Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa

Tonight is the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa. There are 100 days left before the Iowa caucuses.

Hillary is on now. You can watch here. She is all fired up.

"Republicans say I'm playing the gender card. Well if talking about equal pay, paid, family leave, affordable child care and women's health is playing the gender card, deal me in."

"I'm a progressive who likes to get things done."
I'm not running for my husband's third term and I'm not running for Obama's third term, I'm running for my first term. And I'm running as a proud Democrat.

Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley already spoke.

Katie Perry and Bill Clinton stumped with Hillary today.

She had lots of praise for Obama. She says recessions happen more frequently under Republicans. She's especially passionate about climate change. And women's rights.

< Cooperating Terror Defendant James Ujaama Sentenced to Time Served | Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No matter who you support (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 24, 2015 at 10:54:15 PM EST
    you have to admit that no one talks to a crowd better than Bill Clinton.

    None of the current candidates have Bill' skills (none / 0) (#10)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    That said, I am not impressed with Bernie's speaking skills even if I agree with most of his positions. He was the least impressive speaker of the three.

    Hillary makes me the most comfortable by the display of her knowledge of issues (compare and contrast with the likely Republican nominee Rubio. I have this feeling if he tries to get deep in the weeds of most issues, he will get lost).

     O'malley was better than expected. I hope he stays in the race a bit longer, just because I think it would be good to have multiple sane candidates on display for the contrast.


    So far Sander's policies and positions have (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 10:13:40 PM EST
    been enough to excite a large number of people. Evidently they, as well as I, are looking for something more than a great speaker.

    Hillary has always been very smart and very knowledgeable but that knowledge has not always transferred into great decisions.

    O'Malley does not particurly impress me and I definitely don't buy his sudden desire to reform the criminal justice system. His dismal record as Baltimore mayor and Maryland governor does not support this new found zeal.


    your not the average voter (none / 0) (#44)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    optics count whether you or like it or not. You can have the greatest positions in the world, but if you dont persuade a majority of voters, it does't matter. Optics count.

    A whole lot of not average voters think Bernie's (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:39:19 PM EST
    optics are just fine.

    Sanders raised over $1.4 million dollars from the start of the debate until about 3 a.m. eastern, his campaign said. According to his campaign, they received at least 44,000 individual donations, with the average contribution being $31.54.

    Democratic debate has energized Bernie Sanders supporters as the Democratic candidate raised an amazing $3.2 million in three days this week all from small donors.
    For the sake of comparison, the Hillary Clinton campaign has raised $5 million from people giving less than $200 in the last four months.


    Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is drawing bigger crowds on the campaign trail than any other candidate for president from either party.

    While you may not appreciate his optics others are energized. Do I think that he will win the nomination? Probably not, but he is making a great run at it.


    There is something about his speaking style (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    That turns too many people off. His speaking style doesn't bother me, but it really grates on a lot of other people and distracts from his message I think.

    He's not a smooth, professional (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    crap artist.

    It hurts him though (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    In getting the numbers he needs. I hear over and over again from individuals who are very auditory that his voice sinks him. It's so grating to them that they end up tuning him out.

    If you want to win, you also have to train to win. He needs coaching.


    I find that to be very much the case (none / 0) (#94)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 01:11:00 PM EST
    with Sanders - I like his message, but I have been hearing Larry David-style rants in my ear ever since I first heard him deliver a speech.

    So, on the one hand, he has a great message, and he's using social media very effectively to deliver it, but he also needs to make himself known to more people, especially people of color, and it's possible his speaking style will get in the way of people having a positive reaction to him.

    Maybe the debates and his one-on-ones with the likes of Ellen and the late-night crew will be helpful, as I think he does better in conversation than in speechifying.


    Yep (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 02:27:11 PM EST
    I like his focused and somewhat pugnacious style in things like committee hearings, but it doesn't serve him as well with speechifying.

    I haven't yet watched the talk show appearances (although I will) but I still suspect that a more conversational format would be better.

    But then again it could be that the speaking style of many of those listening isn't all that polished either, so who am I to judge.


    He sounds exactly like my grandfather (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    And I just hated him growing up. But mid 20's I realized everything he was saying was spot on. So I began listening and pushed the gruff and bluster to the side. I would even be tuhe family interpreter sometimes because it was hard to hear his care and concern in there.

    One of the people who complains about Bernie's gruff and bluster is the Mr. That just threw me. How could someone who went through basic training and WOC school when the military practiced wall to wall counseling experience Sanders as a little abrasive? People have screamed in his face and covered him in spittle :) He says that in the military that is just a game. You tune the spit out, that's what you are supposed to do. I guess you don't hear what they said about your momma, and you can't hear Bernie very well either.


    Hillary Clinton's speaking style does not (none / 0) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    appeal to many people and at times turns people off as well.

    Even here, an actual supporter, described her style as too scripted and robotic. Maybe she needs less coaching.

    To many people, Sanders comes across as authentic and Hillary does not.


    It is a numbers game though MO (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 03:01:38 PM EST
    She has the numbers who aren't tuning her out.

    I fully expect HRC or another (none / 0) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    establishment Dem to win the nomination.

    Sanders changing his speaking style would not IMO matter one iota because it has been predetermined that he could not win the GE.


    His campaign (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    I saw that (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 02:29:37 PM EST
    and all I could say is ugh. If you want to fight the sexism thing that is definitely NOT what you say.

    That is Sander' Biggest Asset IMO... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 09:01:54 AM EST
    ...the rest all come from the same poll driven, political speak, and combed for the cameras, factory.

    They could all say the same things, what makes Bernie unique, is he is believable because there is no mask.  I don't think that is a bad thing.

    That being said, there is no one in my life so far who is as good as BC speaking from the 'heart' behind a lecture with his politician shoes on.  

    HRC is so... crafted, but I like her message and the fact that she is a robot on stage replaying political polls doesn't bother so much as I don't care if it's genuine, so long as she gets it done, which when compared to Sanders, seems a lot more likely.

    For the record, I think Sanders would take it to them all if you don't include Obama.  The notion that Sanders can't hang in the policy department is silly, especially when you consider how many positions HRC has changed or won't lock into.  She has him on foreign policy, but she was SoS and Sanders would rather fix issue at home rather than in the ME.


