Sunday Open Thread

Open Thread.

Super Bowl today. I bet Tails and the Panthers.

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bern Your Enthusiasm (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by McBain on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    Pretty good SNL Larry David/Bernie Sanders sketch

    I thought that skit was awesome... (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    ... the rest of the show was much better than usual. Typically, I'm mad at myself for watching SNL and not going to bed sooner, but last night was a lot of laughs.

    Hi all, today's Halftime Show will be personal and special.

    Coldplay will be performing and lead singer Chris Martin will be wearing a yellow item on his arm in honor of "Something Yellow: The Kevin Cordasco Foundation; committed to raising awareness for the Heroes of Childhood Cancer."

    The Cordascos are family friends.

    Kevin Jr passed away recently at age 17 after a 9 year battle with cancer. Kevin's foundation is named after Chris's song "Yellow."

    Tune in today and watch, listen, and enjoy.

    For more information please go to SomethingYellow.org.

    So sorry for your loss (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    17 is way, way too young.

    I repeatly asked what HRC could get done (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    Matthew Yglesias put out a list of a range of small- to medium-size initiatives a theoretical President Clinton could realistically achieve with a Republican Congress.

    A Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership:

    Corporate tax reform: ...The longstanding dream here is to cut rates, broaden the base, and grow the economy while generating some revenue.

    Boost in infrastructure spending: Many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are attracted to the idea of financing a boost in infrastructure spending, letting companies bring home some cash that they have currently stashed abroad for tax avoidance purposes at a discounted tax rate. (1)
    EITC for childless men: Both Barack Obama and Paul Ryan have proposed to expand the earned income tax credit to cover men who don't live with children, but they've both proposed highly ideological, very contested ways to pay for it.
    The Grand Bargain:
    Skilled immigration changes: ...

    But lurking in the mix has always been a third element -- business-friendly moves to allow more immigrants or guest workers with advanced technical skills to enter the country.

    (1)But saying that repatriated taxes "pay" for infrastructure is wrong. Over time, this strategy loses money: $96 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And the reason why is simple. "You're signaling loud and clear to multinational corporations to go ahead and start deferring earnings until the next holiday," said Jared Bernstein, former chief economist for Vice President Biden, now at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). "So you pay many times over for whatever revenue plug you get up front."

    This effectively lowers the corporate tax rate permanently, to whatever low number is granted in the amnesty. And not only do profits move offshore, but so do corporate investments. "It undermines some of the very economic benefits they're trying to get," said Chye-Ching Huang, a tax policy analyst at CBPP.

    Well it is an answer to what people think HRC can do as president.

    Uh, yeah... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:48:47 PM EST
    It reads like the term sheet Mitt Romney was passing around.

    Something about that "I" next to (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    .. his name..

    What is it about a guy who caucuses what 98% of the time with a party but he can't put a "D" next to his name for most of his politcal career.  This question has been rattling around in my addled and trolling brain for last couple days.

    In practical terms I think it only shows Bernie does look down his nose on Democrats which is fine but will render him an ineffective president alienating ALL law makers for 4 years, basically doing for the progressive brand what Carter did.

    In emotional terms, I do feel it's a bit of an outrage he now calls himself a democrat so he can have it both ways.   1) use DNC database to fundraise 2) leverage the democratic party brand built by Obama all the while taking large poops on Democrats.

    In any event allowing Bernie to run as a democrat. Not sure why anyone was really obligated to do that.

    Please (none / 0) (#9)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    What is the big deal, Democrats themselves cannot explain the difference between a Dem or a Socialist

    It seems to be the question Democratic Party figureheads don't want to answer: What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?

    Hillary Clinton, in an otherwise friendly interview on MSNBC, struggled to answer that question Tuesday when asked by host Chris Matthews.

    At first, the Democratic presidential front-runner seemed to suggest the question should be directed at her rival in the race, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist.

    "You see, I'm asking you," Matthews countered.

