home

Hillary Visits Iowa

Hillary Clinton arrives in in Monticello, Iowa today to make her first campaign appearance. She's been driving there in her "Scooby Doo" van, chatting with diners and folks at gas stations on the way.

I put the lion in her photo so she remembers to roar on occasion. She needs to share her passion and her strength. They are two of her most inspiring traits.

< Tuesday Open Thread | The Silence of Judges on Mass Incarceration >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Good (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:44:40 AM EST
    Dems need lots of help - especially at the state levels. Since Obama took office, Democrats have lost 913 state seats (and 30 state chambers). They not only need the money, they need a standard bearer who can help articulate why people need  to vote for Democrats up and down the ticket - not just for a personality on the top and leave the rest of the ballot blank.

    I love that she's doing retail politics and not getting sucked into, "This is all about me and the historic greatness of my candidacy" we've seen from other candidates.

    People who don't like her probably won't vote for her anyway. But this is a good move - while the Republicans have to wrestle each other for a microphone and out crazy each other, she can be zipping along and getting more personal and up close with voters for now.

    The Democratic Party (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:55:14 AM EST
    definitely needs to go back to building the party at the grass roots.

    Once Howard Dean was replaced, the 50 state strategy was abandoned and replaced with building support for Obama and not the party.

    Hopefully, this effort will recruit more people orientated candidates and not just DLC corporate flunkies and warmed over Republicans pushed out of their party by the tea party folks.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:59:12 AM EST
    most of us here would agree with all that. At least I would anyway.

    Parent
    It is interesing to note (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:24:29 AM EST
    that many of the comments here take the tack that Hillary is/was better than Obama....

    It is interesting how this persists...And, hopefully Hillary will be even better than Obama.

    But Hillary is actually running against others and really the Republicans....


    Parent

    I think Hillary IS better (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:40:36 AM EST
    In advocating for Democrats and not just herself.

    Parent
    Good point, MKS (none / 0) (#79)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    Together is smart.  Leaders look forward; Hillary is looking forward.  Hey, even the logo is catching the approving eye of the graphics groups.

    We need to stay smart ... and, let the Repubs fight each other.  Watch them with popcorn or whatever; but, no time to get ensnared in old or new wedge issues of the past because re-fighting the past goes nowhere by a spiral downward.  

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:46:58 AM EST
    Marco Rubio kicks off his campaign and basically plagerizes Obama circa 2008. I actually find that hysterical. The GOP is going to copy the person they despise most on the planet except maybe Hillary.

    The fawning and gushing (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    on Morning Joe was pretty hilarious.  Watch it for a laugh.  Yes, I woke up early this morning and couldn't help myself.  But it was worth it.

    My favorite part of Narcos thing was the glaring irony of talking about his poor parents who tended bar and made beds while opposing a raise in the minimum wage.  Or even the IDEA of a minimum wage.  And talking about how he is the candidate of the future while being the poster of taking us back to the 50s.  I hope he is the nominee.  She would eat him alive.

    Parent

    Rubio (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 09:13:38 AM EST
    is one entire contradiction. He was talking about the future but his stances are straight out of 1980 or even the 1950 John Birchers.

    And apparently doing a 180 on immigration convinced no one because reporters on twitter were talking about their email boxes being flooded by anti-immigration groups when he announced.

    Really he does make me laugh too.

    Parent

    Marco Rubio, "Yesterday's Man" (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    Rubio seems to be in a race with himself to be either, the world's oldest young man, or the world's youngest old man.

    Parent
    ... when he's only 45 years old, yet sounding like he's 85? He's already yelling at the kids to get off his lawn -- and they're his own kids.

    Parent
    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    That is too funny and too true!

    Parent
    A retraction (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:54:37 PM EST
    The other day I thought that a light-bulb flash occurred when it seemed to me that Rubio might have all the checklist stuff to be the Repub candidate.  On paper, he has the youthful appearance and high-enough level background in the Senate and hails from a significant electoral state and has a photogenic family and fits the conservative mold and has a tincture of sanity about the key issue of immigration as well as being Hispanic himself.  Oh, thought I, this could be the sleeper, this could be the fallback to unite the Repubs if Jeb Bush falters.  I felt so taken with my & husband's "discovery" of his potential that a posting here followed proclaiming as much.  But ...Paper is different than reality sometimes ... and this is one of those times.

    Please consider any predictions of Rubio's forthcoming success which I made to be premature and wrongheaded blather.  Marco Rubio seems to have consistency in one area:  The inability to live up to what his paper accomplishments might suggest.  In all of his national outings to date, Marco Rubio either underperformed with a recitative approach or has notably, ineptly shifted from position to position to catch the tone of his party.  As husband noted after hearing Rubio re-introduce himself with a "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, and stand here as the new generation rep" speech: We need not have been concerned about the entry, because he delivers as one trying to get through his speech.

    When I hear about the call for a new generation of leadership--beginning with the forward-looking, full of energy JFK--I expect to see an individual who radiates that youth.  When President Barack Obama first announced he had that "passing of the torch" sense at the outset.  Even when a much older Reagan spoke of "Morning in America," he reflected that sentiment (whether good lighting, camera technique, or ?, he fit with the sentiment in terms of that brief appearance.)  What Rubio lacks is any of that sense of being able to have the energy, ability, or drive to steer the nation forward.

    Maybe with enough takes, Marco Rubio can figure out where he is.  For now, talking about "new generation" while espousing outworn, discarded ideas in the same paragraph or speech managed to evoke the image of a grumpy, somewhat downcast man ... one far from speaking to the aspirations of youth or the expectations of a growing, evolving America.

    For now ... Rubio is bland and boring.

    Parent

    Have I ever mentioned that you (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    are an outstanding writer?  Kudos.

    Parent
    oculua: Thank you very much. (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    Dontcha just hate (none / 0) (#108)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    those inopportune, pesky Freudian slips......."oculua?"

    lol, I'm kidding,

    no, really

    Parent

    According to (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    finedictoionary.com:

    Typos (*)
    iculus, kculus, lculus, pculus, oxulus, odulus, ofulus, ovulus, ocylus, ochlus, ocjlus, ocilus, ocukus, ocuous, ocupus, oculys, oculhs, oculjs, oculis, oculua, oculuw, oculud, oculux, oculuz, oculua
     [Italics added.]

    Parent
    ocula is good, but (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by fishcamp on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    oculi would be better...

    Parent
    That problem (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:09:37 PM EST
    is not one that only Rubio has. It's the problem that all potential GOP nominees are going to have. The entire party wants to talk about the future while their platform is pure 1950's John Birchers.

    The most interesting thing about Rubio is how he turned his back on his mentor Jeb. Talk about Jeb getting a knife in the back. Ouch.

    Rand Paul gave a good speech and then went on TV and sounded like he just escaped from the loony bin. Ted Cruz never even bothered to try to appeal to anyone beyond the GOP base.

    Then coming up we probably will have Scott Walker who wants to be drop kicked into the middle east and Right to Rise doughboy Jeb.  Bush.  

