Thursday Open Thread

Like BTD, I'm busy at work. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Wednesday Open Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    For anyone missing BTD's opinions on the election, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by magster on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:33:46 PM EST
    ...follow him on twitter.

    but how does he really feel (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    About Iowa and New Hampshire going first :)

    Hard to tell -- very nuanced. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by magster on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:53:34 PM EST
    And David Dayen. :) (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    I do, and I agree (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:29:22 PM EST
    as BTD follows so many others, and retweets, that it's like a good news digest.  

    Plus, there is the fun of his retorts.


    I have begged him (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:30:26 PM EST
    To write a post soon.

    Seems like he is on a self-imposed hiatus... (none / 0) (#24)
    by magster on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:36:01 PM EST
    ... especially at DKos, as he's openly a Hillary supporter. Probably doesn't want his diaries blown up by the zealous Sanders' supporters.

    I would suggest (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    most people stay away from there. If you think the twitter trolls are bad DK is like 50 times as bad.

    Man if DKOS (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    Isn't an O-bot 2008 flashback. Oy. Nauseating.

    Gravity Waves Detected (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:35:48 PM EST
    Scientists announce discovery of clear gravitational wave signal, ripples in spacetime first predicted by Albert Einstein

    The phenomenon was detected by the collision of two black holes. Using the world's most sophisticated detector, the scientists listened for 20 thousandths of a second as the two giant black holes, one 35 times the mass of the sun, the other slightly smaller, circled around each other.

    At the beginning of the signal, their calculations told them how stars perish: the two objects had begun by circling each other 30 times a second. By the end of the 20 millisecond snatch of data, the two had accelerated to 250 times a second before the final collision and dark merger.

    Say What ?

    The scientists detected their epoch-making event using an instrument so sensitive it could detect a change in the distance between the solar system and the nearest star four light years away to the thickness of a human hair.

    yet (none / 0) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    they can't even measure the tem. of the Earth correctly, go figure.

    "About three times the mass of [our] sun (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    was converted into gravitational waves in a fraction of a second--with a peak power output about 50 times that of the whole visible universe.

    Big Science for a Big Universe


    Or a Blackhole 35 Times the Mass of Our... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:16:28 PM EST
    ... sun, circling the other blackhole at 30 times a second, then 250 times a second.  

    That is it the mass equivalent of 11.5 million Earths circling another object at 15,000 RPM's.


    It must have looked like a helluva party (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:18:26 PM EST
    to the neighbors.

    Now you know what Mozart was listening to (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:40:00 PM EST
    I was referring to the e = mc squared (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:58:02 PM EST
    equivalence.  Three suns worth of mass converted in those few seconds.

    The Hiroshima bomb converted about 0.6 grams of matter.


    Ahhhh, I Didn't Get That the First Time (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:20:33 PM EST
    I was watching something with deGrasse Tyson and he was going into quarks and how when they try and separate them, it take so much energy that another one is created.  In other words they could convert energy into matter in the lab, which blows my mind.

    Imagine all the energy we devote to politics (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:33:05 PM EST
    and war converted into something useful.

    About 10 percent of the team (none / 0) (#22)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    (from 70 institutions) is from my campus, faculty and grad students.  The celebratory mood of last week -- when, after decades of work, we finally achieved R1 university status -- continues. . . .

    Cornell physicist publishes a Q & A (none / 0) (#82)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:05:46 PM EST
    A. I would have to say that gravitational waves themselves I think will be a tool for astronomy and for exploring the most bizarre aspects of gravitation. What I think the most practical effects will be is in spin-off technologies. We have pushed the state of the art in polishing mirrors, and in making the most high-reflectivity mirrors ever. We've pushed the state of the art in developing high-powered but very highly controlled lasers. We won't make our own black holes. We won't harness them. We won't mine them. But people love them, right? People think they're cool. They are cool.

    Should the press ever get around to truly vetting (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:23:18 PM EST
    Sanders, this sort of thing is becoming a pattern ....it should be really damaging. But will it?


    Seems Like She Changed Her Mind... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    ...and I guess you didn't read this either:
    Clinton, too, has dealt with touting endorsements that haven't actually happened. Two mayors -- one from Wilmington, Delaware, and another from San Antonio -- were among a list of 50 mayors that endorsed Clinton in October. But shortly after the list was released to the public, both mayors said they had yet to officially endorse the former secretary of state.

    I willing to chalk it up to a mistake, someone advising them, but not voting for them seems odd to say the least.

    Either way it certainly doesn't prove the point you were trying to make, not when both have done it, nor do I think that has much to do with vetting.