    Clinton simply replied, "I'm not one."

    Beyond that, she declined to explain the differences between the two.


    That's not the point (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    Why put an "I" next to your name if you caucus with party "D" 98% of the time, what's the thinking behind that?

    Srsly steuggling with that question.  

    She avoids the question, btw, cause semantics/labels don't really interest her.  What she should say ... What I would say is Bernie isn't a socialist cause he believes in private property.  And just leave if at that.


    Because (none / 0) (#11)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    He can get away with it in Vermont. He is further left than most (all?) in the Dem caucus, and wanted his constituents to know it.

    Not a big deal, at least in the Dem primary.


    But why even try to get away with it? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    I still don't understand it except to say he looks down his nose on Dems.  It's beneath him to put a D next to his name until he needs it for a nation wide donor base.

    What's the big deal indeed, Trevor? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:50:08 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "What is the big deal, Democrats themselves cannot explain the difference between a Dem or a Socialist[.]"

    Especially since you're obviously not supporting either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, having instead hitched your own wagon to now-charred and smoldering campaign of Marco Rubio, the pampered Robotron son of Cuban immigrants who proved to practically everyone last night that he (a) obviously hasn't had an original thought of his own for years, and (b) somehow faked his way into one of Florida's two U.S. Senate seats.

    As I specifically told and warned you yesterday, well before Rubio strutted confidently onto that Manchester, NH stage yesterday evening and imploded to hilarious effect before a nationwide TV audience, the honorable gentleman from Miami is all meringue and no filling. (To quote my late grandmother's favorite summation of those people whom she considered shallow and / or phony.)

    So, given that you apparently share Mr. Rubio's dubious penchant for regurgitating the silly talking points which pass nowadays for conventional wisdom in the Republican Party, you really have no business lecturing anyone about either of our own party's candidates, who on their worst days are both still more qualified to be president that any of the passengers currently riding in the GOP's clown car. Rather, your political analyses in these threads are the equivalent of Gertrude Stein's vision of Oakland. There's no there there.

    Good day, sir.


    Just saw a clip of (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    Lindsey Graham fluffing his buddy Jeb! and explaining why he was going to win.
    Here's the thing, he talking about past NH since Jeb! is probably going to finish a strong 6th there, he was talking about SC.
    He blathering on as he does and he says (paraphrase) 'oh yeah, they love the Bushes there, just looooove them!  41 won there 43 won there and Jeb is going to win there'

    Now,  putting aside the delusional part, what kind of a moron do you have to be to say THAT and think it's actually going to help?

    Well (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    I would say they do still love the Bushes in SC but it sure isn't showing up in the polls. You got to realize the fact that Lindsay is actually promoting Jeb is a lot more deadly to Jeb than promoting the fact that his father and brother won there.

    SC broke the baa baa baa mold in 2012 when they voted for the Eye of Newt. Trump or Cruz is the perfect candidate for SC I would say.


    I just thought referring (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:52:34 PM EST
    To them as "41" and "43", obviously inferring Jeb!  would be "45" and that somehow that was what anyone anywhere would want was about as politically skillful as "a special place in hell...."

    Crusing (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:16:17 PM EST
    around the web it seems that Christie has made Rubio the butt of many jokes. I wonder if this will have any effect on the voting in the primary.

    Nate Silver (none / 0) (#21)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    Thinks perhaps not

    Over last five minutes (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:21:23 PM EST
    I've seen Clinton chastised by CNN for being transparent and advising people of Flint their image might be used in advertisements.

    Three tweets later.....

    In a very small media outlet that nobody listens to, a factual report of the Bernie campaign using people's images in their ads without consent or same said advisory.  A consistent pattern that was brought up during the debate, but then forgotten in favor of two news cycles about speaking fees cause women politicians can't make money in private sector, only men politicians I guess.

    BTD betting against Denver sports again.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by magster on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:53:41 PM EST
    Color me shocked.