    Didnt say Bernie wasn't knowledgable (none / 0) (#45)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 03:14:22 PM EST
    or couldn't compete on a olicy level. Did say I have my doubts about Rubio's ability

    Rubio? (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    That would seem the most likely at this point.  Jeb has imploded.

    Ted Cruz could surprise....


    The problem (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 08:33:29 PM EST
    Rubio has is that he's not popular with the base. I'm not sure where he could beat Trump in a GOP primary. I'm sure he would win Florida were Jeb out but where else would he win? Apparently not IA or NH. I can't see him doing well at all in the south. Maybe western primaries?

    Yes Rubio (none / 0) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 03:17:32 PM EST
    I suspect neither Trump or Carson will make it to the end. Cruz isn't either. Jeb's campaign is a disaster.

    Kaisch is too moderate and therefore suspect.

    That leaves Rubio by default. Although there is an outside chance if Jeb can hang in he might make it in the end.


    Watch Jeb pull a move ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 05:35:51 PM EST
    like Kerry did in '04.

    Kerry was in even worse shape at this stage.  He was still in bad shape in January.

    But he circled the wagons. Used all the muscle he had. And, almost like magic, he'd cinched the nomination before anyone knew what hit them.

    It's a classic establishment move.  Only someone like Jeb could pull it off.  And watch him do just that.

    This will give him comeback and giant killer mojo. That will put the dynasty stuff in the back seat.


    Be (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 08:34:52 PM EST
    careful comparing the 2004 Democratic base with the current Republican base. Apples to oranges for sure.

    I see more comfort for Bush in the last two Republican cycles where the establishment candidates outlasted the rest, however neither faced the serious headwinds that Jeb faces.

    In case you haven't noticed there is a cat5 anti-establishment hurricane blowing and Jeb's campaign is three sheets to the wind.

    Maybe my metaphors are cheezy, but "giant killer mojo" in reference to Jeb! really takes the cake


    Rubio speaks too fast and has (none / 0) (#56)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 09:09:32 PM EST
    a nervous manerism while speaking.  Granted Cubans speak Spanish so fast the other Latinos can't understand them.  This all happens for me at that political hot spot...Publics Market.  There are people working there from many Central American countries, so that's where I learn more Spanish.  Rubio speaks perfect English but in the Cuban rapid fire style.  He needs to slow it down.

    Cubans and (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 09:58:40 PM EST
    those from Puerto Rico speak so fast....so true....

    Actually, President Obama has the same gift (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 08:38:18 PM EST
    Part of Obama's audience will never see that because they see nothing past his skin color or party identification.  IMO Obama is easily the equal of Bill Clinton.

    Obama gives the greatest speeches evar (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:43:19 PM EST
    Bill talks to the crowd.

    Even better, Bill Clinton has the gift (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 06:02:03 PM EST
    of making a crowd feel that he is speaking to each one in the crowd as an individual.

    It's a gift that the greats of radio had, as one of those who taught it told it to me:  Always remembering that effective "mass communication" means that the "masses" ought not be addressed as a mass but as many individuals who happen to all be in audience at once.


    That (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Nemi on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 07:30:02 AM EST
    and people telling about meeting him personally, face to face, and being amazed at how he had made them feel as if they were the only person in the room.

    Then came 2008 and the former 'First Black President' suddenly was anything but, and people started gushing over how Obama made anyone feel like they were the only person in the room! Yeah, right. :-/


    A political symbiosis (none / 0) (#67)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 02:34:56 PM EST
    I have come to think of President Obama and former President Bill Clinton along those same lines.  Obama, as the powerful orator, speaks the language of dreams and hope ... visionary.  Clinton, as the clear communicator and persuader, defines the brilliant "people-person" ... strategist.  They are different personalities, of course: and, they complement each other nicely.  

    BTW, I'll take a leap into the as-yet political unknowns.  For me, as a supporter of HRC's candidacy, I've come to imagine that she may be the "implementer" in the classic sense of translating ideas and strategic initiatives into the executive implementation phase.  (Based upon some of her own self-definition as well as her legislative & action history, that may be a part of her self-definition.)  Just a thought.


    I just don't see it (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by sj on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 06:18:29 PM EST
    I never have.
    Obama, as the powerful orator, speaks the language of dreams and hope ... visionary.
    I remember all the buzz in 2004 about his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention which I had missed. I was eager to listen to it as well, so I poured myself a glass of wine, turned off the phone and fired up internet video.

    It might have been youtube back then, I can't quite recall. I do know that I kept waiting for the good parts. Everybody was talking Orator, so I kept waiting for him to turn it on.

    A few minutes into his speech, he arrived here:

    Now, don't get me wrong, the people I meet in small towns and big cities and diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solves all of their problems. They know they have to work hard to get a head. And they want to.  

     Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you: They don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon.  

     Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn.  

     OBAMA: They know that parents have to teach, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.  

     People don't expect -- people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

    About this time, I as wondering: "Is that it? Is that all you've got? These vague allusions to serious problems?" Do his goals consist of "slight changes"? Really?

    Even in 2004 when I heard this:

    Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.
    I knew that he had no idea of the depths "conservative America" was capable of sinking to.

    I had a second glass of wine, although I make it a practice to never drink alone. All my eager anticipation was deflated. He struck me as a decent enough man. But a visionary? I am mystified that anyone sees that in him. How deep a rose color do those glasses need to be? Because mine have never cut it.


    Me neither (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Nemi on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 08:17:20 AM EST
    It's become sort of a given that he's a great orator, his speeches, as if by default, being declared "great" ... even before he's read them. Yes read them! Always this passionless reading of the teleprompter: right left, right left, right left ...

    I've probably told this before, but being European living in Europe I didn't 'discover' the US election until early 2008 (from which point on I practically lived here at TalkLeft for most of that year ;)), and at that point seeing Obama, it dawned on me, that I had seen him and his wife before.

    In the fall of 2007 I had visited an elderly family member who had the tv on in the background, tuned in to the Oprah Show. The guests on the show were a black couple and though the show didn't have my full attention, I gradually understood, that he was running for the D-nomination. He came across, very much unlike his wife, as both weak and inarticulate, and from what I saw and heard I wondered at the time why it wasn't her running for the nomination. Maybe sort of like with 'The Clintons' she's the brightest of the two, who never the less must step aside for the husband to fulfill his dreams? First?

