March Madness! Day 3

My picks:

Wisconsin -5 over Oregon, Michigan State -7 over Harvard, Villanova -3 over Connecticut, Syracuse -7 over Dayton, Louisville -9 over St Louis, Pittsburgh +6 over Florida, Texas +5 over Michigan San Diego State -3 over North Dakota State.

Go Gators!

Open Thread.

< March Madness! Day 2 | March Madness! Day 4 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ruling on Michigan's Anti-Marriage Equity (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:31:37 AM EST
    Judge's comments regarding the testimony of Mark Regnerus regarding his research presented in opposition to marriage equality:

    The Court finds Regnerus's testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 "study" was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it "essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society" and which "was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study." See Pls.' Motion in limine to Exclude Testimony of Mark Regnerus, Ex. 9. In the funder's view, "the future of the institution of marriage at this moment is very uncertain" and "proper research" was needed to counter the many studies showing no differences in child outcomes. Id. The funder also stated that "this is a project where time is of the essence." Id. Time was of the essence at the time of the funder's comments in April 2011, and when Dr. Regnerus published the NFSS in 2012, because decisions such as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), and Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), were threatening the funder's concept of "the institution of marriage."

    While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged. Additionally, the NFSS is flawed on its face, as it purported to study "a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements" (emphasis added), but in fact it did not study this at all, as Regnerus equated being raised by a same-sex couple with having ever lived with a parent who had a "romantic relationship with someone of the same sex" for any length of time. Whatever Regnerus may have found in this "study," he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars, and that Regnerus's own sociology department at the University of Texas has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus's views in general and reaffirmed the aforementioned APA position statement. [pp. 13-14]

    In other words, Regnerus' work was made to order, and didn't actually study what it asserted it was studying. Those are two of the biggest sins in academia, and Friedman labeled them as such with all the legal sarcasm he could muster. link

    More goodies contained in the post. Be sure to read it all, especially the part about the "prerequisites for obtaining a marriage license under Michigan law do not include the ability to have children"

    6th Circuit puts stay on ruling (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:12:29 PM EST
    At least until Wednesday.

    At least three county clerks were open today to issue marriage licenses, so hopefully some of those folks ended up getting married before the stay came out.  Always great to have real live married couple complicate things like this!

    The train is leaving the station, 6th Circuit - get on board!


    "..the funder clearly (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:08:46 PM EST
    wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged."--Judge Friedman.   The Witherspoon Foundation, aka "the funder" is a right-wing think tank that paid $624,366 for this "research", but bought only the opprobrium of the judge--an appointment of Ronald Reagan.  

    Of course, a sound study would have cost Witherspoon more money, but there is, apparently, a business side that restricts commitment.  And, of course, a well-designed study would not serve their purpose.  The extensive trial record is likely to enhance Judge Friedman's ruling in the appeals process and his evaluation of the research studies presented can be used in other cases.  


    please just quote a short paragraph (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:26:30 PM EST
    or lines and give the link.

    GO DUCKS!! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by caseyOR on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    Nice to see the boys from Eugene in the mix.

    BIG RED! (none / 0) (#83)
    by Towanda on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:09:49 PM EST
    An amazing comeback by my Badgers -- despite your guys knocking out a tooth, kneeing in the groin, and throwing down an opponents as if this was in the ring, not on the court.  Better refs would not have allowed that nastiness to start, so it continued too long and finally went too far for even the blind to avoid calling that last foul.  

    Spouse Towanda took son and future son-in-law to the game, and he just got home.  But young'uns are still partying by the thous on Water Street.

    I stayed home, so I got to watch that game, right after the Division III title game in Virginia -- where one of my nephews, a frosh in his first year on the team, became a national champion tonight! as UW-Whitewater took the title again.  

    'Twas a great night to be a Wisconsinite.


    It's just me, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    I'm sure...

    but Hillary's little halfway comparison of Putin to Hitler further cements my belief that she is a loose cannon. She said it, then said she didn't say it, but everyone knows what she said.

    This is the one who neglected her duty as a Senator and, against the wishes of a significant, informed and vocal segment of the NY electorate, voted for W. to have the authority to bum-rush us into the war in Iraq. This, I believed then, and believe now, with an eye to her projected run in 2008.

    She put her ambition above the welfare of the little people she was meant to serve. She did it back then, and she'll do it again.

    So - no vote for H.R.C. from little ol' me.

    I'm waiting for someone with whom I can identify.

    If things are shaping up as a battle royal between Biden and HRC for the Dems in 2016 - we may as well pack our bags and go to... go to... Honolulu?

    I will support (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 02:38:21 PM EST
    Hillary but I have to admit every so often she drops these hawkish statements....that actually take your breath away.

    A challenge from the Left, whether from Schweitzer or someone else, could help.


    Understandable and I agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:56:34 PM EST
    I had a vision that she would deal with that by tapping Elizabeth Warren for VP.   What do you think.

    I think Schweitzer (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:17:31 PM EST
    might be VP.  

    Someone outside Washington.  Could help Hillary in the West.

    Or she could really be unusual and select Julian Castro.....


    I don't know about Schweitzer (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:22:38 PM EST
    Still think an all female ticket would be awsum.

    Imagine Warren In a VP debate.


    Could happen (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:27:23 PM EST
    I am a Democrat so I would support that ticket.

    I don't know if Warren wants to be VP (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    It was a tough sell getting her to run for Senate from reports.  She is doing great work where she is also.

    It would be a waste of Warren's talents... (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 09:16:37 AM EST
    President Warren or Senator Warren...no nuetered VP Warren is my preference.

    Besides, I don't think Clinton's Wall St. buddies would allow her to choose Warren as a running mate...that's not what they're paying for.


    Point and counterpoint (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 09:41:06 AM EST
    Totally agree with this statement. We want Warren in a position to affect change.

    President Warren or Senator Warren...no nuetered VP Warren is my preference.

    OTOH, Wall St. might very well support Warren as VP since it could get her out of their hair by effectively neutering her.


    Good point... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    that would be an evil-genius Machiavellian Wall St. move.

    HRC's comparison (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:20:13 PM EST
    to Hitler was actually correct - don't know why she backed away from it.  Anyone who has studied history past the 7th grade knows that Hitler's stated reason for going into Czechoslavakia was that there were ethnic Germans living in the Sudetenland (where there was an active Nazi party who was working with Hitler) and Germany accused the Czech government of committing atrocities and such.

    Are we so afraid to compare current events to historical ones?  I mean, Hillary was also accused of wanting Obama assassinated because she again talked about history when she wouldn't exit the primaries early enough because, for example, RFK was killed during primary season.

    I'm shocked that so many people are shocked when someone actual speaks of facts.


    The idea is to avoid (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:26:02 PM EST
    another hasty, reckless and unnecessary war like the Iraq War.  Excessively bellicose statements can create doubt whether the lessons learned from Vietnam and then re-learned from the Iraq War will have to be re-learned once again.

    Since you are again referencing the 2008 Primaries, Hillary's comparison of herself to LBJ during the 2008 Primaries is not all that re-assuring.