    Backpfeifengesicht.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:28:55 PM EST
    meaning a face in need of a good punch.  A neurologist tries to explain the unexplainable.

    His ex-roomate still gets angry emails (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:18:43 PM EST
    from people blaming him for not smothering Cruz in his sleep..

    I shouldn't laugh about that, but..

    Though, much more than that face does that insufferably honeyed, unctuous delivery of his drive me up several walls..

    It's the voice of some cable tv preacher who just heard from God that his ministry needs a Lear Jet in order to help spread the Good News.


    Pffft (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:37:16 PM EST
    Why do so many people instantly dislike him?  It just saves time.

    I did as he said and googled "Ted Cruz smiling"



    A really good encapsulation (none / 0) (#16)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    From LGM:

    I've said this before but the people I know with the most Clinton hate on the left (both Bill and Hill) tend to be well-educated (at least in the "I went to schools with name recognition since kindergarten sense), upper-middle class or above, heterosexual white guys. These guys dislike the Clintons for the Welfare Bill, for the Crime Bill, for Triangulation, DOMA, etc. The most striking things about these guys is that they are not in finance and most of them have a dislike for fratty type of atmospheres. I would guess that they are not Bros but kind of anti-Bros and still harbor deep suspicions against finance and jock types over elementary to high school bullying.

    My LGBT friends have largely, if not completely, forgiven the Clintons for DOMA. They are also more economically centerist than the people who support Sanders.

    I do think that a lot of Sanders supporters can be unconsciously affected by sexism and GOP propaganda especially the younger ones who were kids during Bill Clinton's Presidency. There are also real policy differences between Clinton and Sanders and it can be very hard to separate a legitimate policy difference from some sexist dislike of HRC*. These things can be and often are intertwined.

    There has been a lot of ink spilled on the differences between Sanders and Clinton. Sanders is for the romantics and Clinton is for the pragmatists. TNR (or maybe the New Yorker) had a good sum-up of this a few weeks ago when they observed that Sanders was the candidate for Democratic types who think Finance takes too much of the economic pie. The people arguing for Clinton basically believe that there is nothing to do about this and we live in finances world. The Atlantic (I think) had an article this week about how Sanders largely one the among Democratic caucasers with low to moderate incomes and Clinton won in Iowa among upper-middle class and above professional Democrats (along with blue-collar women). I can't find the article now but the picture used to illustrate the difference showed Sanders supporters as being young, edgy and bohemian (tattoos, multiple piercings that scream "I will never work in an office.") The Clinton supporter picture was a well-groomed guy in his late 20s or early 30s in a pink shirt and blazer.**

    *This weeks viral piece was the All-CAPS response to Bernie Bros or something like that. A lot of my female friends were posting the article in firm agreement. I got to say that the article turned me off initially and then I tried to look at why. The All-CAPS and Gif version of internet communication turns me off. Is this because of age? (At 35, I am a bit too old for net speak) sexism? a bit of both?

    **Income and how one makes a living seems to be a more accurate version of the divide. A lot of my friends who earn their incomes from arts, humanities, academics, etc. tend to be Sanders supporters. The more professional ones who feel at home in Capitalist and competitive industries tend to be Clinton supporters.

    I would only say this (none / 0) (#17)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:57:03 PM EST
    ". The people arguing for Clinton basically believe that there is nothing to do about this and we live in finances world"

    Is an over-statement.

    There is by no means nothing to be done. There's plenty, but not through revolution.

    Again, the pragmatist's view.


    I would add (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    Many, many Democrats also do not view capitalism  as an inherently bad thing.  Tighter regulation is needed, yes, but capitalism is so much, much better than any of the alternatives, especially when you have a large diverse country like we have.  

    Agree (none / 0) (#20)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    It maybe strayed a bit too personal with remarks about getting bullied in HS....dunno.

    But overall I thought this was a pretty comprehensive viewpoint.