    But talking of speeches, there's one speech - and its delivery! - I found and still find riveting: Hillary Clinton's concession speech, 2008. The whole setting was beautiful and her speech taking in the past, the present and the future was both moving and strong. But I've never seen her get much - if any? - credit for that. Quite unfairly, in my view.


    You know (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 06:54:11 PM EST
    I really liked his 2004 speech. It was uplifting and positive. The problem is what he is/was saying does not translate into being able to solve problems when you are a president. It was a great keynote speech much like the one in 2012 from Castro was a great speech but all in all it's just that---a speech

    Speeches can make a difference (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 07:10:43 PM EST
    at junctures in history.  They can inspire, be a call to action, or--simply be memorable in the context of the times.  

    Different speeches, definitely, can effect us differently.  For example: Several friends of mine--to this day--remember deeply the inspiration they experienced from President John Kennedy's inaugural address. In reality, tho, it was "just that--a speech."  Or was it:)

    My point has always been: Leaders come in different shapes, sizes, tone.  We may each have are favorites (before or during our lifetime) ... but, I'm thinking these days, that different stages call for different tones.  And, sometimes, that tone is often not seen until after it is experienced.  See, for the greatest of examples, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


    I did like the 2004 speech (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:21:02 PM EST
    Perhaps, my very positive reaction at the time I heard it--live at the convention--had a lot to do with the moment & the man, and the unexpected reach of the speech.  IMO, it was a very good speech with its focus on the goal of unity beyond politics ... a goal or vision that, in the context of the time, stated something that touched the sentiments of so many.  The speech was very good; but, it didn't reach the level of greatness.

    Just as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," a speech will be beheld or heard differently by different ears. While the great speeches often transcend time and location, most do not.  Most convention speeches, I believe are time-bound.  In my memory, I've never forgotten the delivery, tone, and thrust of convention charges from Mario Cuomo and Ted Kennedy ... yet, they now seem constrained by time & space.  Perhaps, the 2004 hope that there would be more than a red America or a blue America in the United States of America will (for the most part) be relegated to the history of convention speeches ... but, the inner message is broader.  BTW, as for great/near great Barack Obama speeches, his expansive expressions about American race relations, our tragedies and triumphs, in Philadelphia in 2008 taken with the 2014 eulogy for the South Carolina Nine in Charleston are without equal. Genuinely beautiful and challenging and reaching to the stars.

    Who knows about speeches.  We respond singularly to books & their authors, to poetry, to art ... and to speeches.

    An additional comment here: Comparisons sometimes are forced, artificial for me anymore.  Although my own personality reacts most positively to the direct & clear manner of speaking of a Bill Clinton, I have come to appreciate more & more the significance of the encompassing speaking style of a Barack Obama.  That said, it seems to me that the context and purpose of a speech may be the biggest driver of the particular speech as well as the standard by which a speech is judged. Obama and Clinton--with their styles--appeal to different ears, audiences and the power of the speech probably should be judged with that in mind.  'Wonder what the history books will say.


    Yawn... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 07:58:25 AM EST
    ...Obama can crank out a speech, but up against Clinton, when both were in their prime, Obama wouldn't stand a chance.

    Half of Obama's speeches levitate towards lectures, he talks at people, Clinton talks to people.   But Obama definitely has the edge on substance, and Clinton is long past his prime.

    Either way, two of the best and they are going to be out there helping HRC, which ain't so bad if you are a democrat or HRC.

    The idea that Sanders won't reach across the isle is funny when you consider HRC's last name, in that it won't matter if she sings kumbaya and pulls an Obama, pushing legislation rational republicans normally support, they still aren't going to work with her because of one word, 'Clinton'.

    Sorry, but IMO Sanders has a slight edge, he won't even have to try to get more cooperation from across the isle.  That is not to say he will get much, but he certainly isn't enemy number one, but that could change if he actually gets the nod.  Right now he is the only person who has any chance of thwarting another 'President Clinton', including all republican candidates.


    Did anyone (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 09:00:15 AM EST
    watch the Charleston Eulogy?

    I'm not a huge fan of Obama the public speaker - generally.  He's fine, but honestly his previous speeches never really "did it" for me.

    This one though - this was different.  He was absolutely talking to the crowd.  It's just that he's much better at it when his crowd is a black church.


    Lately, he's been a little more (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 09:44:50 AM EST
    comfortable showing real emotion, something he hasn't been very good at for most of his presidency; I've often thought it had to do with not wanting to be seen as the "Angry Black Man," with all the old tropes that go along with that, but that's just a guess.

    I think that's it (none / 0) (#104)
    by CST on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 09:25:35 AM EST
    He was the angry black man in that speech.  As he should be.

    I have (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 09:39:16 AM EST
    said before that Obama missed his calling. He would have been an awesome AME minister and Michelle would have made an awesome "First Lady" of the church.

    As I mentioned above-- (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    citing the Charleston Eulogy (2015) book-ending the earlier oration in Philadelphia about the movement as to race relations in America (@2008)--Barack Obama has no equal in delivering a powerful oration from the heart.

    IMO, subject matter combined with the moment and the particular President may be what really what distinguishes a great speech from a good speech.  Throughout history, I think, eulogies may allow for that soaring reach that we all remember.  Talking about this aspect of the thread briefly with husband yesterday, we both even agreed that the Reagan speech honoring the Astronauts lost on that Challenger tragedy matched the saddened moment with a heartfelt reach for the evening stars.

    And, naturally, our own predisposition can influence us as listeners ... that can be a more subtle aspect of all this.  Because most speeches that Presidents give are not delivered in the days after major catastrophes--save the aforementioned eulogy format or the exhortation in times of war, great national stress ("a day that will live in infamy" and "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself")--and because there are no duplicate FDRs, the speeches of modern presidents tend to reflect the good craftsmanship of speechwriters.