    Parent

    Christi, some more leads (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:38:03 PM EST
    for assessing Rubio's paper grandeur:   Check out one David Rivera, former Republican Congressman (Florida 25th District), listed as among the most corrupt.   Rivera may be considered to be one of those straps on Rubio's lifting up boots, starting during their terms in the Florida legislature. Rubio and Rivera are long time friends being former co-owners of a house in Tallahassee (that went under).

     Also, check out the positions of one of his sugar daddies, literally, the reactionary billionaire baron of sugar, Jose Fanjul.  Mr. Fanjul, a big opponent of preservation of the Everglades,  was there on stage to give Rubio a hug after announcing his run for the Republican nomination.  

    Parent

    But he's good-looking, and he's young, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 09:33:54 AM EST
    and there's nothing the media wants more than a race where they can talk about the old hag v. the young star.

    And Republicans love telling stories about people who achieved success all by themselves, and believe that if one person can do it, there's no reason everyone can't do it.

    His positions, as collected here, are just awful.

    Parent

    The media does, no doubt. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 09:39:01 AM EST
    but unfortunately for republicans there are still the voters.  You can be sure Hillary or any democrat would wrap every single one of those positions around his neck and keep them there.

    I mean you can speak Spanish as much as you want but when you are the poster boy of betrayal for people who care about things like, say, immigration reform, well....

    I just don't see Narco as a threat.  

    Parent

    Narco on NPR (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    Raising disingenuousness to art-

    Well, I don't know about the others, but I've done more immigration than Hillary Clinton ever did. I mean, I helped pass an immigration bill in a Senate dominated by Democrats. And that's more than she's ever done. She's given speeches on it, but she's never done anything on it. So I have a record of trying to do something on it.

    Just saw a Latino activist laughing about this statement.

    Parent

    TPM Headline - Rubio is the lipstick (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 08:56:36 AM EST
    on the GOP pig.

    I think that about says it all.

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 09:29:11 AM EST
    ...I was thinking the same thing, a republican talking about the future and saying that Hillary is the past.  Isn't yesteryear the Bruce Springsteen glory days ?

    I actually liked what he said, but convincing conservatives that progressives are yesterday's news is going to be problematic.  Plus what he said does not in anyway match what he believes, how he has voted, or how he would run the country, and that to me is even more problematic.

    Basically all candidates know they can say whatever they wants no one will ever hold them to the flame in this era of politics.  Still waiting for Obama to close GITMO and bring the country together.  Yes, I am laughing.

    Parent

    Yes, candidates can say (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    whatever they want: Media Standard One--If Secretary Clinton speaks as as a populist or progressive, you just can't believe anything she says She is just pleasing her base, and that is a vice.   Media Standard Two--If Marco Rubio  speaks in favor of the fundamental lunacy that abounds in Republican circles, the media will assert that he really does not mean it, he is just doing what is necessary to get the nomination,  and that is a virtue.  

    Parent
    ... that his parents were political refugees from Castro's Cuba, when in fact they had emigrated to the U.S. three years before Castro ever came to power.

    The GOP is a clown car that lost its way to the circus.

    Parent

    Heard him on NPR (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    explaining his stance on the Indiana gay marriage issue...seems he sees selling wedding cake as participation in the wedding 'event'...like the baker is being forced to be a groomsman.  Why, because of the delivery to the hall?

    Parent
    Wonder what Marco's position (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:27:22 PM EST
    is in this case:  Some Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men refuse to sit in an airplane seat next to a woman who is not his wife. This firmly held belief has occasioned conflict between the faith of the men and the women would like to sit down.  Refusals or other difficulties in switching seats has, apparently, caused delays and disruptions.  

    Parent
    He's need a whole bottle of water to (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:37:03 PM EST
    explain his way around that one!

    Parent
    KeysDan, you're on a roll (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:40:53 PM EST
    today in this thread.  Kudos!   ;-)

    Parent
    Thanks, just trying to (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:44:33 PM EST
    stay hydrated.  Pass the Poland Spring.

    Parent
    As Bill O'Reilly explained to us yesterday: (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:15:22 PM EST
    "If you are a Christian and a white male in the USA, it is open season on you. Therefore, Hillary Clinton has an advantage."

    How could Mrs. Clinton's GOP opponents and their mercenary shills at Fox News possibly become any more unapologetically racist, sexist, homophobic and / or patently absurd? No doubt, they'll be more than happy to show us.

    (Sigh!) It's going to be a long and excruciating next 20 months.

    Parent

    Yes, I'm sure that (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    I am bleeding from every pore over the absolutely horrible situation of the Christian white males in this country.  They are obviously so, so disadvantaged.  </snark>

    Parent
    Hillary is really good at these small events (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:51:50 PM EST
    I remember watching her in 2008, during the lead up to the Nevada Caucus, visiting a humble living room of a Latino family and listening sympathetically to their tale of woe.

    I knew then that she would beat Obama in the Latino vote.  And she did.  Hillary will be even stronger with Latinos than Obama.  A strong mother figure helping the pobrecitos?   Lights out.  No one stands a chance against that.  

    I'm thinking Hillary and Warren struck ... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by magster on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 09:01:12 PM EST
    a deal whereby Hillary would run a populist campaign and make Warren Commerce or Treasury secretary if Warren didn't run and endorsed Hillary early on.

    Hillary practically plagiarized Warren's mantra (which is fine and even welcome).

    Well (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 09:26:47 PM EST
    from what I have read Hillary had a conversation with Warren about how serious Warren was about running and apparently Warren just is flat not interested in running. Can't say that I blame her though. But she also talked to Warren about the left wing of the party and their concerns.

    Parent
    I think the reason the Warren thing (none / 0) (#187)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:57:57 PM EST
    is refusing to fade away is because of the wording, and manner of Elizabeth's denial, "I'm not running for the Presidency."

    Well, no, we can see that. But, let's not be naïve here, there are ways to say what she purportedly wants to say, and not leave any doubt.

    When L. Johnson decided to not run for re-election, do you remember how he said it? "I will not run, I will not seek, I will not accept, etc. To simply say, "I am not running," leaves a whole lot of wiggle room for those inclined to think she may not be as 100% sure as many think. Not to put too fine a point on it, if she really wanted to put this issue to bed she could simply say something like, "I didn't intend to run, I'm not running, and, under no circumstances would I cooperate, or accept the position of Candidate through a draft-like process." "Now, I hope I've made myself clear, and we can put this speculation to rest once and for all.

    Finally, I think it's grossly unfair to those candidates who have put so much time and effort into their campaigns for this silly rumor to keep popping up, and distracting from those fine candidates who have worked so hard on this endeavor."  

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 04:49:04 AM EST
    She's been pretty adamant that she is not running saying flat out no. I don't know how much plainer you can get. I just think it's the wishful thinking on the part of some people to try to twist what she says and make it fit in their minds that she's really not saying no.

    Parent
    And if Warren is one to play the semantic (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 10:12:10 AM EST
    games described above....might as well go with Hillary.

    Parent
    She has not been adamant (none / 0) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 10:27:54 AM EST
    just as shooter says.  And she has had plenty of reasons to be.

    That said, even I am getting a bit over it.

    Parent

    At Long Last (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by john horse on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 05:56:15 AM EST
    I was one of those people who supported Hillary Clinton seven years ago.  All I can say is its about time.  I agree with Jeralyn about Hillary sharing her passion and strength.  On most issues she is a progressive.  Don't hide it.  She needs to speak out loud and proud.    

