Saturday Open Thread

Your turn. All topics welcome.

Update: I just sent out my thank you emails to those of you who responded to my latest "TalkLeft Appreciation Days" request. I really appreciate the help. It's also very gratifying to realize, given the vast array of sites to follow, that so many of you have been reading for so many years.

< Oscar Pistorius: Eligible for Release Within Months | The Plot Thins: State Dept regs require employees to decide what e-mails are preserved >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Happy Pi Day! (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 07:31:00 AM EST

    Today my son Christian came downstairs and wished me a Happy Pi Day.   I had no idea what he meant.  Look at the date and it contains the first four digits of Pi after three.   Apparently this only happens once every century.

    Kids reciting Pi

    Christian has it out to 15 digits.  Any further and it's just showing off.   8,764, I mean really.

    Last night (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 10:04:19 AM EST
    i dreamed I was thin.  Like, 170 mid twenties thin.  What hell ??
    I have dreamed a dream.  And now that dream is gone from me.  

    Pie day.  Perfect.


    How did (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    that ginger pie turn out?

    Not yet (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 10:19:51 AM EST
    il let you know

    Slado (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 07:57:36 AM EST
    could you tell us again just which laws, regulations, or rules that Hillary Clinton broke or violated in this eGhahzi so-called scandal?

    That was missing from your comment on the Thursday thread.  Lots of speculation, but not much in the way of any material facts behind them.

    There aren't (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 08:55:34 AM EST
    any. It's all about creating doubt and distrust and saying where there's smoke there's fire since there's no evidence.

    It's a big nothing and most people know it.


    And... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jack203 on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    They're hoping to dig up some dirt on her personal emails that reflect her in an unflattering light.

    It's pretty shameful.  But part of the game.


    AP story I read this morning that (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 02:33:01 PM EST
    Made me glad I did not renew my Orlando Sentinal subscription... Story was ostensibly about some emails Jeb Bush received from donors, after which he did their bidding. One paragraph on that , then a diversion into 'of course we only know this because he released his emails, unlike Hillary' territory. Maybe it got back to Jeb eventually.

    Not sure she broke any laws (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 11:26:58 PM EST
    as BTD points out she violated some regs and policies and most likely exposed sensitive information on a security basis but I don't think that would get any other employees at State thrown in jail, just fired.    

    So if the bar is set so low that a politician must commit a criminal offense while serving as head of the State Department then this isn't a "scandal"?

    For me it shows that she took advantage of an antiquated and confusing system in order to control what people would learn from her email while she served at State.   They the Clintons are a lot of things but dumb and uninformed they are not.   She did this on purpose and as long as the scandal falls along partisan battle lines it won't make much of a difference.  

     She is going to move on from this because the Clintons have more stamina then the press and in a week or a month the talking point will be trust me and what difference does it make.

    Her only danger is independents roll their eyes and reflect on what another 2-10 years of Clinton politics means but that price might have been part of the original calculation because emails showing bad decisions and poor judgment while serving as head of State would be much more of a political issue then just another phony trumped up scandal.  


    She most likely (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 12:00:56 AM EST
    "exposed sensitive information"

    That's an assumption, and when you assume, you make an a** of you and me.

    As for the rules and regulations, I doubt that what she did was a firing offense unless there is any evidence for your unsupported assumption.  If there should be a reprimand or fine involved, then let that be done if found to be appropriate.

    You punted on this one, Slado.  Close, but no cigar.  

    By this time next year, there won't be anything remembered of is, except for Republicans raising it in rhe futile hope that the country won't notice they are only interested in tax breaks and subsidies  for the 1% and that as far as they are concerned the rest of us 99%ers can go pound sand.


    Jeb (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 04:04:20 AM EST
    Bush is a moron who put national security information in his emails therefore Hillary must have done it too is the rationale for all this.

    Maybe the case is that Jeb Bush is just a moron.


    Don't assign Jeb to me (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 05:55:09 AM EST
    also Jeb wasnt the secutary of state.  Using the well he did something bad too defense just means you don't have one.  

    Also Jeb doesn't agree with your premise that what they did is the same.  

    ABC News

    It appears you believe that his not turning a portion of his emails (while timely turning in all the others, and then doing so voluntarily; NY Times) is the same as turning in none.   Also the email account was made public and he actually encouraged people to use it.  

    Also Florida state law allows for him to decide which emails are public and which are not.    Politifact

    Fine.  Great minds can disagree.

    As for Hillary let's just get back to basics.  Why do you think she did it in the first place?  


    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:15:32 AM EST
    you're trusting Jeb here aren't you? Why should you be trusting Jeb?

    This is a bunch of nonsense. The emails aren't going to do anything to Jeb anymore than they are to Hillary. Jeb has much bigger problems than his personal email account.

    Hillary turned in her emails. The fact that the State Department is still going through them is her fault? And Jeb waited SEVEN years to turn his in.

    Yes, I know you have different standards. It's okay for a Republicans even if it is Jeb.


    I'm not trusting Jeb (none / 0) (#45)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:51:13 AM EST
    just saying the two situations are different.

    Also the GOP didn't break this story, the AP and NYTs did.

    I suppose if the shoe was on the other foot democrats would politely say nothing since its a phony scandal?


    The NYT (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:04:36 AM EST
    and the Washington Post are now on Jeb's case about the emails and the Wa Po is the one saying that Jeb violated national security with his emails.

    C'mon you really don't think that the GOP is the one that sent the information to the papers? It's not the first time the GOP would have used the NYT for their purposes. See Miller, Judith and Cheney, Dick.

    Like I said the emails are not going to matter but if they are so important as you say shouldn't Scott Walker give up any hope of running for President? Shouldn't the GOP be demanding that he not run since he's under a criminal investigation regarding personal servers while in office which actually is against the law in WI but is not against the law for the SoS?

    All this is really about is the GOP sending Hillary as message if you run we're going to do everything in our power to make your life a living h*ll. After having them pilfer through her and Chelsea's underear drawers I'm sure she knows this.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 01:02:12 AM EST
    You think the GOP is responsible for the original planting of stories in the NYTs and AP but you want me take Hillary's word for it?  

    Is this an episode of Scandal?

    Which by the way my wife got me into last week and we are now binged through half of season two. Your theory could be an episode next season.  

    The scandal will go on for a few more days or weeks but the damage has been done.  The only question is how much has been done.

    Little to zero in terms of democrats.  Same for republicans because she was already the boogeyman anyway.   Some for independents now but will it have enough staying power and can the eventual nominee on the republican side use it now that the Clintons have used the you did it to defense.


    Well, (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 06:18:14 AM EST
    according to the polls the only damage it has done is with the people who were never going to vote for her and it has driven independents away from the GOP. Good job GOP. And it helped drive the left to her side because they're sick of the BS from the GOP.

    You are also making an assumption (none / 0) (#35)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 03:02:07 AM EST
    you are making a huge assumption by believing her tall tale of convenience.  

    Also there are many other questions about her answers...

    Reason Magazine

    If you just trust her then what possible debate is there?  You've chosen to so without a clear violation of the law you don't have to defend her motives.  I don't explicitly trust her and the simple answer makes the most sense.

    She did it to control what others saw from her emails while she served at State.   So far so good.

    Also to your original question if she signed a OF-109 form while leaving office she might have broken the law and for sure violated policy if she didn't.

    Link #2

    I don't believe this question has been answered yet. If you have a link showing she has then please share?


    I don't (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 04:10:44 AM EST
    get why you guys don't think Hillary should be given the benefit of the doubt when there's proof after proof that the GOP candidates have been lying through their teeth and it's crickets? Scott Walker has told lie after lie and it's on tape but yet you want to  accuse Hillary of something that you have no proof of. It's all about creating smoke trying to say there's fire and it's based on fear. All this seems to have done so far is make people who were not her fans run to her defense and unite the D party.

    This is the same game the GOP has been playing forever. It has not worked in the past but I guess let's try it again and again. Obviously it works on the 40% that's low hanging fruit for the GOP but honestly this is not going to help the GOP one iota and mostly the GOP can read those numbers. It's all about making her not run for president more than anything else.


    Ga, how about some links that show (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:41:57 AM EST
    these lies that you claim.

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ: "Ga, how about some links that show these lies that you claim."

    Given your comments and assertions, it's quite obvious that you never look at or read them. There is a wealth of information out there about Scott Walker's mendacity. Why, only six weeks ago at Steve King's conservative gathering in Iowa, Walker stood up in front of the faithful to claim that he had cleaned up Milwaukee's "culture of corruption" as its county executive -- a claim coincidentally made the very same day that Tim Russell, his former deputy chief of staff, was released from prison, having been convicted of public corruption while serving under Walker in Milwaukee.

    While I'll certainly give Walker points for chutzpah, he's hardly the second coming of Robert La Follette. On the contrary, he's time and again proved himself to be about as honest and trustworthy as Richard Nixon was in his heyday. It's hardly a surprise that he's been under criminal investigation since his days in Milwaukee County.

    So, go ahead and nominate Scott Walker. Make my day.


    I just posted a resonse (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 07:47:08 PM EST
    to Mondriggian's claims.  See above.

    And if you want to talk corruption..can you spell Chicago????

    Look, we all know Walker is hated by the Left because he beat the government unions and has won three elections in a very Blue state.


    Here's (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:15:22 AM EST
    one: link

    Many of the threads have been peppered with the lunacy that is Scott Walker and his many lies.


    Oh good grief (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 01:48:57 PM EST
    You and Mondriggian both come up with the same tempest in a tea pot. One in which there is no real deconstruction just a bunch of claims and snippets.

    How sad.

    Now. Show me something meaningful instead of keeping on Palinizing him.


    Look (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    he lied about the bible. Why did he lie about something so stupid? He is the Paul Ryan of 2016. Why did Paul Ryan lie about climing a mountain? It's just nonsense. The truth of the matter is they have gotten away with lying to Republicans so much and Republicans don't question anything they say. It's very easy to lie when you have a gullible audience who eats up everything you say.

    And with one ongoing (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    "John Doe" investigation in WI, and many of his former associates being convicted of various and sundry crimes from the first JD investigation, he's still not out of the woods on that one yet. Please, please, oh please, let him get nominated. Let him run on the state of the WI economy as it is now. Please!

    et al (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:33:52 PM EST
    When asked if Walker is the only visiting dignitary to have handled the Bible since the library opened, Torres said that he was, but he is also likely the only visiting dignitary to have ever made such a request.

