Monday Open Thread


< Obama: Media was harder on Clinton than me in 2008 | Obama Ends Solitary for Juveniles in Federal Prisons >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Home again, home again... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:02:10 PM EST
    much as I enjoyed my three days with my daughter and grandsons, I am happy to be home again after the big snow.  My 3 yr old grandson - who crawled into bed with me every morning - told me he didn't want me to go home, he wanted me to live there forever!  Baby's just a month old, and I had lots of snuggle time...nothing better, really.

    Road crews have done an amazing job clearing the highways and secondary roads - although my street has only seen the benefit of local residents putting their plows to use to clear the street as best they can.  I managed to get up the hill, and I'm sure I will get down in the morning, but re-freezing and any blowing/drifting will make things challenging!  

    Office was closed today - though why they had to wait until 8 last night to make that call, I have no idea - but I suspect we will be going in tomorrow.

    Seriously hope this was the one and only big snow of the season.

    When my nieces heard... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:36:31 PM EST
    their Nana is retiring, they told her they are buying her a dresser so she too can "live there forever!".

    To which Nana replied..." Why so your mother can strangle me?"

    Retirement is set, Moms last day is 2/23...not much time, I've got a rager of a retirement party to plan!


    Who will pick the music? (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:13:09 PM EST
    Is that a rhetorical question? (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:21:37 AM EST
    I bite the hand that touches my tunes!  But of course I will tailor the playlist to the guest of honor and stick to our common musical ground...Motown.  Maybe I'll suffer some Bee Gees, if she behaves herself;)

    So glad that storm passed us by (none / 0) (#3)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:21:11 PM EST
    Predictions called for snow for yesterday's game, but it was quite nice actually. High 40's with no wind, which is really pleasant here.

    But we do still have some very dirty ice/icy-snow left over from the Christmas snow storm. It's only dangerous at alleys and at some crosswalks. So only pedestrians (and dog walkers) need worry.


    Glad you're home all safe and sound.


    It's my understanding (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    We may get some freezing rain.  Boo.

    Winter apparently ver here (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:38:07 AM EST
    Back to the upper 60s

    Here too - I got to wear some of (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:23:31 PM EST
    my winter outfits though - it was nice! Hoping for another cold snap.

    I mentioned this in another thread (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:20:05 PM EST
    But one of the more incredible things I have ever heard is that apparently until this very day Flint residents have been billed, and expected to pay for, water that they could not drink or bath in.

    What the HELL.

    Speaking boy for me I'm pretty sure I would not have been paying for it for a while now.

    What about the sewer? (2.00 / 1) (#8)
    by NycNate on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:35:57 PM EST
    The people are still using the sewer services. Typically, they are combined in one bill. Should this be forgiven as well?  

    I didn't say it should be "forgiven" (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:40:15 PM EST
    I think it should be repaid.  Every damn cent of it.  The Governor and everyone else who allowed this should go to jail.

    Some of Governor Snyder's (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:25:20 PM EST
    released emails were heavily redacted.  The Michigan FOIA does not include the Governor or Lt. Governor, so what is released is up to the Governor. But, hopefully, the investigation will move toward achievement of your recommendation.    

    Who should pay for the sewer? (none / 0) (#31)
    by NycNate on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:16:20 PM EST
    The city voted 7-1 in favor of some of this. Why is no one holding them accountable?

    Not where I live. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:04:29 PM EST
    Sewer is paid to the township. Water is paid to the water company.

    We have a local board of watter supply ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:20:09 PM EST
    ... which is responsible for both sewer and water, and it's municipally owned. We're billed every two months by the county.

    I hadn't heard that (none / 0) (#5)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    But if they didn't pay, couldn't the city or state put a lien on their home?

    It's all a travesty.


    The possibility (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    Makes my head hurt.  I would have fought it.  But I am only poor.   Not poor and black.  So there's that.

    Suspected perps re those (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:30:47 PM EST
    doctored Planned Parenthood videos will face criminal charges c

    Yes! (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:16:48 PM EST
    What's truly ironic here is that this Houston grand jury had originally been convened by the Harris County District Attorney's office to investigate allegations of wrongdoing at Planned Parenthood's Gulf Coast chapter. Everyone naturally assumed that Planned Parenthood was the target.

    But these grand jurors turned the investigation on its ear and instead indicted the two anti-choice activists who concocted that now-notorious doctored video, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress, for tampering with a government record.

    Further, Daleiden was also indicted for violation of the state's prohibition on human organ trafficking, because in that video he repeatedly offered to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood. Under Texas law, the solicitation itself is a crime, even if the offer is made under false pretenses.

    As I said in a previous thread, somewhere up there in heaven, Ann Richards and Molly Ivins are smiling.



    UPDATE: The charge of tampering ... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:28:15 PM EST
    ... with a government record stems from the fake driver's licenses they presented to Planned Parenthood in order to gain entry into their facility. The folks at PP had photocopied them, and it was presented by the DA to the grand Jury. Manufacturing a counterfeit driver's license is a second-degree felony in Texas.

    Guess we can look forward (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:32:43 PM EST
    to Miss Fiorina's apology to President Obama and Secretary Clinton.  And, her dropping out of the Republican race as contrition, leaving her 3 percent to be grabbed up by Gilmore.

    Fiorina (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:41:50 PM EST
    Why is she still in the race? The only reason must be to truck in these conspiracy theories.

    Yet. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:41:25 AM EST
    Governor Abbott is continuing with his own "investigation" and still intends to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood based on these videos.

    I am a defense attorney. This is TalkLeft. (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:52:20 PM EST
    On principle, I will try to support the accused and relentlessly question the charges against them. I will try to support the accused, and question the charges against them. I will try, really try, to support the accused, and question the charges against them. Nope, sorry, I can't. I tried. But I can't.

    Peter, what does your comment mean? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:07:08 AM EST
    Are you saying you wouldn't be able to question the evidence against them or argue it was illegally obtained if the facts supported that?

    There are defense lawyers who draw the line at some group or other -- from child molesters to terrorists to crimes against the elderly --  mostly due to personal bias. Mickey wrote a chapter in his book about it. Is this just the crime where you draw the line, or did you mean something else?


    Where would you draw the line? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:02:24 AM EST
    In order to gain entry into Planned Parenthood, the accused apparently presented counterfeit driver's licenses which they themselves had allegedly manufactured. The PP staff then photocopied the fake government-issued IDS for their records, which were then subpoenaed by the Harris County D.A.'s office as part of a criminal inquiry.

    Let's please remember that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast was the original target of this grand jury investigation, and not the Center for Medical Progress, where David Dulaiden and Sandra Merritt worked and schemed. Personally, I think it's poetic justice that these two clowns are now both facing a felony indictment, thanks in no small part to their own malicious actions.

    Just look at the serious damage Dulaiden and Merritt knowingly and intentionally inflicted upon Planned Parenthood with their doctored video, which launched that criminal inquiry in Harris County, and a couple congressional probes of that organization as well. And let's please not forget the three dead at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, thanks to a crackpot who was allegedly incited by that video to commit mayhem.

    Dulaiden and Merritt attempted to perpetrate a public fraud, by trying to smear and frame Planned Parenthood for a crime that its staff never committed. That Harris County grand jury not only cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing in this matter, but also had the cojones to call Dulaiden and Merritt out for the phony baloneys they are, by indicting them instead.

    The grand jurors examined the evidence, and decided that it implicated the accusers, rather than the accused. In my opinion, that means the system worked. And isn't that supposed to be a good thing?



    The comment was intended to be humorous (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:24:43 AM EST
    It was an ironic comment directed at myself (and at ourselves?), that there are, for all of us, cases where we have an emotional or political reaction that is at least equally strong as our commitment to defendants' rights. One of my own daughters works for Planned Parenthood (as I believe I have mentioned before) and bravely faces unknown dangers from fanatics every day she goes to work -- work I believe to be noble and righteous. That said, of course I believe these two creeps are entitled to a vigorous defense and to the benefit of every right our system guarantees them, and I'm sure they'll receive that. I have in my career in fact participated in many "political" or "cause" criminal cases, in most of which (but my no means all of them) I sympathized with the defendants' cause (if not their tactics). I can see that there may be mens rea (criminal intent) issues in the Houston anti-PP case, and they may even be entitled to invoke some sort of journalistic / First Amendment privilege, although my initial reaction is that neither line of defense seems particularly strong. I very much doubt they will be reaching out to me to request assistance, so hopefully all this will be purely hypothetical.

    And it was :) (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by sj on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:54:53 PM EST
    The comment was intended to be humorous (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:24:43 AM MDT
    At least it strongly appealed to my twisted sense of humor :)

    Marco is raging against the machine (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:39:15 AM EST
    At this SHOCKING development.



    To be a fly on the wall of a Houston grand jury (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 08:35:02 PM EST
    The New X-Files does not disappoint (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 08:08:24 PM EST
    They hit every loony toony koo koo for cocopuffs conspiracy theory out there in ep 1.