    Comments and biases regarding aging: (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 04:49:47 PM EST
    I can't be alone in noticing that age takes its toll on men as surely as it does on women.

    The hope, intoned here in an earlier post, was that men are advantaged because they become "distinguished" and "debonair" as they age.  This hope can be dashed with a five minute stroll through any Walmart.  Also, you'll have noticed if you're observant, men's clothing covers more.  Underneath those expensive, (and expansive) threads, most "distinguished" males are the portrait of Dorian Gray.

    A few of us hit the genetic lottery.  Most of us didn't.


    This is (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:21:46 AM EST
    good news from the article you linked to:

    Clinton's activity and footprint will be particularly robust in Iowa, also a general election swing state. Aides said she plans to help rebuild the beleaguered Democratic Party here, including recruiting candidates to run for local offices like school board and growing a corps of volunteers to help in the general election.


    too bad she, and the rest of the DLC cohort, (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by sj on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:25:50 AM EST
    didn't think that way when Howard Dean was DNC chair.

    Just saying. Because it really does seem so obvious.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:59:21 AM EST
    think she had anything to do with Dean leaving since Obama was the one controlling the levers at the DNC in 2009.

    Parent
    Where did I say ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by sj on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    ... she had something to do with him "leaving"? What I said is that she -- and the rest of the DLC and DLC-Like cohort -- were at odds with the 50 state strategy.

    ----
    It's funny/sad though: Dean's wiki page says this:

    In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama used the 50 state strategy as the backbone of his candidacy.
    That is SO not true. While O benefitted greatly from the strategy, he was hardly a stalwart in Democratic races in general. It appeared that he preferred a "cult of personality" approach to the Oval Office.

    Obama won -- and then dropped him like a hot potato.


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:01:14 PM EST
    if you read the wiki page it sounds like Obama did worse than drop him. Obama made him persona non grata.

    Maybe I don't remember but I don't recall her ever saying one thing or the other about Dean. He has however endorsed her for the nominee I believe.

    Parent

    wev (none / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:47:35 PM EST
    Maybe I don't remember but I don't recall her ever saying one thing or the other about Dean.
    I can't be responsible for whatever you do or do not remember.  I remember because I was still -- at that time -- a Dem party official.

    Parent
    Well, FWIW, I remember that ... (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 05:23:17 PM EST
    ... as DNC chair, Howard Dean clashed mightily with then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel -- who in 2006 and 2008 headed up the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- over the party's implementation of Dean's "50-State Strategy."

    Basically, Emanuel wanted the party's electoral efforts to mirror his own in supporting the re-election of congressional Democrats, while Dean sought to put the GOP on the defensive across the board, especially in those nominally red states where Democrats had otherwise abandoned the field of play to Republicans.

    While Dean won that particular argument and led the Democrats to a decisive victory across the country in both the '06 and '08 campaigns, Rahmbo soon had his revenge when President-elect Obama appointed him as the new White House Chief of Staff.

    One of the very fist things Emanuel did was to see that Tim Kaine was quickly ensconced at DNC HQ as Dean's replacement. And rather than continue the necessary but mundane party-building efforts of his immediate predecessor, Kaine instead harnessed the DNC chairmanship for his own personal political ends, using that position to bolster his credentials and elevate his public profile in preparation for a prospective U.S. Senate run from Virginia.

    Meanwhile, from his lofty perch inside the West Wing, Emanuel worked to re-direct those DNC funds once used to assist state parties to Beltway-based 527-class campaign committees under the control of often-incompetent party insiders on Capitol Hill, in an ultimately hapless effort to shore up Democratic congressional incumbents.

    State Democratic parties across the country suffered from the corresponding dearth of financial support from the DNC, and many were forced to lay off key staff. This was truly unfortunate, because it occurred at the very same time when the GOP was doing the exact opposite in preparation for the 2010 midterms. Clearly, Republicans had quickly absorbed the core lessons of Dean's 50-State Strategy, which Emanuel's own monstrous ego precluded him from ever recognizing.

    Like the self-indulgent members of France's royal House of Bourbon, Rahm Emanuel knows nothing and forgets nothing. In my opinion, the worst day's work Obama ever did was putting him in charge after the 2008 election, because Rahmbo's shortsighted, petty and vindictive nature is what ultimately cost the Democrats their congressional majorities. And good luck to Chicago residents, who so foolishly re-elected that jackass last week as their mayor.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I do (3.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 05:46:02 PM EST
    remember Rahm having it out with Dean at one point in time. But you can't say that picking Rahm was the worst when he picked Tim Geither which while Rahm was bad enough the choice Geither affected millions of homeowners across the country.

    Parent
    I can't say that? (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:10:23 PM EST
    Ga6thDem: "But you can't say that picking Rahm was the worst when he picked Tim Geither[.]"

    Sure, I can. After all, Geithner was clearly Emanuel's guy at Treasury. He clearly championed the man's nomination as Secretary, and he further and vigorously resisted calls for Giethner's withdrawal when embarrassing revelations about irregularities in some of the nominee's tax returns initially came to public light in early 2009.

    And for his part, Timmeh returned Rahmbo's love. So, I'd argue that had Rahm Emanuel not been the White House Chief of Staff, there'd have likely been no Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Not so sure about that....maybe (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:03:52 PM EST
    But, the truly disastrous move Obama made after his election victory was getting rid of, virtually, his entire economic transition team, a really bright, knowledgeable group of economists that engineered his economic plan during the campaign. Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein had the right idea; they proposed to President elect Obama that he had to make a bold move to stem the disastrous economic decline he had inherited.

    Romer calculated that a $1.8-trillion package was necessary to fill the "output gap," and to immediately put millions of unemployed Americans back to work. Right about then Obama revealed what his here-to-fore hidden intentions were, and what they had been all along. Two critical errors: One, he showed he had no appetite to take on Congress, even though he was at the very zenith of his power and political strength. Instead, he offered a fig-leaf, 800 billion stimulus, less than half what Romer (who, BTW, was an expert and scholar regarding the Great Depression.) And, two, he appointed Larry Summers to head his economic team, who, in turn, appointed  Geithner to Treasury.  

    So, in those two early decisions, Obama revealed to everyone who was interested the direction he was going to take the country. His policy decisions were for show only, unfortunately, and the millions of average Americans who were hurting so badly would just have to wait, and take a back seat to his, and Larry Summers/Tim Geithner political takeover of the White House Economic machinery.

    And, Obama's inexplicable appointment of Larry Summers to the post of Head of the National Economic Council, supposedly to lead us out of the depression (which he was instrumental in causing) illustrated once and for all that his campaign slogan, "Change," was pure Hokum, and that Wall Street, rather than being investigated, prosecuted, and brought to justice, would be the major benefactors of the trillions of taxpayer's dollars that were forcibly confiscated and distributed to the likes of Blankfein, Dimon, Citi, Merrill, Welles Fargo, and that whole motley crew of grifters.

    So, in my humble opinion, the fallout from the economic disaster Bush left, and Obama's betrayal of the American People who voted him into office, while giving his masters on Wall Street a free pass is the signature event of his Presidency, and the humiliating cornerstone of The Legacy he, so badly, yearned for.