    You pushing this angle but every time I look at your links I can't find the non-vetting issue.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    I think we have a repeating issue with Sanders of either claiming support that isn't there, or in fact deliberately faking support that isn't there. Fraud, you could call it.

    The AARP, the League of Conservation Voters, the American Legion, have all had logos or images placed on Sanders fliers implying endorsemt that not only wasn't there but in the case of American Legion IIRC had already endorsed Clinton. League of Conservation Voters has issued Cease and Decist In Writing to the Sanders campaign, the pre-requisite to filing lawsuit.

    In Nevada there is the co-opting of the Latina community leader against her wish, (the subsequent attacking her onTwitter) and additionally the posing as union members again to imply support that isn't there.

    Additionally the mis-representation of newspaper endorsements, and of course the outright theft of voter data, resulting in money to the Sanders campaign.

    To Sanders' credit it he disavowed Benrie Bros and the data theft, but it's getting old.

    If ANY of this sort of thing had come from the Clinton side, the press would be all over it. Some outlets like TPM have posted about the mis-representation. But on the whole, there's been minimal examination.

    As for vetting, well, Sanders' rape fantasy essay will very certainly NOT be ignored by the GOP. That would be potentially very damaging in terms of getting the older conervative Dem vote he will certainly need should he get the nom.

    Are you arguing that Sanders has been thoroughly  vetted? In any way shape or form to the degree Clinton has? I don't see it.


    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:12:52 PM EST

    Are you arguing that Sanders has been thoroughly  vetted? In any way shape or form to the degree Clinton has? I don't see it

    I believe some actually think he has.  Which is why I said yesterday a tiny evil part of me wishes he would win the nomination so they could be made to understand, once and for all, what vetting means.

    Matk Halperin just said, without a hint of irony, "Bernie has won every news cycle for a while now"

    You just have to laugh.


    I earlier mentioned (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:18:44 PM EST
    This ridiculous Halperin republican focus group.  I just saw the best part.  He asked who there were for, everyone said Cruz.  He asked who they thought would win, every one said Trump.  He asked why.  They all said everyone they knew was for Trump.

    Could you make your own focus group look more stupid and contrived if you tried?   I don't think so.


    Words I Did Not Say... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    ... and thoughts I do not have. I mean seriously, you go on and on about Sanders misrepresenting, then seriously misrepresent what I say to a fairly high degree.

    I was going to write what I said, but it's right there to read.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:10:49 PM EST
    She was a day early on the Wilmington mayor.

    And yep, she screwed up with the San Antonio mayor and Bexar County Commissioner. A correction was sent out the next day.

    Sanders has yet to comment on the DREAMer's non-endorsement.


    I'm sure he will disavow it (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:15:52 PM EST
    As he has the other stuff, even as it benefits him.

    It's getting old. And disingenuous.

    When you call Planned Parenthood "the Establishment" well, give me the Establishment.

    And God Forbid Bubba mentions it. He got slayed last weekend for trying to go there. But the press won't.

    If they do....then I guess they'll finally have tweaked to the notion of Prez Trump.

    But that's another flashback. 2000 this time. Because Gore's earth tones and sighs were just so much more important than GWs lack of qualifications.

    Everything old is new again!!


    I don't blame Bernie in this (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:32:13 PM EST
    I think he is a good and honorable man, which is why I said a few days ago that I don't think he has the stomach to be president - not just the fights with the Republican Party, but big areas of his responsibility, like foreign policy, where it isn't as black and white as his principles are, and where sometimes, unpleasant things have to be done.  That's not a criticism - it's who he is.

    But if you weren't sure by his comments to Glenn Thrush a couple of weeks ago, then this should confirm that Obama is supporting Hillary.  He can't endorse yet - that would be patently unfair at this stage.  But this should leave no doubt:

    "Trying to find common ground [with Republicans] doesn't make me less of a Democrat or less of a progressive," Obama told an audience in Springfield, Illinois. "It means I'm trying to get stuff done.


    He said that labels, such as "not a real progressive" -- which Sanders has used against Clinton -- are damaging to the national discourse.

    "So when I hear voices in either party boast of their refusal to compromise as an accomplishment in and of itself, I'm not impressed," Obama said. "All that does is prevent what most Americans would consider actual accomplishments, like fixing roads, educating kids, passing budgets, cleaning our environment, making our streets safe."

    Obama added, "It cuts both ways, guys."

    The president went on to warn against the dangers of "union bashing, or corporate bashing, without acknowledging that both workers and businesses make our economy run."


    He still believes, Obama said, in the "kind of politics sustained over the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." In the Democratic race, that's Clinton to a tee.

