I do not want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee.

[1StrongBlackMan]

486. Are the Democratic Party leaders that you name ...

saying that HRC is ENTITLED to the Democratic nomination/Presidency? Or, are they making the political calculation that HRC is the Democratic Party's best shot at retaining the Presidency? There is a vast difference between these statements ... and I think how one answers these questions, is more based in one's opinion of HRC. I suspect if one opposes a HRC Presidency (for what ever reason), one will ascribe to the former; whereas, if one supports, or is agnostic on a HRC presidency, one will ascribe to the latter.

A far better question from people who are sincerely seeking truth in this matter might well be, who in a position to have inside Democratic Party info has been saying there should be vigorous primary challenges to Hillary? Or actively encouraging other candidates to run?

Again, if the named parties are basing their support on their political calculation, why should they promote a "vigorous primary challenge" or want to encourage other candidates, that they have considered and rejected as viable (electable) contenders? The fact is, if one is settled on a candidate (i.e., consider Candidate "A" the most viable/electable candidate), there is far more to lose, than gain by primary challenges ... and any front-running candidate that says they welcome a primary challenge is playing to the crowd, as they realize the risk.

Remember, in 2008, all we heard about a primary that Hillary chose to extend well beyond the point at which she had any mathematical chance of winning whatever, was not that it wasted time, money and energy that Senator Obama could have spent battling McCain. It was the the primary had been so wonderful for voters, Obama and the Party. Now, all we hear is that a primary challenge is the worst possible thing for a Presidential candidate. Double think?

Who is saying that? ... Certainly not the failed 2008 HRC campaign or her 2008 supporters and certainly not the Democratic Party leadership ... except in fence-mending hindsight.

Given that so many professional politicians do aspire to be President someday, it is extraordinary that, as early as 2012--before Obama was even re-elected, I was hearing on TV almost daily that the 2016 nomination was Hillary's, if she wanted it; and, if she chose to run, no Democrat would even bother to oppose her in a primary.

That speaks more to the drama seeking media, than anything else. And it speaks (worse) to those professional politician aspirants' lack of political courage/conviction. Doesn't it?

What do people like Shrum and Matthews have to offer anyone if it is not their credibility on political matters? Why would they risk their bread and butter on such an unprecedented kind of statement?

Doesn't that speak to their political calculation that HRC was/is the Democratic Party's best shot at retaining the presidency? As you correctly indicate, all Shrum and Matthews have is their credibility on political matters. Their taking such an unprecedented stance, suggests that after surveying the field of possible contenders, they made their choice.

Why are the same people who were saying how the 2008 primary was the best possible thing for the party and its Presidential candidate now saying a Presidential primary would be the worst possible thing for the party and Hillary?

I think you are making up the first part of that question. At best, those saying that the 2008 primaries were the best thing for the Party, were Candidate Obama supporters (just as you are doing now) or are doing so with the benefit of hindsight.

Why are so many supposedly typical Democatic posters here saying it?

I suspect that it's because: 1) those saying it are HRC supporters; 2) those saying it have made a similar political calculation as the Democratic Party leaders that you named ... that HRC is the most electable candidate that the Democrats can field in 2016.

Come on, isbm, you're so much smarter than your framing of that question.

My "smartness" in the framing of my question is not at issue here ... rather, it is simply a matter of your disagreeing with the premise/proposition.