’re awesome. I love your passion. Off to class now!

I will still continue to ask the question of what experience gained as first lady makes Clinton a more qualified candidate simply because that is the platform she is running on. My argument, which did not come through clearly in my bitter tirade last night, is that she and her supporters are standing on a weak platform of “experience,” but is somehow getting a free pass from an examination. Her “experience” as first lady resulted in several debacles and scandals that set the Democratic party off-course and allowed the Republicans to regain congress and eventually the White House. Any claims that this is destructive to women is just hypersensitive.

But, your last two paragraphs do ring with a certain level of truth… and I pretty much want to hate you for it. Stay tuned as a much nicer post comparing this race to Rocky is developed in the next couple of days.

However, a couple of the things you said are pretty destructive. To women and to democracy. Can I point out a few things?

What part of being first lady makes someone more ready to be president?
What part of being First Lady DISqualifies someone? Is it because you have to be a woman to get that title? A comparison of qualifications actually leaves Barack behind in terms of time spent in federal government.

Your speculation that Hillary’s appeal to older voters might cause young African American voters to stay home might be correct. However, to say that those voters would be disenfranchised is a huge exaggeration that is actually a fairly serious accusation to levy at someone. Hillary is not taking the ability to vote away from those citizens. They might be disillusioned or disappointed but their basic rights to be heard remain in place.

I’m all for Barack. But if you speak on his behalf and start your own smear campaign, you’re just bringing him down to the level of the status quo. Would this primary still be shooting the Democratic party in the foot if those of us supporting Barack loved our neighbors (including Hillary), celebrating their God-given talents and positive aspects while still pointing out that Barack is a better choice in several ways?