    Which may have prompted this reaction from Sanders.  Not sure if that's a wise strategy or not going into South Carolina.


    Sanders has been slamming (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:37:23 PM EST
    The president for years.  He encouraged a primary challenge.   One of his principal campaign surrogates called him, among many other thing, the "global George Zimmerman"

    And no, it's not wise.  And I think you can be pretty sure we will hear some of that tonight.


    Watch for the quote from (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:39:53 PM EST
    Bernie that he, Bernie, would "close the leadership gap" left by Obama tossed back at him tonight.

    Sanders slamming the president? Nah. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:25:58 PM EST
    He's got his warm-up guy for that.

    Some of the Professor's more notable quotes:

    "Obama is "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it."


    "Obama is a "Rockefeller Republican in blackface."


    "He's a "counterfeit" who posed as a progressive."

    And, mellowing out a bit,

    Obama's presidency is "a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, and, a national security presidency."


    I don't know, you think that's slamming the President? Mmmmm, maybe.


    So The Beef is... (none / 0) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:33:12 PM EST
    ... he hasn't responded as quickly as HRC, OK, noted.

    Not the first of many lies (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    from the site of tonight's debate:  

    WaPo's Dave Weigel tweets that, on the campus, at a booth with candidate "cutouts," life-sized, no students at all are posing for photos with the Clinton cutout.

    The local media post photos of the students posing for photos -- including with the Clinton cutout.

    Weigel also shows that he didn't do his homework, as the campus was the site of a Clinton rally a few months ago, when a few hundred were expected -- but she brought out an overflow crowd of thousands.

    Move On (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by AnnL on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:34:50 PM EST
    I hear they're in high dudgeon over super delegates. Want to bet we hear about the rigged process in tonight's debate or over at the orange cheeto

    Oh yes (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:41:45 PM EST
    Here's another one (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:49:41 PM EST

    The race for the Democratic Party nomination should be decided by who gets the most votes, and not who has the most support from party insiders.

    Two questions:

    1. Did they feel that way in 2008, after they endorsed Obama, but in the end, Hillary Clinton actually got more votes? and
    2. What happens if/when she DOES get more votes?  What will their position be then?

    Good Lord... (none / 0) (#121)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:49:30 PM EST
    ...the entertainment value of HRC supporters and s delegates is pretty damn funny.  I think republicans would call that the super flip/flop.

    I am fine with them for the record, especially since JB reminded me that Bernie isn't really a democrat.

    I do wish they would get rid of them along with caucuses.


    Maybe Bernie did bring out youth vote (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 05:14:30 PM EST
    in New Hampshire, where -- so I just read -- exit polls showed that more 18- to 29-year-olds voted for Republican candidates (42.6K) than for Sanders  (39.6K).

    Not good news for Dems.

    That is a big reason (none / 0) (#130)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 05:18:42 PM EST
    That turnout from 2008 was down 13%.

    I guess we could postulate that many of them voted Republican just to be anti-Trump or anti-Cruz or anti-Rubio, since Bernie had a commanding lead since last July - maybe they felt their votes weren't needed.


    Last holdout at Malheur surrendered just now. (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    It's over.

    Good... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:42:01 PM EST
    ... it was looking like he might kill himself, those last exchanges were bothersome.  He seemed to believe he was a victim and couldn't believe he was going to be arrested.

    I don't get where these people thought this was going, that they could seize federal lands and get what they want, then go home and call it a day.

    Now they are charging papa Bundy with crimes related the 2014 stand-off:

    The Guardian has received a copy of the 32-page federal complaint against Cliven Bundy, the father of the leaders of the standoff at the Malheur national wildlife refuge. He has been charged with six federal crimes stemming from his own standoff with the government in 2014.



    White privilege (none / 0) (#15)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    Is a STRONG drug in this country.

    Their collective freakout on tape when they realized the FBI had infiltrated their little compound was a hoot.


    For our country's sake, ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    ... let's sincerely hope that the following is really not true. Per Josh Marshall over at TPM:

    "[A] high-ranking Iranian government official, who is an appointee of reformist President Hassan Rouhani, says that Republicans asked the Iranians to delay last months prisoner exchange deal until after the Presidential election."

    Now, I won't vouch for the veracity of this story, which after all originated in Teheran with a pro-regime Iranian news service. But given the GOP's past behavior in similar such instances over the last half-century, it's not something I'm likely to dismiss casually and out of hand.

    I just pray that it ends up being false. Because if confirmed, the person(s) who allegedly approached the Iranians with such an outrageous request on behalf of the Republicans should be arrested and prosecuted for violation of the Logan Act, as well as the clowns in the GOP who solicited them to do it.