    Interestingly it did not really delve into the female support of Sanders.

    (As did Steinem, shooting off Clinton's foot yet again!)


    We won't speak of (none / 0) (#26)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:29:18 PM EST
    Cornel West shooting off Sanders foot... Or Sarandon or Ruffalo shooting off Sanders foot when they tweet out a republican smear of Obama's state department.

    Oh well Steinem did apologize but frankly I can understand her frustration.  Young women just have yet to experience a lifetime of sexism.

    (btw I did want to say when I was in college I wasn't the only one in my group who thought going to a protest rally was a great way meet people of the opposite sex.  Doesn't mean you don't also believe in the cause, but I wanted speak frankly on this issue even though I do know youre not supposed to say it).


    There's nothing inherently wrong (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:46:20 PM EST
    with "Capitalism" in theory; in the abstract, just as communism, socialism, and anarcho-syndicalism etc in the abstract sound like they could be social approximations of what was discussed in the Sermon On The Mount..

    But of course, as they say, the devil is in the nitty gritty dirty details..

    "Capitalism". The question is, WHICH capitalism?

    Maybe we need some new terminology to talk about what the best economic system might be..


    I agree (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:05:23 PM EST
    You can demogog those words all day, the allocation of scarce resources is the issue.... the terms I would use to discuss politics:

    Competence and incompetence.

    For instance it's been 14 years and the only person I ever came across to speak intelligently about the Iraq war is Gen. Wesley Clark. He will say it was a bad idea but then spend another hour also detailing how, not only was it a bad idea, but a perfect storm of incompetence borderline criminal negligence.

    Point is this if you apply my philosophy it's possible communism didn't work in Russia because it was managed by dopes who had a simple and single minded view of the world.

    And obviously I just got done ranting the last few days about how the business model of wall street is not fraud. There is corruption and incompetence in a business model we kinda all, when we are not emerged in our own financial situation (crippling income inequality), agree on.


    Hey, I have to agree about Wesley Clark (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    I'd even go so far as to say that all things considered, I think he might make a good president.

    You know the late great cyberneticist/biologist/anthropologist Gregory Bateson used to say that the root problem was that the model of how systems, biological, social, and psychological actually work in reality, "in the real world", are still based on a disasterously outmoded root paradigm more appropriate to the European civilzation of two hundred years ago and that this distortion effects, to one degree or another, every realm from economics to science to our relationships with each other.

    For what it's worth..


    It's just, IMO, such a dumb word (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    It means nothing.

    10 years ago you would have said gay marriage is revolutionary but now we have gay marriage ... and what?  The revolution never happened?

    The word means nothing.  As I keep saying even
    Sanders himself understands revolutions don't exist in context of US government.  As a young man he put revolutionary in quotes like this: "revolutionary."

    Trump wants a revolution.  Who doesn't want a revolution?


    Just one man's opinion.. (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    but the more aware women are of themselves and their aforementioned individual "hopes and dreams" etc, the more in touch they are with their sense of empathy and solidarity with other folk's individuality and with their own instincts for social justice.

    And, also, the less likely they are to be emotionally bullied into relexively falling in line by the public pronouncments of celebrity authority figures.


    And calling an AA president (none / 0) (#33)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:49:24 PM EST
    "ni**arized" isn't bullying?

    She apologized today?  It was divisive language. Still waiting to hear from Mr. West.

    Speaking of divisive language and trying to raise the level of discussion in our happy democracy, Bernie did ask his followers to cut out the sexist attacks today, he doesnt want that "crap" in his campaign.

    And yet I don't think he realizes that crap, that aggressiveness is just the logical extrapolation of his passive aggressive insinuations.


    Right.. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    I get it.

    As long as you insert "passive aggressive insinuations" you can make, or try to make him, personally reponsible for any and very idiocy and excess expressed by his supporters.

    I doubt at this point that Sanders could blow his nose in public without convincing you that he's been bought off by the Kleenex Inc.