    I hope and pray that Hillary recognizes that whole tragedy for what it was, and accepts that THIS is the reason we Americans are so unhappy, and depressed, even seven years into a "recovery." If she does, and if she makes "righting that wrong" the centerpiece of her promise to the American people, there's not a person, party, or position that can beat her. She might even win some Tea Party votes in-as-much as the '08 financial collapse, actually gave rise to that movement.

    Go Girl, Hill in a landslide!

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 06:16:27 AM EST
    but I'm not so sure even if Obama hadn't picked Rahm that Geither still would not have been Obama's pick. There were other things that went on that had some less than spectacular results that Rahm had no part in.

    Parent
    An accurate retelling of events IMO (none / 0) (#200)
    by sj on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 11:54:16 AM EST
    doesn't relate any of the undercurrents. Rahm wasn't the only one at odds with Dean.

    Parent
    That is good news (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:22:47 AM EST
    thus needs a national effort.  

    Parent
    Might be (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:26:50 AM EST
    national eventually.

    Parent
    This should be the way to do it (none / 0) (#2)
    by Politalkix on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:44:56 AM EST
    Meet every voter that she can and not take anything for granted. And not have an attitude that many in her campaign harbored in 2008-Iowa sucks, caucuses suck, Iowa should be demoted, etc...

    You knew then well, did you? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:12:26 AM EST
    Or those "many" made public statements?

    Otherwise, your claims are total BS.

    BTW - Iowa should be demoted, asking with all the other early primary states.

    Parent

    You knew "them" well (none / 0) (#53)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:15:57 AM EST
    Or "they" made public statements ...

    Parent
    I thought the lion (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:21:10 AM EST
    was a Lannister reference.  I see her as more of a Targaryen.

    Larry Wilmore agrees (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:22:03 PM EST
    IMO the picture should have been (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 09:12:42 PM EST
    of a lioness instead of a lion.

    The lioness after all does all work.

    Parent

    Billy's advise (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:54:08 AM EST
    "If you're a Christian or a white man in the USA, it's open season on you," O'Reilly said on "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel Monday night.

    That, he said, could work to the advantage of Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.

    The conservative talk show host said Clinton could center her campaign around being the first woman in the White House and increasing entitlements. If she does so, it would take a "very articulate and tough-minded Republican to defeat her."

    O'Reilly predicted that many on both sides would be unfair to Clinton during her campaign, but vowed that he would treat the former secretary of state and U.S. senator fairly on his show. However, he also warned Clinton to stay away from "Media Matters and the other guttersnipe organizations who use despicable, dishonest tactics to attack those with whom they disagree."



    Oh, good lord. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:07:01 AM EST
    However this has been the thinking of conservatives for quite a while. I had an elderly white male tell me back in the early 90's that white men were the most discriminated class of people on the planet. I guess if it's not 1950 and you don't get everything because you are a white male means you are discriminated against.

    As much as the GOP likes to talk about competition they really don't want competition.

    Parent

    How Nice of Bill... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:22:28 AM EST
    ...to say he would not be unfair to Hillary so long as she does what he says.

    By open season he means that we are no longer to ones given every single opportunity ?  And that works for Hillary because she is not 'a Christian or a white man in the USA' ?

    What a GD idiot.

    Parent

    You could say (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:27:29 AM EST
    its very "white" of him

    Parent
    Surprised that .... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:03:58 AM EST
    I have yet to receive any email from the Hillary campaign.  Or calls.

    The Clinton's used to be very good at maintaining contact with supporters and donors.  Even if they made no effort to reconnect.

    It would be a troubling sign if they've dropped the ball in this area.

    I don't think that's the point of this (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:15:05 AM EST
    Yet.  I did hear on the news that her campaign will model Obama's and push for "small donors".  For now, she's just talking and listening.

    But seriously, if they started that stuff now - people would tune out and get angry if they were hounded for money for the next 18 months.

    My BF gave money to Obama in 2008 a couple if times.  Now, anytime someone sneezes and OFA gears up, he gets a " boogey man is coming to eat your children" email, asking "for just $20" (or whatever).  To which he promptly deletes said email.

    These things have to be timed.  Which doesn't mean you can't give money if you want.  You just aren't going to be nagged for it yet

    Parent

    Ted Cruz (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:20:35 AM EST
    is being funded by one guy.  I'm not saying this is good.  But it's the way it is.  Personally if I was her and I could get millions from one rich guy, which she can and will, I would tell people to donate but I would not nag people who are living oaycheck to paycheck for donations.   I understand the importance of involvement but her are many ways to be involved.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:33:46 AM EST
    so far I signed up for the emails from the campaign and I'm not being hounded. It's more like the ready for Hillary emails that came once a day. However the DSCC and Emily's List have somehow gotten my email probably from Ready for Hillary and they are massively annoying.

    Parent
    Eugene McCarthy... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:47:43 AM EST
    was also backed by largely by one man.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    i did not know that.  Still it would be interesting t compare dollar amounts.

    Parent
    Who was that (none / 0) (#153)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 05:22:56 PM EST
    and what is your source?

    Parent
    Wacky philanthropist ... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:25:32 PM EST
    Stewart R. Mott.

    Parent
    Dunno about "wacky," but (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 09:59:19 PM EST
    I remember Mott now.  A GM heir who funded efforts directed at disarmament and populations control. Major financial supporter of McGovern in 1972 as well.  Thanks for the reminder.

    Parent
    One guy (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:22:08 AM EST
    who has put 30 million + into four different pics.

    Parent
    Right - isn't there some kind of cut-off (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:08:54 AM EST
    between the time you can raise money for the primaries, and then for the general? Probably saving most of her fundraising for the general.

    I can't remember all the rules.

    Parent

    Just saw a guy explaining (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:12:14 AM EST
    the "push for small donations" and avoiding the big dollar events which I totally see the PR benefit of and explaining that this was an early stage and that starting in May she would start the "real" fundraising process.

    Or words to that effect.  Let's be honest.  This election will not be driven by small donations.

    Parent

    It never is (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    About small donations.  Even in the much talked about 2008 and Obama's collection from small donors was pretty much a myth.  He had about the same percentage of small donations as GWB did in 2094.

    It's all about the (big) Benjamin's.

    Parent

    2094? (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    I'm kind of glad I probably won't be around to see which Bush is president then :)

    Parent
    Yikes! (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:36:48 AM EST
    I'm terrible at doing this stuff on my phone!

    Parent
    Donations in the primaries (none / 0) (#118)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:49:52 PM EST
    and donations in the general are treated separately. So, you can donate the max to your candidate in the primary and then donate the max again in the general.

    Parent
    Thanks casey. And can funds (none / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:21:17 PM EST
    collected during the primary be carried over and spent in the general, after the convention?

    Parent
    Sad to say (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:12:04 AM EST
    but I wonder if post citizens United small downers are simply not as important.  It's not a criticism really.  Just an acknowledgment.  She is expected to raise north of 2 billion dollars.  