    Shades of both Nixon with the (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:08:13 PM EST
    North Vietnamese in 1968 , and Reagan with the Iranians in 1980. Nobody was arrested for those two treasonous acts. Why would the Republicans think it would be any different this time?

    This may not be true, but given the past antics of the GOP, I would not be at all surprised if it is true.


    if it is true (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:38:50 PM EST
    It's nice to see that Iran isn't playing ball with the Republicans anymore.

    It would seem the reformers on both sides of the pond are finally in power.


    And Truth Be Told... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:45:16 PM EST
    ... the sailors that were captured and released the same day was due to the recent diplomatic talks between the two governments.  That would not have happened so quickly without those lines of communication being open.

    Whoever (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    requested it should be named if it is true.

    It may be time for Cruz to reclaim his Canadian (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:57:06 PM EST
    citizenship, on the theory that maybe the restrictions don't apply?

    Incredible (none / 0) (#107)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:32:16 PM EST
    1980 all over again....??

    Arghh (none / 0) (#19)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:26:06 PM EST
    Apologies.  Trying to make links work on my phone, help??

    Occulus (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:04:09 PM EST
    Has a thing with brackets.  Maybe she will share it.  I just tried and I apparently don't remember how to do it.

    But it works and it's easy


    Well I need help lol (none / 0) (#38)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    Have a few links re Sanders and dirty pool but don't want to mess up the html on the site....

    Here is the bracket trick (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:08:50 PM EST
    Ha the demo worked too well (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:10:49 PM EST
    [link text to display]

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#45)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:19:06 PM EST
    No quotes around the link? No comma before the text?
    I thought this was all done w h ref...?
    Ugh apologies for cluelessness. I used to write HTML but not sure I can use native tags in a comment here.

    Quick test (none / 0) (#46)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:20:25 PM EST
    [ www.cnn.com TEST ]

    Hah!!! (none / 0) (#48)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:20:47 PM EST
    So much for that!!!

    How to link (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    Highlight the URL of your link. Go to TL, write your comment. Choose the words in tour comment you want to be the link. Place a bracket at the the beginning of that word or words. Immediately following the last word of that phrase copy the Url of the link. Immediately following the last word of the URL add the end bracket.

    Use this bracket  [ ] not this one { }.

    Hit preview to make sure the words you chose for the link appear in blue.


    You can also use the link icon (none / 0) (#63)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:43:04 PM EST
    which appears above the edit window where you type your text.  

    Select and Copy the url you want to use, write your stuff in the edit window.  Select the text you want to become the link.  Then click the link button (it looks like a short link of chain)

    A window will pop up. paste the link into that window.  Make sure the link looks properly formatted.  Sometimes you'll end up with a double http:// .  Like Paul McCartney said, one is all you need.


    No spaces. (none / 0) (#59)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:38:23 PM EST
    If all else fails, try this: (none / 0) (#108)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:33:26 PM EST
    1. In the comment box write your introduction to the site you want to link to.

    2. To keep this simple, after your introduction type in the word, LINK, preferably in capitals.

    3. Highlight, and copy the URL for the site you want to link to.

    4. Highlight the word, LINK, that you typed before.

    5. Now, you see those 6 little boxes on the upper left of the comment box? Click on the one that looks like a chain link laying on its side, 4th from the left.

    6. When it opens up paste the URL you had "copied" before.

    7. Finally, click, "Preview" on the lower left of the comment box just to make sure everything was done properly. The word, "LINK" should be in light blue letters.

    8. Congratulations, you're finished. I recommend you click on the the blue "LINK" while you're still in "Preview" mode just to make sure all is well.

    I know this all looks complicated, but, if you follow it, step-by-step, one-at-a-time, it's not too bad.............Good luck


    Does not seem possible (none / 0) (#112)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:38:44 PM EST
    In iPad...?

    Test (none / 0) (#115)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:41:03 PM EST
    Testing putting link in comments

    It's a crapshoot to link (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 05:16:59 PM EST
    using iPad mini. My system used to work but is no longer foolproof. (Please do not take offense at my use of a compound adjective including "fool".)

    Well, sorry then.... (none / 0) (#119)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:44:03 PM EST
    I guess you'll need a greater mind than this old grunt's.



    Here (none / 0) (#114)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:40:15 PM EST
    I put the coding in the search bar fo Google  if you want to type it out.  Obviously, LINK is the type you want us to see and the hyperlink is in quotes.

    Google Search

    And what it looks like:


    Victory!!! (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    Thanks all!!

    O.K. (none / 0) (#125)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    Whose suggestion was the winner?