    I can only assume that her experience would prevent another horrid tragedy like the Iraq War--unless, of course, you view that war as appropriate and necessary.


    "Her experience" (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:01:38 AM EST
    re: her self-involved (imo) and unconscionable (imo) vote for the authorization enabling W. to do what he did is something that is frightening to me, not reassuring.

    As recently as the 2008 debates, she was still bul-sh-tting us about her reasons for that vote. Her justifications were hollow and no one, or hardly anyone, went for them. Obama skewered her.

    If she can't honestly come to terms with what motivated her to vote as she did, she could be just as prone to do something equally self-serving and "dumb" were she to be elected to higher office.

    I have great respect for her intelligence. Even for her instincts - but ambition and rationalization often trump those qualities when pols get caught up in the frenzy of the machinery of government. (imo)


    I do think (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:43:36 AM EST
    the AUMF vote was to maintain her credibility as being tough, etc.  And, she said that she wanted Bush to first use other options....

    She has said she would never have actually invaded if it were her decision.

    So, I do think that when actually making the decision to use military force, as opposed to casting a vote, she would not make the decision based on politics....

    JFK talked about Missile Gap during the 1960 campaign.   He sounded like the biggest hawk around.  So, talking tough in a campaign is one thing.  Actual use of force is another.  



    I saw (none / 0) (#103)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    a documentary recently - and it had several clips of JFK during and after the campaign.

    I was shocked to see the extent to which he campaigned as an even bigger hawk than Nixon!

    But what really threw me for a loop was the expression in his eyes when he said that he was willing to engage in a thermonuclear war, knowing that it would kill everyone on earth. This was, of course, during the "Cuban missile crisis". But - that look... WOW!

    Personally, I do feel that if he had been allowed to live, we would have been much better off. No Johnson presidency. No Nixon presidency in revulsion of Johnson. Etc.

    But - honestly - it's pure conjecture.

    It was heartbreaking - seeing him with his children - knowing what was to happen.


    Pure hokum (none / 0) (#104)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    from Hillary, in my opinion.

    She has said she would never have actually invaded if it were her decision.

    It WAS her decision.
    She voted to authorize it.
    She has to live with that.
    We all have to live with that.

    She claimed, in her lame attempt to justify herself during the campaign of 2008 that she didn't think Bush would actually use the war power she helped deliver to him. If that is really true, then she is way too naive to be elected to ANYTHING!

    But it isn't and wasn't true.
    She was taking the easy way out - at the expense of all those lives.

    A profile in cowardice.

    I blame her more than some others because of her stature at that time. She was someone we wanted to look to to counter the fiends in power - Bush and Cheney. I blame her more than others because of her intellect and what I thought was her latent integrity.

    But she went along. Almost all of the Democrats did. As I recall - Senator Byrd was a notable exception. I think he even wrote a book at the time pointing out the idiocy of the war-in-waiting.

    But Hillary is still that person that authorized the war, and wants us to believe that she didn't know it at the time.



    Hillary voted wrong (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 02:45:18 PM EST
    on AUMF.  If she had voted the other way, it would not have made a difference.

    Cheney was going to invade no matter what.

    And Hillary has paid the price for that vote.  It was years ago.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#110)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    Hillary voted wrong on AUMF.  If she had voted the other way, it would not have made a difference.

    That is an assumption I cannot wholeheartedly make.

    Clinton voting "no" - saying that she couldn't buy the lies and bs being lobbed at a traumatized populace might have swayed the vote. Remember - the Democrats were in control of both Houses of Congress at the time. She, and they, laid down instead of standing up.

    Another thought - which is less speculative:

    One difference it would have made had she voted the other way:
    She would have won the nomination in 2008.


    Yes, if Hillary had done (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:31:51 AM EST
    the right thing, rather than the politic thing, she would be President right now.

    That is the political price she paid for being political.

    I do not think she will make that mistake again.  If she really goes all LBJ on the use of force, then she will suffer the same fate as LBJ.  She has got to know the base will never support another reckless war.


    Absurd... (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:32:24 AM EST
    And if Obama had been in the Senate? I could go on with and ifs..

    It is absurd to make a statement about why Hillary lost, particularly when you tie it to one event, as if all events would have stayed the same.

    But I guess it must be fun to be so certain of things that no one could possibly know.


    That's (none / 0) (#123)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    "one event" cost thousands of lives.
    You might recall that Obama skewered Hillary over and over again about that vote. How intelligent he was in contrast. Blah blah blah.

    It was a significant factor in the debates and began the process of undoing what had been perceived as a movement toward a Hillary victory.

    You are entitled to disagree with anything - but do you have to resort to invective like "absurd"?

    Who needs that?

    Can't you state a contrary opinion - and it is just that - without resorting to invective?


    Absurd for Sure (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:00:27 AM EST
    Yes, if Hillary had done the right thing, rather than the politic thing, she would be President right now.

    Hillary does not exist in a vacuum. To posit that one person's actions, were they different, would lead to something else is absurd, considering all the possible variables.

    For instance, I was on the streets protesting all the winger sh!t through BushCo, and yet I voter for Hillary over Obama in the primary. For one, I was sure that had Obama been in the Senate during the AUMF vote, he would have voted along with all the sheep.

    Really absurd to say that Hillary would be president had she voted against AUMF. Even for you, and your hatred, I am surprised you would not see that.


    I have (none / 0) (#137)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    no hatred.

    But I dislike your tone.

    No conversation is possible.



    No Hatred? (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    Well it seems that whatever you have it is awfully close going by your statements and tone:

    She put her ambition above the welfare of the little people she was meant to serve. She did it back then, and she'll do it again.

    her self-involved (imo) and unconscionable (imo) vote

    She claimed, in her lame attempt...

    A profile in cowardice....

    bla bla bla..

    "one event" [Hillary's vote} cost thousands of lives.

    Clinton could have and should have known better.

    I cannot forgive or forget.
    100s of thousands lost.

    but remain unconvinced that she wouldn't do the same thing again - based on a sense of what would be good for her and/or the party.

    From a long list of venom you have spewed regarding Hilary. You characterize her as a cold hearted killer who would do anything for power and her party.

    Yet my describing a wild hypothetical stated as fact, as absurd:  is an invective that no one needs? You ask others to state opinions without invective?




    I agree (none / 0) (#121)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:30:01 AM EST
    with you - but remain unconvinced that she wouldn't do the same thing again - based on a sense of what would be good for her and/or the party.

    Her base, her fans and supporters, will vote for her in the hope that she will "not make that mistake again'. Much in the same way that Obama's supporters continue to hope that he will be the progressive agent of change that they dream he is.

    Both are unrealistic expectations imo.


    I think it's totally unreasonable (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:32:57 AM EST
    to have expected the Senator from New York to have voted any other way on September 14, 2001.

    Why jb? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    That's exactly the time cooler heads were desperately needed.

    It may have been politically unpopular, at the time, but don't we want leaders who will do what is right even when it is politically unpopular?  Especially when it is politically unpopular.  And especially as president.