    Parent
    It's way too early to ramp up (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:19:35 AM EST
    unless you're a relative unknown that needs to try and make a splash (e.g. Rubio). For Hillary, all that will come in time. No need to bombard with emails this early.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:28:09 AM EST
    according to the article Jeralyn linked to she is starting small with donors and asking people to get ten people to donate $2700. I know in a lot of ways that sounds like a lot but not in terms of the millions some are giving. Apparently the PACS are the ones that are taking in the big checks. And like others have said maybe you don't want to be bombarded with pleas for donations starting already. I get so many of them already.

    Parent
    Obama roped in a lot of people (none / 0) (#141)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    with the $5 and $10 donors line of b/s.  They were positively drooling for him, convinced that their donations comprised the bulk of the cash wad he eventually amassed.  (It did not.)

    I'm not so sure Clinton will garner the same fervor with the 10 donors of $2700 apiece strategy.

    Parent

    I have been getting two to tree emails a day (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:18:47 AM EST
    from her campaign for more than year.

    Obama may have turned over his list to her.

    Parent

    Seems To Me... (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 08:27:22 AM EST
    ...that maybe you should contact them if you want emails from them.

    HERE you go, you can sign up for about 10 different things, including volunteering.

    Personally, I think most people like not being put on a list w/o their permission.  At least I do.

    Parent

    In the past, I could move ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:28:56 AM EST
    change my phone number, no change of address form, never contact them, and the Clinton campaign(s) would always find me.

    Also, hers was the last presidential campaign I gave any money to. (And I gave a lot.) And I stopped giving the party any money shortly thereafter.

    You'd think this would put on a list of individuals to hit up early.

    Anyway, it's just a small indication of her campaign not having the level of organization her and her husband exhibited in the past.

    But, obviously, it's still very early.

    Parent

    I'm gonna guess (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:36:47 AM EST
    It's HIGHLY organized - she has her people and some of Obama's.  When she and Bill campaigned for him, there was no internet, no cell phone donations - it was done via phone.

    This is deliberate.  Andcsgsin, if you want to support her - send money without being asked.

    Parent

    You aren't understanding .. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:49:22 AM EST
    what I'm saying.

    But it's just one small data point.  Do with it what you will.

    Parent

    I think it isn't a data point (2.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    I think you are assuming something that isn't there.

    Parent
    I was a significant donor ... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:21:25 PM EST
    in 2008.  And no one has contacted me from the campaign.

    That's the data point.  No emails, no calls.

    Parent

    Do you have the exact same contact info still? (none / 0) (#92)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:41:17 PM EST
    Has Ready for Hillary, or any of those other groups, been contacting you during this time? I seem to think that they all had 'the list'?

    I've been off everyone's email due to changing my studio name/email contact a few years back, so I know they can't find me :)

    Parent

    I Agree JB... (none / 0) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    ...and if privacy becomes part of the campaign...

    Whining that about not being hit up for money is funny, calling it a flaw is non-sense.

    I got on a list for W, even sent me a signed photo, and I hated getting all that garbage because it didn't end at W.  Every clown in town with an R behind their name hit me up.

    Ever since then, when I move, no change of address, just let the folks who need know, know I moved.

    If I had to guess someone thought it would be hilarious to donate money in my name, but who knows.

    Parent

    I am getting emails from Hillary. (none / 0) (#117)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:47:30 PM EST
    Just one a day, which is reasonable at this point in the campaign.

    I don't know why you are not getting them, Robot Porter.

    Parent

    I donated to her 2007 campaign but haven't (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    received any recent emails. Which is fine. I know how to find her.

    Parent
    I got one (none / 0) (#41)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:51:01 AM EST
    It was an acknowledgement one when I signed up on her website. It did not come immediately but rather a few hours later. Yeah, I did sign up.

    Parent
    Don't worry (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:10:58 PM EST
    I received my first call from the official campaign center in NY yesterday afternoon.  The office is in ramp-up mode now; the individual noted that separate offices in Iowa, N.H., and S. Carolina will be opening very shortly.

    Parent
    me neither, but (none / 0) (#115)
    by fishcamp on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    I sure receive lots of Democratic mail at both my addresses.

    Parent
    Are y'all seeing picyures of "the van" (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:26:55 AM EST
    anywhere?

    It's a black van (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:39:09 AM EST
    The one she gets around Chappaqua in.

    But I did see her at Chipotle.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:53:56 AM EST
    and Maggie what's her name was whining that Hillary ate out of a bowl instead of getting something she could eat with her hands. Now if she had gotten something she could eat with her hands you know it would have been a "problem" but just a different one like she wasn't being "ladylike".

    Parent
    Can't dribble salsa on the Traveling Pantsuit (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:07:58 PM EST
    after all

    Parent
    Anyone that frequents Chipotle (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    knows you can get more in the bowl than in the burrito. It's a wise personal financial decision.

    Parent
    And I thought only (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:28:20 PM EST
    we Californians had Chipotles.....

    Parent
    More ?? (none / 0) (#90)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    If I go to Chipotle, I am not eating for like 12 hours, and you are telling me the bowl has more.

    Parent
    Well, they sure do stuff those burritos (none / 0) (#175)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:27:46 PM EST
    oh fer cryin out loud (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    Now that is some kind of a 'common man' test? I guess I flunk - I always get a bowl.

    Parent
    That Makes You a Communist... (none / 0) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:37:11 PM EST
    ...never mind that it's actually Mexican.

    Parent
    I'll (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:37:18 PM EST
    use Anne's phrase of they make me want to stick needles in my eyes. This kind of nonsense is why the press gets held in such low esteem.

    Parent
    Unless this is a joke, Hillary's (none / 0) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:10:44 PM EST
    "Scooby" Van, also known as the "Mystery Machine," is neither black, nor, I'm quite certain, zipping around Chappaqua these days.

    Quite a few assorted pics here, just scroll around, and you'll see quite a few pics of "Scooby."

    Parent

    You're seeing pictures (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    of scooby van replicas with a little photoshopping.

    Parent
    Yes, some of the pictures (none / 0) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:22:33 PM EST
    are drawings, but, others sure look like a real van ("The Mystery Machine.")

    Is that psychedelic van just an arbitrary truck, someone's idea of a joke?

    Parent

    That's a joke (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:15:30 PM EST
    Link

    Scooby, a black GMC van, is familiar to residents of Clinton's New York hometown, Chappaqua. It's the vehicle she normally uses to get around town.

    • Riding along with Clinton are "a couple of staff" as well as her small Secret Service detail.

    • Clinton and crew stopped in Pittsburgh on Sunday night. At a hotel there, she ordered room service from a menu that had a section appropriately titled "Scooby Snacks."

    • What kind of Chipotle order befits a presidential candidate? Well, at a stop in Toledo, Ohio, on Monday, Clinton got a chicken burrito bowl with black beans, guacamole and iced tea.

    • She's a healthy snacker. Road munchies packed for the drive include almonds and cottage cheese.



    Parent
    Paid extra for the guac! Elitist! (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:38:43 PM EST
    BTW, did you happen to read (none / 0) (#96)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    any of the comments in "People," the magazine those pictures came from?

    I know we've said it a thousand times before, but it's so NOT funny (the intellectual depravity of a huge plurality of our citizens) that I can't help but get this foreboding sense of dread about our future.

