HRC's a problem, but there's obviously no problem with Jeb Bush. No woman has ever been president and the first one to have a chance is now being seen as potentially  "blocking new generation" of Democratic leaders.Photo via Texts from Hillary, Tumblr; Original image by Diana Walker for Time.

HRC’s a problem, but there’s obviously no problem with Jeb Bush. No woman has ever been president and the first one to have a chance is now being seen as potentially “blocking new generation” of Democratic leaders.
Photo via Texts from Hillary, Tumblr; Original image by Diana Walker for Time.


HOW MANY tortured negative Hillary Clinton plot lines can members of the media drum up? Let us start a list. Count the ways that HRC is dooming a “new generation” by “blocking” their rise. Yet, funny how the consideration of Jeb Bush is never couched in the same way. How another Bush family male is dooming the next generation of Republicans.

There has yet to be one serious article written about where the female Republican bench is on the presidential level. How GOP males are blocking females at every turn from rising to the level or presidential potential.

Furthermore, the Democratic dependence on Hillary Clinton hampers the development of a Democratic farm team. With Clinton expected to take up so much room in the post-Obama party, is there much room for anyone else? [National Journal]

“Democratic dependence on Hillary Clinton”?

There has never been a female nominee of either national party, let alone a female considered competent to be commander in chief, but now all of a sudden the first woman to finally rise to prominence, which took 200+ years, is seen as making the Democratic Party dependent on her.

What’s worse about Alex Seitz-Wald postulating that HRC’s “inevitability masks a potential weakness within the Democratic Party” is that he can’t even carry his own preposterous theme through to the end. At the bottom of this post he negates his own theory, complete with three women and one African American male to ruin his patently false, negative narrative about Hillary Clinton.

The obvious options dwindle from there. There’s Gillibrand and Booker, along with Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is rumored to be eyeing a bid. There’s Elizabeth Warren, though the Massachusetts senator repeatedly said she won’t run.

What happens beyond 2016? It’s a long way off, but building a farm team of young, compelling leaders takes time, and Democrats may want to be asking themselves that question before it’s too late.

Only an elite media outfit could list Gillibrand, Booker, Klobuchar and Warren in a column that in the next paragraph postulates there’s no “farm team” after naming a list of prominent politicians who make up that farm team.

If this is really about ageism, we could start with Julian Castro of Texas, but of course this isn’t really about worrying about a Democratic “farm team.”

It’s just the latest establishment media swing and a miss at the first potentially viable female candidate in over 200 years, which cannot be hailed as the most qualified possible candidate for the presidency in decades who will break another barrier for Democrats.

The fear of not properly being “fair and balanced” forces so-called journalists to hoist half-baked analysis they can’t even sustain instead of simply reporting the true story here. That of the very first rising female to be poised for the presidency, who not only has paid every due known to traditional America, including waiting for her husband, as well as saving his presidency, but also joined with the rival that vanquished her to serve his Administration as his secretary of state around the world.

Instead of writing horror stories about the negatives of Hillary Clinton, which are a figment of the media’s imagination, here’s a story that will also save them from writing about the negatives of Jeb Bush “blocking” a “new generation” of Republicans: How long will Republicans punish their female bench before everyone gets over Sarah Palin?