    If every decision an elected leader makes is based on what it means for their next campaign, we are truly f*cked.


    Bush was re elected because we couldn't (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 02:38:07 PM EST
    Change horses in midstream.  Remember that?  Military was stop-lossed but  only the military at that time felt the full weight of crisis of Bush's Iraq War.  No matter how frustrating that was for me, the rest of the country was not able to emotionally be on the same page at that time.   Clinton martyring herself served no great purpose for me.

    As I said before though my husband believes there is no substitute for doing the immediate right thing.  This was outlined in greater detail to me last week discovering that he has a list of lesser system failures while flying that is longer than any other pilot anyone knows around here.

    This is because if a call came in when he was in Iraq of troops being attacked and needing support, if his crew chief hadn't gone over everything on his aircraft but said it could fly, he trusted his chief and he took off.  Most pilots would not take off until every single system had been gone over with a fine toothed comb.  So of course, he expects every single member of congress to have the exact same life or death and protection of truth and our own dedication to their votes.  And they never will.


    Martyrdom... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    was never in the cards for Hillary Clinton Tracy, she was a senator from NY with a D after her name and full DNC support...she coulda been found in bed with a dead boy or a live girl and been re-elected as senator.

    Either she had her presidential ambitions in mind, or she is the war-hawk many here think she is, including myself, and voted her conscience.  Either way it's a strike against in my book.  

    I totally agree "do what's right and come what may" is not a trait to be found in congresspersons...with a handful of exceptions.  Russ Feingold and the Patriot Act, Lincoln Chafee and the 2002 Iraq Resolution are two examples.


    Not being from NY (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 03:18:57 PM EST
    I'm going to trust you on this dead boy live girl thing :)

    And Russ got shafted so hard (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    Don't you think she had reason to be petrified at that time?

    Petrified of what? (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:22:46 AM EST
    Her ambitions for power going up in smoke?  The absolute worst that could happen was losing her job, and she don't need the money.  My heart bleeds Tracy, we should all be so blessed to have so little to fear.

    True, doing the right thing may have cost Russ his job, but he wasn't a D from NY with the last name Clinton.


    An aside: I seem to remember when (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:18:03 PM EST
    Russ Feingold voted to confirm JJ Roberts and Alito.  Did I miss something? ... or, do we all make mistakes (and some of them, boners?)

    To be a leader yes, you climb the (none / 0) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:40:29 AM EST
    Power chain.  I cannot easily dismiss though the need for good governance and those who can withstand the stresses of it.  I still can't find enormous fault with her on the vote.

    kdog (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:17:25 AM EST
    If every decision an elected leader makes is based on what it means for their next campaign, we are truly f*cked.

    You need to catch up.

    That's what it's ALWAYS about.


    If we want something different (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:10:04 PM EST
    According to Bill Moyers we have to get the dark money out of the campaign process.

    As a (none / 0) (#124)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 10:38:00 AM EST
    New Yorker - one of many who were bombarding her office - taking to the streets, etc. it was entirely reasonable to think that she might represent us.

    You might remember that there were massive demonstrations.
    She was our alleged Senator - but her eye was already on laying the groundwork for her run for the the Presidency.

    Everybody I knew at the time, knew that Bush was giving us a bunch of bs regarding the supposed WMDs.

    But not Hillary.


    Would you say that your view (none / 0) (#126)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:09:55 AM EST
    was in line with a majority of New Yorkers, and by that I mean a majority of all the people in the state of New York?

    All I can (none / 0) (#136)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 02:10:15 PM EST
    say is that absolutely I knew or spoke to believed what was being dished out by Bush and his lackeys in the media.

    New York, as a State, has a rightwing faction. That's true.
    But they hated Clinton. She owed them nothing.

    The liberals are based close to NY City.
    The liberals are the ones that were Clinton's base - in my opinion.
    And she did not pay attention to us. Not at all.

    A question:

    Did you believe Bush about the WMDs?

    Clinton could have and should have known better.

    I cannot forgive or forget.
    100s of thousands lost.


    You do understand, don't you (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    that as a Senator, she is elected to represent ALL the people - not just the people who agree with her, right?  I'm not sure how much rightwing faction "hated" her  - I mean, she won by 8 points in 2000 and 36 points in 2006, so the good people of NYC alone would not make up those differences. Those votes come from somewhere, and unless this is a referendum on Crimea, you aren't going to get close to a 96% vote.

    And as for the people of NYC, she worked to get them $21 billion to help rebuild the on the WTC site - an idea that many other people was foolish. Pretty good for the economy of NYC.  Doesn't replace the almost 3000 people killed, nor the destuction that took place, but it was something.

    Sure, I get that you don't like her because of that vote.  And yes, to answer your question - I did believe Bush (as did a vast majority of Americans, because at the time, it wasn't just him saying things about the WMD's, but serious people from both sides of the aisle (such as the 2004 Dem nominees Kerry and Edwards) and international experts. And it's certainly easy to say in hindsight what should have been done at the time. To paraphrase Obama - we weren't privy to the Senate intelligence reports - so unless you can definitively say that she saw those reports, they said things contrary to what she said (repeatedly) in interviews and on the Senate floor, and she voted for it anyway knowing that we were going into a war with the wrong people and many people would die, then I don't know how you can say with complete certainty that you knew better.

    In hindsight, her vote was not a good one - or rather, Bush and the Republicans expanded the law and basically bastardized it away from its original intent.  Obama was able to masterfully exploit her vote, even though he himself didn't have to put himself on the line with a vote in a time when our country was still trying to figure out how to react to the largest terrorist attack on US soil. But I don't think it's really going to be a big issue in 2016 if she decides to run.  It's old news - even among those who still want to hang on to the Obama fantasy that was superior because he didn't vote for it - there's no traction to the spin anymore.  And no Republican is going to criticize her for it.

    So, if this is what's going to hang you up about voting for her if she runs, then don't vote for her.


    I agree (none / 0) (#148)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 05:07:47 PM EST
    that her vote is old news.

    It was her Putin-Hitler utterance that reminded me of her capacity to pander and turn right at the drop of a hat.

    I won't be voting for her - but I'm sure that if she gets the nomination and is running again a Republican Attila the Hun, I'll most likely be rooting for her. Against my better judgement.

    I think she is talented, highly intelligent, and even brilliant.
    But I think that her intelligence is muted or shunted to the side when considerations of politics or ambition rear their heads.

    If she runs - and wins - I'll be rooting for her better side to take control. I'll hope for the best - but I could not vote for her.

    Please don't get me started about Kerry and Edwards.
    Those two - especially Kerry - knew better. He deserved his loss.
    He couldn't confront Bush. And Bush walked all over him. If he had pointed out the lies that Bush laid upon us - he could have won. But he didn't. He was nothing. And Edwards? Please.

    The Democrats are going to have to do better to get my vote.
    I may root for the lesser evil, but I'll never vote for one. Not anymore.