    2 typical comments from the people who decide our Leadership, including our President:

    Mensa Scholar #1: "I hope the van runs off a bridge and there are no survivors."

    Genius Voter #2: "I hope that Van has a head on collision with the bus carrying Ted Cruz. That would be perfect."

    Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc., if they could see what citizens their brave efforts spawned two and a half centuries later, would fight with each other to get to go first in a game of Russian Roulette, using a loaded single shot handgun.

    Parent

    Well, in the Founders defense(?) (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    they did limit the vote to a somewhat elite group...not the entire populace. The would probably ask us what we were thinking.

    Parent
    Yup, smart fellas, (none / 0) (#106)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    "They would probably ask us what we were thinking"............and then shoot us?

    Parent
    They Would Have Just Paid Their Taxes... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:21:47 PM EST
    ...and said "It could be worse, morons could be using us to promote corporate interests...".

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    I try not to read comments anywhere too much because they are usually hateful or at least, inane.

    Parent
    I think photos are being avoided for (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    security reasons.  I just tried to post a link.  Been having trouble with links so I don't know it it was deleted or didn't work.  It was, um, humor.

    Parent
    I found some cartoons. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:01:39 AM EST
    Query, doesn't "Scooby-do" send a retro message incomprehensible to younger potential voters?

    Parent
    You are joking right (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:08:22 AM EST
    my 10 year old nephew recently almost had an aneurysm when I gave him my autographed Scoobybdoo refrigerator magnets.

    Parent
    My 13 year (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    old and my 22 year old both were Scooby fans. They are like the eternal cartoon.

    Parent
    Just so you know... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:43:09 PM EST
    Scooby Snacks are code for (zoinks!) marijuana edibles.  Shaggy & Scooby are animated legends in the stoner community.

    I don't like this Mystery Machine meme one bit...Hillary Clinton's record indicates she thinks meddling kids like Shaggy are criminals.  She's not welcome in the van man.  

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    after doing a bit of googling not so much.  In fact she seems more ok with state legalization than medical.  Oddly enough.  And that was the most recent I could find which was a few years ago.  Hopefully she has now seem the heaps of evidence supporting the value of this and has come around.  I expect she has.  We will see.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 05:09:24 PM EST
    if Obama does what you think he will do it's kind of going to be a moot point unless she says she would overturn that decision which I would doubt.

    Parent
    Favoring or not (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 05:12:23 PM EST
    the expanded use of medical pot is not moot.  And Obama may not do that.  He certainly has not said he will.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 05:44:24 PM EST
    that is why i said IF.

    Parent
    As I recall, Schedule 1 must be (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 05:56:18 PM EST
    changed by Congress, not the President. Will check.

    Parent
    USNEWS (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:01:00 PM EST
    "What is and isn't a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress," Obama told Jake Tapper of CNN. "It's not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws under - undergirding those determinations."

    Marijuana advocates point to the U.S. Code and say that's not entirely accurate.

    The 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which created five tiers of restricted drugs, says the attorney general may "remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule."

    If a substance is banned by international treaties - as marijuana is - the law grants the attorney general the power to place it "under the schedule he deems most appropriate."

    Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., tells U.S. News it's "very clear" that the law "actually permits reclassification administratively."



    Parent
    According (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:06:41 PM EST
    to wiki it can be done by the attorney general or congress. We know congress is not going to do it. I'm not sure that Obama can do it after reading. It says it can be done "executively" but it's not clear if that is the president or the attorney general.

    Parent
    It's the AG (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:11:55 PM EST
    does anyone think he will do that unless the president tells him to.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:17:03 PM EST
    that begs the question will we actually have one before Obama leaves office?

    Parent
    We have one (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:26:38 PM EST
    Holder will not leave until there is a new one.  Which just shows you how baths!t these people real are.

    On that subject the prospective new one by all accounts may be less disposed to do this than Holder

    Parent

    The pertinent statutory scheme details the (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:26:02 PM EST
    regimen adminstrative agencies must comply w/to make a change re a scheduled drug. The President could ask the agency to remove cannabis from Schedule I, but the agency must comply with the statutory requirements b/4 it could legally do so.

    link

    Parent

    All I can tell you is (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:32:24 PM EST
    there is a vast body of legal professionals that disagree with your Wiki page.  This is such old news.  It has been discussed and reduscussed fir decades.  And the consensus is exactly what USNEWS said.  And in fact what that page said.  If the AG wants to do he can make it happen.

    Parent
    I suggest (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/lgc3l3x

    This rather long USNEWS piece may be more helpful than a wiki page

    Parent

    I suggest the federal statute: (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:51:20 PM EST
    link

    Looks like the AG may unilaterally change a scheduled substance to a different Schedule.  But to remove a sustance currently scheduled, the AG can't act unilaterally.

    Parent

    Uh, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:58:10 PM EST
    he can change it to another schedule.  Right.  That was the point actually.

    Right now pot is shceduled 1.  Which according to the definition is for drugs with no nadical application.  The benefit of medical pot is voluminous.

    Parent

    I recently saw a headline re the (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:02:35 PM EST
    benefits of MJ to epileptic children.

    Parent
    Plenty of stories... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 08:09:03 AM EST
    of families uprooting their lives to bring their kid to Colorado and get MJ treatment for their crippling epilepsy with Charlotte's Web.  

    Parent
    Yes, we shall see... (none / 0) (#195)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 08:42:24 AM EST
    Mr. Clinton was the ultimate drug warrior who oversaw an unprecedented expansion of the war on reefer...and as we've long been told, Mrs. Clinton was instrumentally involved in all Clinton I era policies.  Barry Motherf*ckin' McCaffrey!!!

    It's 2015 for goodness sake, I will settle for nothing less than total repeal of prohibition at the federal level, and a president who will expend whatever political capital it takes to make that happen.  No more chickensh*t half-measures.  Personally, I don't think she has the courage, and is too concerned with winning vs. proposing what is right and just...not to mention sane.

    Parent

    Check your better check, dawg. (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 04:59:49 PM EST
    With secret service and guns and a black van (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:13:15 AM EST
    it's obvious the Hillary Scooby-Doo van has been misnamed. It should be called the A-Team van.

    Parent
    "I love it when a campaign (none / 0) (#69)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:02:40 PM EST
    comes together!"

    Parent
    how young are we talking here? (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    If they're young enough they can't vote yet.

    They made a scooby-doo movie that came out in 2002.  And fwiw - while the original cartoon aired well before my time, I still watched it on TV as a kid in the late 80's/early 90's.  Most people my age are very familiar with scooby-doo.  Although I'm not sure I still qualify as a "younger voter".

    Parent

    If you look really quick (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:23:21 AM EST
    you can find me in the credits of that movie.  The magnets were autographed by Iwao Takamoto.  Tiny and frail and ill even then he did it at the wrap party.  And died not long after.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    let me put it this way my 22 year old was a huge scooby fan and so were all of his friends. If my 22 year old knows what a scooby van is then I'm pretty sure most young voters his age can relate to it too.

    Parent
    It's all the fault of (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:27:40 PM EST
    my parents, who wouldn't get a TV.  Victimhood. Must check with my adult offspring.

