Bill Richardson Announces Support for Hillary

Former Gov. Bill Richardson, who supported Obama over Hillary in 2007 after his own bid ended, announced his support for Hillary today.

"I am pleased to announce I wholeheartedly support Secretary Clinton's candidacy for the Presidency. Her leadership on issues like foreign policy, immigration, climate change and economic populism are important to the future of the country."

He also said he might have set up the same email system as Hillary: [More...]

“I would have said, 'You know what? I don't want an official classified email system. I want to have my own private server,” he said. “Because of WikiLeaks, because of hacking, because of leaks.”

He compared it to former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s use of a private email, even though Powell didn’t set up his own private server.

If Joe Biden runs, I think he should resign as Vice President. Why should we pay his salary when he'll be spending all his energy on a presidential run? We deserve a vice president who puts his duties to the American people who elected him over his own political ambitions. Were he younger, he might have the energy to do both. (He also had a near fatal aneurysm and has undergone two brain surgeries.)

Joe Biden is too old, too stale, and too unprogressive to be President. He can't run from his abysmal record on crime issues. His perpetual foot in mouth disease is an international embarrassment. We had 36 years of Joe Biden in the Senate. He's been VP for 7 years. It's time for him to retire.

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Can (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 08:27:39 PM EST
    I explode with laughter now?

    I'm with you, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Coral on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 08:31:25 PM EST
    I strongly support Hillary. If her campaign somehow imploded I would support Bernie, not Joe.

    Same here. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 09:37:07 PM EST
    Biden's been a good and loyal vice president to Obama, but his candidacy would be a complete non-starter with me, for all the reasons Jeralyn articulated earlier, and then some.

    The four incumbent vice presidents ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 09:33:30 PM EST
    ... who ran for the White House in their own right during the 20th century -- Richard Nixon (1960), Hubert Humphrey (1968), George H.W. Bush (1988) and Al Gore (2000) -- never resigned their offices. Hence, why should Joe Biden?

    And really, Jeralyn -- do you seriously want House Speaker John Boehner to be next in line to the Oval Office, should (Heaven forbid) something happen to President Obama? Because according to the Constitution's line of succession, that would be the case.


    Well, no...if there is a vacancy in the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 10:05:37 PM EST
    office of the vice president, the president nominates a replacement, who must be confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.

    Given the likelihood of complete and utter gridlock in the Congress, it would be foolish to take the chance.  And Biden's ego wouldn't allow it anyway.

    That being said, it's more than a little fun to contemplate the possibility of a Biden resignation, followed by Obama nominating Hillary for VP.  Or Elizabeth Warren.  

    Just the mental picture of all those GOP heads exploding is rather delicious; they'd have to shut down the city for the clean-up alone...


    In part III of Ken Follett's (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 11:45:02 PM EST
    trilogy, JFK beats not Nixon but Adlai Stevenson. Talk about historical fiction!

    None of them were 74 (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 10:48:30 PM EST
    when they had to campaign while serving as VP. I think it's too much for anyone to do at that age.

    Given that logic, ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    ... Ronald Reagan should've resigned the presidency -- a far more strenuous position -- at age 73 in order to campaign full-time for the job.

    I'm already on record as supporting Hillary Clinton. But were I to support a septuagenarian for the Democratic presidential nomination, I'd go with Bernie Sanders, who's 73. I noticed that you haven't called for his resignation from the U.S. Senate.

    I fully understand -- and further share, at least in part -- your antipathy for Joe Biden, Jeralyn. But citing his age as a factor for not being able to hold his present job whilst running for another is rather petty.

    You've already laid out a very cogent and compelling case in previous threads why Biden should not be president, based upon his own history as a U.S. senator. Please stick to that and don't risk incurring accusations of ageism, which some in the political blogosphere would use against you to undercut your own credibility in such matters.

    We live in some pretty nasty times right now, and this is a high-stakes game. You've enough of a public profile in your own right, that you should consider the prospect of someone availing themselves of such comments to their own perceived advantage, which would likely come at your own ultimate expense.



    The Iran Contra Hearings (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 01:34:33 AM EST
    I remember when Reagan was testifying in regard to Oliver North and others involved in the Iran Contra Hearings, that he kept saying "I don't remember, I do not recall, etc." Later it made so much sense when the world was told of his horrible illness. At the time I assumed he was just hiding the facts. I mean, if VP Bush Sr insisted he knew nothing of what was happening and yet as a former CIA Director he had access to all the daily CIA briefings, it had to be they both were telling fibs. Right? But how are we as voters able to know when a person's mental health has crossed over the bridge and they are not capable of leading our country? I would suggest an age but who am I to know when is too old. I presume that it is when we notice stumbling over facts and not making sense. I would also like to think that the personal physician would have the courage to tell the President or candidate that it is time to hang up the spurs for the sake of the people. Probably not going to happen but I can sweet day dream at least. And I can hope.

    A family friend was a Secret Service agent... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    ...for Reagan, and he assures us that the former President was mentally incompetent from the moment he took office. Couldn't remember anyone's name, couldn't put two and two together without help. And the world we are in now...I have no reason to disbelieve him. Not like he was fired and was a disgruntled former secret service man when he told us this.

    I've /heard read that before (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 11:38:13 AM EST
    although I can't recall where.

    I think if he is too old to do both VP (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    and campaign for pres, he is too old to be pres.

    Bottom line is, he should just not run. There are so many reasons, most of which you delineated. Perhaps the biggest one being he has no chance in hell of winning.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 03:28:00 PM EST
    if he runs it will be a few months and then he will be gone. I guess the good news would be if he gets in that O'Malley and Chafee will have someone that they actually can take some voters from since it seems they can't get them from either Bernie or Hillary.

    But, what if............ (none / 0) (#10)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 02:18:51 AM EST
    Biden met with Liz Warren not to get her support, not to ask her to be his Vice President, nor even to just get her advice.

    What if Joe says to Elizabeth Warren, "You know I love Hillary, she's been absolutely wonderful in every job she's held. And, I would love nothing more than to just help her in every way possible to become our next President. But, you and I know it's just not going to happen. This email thing has really only gotten started. Her polls are cratering, and, all the important numbers regarding trust, believability, honesty.... the worst any candidate's ever had. It's over for her; you know it, and, I know it."

    "Look at me, Liz. We can't just sit here, and, let those Neanderthals take the country away from the American people. We, simply can't let this disaster happen. And, if we don't do anything, the worst nightmare we could ever have dreamt will become the reality.

    So, here it is. I know everything you've said before, but, that was when Hillary was a shoo-in. I want you to be the next President of the United States, and, I'll stay on as good, ole, Joe, you're time-tested Vice President. They know me, I'm their  comfortable pair of old shoes, "Uncle Joe." And, I know the public isn't clamoring for me as their President. But, You & me, The American people will go nuts over this idea, and, we'll win in the greatest landslide victory ever.