    Without a doubt, Hillary Clinton ... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 02:44:49 AM EST
    ... has had an amazing last couple of weeks. And as has so often been the case, her political fortunes -- as were her husband's in the 1990s -- were given a huge boost by the GOP's propensity for overreach, which on Thursday culminated in a nationally televised, 11-hour-long public pratfall. Per today's Los Angeles Times:

    "Thursday's hearing of the House Select Committee on Benghazi will be remembered mostly as a political coup for the star witness on the hot seat, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. There is poetic justice in that fact because House Republicans' not-very-ulterior motive in authorizing an eighth congressional investigation into the attacks was to bloody Clinton, the likely 2016 Democratic presidential nominee. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) implicitly acknowledged as much when he boasted that Clinton's 'numbers are dropping' because of the committee's work. [...] [T]he Republican obsession with Benghazi conspiracy theories -- including the myth that U.S. military forces were ordered to 'stand down' rather than launch a rescue mission -- has discredited the party."


    Apart from politics (sort of) (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by christinep on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 09:37:02 AM EST
    In a strange way, the Repubs' 20+ years of zealous pursuit of both Clintons may offer an Aesop-like moral about the perils of giving vent to unrestrained hatred.  A generation of hate-filled chase with little discernible political purpose other than destruction again shows that these Repub hunters are succeeding only in destroying themselves ... and, once again, energizing & enhancing the subject of their pursuit, Hillary Clinton.

    Anyway, that is the way I choose to see it. A real Roar!


    No Offense... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 08:20:28 AM EST
    ...but HRC and democrats had little to do with how Benghazi will be viewed, she should send thank you's to McCarthy & Gowdy, and to some extend, Sanders for his debate comment.

    Thanks to republicans, really, for allowing her to enter a debate, and to testify in front of Congress, from a position of power.  It's luck, but that is not to say she did nothing, her skills allowed her to take full advantage and come out triumphant.


    Even more to her advantage, their case sucked... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    Benghazi Hearing (none / 0) (#51)
    by mogal on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 07:13:08 PM EST
    Well said!

    This sounds familiar (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 09:41:55 AM EST

    We cannot move beyond today's gridlocked politics by returning to the divisions of our past."

    Not sure how O'Malley can accomplish this any more than Obama who wanted to move beyond the fights of the 60s and the 70s.

    Personally, I would prefer a president who recognizes that the only way to move beyond those divisions is to win on those issues in the here and now.

    News Flash (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by FlJoe on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 10:05:56 AM EST
    for O'Malley, these "divisions" are not of the past.

    Any Democrat who insists that they can move beyond this rabid Republican partisanship  should be forced to watch an endless loop of Gowdy's inquisition until they come to their senses.

    It is far past the time that the Democrats start loudly and continually  pointing out the fact that  Republicans are not in any way reasonable.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    It is far past the time that the Democrats start loudly and continually  pointing out the fact that  Republicans are not in any way reasonable.

    That and (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 10:55:48 AM EST
    They need to start calling out the lazy stupid media for the "both sides do it" meme

    We've seen a bit of that.   I think we will see more.


    All you have to do is tune in ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    ... to this week's latest episodes of the Sunday gasbag reviews.

    You know, for the first time in years, I (none / 0) (#22)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 06:43:59 AM EST
    tuned in to both MTP and Face The Nation, just to see or get a sense of what these talking heads were up to.

    Lordy - some of the worst reporting/interviewing/commentary I've seen all in once place in a long time.  

    Particularly bad, I thought, was Chuck Todd's interview of Ben Carson, which, by lack of follow-ups and challenges, let some really crackpot ideas stand as if they made sense.

    And neither show handled the Benghazi hearing particularly well, either.  

    All things considered, I felt like I was watching an SNL skit.  A bad one that never makes you even crack a smile.  

    Lesson learned.


    Please remember next time that ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 04:15:47 AM EST
    ... there's nothing about an accidental double-overdose dose of Chuck Todd and John Dickerson, which a nice bottle of 2011 Duckhorn Merlot from Napa Valley wouldn't cure.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#21)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 06:32:49 AM EST
    For some reason Democrats must kiss the ring of bipartisanship, Republicans not so much.

    Hillary has  at least strongly inferred that she could work with Republicans out of political necessity but she remains "polarizing". Case in point: Her enemies "confession" has become somewhat of a political football and probably will be used as an attack add next fall.

    I would have to give all presidential candidates a pass on this one, they really have no choice. That's what really pissed me off about Biden's swan song, he has nothing to lose yet he chose to take a swipe at Hillary rather then the true enemies of Democrats and Democracy itself.



    Considering (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 06:44:37 AM EST
    how much the general public detests the GOP I'm not sure that kind of thing is going to have much punch. I have found "the both sides do it" as an argument that Republicans use when they are cornered.

    Her "enemies confession" would not (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 08:36:41 AM EST
    have become a political football if one of her "friends" had not totally distorted what she actually said.

    Words are important. Saying that you have been successful in working across the aisle to get things done is IMO quite different than saying:

    We cannot move beyond today's gridlocked politics by returning to the divisions of our past."

    The words set up different expectations.


    The successful repeal of the death (none / 0) (#27)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 09:14:13 AM EST
    penalty in MD required quite a bit of "working across the aisle."

    So did passing a same-sex marriage bill.

    So did passing the Dream Act - the first state in the nation to do so.

    Was he perfect?  Of course not.  And he's never going to lose his anti-crime record as mayor.  But he has done quite a lot of good things, especially in his two terms as governor.

    I'm not a fan of the kind of rhetoric you quoted, not just because I think there simply is no "working with" the GOP in the Congress, but - time and again what the polls tell these candidates is that the people want someone who can "get things done," and that's why we're hearing this.


    Didn't O'Malley have (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:43:41 AM EST
    Democratic majorities in both houses when those bills were passed?

    Other things he did as governor:

    Shortly after he left Baltimore for Annapolis, in 2007, the Maryland General Assembly presented O'Malley with a good, common-sense bill that would have improved the state's approach to low-level, nonviolent drug offenders, many of them addicts who sell drugs to maintain their habits.

    Instead of forcing those who had committed a second offense to serve a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison -- at a cost in 2007 of $24,000 annually per inmate -- the bill would have made those offenders eligible for parole after five years.