    We want  to make sure you've got the address right when you send the check.


    Reading BDT's twitter (none / 0) (#23)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:35:55 PM EST
    Sanders' online supporters are reminiscent of O's in 2008.
    Really a shame.
    But hey it worked then .....

    No, no (3.00 / 3) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:46:32 PM EST
    You can't say that.  Don't you know Hillary's supporters are doing it too?  Why doesn't he tweet about that?  Why is he only focusing on Sanders supporters to try and paint him in a bad light??

    Yeah (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:41:12 PM EST
    100% remind me of them. Some of them are the exact same crowd from 2008 over at DK. You know there because they have the same user name they've had for years.

    Well I left Tea Party a la Orange (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:11:02 PM EST
    Ages ago. Put a toe back in the water this time round but it's still the same swamp.



    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:41:09 PM EST
    I tried too. Honestly not worth the time.

    In politics, some people are ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:12:58 PM EST
    ... simply and repeatedly mesmerized by shiny new objects, even if those shiny new objects this time around happen to be:

    • A rather contrary but somehow endearing septuagenarian who's held congressional office for the better part of a quarter century; and

    • A billionaire huckster who says, does and gets away with all the outrageous things that you wished you could say, do and get away with, if only you held a similar personal disdain for social etiquette, mutual respect and basic human decency.

    Then there are others who either claim they don't have time or are simply too lazy intellectually to examine the issues and the candidates in depth, and they will defer repeatedly to the conventional wisdom of the zeitgeist as it's imparted to them by their favorite media personalities.

    And others honestly believe that they hold the monopoly on virtue and truth, and they will gravitate accordingly to whichever candidate is telling them whatever it is that they want to hear.

    A number of people are simply looking for a surrogate parent, who will promise them safety and reassure them that everything is going to be all right, as long as you listen to them and do exactly what they tell you to do.

    And still others prefer to enjoy all the creature comforts that accompany a vicarious existence in a parallel universe of one's own choosing, having long ago severed their umbilical cords with reality and common sense.

    Behold, what may or may not now constitute a majority of the American electorate. We'll soon find out, won't we?



    If the exent of people's (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    political acumen in this country doesn't exceed the momentary spouting and blurting out of anonymous bloggers on a mission, than this country is f*cked any way.

    Don't worry about that (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:59:31 PM EST
    It will

    That sensible, reasonable (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    and moderate, John Ksaich, still governor of Ohio, is likely to sign a bill that prohibits funding to facilities that perform "non-therapeutic" abortions, even if the funds are not used to pay for any abortion services.  The funding targets Planned Parenthood, and programs such as HIV.STI testing, cancer screening, and Healthy Moms and Healthy Baby activities.  

    Of course, the origin of the Supreme Court landmark ruling in Obergefell v Hodges was Obergefell v Kasich, the lead defendant in the case of James Obergefell and his spouse, John Arthur.

     Arthur was terminally ill and the couple was married in Maryland. Obergefell wanted Ohio to recognize  Arthur on the death certificate as his spouse based on their marriage in Maryland.  Subsequent amendments and case consolidations resulted in  Obergefell v Hodges. Hodges was directer of the Ohio Dept of Health.

    Kasich, a man of the people........... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:39:18 PM EST
    Toiling diligently as:

    a managing director of:

    Drum roll, please

    Lehman Brothers'


    Deja Vu All Over Again! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:22:40 PM EST
    Reading the stories about Clinton, one gets the strong sense of deja vu.

    And it makes me wonder:  Has anyone put together a site with articles predicting the political death of first Bill, then Hillary over the years?

    I think the not-so-shocking thing we'd find is that they use the same arguments, the same language over and over again.

    We get it.  They hate the Clintons.  But can't they be a bit more creative?  At least find a new argument?

    These ones have worked (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:45:00 PM EST
    So far.

    But Sanders is pushing the envelope with his one-note anti-establishment theme.

    Planned Parenthood endorses Clinton and Sanders writes then off as "part of the establishment".  That is the kind of mistake that might actually resonate with his young female voters.

    I guess we'll see.

    And on the eve of SC Sanders criticizes Obama's "lack of leadership"... Does he know he's not headed to a lily-white state this time?

    Again, we'll see.

    If Sanders comes close in SC I think it may well be over for Clinton, and we'll need to get used to Bloomberg in the race.

    The polls suggest that's a serious long shot, but stranger things have happened when a candidate is loathed to the degree Clinton is.


    it's tough (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:52:17 PM EST
    because the Clinton campaign has clearly been trying not to alienate Bernie supporters in the early race.  But as a result, they kind of slept on the planned parenthood gaffe, and the media sure as hell didn't pick it up.