    BTW - "likely" is a qualifier meaning, "I don't know but I'm a Democrat and I'll zap him but leave me a way out.

    There you have it folks: there was nothing special about Walker holding and getting his picture take with the Reagan Bible. Except, of course, in Walker's mind.


    So it was special in his mind?? Okay?? What's wrong with that?? Why shouldn't he share that feeling??

    You folks have nothing. Nothing at all.

    But let me know when you know if Hillary signed DOS 109.


    That makes her a Democrat, (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:59:33 PM EST
    working in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, because she used the word likely? You can't make this stuff up, folks! Anyway, I don't care about ReaganBibleGate, the ongoing John Doe investigation may take him out of the race before the Convention next year. That's what you should worry about if he's your fair-haired boy in race. If he's not, why are you so defensive about him?

    Prove that she is a Repub and if so who cares (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 07:42:58 PM EST
    Walker did zip. And nothing like Hillary is guilty of...failing to sign required documents and failing to turn over documents from her illegal server. But I digress. Back to Walker and your wilda$$ claim.

    The theory of 'coordination' forming the basis of the investigation, including the basis of probable cause for home raids, is not supported under Wisconsin law and, if it were, would violate the United States Constitution," federal judge Rudolph Randa ruled in May. For more on the case, which is being appealed, read Christian Schneider at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner.

    Got any thing more recent than last May? How's the appeal coming??

    I did pick this up from last June:

    However, missing from all these accounts was one small fact:  Shortly after prosecutors made the "criminal scheme" charge, it was rejected by the presiding judge, Gregory Peterson.  On Dec. 9, 2013, prosecutor Francis Schmitz filed a motion in opposition to quashing subpoenas in the case in which he made the "criminal scheme" allegation.  On Jan. 10, 2014, Peterson threw out Schmitz's motion, saying that it "failed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed."

    In fact, Peterson was only the first judge to rule against prosecutors.  Last month, ruling on a lawsuit brought by the defendants, federal Judge Rudolph Randa shut down the entire investigation, issuing a sternly worded rebuke to prosecutors pursing Walker and his allies.  So despite all the celebrating liberal groups were doing with the release of the documents on Thursday, few of them knew that the case is currently dead.



    Facts be facts (none / 0) (#172)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:21:15 PM EST
    A lot of people around Walker have been sent to durance vile, and you have no evidence to prove that the library employee was a Democrat, because your fair-haired boy was caught telling less than the truth.

    Now, shall we keep wasting Jeralyns' bandwidth over this?

    I do hope Walker is the nominee.  Hillary would wipe the floor with him a debate.  


    BS (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:26:31 AM EST
    Not sure she broke any laws as BTD points out she violated some regs and policies and most likely exposed sensitive information on a security basis but I don't think that would get any other employees at State thrown in jail, just fired.

    There's not even a credible question about her breaking any criminal laws, and that's BTD's opinion - not a fact - as you state it.  Others with expertise in this area say she didn't even break a reg.  Precisely the reason you can't even cite the law/rule/reg she broke.

    But cling desperately to whatever you can ...

    BTW - Independents are rolling their eyes alright - rolling them at how much of faux "scandal" conservatives are trying to create.

    A Pew Research survey released Monday shows only 16 percent of Democrats were following the news that Clinton exclusively used a private email account for official business while secretary of State.
    An even smaller amount of independents, 11 percent, are following the story.

    By contrast, Pew found 34 percent of Republicans are closely following the news, with 44 percent of conservative Republicans following it closely.


    Gee (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:40:29 AM EST
     Do you think that the fact that 34% of Republicans and 44% of conservative Republicans are closely following this story will prevent them from voting for Hillary for president in 2016?

    No doubt (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:52:01 AM EST
    Even funnier if they cite this as a reason while voting for Jeb.

    Baa waa waa` (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:11:33 AM EST
    it's an obsession with the birther faction of the GOP.

    Hillary leads all the other candidates (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 12:16:04 AM EST
    by double-digits in the polls against any Republican you care to name right now.

    Your analysis that this will somehow impact the independent vote is noteworthy, because most analysis of so-called Independent voters find that they are people who do vote for one party or the other most of the time, and they don't want to commit themselves to a party. Therefore your analysis is flawed because you base it on facts that are not in evidence.

    Anyway, by next year, most Republican candidates will be breathing RW Fire and promising everything from a Tea Party in every Garage and Bedroom to bombing Iran in order to gain support from the RW zanies who are their base these days. They'll say these e-mails are proof of Hillary being not up to the job, but only the RWZ will be buying it by then, and perhaps a few so-called independents who lean to the right.

    As for wrong-doing, you're making an assumption that she exposed secret information in the e-mails to being read and disseminated to the wrong people. May I remind you that when you assume, you make an a** of you and me? Thank you.


    links, please (none / 0) (#36)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 03:12:19 AM EST
    to substantiate the following:

  • " . . . most analysis of so-called Independent voters find [sic] that they are people who do vote for one party or the other most of the time, and they don't want to commit themselves to a party."

  • " . . . by next year, most Republican candidates will be breathing RW Fire and promising everything from a Tea Party in every Garage and Bedroom to bombing Iran . . . "

  • "They'll say these e-mails are proof of Hillary being not up to the job, but only the RWZ will be buying it by then, and perhaps a few so-called independents who lean to the right."

  • (boldface type marks informal fallacy of proof by assertion &/or genetic fallacy of argumentum ad numerum)
    . . . your analysis is flawed because you base it on facts that are not in evidence. . . . May I remind you that when you assume, you make an a** of you and me? Thank you.

    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 04:12:35 AM EST
    there's probably nothing there yet about what the GOP candidates are going to be doing but so far they've been doing a lot of stuff that makes themselves look mentally unstable.

    I'll start with the Hillary polling (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:43:45 AM EST
    This is from Media Matters in January of this year:

    A Washington Post/ABC News poll this week provided little in terms of narrative excitement, but it was newsworthy nonetheless. It showed Clinton with a commanding 15-point lead over former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and a 13-point lead over former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, two of the best-known Republicans considering White House runs. Nobody should think that polling results 20-plus months before an election signals certainty. But in terms of context, when the Washington Post and ABC began hypothetical polling in 2011 for Obama's re-election run, its survey showed the president enjoyed a four point lead of Romney at the time. (Obama went on to win by four points.) Today at a similar juncture, Clinton's lead over Romney stands at an astounding 15 points.

    As for independent voters:

    However, if you ask voters about their party affiliation - Democrat, Republican, or Independent - as well as their political ideology - liberal, moderate, or conservative - it becomes clear that not all Independents are moderates and not all moderates are Independent. Instead, voters call themselves "Independent" as a way to describe a wide variety of political positions. In fact, we found that the share of voters who consider themselves both "Independent" and ideologically "moderate" make up just 5 percent of the overall electorate! Here's how we arrived at this conclusion: The party affiliation results in our national poll are fairly consistent with results from a recent Pew survey and other public polls. We found that 26 percent of voters identified themselves as Republican, 36 percent as Democrat, and 36 percent as Independent. If we eliminate the voters who say they are Independent but lean towards one party, what's left are just 20 percent of voters who say they do not lean in one direction or another. A third (33%) of voters either identify with the Republican Party or lean in that direction, and 45 percent identify or lean towards the Democratic party.

    As for breathing fire, were you in a coma during the 2012 campaign?

    With New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie enmeshed in scandal, the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination suddenly looks wide open. But before the GOP coalesces around a new front-runner, they need to drop dangerous delusions about what went wrong in 2008 and 2012. For Republicans, that means abandoning the groundless conclusion that they lost twice to Barack Obama because they nominated the wrong candidates -- two "mushy moderates" who couldn't excite the base and led millions of frustrated conservatives to stay home.

    All emphasis in the excerpts are mine. Good analysis on your part, thanks for giving me a chance to explicate these issues for you.

    Your information is (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:07:41 AM EST
    from the links you show??

    The bit about Christie is from January 2014.

    The bit about independent voters is from October 2014. Need I remind you what happened a few weeks after this was published?

    And in case you've missed it, Romney isn't running. As for Bush, I'll bet you a $20.00 contribution to Talk Left that he won't be nominated. Got $20 you wanna use to prove me wrong?


    Nothing (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:19:08 AM EST
    has changed with independent voters. You can't rely on an off year election to make predictions about what is going to happen during a presidential election. The GOP has been making this mistake continually.

    Besides all that the GOP has done nothing but worsen their chances over the last few weeksn proving that they're a bunch of apocalyptic lunatics who are incapable of governing.


    Yes, Republican predominated in the (none / 0) (#65)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:25:26 AM EST
    2014 election, not Independents.

    And the point wasn't about Christie, the point is the Republican belief that being moderate dooms a candidate in many Republican's minds, which the article addressed, one that was written by a self-identified conservative, just like you are a self-described "social liberal".

    As for who is or is not running next year, that wasn't one of the questions I was trying to answer. The MM article was written a few months ago when Romney was making noises about running again when later on after this article decided not to do so.

    You are free to look up Hillary's current polling against the current field -Romney and report back to us.

    Until then, you can put your bet where the sun don't shine, where all you political thinking apparently begins and ends.

    BTW, my comment was addressed to the Addams family, why are you butting in between us?


    As you have noted (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 11:30:06 AM EST
    if you don't want a comment commented on then don't post it. Unlike Hillary's server this is not private email. Plus I had asked Ga for links.

    Christie is not a moderate in many Demos minds and claims. Plus, in many Repubs minds he is a RINO.

    As for polling against Hillary, consider Obama's position early on.

    Like Nixon Hillary evokes huge negatives. The more people see her the more they dislike her.

    And consider this:

    It's the vast left-wing conspiracy.

    Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.

    But she did so through people outside the ­administration, so the story couldn't be traced to her or the White House.

    In addition, at Jarrett's behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary's conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.

    Six separate probes into Hillary's performance have been ­going on at the State Department. I'm told that the e-mail scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president -- and that there's more to come.

    Members of Bill Clinton's camp say the former president suspects the White House is the source of the leak and is furious.

    NY Post

    The question that comes to me is, "Why?" Who does the Obama faction favor getting the nomination over Hillary?

    Could it be that the problems are so huge that they just want Hillary out early so any other Demo can have a chance?????


    The (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 11:33:47 AM EST
    New York Post? Yes, it's where the country gets its most reliable information. LOL. Why don't you quote the national equirer too?

    It is both pitiful (none / 0) (#75)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 11:49:40 AM EST
    funny that you chastised me for doing the same thing a while back in a discussion between kdog and yourself, but then you turn into Alibi Ike when you do exactly the same thing because IOWYJ.