    You don't have a choice any more, Elizabeth. The country needs you, the world needs you, hell, civilization needs you. And, of course, our grandchildren, and, their children, we just can't surrender them to that buffoon Donald, the deranged one, and his mob of psychotic sadists, just drooling at the thought of it all being theirs next year. So, leave it to me, I'll set everything up. You won't be just the first female American President, you'll be the best American President ever.

    Thank you Madam President, a grateful country thanks you.

    I'm going to go see Hillary and Bill now; we'll set up an announcement for next Wednesday.

    Bye, bye."


    Yeah, (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 06:07:14 AM EST
    a lot of right wing sites are positing that scenario however you're dealing with Joe Biden and the most dangerous place in Washington is between Joe Biden and a camera. You're also ignoring Biden's ego in that scenario. More than likely Biden wanted Warren to hand over her mailing list.

    Oh no (none / 0) (#12)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 06:18:10 AM EST
    My Senator takes a back seat to no politician. The most dangerous place in Washington is between Chuckie Schumer and a camera.
    Biden wouldn't tell Warren she should be President, he might have floated the idea of Warren being the VP on the ticket, and he leaving in 4 years for her to run as the incumbent.

    She won't bite on that offer


    You don't (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 07:04:17 AM EST
    know much about Biden if you think Warren and Biden would ever be on the same ticket. Biden sent out a trial balloon by telling the press of this meeting. So far there seems to have been a big yawn at the thought of him running outside of the people who swear they love Joe Biden until he actually runs and then they'll all start talking about how much they hate him.

    The Hill (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 08:34:15 AM EST
    Budowsky: Hillary vs. media malpractice

    It is media malpractice turned into farce when commentators suggest that a CNN poll showing the Democratic candidate winning by 6 percent to 10 points is in trouble and that the Republican candidates losing by 6 percente to 10 points are doing well.

    Does Hillary Clinton's campaign have challenges? Yes, you can bet your pants suit it does. But there is not one Republican candidate who would not trade places with her strength in the campaign for the nomination and general election. Any GOP candidate who claims otherwise is bearing false witness, and anyone who reports otherwise is guilty of one more moment of media malpractice.

    It seems some in the media would like to not be seen as a joke.

    My husband and I had dinner with a (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:04:58 AM EST
    friend of his who was in from out of town - he comes in about once a year, and because he now lives in a state where he can't get steamed crabs, he almost always wants to take us out, and spend the evening picking crabs (they were excellent, by the way).

    Anyway, this guy is Republican establishment-type, among the 1% for sure.  His analysis of the race was that if Trump and Clinton are the nominees, we might as well face up to the fact that our country is heading down the tubes.  Hillary, according to him, is not even remotely qualified to be president.  My response to him was, if she's not remotely qualified, who is?

    He thinks Trump is a joke: my response was, it's getting less funny by the day.

    He wanted me to know that Rubio beats Hillary in Florida and Ohio; he would like to see Rubio or Kasich get the nomination, likening Rubio to a young JFK.  

    That was the point where I almost picked up a crab claw and stabbed myself in the eye so the scream I felt building would at least have a visible cause...actually, what I said was, "we have to stop talking politics, or I have to excuse myself before I say something I can't take back."

    I told my husband in the car that I knew his friend wasn't going to have much good to say about the Democrats, but, hey, at least he isn't a Trumper.

    I don't often have occasion to talk with a Republican who isn't a raging lunatic, but I'm sort of at the point where it still seems like lunacy to support any of them.


    I know a few of those republicans (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:09:21 AM EST
    they are freaked about Trump.

    However (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:17:04 AM EST
    none of the ones I know still think Donald is a joke.  It could be that he is wildly popular here.

    I have been experimenting a bit.  When I am in a crowd of these folks I encourage them to talk about Donald by saying I am glad he is in the race (I am) and I start innocently asking questions like, you know he has been for universal healthcare, partial birth abortion etc.

    They do know and they could care less.  It's downright eerie.  These are people who I have heard trash candidates because they would allow an abortion t save the life of the mother.

    Note to the establishment, if you think negative ads on these subjects are going to hurt Donald you are in for a surprise.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:26:28 AM EST
    they might have started out thinking he was joke but the ones paying attention no longer think that at all. To me Anne's friend above who thinks Rubio has a shot are more clueless than the ones that are taking Trump seriously.

    Clueless is a harsh word (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:32:02 AM EST
    i understand the temptation to dismiss him.   Who would seriously believe it.  I suspect they are only removed from rural red America where Donald is literally taking mythical traits.

    It is as I said one of the strangest, and most unexpected, things I remember.

    They will get it eventually.   Perhaps after he sweeps the SEC primary.   For myself, I think there is at least a 50/50 chance Donald wil be the nominee.


    I remember when the sainted Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 08:53:12 PM EST
    was considered the right wing extremist candidate who said things like Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." and "The American Petroleum Institute filed suit against the EPA [and] charged that the agency was suppressing a scientific study for fear it might be misinterpreted... The suppressed study reveals that 80 percent of air pollution comes not from chimneys and auto exhaust pipes, but from plants and trees."

    Then Reagan got nominated and then was "mainstreamed" (for lack of a better term) by the MSM. All that Reagan craziness was ignored.

    Trump gets nominated, and there is an even money chance he too will get mainstreamed. After, like Reagan is a showman. The sad thing is, I think Trump may be smarter than the rest of the GOP candidates. And that is scary.


    Me too, 50/50 (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:36:41 AM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:41:47 AM EST
    Donald actually winning some primaries is the only thing that might make some of them sit up and take notice.

    Definitely off topic... BUT (none / 0) (#45)
    by jmacWA on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 10:14:42 AM EST
    Where do you recommend for steamed crabs in Baltimore?



    Try a nice (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 10:26:27 AM EST
    hot shower

    Oh, gosh -there are so many places! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 10:28:51 AM EST
    There's The Crackpot, Conrads, LP Steamers, Ocean Pride, Canton Dockside, Bo Brooks, Nick's Fish House, Gibby's (carry out only).

    We were at the Crackpot last night and had great crabs - big, heavy, well- seasoned.  Expensive!


    Do you know... (none / 0) (#57)
    by sj on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 11:53:55 AM EST
     of the places you mentioned, I have only been to Nick's? Too bad I didn't ask you for recommendations when I lived there...

    I agree with your friend. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 11:29:40 AM EST
    If we are presented with a choice of Trump or HRC for president, the country is indeed doomed. Originally I thought I could vote for HRC in the general if I held my nose hard enough, but the more she talks and/or campaigns, the less I like (and I didn't much care for Hillary to begin with). If that's my choice, I'll have to go Green or write in Joe Walsh (the guitar player, not the nut from Illinois) again. Remember the Party Party Party?

    I don't think Clinton dooms us, (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 12:10:58 PM EST
    as much as maybe she consigns us to (at least) 4 years of non-stop scandal-mongering and petulant gridlock - all while not being nearly as far to the left as I would like her to be.

    I'm over it before it's even happened.