    If I hadn't seen it here, I don't know that I ever would've seen it.

    But for me at least - that was a bit of a turning point in whether or not I could get on board the Bernie train.  I decided I could not.


    Joan Walsh (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:59:01 PM EST
    kind of crystallized a lot of this thinking for me. If we're truly in a competitive primary like Bernie supporters claim then why are the people who support Hillary unimportant? It's like if Bernie were to become the nominee we're just expected to show up but if things are the other way around it's we'll just sit home.

    If there were so many things that were not important going on I'm like Howdy and a tiny portion of me would like to have Bernie as the nominee so that his supporters can see how easily he can be carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey during a presidential election.


    Because we are in another cult (none / 0) (#99)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:16:21 PM EST
    Of personality I fear.
    You support him, or you're the Establishment. Or racist, or something.

    It's really so self defeating.


    Yeah agree (none / 0) (#71)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    Clinton's supporters are (mostly! Thanks Madleine and Gloria!) taking care not to alienate. Whilst the opposite is true for the boisterous young online-savvy B-Bro/Babe crowd.

    Again, the circular firing squad. The idealistic youth may not be counted on to vote for Clinton. Should she get in, bloodied and all. Whilst already Clinton supporters are being alienated, should Bernie get in.

    Honestly, in my more pessimistic moments I do not see a way through for Dems this time.

    Clinton gets in, it's a toss-up at best.
    Sanders gets in, and I think he's third in a 3-way with Bloomberg.


    remember 2008? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:05:07 PM EST
    We'll be fine.

    I am Sorry... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:03:49 PM EST
    ...did you thank Madeline & Gloria for NOT alienating people ?

    question for you (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:07:46 PM EST
    You seem upset when people blame Bernie supporters for alienating Clinton supporters.

    How is this different?

    Is it because they are more high profile - I will grant you that's legit.  But otherwise, it's essentially the same issue.

    Their supporters are not winning any friends.

    And while Madeline and Gloria may be higher profile, the multitude of insulting Bernie "supporters" are louder.


    Did you really just ask that? (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:06:05 PM EST
    The opposite (none / 0) (#88)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:09:13 PM EST
    I was being sarcastic with the "mostly"/thanks.

    Deep breaths.


    I Got That After... (none / 0) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:15:00 PM EST
    ...I posted and read the other threads.

    My weak attempt (none / 0) (#109)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:33:26 PM EST
    At sarcasm!

    The "establishment" krap (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:58:32 PM EST
    Has been kept alive by the idiot media.  True, Bernie milks it in every speech but I have heard it 50 times on MSNBC today.  Best one was the loathsome Andrea Mitchell hitting Rep.  Gregory Meeks with in discussing the CBC Pac endorsement.

    He ripped her a new one.  It was great.


    Just when Sanders alienates PP supporters (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:56:49 PM EST
    Gloria Steinem, of all people, comes back and basically says young women don't like to think because it makes their heads hurt and are in college only to get their MRS degrees..

    No. That's the spin (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    but you can find the facts of the Bill Maher setup, of what Steinem said in context of Maher's setup, etc.

    U saying Maher set her up? (none / 0) (#81)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:05:08 PM EST
    Sorry if I misunderstood?

    I am not attempting (none / 0) (#97)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:15:56 PM EST
    to post links, as it's nigh impossible to do on TL with my computer.

    But . . . google.


    I Think This Is... (none / 0) (#106)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:31:25 PM EST
    ...the entire clip, 10 mins, but I have not watched it.

    So basically, another man (none / 0) (#87)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:07:52 PM EST
    made another pefectly intelligent woman bend to his will. Against her own will..

    Thats empowering.


    So, you didn't go see the clip (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    and yet, you're still talking about it as if you are knowledgeable about it?

    Of you did go see the clip, and you actually come to this conclusion about what Steinem said -- not only about what you think that she said but also about what she said to Maher for pulling this on her?


    Here's the whole interview (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:17:43 PM EST

    She was inartful in what she said about young women, and she definitely could have said it better, but if you actually listen to it in context, she was laughing and jokey about it.  And while Maher kind of called her on it, it was clear that it was not "an indictment" of young women.

    But my guess is no, most people have not seen the whole clip.


    I have to ask again.. (none / 0) (#103)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:26:13 PM EST
    and not entirely as an ad hominem, maybe people are expecting too much from someone who was attracted to Kissinger and worked for the CIA..

    Whatever, Steinem (none / 0) (#89)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:11:02 PM EST
    Stepped in it.
    With the media/Clinton relationship, that was devastating.