    After her in Hannibal and him in Californication it seemed half homage half SNL skit.   The patented concerned looks and well worn roles of acceptance and denial.

    I LOVE it.   Recording ep 2 right now as soon as I can skip commercials I'm in.

    Obama to Change Solitary Confinement Policy (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:20:57 AM EST
    just put a thread up on this (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:13:54 AM EST
    here. And one on the TX grand jury indictments over the Planned Parenthood videos here.

    Found this interesting (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:15:10 AM EST
    I know the caucus process is convoluted, but here's another analysis I found interesting:

    Where Obama succeeded in changing the fundamental makeup of the electorate, many candidates have failed after making similar promises, including Howard Dean in 2004 and Bill Bradley in 2000. Young people and first-time caucus-goers are just harder to turn out, and many observers believe Sanders' biggest challenge will be getting his supporters to actually show up.

    As difficult a challenge as that is, Sanders' bigger difficulty may be geography


    Just like how the electoral college system makes it so extra Democrats votes are worth less in Vermont than in Ohio, the caucus process makes it so extra supporters in a heavily Sanders precinct are worth less than if they were in a battleground precinct.

    Obama won in 2008 by flooding caucuses with young people and first-time caucus-goers -- that was icing on the cake of a statewide caucus operation that focused on more traditional caucus-goers.

    For Sanders, "the icing came first for them and they're trying to build cake underneath it," said Jeff Link, the longtime strategist to former Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin.

    Take the university towns: More than a quarter -- 27 percent -- of Sanders supporters come from just three counties of Iowa's 99, according to theRegister poll, each home to one of the state's largest universities. But those three counties award only 12 percent of the total 1401 delegates at stake statewide.


    Clinton's team, which includes many of the people who engineered Obama's 2008 win, has been on the ground in more places longer than Sanders'. And organizers say there's no way to make up the lost time when it comes to volunteer training and relationship building.

    Sterzenbach expects Sanders' enthusiasm-driven machine to dominate in the 15-20 counties with larger cities or universities -- but for Clinton's blood, sweat, and time machine to pay dividends in the 50-60 more rural counties.


    In 2008, the caucuses were held on Jan. 3, when most college students were home on winter break. That meant that Obama's army of young supporters could caucus at their parents' homes all over the state, and not waste their support in Johnson or Story counties, home to the University of Iowa and Iowa State University, respectively.

    The Sanders campaign is working to encourage college students to return home to caucus, and helping to arrange travel. But it's a big organizational lift and asking a lot of a demographic that has historically already been reluctant to turn out. The caucuses are on a Monday night, so students will have classes on the day of the caucuses and the next morning.

    Lots of dynamics in play that weren't there in 2008.

    Yes (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:27:42 AM EST
    this has been discussed since the Selzer poll came out showed Sanders supporters basically clustered in a few areas in the state.

    Also in 2008 Hillary and Edwards were duking it out in the rural areas of Iowa for delegates.


    I forgot about (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:32:15 AM EST
    The January 3rd date, which skewed the college age crowd from what is normal.

    We could (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:05:23 AM EST
    go on and on about how F-ed up the entire 2008 primary was with states being stripped of delegates etc. But yeah, I had forgotten about the college students being home too.

    In fact (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:31:22 AM EST
    The caucuses are so convoluted that the RNC is considering shaking up the schedule after this election. (This is a link to the National Review, in case you don't want to click, so I've posed the relevant information).

    As Republican officials in Iowa and New Hampshire prepare to host the first two elections of this year's presidential campaign, they're working feverishly behind the scenes to ensure it's not their final turn at the front of the line.

    Republican National Committee members from around the country have long plotted to depose the two small, demographically homogenous states that traditionally sit atop the nominating calendar. Those efforts seemed to receive a boost in September when RNC chairman Reince Priebus said that the first four states to vote -- Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada -- won't be considered "sacred cows" after 2016, warning, "I don't think anyone should get too comfortable."

    It's a foregone conclusion inside the RNC that Nevada will lose the No. 4 spot barring miraculous turnout in its February 23 caucuses. The Silver State, which has been plagued by poor showings in recent cycles -- the state party was embarrassed when fewer than 33,000 people showed up to caucus in 2012 -- will probably be replaced by either Arizona or Colorado, which GOP leaders say have stable party infrastructures to go with their similarly diverse populations.

    The first three states, meanwhile, are on knife's edge. Party officials overwhelmingly believe that Priebus, if he had unilateral power, would nix Iowa -- owing to its Evangelical-heavy electorate and byzantine caucus system -- in favor of leading the calendar with New Hampshire and South Carolina. But Republicans in those three states long ago banded together, and continue to believe that a united front is the best shield against attempts on their favored positions.

    Such a threat has loomed for many years, and was amplified earlier this month at the RNC's winter meeting in Charleston, S.C.

    Not sure it will actually happen, but these are the strongest words I've heard from a high ranking party official of either party.


    It's because of how the caucuses work that in 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:02:33 AM EST
    Iowa sent mostly Ron Paul delegates to the national GOP convention.

    Precinct caucuses send delegates to the county convention, who send delegates to the state convention, who send delegates to the national.

    Because the Romney and Santorum organizations pulled up stakes and walked away from the state after essentially tying on caucus night - why stay when the voting is done, amirite? - Ron Paul's people selected their own at every uphill step, to end up with 21 of Iowa's 25 national delegates.

    I've read many criticisms of the caucus process, but that is the perfect example of why it needs to only exist in the history books. Iowa caucuses: 19th century grange politics at their best.


    I have (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:12:56 AM EST
    read that the same thing is going on on the D side about Iowa and NH. The thing is though NH is really not all that bad for Republicans as the Republicans there tend to be more liberal. Iowa however with it's heavily evangelical GOP voters is a serious problem for them.

    The RNC should have been working on dumping SC long ago and trying to replace them with a state like NY.

    Leading the calendar with SC? Is he nuts? Something like 75% of GOP primary voters in SC are evangelicals. Granted it's a primary and not a caucus but still the demographic for the GOP in SC is nearly identical to Iowa.


    I think you are hearing it more (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:20:51 AM EST
    Now because of the apparent likelihood that current process will nominate Donald.  If it does and IF he loses as large as some expect it would be the excuse they have been seeking for years to shake thing up and make big changes.

    No one would complain but the effected states.


    Time to (none / 0) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:32:23 AM EST
    make some phone calls Capt, trump hits 41%  I know it's a low sample national poll of RVs, but the trend is relentless.

    Ha (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:38:35 AM EST
    I will pass it n to DfromH.  I saw 39 in some others this morning..

    7 days until Iowa (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:47:56 AM EST
    Where a very small percentage of people, from a below average sized state, with demographics far different than the nation as a whole, will give Bernie Sanders a headline and an outside chance at the nomination... or effectively end the narrative that he has any chance at all.

    When stated like that (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:19:12 AM EST
    Which is completely true you have t just ask WTF?

    How did this happen?

    I expect choice B.  That's not an endorsment of the process.


    Do you have a citation that (none / 0) (#59)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:34:05 AM EST
    compares the demographic makeup of the Iowa Democratic Party to the Democratic Party as a whole?

    Not exactly what you were asking for (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:37:50 AM EST
    But a starting point

    As one of the whitest states in the nation, Iowa would naturally tend to produce overwhelmingly white caucus participants. Nevertheless, in 2008 white Democratic caucus goers were proportional to the state's white population, whereas Republican caucus goers were even whiter than the state's population.

    If you have borne with me through these numbers, what can we conclude? As I suggested in my previous post, what matters in elections is both the number of people that participate in the political process and the types of people that participate in the political process. My previous post showed that, for all the hoopla, relatively few Iowans actually participate in the caucuses.

    This post shows that the types of people who turn out are not quite demographically representative of the state as a whole. They are older and whiter--especially the Republicans--and they have higher income and more education than the population of the state as a whole.

    Thanks. It does back up my anecdotal feelings (none / 0) (#63)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:10:04 AM EST
    that voting Democrats in Iowa skew female, are younger than the GOP voters, and include almost all the minority voters. I'd bet that they are disproportionately urban as well.

    As caucus participants are the activist subset of that group - caucus attendance is about half of physical voting numbers - they are probably even less representative of the state's general population demographics.

    So whatever the results of the process starting on Monday, it will be from a more racially and ethnically diverse group than the state as a whole. Again, thanks.


    Supposedly (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:36:44 AM EST
    One poll said almost 50% of Iowa democrats self identified as socialists.

    More proof (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:38:42 AM EST
    That they are not the norm.

    Well more female than the population (none / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 11:19:02 AM EST
    for the Dem caucus, but that article says for 2008 93.9% of the state was white and 93% of the Dem Caucus goers were white. Not exactly sure how you manipulate that 9/10ths of one percent into saying the caucuses are "more racially and ethnically diverse group than the state as a whole".

