Is Obama sexist? MSNBC's Joan Walsh might think so.

If any other male (a man of any color), other than Senator Bernie Sanders were currently running against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary in 2016, would they also be sexist?

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has launched a new campaign strategy against Senator Bernie Sanders: "Disqualify him, defeat him, and unify the party later."

When Bernie Sanders's campaign manager Jeff Weaver was asked about this (about the Clinton campaign getting a lot tougher), he told CNN’s Jake Tapper:

"This is what I would say to them, which is, don’t destroy the Democratic Party to satisfy the secretary’s ambitions to become president of the United States. Right? We want to have a party at the end of this we can unify — let's have a tough debate, let's talk about the issues, there are sharp contrasts between the two — but let's not denigrate other people's supporters and tear the party apart..."

Keep in mind, when Jeff Weaver says "the party", that also includes millions of Independents who registered as "Democrats" to vote for Bernie Sanders, and they don't necessarily represent the Democratic party establishment. By voting for Bernie, many are actually voting AGAINST the Democratic establishment. Weaver was only warning the Clinton campaign, that by insulting Bernie's supporters, or unjustly attacking Bernie with lies (like ripping up Obamacare and starting all over again), that that will only drive these voters away come the general election if Hillary Clinton persists and becomes the Democratic nominee — and that by doing so, they risk losing the White House to a Republican.

The corporate media and their pundits know full well what the implications were that Weaver was making, but they used his remarks to generate more animosity between Bernie Sanders's campaign and Hillary Clinton's campaign to make headlines again, generate ratings, more webpage views, and sell more advertising space.

When Hillary Clinton was later asked about Jeff Weaver's remarks in another interview by CNN host and multi-millionaire Chris Cuomo (son of another once well-entrenched establishment Democrat, the late former New York mayor Mario Cuomo), he called Weaver's remarks "inflammatory". Clinton laughed it off and called it "ludicrous" and said "Senator Bernie Sanders, by his own admission, has never even been a ["real" establishment pro-corporate/moderate/centrist/Third Way] Democrat" — and went on to say, "We need a Democratic President to succeed President Obama."

Why a Democrat? Why not an Independent? I don't think millions of people have been voting for a "Democrat" per se, they've been voting for Bernie Sanders and his stand on the issues. If Bernie's supporters had wanted a "real" Democrat, they would have voted for the coronation of Hillary Clinton to get 4 (or 8) more years of Obama. They don't want that, they want something new and better. (Watch both separate interviews in this short 3-minute clip below.)

In a recent article at The Nation, Hillary Clinton's campaign spokesperson admirer and MSNBC pundit Joan Walsh (who hates White working-class men) said Jeff Weaver's remark was:

"...arrogant, condescending, and, yes, sexist. How did her ambition come to be the one that’s called destructive?"

I'll tell her how . . . by using dirty campaign tactics to "disqualify and defeat" Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton is alienating millions of Independent voters and other Bernie supporters that Clinton would need if she wins the Democratic nomination to defeat a Republican on November 8th. That's not being "sexist", that's just a fact. It's Joan Walsh who is the one being an arrogant, condescending and sexist ass.

Of course, as usual, that single remark by Jeff Weaver (like any from the Sanders campaign) was taken out of context, and Clinton's surrogates are now using to make it a "sexist" remark by the Sanders campaign. And if the past is prologue, Hillary will also probably use it in her speeches at her campaign rallies.

Because Bernie Sanders has been gaining so much in all the polls against Hillary Clinton, the loyal Clintonites are getting really nervous, but in that interview we heard Clinton accuse the Sanders campaign of getting "anxious". It's always the same, just as when the Clinton campaign was using "very artful smears and innuendos" against Bernie (sexist, etc.), it was Hillary herself who accused Bernie of doing this. But it is they — the Clinton campaign — who are getting really nervous now.

Those "real" Democrats can't blame Bernie Sanders supporters if "real" Democrats lose elections because they can't get the support of the "real" working-class, because many (maybe most) of Bernie's supporters aren't establishment Democrats, they're Independents (people like myself). Many of these people wouldn't have even voted in the primaries if it were not for Bernie Sanders. If "real" establishment Democrats can't win elections with just "traditional" Democratic voters (i.e. Shillary Sheeple), then it's their own fault for ignoring "real" working-class Americans for decades.

That's also why we need a 3rd party, so we don't have to fall in lock-step behind two corrupt political parties who have done crapolla for the working-class for decades. The establishment Democrats had only introduced bills to raise the minimum wage, expand Social Security, reform the tax code (etc.) when the Republicans had control of either Congress or the White House.

The establishment Democrats didn't do crapolla in all of 2009 and 2010 when they controlled both chambers in Congress and held the White House. The Democrats helped bail out the big banks and the auto industry, passed a very weak Dodd-Frank bill (to appease the masses) and passed Obamacare. In 2013 there were "real" Democrats voting against raising the minimum wage to a measly $10.10 an hour. Last year 20% of these "real" Democrats also voted to pass another horrible trade deal.

