Populist Reform of the Democratic Party

Conventional political wisdom has said, at various times, that the American people would never elect a socialist, a black, a Catholic, or a divorced person, because each of these facts about a candidate would trigger animosity from a large segment of the electorate.

The OP made fun of those dismissing Bernie's chances by pretending to agree with them and yet depicting them as ignorant. If they actually said that the election of a socialist was "not as impossible as a black person being elected President in our lifetimes... but close," then they would run up against the fact that a black person was elected President in 2008.

Jackpine Radical continued the joke by writing, "We'll never elect a Catholic either" -- presuming (possibly without justification) that everyone would know we did elect a Catholic in 1960.

I continued the joke further by writing that we would never elect a divorced person. I had less faith than Jackpine Radical did in the historical knowledge of all DUers -- and, hey, Jackpine, I think merrily's post shows that I was right and you were wrong -- so I included a link that, if followed, would tell the reader that we did elect a divorced person in 1980.

Manny, Jackpine, and I were all engaging in to make a point: The political wisdom makes it clear that certain people can never be elected President, and that wisdom is sound and irrefutable, right up until the moment it's conclusively proven wrong, as it was by Obama, Kennedy, and Reagan. The further point, which follows from the first, is that those who dismiss Bernie's chances because of the impact of that "socialist" word are displaying more confidence in their conclusion than is justified by American political history.

As for my attitude toward Hillary, you are not required to take me at my word. You can look at my actual posts, for example this one, in which I blasted her record with regard to the TPP.