    I think he's (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 11:38:45 AM EST
    grouping Republicans and Democrats together, because he also writes this:

    Nevertheless, in 2008 white Democratic caucus goers were proportional to the state's white population, whereas Republican caucus goers were even whiter than the state's population.

    The percentages of non-white and other minority (none / 0) (#85)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:44:55 PM EST
    Dem caucus attendees was greater than the statewide percentages for those groups in 2008 - nearly double for the non-white population. And it sticks out when compared to the GOP composition.

    For this Monday, in the eight years since 2008 minority groups have seen the largest population percentage increase, to nearly 9% of the total pop., up from just over 6% in 2008. That's not much when compared to coastal states, but for the midwest it's a sea-change.

    I could have been more clear. Thanks.


    Don't look now... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 11:56:51 AM EST
    the black community in South Carolina might be coming around.

    His mother (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    endorsed Hillary. So that means pretty much nothing.

    We shall see... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:14:39 PM EST
    Bernie still has alotta seeds to sow in the south, to be sure, but I think this could be a pretty big endorsement...a sitting State Rep, and more importantly attorney for the family of Walter Scott.  I'd think that might open some minds to The Bern.

    He's already (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    setting expectations for Iowa

    DES MOINES, Iowa -- Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders is hoping a big wave of new voters will carry him past Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucuses, but the Vermont senator said Tuesday that he doesn't expect his turnout next week to match the record-setting numbers of President Obama.

    "Obama in 2008 ran a campaign which is really going to stay in the history books," Sanders told reporters here following a packed event at a union hall. "It was a unbelievable campaign. ...  Do I think that we are going to match that? ... Frankly, I don't think we can."


    Sanders has been telling audiences in recent weeks that he thinks he can win in the nation's first caucuses if he succeeds in attracting enough "non-traditional" voters, including more college students and blue-collar workers than typically show up.

    Sanders repeated that assertion here and said that if turnout out is light Monday night, it will be an indication that he is "struggling." Recent polls have shown a very tight race.

    Sanders acknowledged that Clinton had gotten an earlier start organizing Iowa than he did and said she benefits from having run for president before.

    "She has a very strong organization, and I applaud her for that, but I will tell you in the last couple of months, we have gained a whole lot of ground, and I think we stand a real chance to create a larger voter turnout," he said.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    he seems to have done a 180 recently on winning Iowa.

    Oh (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:52:23 PM EST
    I think he has a chance, and I think he knows that.

    According (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    to Nate Silver about 40% but this whole time Bernie has been touting winning Iowa and the media has been running with it.

    Same with New Hampshire (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    Which Bernie should win easily, although the Boston Globe and the Concord Monitor, as well as a few other smaller papers in New Hampshire all endorsed HRC. A rational person would think these would easily go for Bernie as he is their neighbor, and the political realities and values among the New England states are fairly similar.  Bernie has no endorsements from any New England media outlet other than the Addison County Independent in Middlebury, VT.

    Now while I don't think newspaper endorsements have a great amount of influence on voters any more, I find it interesting that the people who should be the most familiar with him and of a very similar mindset would choose not to support him.

    And while political endorsements carry even less weight than newspapers, why hasn't Elizabeth Warren endorsed Bernie yet, since they both share similar views about solving the remnants of the financial crisis and income inequality in this country?


    Everyone seems to be waiting on or expecting (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    A Warren endorsement of Bernie.  I'm not so sure.

    She does her own thing.  Sure, they may align more on big-picture economic values but her M.O. is to get down dirty into the nuts and bolts of these things, and Bernie is arguing more for big-picture change.  I doubt she'll endorse either one of them in the primary unless something drastic happens.

    That being said, she's also I believe the only female senator not to endorse Clinton.  I don't see any benefit to her endorsing Bernie, especially if she doesn't think he'll win and she wants a leadership position in the next senate.  But she won't back Clinton either, because she'll probably want to work with Bernie extensively in the next congress as well, and he should have a much higher profile when that happens.  They could make a hell of a team - especially if the Dems retake the senate.


    IMO (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:38:08 PM EST
    the whole Warren thing is being driven by conservatives who want to create drama where there is none and then by Bernie supporters who think her endorsement will be enough to lift him to be the nominee.

    She might endorse in the primary though when it becomes obvious who the nominee is going to be.


    I doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by CST on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:40:12 PM EST
    she gains nothing by endorsing then.  And the Bernie supporters - who do you think Warren is going to bring to the fold that isn't already there?  Most of the people she would influence are already on board.  It's like the VP talk.  I love Warren but she'd be the worst possible VP pick for Bernie.

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:46:10 PM EST
    know but apparently there are some Bernie supporters that believe her endorsement would mean something in votes for him. However I mostly agree with you that it wouldn't bring any votes that he already doesn't have.

    I don't really see Warren as VP material for Hillary and seriously I doubt she would even take it if it was offered. I don't think she wants to be president or VP. I think she likes being a senator and forming a coalition there. She's also good at doing that.


    I think she'll endorse HRC (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:45:08 PM EST
    She DID sign on to the letter from the female senators encouraging HRC to run. She's a politician now, so she wants to back the correct horse (especially since all but 6 (I think) Democratic Senators have already endorsed HRC, including Bernie's VT colleage, Patrick Leahy).

    Maybe she has already decided to endorse HRC, but now maybe the campaign is waiting to roll it out - Massachusetts votes on March 1, I believe, and if she loses the first couple of races, this could be the nail in Sanders' coffin.  His supporters seem so sure that she is waiting to run on his ticket.


    The fact that (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:25:09 PM EST
    anybody thinks she's sitting around waiting to be somebody's VP is pretty insulting to me as a woman. She has enough stature that she could run herself.

    Indeed... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:00:40 PM EST
    pretty insulting to me as a man too.  Not only could she run, she'd probably win.  She was an economic populist rock star before Bernie was, with none of the "commie" baggage.  

    But let's hope she doesn't become too much of a "politician", that sh&t will f*ck up your mind, and Warren's mind would be a terrible thing to waste. Just look at Hillary Clinton (kidding, kidding, hands up don't shoot!;)


    I don't know if she could win (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:03:25 PM EST
    Like Bernie, she's really only got one issue.  No interest in foreign policy.

    When Trumps delusions of grandeur (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 11:50:26 AM EST
    and wild-swinging acting out bleed for the cameras, they lead..

    His shenanigans make good copy and ratings. There's not much more to it than that.

    If anything, the media would prefer that he acted out more, not less.

    It's all about ratings and profits.

    Curious to hear thoughts (2.00 / 1) (#7)
    by NycNate on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    Please don't call me names. I'm inly interested in hearing other's pov
    Obama says race relations not so bad
    "When I hear people say, for example, in the aftermath of Ferguson and some of the other cases, that race relations have deteriorated, they're terrible, I have to say -- well, maybe it's just 'cause I'm gettin' older -- but they're not worse than they were after the Rodney King incident in L.A.," Obama tells Lee Cowan. "They're certainly not worse than they were back in the '50s or the '60s. But we forget."

    please don't answer this comment (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:31:36 PM EST
    it's race-baiting. Nate NYC, it is an open thread but all your comments on this topic end badly with race-baiting by you or other commenters and I don't have time to monitor comments to delete them. Sorry, but you'll have to take it elsewhere.

    Didn't know all my comments ended badly (none / 0) (#32)
    by NycNate on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:20:13 PM EST
    I was asking for comment on a statement by the President.   I never offered an opinion. In fact, I asked for no personal insults.  Fair enough. It's your blog.

    Once congress gets done with it (2.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 06:03:04 PM EST
    Bernie's Yearning will be Establishmint Chip.

    Speaking of... (none / 0) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:12:53 PM EST
    Ben of Ben & Jerry's creates 'Bernie's Yearning' flavor

    The flavor is solid chocolate on top with plain mint ice cream underneath. The container says the chocolate represents "the huge majority of economic gains that have gone to the top 1 percent since the end of the recession. Beneath it, the rest of us."

    Eating instructions urge people to let the ice cream soften and then mix, "and there you have it, Bernie's Yearning."

    Not an official flavor, just 40 pints and most of them given to the campaign.


    To tell you the truth (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:20:58 PM EST
    It sounds sort of yucky..   No interest in eating "Bernies Yearning"    Or Hillary's for that matter.

    But that's just me.


    John Heileman (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:05:30 PM EST
    Has a cold sore.  I'm so glad.  If only Halperin would get one could I be happier.

    Sweet! (none / 0) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:48:21 PM EST
    CNN is reporting that a Texas Grand Jury declines to charge PP for charges related to the videos, however two people involved in the production have been indicted.

    I saw (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 06:42:41 PM EST

    Yep. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:32:34 PM EST
    Jeralyn criticised Sanders (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 08:02:28 PM EST
    for proposing that crooked executives should be sent to prison. She said that was not a progressive position to take.