    I have to say (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    If there is antthing in Hillary's career that gives me pause, it's that vote. I too could see as clear as day what total BS all the arguments being made for that war was.   I spoke and wrote against it daily and often felt like I was crying in the wilderness.  I remember being absolutely stunned by how many otherwise reasonable people were sucked up and into the war talk.  I was out numbered everywhere by friends who responded , with a glazed look, "we really need to do something about Sadam".

    I could forgive them for being fleeced by the unbelievably effective PR war mounted by the BushCheney operation but not a senator who surely knew better.

    Having said that I also suspect Obamas vote was just as political as Hillary's.  And if he had thought the opposite vote would have helped him that is what he would have done.


    What vote? (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:51:32 AM EST
    Having said that I also suspect Obamas vote was just as political as Hillary's

    He wasn't in the Senate at the time and didn't vote.  As he said later on - he didn't have access to all the intelligence reports, so he doesn't really know how he would have voted.

    It's much easier to talk from the sidelines with only partial information.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:07:39 AM EST
    It's early.

    Obamas "opinion".  I actually did know that


    While you find reason for "pause" Capt (none / 0) (#171)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:20:23 PM EST
    Recollect whether there is any national candidate over the years who has a "perfect" voting record.  As for me, I always find that to be instructive.

    2001? (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:34:19 AM EST
    The AUMF of 2001 was not specifically targeted against Iraq.
    Signed into law Sept 18, 2001

    You may be thinking of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002


    Regarding the 2002 vote... (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 02:30:18 PM EST
    23 Senators had the courage to vote no...Sen. Clinton was not among them.

    Sh*t even then Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee voted no!


    Well, Lincoln Chaffee was not exactly (none / 0) (#147)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 04:05:32 PM EST
    a "typical" Republican.  He left the GOP in 2007 to become an Independent, was elected Governor of Rhode Island as an Independent, and switched his registration to Democrat last May.  And announced last September that he would not run for Governor again.
    He's an interesting guy.  And there are no Republicans left in the GOP who are like him.  Which is probably why he fled the GOP.

    Definitely not a typical Brand R... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    but he was at the time of the vote...and I'd bet he took a lot of sh*t for that sane & wise vote.

    He had the convictions to do what's right and take the fallout, much more than I can say for my senators at the time, Chuckie & Hill.


    JFK ... and, now Hillary (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    The true definition of strength, obviously, is a central issue in American politics.  Typically, the question in polls about who displays "strength" is considered a key question in Presidential positioning polls.  And, as you have been pointing out, lentinel, that often translates to "tough talk."  The ol' "bring 'em on" or "make my day."  As you also noted, JFK clearly engaged in the classical strong talk ... he had to before the election to be taken seriously ... remember that the Quemoy & Matsu were front-page matters and, then, there was the matter of the U2 incident.  In fact, JFK's own life experience cannot be denied in the forming of a "strong" Democrat (aka a hawk.)

    Today--after many years have passed since WWII and the formation of JFK's approach to foreign policy and after long stretches in which the US engaged in a number of extremely unwise military forays beginning with Vietnam--we seem to re-positioning our attitude about jumping into foreign military entanglements.  Thank goodness!  At the same time, Americans continue to push for "strength" in our Presidents ... in military understanding & strategy as well as in domestic policy.  (Side note: Think about how President Obama is typed by Repubs recently as a "mommy jeans"-wearer lately because he won't talk tough enough about dashing to war.)  

    Now ... when it comes to Hillary Clinton, I'll take a second seat to no one in supporting her in any way that I can.  One major test that everyone knows will be the opposition's attack line & comprehensive strategy as to Ms., Senator, Secretary Clinton:  Is she "strong" enough, especially is she truly "strong" enough to be Commander in Chief?  Much as less-hawkish individuals might want her to eschew adapting and fashioning a somewhat hawkish stance in the lead-up to the campaign, I would argue that historical perceptions about strength and the Presidency when mixed with perceptions about women in a society that has never elected a woman before would make anything perceived as a "soft" or "dovish" stance by Hillary Clinton as unrealistic, unreasonable, and a losing proposition.  

    Finally: H. Clinton is experienced on the world stage, a practiced diplomat.  So, in the context of all that has gone before, it is more than safe to assume that she will neither stumble into nor create inappropriate, wrong military action.


    Backed Away? (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:30:04 PM EST
    I did not know that she backed away from the statement, as it was somewhat qualified when she made it. Not sure that she did.

    She did not say that Putin was a Hitler..  although her meaning, albeit hyperbole, was clear.


    Well she was of course correct (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    But in an environment where every republican in the clown car has made Hitler/Nazi comparisons a standard response to pretty much everything, it was not well considered.  I think she realized that but the toothpaste was out of the tube.

    But I am still ready for Hillary.


    In my (none / 0) (#87)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:50:52 AM EST
    opinion, and it is only that, it was pure demogogery aimed at a selected audience - the ones who want us to be "tough" on everything.

    I am not of the opinion that her foray into the campaign of 2016 was particularly well received by President Obama. More perceived, I read, as a little twist of the knife. I couldn't care less about that, actually. Let 'em behave toward each other with the loathing that has been simmering for lo these many years. It is to laugh.

    What are you doing to get "ready for Hillary"?
    Is it a form of mental preparation? Are you stocking canned goods in your bunker?



    It's the slogan (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:48:19 AM EST
    of the organizing committee acting on her behalf.

    I am getting emails and calls from them....So, Obama gave them his contact list.


    What (none / 0) (#102)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    is the slogan of her organizing committee?

    This is a copy of (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 03:15:05 PM EST
    an email address of an email I received earlier today.

    Ready for Hillary <admin@readyforhillary.com>

    And they have all kinds of things that you can do to get ready.

    btw, the former head of Obama's national field organization is part of Ready for Hillary.  Hillary will basically be handed the keys to a smooth running machine.   So, she need not announce for a long time.  Makes her a smaller target for the wingers...


    Actually (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 04:17:13 PM EST
    It was a throw away line.  Sort of a joke (the inquirer might want to Google that word) that I never felt inclined to explain or defend.

    "Clear" - heh (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:45:57 PM EST
    It's funny what some people think is the "clear" meaning of the words of others.

    What year was it (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:14:45 PM EST
    that the RFK issue arose regarding Hillary and Obama?

    What was going on then?

    Did you say "primaries?"


    Goodbye Daddy (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 04:51:35 PM EST
    A father put his three year old daughter to bed, told her
    a story and listened to her prayers which she ended by saying "God bless Mommy, God bless daddy, God bless grandma and good-bye grandpa." The father asked, "Why did you say good-bye grandpa?" The little girl said, "I don't know daddy, it just seemed like the thing to do." The next day grandpa died.

    The father thought it was a strange coincidence. A few
    months later the father put the girl to bed and listened to her prayers, which went like this: "God bless Mommy, God Bless daddy and good-bye grandma." The next day the grandmother died. Oh my god, thought the father, this kid is in contact with the other side. Several weeks later when the girl was going to bed the dad heard her say, "God bless Mommy and good-bye daddy."