    I'll bookmark this answer and use it the next time you get up on your high horse when someone dares to do the same thing with you.

    As for the rest, Addams Family asked the questions, so his responses to them, if any, would be more telling than yours, like when you thought the results of last years' election somehow made the finding that real Independents who don't lean in a predictable way are 5% of the voting population irrelevant. I don't think Addams Family is capable of that kind of lapse of logic, but then you always think you know better than any of the commentators here.

    For example,you replied to my post about Chemy deleting his e-mails permanently by asking if I understood cleaning out old e-mails from an account, which allowed you to play the intelligent Techie against poor Luddite moi. That didn't fool anyone with two brain cells to rub together, which of course meant the Fox News viewers here thought you made a valid point.

    "It's the hit dog that barks the hardest." Thanks for demonstrating the wisdom of that aphorism yet once again.


    Let me see (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    You can't dispute the information from the Post so you attack the Post.

    You can't attack my analysis so you attack me.

    Okie Dokie.


    If ignoring a Murdoch rag (none / 0) (#84)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 02:04:49 PM EST
    is your definition of disputing information

    And telling the truth about your inadequate tactics to make you appear on top of an argument is an attack

    Then, yes

    Okie Dokie.


    Have you lost (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    all sense of reason? Do you really think that Bill of all people would have someone talk to the NY Post?

    Apparently you do and I'm sure Chris Christie will be knocking on your door with a bridge for you too. Honestly Republicans are the most gullible people on the face of the earth.


    So neither of (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:22:53 PM EST
    you can prove the information wrong so you attack the source.

    Okie Dokie.


    "Prove the information wrong" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:26:31 PM EST
    That's your standard, Jim?  Cite a laughable source (Ed Klein/NY Post) citing an anonymous source and if someone can't prove it wrong, it's credible.

    Sometimes I think you're trying to be funny.


    Here is Mr. Klein demonstrating (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:38:44 PM EST
    why he isn't to be trusted on the subject of Hillary.

    OMG... (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:45:20 AM EST
    So neither of you can prove the information wrong so you attack the source.

    Okie Dokie.

    The right's brand new line, "Don't want to argue the 'facts', so you go after the source."

    That is because the source, like Breitbart, Fox News, and the Post have been less that honest in the past, one might even say they have been caught lying numerous times.  Why would anyone argue the 'facts' coming from know liars, most people with functioning brains simply ignore sources that lie; the right them as proof because they can't find the same claims from legitimate and trusted sources.

    The expectation that you can post a link to anything without anyone calling out sources who routinely have problems with facts, is ridiculous.

    To claim that the facts are so solid that the only option is question the sources legitimacy, is pathetic, yet 100% accurate.  No one should have to fact check and link because the sources is a know distorter of the truth.

    GD isn't that the premise of the outrage against Brain Williams, that he lied, therefore NBC can't be trusted ?  Jim didn't that lie transcend politics(his words), and yet Bill O is still on the desk reporting the 'facts'.

    It's almost like there is a double standards with a side of disconnect.


    He didn't attack the fact. (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 07:53:09 PM EST
    That's a fact.

    A rather typical ploy on the Internet.

    That's a fact.

    And no, the premise is that BW lied and can't be trusted.

    And I hate to keep bringing this up but Williams supposedly reported the HARD news.

    O'Reilly, in all his glorious ego bloom, has an OPINION show.

    Most people can see the difference. You, evidently not.


    O'Reilly boasts that he's keeping (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 08:05:29 PM EST
    journalists honest, so his history of lying doesn't matter then, right?

    Williams reported "hard" news? (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 06:34:31 AM EST
    He sat at an anchor desk in front of a teleprompter and intro'd other people's reports, for the most part.  Once in a while, he'd get to sit down with a "name" for an interview, and of course he was Johnny-on-the-spot for any tragedy, hurricane or tornado, but the idea that Brian Williams was a "hard news" reporter is really kind of laughable.

    Truth is, he wanted to be an entertainer.  He wanted to do late-night talk/comedy.  

    I agree that Williams killed his credibility; I don't see him ever returning to anything close to his prior position.  But in terms of the credibility of news in general, there isn't much of it, at least as far as I can tell.  We get told whatever it is that's needed to advance a meme or an agenda - it's nowhere near close to sufficient to truly inform people.

    And I don't know how you make judgments about the credibility of others' opinions, but I can tell you that I don't regard the opinions of those who can't distinguish truth from fiction, who lie to make themselves look or seem more important, as being worth much, if anything.

    News show, opinion show - it doesn't matter, jim.  Both kinds of shows are ultimately about affecting how and what people think.


    et al (2.00 / 2) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 08:59:37 AM EST
    anne, it may be laughable but NBC billed BW as a news reporter and the show as news, not the "Brian Williams Show."  That screams NEWS.

    OTOH, Fox bills O'Reilly as the Bill O'Reilly show. That screams opinion. In fact, his lead is always "Talking Points." That screams opinion.

    I realize that you, after years of reading leftist news stories and leftist editorials/columns, have trouble understanding the difference but I am sure you can learn.

    And while you may choose to dis the source, I would say that doing that with no visible proof shows prejudice only. Stop and remember some of the stories the Enquirer has broken.


    I'm going on what he says (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 09:08:09 AM EST
    In his No-spin zone, that he's trying to "keep journalists honest", while he's spun his own accomplishments as being greater than they really were.

    Keep spinning, Jim, maybe you'll get a job at Fox News as an analyst or commentator.


    What opinions did Williams (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    voice on his nightly news show? I didn't watch it so I really am asking.

    I agree with Anne that the 'news shows' have become trivial. I also agree with Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler that said long ago that the problem, with the media is not that they are biased, it is that they are lazy. the fact that Williams' nightly news show may have been glossy and shallow does not mean it was an opinion show.


    I'm sure you can learn.. (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 04:43:03 PM EST
    spend some years accessing Jim's primary sources and you'll eventually learn that any bald faced lie is just someone's "opinion". Entertainment. And for a good cause.

    So He was in... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 11:26:05 AM EST
    ...the Falklands, I mean Buenos Aires covering the war, I mean gathering facts, I mean figuring out his opinion ?

    If he is indeed an opinionist, then why is he lying about his investigative credentials ?

    Just to be clear, anyone expressing their opinion on a "news station" is permitted to lie.  Does this apply to his books, or just his segment at Fox ?

    Who qualified for this special treatment at Fox News ?  Just O'Reilly and Hannity ?  How about the morning show; opinioners who are permitted to lie at will ?

    More importantly, you knowingly get your political information from people who are permitted to lie to you, and you support that.

    It certainly explains a lot, but it would be nice next time you offer proof of anything to let us know if the source is a permitted liar.

    Bill O'Reilly is a proven liar, regardless of his role, he works at a 'News Station' and lies to his viewers, you Jim, he lies to you and you think that is acceptable.  No wonder you never know what you are talking about, you tune into a station that allows people to lie to their viewers without recourse.


    LOL! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:56:59 PM EST
    The big question (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 02:43:16 PM EST
    is "WHY" you believe this tripe. Why would Obama waste the rest of his term attacking the odds on favorite to replace him? Do you think Obama would jeopardize his legacy to attack Hillary out of spite?
    "Obama and Valerie Jarrett will go to any lengths to prevent Hillary from becoming president," a source close to the White House told me. "They believe that Hillary, like her husband, is left of center, not a true-blue liberal."
    Oh now I get it Hillary is just like Obama so they hate him.
    My sources say Jarrett saw an opportunity to hit back hard when Monica Lewinsky suddenly resurfaced

    Of course the writer just has to throw in the big Lewinski in there, hacks got to hack I guess.

    A better question is (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:25:14 PM EST
    why shouldn't I?

    No one disputes the fact that Valerie didn't say what she said.

    Come on, show me some proof.


    If I said... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by unitron on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:24:27 PM EST
    ...that a week ago I'd been abducted by little green men who took me to their space ship and experimented on me and you weren't there to see it not happen, how would you prove it didn't happen?

    Someone makes a claim that the Obama gang did something and offers no proof other than an unnamed source or two.

    Just because it can't be disproven doesn't make it true.

    Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, not extraordinary disproof.


    BTW - "No one disputes" it? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 06:37:33 AM EST
    The White House does.  They called it "utter baloney".  Not that anyone citing Ed Klein has any credibility anyway.

    Jim - always factually challenged.


    You know (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:32:54 PM EST
    you even got Scott Walker on tape but yet you refuse to believe it.

    Why would Obama or Bill talk to the NY Post? What is going on here is an attempt to divide and conquer and the story sounds like it comes out of tea party central. And if Valerie comes out tomorrow and says it's not true would you believe it? I'm willing to bet you would not. Who are the people saying it? They don't say in the story do they? No sources named. If it's such a great story shouldn't the person step forward and say "I said it".

    Like I said before you have no ability to reason but then that is pretty typical of tea partiers. They are gullible and will believe anything.


    An unfair allegation... (none / 0) (#107)
    by sj on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:36:02 PM EST
    ...and demonstrably untrue.
    ...tea partiers ... are gullible and will believe anything.
    They are unlikely to believe the truth.

    A National Enquirer story is better sourced (none / 0) (#116)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:00:25 PM EST
    than this story and much more likely to be accurate.

    Why would they dispute it? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:29:28 PM EST
    When you have people making scurrilous accusations with no evidence, you ignore them.  You certainly don't help them push their rumors by responding.

    Ed Klein (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:07:08 PM EST
    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Some people were born to buy bridges ...


    Was she really (none / 0) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:43:24 AM EST
    advantage of an antiquated and confusing system
    or was she trying to avoid having to use a pos system? Remember when she took office the rules were exactly the same as her predecessors who all made a similar choice.

    The Obama administration (none / 0) (#126)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 01:28:45 AM EST
    did not approve of the practice.  So from day one she violated that policy by choice.


    Also her soon to be campaign chair John Podesta wrote rules for the WH during her husbands administration that private accounts shouldn't be used.


    Also she went after the Bush administration for using "secrets emails" during her campaign.


    So when she took over at State her plan to setup a separate email server was a specific choice.  One I'd maintain she knew could cause her problems down the road.

    So why?

    As you state it could have been for convenience rather then to control what people saw down the line.  

    So again this really just boils down to if you trust her.   That is just a choice at this point and neither is going to convince the other to change their mind.


    Wow - from violated the law ... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 06:45:27 AM EST
    ... to violation of the regs to violation of a directive in less than 2 weeks.