    The patriarchy made her do it (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:16:01 PM EST
    If you are refering (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:26:31 PM EST
    to Gloria Steinem's remarks on Bill Maher's show, her remarks were startling to me (and to Maher, as he said in response).  However, Ms. Steinem has since indicated that she misspoke and meant going where the power is. Given her substantial contributions over time, it seems only fair to take her at her word, or at least, to cut the 81-year old feminist icon a lot of slack.

    When first hearing about Mrs. Albright's "hell" comment, that, too, seemed startling.  But, after viewing the video, it was obvious to me that this was an old joke that she used.  Not a good joke, but that's what it was.


    For the record (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:36:57 PM EST
    That Albright quite was also from a book she wrote and one she has used hundreds of times over the years.   Course you don't hear that much.

    And on (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:43:08 PM EST
    Starbuck's cups

    Wonder how many female Sanders supporters walked around with their lattes in one and thought it was a cool and girl-power quote then?


    Actually, I've been hearing and reading it (none / 0) (#123)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:50:16 PM EST
    all over the place. Correct me if I'm wrong, Howdy, but weren't you the person who first informed people on this blog of what Albright had said, and then characterized the comments as being "not helpful" to the Clinton campaign? Seems to me, you are now changing your position on that, and claiming that it was a small thing that no one should pay any mind to because it's a phrase Albright has been using for years.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 05:11:40 PM EST
    you hear about it now, but not in the "breathless" way it was first reported and commented on, damage done.

     Prime example of the Clinton rules, a well known catchphrase becomes a lightning rod. Throw in someone saying something stupid on a talk show and it becomes a media tempest.


    That would be your unfailing (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    Ability to hear what you want to hear and nothing else.

    There is absolutely no contradiction in saying it was not helpful and badly timed, I believe the actual words were "in this race, at this time" and saying that it is, in fact, a quote she has used for many years.    I think I may have actually said that too but I don't care enough to look.  

    Be my guest.


    Okay, I'm going to try to post a link (none / 0) (#124)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:57:30 PM EST
    to this from Sheila Weller.

    Oh an enormous gaffe (none / 0) (#75)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:00:13 PM EST
    Ironically from the woman who helped pave the way for younger women to not feel threatened about how they make up their minds in circumstances just like these.

    It was devastating.
    And Albright's not much better.

    Friendly fire is the worst.


    Gloria (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:03:49 PM EST
    Steinem should have just not answered that question. However, the truth is young women do take their rights for granted even though they see the GOP attempting to take them away every day they somehow think it's only going to affect "those other people" I fear it will take complete GOP control and having their rights taken from them for them to really see it can happen.

    The single best retort I've seen to ... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:44:28 PM EST
    ... such audacious young women was posted three days ago by Helen Philpot of the blog Margaret and Helen:

    "I saw a young woman on MSNBC talking about how Hillary's feminism was not her feminism.  Oh honey. If you only knew. When my mother was your age, she wasn't allowed to vote. When I was your age, journalists wouldn't have even bothered to ask for my opinion. They would have wanted my husband's instead. Your opinion actually made news around the world. That's just remarkable.  Trust me when I tell you that my mother's feminism became mine.  And mine became Hillary's which most definitely became yours. Feminism isn't a vote. It's a birthright."


    "Women of my generation fought hard so that women of your generation could actually grow up believing anything was possible.

    "Listen, I'm so old I might crack in half tomorrow. It takes a lot of Ben-Gay for me to feel the burn. I am still fighting for the right for women to control our own bodies and sadly I have yet to see a woman be elected President.  Are you sure you can wait? Forgive me in advance if I am offending you, but I didn't put on my big girl panties for over 60 years fighting for this day just to have you ignore its importance. You don't have to vote for Hillary but you have to at least recognize how significant this all is.

    "People like Hillary Clinton helped to create a world where young women today can actually believe it will happen soon enough if it doesn't have to happen this time. Fair enough.  But please remember that my generation grew up in a world where that possibility was far from sure.

    "If it is a revolution you want, I can sympathize. I been fighting a revolution too. I just thought you should know that while a revolution might start in your lifetime, it  doesn't necessarily end before you die. I am ready for my revolution -- no OUR revolution to come to an end if for no other reason than opening the way for yours to begin. I expect greatness from the women of your generation even if I won't be around to experience it.

    "Personally, I don't think the Democratic Party running so far to the left is helpful when the Republican Party has gone so far to the right. I might be wrong but I fear Bernie's revolution won't even make it to the White House much less through Congress. But if you insist on Sanders and he gets the nomination, I will join you in your revolution. And if Hillary gets the nomination, and I believe she will, I hope you will join me in finishing mine. You might be surprised, however, that Hillary could very well be the one you were looking for all along. She's been fighting for the underdog all of her career."