    He practically went into shock. He couldn't sleep all
    night and got up at the crack of dawn to go to his office. He was nervous as a cat all day, had lunch sent in and watched the clock. He figured if he could get by until midnight he would be okay.  Finally midnight arrived, he breathed a sigh of relief and went home.

    When he got home his wife said "I've never seen you
    work so late, what's the matter?" He said "I don't want to talk
    about it, I've just spent the worst day of my life."

    She said "You think you had a bad day, you'll never
    believe what happened here.  This morning the mailman dropped dear on the porch."

    DEAD on the porch (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    Damn spell corrector.  Can I disable it.  It is constantly putting words on my mouth.

    Go to "settings." Select (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:21:32 PM EST
    "keyboard."  Turn off "autocorrect."

    Shhhhhh (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:24:20 PM EST
    Just kidding

    You may provoke a firestorm (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:58:32 PM EST
    W/that "shhh."  

    Wouldn't be the first time (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:05:01 PM EST
    Some one just emailed me (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    Her version of that joke which is funnier:

    .....I've just spent the worst day of my life".

    "Well I tried to call you at work" she said "I'm afraid I have bad news.  Your brother George has passed away."


    It's a yo' mama Friday joke (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:01:19 PM EST
    But it's Saturday Capt.

    Can't wait to retell it :)


    Could it be??? (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    A UT FL final???

    One can hope.

    Stokes Mayman (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    are beasts. Stokes is my favorite non Florida player.

    I like the Mercer point guard (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:36:32 PM EST
    That guy is so animated and excited, you will have to peel him off the ceiling.  Great ball handling too.

    It's a good thing (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:59:45 PM EST
    I love opera instead of college basketball. You doomed 'em.

    Jim's mouth may be the cause ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    ... of many things, but I don't think that the demise of the San Diego Opera company would be one of them.

    I learned last night that SDO CEO Ian Campbell was drawing $400,000 in annual compensation. Is that true? Because if it is, and if it's further representative of the rest of SDO management's payroll, I'd say that was probably a big part of the company's financial problems.



    I was thinking of the (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 01:18:33 AM EST
    Wolverines loss to UT.

    But re salary:

    compensation of the Campbells


    UCLA is only a 3 point fave over NDSU??? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:01:10 AM EST

    What do the Vegas savants know that I don't?

    NDSU is playing San Diego State (none / 0) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 01:34:51 PM EST
    UCLA is a 9 point favorite over Stephen F Austin tomorrow.

    Go Bison! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 02:12:55 PM EST

    No Bison! (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:10:07 PM EST
    With 1:30 to go, San Diego State has this one in hand, 59-43.

    George P. Bush (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 12:20:03 PM EST
    Even as Texas Republicans insist they've never been more committed to courting the state's booming Hispanic population, they can claim just one Hispanic candidate for statewide office -- and he's a Bush, more famous for sharing a name with two former presidents than for having a mother originally from Mexico.

    In fact, Bush, the photogenic nominee for land commissioner, stands out on a Republican statewide slate that otherwise consists of all white men. And many of those candidates have run as hard as they can to the right during the primary, talking of militarizing the Texas-Mexico border, scrapping a popular law offering lower tuition for immigrant children and even decrying an "illegal invasion" of immigrants.

    Such sentiments may alienate Hispanics amid a demographic shift that could eventually transform politics in fiercely conservative Texas the way similar trends have in Colorado, Nevada and many points beyond. Hispanics account for nearly 40 percent of Texas' population and is forecast to be a majority around 2030.


    He should listen to Barb. No more Bushes. (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:49:00 PM EST
    Barb really is the smartest Bush.  When she said that I decided there was no way Jeb was running.  If he had been she would never have said it.  It was a cunning and shrewd slash at Hillary.

    Isn't she the same "smartest Bush" ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:17:01 PM EST
    ... who looked around at thousands of Hurricane Katrina refugees in the Houston Astrodome, and then commented about how well it was working out for all of them?

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:01:45 PM EST
    Smart was a poor choice of words.  But then most truly evil people are smart.

    Cunning....you had her at cunning (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:09:57 PM EST
    Do I understand this comment (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:47:11 PM EST

    It wasn't that she (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:53:28 PM EST
    was correctly described as cunning....but you had her at cunning....

    It's the weekend (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:22:54 PM EST
    You can relax :)

    I give you permission


    Not being critical (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:41:19 PM EST
    I thought it was funny...

    Interesting (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:36:01 PM EST
    But Jeb is doing better in the polls against Hillary....Without Christie, the not-so-completely-crazy Republicans will need someone.  And Jeb with his Latina wife would seem a logical choice.

    If Pitt doesn't figure out the Gator Defense (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 12:44:00 PM EST
    They will never get back in this game.

    Thank you BTD for taking the points and Pitt (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    The Gators always play best (football or basketball) when you go against them. It's tradition :)

    It's a superstition now (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    And make that SDSU... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 04:54:54 PM EST
    ...not UCLA. Sheesh.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 310 (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    The media made Phelps a Christian (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:10:24 PM EST
    So I see no reason why they won't buy this

    According to Virginia Klan Imperial Wizard, Frank Ancona, the KKK is neither racist nor hateful, and is instead a, "non-violent Christian organization."
    Imperial Wizard Ancona told a local news agency on Thursday that the Klan is a "Christian organization" that doesn't hate people based on race. Reality's insistence otherwise was the result of a "few rogue Klansmen." To further prove their point that they're a non-violent, non-racist organization, they've been tossing fliers into the yards of people in the dead of night that include an email address, a phone number, and two websites that claim the KKK is non-violent and not, "the enem[y] of the colored or mongrel races."

    The mongrel races? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:48:22 PM EST
    Yup, no enemy to see here...just some heritage, but not hate.  Sleep peacefully mongrels :). You are safe.

    Some stuff ya can't make up. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05:20 PM EST
    And Ted Nugent (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:37:36 PM EST
    goes mongrel races too.

    How awful (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:46:05 PM EST
    It's so heinous

    DaVinci's Demons (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:37:57 PM EST
    Returns tonight.

    Guilty pleasure.

    She did make the comparison (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:43:28 PM EST
    Yes, it was part of her show horse v. work horse meme, and her counter to the comparisons some were making between Obama and JFK.

    But comparing oneself to LBJ is a mixed bag.....and she did it.  

    I don't think the Left is ready to embrace LBJ even today.

    But I did not bring up the primaries....and that was a long time ago and she has had more time on the job....I would, however, like more reassurance that she will not go Cold Warrior on us.....

    Of course she did (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:35:32 PM EST
    But her reference to LBJ was re: his support for civil rights laws, not your entirely unrelated comparison - LBJ's support of the Vietnam War.  It would be like someone distorting Obama's comparison of himself to Nixon to suggest that Obama favors the use of illegal activities and obstruction to get himself elected.

    Don't hurt yourself ...



    I am not the one that (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:52:37 PM EST
    needs convincing.  I will support Hillary.

    So, you can save your snide comments for someone else.