    That was fast.


    SOF 192 (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 09:01:26 AM EST
    remains to be seen.

    And when it turns out to be nothing (none / 0) (#182)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 09:09:42 AM EST
    You'll find something else to squawk about regarding HRC.

    As does the law (none / 0) (#192)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 07:17:35 PM EST
    BTW - Would that be the short form or the long form?

    We now know she didn't (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 07:56:23 PM EST
    The question is,why didn't she??

    Don't know (none / 0) (#196)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 10:05:27 PM EST
    Neither do you.  Are you thinking it's required of SOS?  Because no other SOS have filed one and the only reason you care now is obvious.

    IOKIYCROCP (none / 0) (#198)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 10:39:23 PM EST
    But not IYHRC:

    The State Department said on Tuesday that it does not have a record of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signing an exit document that would have given the State Department access to her classified materials.

    State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters that they don't have record of Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell signing the form, either.

    You (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 08:33:08 AM EST
    just got to love this.(ht Digby). I think the NRA should call for a duel, the MB should sue for slander.

    The GOP (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 08:59:19 AM EST
    has been in circular firing squad mode for quite a while now.

    A clown fell off the clown car (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 12:01:14 PM EST
    and is scrambling to get back in. link

    "For the first time in a life of wild successes, Jindal looks lost. He has applied his trademark work ethic to the task of becoming a better politician, but he has instead wound up looking as if he's trying to be every politician at once. A hawk. A wonk. A tea party rebel. A Christian revivalist. A first-generation American. A Bubba."

    Even (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    the Republicans hate that guy or at least the ones down here do. I think he's the most unpopular governor in the country. He's always been a clown. I'm just suprised it took the GOP this long to realize it.

    He's Got Bigger Problems... (none / 0) (#151)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    ...like being out-polled for his current job by diaper Dave.  


    David Vitter will start the 2015 race for Governor as a pretty strong early favorite. He has a 51/33 approval spread, some of the best numbers we've seen for him during his time in the Senate. Vitter leads in hypothetical match ups with Democrats Mitch Landrieu (50/37) and John Bel Edwards (51/30), and would also have the upper hand against fellow Republican Jay Dardenne  (41/29) if two candidates from their party made it through to the runoff. Dardenne also leads Landrieu (46/36) and Edwards (48/27) in hypothetical contests so the GOP starts out ahead by double digits in every possible iteration we looked at.

    -Bobby Jindal continues to be one of the most unpopular Governors in the country, with only 35% of voters approving of him to 53% who disapprove. Even among Republican primary voters in his home state only 37% want him to run for President, compared to 51%  who think he should sit it out. Mike Huckabee is the top choice of GOP primary voters in the state at 20% to 13% for Jindal, 12% for Ted Cruz, 10% for Rand Paul, 9% for Jeb Bush, 8% each for Chris Christie and Paul Ryan, 7% for Marco Rubio, and 2% for Scott Walker.

    To be on the national stage you have to, at the very least, be like by your home state constituents.


    He should have tried being a Democrat (none / 0) (#188)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    Newsflash. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 04:02:54 PM EST
    The Iranians have taken control of Tehran. On Face the Nation, Senator Tom Cotton, treacher-in-chief of the Republican senators (save for seven), said he had no regrets for penning that infamous letter to the Iranians.

    In response to a question about what the US should do if the seven-nation negotiations with Iran failed, Cotton chose Netanyahu's words as expressed during that foreign leader's lecture to Congress.

    However, Cotton, with his own words, did express an opinion  regarding growing Iranian regional influence, adding...

    "Moreover, we must stand up to Iran's attempt to drive for regional dominance.  They already control Tehran, increasingly they control Damascus and Beirut and Baghdad and now Sana.  

    Never-the-less, Cotton is surely still sitting on top of that hill of tea, re-inforcing, once again, that  no Love for Obama means never having to say you are sorry.  

    I though Cotton (none / 0) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    Was supposed to be intelligent and well educated. The Iranians have controlled Tehran for a long time. I know that the Republicans have had fantasies about controlling Iraq and Iran for eons but they haven't contolled Tehran since their puppet, the Shah, fled the country in 1979.

    Yes, and (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    even more startling is that Iran is populated by Iranians.  I believe, zealotry overtakes good education and fanaticism trumps good judgment.

    Oklahoma (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 08:41:09 AM EST
    Trying to get rid of secular marriage

    A bill that would restrict the right to marry to people of faith and require all marriage licenses to be approved by a member of clergy was approved by the Oklahoma state House on Tuesday.

    House Bill 1125, which would effectively ban all secular marriages in the state, was passed by a Republican majority and will now go to the state Senate for consideration.

    Yeah - good luck with that.

    So what (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 08:53:43 AM EST
    about the churches that marry gay people? I guess they have not thought about that one?

    The stupid burns.


    Off with their heads (none / 0) (#1)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 06:55:44 AM EST
    As someone who opposes the death penalty I'd prefer we did nothing to convicted murderers other then hold them in prison for lengthy periods of time if not for life.

    The Atlantic

    However as the article above shows Utah is actually bringing back the firing squad because of issues getting chemicals for lethal inject.  The Author then points out that we have really only invented a single way to kill someone quickly, painlessly and with little room for error; the guillotine.   If the intent is to kill someone "humanely" then I agree and say bring it back.  

    Maybe that this is so close to the practice of ISIS and immediately takes our thoughts to a mid evil square with a cheering mob keeps us as a society from embracing the more simple yet unfortunately gruesome solution.   It makes me wonder who we are more concerned about?  The poor dammed soul or our own feelings post execution.  

    Maybe this should clue people in that any form the government used to kill a man or woman is a nasty business no matter how it's done and and whose time has come and gone.  

    The Issues with the State Chopping... (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 10:22:41 AM EST
    ...someone's head off is problematic for many reasons that have nothing to do with ISIS.

    If humanity is the goal, then we should do the humane thing and stop state sponsored murder.

    Trying to add humanity into a discussion about killing people is just ridiculous.  But that is the human being, killing them is fine so long as we do it with the least amount of distress.


    ISIS beheaded (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 01:23:33 PM EST
    by sawing off the head.

    ... which you've now rather thoughtlessly compared to a lawless territory held by some pseudo-religious warlords.

    I'm going to send your comment over to Elizabeth Hasslebeck so she can read it aloud Monday morning on "Fox & Friends," and thus prompt Steve Doocey to ask rhetorically on national television how could you hate America so much that you'd equate Utah state legislators with "Jihadi John."



    Sees death, beheading, ISIS (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 05:47:24 PM EST
    and takes a dive into an empty swimming pool.

    Reading is not (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 10:12:29 PM EST
    something you and Mordiggian are good at.

    Slado wrote:

    Maybe that this is so close to the practice of ISIS

    Then why does the technique (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 11:41:03 PM EST
    matter, if that was your point?

    You have a monomania about ISIS. That much is certain.


    Then both of you are making that comparison. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 01:20:18 AM EST
    But please, Jim, make the case that using a firing squad is better than a beheading.

    Again Jim takes a post of mine (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:02:16 AM EST
    off the rails.  

    Was my point that all state executions are gruesome no matter the form and that the guillotine might actually be the most humane should tell you something so hard to follow?

    I should have left ISIS out of it but it seemed pertinent despite the reality that an engineered guillotine would be different then a man with a knife.  


    No, your point is that ... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 02:38:22 AM EST
    ... capital punishment is barbaric, regardless of whoever it is that inflicts it. The cockamamie notion of resurrecting the firing squad as a preferred or alternate means of state-sponsored execution, which is presently being considered by the Utah legislature, has nothing at all to do with ISIS. You weren't the one who seized on it to score rhetorical points in his own head.

    et al (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:38:10 AM EST
    Donald, I never commented on Utah. But thanks for making things up and throwing a hissy fit when I note how ISIS saws people's heads off.

    Mordiggian, the technique matters because having your head sawed off vs sliced off with a guillotine would be much more painful.

    Slado,you post a comment and then complain when it is commented on in a way that you don't want it commented on??? And yes, if you didn't want ISIS in the conversation you shouldn't have written about them. Of course how you could write about beheading, given ISIS's actions, and not expect the subject to come up is beyond me.


    Dead is dead. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:10:07 PM EST

    And the brutality of the ISIS beheadings wasn't The focus of Slado's post. You're not a dumb or stupid man, but you went ahead and had to put in the comment anyway, and rationalize it later.

    That you would treat someone in midst of a terrible sickness with such disrespect and off-handedness is much more despicable than the schoolyard insults you use with some commentators here on a regular basis.

    If you want others to respect your opinion, you have to do so in return. Good night to you, Jim. Try to realized that the world doesn't revolve around you all of the time.


    Thanks for the shout out 88 (none / 0) (#128)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 02:01:47 AM EST
    but i don't mind the back and forth.  I'm a big Boy, wouldn't post if I couldn't handle some sparing.  

    Just find it odd Jim has hijacked two posts recently that were not even intended to be partisan but instead a discussion of society.


    That's funny of Jim (none / 0) (#135)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 07:08:08 AM EST
    to do to others what he despises when it's done to him.  

    I would guess he fell asleep in Sunday School or was sick in bed the day they covered the Golden Rule.


    Anybody (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 09:42:43 AM EST
    paying attention to the Justin Harris story?

    This family must be a member of the fundamentlist baptist cult by their behavior with these girls.

    Totally (none / 0) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 09:51:49 AM EST
    Despicable and doing it on our dime. There is no hell vile enough for these scum.

    What a piece of work he is: (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 10:33:58 AM EST
    When asked whether he rehomed his adoptive children with another family, he replied, "I'm not confirming that." When asked about the statements made in the State Police report in the Francis case, Harris said he hadn't read the file because of the disturbing descriptions of sexual abuse that they contain.

    Harris then quoted Isaiah 54:17: "No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you."

    Read more at http://wonkette.com/578338/arkansas-state-rep-probably-had-good-reason-for-giving-adopted-daughter-t o-guy-who-raped-her#BysBIUR1DMcm6SMQ.99


    Personally, I'm glad (none / 0) (#100)
    by sj on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:04:45 PM EST
    that link is exposed. Wonkette brings even my work computer to its "knees". Too bad, because occasionally there are good stories there.

    I'll look for details somewhere else, though.


    Scott Walker puts (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 10:14:36 AM EST
    his experience to work.   In response to a child's question as to what Walker would do, if president, about climate change, he relied on his Boy Scout experience---look for his "Camp Site Cleanup Act."  