    On the other side of the primary spectrum, we have Hillary Clinton accepting large cash donations from the folks who specialize in Private Prisons. She took the loot until a few months ago. I read she will now give the money collected to a charity.

    so shouldn't she be praised (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:58:40 PM EST
    for returning the donations? Most candidates have taken in money only to later return it after it was pointed out the source was not someone they wanted to be associated with.

    Bernie has a website (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:05:53 AM EST
    where I could, if i wanted to, donate small AND large cash donations to Bernie.

    quick question... how do we know with absolute certainty that Bernie hasn't received a donation from the folks who specialize in Private Prisons through his website??

    and if it turned out he did receive such donations would you automatically conclude Bernie is a corrupt politician??

    should Bernie return that donation?  couldn't and shouldn't he use that donation to win the election and then stick it to people who specialize in private prisons??

    just some questions.

    i mean if we go by your way of thinking if a person who specialized in private prisons wanted to put Bernie in a bind, such a person would make that donation through his website and then BERNIE'S DIRTY TOO!! LOL.

    guess my point is, well i hope you know what my point is.


    What Jeralyn said, lentinel. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:27:26 AM EST
    And FYI, the Sanders campaign initially accepted a $2,700 personal contribution last October from Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli, which candidate Sanders subsequently rejected upon its discovery. Instead, Sanders donated the money to Whitman-Walker Health, a Washington, D.C.-based clinic that specializes in the treatment of HIV patients and the LGBT community.

    So what's the difference here? None that I can see, other than your support for the opponent of the candidate you're chastising, even though she's done nothing that your own preferred candidate hasn't already done himself.



    To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:05:53 AM EST
    That's not a campaign donation.

    This is a campaign donation.


    Sanders (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:23:22 AM EST
    Also should be subject to the same scrutiny as Clinton, namely, on the people he associates with (and in fact, employs [Tad Devine]) or else, it's time to call BS on the whole thing.

    So, one of Bernie's closest advisers has worked directly with corrupt and criminal politicians, and has worked for a firm that represents Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Telecom, MONSANTO! and is just a step away from Big Wall Street and the 1%. Clearly, then, Bernie cannot be trusted due to his close association through Devine to all those people.

    See, isn't this fun?!

    Tad Devine's (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:30:51 AM EST
    biggest problem is that he runs losing campaigns.

    Bloomberg for prez, round 2 (none / 0) (#28)
    by ragebot on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 08:18:30 PM EST
    CBS NY link blurb:

    "...CBS2's Marcia Kramer reported. Sources close to Bloomberg told Kramer the former mayor is ramping up a possible presidential run regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination, eyeing an Independent third-party bid."

    Don't bet the boat on this happening (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:31:46 PM EST
    Listening to Donald on the (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:31:19 AM EST
    Morning shows today I'm hearing something interesting.   He is hitting his ability to "work with people" and to "work across the aisle" very hard.   I did not actually hear the word compromise but that's what he is saying.
    This is weird.  Is it not?  When was the last time you heard a republican politician talk about having the ability to work with, fir example, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi?   Seriously, he's saying that out loud.  in a republican primary dogfight.
    Now, partly I'm sure it has to do with Cruz being most famous for not being able to even work with republicans but still, very interesting.
    If this works I think it's just another example of how up is down right is left and we don't know squat.

    I saw a clip (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:34:02 AM EST
    of Wolf Blitzer's interview with him and he made the point very clear that he would work for compromise across the aisle because that's how deals get done in business and that's how our country was founded - on compromise.

    I had the same thought as you - this will not go over well to Republican primary voters.


    Between (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:00:06 AM EST
    that statement and the statement about shooting people I'm beginning to wonder if he is not tired of the whole running for president thing and is no longer interested in being the GOP nominee.

    Yeah, working with Nancy Pelosi? He might as well say he's willing to work with Satan himself as far as GOP primary voters are concerned.


    I (none / 0) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:08:04 AM EST
    think his hardcore supporters will brush this off as Donald just bragging about himself as a master deal maker. Absolutely nothing he has said so far has hurt him at all

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:24:45 AM EST
    We are on the same planet.


    The shooting comment will increase his numbers.  Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if SHOOTING someone made his numbers go up.

    As far as compromise, I just mentioned it because IMO it's a red flag for the general.  Jb is right that in a normal world it would doom the campaign of a republican.

    IMO the sooner we get it through our heads we are no longer in a normal world the better.   IMO he would not be saying it if he did not know what the response would be.  Say what you want, one thing that has become perfectly clear is he knows what to say to his audience.

    As I said, up is down.  Left is right.  And we better fu@king get our heads around that fact.


    True. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:44:08 AM EST
    But the others like rounding up Muslims I knew is something that would appeal to them.

    The level of hatred towards someone like Pelosi is off the charts with them. But maybe they will ignore it.


    You don't (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 11:04:10 AM EST
    understand, Trump's fans will envision Pelosi and the rest groveling at his feet begging to deal away anything.

    Yes (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    we are dealing with completely irrational people.

    This is my fear (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:52:33 AM EST
    It's the same thing I was talking about in my response to ppj yesterday about him "changing his positions"

    They will not ignore it.   They will "process it"

    Donald is connecting with people on a primal lizard brain level.  They "get" him.  (True or not? Who the hell knows but they believe it) a lot has been written about when Donald gets a supporter he has them.  Forever.  No matter what.

    "He is just saying what he needs to say to win". I can't tell you how many times I have heard this.

    Watch for the pivot.  It will have "liberals" endorsing him.   Mark my words.


    I am kind of starting to hope (none / 0) (#173)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:11:50 PM EST
    Trump does beat Cruz though. Am I wrong? I just want Cruz to go away. I doubt he'll even stay in the Senate if his higher ambitions are thwarted so thoroughly.

    Sort of torn (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:22:40 PM EST
    Really want Cruz to lose but I really do think he would be a much safer candidate for us than Donald.

    But yeah.  I want him to lose.


    Hmm, that reads like Midwestern code (none / 0) (#124)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:40:29 PM EST
    for Iowans.

    "I can be Midwestern nice and get along with everyone."

    I wonder if focus groups are suggesting concern about his very un-Midwestern bravado and brashness, now that Iowans are down to deciding whether he really is presidential material -- whether the fun (hey, there's not a lot else to do) of seeing someone who was on TV translates to seeing him in the White House.


    The Bills... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    ... just watched a 30 for 30, Four Falls of Buffalo.  It's on Netflix.

    That S had me all torn up, it's pretty funny from the outside, but to see the players/coaches talking about was hard.  It's one of the better 30 for 30's.

    What is kind of funny is that there only real triumph was when they came from being behind by 25 points to beat Houston in the ' 93 AFC championship.

    People had left, a lot of them, and they said there was a mad rush to get back to the stadium and back into the building once the Bills started coming back.  Thousands came back.

    Speaking of, the Oilers 30 for 30 is really funny, it specifically covers that year.  The offense and defense hated each other, even one of the coaches tried to punch another on the sidelines during a game.

    That was an excellent 30 for 30... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    I got all choked up by how the Buffalo fans supported Scott Norwood after that first brutal Super Bowl loss.  And how he clutched kicked them into the big game the next year.  

    Such an awesome team...one of the best of all time, despite never winning the big one.


    Sanders blocking Obama on FDA nom (none / 0) (#83)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    see here's the thing about getting money out of politics, it's a great idea but the litmus test, are you now or have you ever received funding from a pharmaceutical company?, is gonna create gridlock.

    i think this is a preview of a Sanders presidency.

    You mean one where he thinks the (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:31:22 PM EST
    person who heads the FDA should have an interest in lowering drug prices?  Yes, that would be terrible, wouldn't it?

    Just FYI, Sanders isn't the only one to place a hold on Califf's nomination.

    The move comes one day after Democratic Senator Edward Markey also placed a hold on the nomination until the agency agrees to reform its process for approving opioid painkillers.

    The FDA oversees (none / 0) (#102)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:57:21 PM EST
    Health and safety not the markets, the position in question has no impact on prescription drug prices either way.

    FDA controls the importation of (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:00:34 PM EST
    drugs; that seems to be something that definitely affects drug prices, no?

    Yes and no (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:25:37 PM EST
    subject to a law passed by Congress:

    All imported drugs are required to meet the same standards as domestic drugs, and thus must not be unapproved, misbranded, or adulterated. Drugs imported by individuals that are unapproved, misbranded, or adulterated, are prohibited by law. This includes drugs that are foreign versions of FDA-approved medications, and drugs that are dispensed without a prescription, because there is no assurance of their safety and effectiveness. FDA is doing its best to stop the increasing flow of violative drugs into this country but the task is daunting. Each day thousands of packages containing prescription drugs are imported illegally into the United States. Our Office of Regulatory Affairs has inspectors who work in the field who perform investigational work pertaining to imported prescription drugs, a job that is not limited to inspections at ports of entry. But while the volume of imported drugs has increased enormously, FDA has not received additional resources or authorities to address these shipments, in contrast to the case for food security at the border.