    Trump, now, that's a whole different story.  If candidate-not-even-the-nominee Trump can "inspire" this kind of stuff, then, yes: a President Trump spells doom:

    "Hopefully, he's going to sit there and say, `When I become elected president, what we're going to do is we're going to make the border a vacation spot, it's going to cost you $25 for a permit, and then you get $50 for every confirmed kill,' " said Jim Sherota, 53, who works for a landscaping company. "That'd be one nice thing."

    Or this:

    A conservative student group announced Monday they will play a "Catch an Illegal Immigrant Game" this week on the University of Texas at Austin, drawing condemnation from Democrats and a threat of expulsion from campus officials.

    The Young Conservatives of Texas have planned the game for Wednesday. Club members will wander the campus wearing signs that say "illegal immigrant," and students who capture them and take them to the Young Conservatives' recruiting table will get $25 gift certificates.

    "The purpose of this event is to spark a campus-wide discussion about the issue of illegal immigration, and how it affects our everyday lives," a statement posted by the group's spokesman, Lorenzo Garcia. The group did not immediately reply to several emails sent by The Associated Press.

    Digby has more, and it's no better.

    I don't think Clinton's going to inspire that or have an immigration policy that encourages that kind of thing.  I don't think she's going to continue the war on women.  I don't think she's about waging war for wars' sake, but I don't know how confident I am that war is off the table.  

    As much as I hate holding my nose, if she's the nominee running against Trump, and it looks like my state could go red, I'll probably do it.  Not happily, but my principles aren't going to be much comfort to me if Trump gets elected.

    I hate that it could come to that, I really do.


    That's exactly where I'm at. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:07:40 PM EST
    "all while not being nearly as far to the left as I would like her to be."

    And why I don't want to support her. The same reason I'm disappointed with Obama.


    The unfortunate (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    thing is all the GOP has is scandal mongering and it is what they are going to do. I remember them even starting a huge scandal with Jimmy Carter and something about his peanut farm. They believe that any Democrat who wins a presidential election is "illegitimate" and must be "eliminated" because they are interfering with the GOP who believe they are entitled to the presidency. No matter what or who is president they are going to scandal monger and the press is going to do their bidding.

    Digby's post is alarming (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 12:57:12 PM EST
    and frightening. And also very, very sad.  From her link:
    The migration of extreme notions into the mainstream was recently laid bare in a Newsweek cover story that described ranchers who are "hunting humans" as simply "dealing first-hand with the problems caused by the influx of undocumented immigrants." The piece, "Hunting Humans: The Americans Taking Immigration Into Their Own Hands" was reported from Brooks County some 70 miles north of the border in South Texas, and quotes three ranchers--Michael and Linda Vickers and another who went only by "B.J." Not apparently comfortable enough to use her full name, B.J. refers to migrants as if they were prey....

    ... One year later, the ranchers are described as hunting migrants while laying out traps and chasing them down. Maybe these ranchers viewed the migrants not simply as trespassers but as prey all along and now they feel free to express such opinions. It's difficult to know. But reporters who had interviewed the Vickers before told me they were alarmed at what they described as a sharp shift in rhetoric.

    Such a struggle to hold on to the comfort of supremacy.

    Wow (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    thanks for bringing that up. Though from what I see from some tea partiers around where I live this should not be a surprise. We had a poor Guatemalan man standing on the corner waiting for work when a couple of teenagers came by and pulled him in their truck and beat the crap out of him and threw him in the woods. Fortunately he survived but the grandparents of one of the kids was a big time Republican in the county, actually the biggest Republican in the county. So everything was so incestuous to the point that the DA was a candidate that the grandparents had supported for his position etc. that the trial had to be moved to another county.

    I've got it worse (none / 0) (#84)
    by coast on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 07:11:42 PM EST
    I would actually have to seriously consider voting "D" for the first time in my life.

    At least HRC is in your party.

    There is now way I could vote for Trump for President.  It will be an embarrassment if he is the nominee.


    Well (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 07:34:13 PM EST
    it seems they all are turning into Trump these days.

    It's the trend (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 08:43:50 AM EST
    that has Hillary's media shills worried.

    A month ago they were asking, "Trump who??"

    (And I apologize to all UT fans who remember "Archie who?")


    Considering that Trump (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 11:25:05 AM EST
    has long been on an NBC reality show, his name on  three casinos, and numerous other buildings around the country, I find it a stretch that ANYONE, anywhere said "Trump who?"

    GOP (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 08:57:22 AM EST
    voters don't care whether their candidates can win a national election.

    It is a CNN (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:08:33 AM EST
    poll on a national level that has Trump just 6% behind.

    That's quite a jump.

    And you seem to forget that the electorate is 40-20-40 so what the Repub bosses care is meaningless.


    Nope (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:21:11 AM EST
    it's a poll of GOP voters and they don't care whether the candidate can win a general election. Not a consideration for the voters at all. Actually the country is 48% D, 39% GOP 13% the rest according to Pew.

    A lot of Dem voters here (none / 0) (#110)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 09:31:12 AM EST
    don't care whether their candidate of choice can win a general election. They have made that clear time and time again.

    If that's the aspersion (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by sj on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 11:37:20 AM EST
    you want to cast against someone who will no longer vote against his/her own interests, then I guess you would put me in that maligned little category. I don't get a thrill out of voting for a "winner" just because they are a "winner". It's just not the kind of bragging rights I'm interested in.

    Thank you for confirming (none / 0) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 02:18:43 PM EST
    what I said to Ga6thDem.

    You're welcome (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by sj on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 03:50:47 PM EST
    Your attempt at shaming isn't working at all. I own my vote. It is the one and only vehicle (along with requisite donations) I have to voice my priorities. Nobody gets it for free.

    Everyone is entitled to use their vote as they see fit and I don't judge.* I don't even judge you for your herd tendencies.

    * Except maybe for jim. I judge his voting patterns only because he goes on and on and on about how he is a social liberal, all while voting for candidates who will never support those issues.


    I was replying to Ga6thDem (2.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 10:34:58 PM EST
    who shared data that there are GOP voters that don't care if their candidate wins. I responded saying there are Dem voters that don't care if their candidate wins. I wasn't judging anyone, just stating facts. Try to follow the conversation and you won't be offended next time.

    Wev (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by sj on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:17:56 AM EST
    I guess I thought it was you in intentionally offensive mode instead of you being you in the more casual, dismissive, unintentionally offensive mode.

    But... (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 09:11:25 PM EST
    when he squints he looks so.... presidential.

    Bill Who? Oh, right...someone looking for (none / 0) (#4)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 09:17:37 PM EST
    relevance and some face time with talking heads.  Just what we need...cue Joe Lieberman, 'cuz he'll be the next heat-seeking, self-interested twit to start making noise.

    Joe Biden will never resign - can you even imagine the sh!tshow that would ensue, with Obama having to nominate someone to take his place, and the Congress needing to confirm by majority vote?

    I can't even go there it's so unimaginable.

    If the markets don't bounce back, we could be looking at some serious economic setbacks, which will also add to the general insanity that has taken over DC.