    The more (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 10:22:06 AM EST
    publicity that guy is shown the more he comes off as a dumb@ss though I doubt that will hurt him with the people that vote in the GOP primaries.

    Leader of the Free World (none / 0) (#15)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 11:49:52 AM EST
    This is the candidate that a large part of the GOP base is pushing to become the Leader of the Free world.

    Never finished college-he has traveled only rarely overseas and showed little curiosity or interest in world politics in college or as governor. Now he will be coached by neoconservatives like Elliott Abrams and John Bolton to take on the responsibilities of "Leader of the Free World". Scary!

    The Koch brothers (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 12:02:07 PM EST
    ...have so much money, and so little to work with.

    Elliot Abrams seems like an (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 12:56:51 PM EST
    appropriate coach for Walker--The Iran Contra Special Prosecutor was prepared to indict him on multiple felony counts but he cooperated and entered a plea (a fine, probation and community service). But, Elliot was pardoned by Daddy Bush on his way out the door of the oval office.

    Later, in 1997, the DC Court of Appeals censured Abrams for giving false testimony on three occasions to congressional committees. And, of course, Bolton, who once said that the UN could do without the top ten floors, should be a godsend in the tutorial department.

    So far, the lessons from these two "teachers" does not seem to be taking.  Walker's sense that he has all the experience needed to take out ISIS since he "took out" teachers and state workers who protested his anti-union and benefit cut policies. continues to show that he is not a good student.

     He dodged foreign policy questions during his London trip, saying "I'd rather be bland than stupid or moronic."  He failed one of these, blandness, with his "punting on evolution."

    And, he thinks Marco Rubio is great on foreign policy. Jeb is a "good friend" of his and you will never catch him saying a bad thing about him, it is just that he should not be the Republican candidate since he is a blast from the past.  Overall, Scott Walker seems to be just what the Republicans are looking for.


    Never gone to college (2.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:04:34 AM EST
    do democrats think this is a good talking point?

    I hope so.  


    Not going (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:21:13 AM EST
    to college is not going to be his problem. The fact that he's a psychotic loon is. He doesn't have the self discipline to run for president and definitely is second rate on the national scene. If you liked W's foreign policy I guess you're going to love Walker's. LOL.

    He went to college (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:20:32 AM EST
    Could not complete it.

    Or according (none / 0) (#127)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 01:55:30 AM EST
    to him took a job with the Red Cross.  

    Yahoo news

    Just think Dems should proceed carefully with this one.  No reason to give him an opportunity to flip the populist theme over to his side when he'll be competing against a women who was paid quite handsomely to make speeches to other wealthy people.


    Anybody (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 06:20:29 AM EST
    like Walker who abhors the middle class and working class is going to be able to sell himself as a populist. His policies are pure trickle down elitism.

    I Love That You are Backing... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 10:38:41 AM EST
    ...Scott Walker and won't back down, damn the evidence, you are going to ride this guy into the cliff.

    He is an embarrassment to Wisconsin.  Not having a degree is the easiest way to explain someone who has no clue about the world in which he wants to rule.  The talking point can reduce the mountains of proof that this guy is a world class idiot not fit to lead snake control* in my home city of Marshfield, WI.

    He is the yankee version of Rick Perry, without the degree.

    * Wisconsin doesn't have snakes.


    What (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 10:42:32 AM EST
    I find most hysterical about the Scott Walker brigade is that Hillary's emails as SOS are the end all and be all yet Scott Walker being under criminal investigation and actually having aides serve time in prison makes him a victim. It's just unreal.

    Yeah, the guy comes off as dumb as Rick Perry but dumb never hurts with the people who vote in the GOP primary. His CPAC speech alone is enough to have the entire country laughing at him.


    I agree... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:18:00 AM EST
    there is enough to criticize and mock Walker about to fill the Yellow Pages without making something out of Walker not finishing college.

    Just because he didn't finish doesn't mean he couldn't, it just means he didn't.  George W. Bush did finish, which proves any idiot can do it.


    Better Talking Point (none / 0) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:05:50 AM EST
    Scott Walker is a slimball:
    The day before the election, the student-produced Marquette Tribune endorsed Quigley. That surprised Quigley, who expected that his rabble-rousing style would be frowned on. The paper, though, also said Walker was qualified.

    That day's newspaper became a limited edition, students told the Quigley campaign. They'd seen Walker workers and/or College Republicans emptying editions of the Tribune from racks in high-traffic buildings, according to Quigley. Administrators soon got involved in the dustup.

    "I heard by mid-day that people couldn't find it," Quigley told us. Tribune officials also complained to administrators.

    Stung by the endorsement, Walker's camp plastered campus with an election-eve flier criticizing Quigley's political tactics.

    It was gentle stuff, but the Trib took offense, publishing an election-day editorial headlined, "Walker unfit." It decried his "mudslinging" and said another factor in its reversal on Walker being qualified was the alleged theft of papers, which Walker's camp denied.

    The next day's vote wasn't close; Quigley won 1,245 to 927.

    His tenure was short.


    Funny, Scott Walkers resume for President at Marquette.

    Side note,I worked at the Pfister hotel in Milwaukee for 3 years, and I went to UW-Milwakee as well.  Both had blurbs in the linked story above.


    So he didn't finish college (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 09:07:14 AM EST
    23 famous drop outs

    Guess we can make that 24.


    That is Your Reply... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 10:06:41 AM EST
    ...to a post regarding his cheating in an election, that other people 'made it' without degrees.

    I could care less if he has a degree, it's not like a piece of paper is going to magically make him smart.  Sarah Plain has a degree, that prove even reallly, really dumb people can make it through college.

    It would be nice to know that the leader of our country knows the difference between a sunni and a shia, which would put him leaps and bounds ahead of the last leader you clowns elected.

    Scott Walker is the new George W Bush, without the degree.  

    But back to Scott Walkers penchant for destroying press that doesn't favor him in order to win an election...  How American.


    Next the Right will (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 04:29:12 PM EST
    be claiming that dropping out of school confers some sort of educational advantage..

    I'm just spit balling here, but I imagine the list of disastrously, irrevocably INFAMOUS dropouts in history is somewhat longer than 24..

    But then, we also have to take into consideration the fact that for the last couple of decades the Right in this country has a track record of devaluing and outright attacking "secular" knowledge in general as being somehow vaguely un-American..


    But, to paraphrase an old (none / 0) (#191)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 05:10:14 PM EST
    question from the 60s, would you want your sister to marry one?

    et al (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    Whatsa matter?? You complain that Walker didn't finish but don't want to complain that these didn't??

    Can you spell "hypocrite?"


    Sort of like your new ... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 10:07:17 PM EST
    ... fixation on State department forms, huh, Jim?

    Heh, heh, heh ...


    i think it's a fair question (none / 0) (#195)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 09:35:36 PM EST
    and if being a dropout  doesn't disqualify him to be POTUS, then you certainly couldn't object to him marrying your sister, one would think.

    But (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    you have to realize he's the type of candidate the GOP loves. Doesn't matter he's dumb as a box of rocks.

    It's a feature, not a bug (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 02:36:39 PM EST
    As we say in the software world

    Today, Walker threw some (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    red meat to Republicans in New Hampshire  saying .."eliminating the federal income tax sounded like a pretty appealing idea."  I have not proposed that , although it sounds pretty tempting right now, especially in this state, I'd love that."   Does Scott mean that he will eliminate the federal income tax just in NH?  Which would be pretty appealing to the NH voters, since they already do not have a state income tax.  But, what about the rest of us?

    Or, is he talking about Wisconsin? Or, both, or none?   But, it is a creative thought, up until now, the Republicans have sort of stopped at abolishing the IRS. This is a natural progression.  Perhaps, Herman Cain is advising him by dusting off his 9/9/9 plan.

     Of course, Walker, to be in tune with the Koch Brothers, will be for reducing state income tax rates, since it worked so well for Brownback.  Walker can just cut funding all the more for the University of Wisconsin System.  A good bumper sticker: Education neither for me, nor thee.


    "Threw some red meat to Republicans" ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 08:08:45 PM EST
    ... is actually a modern-day euphemism for "pandered to American society's lowest common denominator."

    Charlie (none / 0) (#28)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 08:21:11 PM EST
    Pierce thinks its a prion disease affecting the GOP, based on the symptoms I can hardly disagree.

    Donald, it Means... (none / 0) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 04:15:30 PM EST
    ...a republican is campaigning.

    The (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 14, 2015 at 04:01:02 PM EST
    Why not show what Walker said rather than (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:51:12 AM EST
    an out of context quote??

    But the likely 2016 presidential contender did not outright endorse the idea, which remains popular among fringe, libertarian voters in the Granite State. (New Hampshire is one of only nine states in the country that does not have a state income tax.) Instead, Walker ably pivoted to a discussion of lowering income tax rates, an alternative more consistent with mainstream views in the Republican Party.

    "Certainly I think lower rates, we've talked about that. We've looked at that," Walker said, adding, "should I get in this race, that's something we'll take on in that growth category out there."

    "I think putting more money back in the hands of the hardworking taxpayers, which is your money to begin with, is a much better way to grow the economy than through government so-called stimulus, which has a much lower rate of return than it does if you and other job creators have that money out there," he said.



    Jim complaining about ... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    ... quotes being taken "out of context".


    Like Rush Limbaugh complaining about fat people.


    More Like Limbaugh... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:11:49 AM EST
    ...ranting about people who abuse drugs.

    Jim will always be the King of "out of context" quotes.  He's just taking a page out of Rove's playbook, 'Go after them for your biggest vulnerability'.

    Like Bush going after Kerry in regards to his military service.


    What I may or may not have done (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:13:39 AM EST
    have nothing to do with the facts in this matter,

    Why are you trying to change the subject?


    Because it's the hypocrisy ... (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:25:28 AM EST
    ... of someone complaining about quotes taken out of context from someone who not only does it regularly, but also provides "quotes" with words purposefully omitted (often mid-quote) in an attempt to lie about what the speaker was actually saying.

    You - complaining about quotes taken out of context - is like Anne Coulter complaining about a lack of civility in politics.

    It's just funny.


    I'm Sorry Jim... (none / 0) (#184)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    ...but you brought into the discussion, see post #58.

    You are seriously losing it man, it right there, a couple posts above this one.

    So why are you changing the subject ?


    Here's a couple of his lies (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:13:18 AM EST

    But it turns out one of its most powerful moments was a lie.