    O'Malley vetoed the bill. He was a strong advocate for zero tolerance policies and mandated minimum sentences,

    About the rhetoric on "not returning to the divisions of the past" that Post Partisan Unity Stick worked to get Obama elected so it is understandable O'Malley would give it a try. But after the election, the policy came back to haunt us when it was executed.


    Pleaze... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 09:07:46 AM EST
    ...the only ones that care about that statement are hacks who would never vote D.  The idea that she doesn't have enemies with R's on their sleeves is ridiculous, and obviously something someone would say who doesn't remember 1996 to 2002.

    I would also say, just as silly, is the notion that she actually beat them.  More like kept them from throwing her & Bill in a cell, but she certainly didn't beat them, but she is about to in just over a year IMO.


    The Dim Dems. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    For some reason Democrats must kiss the ring of bipartisanship, Republicans not so much.

    Actually, Democrats are not obligated to "compromise" with the heathens across the aisle.

    They do so, because they are in the pocket of, and beholden to, the same special interests that finance the "opposition".

    And I think that, for the most part, when it comes to war and management of the economy, they are on just about the same page.

    I was thinking that I don't hear whatshisface, the surgeon (I'm blocking on his name) offering any compromise when it comes to his fascistic pronouncements about abortion rights. I don't hear anyone calling him out on it. Not like they reacted to Trump's comment about Megan Kelly.

    And Trump isn't offering to build half a wall.

    Postscript: So far, I haven't heard Sanders talking about reaching across the aisle and all that bs - but of course, "he can't win".



    YMMV (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:11:02 PM EST
    over the motives and methods of the Democrats, I my self often have a dim view of them.

    However I was speaking of the media. There is a constant and conspicuous double standard present.

    The Republicans are seemingly allowed to bash any Democrat with any wild claim they choose. Yet Democrats are widely condemned for any breach of bipartisan etiquette. The furor over Grayson's Taliban "Taliban Dan" comments comes to mind. Compare that with the crickets that appeared with he smearing of Max Clealand. That is just one of legions of instances.

    Turn on the TV and you will soon see a Republican calling Hillary a liar and a criminal while the so called media sit there and smile. Meanwhile a half joking comment  about enemies from Hillary draws derision.  


    Maybe this is what happens when (none / 0) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:18:21 PM EST
    the Dems are seen as the only adults in the room - they're held to a higher standard than the bratty kids running the halls of Congress, plugging up the toilets, putting flaming bags of dog poop outside the offices and loosening the tops on the salt and pepper shakers in the dining room...

    Meanwhile, there are calls for investigations if a Democrat so much as fails to say "excuse me" when an errant burp escapes his or her lips.

    I learned this weekend that I haven't missed anything by not watching the Sunday shows - I tuned in yesterday and marveled at the emptiness of it all.  Good ol' Chuck Todd, when Carson stated he was opposed to rape and incest being a reason to terminate a pregnancy because, well, look at what good lives children born of those have had, couldn't apparently find enough brain cells to ask Carson, "yes, but what about the women who were raped, or were impregnated by a relative - shouldn't their lives matter?"  No, Chuck was ready to move on, change the subject, let that answer stand as if it made sense.

    Some days, it doesn't seem worth it to be engaged or interested in what's going on, because it's all just such a mess.


    Chucky (none / 0) (#39)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    could have also asked that fool to elaborate upon those children of rape and incest who have had the good lives to which he refers.

    I'd like to have seen Carson come up with a few names and particulars.

    Some days, it doesn't seem worth it to be engaged or interested in what's going on, because it's all just such a mess



    This (none / 0) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 05:21:25 PM EST
    is what happens when the Democrats, rightfully, see themselves as the adults in the room. Meanwhile because of the cult of both-siderism the press lumps them all together as unruly children.

    Someday historians will point to the failure of the Fourth estate as the primary  cause of the death of American Democracy.



    The Democrats (none / 0) (#64)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 06:16:40 AM EST
    may indeed see themselves as the adults in the room, but they have not behaved as adults in some time, imo.

    Mindlessly going along with the Bush agenda, with little or no meaningful investigation or debate, is infantile behavior - not the behavior of serious adults.


    Nor is being relentlessly negative ... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:06:10 PM EST
    lentinel: "The Democrats may indeed see themselves as the adults in the room, but they have not behaved as adults in some time, imo. Mindlessly going along with the Bush agenda, with little or no meaningful investigation or debate, is infantile behavior - not the behavior of serious adults."

    ... and perpetually full of doom and gloom, day in and day out, indicative of someone whose opinions should be taken at all seriously. As a Democrat, I resent your snide insinuation that we're somehow not adults. It's as though you live only to put other people down or in their place, because apparently nothing anyone does or says is ever going to be good enough for you.

    In that regard, whenever I read your comments I feel like I've entered a dark and dimly candlelit room with blackout curtains drawn shut over the windows, to await and endure the pointed barbs from the ever-cynical Miss Havisham of "Great Expectations."

    You know, there are good and conscientious people in public life who have positive attributes, work hard and really do try to do right by others. Surely, it wouldn't hurt you to say something positive or even praiseworthy about someone every once in a while. You might start by sharing with us something that you read or saw which makes you feel hopeful and encouraged, rather than forever fearful and despairing of our future.



    Ever-gloomy and all that (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 10:04:52 PM EST
    Perhaps lentinel is a Mr. Grumpy Cat :)

    lentinel is not an optimist (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by sj on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    Not everyone is. But personally, I prefer grumpy cats to smug smirking and patronizing finger wagging.



    And, that is another area (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    where we differ, sj. The scolding gloom & nothing-is-ever-good-enough stance from those who practice it get us nowhere, imo, but down. Two things: (1) The harshest, growling-est Mother Superior marching down a school hallway with dangling keys clanging in warning could not match continuous negativity; and, (2) As a woman of a certain age, I'm a little too old for that kind of a frown. Life is too short.

    ::shrug:: whatever (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by sj on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 02:00:28 PM EST
    The harshest, growling-est Mother Superior marching down a school hallway with dangling keys clanging in warning could not match continuous negativity; and,
    Mother Superior fills me with horror. As a "woman of certain age", I am a little too old for the wayward school child treatment. I see continuous growling and scolding as more oppressive than continuous negativity.