    Well, I've been around long enough... (none / 0) (#165)
    by unitron on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 11:46:05 PM EST
    ...to know who Richardson is, but then again, also long enough to remember Ev Dirksen and vaguely remember people talking about Sam Rayburn.

    But I figure "Bill who?" is the reaction you'll get from a lot of the voting-eligible population who are less well endowed chronologically than I.

    Especially if they didn't even follow politics before Obama's 2008 run.


    I understand that many (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 08:46:52 AM EST
    of you folks are worried and want Warren.

    But why do you think she is electable?

    Who is worried? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 08:50:40 AM EST
    I'm not worried. I have Clinton and Sanders out front. Why would I be worried?

    No one is worried (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 08:51:53 AM EST
    he knows this.   That was bait.

    If I were a Republican I would be worried (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 08:58:14 AM EST
    All the Conservative girls are with that woman objectifying Donald....because he said he wasn't going to put their head on a pike. That is the saddest political circus I've ever seen.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:12:42 AM EST
    no birthing slaves for The Donald. He's for women's health. I guess in that field that's enough to make women flock to him.

    HaHaHa....he hasn't defined how much (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:18:32 AM EST
    Health the womens get, but hes fur givin em some health :)

    So phruckin sad, Conservative girls slummin again.

    Get yourselves outta the gutter girls!


    The (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 08:58:56 AM EST
    GOP is just such a literal mess right now they're trying to breed stuff in the Democratic primary to try to make it all be equal.

    I wish them luck with that (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:07:10 AM EST
    I would love to see a Hillary/Trump race.  Not just because she would win in a massive landslide and bring the senate and, yes IMO, possibly even the House with her but because this is a fight that has been coming for years. Decades.  It's coming.  The showdown between the ppjs of the country and the rest of us.  It's been coming for a long time and it's inevitable.

    And speaking only for me there are not two people in the country I would prefer to see in the role of the faces of the respective sides than Hillary and Donald Trump.


    I agree. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:18:32 AM EST
    I really hope the GOP continues the "loud and proud" "white power" BS so it is going to be VERY CLEAR that the rest of the country absolutely rejects neoconfederatism.

    I asked why Warren is electable (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:04:27 AM EST
    None of you answered the question.

    Your powers of observation (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:07:45 AM EST
    are improving.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:10:38 AM EST
    Now, can you answer the question??

    Since I, at least, am not proposing (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:54:16 AM EST
    that she should run, I don't feel obligated to respond to your question.

    If you are interested in why she may or may not be electable, there is plenty of information out there that should allow you to reach your own conclusions.


    It seems to me that with all the talk about (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    her running that one of you could offer some reasons why she is electable.

    Could one be this??

    She is not only female but is also Native American?

    ...oh wait....she's not NA, she just claimed that..

    oh wait....Hillary is also female and she's in trouble...

    Now, does anybody have anything else??

    And can anybody tell me what position that Hillary has that has strong support within the moderate Independents????


    well for starters (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CST on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    She's not a racist blowhard.

    Anyone can claim that (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    follow with all the Repub candidates's names.

    keep telling yourself that (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:24:31 PM EST
    And wonder why Republicans can't even break 30% with anyone who isn't white.

    But look, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.  You still can't figure out who voted for Obama but he still won two presidential elections.  I thought moderates were supposed to love McCain and Romney, and yet here we are.  So the right wing goes further to the right, and you still wonder why moderates would vote Dem.

    I don't have to explain it to you, the only thing that matters is the result at the end of election day.


    Oh, we know who voted for Obama (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    and we know who didn't vote for McCain or Romney..the Repub base. But, if as many Repubs that voted for McCain had voted for Romney he would be President today.

    Take sour grapes (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 05:00:28 PM EST
    add some unfocused and misdirected Tea Bagger rage, and you get rancid grapes.

    So facts are now sour grapes??? (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 10:44:11 PM EST

    We all know you're still (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    hurting about George Wallace's campaign going nowhere forty years ago; why would anyone expect you to less bitter about the 2012 election?

    And we all know you haven't tried to (1.00 / 2) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:20:49 PM EST
    have a rational debate in the whole time you have been stalking me.

    No one will ever stalk you (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:26:53 PM EST
    for a rational debate.   Sorry.

    or for any other reason. (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:42:28 PM EST
    Elizabeth (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:27:39 PM EST
    Warren is not running. So your candidates are so bad all you have to shop is conspiracy theories?

    Oh wait.. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    she's a real social liberal -- and an intelligent, well-spoken one at that..

    And she understands economics..

    And last but not least,, by all indications, she doesn't believe science and secular knowledge in general are tools of the Devil -- unlike a solid third to half of the Republican base..


    No one here is talking about her (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:50:45 PM EST
    running; I'm sure there are some blogs where such conversations are taking place, so why not go there and give them the jim treatment?

    By the time Trump and his mouth get finished, the demographic of people who support the Republican Party and its candidate is going to be blindingly white and almost exclusively male.  And it's going to energize women, and people of color to vote for anyone but the party of racism and misogyny.

    Trump's popularity is forcing his GOP opponents into some very contorted positions as they desperately try to thread the needle.  And it's not working very well.  Scott Walker can't decide what his position is - he's had about three of them on immigration in as many days, and separately or together, they don't mark him as a terribly bright fellow.  Just terrible.

    Bobby Jindal?  He IS one of those "anchor" babies he and his fellow Republicans have been railing against.  It was okay for him, but he's not going to let anyone else get away with it!

    Jeb Bush?  He usually needs at least three tries at the same question before he can deliver a response; he may not be the smarter brother after all.

    Ben Carson?  Brilliant neurosurgeon with a compelling personal story, but that's about it; his ideas about government, women, torture, immigration, fiscal policy?  He must have gotten in the "crazy" line more than once.

    As for your last question, the polling indicates that Clinton is in the 60% range with liberals and moderates; I don't know what a moderate independent is, exactly, or whether that's a polling category, but you seem like someone who has enough time on his hands to do his own research, so have at it.

    As for gender - it is less about the fact that Clinton is a woman, and more about where she stands on issues that matter to women, and about the fact that the GOP seems determined to wage war on women, all women.  But one doesn't have to be female to be pro-woman: just ask Bernie Sanders where he stands.  Ask Martin O'Malley.  It's not about being female, it's about not hating them like the GOP does.

    It's pretty clear that you're trying to provoke a fight on Elizabeth Warren; I'm so sorry no one will play with you on that one, jim; you really should take your trollish ways somewhere where you can get a real knock-down-drag-out free-for-all going.


    Well (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    do you think moderate independents think that turning women into birthing slaves for rapists is a good idea? Don't you think moderate independents that want to go send their kids to college should be able to do so? Hillary does but the GOP doesn't think it's a problem. They think that only the wealthy should be able to send their kids.

    Any idea that popular in the 19th century is pretty much what the GOP is for. Why don't you explain to us why you think 19th Century ideas will win an election?