    Walker told the story of Megan Sampson, whom he said was "the [2010] Outstanding Teacher of the Year in my state." He claimed Sampson was laid off that same year by Milwaukee Public Schools because of union seniority rules, which were abolished by Act 10, the 2011 legislation that dismantled protections for public employees.

    In fact, Sampson was not the Outstanding Teacher of the Year, not even one of them. An actual 2010 Wisconsin Teacher of the Year, Claudia Klein Felske, who won the high school award, laid out the extent of Walker's fib in an open letter to Walker posted on the Marquette Educator site Monday. There were also awards given for middle school, elementary school and special services teachers of the year, she explained, but Sampson was not among them.

    It turns out the award Megan Sampson received was the "Nancy Hoefs Memorial Award," given to "an outstanding first year teacher of language arts" by a small Wisconsin English teachers association. Winners nominate themselves, and there were fewer than a dozen such nominations that year.

    It's true that Sampson was sent a layoff notice due to state budget cuts that year, and seniority was one factor, but she was recalled to her post that same summer. She declined the job, and went to teach in the suburbs.

    And while Walker was boasting that his 2011 rollback of public workers' rights made layoffs of younger teachers like Sampson impossible, in fact Act 10 doesn't even prevent the use of seniority in layoffs. (Uppity Wisconsin has a good recap of Walker's distortions here.)

    Walker has used Sampson politically before. In a 2011 Wall Street Journal editorial, he told her story a tiny bit differently, saying she "was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin," while still using her to hype his assault on collective bargaining.


    Audience members can be heard gasping, then applauding as Walker tells the story.

    But library artifacts curator Jennifer Torres told The Progressive magazine in a series of emails that it was Walker who had asked to view the Bible while at the library.

    "We decided to remove the Bible the day Gov. Walker was in town to comply with his request, took the Bible back to collections after the photo and re-installed it on exhibit a few days later," Torres said in the March 4 email.

    Torres also said in the email that Walker's assertion that he was the first person to touch the Bible since Ronald Reagan was untrue.

    "Since the president's passing, several staff members and conservators have handled the Bible, all while wearing gloves," Torres said in the emails. "It is unknown if President Reagan was the last to have to have touched the Bible without gloves, but it is doubtful."

    Torres said Walker was the only visiting dignitary to have handled the Bible, adding that he was also likely the only one to have made such a request.


    So Samspon got another award (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:38:54 AM EST
    It turns out the award Megan Sampson received was the "Nancy Hoefs Memorial Award,"

    Wow. I am just so outraged that Walker made a mistake in such an important matter.

    And it is obvious he was speaking of someone holding the bible besides the caretaker staff.

    Look. Do you have anything of importance?? Like say he was receiving/sending emails with classified government secrets????

    I mean I know you hate Walker because he took on and has beat the government employee unions three times.


    So Samspon got another award (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:38:55 AM EST
    It turns out the award Megan Sampson received was the "Nancy Hoefs Memorial Award,"

    Wow. I am just so outraged that Walker made a mistake in such an important matter.

    And it is obvious he was speaking of someone holding the bible besides the caretaker staff.

    Look. Do you have anything of importance?? Like say he was receiving/sending emails with classified government secrets????

    I mean I know you hate Walker because he took on and has beat the government employee unions three times.


    It wasn't just the award (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:43:19 AM EST
    but the other cluster of lies told around it. And, yes, I believe the librarians account over Walkers. Sorry to tell the truth about him and unleash your furious denials, but there it is. Thanks for playing!

    Why would Walker claim (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 01:42:23 PM EST
    that no one else had touched it when it had been moved??

    He was obviously speaking of non custodial people. You're just grasping at straws. His success against Left wing machines scares you to death.


    His claim that until (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 01:59:23 PM EST

    it had been brought to him, nobody had touched it before he had done so.

    As to why he lied, that I will leave to the pathopsychologists here to explain.

    As for being scared, Hillary is up +4 in the latest poll 8 days ago against Walker. If it changes, you'll be the first one to let us know, I'm sure.

    I think you mistake derision for fear. I think you're whistling past the graveyard.


    Psycho babble (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 09:03:49 AM EST
    is psycho babble.

    Like saying the witness (none / 0) (#183)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 09:24:04 AM EST
    who doesn't confirm Walkers's account must be a Democrat  with absolutely no evidence to back up such an assertion.

    Yeah, you're really psycobabbling today, Jim.


    Saying it like it is (none / 0) (#50)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:46:29 AM EST

    "So much of the talk is cosmetic. Some say that Hillary needs to adjust her personality: She must take criticism better, accept more responsibility, smile at the press. Others talk horserace, believing that a real campaign structure, the right consultant or an open-for-business Clinton war room will stem the attacks.

    Few mention any need to change policy - for example, her faith on global capitalism, or her fondness for military intervention. And for all the talk of Hillaryworld dysfunction, no one challenges her campaign's basic model of mortgaging itself to the status quo to raise the billion dollars it costs to gather the demographics and pay the consultants to craft the empty ads it takes to win.

    It isn't just the Republicans' flair for dividing us that makes this such a problem. America struggles under a failed meritocracy. Jefferson dreamed of a meritocracy -- but not one that flocked to Wall Street or that took more than it gave. Nor did he dream of a country that rewarded its elites so richly that integrity and hard work would no longer ensure a decent life for everyone else.

    Hillary knows how to give a populist-sounding speech. In 2008 she died two political deaths before her resurrection as an economic populist, of all things. She'd do well to recall that from then on she outpolled Obama by 400,000 votes. If she'd run that way from the start, she'd have likely won. This time she can't afford even one political death. If she falters in a primary, she's toast.

    Clinton can't truly change her message or even her style without changing her policies and the very business model of her campaign. Can she do it? This much seems clear: In a political vacuum, she won't even try.If she's not challenged, she'll see no real reason for it. And if no real primary competition emerges, it will be up to progressives to apply the necessary pressure. We need to establish our own bottom line, to galvanize a strong movement to support it, and not back down.

    All who would protect Clinton from such competition do her no favors -- and the country a great disservice."

    Curry had the same laments ... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:55:49 AM EST
    ... about Obama.  Funny, I don't recall you saying he was "Saying it like it is" back then ...



    Is HRC a smartphone or Coke? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:24:36 AM EST
    I would like her to be a smartphone that gets upgraded based on continuously changing needs and desires of people. Shall we get a new model in 2016?

    It seems that some of you are still imagining her to be Coke. But..but..but...you liked coke in 1996...what do you mean when you say that it causes coronary diseases...it is better than Pepsi (Jeb).

    Get the drift...


    Neither (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    And Obama didn't get "upgrades" based on the "continuously changing needs and desires of the people".  He made silly promises that only the gullible and naive were foolish enough to believe, then quickly backtracked when he no longer needed their votes and/or discovered he was writing checks he couldn't cash.  And now, a few of those same people with CDS are attacking Clinton while excusing Obama i.e. you wanting HRC to sign a pledge not to go to war in the ME under any circumstances while not demanding Obama - the actual POTUS - sign the same pledge.

    So transparent it's beyond ridiculous.


    politicalkix: Not sure that I understand (none / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 05:21:38 PM EST
    the "if you were a tree, what type of tree would you be" type of question ... smartphone or Coke? Then, your comment on HRC talks about her being "upgraded" and--really?--asks about getting "a new model."

    Huh? Maybe I'm too slow or old/aged to understand the cute references? Meanwhile, I'll look at the comment again to see if the words you used and I italicized above might mean something other than the kind of slights directed at women routinely in the mid to late 1990s (y'know, the jokes about trade-ins.)  


    The comparisons are gender neutral (none / 0) (#94)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 05:33:51 PM EST
    As you already may have noticed, I compared Jeb Bush to Pepsi while comparing HRC to coke in the same post.

    Every politician (irrespective of gender) needs an upgrade to convince the electorate that they are the best for the times. If Kerry or Biden rum, I would also ask them if we will get a new model Kerry 2016 or Biden 2016 instead of Kerry 2004 and Biden 2008.


    Thanks. I accept that. (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:11:28 PM EST
    politalkix: It seems that (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:08:35 AM EST
    as the options may be dwindling for an alternative candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination--realistically, in terms of time, etc.--your tone has gotten decidedly more hostile toward Hillary Clinton.  More openly anti, more obvious ... imo.  Recognizing that skirmishing before the general (from a little to a lot) is the norm, of course, I still wonder about the conclusions drawn in your highlighted second paragraph.  

    Unless you are so perceptive as to be a mind-reader, the recitation of her political faith/belief is a bit much ... especially in the global and foreign policy area, you leap to conclusions ... even tho much of the last several years involving HRC's foreign policy positions only reflect President Obama's.  Based upon what I've seen in the past several years, the President and his Secretary of State, HRC, have been and remain fairly closely aligned.  Where is the daylight between them; and, if any can be glimpsed, what is it at this time?


    But she does need to be pushed, (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 12:32:08 PM EST
    christine - they all do.

    From the Washington Monthly:

    I refuse to get caught up in that nonsense [the optics of the e-mail "scandal"] because there are some signal issues that I'm interested in hearing about. For example, I need to know how strongly Clinton will fight off Wall Street attempts to gut the Dodd/Frank reforms. Her past hawkishness towards Iran and her recommendation as Secretary of State that we send troops into Syria raise all sorts of questions for me about how she would handle the ongoing unrest in the Middle East. I'm also very interested in things like her thoughts about the war on drugs, criminal justice reform and what kind of people she would nominate to the Supreme Court or important positions like Attorney General.

    Those are the places Democrats should be pushing Clinton. Relying on either the media or a primary challenger to do that for us means abdicating our responsibility.

    [my emphasis]

    I would add to that list things like rights to privacy, the out-of-control security state, how she balances her fealty to the financial industry with issues of income inequality, the right to earn a living wage.  Where is she on energy, climate change, fracking, the environment?  

    Of course, the line right now is, she's not in the race, so she doesn't have to tell us.  But I think we would be better served if that kind of noise starts being made now, so that she is under no illusion that her nomination is in the bag.

    And for what it's worth, I'm sure that irritated feeling that arises when one's choices dwindle is not unique to Politalkix; in the instant case, you may be thrilled that Clinton doesn't yet appear to face any serious challenge to her path to the WH, but there are others among us who don't regard that as necessarily healthy for the process.


    Everybody needs to be pushed (none / 0) (#79)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 01:13:44 PM EST
    We all benefit from undertaking our own self-scrutiny as well as scrutiny from others. Naturally ... it strengthens everything about us.

