eom

I am wondering why Warren has not made an endorsement.

I backed Obama in 2007-08 because I thought he had the best chance in the general. That he is an African American was a huge plus as a reason to support him, but not the reason I chose him.

That said, if I felt roughly about the same about two candidates, a man and a woman, my thumb would definitely have gone on the scale for the woman. It's time. Not Hillary's time, but time for a woman President. However, my positive feelings about Bernie are so big compared with my positive feelings for Hilary that it would have taken many more thumbs than I have for me to have voted for her in the Mass primary.

I'd still worry about the timing.

Look at what the ugly racist portion of this country - and their representatives in Washington - did to prevent Obama from sustaining any real change in this country. And he's a man - but bi-racial.

Now think for a minute how many of those ugly racists are also misogynists (and there are probably more of the latter in this nation than the former). Don't you think there would be a huge backlash for a woman president at this particular time in our country? Even if it were Warren, who I would consider a perfect candidate, the backlash would be horrific. Keep in mind, there were states in this country up until 35 years ago, where there was no law against marital rape or domestic abuse. And look at what the right has been able to do, state by state, to undermine women's rights in the past decade +/-.

I'd love to believe that we are civilized enough as a nation to be over all that. However, if Obama's presidency (and this primary season) has/have taught me anything, it's that yes - we're a country divided alright and there is still plenty of ugly that will get in the way of moving forward.

So I stand with Bernie - not only because he is the best candidate, the best hope for our future as a nation - but also because even if it were Bernie v. Warren, I believe Bernie has a better chance to succeed upon election, to actually accomplish something, and sadly it's due to gender. I see this as an unfortunate truth. That's only my opinion, but I'm sharing it anyway.

Not that Hillary is like the late Margaret

Thirty-five years ago.

I was in law school and Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan.
This was a big deal. Other law students told me she would be liberal.
I told them, "Just because she is female doesn't mean she will be liberal." She is retired from the Court now, and still alive. She was not liberal. She was centrist-to-right in her decisions.

That was before I started pointing out that the Republicans do the same thing. They say, "Look we're liberal because we have our women/black men/women of color/minorities of whatever kind working for us" and they are just are right-wing and nutty as the white men they work for.

My dad, who was an old Socialist, told me that this phenomenon was referred to as "The spook[sic] who sat by the door". This meant that a company would hire a black receptionist, so that the first employee that a person saw when they came in the door was a visible black person, to make the person who walked in think, "Oh, they must be liberal, because they hire minorities." Even if they're not liberal.

And then I wonder why people don't listen to me.

I'm a woman and will gladly vote for a woman if she's the best candidate, but that isn't the case in this primary.