    Parent
    I Think You Would Be Hard Pressed... (none / 0) (#121)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:50:24 PM EST
    ...to find anyone that doesn't know what the Mystery Machine or ScoobyDoo is.

    Scooby and company are even doing insurance commercials because a monster made them wreck the Mystery Machine.  LINK

    Parent

    You poor thing (none / 0) (#127)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:06:07 PM EST
    We got a TV set when I was 5 years old, although it was never on constantly.
    And it may be just as well that they did get one, because it actually helped me learn English, since Greek was my first language.

    Parent
    Child abuse! (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:20:54 PM EST
    Scooby-Doo was a Saturday morning ... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 05:49:28 PM EST
    ... TV staple when I was a child. I think many parents back then must've been appalled, because the Scooby-Doo gang was clearly nothing but a bunch of hippie-do-gooders. Unfortunately, any proposed cartoon series about the Young Republicans never quite made it past the conceptual stage, for painfully obvious reasons.

    Parent
    There was a new series of Scooby-Doo (none / 0) (#58)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    shows on the Cartoon Network from 2010-2013, so unless these younger potential voters have been living in caves before then, there's a fair chance that they'll get the reference.

    Parent
    Speaks loudly to the moms (none / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:14:46 PM EST
    See smiling, nodding, favorable comments from Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King (?) which I saw in passing yesterday a.m. while checking for dog-walking temp.  They liked it.

    Parent
    picture? (none / 0) (#43)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    The picture on top of this post looks very different from the one several posts below which presumably is the Hillary of today.  


    Annnnnnddddd.....? (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:05:42 AM EST
    That above comment on appearance (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    pretty much fits in with everyone here commenting about Kerry the last two days.

    Parent
    Not so much, actually (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sj on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    That discussion was more a case of a natural vs. unnatural looking face.

    Parent
    cr@p -- a double post (none / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:56:06 AM EST
    I thought the first one errored out.

    Parent
    And we have a winner (none / 0) (#81)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:22:15 PM EST
    Was wondering who would be the first to try and justify a double standard when commenting on appearance.

    Parent
    Come now (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    speaking only for me, I regularly offer entirely gender neutral ridicule of cosmetic surgery.
    See recent comments on the fabulous, and untouched, Diana Rigg.

    Parent
    And seriously (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:02:13 PM EST
    I was unaware of the facelift (none / 0) (#140)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 03:34:40 PM EST
     and had to google, but apparently it was much discussed.

       This woman was mightily perturbed.

      She does though seem easily upset, and prone to remonstration.

      On April 3, ARSH 2011, after seeing Sen. Lindsey Graham advocate for Sharia Law and the punishing of American citizens who "disrespected" the islamic political system and its manifesto, the koran, I rebutted Graham's remarks and then burned a koran - bookmarked with raw bacon - and concluded by announcing my address and inviting all musloid and/or FEDGOV comers to come and get a piece of me.

    Parent

    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 04:34:15 PM EST
    she is right about Odo.  Honestly I dont get it.  Does anyone think he looks better now?.....anyone?
    I actually think he is a reasonably attractive and distinguished looking man in the right pic.  But now...
    Understand I am not against the odd nip or tuck.  Full disclosure, I got my love handles lipoed back in the 90s when I was still interested in that sort of thing.
    But Kerry's face now looks like something he might remove and put in a jar at night.  It's just creepy.
    Perhaps Ms Kerry (or Heinz or whatever) likes it.

    Parent
    And more OT for this thread (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 04:57:00 PM EST
    it was discussed.  But not by the media. If it was Hillary that would not be so.

    Parent
    Not a double standard at all (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by sj on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    If you were comparing Joan Rivers "work" with John Kerry's "work" it would be analogous. But you are comparing a discussion of natural aging process to discussion of an unnatural decline-to-age process and declaring them the same.

    They are not.

    Parent

    First, not "everyone" commented about (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:50:03 PM EST
    Kerry's face.  And I actually was the first to bring it up, in response to Jeralyn's suggestion that Hillary should have had her eyes "done."

    My mention of Kerry came as a caveat against having work done, lest she end up looking like he did: like aliens took him apart and put him back together looking like someone else.  Seems like the goal of any plastic surgery should be to look better, not weird.

    Where the real hypocrisy/double standard would come into play would be if she had had anything done, because it would be all-caps, neon-lit, "BREAKING NEWS" on every network, it would be used to prove she's too old to run, and none of the media twits would care that they didn't rip into Kerry for changing his face.  That would be the proverbial "different" and they would go back to dissecting her new look from every angle.

    There's nothing wrong with the way Clinton looks; I'd be hugely disappointed if she'd given in to the pressure to look younger.  In fact, if I were Clinton, and someone asked me about it, I'd say, "see these wrinkles?  I got these when Seal Team 6 captured Osama bin Laden.  These over here?  I got them the night my granddaughter was born - they're from the smiling I couldn't stop doing I was so over-the-moon happy.  This face tells a lot of stories - some good and some not-so-good, but they are all part of who I am, and I wouldn't erase them for anything."

    So there.

    Parent

    I hope my opinion about Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:46:48 PM EST
    is received in the loving, "family" sort of way I intend it to be.

    I agree with you in that I would be hugely disappointed if she had any surgery to "enhance" her looks. She's got all the "goods" she needs...."naturally." But, here's where my brotherly "critique" comes in. When Hill does her hair a certain way....short, and flipped up, combined with appropriately youthful, sporty clothes, she looks just Fabulous! Cover girl, fabulous. On the other hand, and it's really perplexing, there are times when it seems like she goes out of the way to look old (meaning older than she is) and dresses in a doughty, frumpy, out of fashion kind of way.

    I hope you know what I mean. It's just that, what I'm referring to is: sometimes I see her, and she looks so good, like a glamorous movie star, and you can see that it took just a little effort. She is, in my opinion, a natural beauty, and it doesn't take much to appear that way.

    And, then there are times when I have to do a double take, and it's really quite shocking even. That same glamour girl looks like a frumpy, dumpy, yuck. Why does she do that?

    My point is that, in the context we're talking about, in the public eye, and seeking approval from her constituents,  these things are very important.

    Bottom line; we're all adults here, and we know that looks/appearance matters. From a sales point of view it is well known that, given the choice, people would prefer to buy from a more attractive candidate than one less so. That's just a fact. And, since it appears to me that Hillary requires relatively little effort to look really great I don't see why she ever appears in public looking like a washwoman, or a primitive, uncoordinated, dumpy chambermaid?

    Parent

    No woman goes out of her way to (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 03:08:01 PM EST
    look old or frumpy or dumpy: we are the people who routinely ask ourselves and others, "does this outfit make me look fat?"  I don't think men do this, at least I don't know any who do it, or would admit to it.

    Here's what bugs me: why don't people talk about what men look like in the clothes they choose to wear?  Why aren't men accused of looking frumpy or dumpy or old or fat?  

    You know what?  I'm going to stop here, because I can feel myself about to start ranting about the whole subject.  I'll just leave it at this: the only way to put the emphasis on what's between people's ears is to stop thinking with what's between your legs.  