    However, FDA continues to have serious public health concerns regarding legislation that would allow the importation of drugs from outside the current safety system established by Congress under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. When it comes to buying drugs internationally, outside our existing regulatory protections, FDA has consistently concluded that the Agency is unable to endorse a "buyer beware" approach.

    and then there's this:

    If U.S. doctors come across a medicine that does not meet quality standards, they should report it to regulators, he said. "Doctors are not in a position to judge whether manufacturing processes are correct or not. That is the U.S. FDA's job."

    Generic drugs account for nearly 85 percent of medicines prescribed in the United States and the government is relying on them to help rein in healthcare costs.

    "We are losing control over what people are swallowing," said Dr. Harry Lever, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic who is trying raise awareness of the matter among U.S. lawmakers. "Now, when a patient comes in who is not doing well, the first thing I do is look at their drugs and find out who makes it."

    No doubt we're subsidizing meds around the world, nonetheless, the FDA is not the one w/the power here.


    Not substantially (none / 0) (#111)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    Counterfeits lotsa issues there.   But ultimately Bernie just thinks Obama was a bad president and would not allow imports for no reason.  Most of his supporters seem to agree.

    Really ? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:49:40 PM EST
    Not going to make it to the market without FDA approval, and even if it's approved, they set the human market for it by what information has to be go with it, like side effects, use, warming statements, and who can use it(kids).  

    They can make or break a prescription, ditto for adding or removing competitors from the market.  I doubt there is any single larger influence to drug pricing than the FDA.


    Reforming its process (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:04:51 PM EST
    For approving opioid pain drugs diesnt really seem to share your concern

    Let's Not Forget... (none / 0) (#201)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 11:14:21 AM EST
    ...that originally, Oxycontin was touted and approved by the FDA as a non-addictive synthetic opium.  It was suppose to be the miracle pain reveler, but because Purdue Pharma manipulated data, it was probably approved when it should at the very least, been in trails for much longer.

    Christies graceless (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:31:57 PM EST
    Blathering on the winter storm are the final nail in the coffin for his presidential aspirations.

    This guy being president is a terrifying thought.  What a jacka$$.

    Gov. Christie just can't restrain himself, can he? To quote the immortal Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"

    I couldn't imagine being one of Christie's kids, and being the potential target of that sort of verbal abuse on a regular basis.



    It was amazing (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 05:42:10 PM EST
    And painful to watch.  Probably the most politically ham handed thing I have ever seen.  Just because it was so unnecessary.  

    I was just thinking, what would Bubba do in this situation.  

    Thin skinned, petty, disqualifying for the highest office in the land.

    I mean seriously, you can't even imagine Barbara Bush saying THAT during Katrina.


    The Democratic Town Hall (none / 0) (#98)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    held last night at Drake University in Des Moines, was a civil and educational discourse by each of the three candidates.  The format allotted each candidate 45 minutes alone on the stage moderated by CNN's Chris Cuomo. Questions were crafted and presented by Iowans in the audience. CNN indicated that they did review the questions in advance.

    Senator Sanders was first, followed by Governor O'Malley, and finished by Secretary Clinton.  Two stools were provided, one for Cuomo the other for the candidate, although, each of them preferred to stand.

     Senator Sanders was very good. All of his plans are tied to his fundamental argument of economic inequality and the need to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans. His definition of democratic socialist, he says, is that of the programs he espouses. He is nothing if not disciplined to stay on message, stay on message, stay on message.  It is quite effective, with his only faltering the defensiveness that came with questions on "taking on" the establishment of PP and Human Rights.

     The last question, intended as a soft ball for the wind up,  was played well: it was about his parents and how proud they would be of him, immigrants from Poland at age 17 struggling in the new country without a nickel to their name.  It added a welcomed human touch to the all serious business persona.

    Martin O'Malley, peeled down to shirt sleeves from business suit. Apparently, that brings him closer to the millennials. While sometimes resorting to a series of political cliches, he did bring to the fore for the younger crowd the importance of climate change and the need to encourage young people to enter farming--in response to a question from a young female farmer. To applause, including mine, he called out Trump for his "fascist rhetoric."

     Cuomo asked about the Des Moines Register editorial (that endorsed Mrs. Clinton) that said he would be better as a cabinet officer in a Clinton Administration. He said he is in it to win.

    Mrs. Clinton was at the top of her game. Funny, friendly, self-deprecating, assured, and firery. All in a good way. Offered only high marks for Senator Sanders, including accolades for a Sander's spot announcement. In answering questions, especially about foreign policy, she did so by telling her story.  I found it likely to be riveting to all but the most ardent opponent and maybe an eye-opener to those who did not really know much about her. For her "fluff question" she was asked who her favorite president was. Sorry President Obama and Bill, she started, but it is Abe Lincoln. And, then took her audience to an erudite course on Lincoln, including his vision for the future of the country with Land Grant and Transcontinental Rail in the midst of a war that killed more Americans than 20th Century casualties.

    Re Lincoln, she was raised (none / 0) (#125)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:42:43 PM EST
    and indeed inculcated in it, in the Land of Lincoln.  I have seen the K12 lesson plans there.

    That doesn't surprise me. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 05:13:59 PM EST
    I believe that Illinois is the only state in the entire country which educates its students on the particulars of both the federal and state constitutions, and further requires that they pass a test to demonstrate competency in the subject matter before receiving a high school diploma.

    I think all states should do that.



    Glad they still do it! I remember taking (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:25:19 PM EST
    the Constitution Test, and the couple of months of classes that led up to it. And we had to memorize the preamble, and know what all the amendments did. It was viewed as kind of a pain, but I really liked it.

    Mrs. Clinton received (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 05:48:24 PM EST
    criticism by Ta Nahisi Coates for her version of Lincoln history.  BTD has post up on this. My thinking is that Mr. Coates is off base on this.

    Well, this will certainly help with Clinton's (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:38:50 PM EST
    image as a woman of the people:

    Despite being dogged with questions about her ties to Wall Street, Hillary Clinton will take a detour from the campaign trail in Iowa to do back-to-back finance industry fundraisers in other states later this week.

    Clinton will appear in Philadelphia at a "gala" fund-raiser hosted by executives at Franklin Square Capital Partners, a $17 billion investment fund. Rocker Bon Jovi will reportedly play an acoustic set for "friends" who pledge $1,000 and hosts who bundle up to $27,000.


    Clinton will then head to New York City, where she will speak at a lunchtime "Conversations With Hillary" fund-raiser. This one is co-hosted by Matt Mallow, a senior managing director and general counsel at BlackRock, the world's largest asset management firm. As we've reported before, having a conversation with Hillary is not cheap.

    BlackRock's ties to Clinton go particularly deep: Cheryl Mills, one of Clinton's closest advisors at the State Department, sits on BlackRock's board, and perhaps not surprisingly, Clinton's plans for the industry align with the company's financial strategy.

    Have to wonder who on the Clinton campaign staff thought this was a good idea.

    From your link (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:53:22 PM EST
    (UPDATE: The Hillary Clinton campaign has postponed a New York City fundraiser scheduled for Thursday until Feb. 16, according to Marisa Faltelson, New York finance co-director at Hillary for America. This story, previously headlined "Hillary Clinton Doing Back-to-Back Finance Industry Fundraisers Just Before Iowa," has been updated to reflect the postponement.)

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    I don't see why anyone would be surprised or upset that she was doing fundraisers OR that she postponed one.



    Just seems like (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:58:43 PM EST
    There are other things to get upset about.

    Like me replying to my own comments



    I'm over this subject too (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:01:23 PM EST
    Honestly, I just don't care anymore who does fundraisers.  It's unrealistic to expect presidential candidates are just going to get small donors and win.

    Like lots of other things (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    It would be nice in a perfect world

    Yep (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    And selfishly, the only fundraisers I despise these days are the ones the president (whomever that is) attends that take place around DC and block rush hour traffic for hours.

    There are so many other things I'd rather worry about.


    Oh, well, that's so much better! (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 03:57:47 PM EST
    But thanks for the update.

    Looks like (none / 0) (#113)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    Looks like I'm the corporate champion these days never was really still have my copy of democracy for the few from college days but while I'm sure blackrock is guilty of some evil thing I just haven't heard about yet, I just thought this shoulda be noticed too.



    That is One Hell of a Straw Man... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 05:23:23 PM EST
    ...you have created.

    James Earl Jones voice, "The Corporate Champion, defender of those that need it the most."

    Nothing wrong with most corporations, just don't want their money influencing my government.


    Not even (none / 0) (#133)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 05:27:19 PM EST
    If it helps people?

    Huh ? (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 10:28:08 AM EST
    I work at a corporation, most of the things I own are made by corporations, my retirement is heavily dependent on corporate prosperity.  They donate huge amounts of cash for good causes, and encourage employees to help the communities they reside in.