    Yes, I understand politalkix' current political dilemma ... most people involved in the political atmosphere experience ... differently, maybe, but we all have undergone that challenge.  Yet, it is a surmise on your part (check your mind-reading apparatus :)) to think I'm "thrilled" that one such as politalkix has to work through his concerns about HRC. (He will move through the political process with equanimity, imo.)

    I'm as eager as you are, in many ways, to hear HRC speak to the issues when she announces.  And, while primary challenges can hone a candidate in most instances, that isn't essential as former Rep. Barney Frank remarked today. He reminded the interviewer on one of those Sunday talk shows that--at least, we avoid the sideshow that has been so detrimental to Repubs in their past two campaigns.  And, sitting Presidents as well as strong vice-presidents often avoid any meaningful primary.  As in cards and other matters, one plays the hand dealt.


    And in my opinion, she needs to (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:54:52 PM EST
    be pushed from the left, not the right - not least because Dems keep making the mistake of thinking that someone who is comparatively left of a conservative Democrat is left/progressive enough.  And she won't be if her main challenge comes from a conservative Democrat like Webb.

    The worst thing that could result is that she comes out of the primaries having tacked to the right to prevail over someone like Webb, and then there she is, in the general campaign, looking more like Webb than an actual Democrat.

    There needs to be more than a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican nominees - and that dime needs to be a lot more than just the crazy.


    I totally agree with this comment (none / 0) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:03:42 PM EST
    Not only would that result in really bad policy but if she chose to go with his rhetoric that white males are discriminated against because minorities suck all the money out of the system thus denying white males an equal opportunity, we could well see a Republican president in 2016.

    Everyone should be pushed (none / 0) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    and their positions examined.

    Webb struck his first blow against his fellow Democrats on Wednesday. But rather than targeting Clinton, his likely presidential opposition, he struck out against the party's incumbent, President Barack Obama. In a series of tweets, Webb lashed out at the president for vetoing a bill that would have approved construction on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

    Hillary has sidestepped the issue.

    Webb also voted for  FISA.


    Well, he aims to make himself popular (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 03:45:02 PM EST
    it looks like . . . with the GOP . . . and  that one was a 2-fer!

    Actually (none / 0) (#92)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    I would like to see Jim Webb run along with O'Malley or Sanders or anyone to the left of HRC. It will help me make an assessment of how much support HRC is willing to throw away on the left to gain support of conservative Democrats and Republicans.

    How much support was Obama ... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:15:42 PM EST
    ... willing to throw away?

    Does it count if he's only willing to throw it away after he gets your vote?

    Heh, heh ...


    This is (3.50 / 2) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:23:02 PM EST
    how they discredit themselves. They let Obama walk all over them so why should anyone listen to them?  And borne out of that frustration of letting Obama walk all over them is their attitude toward Hillary. See all the demands they are making now that they never made of Obama?

    Your statements that Webb is the left of Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 06:51:20 PM EST
    Are getting more and more ridiculous.

    Jim Webb's positions are geared to winning white conservative Dems and Republicans.

    Based on his voting record, he was just barely to the left of Bill Nelson and was to the right of Max Baucas.

    He is against affirmative action. He consistently crossed party lines to vote with Republicans on their amendments to ACA. He voted for FISA. He strongly supports the Keystone Pipeline. On education, "The testing and accountability included in No Child Left Behind are a good first step." On EPA and the Clean Air Act, "I am not convinced the Clean Air Act was ever intended to regulate or classify as a dangerous pollutant something as basic and ubiquitous in our atmosphere as carbon dioxide."

    ...when it came to actual legislation, Webb used his six years in the US Senate to stand in the way of Democratic efforts to combat climate change. Virginia, after all, is a coal state, and Webb regularly stood up for the coal industry, earning the ire of environmentalists. As Grist's Ben Adler succinctly summed it up, "Jim Webb sucks on climate change."

    Perhaps Webb's biggest break with the standard Democratic position on climate is his vocal opposition to the use of EPA rules under the Clean Air Act to limit carbon emissions from coal power plants. Earlier this year, the Obama administration proposed regulations that could cut existing coal plant emissions by as much as 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Those new rules became a key factor in the historic climate deal Obama recently reached with China, and they will almost certainly figure prominently in next year's Paris climate negotiations. But back in 2011, Webb went to the floor of the Senate to denounce the idea that the federal government has the power to regulate carbon emissions under existing law. "I am not convinced the Clean Air Act was ever intended to regulate or classify as a dangerous pollutant something as basic and ubiquitous in our atmosphere as carbon dioxide," he said.

    In your zeal to condemn Hillary, once again, you are making erroneous statements that are without any facts to substantiate them.


    Please stop putting up strawman arguments (none / 0) (#101)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:33:21 PM EST
    I did not say that he was to the left of HRC on all issues. I already mentioned that he was a "troglodyte" on social issues. He is to the left of HRC and BHO on free trade issues and has less connections with Wall Street. I did not say anything about his environmental record or FISA, etc. He is to the left of HRC on some issues and to her right on other issues.

    I want him to run nevertheless along with someone to the left of HRC (like O'Malley or Sanders), so that people can see clearly HRC's position on the issues. For eg: I do not know where HRC stands on Keystone. However, if Webb takes a conservative stance on Keystone and O'Malley takes a liberal stand on Keysyone, HRC will be forced to reveal her position. If Webb does not run, HRC will speak out of both sides of her mouth and gloss over specific positions and try to coast by through generalizations. In that case, when she may support alternative energy policies when she visits liberal states but promise to support "clean coal" or "fracking" when she visits Appalachia.  


    Please stop putting up statements (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:54:51 PM EST
    that have no basis in fact but are just your unsubstantiated opinion. You will have to buy your straw wholesale if you continue.

    Exactly what have you offered as proof that Webb is to the left or better on anything? Politalkix states this is fact without anything to substantiate that opinion is not exactly a compelling argument. Let's give you an opportunity to list some facts.

    While in the Senate which free trade agreement did Jim Webb vote against?

    What were the top 5 Industries that contributed to Webb's Senate campaign?

    While in the Senate which populist piece of legislation did he vote for that was opposed by Clinton and Obama?

    How did he vote on S Amdt 3302     Establishing a Federal Budget Deficit Commission (predecessor of Simpson/Bowles)?

    How did he vote on S 3412 - Middle Class Tax Cut Act?

    How did he vote on S Amdt 769     Authorizes Individuals to Import FDA-Approved Drugs from Canada?

    How did he vote on S Amdt 3245 - Prohibits the Use of Funds for the Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at Guantanamo Bay?


    No (2.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 11:35:08 PM EST
    I have had enough of your grotesque deceptiveness. It is misleading to compare a campaign that expects to raise a billion dollars with one that is totally lacking in money by asking questions like "what were the top 5 industries  that contributed to Webb's Senate campaign".

    BTD will be posting diaries in the Orange site where details about HRC's position on issues and comparisons with rivals will be discussed. When I spend time discussing issues, I would rather do it there (or with people here whose honesty I trust) than with you who I find to be incredibly deceptive.

    Take your quarrels with Webb to The NY Times, The Nation and many other publications that share the same opinion that I do.


    Can't substantiate any of your claims (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 01:02:22 AM EST
    about Jim Webb, can you.

    You can't present even one fact to substantiate any of your erroneous talking points.  If Webb is great on free trade, his voting record while in the Senate should provide proof. Which free trade agreements did Jim Webb vote against when he was in the Senate?

    Austerity, cuts to social and safety net programs and budget caps as a solution to income equity? I hardly think so.

    On December 9, 2009 a bill was introduce in the Senate to create a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. Jim Webb was a cosponsor of that bill. He also voted in favor of creating the fast tract deficit reduction commission. After failing to pass in the Senate, this commission, nicknamed the Cat Food Commission, was created by Obama. In 2010, Jim Webb crossed party lines and voted with Republicans for spending caps. These austerity measures in no way provide a solution to income inequity.

    BTD posts on Hillary have not substantiate your claims about Jim Webb. While he has discussed the need for a primary challenge, he, to the best of my knowledge, has not promoted Jim Webb as a viable Democratic candidate or as someone who will push Hillary from the left. He has also stated that he disagrees with your assessment that Hillary is a "corporatist Wall Street lover."  

    If the authors of the opinion pieces you referenced ever post unsubstantiated claims to this site, I will be more than happy to debate  the facts, including Jim Webb's voting record, with them. In the meanwhile, I will probably present counterarguments, complete with facts, to any of your future posts that promote Jim Webb as a left leaning, Democratic candidate for president.    


    Why do people allow the media to (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 06:29:11 AM EST
    decide where on the political spectrum any elected official or potential candidate falls?  Is it easier than taking the time to examine someone's actual record on issues of importance and making that call for one's self?

    Can I safely assume that you have your own ideas, your own opinions, and know where on the political spectrum you think you are?  And how far from where you are an actual or potential candidate can be and still be acceptable to you?

    If so, I don't know why it matters what the media tells you about anyone's political leanings, or why it's important they agree with you; if we've learned nothing over the years, we ought to at least have learned that the media has its own agenda, so what it says may not bear any resemblance to reality.  In my opinion, the media putting Webb left of center is setting up a dynamic that is only going to serve to inch the Overton window to the right.

    Which, in my opinion, is not where it needs to go.


    The media (none / 0) (#134)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 07:05:26 AM EST
    has not really put Webb left of center but just talked about some of his positions. I have also specifically said that I was not expecting to vote for him but his presence in the primaries would be good for Democrats (IMO). I am not expecting him to win the nomination.

    MO Blue will deliberately avoid HRC's Iraq war vote. That is part of her fr*k*g Senate voting record even though MO Blue will pretend that it is not there. Webb was not in the Senate at that time, but he had written an Op-Ed against the Iraq War in USA Today. I want Webb and O'Malley/Sanders to make HRC explain her initial Iraq war vote and many hawkish stands related to foreign policy during debates. Webb can also help us understand HRC's specific positions on Keystone, etc with more pointed questions.

    The Senate voting record is not all there is to know about a candidate. I would even prefer someone like Lincoln Chafee over HRC irrespective of Chafee's voting record on many issues. Please go and figure out the reason if you want to. And while some of you are at it, why don't you figure out why many Democrats voted for Bill Clinton with his conservative Arkansas record compared to other candidates from more progressive states using MO Blue's metrics. Double standards?

    As I have said before, I am not expecting to vote for Webb nor expecting him to win the nomination. However, his presence in debates will be helpful IMO.