    I forgot (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CST on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    not to feed the troll.

    The nice thing is, this time around, I'm not even worried about it, there's no need to have this conversation.

    It's pure Demographics.

    Couldn't even get the stock market crash to last all day :)


    Really (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 04:33:46 PM EST
    I (none / 0) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 04:45:10 PM EST
    am sure Trump would have stopped the world wide slide with his bare hands.

    This your worldwide free market at work, all anybody can do is sit back and watch.


    This is the world wide free market (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 10:42:54 PM EST
    made by the Demos and the Repubs.

    As Trump points out we're being robbed.

    Obama promised hope and change.

    His change has been surrender to Iran.

    My hope is that we still have a country 10 years from now.


    Why would we? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:11:26 AM EST
    We have two smokin hot candidates leading the party right now. There isn't an issue here

    There is starting to be more and more talk (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 10:33:17 AM EST
    that it's possible that, with the new finance rules that will allow more people to stay in longer among other reasons, the republican primary may for the first time in forever go all the way to the convention.  That the republicans could actually have a contested convention.  An honest to god floor fight.

    How much fun would THAT be.  I ask you.


    Ironies (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    of ironies. They are the ones that pushed for the citizen's united ruling. It's like everything they have been doing for the last 25 years is coming back to destroy them.

    USNews and National Review (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 10:51:13 AM EST
    In a scenario with a commanding front-runner, this doesn't seem like a high threshold to cross. But with the absence of an heir apparent standard-bearer and the most wide open nomination battle in decades looming, some RNC members think Rule 40 could crack open the door to the possibility of a convention floor fight. The theory: If no one candidate has secured eight states, it invites a free-for-all without a reason to get out. Conversely, if multiple candidates garner eight victories and accrue hundreds of delegates, each could claim a right to soldier on.  For instance, it isn't inconceivable to think that Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., could dominate the Northeast, with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. performing well in the South and Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wisc,, racking up victories in the Midwest.

    So much for an orderly primary.

    How interesting? Top-tier presidential campaigns are preparing for the still-unlikely scenario that the nomination fight goes all the way to the 2016 Republican National Convention. There hasn't been a brokered convention since 1976, but the strength of the GOP field, when coupled with the proliferation of super PACs, increases the chances that several candidates could show up in Cleveland next July with an army of delegates at their backs.

    Both are essentially pre-Trump


    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 11:09:21 AM EST
    strong must mean in numbers according to the beltway. Even if you have 17 crazy people it's a "strong" slate of candidates. That nonsense is one of the reasons the beltway looks out of touch.

    Howdy, you have to read this: (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    Trumpus Maximus Goes To Mobile

    It is perfect.

    An excerpt:

    By any objective measure, Trump is a terrible public speaker. There are no prepared notes and no overarching message. In Mobile, he began by tossing out some red-meat immigration gruel, then spent the next half hour rambling to and fro, all over the place, landing wherever. A new building he's constructing in Washington DC. His financial disclosure papers. What networks were carrying his speech live. When he said Jeb Bush's name for the first time, he said, "Jeb Bush ... DOYYY!" like he was Beavis. It was impossible not to laugh.

    For two minutes, out of nowhere, he went after Caroline Kennedy, for reasons only he could possibly understand. (Even as he was going after her, he said he loved her because his daughter Ivanka loved her, and Ivanka, "she's just great, just a great great girl.") His speech is less a speech than a ride from brain synapse to brain synapse. He goes off on tangents, he loses his train of thought, he chases rabbits that only he sees. (I think at one point he claimed that Secretariat wasn't actually that fast of a horse? And praised the Mafia? And vowed not to ride a bicycle as president.) When he has completely lost the thread, he gathers himself and says something like, "I just want to say: I just want to make this country great. And that's what I'm gonna do."



    Via Charlie Pierce, Bill Kristol (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 02:09:12 PM EST
    gives us a new list of names that will set your hair on fire:

    Who could such a mysterious dark horse be? Well, it's not as if every well-qualified contender is already on the field. Mitch Daniels was probably the most successful Republican governor of recent times, with federal executive experience to boot. Paul Ryan is the intellectual leader of Republicans in the House of Representatives, with national campaign experience. The House also features young but tested leaders like Jim Jordan, Trey Gowdy and Mike Pompeo. There is the leading elected representative of the 9/11 generation who has also been a very impressive freshman senator, Tom Cotton. There could be a saner and sounder version of Trump--another businessman who hasn't held electoral office. And there are distinguished conservative leaders from outside politics; Justice Samuel Alito and General (ret.) Jack Keane come to mind.

    But wait!  Charlie says not to forget about these names:  

    Also Lightning Lad, Zombie Calvin Coolidge, the Dionne quintuplets, and Trigger.​

    I laugh every time I see the words (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    'Paul Ryan, intellectual leader....' together in a sentence.  I have to believe Bill Kristol has to down half a bottle of vodka before he writes that.

    The sad (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 08:20:10 PM EST
    thing is he probably really thinks that.

    Good thing (none / 0) (#77)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    I'm on my tablet, and not on my desktop.  Otherwise, you'd owe me a new keyboard, because I just spewed Diet Coke all over the place.
    I love Charlie Pierce!

    Shorter (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 02:47:04 PM EST
    Bill Kristol: We have 17 candidates that s*ck so let's have 25 candidates that s*ck. And anybody considering Trey Gowdy needs to have their head exmained.

    Could this: (none / 0) (#133)
    by Nemi on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 06:59:28 AM EST
    For two minutes, out of nowhere, he went after Caroline Kennedy, for reasons only he could possibly understand.

    possibly have anything to do with the media now going after 'US Ambassador Kennedy' and her use of private email?

    Nah ... right?


    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    casting _votes for the great state of Alaska for _.       Can't wait.  

    The author displays his governance (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:23:35 PM EST
    Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. performing well in the South

    it's one of those crowds (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 01:58:41 PM EST
    that would kick the nearest AA in the room to death if the speaker on the podium emphatically told them to..

    in a return to traditional primal wolf pack values..


    Warren has chosen not to run (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:40:17 AM EST
    for president in 2016 and will not be on the ballot in any state.

    People not running for office and not on the ballot are not elected (i.e. not electable). That should be obvious to even you.


    Odd how that works :) (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:41:40 AM EST
    Doesn't that depend... (none / 0) (#166)
    by unitron on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 12:09:31 AM EST
    ...(in theory)on the rules of the various states about write-in votes?

    (in practice, of course, a write-in is about as likely to be elected President as he or she is to ride a unicorn down Pennsylvania Avenue to the swearing in)


    In Virginia, for instance (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 07:44:56 AM EST
    No write in candidates are allowed on a primary ballot (general elections are different, I think).

    she's certainly electable (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:38:33 AM EST
    to be senator of MA which is the only thing she seems interested in running in.

    Honestly if Bernie was the nominee I could see him tagging her as VP.  But he won't be.  And if Bernie is miraculously the nominee, whether he wins or not will have nothing to do with his VP candidate.