    I have zero problem with lentinel. I have way more problems with the needless smackdowns.

    Again: YMMV.

    In any case, this issue has already gotten way more attention than it deserves, so I'm done. You can carry on if you wish.


    Disagreement does not equal smackdowns (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 02:11:56 PM EST
    Perhaps, your lessons--sj--were different from mine.  The fact that you may not like my writing style is not my issue.  Based upon a number of exchanges between us over the years, it is fair to say that neither of us really cares much for the others responses on some matters such as this one.  

    The problem is (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    There has to be SOME reaching out.  Some legislation cannot get passed with 53 Dem Senators and a Republican House (which us likely to stay Republican).

    So, Bernie Sanders can say he isn't interested in reaching out to the other side all he wants, but all it would mean should he get elected, is that nothing would get done.  He'd still need Republican votes.


    FWIW... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:16:40 PM EST
    ...I think many more vote decisions are made by public opinion than reaching out/favor trading.  If your ideas are popular and you have the bully pulpit, you don't need to reach out to anyone to get it done IMO.  Not that I am saying that is what they should do, only that reaching out to the House hasn't exactly been a sucess for D's, adn IMO not a job requirement.

    What R's in the House is Obama/Reid/Pelosi reaching out to when they need votes ?  

    Half the time they can't even get their own on-board.


    True, but (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    Even if something is popular, there are certain things that need more than a majority plus one to pass.

    And actually, I think most people in the country want representatives that can work together and compromise - our country was founded on it.  Problem is, the Republicans dig in at extreme positions and their constituents see compromise as weakness.  Odd, for a party that reverse the Founding Fathers who were the masters of compromise. Then the Dems give up or give in, moving everything a little more right and after the fact, stomp their feet and whine.  

    I fear we have moved beyond a place where grownups with differing political philosophies can come together and debate and find common ground so as to pass legislation that will help many, if not all, people.


    It looks like you're (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by sj on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:41:50 PM EST
    debating yourself:
    Even if something is popular, there are certain things that need more than a majority plus one to pass...

    ....I fear we have moved beyond a place where grownups with differing political philosophies can come together and debate and find common ground so as to pass legislation that will help many, if not all, people.
    I agree with the second "you".

    There is no going forward with attempts to compromise with the bat-$hit crazy contingent. Strategies must evolve that makes things happen without them. And that doesn't mean watering down the benefits of a proposal then watering it down, then watering it down again. Only to have essentially the same votes you had before providing any water.



    Well, not really (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    Point 1 is an absolute fact.  In some instances, cloture votes, for example, a supermajority vote in the Senate is needed to pass.  Until the Dems can get 60 solid votes, then some deal making and compromising will have to be done.  Then you still have to get legislation through the House, which doesn't look to change out of Republican hands for a long time anyway.  So you can like or not like the idea of compromise, but it's not a matter of opinion, it is what IS. We just need better negotiators - ones who don't give away the store on the opening gambits.

    Point 2 is merely my observation of what I see happening vs. what I wish for, so no, I'm not arguing with myself at all.


    Claro (none / 0) (#38)
    by sj on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:29:25 PM EST
    But those cloture votes are separate from the water-down approach.

    And the fact that you wish for something doesn't mean a thing really. You say

    And actually, I think most people in the country want representatives that can work together and compromise
    and you know, I think that's true.

    But that means compromise with the common good as the true goal. And frankly, the current contingent of no-sayers have a stated policy of never giving in and never giving up.  And couldn't care less about the common good.

    The Good Guys can't be the only ones doing the compromising or it's just back to watering down.

    This is the Congress we have. We can't approach the work as if we had the Congress we want.

    You can wish for all kinds of things. I wish I had  the Mega Millions jackpot. The reality is I'm still paying my mortgage myself.


    If you and I are on opposite sides of (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 02:06:41 PM EST
    something, chances are we're both willing to consider some kind of compromise, but we both basically still want what we want to win the day.  You want to paint the room yellow, and I want to paint it light gray.

    In my mind, a compromise is different from a concession.  When we compromise, we should both be getting something we want (how about gray walls with yellow accents?  how about yellow walls with a gray and yellow carpet?); when there's a concession, one of us us giving up something (okay, we can paint the room yellow).  Or we can both give up what we want for something entirely different that we can agree on (forget yellow - forget gray: let's paint the room a pale blue).

    I think Democrats generally feel as though there has been more concession than compromise - and we're tired of giving in and giving up.

    As far as I'm concerned, gridlock can be kind of useful, if things like SS, Medicare and Medicaid are on the table, for example.  Republicans know this, and that's why they keep trying to attach "reforms" to bills to raise the debt ceiling - they're happy to hold the government hostage until they get what they want.  Or until their stonewalling begins to take a toll on their chances of being reelected.

    "Elect more Democrats" is the only solution I have.


    You're partially right (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    Compromise and can ncession are different things.  But in order to come to a compromise,  one must concede on some things.  Compromise, by definition, required concessions.

    And consensus is different from both of those (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:45:44 PM EST
    Too bad these pols won't start by trying to reach consensus, and then go from there. It's a much more effective strategy for getting things done.

    But they're pols. They don't actually want to get anything done anymore. They want to score points with their respective bases and keep their seats warm, and then collect their lifetime pensions for... achieving nothing.


    The $$$$ problem (none / 0) (#68)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 02:43:26 PM EST
    One of the biggest impediments to attempts at consensus or conciliation these days may be the added disincentive of the Citizens United case.  The money machine that it has spawned--when you think about--directly contradicts consensus approaches.  All one need do to see continual cranking of $$$$$ (aka today's political food)is read any of the daily emails begging for/seeking/almost demanding money be contributed because of one outrage or another to oppose--without restraint--those SOBs that constitute the opposition for both sides.  

    The heightened money chase politicians now have to pursue just to play is incompatible, in the short term, with most efforts at consensus.


    Concession leads to compromise (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 05:39:33 PM EST
    when all sides concede a little to get a little. The GOP does not concede an inch. The level of concession necessary to satisfy this faction is total capitulation. In the meantime, they gleefully accept all the catering to their wishes whilst also vilifying the results.