    But like people, some are good, some are not, and they all fall somewhere between.  But to wrap them all into one lump some and say they are good/bad is silly.

    I am lucky, I work at one that has twice been named one of Houston's best places to work.  But let's not forget, a corporation serves one purpose, to limit financial exposure and their assets are generally not owned by the middle class, they are rich folks assets.  Yeah we all have 401k's, but very few people will ever be anything even close to being a major share holder, very few of us actually have any real input as far as voting and operations, even as employees.

    Better put, corporation only purpose is protect wealth.  If you look at most corporate structures, they are designed in way that no matter what happens, more more than 10% of a corporation's assets are at risk no matter what.  Asbestos, Union Carbide chemical spill, BP Gulf spill; they might pay out millions, even billions, but they will never be stripped of most wealth no matter what they do.  I would also argue that they limit personal responsibility, but that is not what they are designed to do.

    You and me, not so much, ditto for most small business, they/we are one disaster away from ruin.  We can pay to limit that liability(insurance) to corporations, but for us that is a cost, whereas for a corporation is part of their design.

    So while I like some of them, and work for them, I look at them for what they are, the long arm of organized wealth that plays by rules that one one else can.  Great if they are treating people and the enviroment with the respect they deserve, not good when they engage bad and often illegal practices.

    So if you want to discuss any particular corporations, let's do it, but to act like they are all great or that other people think they are all bad, is disingenuous.  But I am down with any company, like the link above, that is about giving back as much as taking.


    Per Jeralyn's request, ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:37:21 PM EST
    ... please use the hyperlink button, because extended URLs can skew the website and she reserves the right to delete comments that include them. I believe that I provided you earlier with a primer on how to do a hyperlink at TL. And again, it's really not that difficult.

    thanks Donald (none / 0) (#176)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:59:09 AM EST
    for the reminder and to others, if you post a url, it must be in html format because the site has narrow margins and long ones skew the site. I don't have the time to figure out which link is skewing the site when it happens, so I delete almost every comment I see with long links not in html format. Save our work on your own computer if you spend any time on a particular comment that includes link so you won't be upset when it's gone. It's not my intent to eliminate your comments, it's my intent to preserve the readability of the site.

    "Tell Mike it was only business." (none / 0) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:22:35 PM EST
    RIP, Abe Vigoda, a well-respected character actor who passed away today at age 94. Longtime TV viewers might remember him as the dyspeptic and irascible NYPD detective Phil Fish in the 1970s-era ABC sitcom "Barney Miller."

    But to aficionados of classic cinema, Vigoda is best known for his role in "The Godfather" as Tessio, one of Vito Corleone's trusted senior lieutenants who attempted to betray son Michael following the old man's death, and delivered one of the most memorable lines in U.S. movie history. In an award-winning film full of high-powered talent, the then-unknown Vigoda more than held his own and Hollywood quickly came beckoning.

    After having twice been mistakenly reported by the media as deceased in 1982 and 1994, stories of Vigoda's demise have become a running gag, with Vigoda himself often in on the joke.

    This time, though, it's for real.

    Check out his last tweet (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:30:18 PM EST
    From around 2:30 pm (EST) today.

    Abe Vigoda ‏@abevigoda  3h hours ago

    I was alive and now I'm not :(

    537 retweets 389 likes
    Reply   Retweet  537  
    Like 389  

    LOL! (none / 0) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 05:00:38 PM EST
    You have to give Vigoda props. That's one heck of an exit line. Even as he checks out, he can't resist one last self-deprecating chuckle.

    Until Today... (none / 0) (#132)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 05:25:31 PM EST
    ...I thought it was Abe Bigoda.

    Tom, can you get me off the hook? (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:36:32 PM EST
    For old times sake?

    Can't do it Sally.


    That was one of the truly great scenes ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:56:57 PM EST
    ... in an awesome film that is chock-full of them. Tessio's hangdog features and those sad, sunken eyes only accentuate his forlorn look of resignation when Tom declines to intervene with Mike on his behalf.

    At that moment, both Tessio and the audience know exactly what's going to happen to him as he's led off to the car by Corleone gunmen. And in a film marked by outburst of sudden violence, director Francis Ford Coppola didn't feel compelled to compound the obvious by showing the actual deed.

    Instead, we see only Tom, who's watching through the window as Tessio is driven away, obviously consigned to his pending doom. And those little subtleties are what make classics like "The Godfather" unforgettable.



    My old man... (none / 0) (#192)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:29:46 AM EST
    was not one for sitcoms, or the "boob tube" in general, but Barney Miller was an exception.  Reruns were a staple in my house growing up.

    Rest in Peace Fish.


    The (none / 0) (#195)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:35:48 AM EST
    episode where they ate the pot brownies always sticks in my mind.

    Fish: "I haven't felt this good in years, too bad it's illegal" (paraphrase)


    Yes... (none / 0) (#196)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    that episode was a classic.

    "Mushy Mushy"


    Judge Orders that Creation Amusement Park (none / 0) (#117)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    be given $18M in Kentucky tax subsidies.

    The state of Kentucky must give millions of dollars in tax subsidies to a Noah's Ark theme park owned by a creationist ministry, even though that ministry refuses to comply with the state's request not to engage in hiring discrimination, according to an opinion by a George W. Bush appointee to the federal bench. Under Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove's opinion, the creationist group Answers in Genesis (AiG) stands to gain up to $18 million.

    Though Kentucky officials were initially enthusiastic about providing these subsidies to help fund the Ark Encounter, they later reversed course citing fears that the state constitution does not permit tax incentives to be used to "advance religion," as well as concerns that AiG "intends to discriminate in hiring its employees based on religion." AiG sued, alleging various First Amendment theories.

    Today (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:34:31 PM EST
    I bought one of those

    S M T W T F S

    pill things.   Because a couple of time recently I just wasn't sure if I took the damn things or not.

    It seems like the last pathetic acceptance that I am, in fact, an old f@rt.   Oh well, better than the alternative.  Now I just have to know what day of the week it is.

    Don't feel bad... (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:33:17 AM EST
    I have an oversized one of those for the sacrament...in case of a rough patch and I need to ration the stash to last the week, I'll put a daily dose in each day's slot.

    RIP, Concepcion Picciotto (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:37:25 PM EST
    The woman who held vigil outside the White House in an anti-nuke protest for more than 30 years, died yesterday at the age of 80.  She sat at the edge of Lafayette Park on the curb of the now closed for car traffic part of Pennsylvania Avenue, and when I worked in that part of town, I used to see her and her little tent and signs when I would go walking at lunch through the park.  Tourists loved to get her picture, some people would stop and talk to her, but mostly, everyone left her alone.

    Concepcion Picciotto, the protester who maintained a peace vigil outside the White House for more than three decades, a demonstration widely considered to be the longest-running act of political protest in U.S. history, died Jan. 25 at a housing facility operated by N Street Village, a nonprofit that supports homeless women in Washington. She was believed to be 80.

    Trump (none / 0) (#136)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 05:52:11 PM EST
    announces he "likely won't" be at next Fox Debate debate taking the feud to WWE levels.

    Watching this (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 06:05:36 PM EST

    The provocations from FOX are pretty amazing.  They seemed to want a war.  Looks like they have one.

    Oou only problem is who to root for.

    The RNC is already begging him to come.  

    Trump "let's see how many people watch"



    He's announced a simultaneous (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 06:07:22 PM EST
    Event for wounded warriors.  Pretty damn shrewd

    Maybe (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 06:30:57 PM EST
    but one day one of these stunts might blow up in his face. He is a bully willing to slander anybody yet he is offended by Roger Ailes and Megan Kelley? If and only if someone can spin this as him running from a fight it might hurt him, I now good luck with that.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 06:34:45 PM EST
    I think it's going to be hard to spin this as him being "afraid" of Megan Kelly when he is picking a big ass fight with Roger Ailes.

    I am (none / 0) (#142)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:03:13 PM EST
    just saying, why doesn't Cruz call up CNN and denounce him as a coward? You can be sure if the roles were reversed Trump would be burning up the airwaves even as we speak. Trump has been calling Cruz "nasty" and "a liar" for days , Cruz could at the very least imply that Trump was afraid to get on the stage with him and say it to his face. That's what I would do and I think it would work.

    I guess he could (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:07:01 PM EST
    If the announcer could suppress his guffawing.  

    Do you honestly think anyone would buy that he is "afraid to get on the stage" with Ted.

    I do not.


    You don't (none / 0) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:15:59 PM EST
    have to to get anybody to buy it, you just have to get it out there, most of these "announcers" as you quaintly put it, sit quietly for the most amazing BS. A deft talker could wave a shiny object like this and the media will swoon and it will become part of the narrative. Trump does it all the time.

    Just heard (none / 0) (#154)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:40:50 PM EST
    that Cruz offered to debate him head to head.