    As evidenced by other comments on this blog, there are those on the Left that are concerned Hillary is a hawk.  I would start with them.  

    You and jb are the most stalwart Hillary supporters on this blog, I would venture. Any criticism of her and both of you respond in quick fashion.  That is fine.  But attacking me will not assist any efforts to boost Hillary.  I just express in rather tame fashion what others believe.  If you want to support Hillary, try addressing the concerns by some on the Left that Hillary is too much of  hawk.  


    Jim Boeheim and the Orange: "Buh-bye." (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:52:33 PM EST
    The scrappy Dayton Flyers knock off another one of this season's Top Ten posers, 55-53. After starting the season with 25 straight wins, Syracuse dropped 6 of its last 9 games, and Coach Boeheim now joins Coach K on the NCAA tourney sidelines in the first week of play.

    You are ignoring (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:11:40 PM EST
    the gist of my comment.  Others here are far more concerned that Hillary is a hawk than I.

    I appreciate your defense of Hillary but directing your excessive hostility toward me is misplaced.

    What unnamed others?  lentinel began this discussion of suggesting Hillary was too reckless for his/her tastes....

    You will accomplish nothing if you do not see the bigger picture.  You follow the slightest little thing in knee jerk fashion. This has always been your weakness in making coherent arguments--missing the broader point.  And here you attack me, someone who supports your candidate.  How misplaced is that?

    I think it is an important discussion to have here and elsewhere how much of a hawk Hillary is.  That is the broader discussion that you are ignoring.  

    And when will (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:15:59 PM EST
    you guys recognize this is not a Hillary v. Obama issue?  That was 2008.  That is not today.

    Good grief.  Give it up.

    You first (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:21:46 PM EST
    "You guys"?  Hate to state the obvious, but I wasn't talking about 2008 until after you started with your LBJ nonsense.

    Unlike you, my comments are my own.  I'm not responsible for the comments of others (i.e. "you guys"), but I'll happily take ownership of my own, instead of trying to hide behind the broader points of others.


    Okay, jb started (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:28:26 PM EST
    the 2008 talk.

    And you jump right in attacking me.  I am the wrong guy to attack on this.  Do you not get that?  Forest for the trees, my friend.


    So she did (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    But I didn't - hence my point that you shouldn't point fingers at "you guys" with claims of "give it up".  I'm not "you guys", and if jbindc had made the @ssinine claim about Hillary's LBJ statement, I would be responding to her.  But she didn't, and neither did lentinel or the unnamed others you're trying to hide behind.

    You did, which is why I was addressing your claim.


    No, "you guys" (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:44:42 PM EST
    refer to both jb and you.  

    Both of you set up a Hillary v. Obama argument.  And that was clearly the point I was making--that both of you again pit Obama against Hillary.  We are long past the shelf life of that dynamic.

    I will be arguing for Hillary.  No need to attack me.  Wrongway Corrigan strikes again......Jim Marshall scoops up the fumble and scores for the other side.  Oh my.  At least learn to shoot in the right direction.  


    Wrong, as usual (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:31:02 PM EST
    I wasn't pitting "Obama against Hillary".  I was pointing out that your ridiculous claims against Hillary because of her LBJ comment could easily be used to make equally ridiculous claims against Obama and his Nixon, Bush Reagan comments.

    I'm pointing the gun in the direction of your deceptive claims and sophomoric logic.

    Like shooting fish in a barrel ...


    And no, I wasn't (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 06:52:13 AM EST
    setting up a "Hillary v. Obama" comment, except in the dark recesses of your head.

    I was pointing out that, once again, Hillary made a comment about historical events, and once again, the media and critics everywhere went batsh!t crazy because they don't understand those historical events past a 6th grader's understanding.

    I did not say anything about Obama, except for the fact that at the time she made the comment in 2008, it was in t context to the primary and the history of the primaries.  So, it's only YOU making it "Hillary v Obama", thereby proving my point that some people don't actually understand history and freak out when someone talks about it and makes comparisons.

    But keep arguing that. It's almost as funny as the people who keep saying I said Romney would win in 2012. (I didn't, and you can go back and check the comments, but it makes for a good meme. I did say many times in relation to certain events or polling that, "If X continues, then Romney stands a good chance," or "This isn't good for Democrats and Romney could benefit," etc.  Yep - I thought Romney would do better in Michigan - you got me there.  But I dare you to find one comment where I ever said, "Romney will absolutely win in 2012."  You can't, but you certainly are free to try.

    What I did continually say, and was shouted down many times by you, Capt, and  few others, was that "Romney will never get the nomination!  He's Mormon - they won't vote for him!" So, in actuality, I was correct and you folks had not a clue. But I notice how that has been forgotten).

    All the above, again, proving my point, that you apparently don't understand history, but rather focus on spin and memes.


    You raise the primaries (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:30:50 AM EST
    and a comment that Hillary made during the Primaries with reference to Obama, and it has nothing to do with Obama?

    You went back to 2008--again, for the umpteenth time--to show unfair everyone was to Hillary.

    And, Romney's loss had nothing to do with his being Mormon.   Romney secured the votes in the South he needed in both the Primaries and the Genera Election.


    Yes (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:07:18 AM EST
    and a comment that Hillary made during the Primaries with reference to Obama, and it has nothing to do with Obama?

    When you learn to read and comprehend, you will see that as well.

    For now, you just want to drag up "Hillary vs. Obama."

    Argue with yourself.


    No, it is you (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:29:06 AM EST
    who is always talking about the 2008 primary....Very frequently.  

    How awful to be so bitter so long after the fact.


    You said Romney would (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:33:42 AM EST
    win Michigan in the General.  Because you new Michigan and its voters and you just knew in your gut he would win it--polls be damned.

    I said he would win by 10 points.  I was by just a little bit.


    Since jb already broached the subject (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    of going back and checking the comments, go back and look at who 99 percent of her critical vitriol was directed at here during the run-up to the election.

    Why on earth would anyone ever think she was shilling for Mitt?

    And, btw, the Tea Party's influence is still waning within the GOP.


    Not hiding at all (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:24:32 PM EST
    And you repeat yourself about LBJ.  

    True, I do not have the emotional commitment to Hillary that you and jb apparently do.   But I think she will be a strong candidate and should be President.  On the domestic side, she should be very good.

    On the use of military force, I am assuming that she would not make a mistake of invading Iraq or bombing Iran--or overreacting to the Russian takeover of Crimea.

    Can you have a discussion without insults?

    Duck, dive, dodge (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:27:29 PM EST
    Your latest BS claims about an imagined "emotional commitment" aside, I understand why you wouldn't want to defend your LBJ claim.

    I think my LBJ comment is (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:33:54 PM EST
    just fine as is.  I do not need to repeat it endlessly. She had all kinds of people to emulate on Civil Rights but she picked the Democrat who the Left blames for Vietnam....a Hawk.

    But you will not let this go. I guess you need to "win" the LBJ point.  Is that what this is all about?

    I was talking about Hillary as Hawk.  How true?  Not true?  I think not all that true, I hope.