    If what you are interested in is pushing (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 07:27:47 AM EST
    Clinton to the right, Webb may indeed be "good" for the race, but as I've mentioned a time or two, I would prefer that she be pushed from the left.  

    If she's going to be the nominee, I'd like her to come out of the primaries looking, acting and sounding like a Democrat, running on a solidly left of center platform - and I don't think that happens if the challenge comes from someone who doesn't have a left-of-center record.

    I don't know exactly what purpose it serves to re-hash Clinton's Iraq war vote; I think it would be far more useful to talk about her record/tenure as SoS, to find out if she was merely the messenger, or if she had a role in crafting policy.  I'd like to know where she disagreed with Obama, because I'd like an idea of where she sees us going and how she sees us getting there.  I'd like to see her challenged on her Israel stance and her AIPAC allegiance.

    But if Webb's going to wade into the swamp, I don't think it's going to take long for him to be revealed as a very conservative Democrat.  I don't want Clinton sidling in that direction because she thinks Webb is attractive to moderate Republicans - I don't really want her crafting a strategy that leans to the right at all.

    I say all this knowing that it's unlikely I will vote for her - I'll probably vote Green, as I did last time.  But that doesn't mean I'm under any illusions that a Green candidate can win - I have an interest in Clinton being a Democrat, distinct from the GOP, with a much more populist vision and plan than anything the GOP is likely to give us.

    Keep in mind Hillary's DLC/Third Way roots: if primary challengers give her the chance to snuggle into that comfortable spot, she'll take it.

    If that's where you want her, by all means, hope for someone like Webb to get into the race.


    Ezra Klein (none / 0) (#138)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 08:02:34 AM EST
    That's interesting (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 08:08:07 AM EST
    He thinks there's no difference between Warren and Clinton. I do believe that's a first and I guess he's never considered the fact that Gore is done with politics it would seem.

    No difference between Warren and (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 08:55:53 AM EST
    Clinton?  One more reason why I don't think I'm  missing anything by not hanging on Ezra's every word.

    I just don't get why it seems so important to put forth the meme that there's never any real difference between the candidate that's assumed to be in the race and the one people want to see in the race.

    I mean, does anyone believe this nonsense?  Or is this just about making voters who are disappointed that Warren's not running feel okay about throwing their support to Clinton because they're "the same?"


    I have (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:14:04 AM EST
    no idea unless they're both women and that would make them "the same" in Ezra's mind.

    I haven't been a fan of Ezra ever so I'm the wrong one to ask where his thinking is going on all this.


    I would be fine with Gore running (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:32:46 AM EST
    But Ezra finding Clinton and Warren identical?  No wonder he has been not just somewhat wrong on policy creation, and it smacks of seeing all women as the same.  Clinton and Warren are very different politicians.

    I don't really care what Ezra thinks; (none / 0) (#141)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 08:44:21 AM EST
    suggestions like him thinking Gore should run is one reason why.

    I agree (none / 0) (#142)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 08:48:04 AM EST
    I often find that young Mr. Klein does not have good judgment or analytical skills.

    Well, other than Gore should primary (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:53:50 AM EST
    That was just Ezra trying to become relevant crap.  No exciting foreign policy?  Hmmmmm 47 Senators and Iran has no ones attention or care.  No weighty civil rights since gay marriage is allowed in some places, ignore the new Jim Crow, police brutality. And because of an almost guaranteed Republican House a Warren presidency would " look" identical to a Clinton presidency but somehow a Gore presidency would appear different and that's what we need...the appearance of different.  Results don't matter to Ezra, just appearances.  I don't care if I hear another word from Ezra Klein for the next ten years.

    Good luck with that meme (none / 0) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 10:14:43 AM EST
    While positions on the environment and global warning should IMO be part and parcel of the evaluation and voter decision making process, I can not see a campaign with that as the main focus as a winning campaign. Rightly or not, there are too many other areas that concern the American public more.

    The premise that Clinton and Warren are two peas in a pod is just so stupid it would be hard to take anything he wrote seriously.


    It isn't as if a President Clinton or a (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 10:31:51 AM EST
    President Warren wouldn't attack global warming.  It isn't as if Al Gore won't be in the forefront either addressing it if one of those two women were in the White House.  If I didn't know better I might get a vibe off that piece that Ezra doesn't care much for girls.

    A polite assessment of that (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:13:32 AM EST
    article would be that it was not well thought out or presented.

    A less polite one, would be to ask if you needed paper to line a bird cage.


    No (none / 0) (#171)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 11:08:52 PM EST
    He is saying Climate Change beats Lockbox :-).

    Speaking of lockbox (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 08:00:56 AM EST
    Al Gore has a very difficult time overcoming silly ridicule when he is campaigning, lockbox and I created the Internet being two instances where making fun of him just stuck to him.  What are Ezra's solutions to that strange human nature reality?  Don't think Frank Luntz hasn't noticed.

    No, Anne (none / 0) (#164)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 07:12:29 PM EST
    The dynamics of a three person race is different from a two person race.

    (1) Webb will likely peel away conservative Democrats from HRC, so the Democratic primaries season will last longer. It will open up space for one amongst O'Malley/Sanders/Warren (hopefully). If Webb is able to get about 25% of the vote, it can even create a situation where O'Malley/Sanders/Warren (hopefully) can win the nomination. Even if they do not win, they will be in a position to pull HRC to the left. I would prefer a situation where the voting scorecard reads Webbs-29%, HRC-35%, O'Malley-36%, instead of HRC-64%, O'Malley-36%.

    (2) Webb will be able to make a better case for military non-intervention in middle east wars than O'Malley/Sanders/Warren. The media can make O'Malley/Sanders/Warren appear naïve when HRC does her chicken hawk routine. However, Webb can make HRC look stupid if she tries that routine in front of him.


    Fantasies (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:32:12 PM EST
    Fun, but not very filling.

    Now .... (none / 0) (#186)
    by sj on Tue Mar 17, 2015 at 11:55:17 AM EST
    ... if only your cardboard cut-out characters will do what you want them to do, instead of what they want to do.

    That's quite elaborate scenario there based on... well just your desires.


    In your enthusiasm to use Webb (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 09:47:58 AM EST
    to further your agenda, you failed to bring up his voting record on Iraq. Is that because you failed to check out how he voted or because it doesn't fit your story line.

    While in the Senate, Jim Webb voted for all of Bush's funding requests and voted against Democratic amendments that could have shorten the occupation. Just a couple examples of his votes:

    In May 2007, Webb joined with other conservative Dems to prevent cloture on Reed/Feingold which would have put a time frame on funding the Iraq invasion. Obama and Clinton voted for cloture.

    In September, 2007, Webb joined with other conservative Dems to prevent cloture on another  Reed/Feingold bill which also attempted to put a time frame ending the Iraq invasion. Obama and Clinton voted for cloture.

    I know you struggle with reading comprehension and refuse to actually read what is written, but my comments did not promote Hillary Clinton. My comments disputed your comments that Webb would push Hillary from the left (which was your original comment) or that his entrance into the race would be beneficial to the Democratic Part. Do you actually think that Webb on the campaign trail critizing the Democratic Party for providing a free ride to minorities (primarily AA's) at the expense of white males will benefit the Democratic Party?


    Sounds a lot like (3.50 / 2) (#136)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 07:24:48 AM EST
    What is part of her fr*k*g Senate voting record even though MO Blue will pretend that it is not there. Webb was not in the Senate at that time, but he had written an Op-Ed against the Iraq War in USA Today.

    Saying Obama was better on Iraq because he gave a speech at an anti-war rally in liberal Hyde Park as opposed to looking at the intelligence and being briefed on the situation.

    And Jim Webb wrote his op-ed in September of 2002 - a whole year to get more information, so for you to attempt to conflate it with a contemporaneous vote is a bit dishonest.


    Bob Graham (none / 0) (#166)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 16, 2015 at 07:44:51 PM EST
    Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee in the run up to Iraq, famously declared his war opposition after reading the National Intelligence Estimate, a document he thought did not make the case.

    "Both sides of her mouth" (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 07:38:17 PM EST
    Heh - for a hypothetical conversation that's only occurring in your mind.

    Calling oculus .... yo, oculus (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:46:32 PM EST
    On a musical note, I wanted to tell you about a delightful experience here in Denver in the last few weeks.  The Colorado Symphony (CSO)& conductor Andrew Litton had a two-part series called "American Festival" ... surprisingly delightful, melodic (mostly), & fun.  

    In the first go-round: Kevin Puts "Rocky Mountain Scenes" (alpine Vail influence) and "Clarinet Concerto"  And Leonard Bernstein's 2nd Symphony (with subtitle like Symphony in Age of Anxiety, that was teeth-gritting for me--but, wonderful personal transformation.) Today's offering: Stephen Albert's "River Run" and Samuel Barber's "Violin Concerto" and G. Gershwin's "Cuban Overture."  Litton has really grown on all of us ... so welcome to be quite good and quite personable.  Clearly, he is a marketer: The percussion guys in Cuban hats, white jackets, & one smoking a Cuban (?) cigar AND Litton appearing for that final piece in style hat and sunglasses (actually looking like maestro J. Belushi.)  

    It was great fun ... in the way of music and style. 'Just wanted to tell you about it.

    As luck would have it, I am in L A (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 08:56:30 PM EST
    waiting to hear pianist Murray Perahia play a piano recital at Walt Disney Hall. Last night I drove up to Orange County to hear a wonderful concert by The Academy of St. Martin in the Fields.  Jeremy Denk was the piano soloist in two harpsichord concertos by J. S. Bach.

    Who was the violinist in the Barber concerto?  I notice Gil Shaham has been playing that frequently of late.


    Always my preference, (none / 0) (#112)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 09:11:32 PM EST
    the Academy of St. Martin's ... fortune surely smiles upon you.  
    The Barber concerto featured Anne Akiko Meyers on violin. Very good, and very, very good violin as it turns out.  As husband read to me about the violin afterward (even to me, the undergirded fullness was striking), Ms. Meyers plays a Guarneri del Gesu violin dated 1741.

    Very nice! (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:32:38 PM EST
    Robert Durst has been arrested (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 15, 2015 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    FBI agents arrested him yesterday.  It would appear that new evidence implicating him in the Susan Berman murder and discovered during filming the new HBO documentary was found credible.

    Last week's episode was shocking.  Trailers for the final episode seemed to reveal that they would confront Durst in that episode.  Josh, watching the news, reported to me this morning that he had been arrested.

    What a documentary!