    Pffft (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:58:41 PM EST
    I just saw this.  Lincoln Douglas style!  
    Holy hell.  Can you imagine.  90 minutes from each of them?   I can only imagine it as a punishment for some terrible crime.

    Thing is.  Begging for  a debate is about as classic a loser move as there is.


    Howdy (none / 0) (#178)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:44:33 AM EST
    You are second to none when it comes to understanding the Trump phenomenon, but sometimes you seem to forget what politics is about. What do you really expect to Cruz to do, nothing?

    Politics 101 says if your opponent says or does something that gives you an opening you should strike hard. Donald himself has led the way in turning this into a name calling contest. Personally if I was running against him I would be flinging the word coward at him time and time again over this particular issue. It might not work but at this point I don't see how it could hurt and you surely can't consider it a classic loser move.


    Ironically, (none / 0) (#180)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:07:01 AM EST
    In 2011, Trump was supposed to MODERATE a Republican debate for NewsMax, but most of the candidates said they wouldn't attend. In a one-on-one with Megan Kelly about this very topic,  Trump wondered what these candidates were afraid of, and wondered how they would stand up to China if they were so afraid to debate.

    (Kelly also threw him a softball at the end date of the clip and asked if he thought he would be a better moderator than her, and he said no and complimented her on the great job she had done.)


    If (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:07:28 AM EST
    Trump loses IA can you imagine the speech?

    He'll just brand them all losers (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:13:13 AM EST
    like he always does whenever something doesn't go his way.

    I was stuck in traffic this morning, listening to CSPAN's Washington Journal and it was nothing if not entertaining; I don't think people realize that someone making the race "interesting" is not actually a reason to think they will be up to the job.  None of the Trump supporters care anything about how Trump intends to do - or pay for - all the things he says he will do, they just like that he is saying them.

    Honestly, does his petulant refusal to debate if Megyn Kelly is moderating translate to refusing to debate Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee?  


    Turning down the chance to debate (none / 0) (#183)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:18:00 AM EST
    the list now includes Reagan, Trump, and Sanders.

    Was a good move by Reagan and may also turn out to be great moves by Trump and Sanders.


    I was (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:26:15 AM EST
    wondering the same thing if he's the nominee. Is he going to refuse to do a presidential debate? He certainly might for sure. Paul Begala was tweeting asking where that chicken suit from 1992 was. LOL.

    What politics is "about" (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:08:34 AM EST
    Is winning.
    If you and Ted think that means he should go all WWF on Donald, finer by me.

    I would just say look at what has happened to everyone who has done that, Perry, Jindal, Graham, am I forgetting any one?  Oh yeah Jeb!   Things have not gone well for Donalds attackers.

    Which would explain one of the strangest things about this cycle so far.  Until about two day ago there had not been a single solitary negative ad against the guy who has been the front runner for 6 months.  Not one.  Hundreds against everyone else, not one against Donald.  There has been a lot of bandwidth and ink dedicated to this strange phenomenon.

    Cruz ran the first one and since the first day it aired his numbers have been dropping.

    I am not saying Cruz should not do as you say.   Sorry if I was not clear.  What I was saying is it makes no difference whatsoever if he does or not.  

    Morning Joe is a Donald love fest this morning.  It opened with Reagan screaming "IM PAYING FOR THIS MICROPHONE". And went from there.


    Donalds campaign manager (none / 0) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:34:47 AM EST
    On Morning Joe other candidates have expressed interest in joining Donalds Wounded Warrior event.

    Trying to figure out if that's true and who it would be.

    He repeats it's a no show.  All the bobble heads except Joe saying he will show up.  

    They are spending a lot of time making the point that Kelly is in fact very hostile to Donald, and making a pretty darn good case.   And that refusing to be questioned by an openly hostile questioner is not unreasonable.

    No mention of Ted yet.


    I Think Trump Did... (none / 0) (#197)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 10:16:28 AM EST
    ...a simple risk/reward assessment and decided it there is no benefit and little downside to taking a pass.  And to be honest, if it's like the past debates, it one long talking point with a couple shots taken, it is not in anyway a debate.

    If they take shots at him, it only makes him look stronger, and they look desperate, then entire 'establishment' looks desperate right now, the look weak.  The idea that he is going to take on Cruz, come on, why, Cruz is no threat.

    He is basically playing by his rules, way outside the box, and killing it.  I know I am late to the party, but what makes anyone think he isn't going to do the same once he is the nominee.  Great HRC is a great debater, but if Trump says "I will Pass" she had better have more than what the GOP has had.  All they have done is look desperate adn weak, and who wants to vote for that.

    Now he is declaring that he will reach across the aisle, well who doesn't want that.  I mean seriously, this notion that the right doesn't want some cooperation in DC is misguided, they hate the gridlock in Congress as much as anyone.

    The fact that Donald probably could shoot someone and keep his support also means that he can work with democrats and not lose support either.  He dropped the wall and muslim rhetoric and is headed to the middle, which is what a R has to do to make it, start crazy and head center.

    Since the last R debate I am really worried about this guy.


    What you said (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    I don't think there will be any consideration of skipping debates next fall.   This is a special case IMO.  

    One other thought on the debate without Donald, Cruz will be the attending front runner so everyone else will be hammering him instead of Donald.

    The bobble heads keep saying this is all for show and he will be at the debate.  I believe they continue to miss the point.  What, at this point, would Donald gain from going?   He has completely dominated the news since this broke.   There is not a single indication of that lessening by tomorrow night.

    Donald has said he will no longer talk to Ailes.  He will only talk to Rupert.  Classic.  They are reporting that last night Ailes was desperately calling everyone in the Trump family to try to reach Donald.


    Pass the freakin popcorn.


    Hello (none / 0) (#202)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 11:14:23 AM EST
    He has completely dominated the news since this broke.
    This has been pretty much the case for the last seven months. Every pronouncement, tweet or speech has been amplified and echoed to an almost ridiculous extent.

    Trump has been enabled to launch endless broadsides of boasts and insults with little or no pushback from the press, on an endless cycle of rinse and repeat. To his credit Trump has taken full advantage of this gift that is not really available to the rest of the field.

    A hell of a way to run a Democracy.


    I (none / 0) (#199)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 10:34:05 AM EST
    agree Trump is fighting UFC while everybody else is fighting  by The Marquess of Queensberry rules.
    meanwhile the refs(media) have completely lost control of the contest.

    Feuding with Fox might be a winning game for him now, but I am sure Hillary and Sanders are making notes on his tactics and are already gaming it out and should be better prepared then his present gob-smacked opponents.

    Skipping a Debate next fall would be political suicide period, unless we have truly moved into bizzaro world


    Of course he did (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:41:54 PM EST
    I have (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 06:57:53 PM EST
    to say I kind of don't blame him. I mean the GOP debates are just nonsense. For the most part they are not even asked serious questions and the moderators let the candidates spout conspiracy theories.

    It would literally be hysterical if Trump was the one who ended up taking down Fox News.


    I think many (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:04:32 PM EST
    If not most will agree.  

    I think this is sort of brilliant.   Another stupid debate.  Who cares.  Donald blows them off and becomes the story.  This will lead every newscast.  Then he decides to simulcast a benefit for wounded warriors.



    Donald Trump (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:18:46 PM EST
    Sucks as a debater and he knows it.  His poll numbers aways dip after debates and it's too close to voting time.

    This was preplanned awhile ago and has nothing to do with today's "rift" (like that wasn't pre-planned to create a backstop fir this nonsense).


    I've seen this (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:25:38 PM EST
    I guess.  If it's true FOX certainly cooperated.  Have you actually seen the press releases from earlier today?  They were pretty vicious.   Knowing Trump I could have told you this would be the response.

    Also I thought his poll numbers went up after ever debate but I'm not prepared to debate the issue.


    New Hampshire and MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:00:27 PM EST
    are trying to schedule a Dem debate in NH after Iowa and before NH votes.

    Both O'Malley and Clinton said they'd go. Sanders says no. A smart move by Sanders in that he has nothing to win by debating before NH. Also, if all three don't agree to participate it likely wouldn't be sanctioned meaning no one would go. That's a smart move by Sanders. His debating skills aren't on par with Hillary.


    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:10:15 PM EST
    but it looks kind of silly because of all the complaints mostly from some Sanders supporters about there not being enough debates.

    But yeah debates do not help him one bit.


    So...you're saying that it was always (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:32:22 PM EST
    just that easy?  Get all the Dem candidates to agree to debate and the DNC backs off its threats?

    Golly, wonder why they didn't do it sooner?

    I don't think the debates have hurt Sanders, so whether or not he's better or worse at it wouldn't seem to be much of a consideration.

    The big unknown, of course, is the DNC and the less-than-competent Debbie Wasserman Schultz; I can just imagine her once again doing something incredibly stupid in order to protect her authority.  Or Clinton.  Having seen the kinds of things the DNC is capable of doing, seems like a fairly smart move not to give them any more reasons to fk with things.