    Care to talk about Hillary as Hawk, or do you want to talk about LBJ even more?  


    LBJ (none / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:44:41 PM EST
    I couldn't care less about your opinion of Hillary.

    So, using your logic, the fact that she made the comment about LBJ's support for civil rights is relevant because he supported the Vietnam War.  I guess I shouldn't point out the obvious - that LBJ was the obvious choice because he passed the most sweeping civil right's legislation in the past century.  Or the fact that her statement re: his support for civil rights legislation had absolutely nothing to do with the Vietnam War.

    Now, since you think it's relevant ... let's talk about how Obama compared himself to Reagan, Bush and Nixon.  I bet - using your logic - we can come up with some equally ridiculous claims about Obama on a cornucopia of unrelated issues given their collective records.

    Unless, of course ... your "emotional commitment" to Obama is too much of an issue ...


    No, I think Obama (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:46:21 PM EST
    should stay away from any such comparisons....

    Do you still want to make this a personal attack?


    apparently Yman cannot have a (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:23:27 PM EST
    discussion without insults. I'm cleaning the thread and warning him/her that if the personal attacks don't stop, s/he's going into time out.

    Obama's problem is he never takes the blame (none / 0) (#79)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:36:44 PM EST
    He is going to get clobbered in November because of his health law.

    No other reason.   All the talk of turnout and this and that is just excuse making.

    He's the reason Dems will get trounced.  Good thing for Republicans is the cake is baked and it's only a matter of how much.

    And the Republicans re-taking (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:53:51 AM EST
    the Senate will only serve to lower the bar for Hillary.  Have you seen who is up for re-election in 2016?  Hillary wins Presidency and Dems re-take the Senate.  And win many seats in the House.  Nice ring to it, no?

    A stalemate already exists now.  The Republicans re-taking the Senate will not change that.  


    Exactly. The senate seats up for election in 2016 (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:07:14 AM EST
    are much for favorable for the Dems. Losing this lame duck do nothing congress in 2014 hurts very little long term.

    How much baking? (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:29:41 AM EST
    Perhaps, that cake is--like some other assertions with it--only half-baked?

    Citing an opinion piece (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 09:35:20 AM EST
    from a Right Wing publication--as if it were an absolute statement of fact--will get you little interest here.

    Do you did agree with his points? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 10:57:05 PM EST
    If so just say but the site bashing by many on here is boring.

    I don't offer opinion links as facts.  I offer them to entice honest debate and maybe have one of you occasionally think outside the box.

    Too much to ask?

    Also all this Hillary forecasting seems a wee bit premature.  Remember lots of similar posts in 2006.


    Your tone suggests (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:33:50 AM EST
    you are not trolling.....But sorry I am not interested in such a discussion....maybe others are....

    Actually (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    I think it is going to be a very freaky election year. Red state like Georgia are probably going to be nominating a legitimate rape candidate for the senate. Mitch McConnel is not even campaigning against Obamacare. He is campaigning on "fixing" it.

    And with so many gerrymandered GOP districts it's more likely that the GOP is going to off the rails even more.


    Wishful thinking (none / 0) (#112)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 11:00:42 PM EST
    Trust me I was just as convinced Romney was right and Nate Silver was wrong.  Dumb move on my part.

    Obama's approval hovers just above 40%.

    As long as that is the case Dems will get hammered.

    Happened in 2010 and will happen again.


    Well (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 05:15:54 AM EST
    his numbers were not that great in 2012 either. The truth of the matter is it is going to depend on the candidates.

    Michelle Nunn here in GA is doing better in the polls than her GOP challengers. That completely undercuts your argument.

    This reminds me of 1998 when the GOP swore up and down they were going to have a landslide only to not have one.


    The numbers at this point (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 07:39:14 AM EST
    do not appear agree with you, and while Georgia may be one of two states that flip to the Dems column, that doesn't mean what you may be seeing is actually going on nationally.  Of course, much depends on the upcoming primaries that are taking place - especially the Republican primaries, but right now, the GOP is in a good position to take the Senate.

    NPR (with a link to Cook's Political Report)

    Republicans seem to have all the momentum lately when it comes to the battle for control of the U.S. Senate.

    GOP chances were already looking brighter because of the drag on Democrats from the Affordable Care Act and President Obama's low approval ratings. Then came two developments that suddenly expanded the playing field: Former GOP Sen. Scott Brown recently announced his intent to run against New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and GOP Rep. Cory Gardner jumped in against Colorado Democratic Sen. Mark Udall.

    That makes 12 states with competitive races, according to the Cook Political Report's latest update.

    Democratic incumbents currently hold 10 of those seats; three of them are retiring. Republicans need to win a net of just six seats to become the Senate majority.

    Sean Trende at RCP

    But here's the important thing: All the modelers seem to agree that the Democrats' Senate majority is in real trouble, and that they may even be underdogs in their quest to keep it. The current polling certainly bears out this view, with Democrats behind in seven seats, below 45 percent in three seats, and below 50 percent in another three. Of course, there is still a lot of football to be played: The president's job approval could improve, or the GOP could implode in the primaries. But for right now, it doesn't look like that will be enough.

    Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball:

    To demonstrate just how Republican this year's Senate playing field is, consider this: Of the 36 Senate elections this year (33 regularly scheduled and three specials), the Crystal Ball sees 16 as at least potentially competitive at the moment. Of those races, 14 are currently held by Democrats, and just two are held by Republicans.

    In other words, nearly all the competitive seats this cycle are in places where Democrats are playing defense. That fact alone indicates the GOP is poised for a strong cycle, although we're not ready to say they will in fact win the six seats they need to take outright control of the Senate, even though they have a path to six -- or perhaps even several seats more than that. Democrats, meanwhile, would do quite well to hold the GOP to a net gain of three or four seats. Such are the perils of holding the White House in a midterm election on the best GOP Senate map of the three classes contested once every six years.

    It's possible that the Republicans will pick up the Senate even if 2014 is not a "wave" election: In fact, the likeliest election outcome at this point seems to be Republicans gaining something close to their needed number of Senate seats (five or six or so), but adding only a similar number of seats to their House majority and actually losing a few net governorships. That would make 2014 like 1986, a midterm year where Democrats captured the Senate in President Reagan's "sixth-year itch" election, but picked up fewer seats in the House than they did in the Senate (five in the lower chamber versus eight in the upper) and actually lost eight net governorships. (We detailed the 1986 comparisons in depth earlier this cycle.)

    In this Senate update, we wanted to quickly sum up the state of play in all the competitive races, but also give a sense of which seats are likeliest to change party hands. Our current ratings suggest that Republicans are at least slightly favored in four Democratic-held seats (Arkansas, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia); have about even odds in another three (Alaska, Louisiana and North Carolina); and -- stretching here -- under near-perfect conditions could potentially compete in or even flip up to an additional seven seats beyond that (Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon and Virginia). Meanwhile, Democrats have outside shots in Georgia, Kentucky and perhaps -- if absolutely everything broke right for them -- Mississippi.

