I have no objection to you arguing that Hillary is beholden to those with the most money and influence and wants to keep her distance from the lowly grassroots activists and Native Americans. That is probably an accurate description of her motivations, though you implied it, not me.

I do object (and, I warn you, will start using editorial judgement to delete) your mischaracterizing what I say as inconsistent.

Here is the point:

Hillary did not participate in an event with DFA that has already passed. Questions were solicited, normal every day people submitted their questions, three candidates awswered at some length and got some free publicity. She decided to give it a miss. Sure, she could technically send in a video, but the whole thing has passed, announced an covered with some fanfare. It isn't like it's a standing invitation, though of course candidates have that as well. It was a specific process, which was the subject of many emails from DFA that she failed to participate in. For the record, you are talking based on nothing but your own incomplete knowledge and your bias that Hillary is our annointed savior. I have discussed this with people involved in the process so that I would have a more complete idea of the facts and I come from a stated and oft repeated bias that I will support whoever gets the nomination on the Democratic ticket.

Second point you miss:

Hillary has SPECIFICALLY declined to participate in the Prez on the Rez event. You have rightly pointed out she did it because she is afraid of and beholden to big labor. Fine. I am not anti-labor by any means, though I don't think someone has to be completely beholden to them either. But she specifically declined to participate. None of the other candidates have declined the invitation. And this event, UNLIKE THE DFA ONE, is in the future: in August. FYI: past and future are not the same thing, though you'd never know that from the Schroedinger equations.

So, stop mischaracterizing what I say. If you do so again I will simply delete.