    Ok (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:14:18 PM EST
    Lets hash this out ...

    When there is disagreement there are two ways of dealing with the person you disagree with...

    1. They are wrong but sincerely believe they are right.  Wrong but not a liar.

    2. They are wong and they know they are wrong, they are lying for some reason.  (in this case money). Wrong and lying.

    Which of those two attitudes -- after injected with, let's say a mix of steroids and heroine (add in social media) do you think would lead to a more toxic environment?

    And which of those two attitudes do you think Bernie has towards people he disagrees with?


    I would say Bernie has a shifting mixture (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    the way most people do. Depending on the day, the setting, and the topic under discussion.

    His overwrought True Beliver acolytes, and Hillary's equally overwrought True Believer acolytes (of which there are a few here) I don't have the energy to address at present.


    I wouldn't call it bullied (none / 0) (#38)
    by vicndabx on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:22:47 PM EST
    some women need to be reminded of their forebears struggles and goals.

    Individual empathies and instincts are good, but so is realizing a collective goal that is a long time coming.


    Do you hav a link (none / 0) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    for that LGM piece? I looked, but cannot find that particular article.

    Apologies (none / 0) (#30)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:38:26 PM EST
    They fixed the errors in Iowa (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:02:29 PM EST
    HRC still won.

    The corrections gave Sanders a gain of 0.1053 state delegate equivalents. Clinton lost 0.122. And Martin O'Malley, who finished in a very distant third, gained 0.0167. The error corrections changed only five county convention delegates out of more than 11,000 elected on caucus night, McGuire said.

    in your reply (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    on the previous open thread, you asked:
    So why (a)re most members of the Progressive Caucus in Congress endorsing (HRC)?  I guess they aren't "real" progressives, but only commenters here are the true progressives.

    You did not answer the question:
    You quoted Al Franken who said he was a progressive in the mold of Wellstone. Maybe so. But Al was for the invasion of Iraq while a radio commentator.
    At that time, Paul Wellstone was one of the few bright lights in the Senate urgently speaking against the proposed invasion.

    So, Al can say what he likes, but to me - he is no Paul Wellstone.

    The others you quoted simply said that they wanted to "get things done". That's the HRC formulation justifying her "moderate" stances.

    I, for one, do not define people as progressives or anything else.

    Since Bill Clinton, and even before him, we have "liberals" and progressives supporting the death penalty, the cutting of benefits to welfare recipients, bombing without the approval of congress, trade deals that impoverish the already impoverished, talking about their religious beliefs... So what do these labels even mean?

    But people who do define themselves that way, and say that they agree with Sanders on the issues, are the ones I am addressing when I note that they are more often prone to slime him rather that congratulate him for taking the fight to the people.

    I have seen his followers demeaned as old white people. Old = bad. White = bad.

    Now, his followers are being described as young white people. Young = naive. White, still bad.

    What a bunch of cr@p.

    People who say that they support Sanders on the issues, but go for HRC because she can win or get things done are, to me, unconvincing.

    I think that they just identify with HRC's politics, the way she has conducted herself lo these decades, and are comfortable with going for her.

    I have no problem with that whatsoever.

    But, if we are interested in ending our involvement, our "leadership" in fighting these civil wars abroad, or interested in ending the domination of Banks and Brokerage Houses on our lives, I have little faith that voting for HRC is the way to go.


    Paul Wellstone (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:33:58 PM EST
    Voted for DOMA.  Does that take away your perception of him as pure?

    You want purity of ideals.  I, and many others, want to get stuff done.  


    Have you told us how Clinton's (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    actually going to do that if she has a Republican Congress?  

    Let's look at a few of the things Clinton says she's going to do in her "plan to raise American incomes:" (all from her website, btw):

       Give working families a raise, and tax relief that helps them manage rising costs.

        Create good-paying jobs and get pay rising by investing in infrastructure, clean energy, and scientific and medical research to strengthen our economy and growth.