    That's the Congress we have. Still think this is the time for Dems to concede a little more? And a little more? And a little more?


    Grey pinstripes on yellow, or yellow on grey (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:02:51 AM EST
    is my solution.

    The only (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:45:23 PM EST
    option I see for getting something done is to bang on the GOP until enough of them relent. After that Benghazi hearing it is quite obvious that the GOP needs to start cleaning out and getting rid of some of these morons. They should start with every member of that committee who did nothing but wet the bed and grandstand. It's really an embarrassment that someone like Trey Gowdy actually was elected a solicitor in SC. I have to wonder if some of his cases need to be put through some sort of committee for review.

    While I Agree JB... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 02:20:54 PM EST
    ...that compromise would be fantastic, there are a lot of people electing staunch ideologues to the House, making this statement not as much as a gimme as you are passing it off as:
    And actually, I think most people in the country want representatives that can work together and compromise - our country was founded on it.

    Somewhere there are a lot of folks who don't want compromise and are electing folks who will carry out their will.  50+ votes to repeal ACA isn't being done with the hopes of actually repealing ACA.

    I think there are a lot of people who think of democrats as actual enemies, and do not want anyone negotiating S with the enemy.

    Also, you didn't mention which House republicans democrats go to when they want to reach out.  I am actually curious.


    rhetoric replaces reality (none / 0) (#91)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    Don't think Bernie has ever said (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:09:37 PM EST
    He can not or will not reach out to the other side.

    Once again, specifically what can Hillary get through the Republican House and what will she have to give away to do it?

    You keep inferring that HRC can get things done with a Republican House but have yet to say what those things are.


    Please see let nel's comnent (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    Postscript: So far, I haven't heard Sanders talking about reaching across the aisle and all that bs - but of course, "he can't win".

    Which I responding to.

    And since you want to try and fence me in, but I won't play because that wasn't my point at all (but you knew that) please educate us all in how Bernie Sanders will get legislation through a Republican House, especially since he hadn't been able to do so with many of his initiatives with his own Senate brethren and sistren?


    No (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by sj on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 05:59:02 PM EST
    please educate us all in how Bernie Sanders will get legislation through a Republican House
    That is not the question. And all your obfuscating and attempts to change the subject won't make it so.

    Tell us how Hillary can get Progressive legislation enacted. That is what some of us Sanders supporters want to know. Your dismissive sniffing is the same dismissive sniffing everyone is giving. No more substance than that and no less.

    But what magical power does Hillary possess that will allow her to get concessions from the Trey Gowdy/jimakaPPJ contingent which will lead to a new bright day? Oh, it is true she can smile brightly, wink slyly, is hugely witty and has a formidable intelligence. How does that move the bat-$hit crazies out of the way? As they appear to have neither humor nor social graces, it appears to me that they are completely immune to both charm and reason. What is  there left to work with?

    I think you (the plural "you", not only the "jb" you) keep turning the question back around because you really don't have an answer. You (the plural "you") don't really know what she can do, you just have faith that her obvious intelligence and polished presentation are ... better, or something.

    Well they're light years ahead of what the GOP offers. But while her gifts are clear to me, her priorities are not. OTOH Sanders' priorities sing clarion.


    And let's not forget that Clinton is (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 07:33:24 PM EST
    the one who can rationalize going along with something kinda bad to prevent something really awful; there's a whole lot of room in there for some things none of us want.

    So, I'm not sure I can be too excited about "the progressive who likes to get things done."  Color me cautious and skeptical.


    I didn't say (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 06:22:43 AM EST
    that Sanders couldn't persuade Republicans to support a progressive agenda.

    I meant to say that he isn't campaigning on his ability to reach out to the heathen in order to formulate a compromise.

    I think a strong leader - and I think Bernie could be one - has the ability to change hearts and minds - and even influence the media.

    But she or he must be committed, passionate and relentless.

    Bush got every damn thing through he wanted. He didn't need to "reach out". He went above -- got the people all riled up, and controlled the narrative in the media. The Democrats fell in line.

    It seems to me, that a Democrat, committed to progressive causes, could do the same.


    The type of deal that may be able to (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:14:42 AM EST
    get through the Republican House might well be on display this week. Reported Medicare and Social Security offsets to Budget deal negotiated by a Democratic President:

    The deal would specifically extend the 2 percent payment cut to Medicare under the sequester and create a "flat benefit" for disability recipients, which would be tied to the federal poverty line rather than an individual's own savings. Budget experts at the Heritage Foundation have championed the flat benefit. link

    If these cuts are part of the deal, Democrats in both the House and the Senate will have to vote in large numbers in favor of these cuts to benefits to make up for the Republicans who will vote against the deal.

    Talk about political optics going into an election year. The Republicans can campaign on the fact that these cuts were negotiated and signed into law by a Democratic president and the majority of the Democratic members of Congress voted to cut your benefits while the majority of Republicans voted against the bill.

    Personally, I would prefer this type of legislation not be passed and I trust Sanders would not put this type of deal on the table.


    Agreed. The strategy of (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 11:47:05 AM EST
    bipartisanship has long been elusive and illusory. For example, President Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, that set the stage for economic growth in that decade, was passed without one single Republican vote.

     And, President Clinton's major legislation, ACA, was passed without Republican votes, despite playing to "President Snow," and others, losing some key points in the hope of securing compromise.

    And, more recently, we see the demise of Speaker Boehner and the spectacle of securing a replacement with the likes of Gingrich and other has beens, then moving on to the begging of the empty suit, Paul Ryan, to accept the post--trying to buck inter-party divisions. Ryan presented his conditions for acceptance,including critical change of the "vacate the chair."  Of course, Ryan did not get this key provision, and will be subject to the same job threat as Boehner.

    What  hope of compromise is realistic with a party that, itself, can't compromise enough to elect a leader. And, what hope exists for governance when dealing with bomb-throwers and those in which compromise is weakness or a means for more red meat.

    The Republican party is neither reasonable nor responsible. Those members that may be amenable to responsible government are cowed by threats of being primaried.  Moreover, that notion of buddy-buddy, having drinks together like in the olden days, like much nostalgia, needs some reality therapy.