    This morning at the gym, (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by fishcamp on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    They were all convincing themselves that Hillary should be indicted for purposely erasing her email servers to get rid of the Bengazi lies.  The torture never stops.f

    Does it make you run faster on the mill (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 10:17:25 AM EST
    Stair climb harder, trying to get away from them?

    Lol (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    Two years ago they were saying that Obama should go to jail or be impeached for Benghazi. But then again, their only hope to win is for some secret smoking gun to suddenly appear. If I had their slate of candidates running for president I guess I would be putting all my hope into conspiracy theories too.

    Sanders v. Trump, (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:28:20 PM EST
    per Charlie Pierce:

    It is not enough to claim that both men are "populists" or that they are both appealing to some amorphous general dissatisfaction with "government." First of all, the only problem Sanders has with government is that it hasn't done enough to fix a rigged financial system and to stop the erosion of a viable middle class. The problem Trump has with government is that he's not running it. One is asking for a revival of grassroots democratic activism. The other is appealing for applause. One campaign's vision is a guy knocking on doors. The second campaign's vision is a strongman on a balcony. One is LaFollette. The other is Peron or, at best, Berlusconi. The first is the way democracy is supposed to work. The second is how democracy always manages to con itself.

    There is not going to be much point in trying to understand this campaign unless you understand the difference between these two visions, and how they could come to pass, and there's not going to be much point in trying to understand this campaign unless you understand the difference between a political revolution of the considered spirit and a political revolution of the raw appetites. In a perilous world, that makes all the difference.

    I posted that because I think there's a tendency in the media to conflate Sanders' run with Trump's, and I think that's really dishonest and disingenuous.  


    I just saw Mr Pierce (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:48:27 PM EST
    Chris Hayes asked him about the idea that Hillary is not a good messenger for the income inequality thing.  Pierce said
    "Unless the democrats dig up J.P. Morgan any democrat is going to look good compared to any republican.



    Also lazy, same old false equivalence (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:50:16 PM EST
    stuff lazy journalists (and blog trolls) like to peddle.

    Was just reading this long excellent (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 10:01:34 PM EST
    Trump just ejected a reporter from Univision (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 05:54:31 PM EST
    from his press conference.  Saying "go back to Univision"



    Holy krap (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 05:58:12 PM EST
    several questions like, how can you do that?

    The guy returns and is ejected again.


    I can't remember his name but he is a very well known guy.  


    And you knew it was coming (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 06:04:27 PM EST
    I think it was (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 06:02:51 PM EST
    Jorge Ramos

    YouTube delivers (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 06:05:08 PM EST
    They (none / 0) (#121)
    by FlJoe on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    let him back in and let him ask questions.

    And it turning into a dialogue (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 06:23:44 PM EST
    very interesting few minutes.  

    Starting your trolling early today I see... (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:22:01 AM EST
    No one here is looking to pitch Hillary or Bernie over the side of the ship so Warren can be the nominee.  I mean, who here has said she is electable?  Other than Shooter, who must have been smoking something when he wrote that ridiculous scenario...

    I think Biden summoning Warren for a chat was media bait, and they took it - or fell for it.  Or should I say, the NYT provided the fishing rods and chartered the boat.  Who better to attract the media's attention than someone reported to be close to Hillary, who is also on the side of the 99% and was herself the subject of a draft movement?  

    This is classic sh!t-stirring - a trait you share with them in a much more obviously trollish way.

    Elizabeth Warren has potential, but she's not ready for office at that level, not to mention that she's been firm in stating that she isn't interested.

    Just as we aren't interested in your nonsense.


    Obama Gives Biden Blessing for 2016 Bid (none / 0) (#89)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:06:34 PM EST
    The CNN Story.

    Yes (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:25:10 PM EST
    and apparently if Biden runs, he is going to run to Hillary's left and sell himself as the only candidate that's electable. I know it sounds bizarre but it makes sense when you think about it.

    And what, we're all supposed to line up for (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:42:06 PM EST
    the Mind Eraser so we don't remember who Joe Biden really is and won't find it phony in the extreme for him to pretend to be left of Hillary Clinton?

    Good Lord.

    Several things: there's no way Obama can not give his so-called blessing, if that's really what it was.  To withhold it is to announce to the world that he thinks Biden's ceiling is being vice president.  To do that, he might as well just hold a press conference to show us Joe Biden's balls in bronze.

    This trial balloon is starting to get on my nerves, but it does show us the power of hot air.

    Of which Biden has massive amounts.

    And the media...are they bored, annoyed that the Dems aren't giving them the same kind of three-ring circus atmosphere as their Republican counterparts?  Who knows?

    I just find it all so contrived and pointless.


    Hah (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:48:28 PM EST
    Mind eraser. Yes, apparently Joe thinks everybody should be put through the mind erasing machine.

    Does not make sense no matter how much (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:52:29 PM EST
    I think about it.

    Biden probably sneezed and Obama said 'bless you'...and Biden is taking that to the bank.


    WEll (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 10:01:33 PM EST
    it makes sense from the perspective that apparently he doesn't think he can take any moderate or conservative democrats from Hillary but thinks he can sell the left wing of the party what he's shopping since he's been Obama's VP. Though apparently it has not dawned on him that the left wing of the party is not too satisfied with Obama these days. He apparently thinks he can run over Bernie with this strategy however I think Joe is clueless on this account.

    I think this story is being overblown (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:25:53 PM EST
    Lawerence just read a statement from a Biden spokesperson walking back the claim that "blessings" we're given at the lunch.  And in the press conference Earnest took pains to say good things about all the candidates.
    Really, what else is he going to say about the VP.

    I've seen the clip of Elizabeth Warren saying "no one is being anointed" about -00 times as if it's supposed to mean something.  

    IMO it's August.  News is needed.


    Probably (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:29:51 PM EST
    he's meeting with fundraisers next week to see if he can scrounge up the money to run. He's never been a great fundraiser in the first place. So I guess we'll see what comes of that.

    Oh (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:36:23 PM EST
    he may very well run.  So what.  I could run if I wanted to.   Honestly who cares.

    I meant the story about "Obamas blessing" was overblown.  Just because he didn't say are you f@cking kidding me about the prospect.

    I'll say this.  If he runs he will lose.  If he attacks Hillary he will go into the sunset despised and humiliated instead of everyone's favorite wacky uncle.  It's a free country.  And he is a politician.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:50:15 PM EST
    Armando tweeted something about so what if he gives him his blessing. Did he give him his fundraising list also? I seriously doubt that because if he had Joe would have already been running.

    If he can't find himself a billionaire (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 10:20:19 PM EST
    or two how is he going to defeat ISIS?



    Washington Post (none / 0) (#109)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 06:25:54 AM EST
    The news that the FBI is investigating whether the system put any classified information at risk has rattled some top party financiers, particularly donors who were major players in Obama's fundraising network who have little personal history with the Clintons. In the last few weeks, e-mails and calls have been flying back and forth between top bundlers as they try to assess how serious Biden is and whether Clinton is on shaky ground.