    Worth a read, if only because it offers some personal perspective from older women to counterbalance the public statements made by those younger women whose own views have yet to be tempered by a lifetime of experience.



    Experience is the best teacher (none / 0) (#83)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:05:54 PM EST
    Yes? :-D

    Yep (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:12:36 PM EST
    and it's not like you can discuss it with said voters. So it is what it is.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:47:35 PM EST
    somebody should put it all together. The same people have made the same claim over and over again. Yet, they're still standing.

    Maybe they should contact Elton John and ask if they can use his song as a campaign theme song.


    Surprised there haven't been post - NH polls... (none / 0) (#52)
    by magster on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:26:22 PM EST
    published. I would have thought the pollsters would rush to show a polling bump/crash for candidates.

    Marco Rubio (none / 0) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:36:27 PM EST
    deployed the poll of dipping his toe in some Poland Spring and determined that his best chance is a brokered convention.  Apparently, this will really give the nation an opportunity to show that he is presidential timber....timber!

    Hillary re John Ralston (none / 0) (#60)
    by AnnL on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:39:32 PM EST
    According to him he smells fear in the Clinton campaign?  Anyone heard this? Or is just a stirring things up?

    Something smells (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:44:10 PM EST
    I don't think it's fear

    It's the b/s (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    just (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    looks like more BS.

    Can' t speak (none / 0) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:59:36 PM EST
    to this specifically,, but Secretary Clinton did say before the NH primary that the campaign would be "taking stock."   The campaign now has additional data to convert to useful information for the new primaries and caucuses.  From my perspective, I would start with the use of President Clinton and Chelsea---they should operate above the fray and not be seen as the attack dogs. Just their presence and speaking in lofty terms should constitute their role.

     Leave the strongest rebuttals to other surrogates, or to Mrs. Clinton herself, who is capable of diplomatically, but pointedly, responding. It will be a balancing act for her to counter Senator Sanders, and not be unfairly, but predictably, accused of being shrewish. The demeanor of the Benghazi routing inflicted on the hapless Republican representatives fits her the best.

       And, taking a cue from both the red and blue the primary season, add an over-arching theme to the collection of policies and details. "Millionaires and Billionaires" is taken, as is "Make America Great Again," "Please clap for me," and "I won't be a robot again," but there is plenty of room left to maneuver.  


    Well those other surrogates (none / 0) (#77)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:03:47 PM EST
    Just shot her foot off last weekend.
    Though it's true that if Bubba opens his mouth he'll be criticized.
    And if Chelsea does too much, then they'll be "pimping" her.

    Can't win.
    Because, Clinton.

    Loathing is powerful stuff. And it's through and through the media with their megaphones.


    The best (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    thing she can do is win the next two primaries. She had it a lot rougher in 2008 than she has this year.

    But you're right. It doesn't matter what her surrogates say the press is going to put it in the worst possible light.


    SC is critical (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:14:11 PM EST
    If Sanders can get close, and the media will make it as close as poss, then it could be over for Clinton.

    But Bernie has gotten off to a stupid start with remarks about Obama's leadership.

    I'm still trying to look into his record of building any kind of coalition in the House and Senate, for any bill he sponsored or supported.    It just doesn't  seem to be there, which isn't encouraging for a president who would need to garner extraordinary levels of support for his revolution.


    Well (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:19:01 PM EST
    all I can tell you is candidates like Bernie traditionally do very poorly in SC and I don't see Bernie changing that trajectory.

    If she wins SC by 35 points the media will say it was bad because she didn't win by 40 points.

    Who exactly is Bernie's constituency in SC? I don't see that he really has much of one.

    Bernie has gotten three bills he authored passed. One was the VA bill and two others were changing the names of post offices.


    Watching Marcia Fudge (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    Beat Chuck Todd like a borrowed mule on his relentless Bernie fluffing.  Sometimes MSNBC is fun.

    He then goes Dick Harpootlian for "balance"

    Today (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:14:14 PM EST
    must be the day where they kick off beating the press over the head day in and day out. Awesome.

    Did I miss any discussion (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 05:20:44 PM EST
    here re the Statr Dept. subpoena to the Clinton Foundation?  John Lewis' remarks?

    John Lewis - yes (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 05:23:34 PM EST
    State Department subpoena, no.  

    Interesting timing again - right before a debate.


    Enjoy the debate... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 05:24:04 PM EST
    you maniacs...I'm gonna sit this one out and hit up Jackie Greene instead.

    Look forward to your happy recaps.