     President Obama, early on, seemed to think his personal relationships as a senator, with say, Senator Tom Colburn (R. OK) would carry over to presidential policy. His "Brother in Christ," turned out not to be a brother in any way.

    Mrs. Clinton, I believe, knows this all too well. Senator Sanders is also under no misconceptions. Although both will say some nice things about working together, as part of campaign rhetoric, since the electorate yearns for it as part of their own  rhetoric.  The media has been on the false equivalency kick, because it takes doing some homework to know the facts, and some courage to speak out about it.  


    Correction, (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 11:51:32 AM EST
    Second paragraph, .President Obama's (not Clinton).

    Freudian slip? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Zorba on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 02:52:31 PM EST

    Translation: (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by lentinel on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 03:30:41 PM EST
    "I'm a progressive who likes to get things done."

    (As opposed to a progressive who doesn't like to get things done?)

    Translation: I'm a moderate - willing to water down progressive principles in order to give the appearance of progress.

    I am old enough to remember when Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 05:45:32 PM EST
    Was considered the radical liberal in the Whitehouse, a modern era Eleanor Roosevelt.

    That said, there are times when compromises are necessary.

    Some (not you, of course) would say "helping real people get some affordable health insurance be damned! The ACA is the  watering down of progressive principles in order to give the appearance of progress.  We need to follow Seanator Kennedy's example when Nixon offered a deal on healthcare and hold out for a unicorn ... uh ..... a better deal!"


    Like Obama's former press sectretay said, (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by lentinel on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 07:17:03 PM EST
    What do we expect?
    What they have in Canada?
    Are you kidding?
    We need an American model. Something that suits a country bent on making a profit out of everything.

    I'm not dogmatically against compromise.

    But let's not call ourselves progressives in that case.

    How about "pragmatists"... or, as HRC called herself about one month ago, a "moderate".

    I just seem to notice that we, on what is called the left, are the ones asked to compromise. The right never does. Bush got absolutely everything he wanted. No compromise there. Troops everywhere. Spying everywhere. Unshackled. Torture. Lots and lots of money flowing to the top, and little or nothing for everyone else.

    War? You got it. No problem.
    Healthcare and medicare for all - as a right - without the threat of fines and sanctions? No way!
    Compromise you progressives. Take the crumbs and be quiet.


    i'm not sure who Obama compromised with (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 09:51:56 PM EST
    on ACA unless it was Pharma and the medical and insurance industry. As Dan said:

    And, President Obama's major legislation, ACA, was passed without Republican votes, despite playing to "President Snow," and others, losing some key points in the hope of securing compromise.

    The legislation was watered down, watered down and watered down once again in the hopes of obtaining Republicans votes.  It passed without one Republican voting for it. No compromise was reached with the Republicans but the bill did lose some key ingredients along the way.


    You'd think she was the reincarnation (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 07:26:10 PM EST
    of Emma Goldman, judging by all the hysterical "the truth about Hillary" hatchet-job books that conservative publishing houses began cranking out in the nineties..

    The problem was, most on-the-fence people literate enough to attempt to slog through all that dreck, were also smart enough to recognize a partisan smear campaign when they see one.


    The Line of Hillary's ... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 07:46:39 PM EST
    that I liked:

    I haven't been shouting, but sometimes when a woman speaks out, some people think it's shouting.

    It's reminiscent of Truman's line (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    "I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."

    Debate questions on taxes: (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 09:06:46 AM EST
    Robert Reich, on his Facebook page (www.facebook.com/RBReich), proposes the following questions to the GOP candidates:

    Jeb Bush, you've proposed a tax plan that would give the biggest share of tax cuts (11.6 percent) to the top 1 percent, and only 2.9 percent to those in the middle. Do you think widening inequality is a problem, and how does your tax plan reverse it?

    Marco Rubio, you say you don't want to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage is near its historic low, adjusted for inflation. Do you believe in having a minimum wage at all? If not, do you believe in minimum safety standards, minimum health standards, and a 40-hour workweek? By the way, if you're elected president will you work 40 hours a week or do it as a part-time job, as you've done the Senate?

    Donald Trump, your tax plan is even more generous to the top 1 percent than Jeb Bush's plan, giving them 21.6 percent of the tax cuts. Do you think all young people, on reaching the age of 22, should be given a $1 million loan from their parents?

    Carly Fiorina
    , you have lashed out against `crony capitalism.' Does the fact that Hewlett-Packard under your tenure increased its spending on lobbying and political campaigns, and that your own campaign is underwritten by some of the biggest corporations and banks in America, make you a crony capitalist?

    Chris Christie, as governor of New Jersey you've presided over a state economy that has recovered only 62% of the jobs lost in the recession while the rest of the country has regained 132%. New Jersey is also 46th out of 50 states in growth. Will you be as bad for the U.S. economy as you've been for New Jersey?

    Rand Paul, you've proposed a "flat" tax, which would lower the tax rates paid by the wealthy and increase the tax rates paid by lower-income Americans. The one deduction you'd keep is the home mortgage interest deduction, three-quarters of whose benefits go to those earning over $100,000. How exactly will your plan reverse inequality?

    Ted Cruz, you want to abolish the IRS. How would you collect taxes?

    Ben Carson, you have said `we live in a Gestapo age,' that the United States has become `very much like Nazi Germany,' that Hitler couldn't have accomplish his goals `if the people had been armed,' and that Planned Parenthood is `like Nazi Germany.' What does Nazi Germany have to do with how you'd fix the U.S. economy?

    Good questions - I particularly like the one to Rubio.

    On Trump... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 09:40:38 AM EST
    ...that would be a $5.3M loan today if you adjust for inflation, approximately 4 times what the average person makes in their entire lifetime.

    I think the questions should be geared more towards the phrase 'middle class' than 'income inequality'.  They are all pushing helping the middle class, but none of their economic plans do.  No one on the right cares about poor people or income inequality IMO.

    How does giving yourself a larger tax break than everyone else, help the middle class, aka the majority of voters ?

    And the follow up:

    How do tax breaks for everyone and every corporation, reduce our nation's debt ?

    Same questions right down the line, put republicans in republican dogma binds.  Reich's questions, while good, are things that democrats debate.