    "The network is starting to reach out," said one major Obama fundraiser, who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. "I'm getting calls from people saying, 'We're waiting for him to announce.' People are nervous and weary of the Hillary side show, of the emails."

    I believe he will get in, just to be a viable insurance policy if the Hillary e mail mess implodes. If no further damaging revelations are disclosed by the FBI investigation, he has no chance.



    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 11:46:00 PM EST
    The opinion of a single, anonymous source.

    Well, ... at least you figured out how to link.


    Jezus (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:30:02 PM EST
    ODonnell just went down the rabbit hole buy upping the ante on the Biden/Warren nonsense by suggesting he was suggesting Warren/Biden.

    Fuk, is it Nov. of 2016 yet?


    Joe Biden (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:32:57 PM EST
    volunteering to run for VP again? Yeah, that is down the rabbit hole. Is the news really this dead?

    Oh gawd (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:31:52 PM EST
    it's already started. Rejected Biden slogans. People are already making fun of him on Twitter. Biden visits Japan and asks women do your husbands like you working. You and I knew this was coming.

    L.A. Times (none / 0) (#123)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 07:12:27 PM EST
    Why Clinton's email problem wont go away

    It's no wonder that U.S. spy agencies are angry about this security breach, because it's their data that Clinton staffers mishandled.

    But it gets worse. Because top secret information travels on entirely separate systems throughout the federal government, it is virtually impossible that a Clinton staffer blithely or unknowingly pasted a top secret paragraph into an unclassified email.

    On the contrary, it seems increasingly likely that Clinton's staff was engaged in a systematic effort to take details off classified IT systems and strip them of proper classification markings (every paragraph in an intelligence report is classified separately) before sending them out electronically.

    This was not only a violation of numerous federal regulations, but also a crime -- a felony when it involves top secret information.

    Many difficult questions now present themselves, and presumably the FBI is asking them. Did Clinton staffers in the State Department violate federal laws systematically and independently? If not, who told them to do this?

    Clinton has trotted out a range of excuses, none of which hold much water for anybody familiar with federal classification realities. Even if Clinton was only the recipient, not the sender, of top secret information, she should have reported the problem at once.

    So breathless (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    the author of that op ed John Schindler has some experience
    with email problems

    Remember John Schindler, the conservative talking head, retired NSA spook, and Naval War College professor who briefly went incognito after screenshots of (what appear to be) his penis leaked onto the Internet? While he has since reappeared to Twitter--where he first drew attention for defending domestic spying and criticizing Edward Snowden--he has refused to comment on the mysterious emails, sent to the Naval War College by an unnamed blogger, that prompted the school to place him on leave, and his penis under official investigation.

    The emails sent to NWC, which Gawker obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, refer to Schindler's habit of calling himself a "spy"; detail his correspondence with an unnamed woman (who apparently received his penis photo); and, in a lengthy missive, accuse Schindler of staging "cyber warfare" against his online enemies, using "thuggish tactics" to silence NSA critics, and violating various federal laws.

    Why your penis picture won't go away? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:18:20 AM EST
    Is another good internet use topic :)

    Drip..Drip..Drip (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 07:37:53 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton stored at least 63 emails on a private server that have now been deemed classified by the State Department, a collection of messages that contains diplomatic information not normally discussed in public.

    Two of the messages sent on unclassified systems are updates from Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador killed in the Benghazi attacks in 2012. One mentions contingency plans to evacuate American diplomats by sea. Another gives details about safety precautions Stevens' team is taking at its hotel and about tactics being used by Libyan militias.
    POLITICO reviewed 63 emails posted on the State Department website that are formally marked as classified, as well as two others Fox News has cited as potentially classified. POLITICO discovered another with similar sensitive content during its review.

    Biden will be the insurance policy



    So, are Fox News and Politico ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 09:21:16 PM EST
    ... henceforth to be regarded as our go-to sources for determining proper security classification of government documents?

    Honestly, dude! If the State Department has already posted these emails online, doesn't it kinda sorta follow that its folks don't consider their contents as "classified"?

    But then what the hell does the State Department know about national security and classified documents anyway, right? After all, it's only been in charge of maintaining our country's diplomacy and international relations for the past 226 years!

    No, far better that we instead look for guidance in that regard from the same folks in the U.S. Intelligence Community who:

    • Asserted in 1978 that "Iran is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation;"
    • Failed to foresee the 1991 collapse and implosion of the Soviet Union; and
    • Assured everyone in 2002-03 that Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction.

    "Drip, drip, drip"? In your case, it's more like "derp, derp, derp."



    Obama Executive Order 13526 (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 06:27:52 AM EST
    Classification , and De-classification

    This EO, issued in December 2009, the only authorities allowed to declassify data were the originator of the material who classified it, the originator's successor to that position, those in the direct command structure above that position, or the head of the agency or his/her designate for the purpose of declassification. No one in any other agency could declare something declassified or unclassified, not even in cases of a dispute -- or perhaps especially in cases of dispute.

    If the Intelligence community declares it is classified information, it is NOT an option for the State Department to ignore that classification. They may contest it, but through a process.


    Seriously, it appears the drip may become a deluge. I believe they are less than 20% through their review.


    You are forgetting that if the (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:28:28 AM EST
    State Department came by the information via its own sources, they had the right to decide what was and wasn't classified.

    As an aside, it would be appreciated if you could not use tinyurl to format links; I can't speak for anyone else, but I like to see the source for the link I'm about to click on, and tinyurl does not allow one to do that.  I seem to remember, also, that Jeralyn doesn't like tinyurl links, either.

    My simple method for formatting links:
      1.  Highlight comment text to be hyperlinked;
      2.  Copy link from source page
      3.  Come back to your comment, and click on the "link" icon above the comment box.
      4.  Paste link into the pop-up box that appears.
      5.  Click OK

    So, here's the link to the executive order formatted accordingly.

    I usually verify that I've done this correctly by previewing the comment and clicking on the link in a new window to make sure.


    Well, apparently the State Dept. ... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:09:46 AM EST
    ... takes issue with your determination that the IC trumps all, given that the documents are still online for everyone to see. So until someone in higher authority says otherwise, I'll take the State Dept.'s word over yours.

    First off (none / 0) (#142)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:22:33 AM EST
    this document was meant as a guideline for formally classifying and declassifying documents and other materials, with an eye towards
    with an emphasis on avoiding over-classification
    a phrase used twice in the EO.

    Second there is no evidence that anybody at State "formally' declassified any thing, so the EO does not really apply. No one is asserting that Intel agencies do have the right to classify their own reports.

    The issue is not whether any particular agency has the right to determine the classification levels of their own information and analysis, but rather if they have the right to "own" any facts contained in such.

    I find it hard to believe that if a particular agency discovers a fact and stamps it classified that that fact must be buried within the entire government until such time as the originator decides to declassify no matter how obvious that fact becomes.