    Sorry if that's harsh, but I honestly am not going to be able to take almost 2 years of sexist BS about Hillary Clinton. Sexist BS that is nothing more than a way to knock a brilliant, accomplished, wise-in-the-ways-of-the-world, hard-working PERSON, who happens to be a woman, out of contention.

    For all those who are swooning over little Marco Rubio's movie-star looks, this isn't a movie, it's real life, and this crackpot has some repressive, regressive, harmful ideas that will set us back generations in the progress we've been able to make.

    Parent

    an unwarranted, pathetic remark (3.50 / 2) (#186)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:24:32 PM EST
    Hillary is a public figure, a star, aspiring to the Presidency. I'm quite certain she has numerous experts advising her on all topics as they relate to her goal. If you want to put her appearance off limits as a topic of conversation, your prerogative. Circumstances being equal, I would make the same observations regardless of whether she was my wife, sister, my mother, or candidate for the Presidency.

    Just ridiculous.

    Parent

    Oh, good to know, you're an equal (none / 0) (#192)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 06:29:12 AM EST
    opportunity...whatever.  

    Here's what I don't get: why would you want to legitimize the sexism that's already creeping into this race by questioning why Hillary can't look spectacular - to you - 24/7?  What does how she looks on any given day have to do with anything, other than drawing attention to your apparently delicate visual sensibilities that are offended when she doesn't look like a star?

    A star?  Really?  

    Do you remember how bedazzled the media was over Sarah Palin's sexy figure and those peep-toe pumps she liked to wear?  Oh, the glamour!  The signal that this, my friend, was a sexual being.

    Who was and is as dumb as a box of rocks and wholly unqualified to be the leader of the free world.  But - she'd have looked spectacular at all times, I'm sure.  No dowdy, frumpy, washerwoman look for her, no siree.

    But don't worry - we didn't take your comments "the wrong way;" I think we took them exactly for what they were: a preview of coming attractions.


    Parent

    Because as we men age, Anne, ... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 06:43:57 PM EST
    Anne: "Why aren't men accused of looking frumpy or dumpy or old or fat?"

    ... others tend to see us as more distinguished and debonair -- although admittedly, some of us should probably avoid the temptation to spray-tan.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Just as well (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 03:10:48 PM EST
    that Abraham Lincoln is not running for President today.
    With his looks, he'd never make it.  :-(
    (BTW, today is the Sesquicentennial of the shooting of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth.)

    Parent
    Hmmm. I've never seen (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 12:38:34 AM EST
    a photo of her:

    l

    ooking like a washwoman, or a primitive, uncoordinated, dumpy chambermaid


    Parent
    Google will find you (none / 0) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 08:07:46 AM EST
    plenty.

    Parent
    Hillary's response (none / 0) (#197)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 15, 2015 at 10:04:42 AM EST
    (CNN) - Hillary Clinton laughed off the perpetual conversation over her appearance that landed in the spotlight once again Monday when a picture of her sporting glasses sans make-up made the rounds on the internet.

    "I feel so relieved to be at the stage I'm at in my life right now," the secretary of state told CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jill Dougherty in an interview. "Because you know if I want to wear my glasses I'm wearing my glasses. If I want to wear my hair back I'm pulling my hair back. You know at some point it's just not something that deserves a lot of time and attention."

    Not all comments are about a woman's appearance. An oldie but goodie:

    The old joke about how President Obama wears mom jeans is a good one, as far as jokes about the President are concerned. On Friday, he tried to defend his denim, but we're here to set things straight.  

    Obama's recent trip to The Gap came up during his interview on Ryan Seacrest's radio show Friday morning. An employee complimented The First Dad on his understanding of girl's sizes, but noted the President might need a new pair of jeans. Obama took it kind of personally:

    "I've been unfairly maligned about my jeans," Obama jokes. "The truth is, generally I look very sharp in jeans. There was one episode like four years ago in which I was wearing some loose jeans mainly because I was out on the pitcher's mound and I didn't want to feel confined while I was pitching and I think I've paid my penance for that. I got whacked pretty good. Since that time, my jeans fit very well."

    The President claims he has worn acceptable pairs of jeans since at least 2009. We, dutiful journalists that we are, decided to fact check that claim. The results of our wide-ranging investigation reveal that he is, in fact, lying. The President has continued to wear terrible jeans long past 2009...



    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#129)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    ...and the next question would be which ones were from bill.  

    It shouldn't matter if she looks good, if we wanted models running for office we would elect them.  

    The idea that a politician can take the heat on things like voting the wrong way on war, but not take a comment on their appearance is dumb.  They are going to make fun because it's not about how they look, it's about putting them down.  And they ain't gonna stop because of botox or new shoes.

    Parent

    "if we wanted models running ... (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 05:26:10 PM EST
    ... for office we would elect them."  Y'mean like Reagan?  

    Parent
    LOL! Or like Mitt Romney, whom ... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 05:54:59 PM EST
    ... David Letterman once dismissed as "that guy on the 'Clairol Just for Men' box."

    Oh, wait -- Romney didn't get elected. Never mind. My bad.

    Parent

    If Hillary got a Kerry level makeover (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    it would be the lead story in every newspaper and cable show on earth.  Or at least in the U.S.

    that's a fact.

    Parent

    Not so much, actually (none / 0) (#65)
    by sj on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    That discussion was more a case of a natural vs. unnatural looking face.

    Parent
    ... while taking the pulse of a frivolous pop culture, "Remember, darlings -- it's more important to look good, than to feel good."

    ;-)

    Parent

    Here You Go (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:43:53 PM EST
    Without comment (none / 0) (#95)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    Interesting...but I find this hard to beleive... (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    "One thing is clear: The historic possibility of a woman becoming president isn't a major influence on attitudes. The vast majority of poll respondents-83 percent-say they wouldn't be more or less inclined to vote for Clinton because she would be the first female president.

    "Clinton's strong performance in 2008 seems to have addressed any question of whether a woman could be a capable president.  It's a non-issue now," said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. "



    Parent
    That's one way to think about it (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by CST on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:08:53 PM EST
    Another way to think about it is that 12% of people swing-able on anything in a national election is actually a lot.

    Parent
    I found that number hard to believe also. (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    My guess is many just don't want to admit it and/or don't want to define their vote that way?

    Parent
    I would love it (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:59:46 PM EST
    Vote for her because you believe she's the most qualified.  The fact that she's be the first female president is a side benefit.  How refreshing it would be to have a campaign based on ideas for the people and not the perceved coolness and awesomeness of the candidate!

    I hope it continues.

    Parent

    I can only pray (none / 0) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 01:07:49 PM EST
    that a poll so devoid of even a modicum of useful information would get the response it so richly earned.......Without comment.

    Parent
    Iowa report (none / 0) (#142)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 03:48:23 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 04:18:54 PM EST
    for that. Apparently she already has response to Rubio: He wants to build the economy of the past.

    Parent
    Ouch - good one. (none / 0) (#146)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 04:34:14 PM EST
    Don't stop thinkin' about tomorrow . . . (none / 0) (#177)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 07:44:40 PM EST
    The past and future rolled into one ;) Is that one one Rubio is thinking of? lol!~

    Parent
    Several pictures of Hillary's (none / 0) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 14, 2015 at 04:34:06 PM EST
    Scooby van in that article.

    Parent