    It depends (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:21:12 AM EST
    on the primaries is exactly my point. 2010 was supposed to be a great year for the GOP to take back the senate but it wasn't. 2012 was supposed to be a great year for the GOP to take back the senate and it wasn't. We have been hearing this same garbage for years because NOBODY could have predicted that the GOP was going to nominate TWO legitimate rape candidates for senate.

    And then you have KY where someone who has won statewide previously running against an unpopular Mitch McConnell.


    And yet (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 01:15:35 PM EST
    If McConnell is so unpopular, why is he up 40 points over his Republican challenger (a Tea Party candidate, by the way)? He's in a tie with Grimes right now (she's up by half a percentage point, as of the the last polls taken, which are meaningless), so I'm not sure what you are thinking here. She hasn't yet had to define herself so for you to say he's "unpopular" doesn't really fit what's going on.

    I didn't say (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:37:20 PM EST
    he was unpopular with the GOP base. I said he was unpopular in the state. Big difference. I think his numbers are pretty poor and he seems to be making no one in KY happy for the most part.

    Her being (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:38:19 PM EST
    tied is BIG NEWS. McConnell usually beats a D candidate by at least 20 points or more so that poll is backing up what I'm saying.

    Sure it's big news (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    But as with all polls, it doesn't mean anything now until the primary is over.

    Anything can happen, but this race is not typical of what's going on in the rest of the country.


    You keep (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:18:30 PM EST
    trying to say one thing and then another. Like said above it is all going to depend on the candidate. McConnell has a lot worse problems than just having a primary opponent. His base is tired of him and thinks he has been in Washington too long. You can bet some of them are going to be sitting home in November. Will it be enough? We shall see.

    Even if they are not far right candidates a lot GOP voters don't like them because they are not far right enough.


    No I don't (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    But people who do this for a living and have years of experience doing this keep saying this. You apparently disagree.

    There has been a growing sense in recent weeks that the odds of Republicans picking up a Senate majority in November are not only growing, may well have tipped over to better than 50-50.

    The numbers, geography, and timing for Senate Democrats have been challenging from the beginning of this election cycle. They have greater exposure, defending 21 seats compared with only 15 for the GOP. Even worse, the exposure comes in tough places for Democrats, who have four seats up in states that Mitt Romney carried by 15 percentage points or more, two in states that he won by 14 points, and another in a state Romney took by 2 points.

    The timing is particularly bad in that the party's exposure comes during a midterm election, when the electorate is usually older, whiter, and more conservative than during presidential election years, when turnout is more diverse. Finally, the political environment for Democrats is bad; the party currently has a president with a national job-approval numbers averaging in the low forties, and considerably worse in at least half the Senate battleground states. Plus, the Affordable Care Act, his signature legislative accomplishment, is distinctly unpopular.

    All in all, it's not a good situation for Democrats.

    He even accounts for McConnell's bad performance so far in Kentucky:

    Then there is the matter of the two vulnerable GOP seats. The conventional wisdom in Kentucky continues to discount the magnitude of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's peril. His poor favorability ratings in the state should disabuse anyone of that notion, but apparently they haven't. The perception of his tenacity is given greater credence than that the data indicate.

    But his conclusion is the same (as is every other person who studies this) - the Democrats have a very, very tough road ahead to keep the Senate.


    We have heard (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:37:11 PM EST
    this for three elections have we not? We heard the same thing in 2012 and the same thing in 2010. We heard this in 1998 too. You really need to start discounting a lot of this beltway blather.

    Claire McCaskill is a perfect example of this. Everybody thought she was gone until she got Todd Akin as an opponent.

    And the problems in KY are not just problems in KY. They are problems for the GOP all across the nation. The GOP has a civil war going on they also expect that they are going to win not by offering the voters anything but by more screeching how it's the end of the world. Will it work? We shall see.


    And yet (none / 0) (#168)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:33:37 PM EST
    We aren't going to have the rash of Todd Aikens and Christine O'Donnells this time around.

    how do you know? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:22:19 PM EST
    I told you there's probably going to be AT least one. You can count here in GA and then you can count in MS. in California they have a convicted sex offender running in the GOP primary for Governor. There's all kinds of crazy out there and nobody knew Akin was a whack job until he started talking in debates.

    Why on earth are you listening to this beltway blather? I listened to them in 2010 and 2012 about the senate and I thought the senate was gone then. I learned my lesson. Apparently you did not.


    And (none / 0) (#156)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:23:54 AM EST
    Unlike 2012, the crazies most likely will not be nominated, so the Dems can't get lazy and let their opponents just spew nonsense.  They won't have the luxury of running just anyone and coasting in because the other side goes off the deep end.  I know that's a Dem fantasy right now, but it ain't gonna happen.

    The DSCC (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:09:36 AM EST
    Is already panicking by shooting the messenger - one they touted heavily in 2012 as one of the best, and one they used to help raise money as late as earlier this month.

    My, my, my...when your own messenger gives you bad news, it's time to criticize him.


    Nate Silver (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    has been wrong a lot too. I remember him saying that Obama was going to win PA in the Dem primary in 2008. So take it with a grain of salt until it gets closer to election time.

    All polls are a snapshot in time (none / 0) (#167)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    as are Nate's predictions. Data changes daily.

    I'm not advocating (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:41:49 PM EST
    laziness but I'm also telling you that the GOP down here in GA is likely to nominate a crazy because in all honesty there's really no one running for the nomination that's not crazy. It's what the GOP primary does to everyone. They have to sign onto all these crackpot ideas to get through the primary and by the time the primary is over even if they might have been electable at one time they are ruined.

    You apparently do not realize how much the GOP has been shooting itself in the foot time and again with the crackpot legislation they have been writing etc. It's kind of hard to win an election when you've spent years only answering to the far right 20% of the country.


    And you also (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:23:29 AM EST
    have to realize that nominating a legitimate rape candidate here for the GOP is going to put a hurting on the entire GOP. It might be enough to swing some close races away from the GOP like happened in 2012.

    What is a "rape" candidate? (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    Tod Akin (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 11:28:18 AM EST
    and his legitmate rape comments. Two of the leading candidates for senate here in GA defended his legitimate rape comments.

    Ouch (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 01:03:35 PM EST
    Mayhap we get a better shot at Dem this soon?

    Here's hoping. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 03:42:26 PM EST
    I have heard that a lot of the big donors have abandoned the GOP. Probably one of the reasons why Nathan Deal is becoming a major embarrassment to the state.

    While GA is referring to something differnt, (none / 0) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    I think a GOP candidate for governor in CA might qualify.

    CA GOP candidate for governor is a registered sex offender, committed manslaughter

    One of the four gubernatorial candidates introduced to at the California Republican state party's semi-annual convention last week spent a decade in prison for convictions for voluntary manslaughter and assault with intent to commit rape, according to the LA Times.

    MO (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 03:43:08 PM EST
    that sounds actually like the perfect GOP candidate so i'm not surprised that he is running.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 311 (none / 0) (#101)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 12:11:48 PM EST