    Long Process (none / 0) (#154)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 04:45:11 PM EST
    Second there is no evidence that anybody at State "formally' declassified any thing, so the EO does not really apply

    If it wasn't declassified, it never should have been placed in a email, as it was classified by other Agencies.
    I believe one e mail had Ambassador Stevens travel and protection plans. Isn't that classified, and not sent via e mail. That is just one. There are tens of thousands of e mails to review.
    It appears that the State Department has been lax over the handling of classified documents for years. The State Department , for one, will not come out well here. That , I believe is the primary reason they are denying everything, CYA. It will all come eventually, but I see where it is trending.


    what do you mean (none / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:43:47 PM EST
    'Isn't; that classified?' Do you think the travel and protection plans of ambassadors are classified data? I highly doubt it. You would certainly have a heck of a time making those plans if it were. Ambassadors are not part of the military for a reason - they need flexibility to move and communicate.  they can't do that if they have to go into a secure room to make all their travel plans - and only tell those plans to classified-cleared individuals.

    Actually (none / 0) (#160)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:51:49 PM EST
    Yes, I do.
    Travel and protection plans  for Ambassadors in a war zone should be classified.
    Ambassador Stevens had made several requests asking for increased security, the region was not safe.

    And I would hope that the Ambassador has staff that actually coordinate and make their travel plans for them, and yes, they should go to the secure room to make them.


    Not all field sites have classified networks (4.50 / 2) (#161)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:16:42 PM EST
    Of course I think they should keep such information as closely held as possible - whether it rises to the level of 'classified' is another question.

    What gives (none / 0) (#162)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:20:56 PM EST
    you the right to decide how the SD does their business? What really gives the CIA the right?

    Guess what, they most certainly told some Libyans in Benghazi he was coming. The SD are not babes in the woods, they understand that they face security risks orders of magnitude larger then "unsecure" email.


    What really frosts my cupcakes is (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 09:44:03 PM EST
    that most of the people shrieking about this don't care about any of it unless Democrats are in charge, and there's a Clinton involved.

    And a lot of them wouldn't know the difference between the State Department and the Fire Department if it weren't for the bright red trucks and the sirens.


    Yeah - I was wondering what they (none / 0) (#164)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 27, 2015 at 07:46:31 AM EST
    would be after HRC about if they did not have this? I decided I would much rather have this conversation than whatever else their fevered little brains are coming up with. So by all means, let's talk about secure networks for the next 14 months.  

    It's not just (none / 0) (#130)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 11:24:35 PM EST
    the mishandling of classified data, but it's also the destruction of public records in her possession. Here is applicable laws re the 30,000 emails that she admits to having destroyed:

    'DISQUALIFIED': 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2071

    Section 2071 of the U.S. Criminal Code sets out an unusual penalty for federal government officials who try to destroy official records - barring them from holding office in the future:

    (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

    If just one of those 30,000 emails that she willfully obliterated and destroyed turns up and is government related, then she has broken this law.

    This is why Joe Biden is being dusted off for a run.


    If it turned out to be true that Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    aides lifted portions of emails/reports marked Classified, and then emailed them to Clinton, this would undercut her defense/excuse of not having sent or received anything marked Classified at the time. Of course, the bigger problem would probably be for the aides, unless Clinton knew what they were doing or directed them to do that.

    It will be interesting to see if this in fact happened.


    If monkeys flew out of my butt (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 10:38:44 AM EST
    playing harmonicas it would undercut the idea I have been watching my diet. But I would probably get interviewed by Bill O'Really.  Of course if they were playing bagpipes I might end up on Racjphel Maddow.

    Excuse me if I don't take this baths!t subthread, started by posting a link to a person who has at least as much credibility on electronic communications as Anthony Weiner seriously.

    But please, continue.   I'm enjoying the utter desperation of it.


    Howdy, I t think it's just great (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by fishcamp on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:01:00 AM EST
    That chip and green are working together on a science fiction story.  Maybe you and I could work it into a film script and make brazillians of dollars, if there are any left.

    Lol (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:02:14 AM EST
    Yes, any day now a magical monkey is going to fly out of the sky with the smoking gun that finally takes Hillary down. I read where the Big Dog had a mistress with three boobs. A wingnut said Hillary and Huma were having an affair. Therefore it MUST be true.

    Same people that think we actually found WMD's in Iraq.


    Oh, please - don't get them started... (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    I beg of you...

    Some days, reading the comments here makes me feel like I've been re-directed to the History Channel's latest conspiracy theory episode.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 11:42:12 AM EST
    I was replying to Howdy. Their ridiculous concern trolling and conspiracy theories are something I have started to laugh at.

    The History Channel's now moved on to regaling us with the wonders of pawn shops -- that is, whenever they're not out searching the Ozarks for Bigfoot, who for whatever reason keeps making his presence known only to white people in pickup trucks.

    You know, it would also be interesting ... (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 12:31:22 PM EST
    ... if video emerged of you selling oxycontin to Jeb! Bush's daughter at a Tampa nightclub. Now, I'm not saying that it actually happened, but if it turns out to be true, wouldn't that really be something? After all, everybody knows about her problem with prescription drugs, so I just put two and two together, and it came out to five -- knowwhutahmean?

    Stop trafficking in innuendo, counselor.


    "Interesting IF" - Heh (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 06:16:04 PM EST
    Just asking questions, right?

    The State Dept. says that Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email account did not violate departmental policy.

    Donald and Foggy Bottom (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 02:58:52 PM EST
    The State Dept. says that Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email account did not violate departmental policy.

    Would that be the same State Department known as Foggy Bottom that Mrs. Clinton ran for 4 years and that let her hang onto classified emails for a year and a half and that just released emails that were classified by three other federal departments???

    The question is not whether she was allowed by the department to use private email, but how she used it and abused it and compromised national security in the process of abusing it.

    And her defenders at Foggy Bottom are in as much trouble as she is and yet you cite them as if they have any credibility in this matter.

    That's not even a decent try --


    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 03:20:34 PM EST
    The same State Department that's been around since 1789, always well behaved of course, until Hillary came around and turned them into dishonorable rouges.

    Get a grip man, learn some history.


    BTD (none / 0) (#152)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    just posted some Bush era shenanigans from State.

    Sorry, it seems increasingly (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 01:20:14 PM EST
    unlikely to me that some kind of cabal in the state department deliberately and intentionally stripped classified markings from information in order to send it electronically on an unclassified network (be it mail.gov or mail.clintonsprivateserver).  They would know it is a felony - why would they do this? There is no reason for it.

    Or is this source casting a sinister light on a legitimate effort to reclassify information?

    And, I have to add - Joe Biden is NO insurance policy. He is a nearly sure loser in a general election, I believe, against any one of the 17 GOP candidates. Game over.


    Biden (none / 0) (#153)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 04:33:46 PM EST
    And, I have to add - Joe Biden is NO insurance policy.

    Biden is being viewed as a insurance policy, But I concur.
    IMO, O'Malley or Webb would do better in a general election,
    But most likely cannot win the primary