        Close corporate tax loopholes and make the most fortunate pay their fair share.


    Provide tax relief for families. Hillary will cut taxes for hard-working families to increase their take-home pay as they face rising costs from child care, health care, and sending their kids to college. She is calling for extending a tax cut of up to $2,500 per student to help deal with college costs as part of her New College Compact, and for cutting taxes for businesses that share profits with their employees.

    Unleash small business growth. Hillary's father owned a small business--and she understands that small businesses are the backbone of jobs and growth in America. She's put forward a small-business agenda to expand access to capital, provide tax relief, cut red tape, and help small businesses bring their goods to new markets.

    Create a New College Compact. Hillary's New College Compact will invest $350 billion so that students do not have to borrow to pay tuition at a public college in their state. Her plan will also significantly cut interest rates on student loans and enable an estimated 25 million Americans with student debt to refinance at today's lower rates, saving the typical borrower $2,000 over the life of their loans.

    Boost public investment in infrastructure and scientific research. One of the best ways to drive jobs and improve our nation's competitiveness is to invest in infrastructure and scientific research. Hillary has called for a national infrastructure bank that would leverage public and private funds to invest in projects across the country. She will call for reform that closes corporate tax loopholes and drives investment here, in the U.S. And she would increase funding for scientific research at agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

    Lift up participation in the workforce--especially for women. For too long, issues like equal pay, paid leave, and affordable child care have been put off to the side as "women's issues." Hillary believes they are crucial to our competitiveness and growth--and to lifting incomes for working families.

    And that's just one set of promises she's making.

    I am on the edge of my seat wanting to know how she's going to get these things through a Republican Congress, because we all know that however incremental, however much sense they make, they are likely as dead-on-arrival in the Congress as anything any Democratic president would try to get enacted.

    How is she going to do it, jb?  By "working with" the other side?  Can you find me anyone who has served with Bernie in any of his many elected offices who describes him as someone who is so doctrinaire he cannot and does not "work with" the opposition to get things done?  

    I figured you would know, obsessed as you are with digging for dirt on Sanders; as determined as you are, I can't imagine how you will be able to pivot if by some miracle, Sanders would get the nomination.  Maybe you won't pivot.  Maybe you'll just hold your nose and vote, and won't be here trumpeting the Democratic cause like you would if Clinton is the nominee.

    I don't know and I don't much care.  I'd just like it if you'd stop selling this "Clinton can get things done" meme, since we both know she's going to struggle as any Democratic president dealing with a GOP Congress would.


    Mebbe (none / 0) (#42)
    by vicndabx on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    but starting from far fetched is worse than starting from a place of greater consensus.

    Clinton has a record of crossing the aisle (none / 0) (#44)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    V.A. Scandal (none / 0) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:44:58 PM EST
    No one indicted.

    No one fired.

    Now no one even demoted.

    There's accountability for you.

    Hey Captain.. (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:55:23 PM EST
    Lest I forget, there's also a very strong implication in Millers Crossing that John Turturro's character Bernie Birnbaum, "the schmata kid" is also gay..

    One subplot is that Mink is sneaking around behind Eddie Dane's back and "jungling up" with Bernie..

    Bernie's ever-loyal sister Verna says "people hate him because he's different"


    OH yeah (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:48:55 PM EST
    Seen it a few times myself.   For some reason I just flashed on that old conversation when you mentioned it.

    Fwiw that person was a bit of a self loather so.....

    Whatever.   I thought it was pretty obvious but I guess we see what we want.

    I like that you replied this to mr Gilbert and Sullivan.


    Clinton-esque!! (none / 0) (#41)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:30:58 PM EST
    And for those of us who have difficulty imagining Clinton overcoming the enormous negativity from our famously Free Press, here we have noted Progressive Dude Josh Marshall finding a way to compare Rubio's disaster last night to Hillary Clinton. I kid not.