Below are a few more of Joan Walsh's remarks from her article, followed by some comments (which is followed by my daily diatribe):

"There were few ideological differences between Clinton and Obama..."

That's the first problem: They're both moderate/centrist/Third Way/New Democrats — they're not progressives, they're Republican LITEs.

"Pulling their forces together was largely a matter of personal and political respect..."

That, and a mutual deal to make Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State to get Bill Clinton's endorsement at the Democratic convention.

"But by contrast, the Sanders campaign is trying to pull Clinton, and the party, to the left..."

Absolutely! And your point is?

"So making up at the end of this contest won’t be as easy..."

No it won't, especially for the crappy way the "real" Democrats and the Clinton campaign (and their media arm) and her nasty surrogates (like Joan Walsh) have treated the most decent, sincere and honest candidate that we've had for decades. It won't be easy, or it may be impossible now.

"Most Clinton supporters recognized the historic nature of Obama’s candidacy, as the first black president, and were restrained by it—and ultimately inspired by it. Too many Sanders supporters—including, I would say, Jeff Weaver—seem not to be similarly respectful of the front-running candidacy of the potential first woman president...."

I can't speak for Jeff Weaver, but I personally am not particularly "respectful" at all of Hillary Clinton — and not usually of anyone else based solely on a person being a woman or Black as the only reason — no more so than if someone were White, a man or Jewish. (Opps! That would be someone like Bernie Sanders!)

"And here’s a question for the Sanders forces now: How do you deny the first leading female candidate the Democratic nomination for president, when she’s ahead in the pledged delegates, the popular vote, and even the number of states won, as she almost certainly will be? The answer is: You can’t..."

This might be true — I guess we'll all see by June 17th when the last vote is cast in Washington DC — but by Bernie's supporters not voting at all (the ones you mock, insult and criticize), they can deny $hillary and The Big Dog ("Slick Willie") from occupying the White House and Air Force One for another 8 years. Many people would rather have the choice of voting for a great candidate, instead of compromising again and voting for the better of two evils. The idea being, breaking that cycle of corruption and political despair by killing the status quo.

"There is also Weaver’s early salvo in the gender war between the two candidates, when he suggested Sanders would consider Clinton as his vice president. “Look, she’d make a great vice president. We’re willing to give her more credit than Obama did. We’re willing to consider her for vice president. We’ll give her serious consideration. We’ll even interview her."

Yes, just like Obama once said Hillary was "likeable" enough. Was that sexist? During one primary debate in 2008, Obama even accused Hillary of lying twice. Was that sexist? And Obama also complained about not knowing whether he was debating her or her husband. Was that sexist? No, Obama didn't offer her the VP job, he offered her the Secretary of State job. Was that sexist?)

I supported the "sexist" Obama in 2008 against the innocent victim Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary (so as a White person, I'm not a racist). I supported the more "moderate" Obama in 2012 against Mitt Romney (because as a progressive, I hate all Republicans). I supported the more progressive Elizabeth Warren for running in 2015 (so as a man, I'm not a misogynist). I now support Bernie Sanders (so as a Catholic, I'm not anti-Semite).

I (like millions of other people) vote according to the issues, what a candidate stands for, and judge them by their integrity, honesty and character. PERIOD. Not just because they are Black or a woman, no matter what people like Joan Walsh says by falsely inferring in her unfair and unjustifiable claims of sexism. That is nothing more than pure 100% cattle excrement.

If I despise Hillary Clinton, it has nothing at all to do with her being a woman. It's everything else about her (and her husband) that I can't stand.

It's because of slimy articles by Joan Walsh at The Nation (and others) that gets Bernie supporters so riled up, and sometimes we have to write a blog post in respsonse. It will be CNN's and MSNBC's media bias (Fox News, we expect) that will keep Bernie Sanders's supporters away from the polls in November if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

So if that happens, Joan Walsh shouldn't blame people like me if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz becomes the next president; instead, she should look in the mirror — if she can do so without breaking it. (Opps! Was that a sexist remark? My bad! Shame on me! I hope Joan Walsh and Hillary Clinton don't blame Bernie Sanders!)

Recently President Obama (the sexist) took pains to describe Merrick Garland as a unifying figure during a speech at The University of Chicago Law School. One questioner pressed Obama about the lack of diversity on the bench and asked why he picked a White man. (Was that you Joan?) Obama replied:

"That’s just not how I’ve approached it. At no point did I say: ‘Oh, you know what? I need a black lesbian from Skokie in that slot. Can you find me one?'"

And David Axle Face (Obama's former advisor), who is also a "real" Democrat (and a "real" ass too) had Tweeted this:

I would have rejected John Kerry, because he too is now part of the super-rich establishment by marrying into money to the heir of Heinz catsup, then rigging the laws so that they benefit.

* As an aside: Today on Fox News DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz says the Democratic nominee will be based on the number of pledged delegates that voters voted for — ignoring the argument that the DNC establishment is using, that we also voted for superdelegates when we voted for them to hold a particular office decades ago...like Bill Clinton.