    My first thought was that being spared the pain of suffering through a Chuck Todd-moderated debate would be reason enough not to have one.  


    It was great (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:32:56 PM EST
    Watching Rachel Maddow try to report this story without making Bernie look bad.  
    It was like a master class in cable spin.  It was fun to imagine how different it would have been if it was Hillary who was saying she would not participate bacause she was afraid she would be sanctioned by the DNC if she did.  

    She did make a BIG deal of Hillary saying all candidates needed to agree to avoid sanctions.


    Badly handled atatement (none / 0) (#161)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    out of the Sanders' campaign. They said they won't agree because they could be banned from future debates by attending an unsanctioned debate. Everyone has been told it will be sanctioned if all three appear and only Bernie said no.

    The statement would have been better handled just by saying, "we already have scheduled the week prior to the primary and it's too late to alter our plans". If you're going to throw around a little BS at least make it smell good. That said, he still has nothing to gain by agreeing to debate.


    The funniest (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 08:48:16 PM EST
    thing about it was the trying to hide behind DWS after all the complaints from Bernie about how she was conspiring against him.

    Because, yeah (none / 0) (#177)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:05:35 AM EST
    The DNC would bar ALL THREE of its candidates from future debates. How would that work?  MSNBC would show up, have a countdown clock and graphics made up, they'd set up a stage in an auditorium, and we'd look at empty podiums for two hours?

    This is one of the silliest statements to come from the Sanders camp. The point of these rules was that all the candidates had to be present for a sanctioned debate

    I get why he doesn"t want to debate, but coming from a campaign that has complained for months about wanting more debates, (and even has a petition on his website), this is really a bad statement.


    Then tell us why none of these candidates (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:06:56 AM EST
    has undertaken any efforts to organize or arrange any non-DNC-sponsored debates, if all it was going to take was to make sure all the candidates participated?

    Apparently, this is why:

    The Democratic National Committee says it is unlikely to sanction additional debates before the New Hampshire primary, a decision that could strike a blow to the attempts by MSNBC and the New Hampshire Union Leader to host a debate next week.


    DNC rules stipulate that any candidate who participates in an unsanctioned debate forfeits the opportunity to attend contests sanctioned by the party. A DNC aide told The Hill that the party is not considering lifting that policy.

    Also, Sanders said that

    he would not participate in any unsanctioned debate, because he does not want to risk being uninvited to future official debates.

    Which is not really any different from what Clinton's people said:

    Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's communications director, signaled that Clinton is open to participating if other candidates agree and the DNC sanctions the debate. She didn't address whether Clinton would still appear if the DNC doesn't sanction the event.

    I took that to mean that when and if the DNC sanctions it, he will be on board and happy to participate, and so will Clinton.

    Martin O'Malley is the only one who has uncategorically agreed to attend, probably because it may be the last time he is included in any debate.

    Further, Sanders isn't now opposed to more debates, in fact he said this:

    Weaver said Sanders hopes there will be at least 3 or 4 more debates following the two remaining scheduled debates planned in Wisconsin and Florida. He said the process required a "rational, thought-out schedule of debates, not just ad hoc debates scheduled when a network decides they want to have one."

    I think you might want to actually acquaint yourself with the DNC rules, and be mindful of what the DNC is saying about sanctioning this debate, before you leap to make Sanders out to be silly or afraid.

    It hasn't been that long ago that we saw the power the DNC has to really fk with this whole process, and how intransigent it can be once it makes a decision; if DWS was at all inclined to open up the process to more debates, I rather think she would have done that long before now.


    Bernie Sanders 8 days ago (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:26:37 AM EST
    in an interview with Rachel Maddow talking about a possible debate before New Hampshire:

    "If Secretary Clinton and Gov. (Martin) O'Malley want to do it, I'm there. I love debates."

    Again, I think he's smart to turn it down. But he never should have said he'd love to do it in the first place. He was trying to look like he was fighting for more debates...until it was offered. He painted himself into a corner and now slinging BS to justify the flipflop. His PR on this is awful.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:33:25 AM EST
    Martin O'Malley asked him to join him in asking for more debates and Bernie said no. And this was way before the current dust up. So he's never really wanted any more debates. Unfortunately he was complaining about there not being enough of them so here we are on this.

    I stand by my comment (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:49:24 AM EST
    If all three candidates took part in an unsanctioned debate, then please explain exactly how the DNC bars them from future sanctioned debates., no matter what the rules say.

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:20:31 AM EST
    This has to be the silliest thing ever.  

    Yes, all three candidates are barred from the debate.   Now let's have a debate.


    Yes please.  Explain how that works


    All the talking heads (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:28:38 PM EST
    Are saying he will be there.  These would be the same one who have been wrong about every single thing they have ever said on the subject.

    I think there is an excellent chance he will not be there.  

    For one thing, as you say, it's smart. It removes him from a risky situation with the caucus days away.


    Did you see (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:29:47 PM EST
    where Ben Sasse started tweeting Trump and asking him his policy stances and then asked if Trump had asked for forgiveness for his numerous affairs?

    I did yes (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:32:26 PM EST
    1.) Ben who?
    2.). It totally smacks of desperation.

    My take (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:35:33 PM EST
    was different. I thought he was actually raising legitimate questions about Trump and his lack of policy. Since it's in the news now it might get people to start asking questions. The whole affair thing was a very obvious attempt to pry evangelicals away from Trump though. I mean that was transparent.

    Like the problem (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:36:58 PM EST
    Is no one has ever raised those questions.

    My husband (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    has the TV on Mr. Haney is giving his stump speech to evangelicals. Please make it stop!!!!

    Looks like that guy Bundy (none / 0) (#163)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:23:39 PM EST
    could be in a heap load of Oregon trouble.

    Breaking - shootout with Oregon fed site occupiers (none / 0) (#164)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:24:01 PM EST
    Ammon Bundy arrested at traffic stop. Typical confusion and lack of detail for an initial news report.

    According to Oregonian newspaper (none / 0) (#166)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:37:18 PM EST
    both Ammon and Ryan Bundy are in custody as are several other militia people. One of the militia occupiers Was killed, but no name released.

    I still cannot link from (none / 0) (#168)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:39:12 PM EST
    my iPad. To get local coverage go to oregonlive.com. This is the website for the Oregonian newspaper.

    This link is for you (none / 0) (#169)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:12 PM EST
    Thank you, CG. (none / 0) (#170)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:47:20 PM EST
    Here's the link to the FBI press release (none / 0) (#171)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:50:34 PM EST
    and additional coverage from "oregonlive.com". It appears that Bundy and others were stopped on their way to a supposed "community meeting." Could have been a ruse to lure them off the Malheur site and onto the highway to facilitate the arrests. I interpret the press release as implying that the FBI had sealed arrest warrants in hand for conspiracy to impede federal officials by force, a little-used felony provision which carries a six-year maximum.

    Early reports out of Oregon of one dead (none / 0) (#167)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:38:33 PM EST
    We really ought to be patient. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 09:51:23 PM EST
    But we won't be, of course, 'cause we want to know NOW! So, per KATU-TV in Portland, and according to the FBI and Oregon state police, one man is dead, another wounded and five others have been arrested along with Bundy.

    There is video no doubt (none / 0) (#189)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:10:47 AM EST
    It should be released immediately. If there is not video, you know that will be worse.

    That is the thing with this entire fiasco. Bundy and crew are idiots and wrong, but if you look at Fed management of timber-filled federal lands, for instance, you can basically see a government in the pocket of Big Timber. These cats in Arizona are on the dipsh*t selfish wrong end of a good issue, they are simply too prejudiced, dumb, and self-interested to see the forest for their own limp trees.


    Joe (none / 0) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 11:23:58 AM EST
    I get the point about the press.
    But seriously, what are they supposed to do?
    NOT report that the prohibitive front runner has refused to attend the final debate before voting starts?
    If you think the coverage has been all positive I would strongly disagree.   It's actually been anything but.

    That brings us to the dangerous genius of the Donald.

    He understands that any publicity is good publicity.

    We can like it or lump it but we better understand it.

    I don't know if it's genius (none / 0) (#204)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 11:30:52 AM EST
    so much as garden variety runaway narcissism, embodied by someone who's heard words like "no" and "that's a stupid idea" all too infrequently in his life.

    Capt (none / 0) (#205)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    a little editorial discretion would be nice. Coverage is one thing but I have personally watched CNN go over the top in regards to Trump over and over again.

    I really don't think it's fair at all to let Trump to call in any time with his non stop boasting and schoolyard insults. They can just say no, if you will.

    They could (none / 0) (#207)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 11:52:47 AM EST
    God knows they could.

    But they won't.  I know that.  I know you know that.  And most importantly, Donald knows that.

    We can whine about it until he has his hand on the bible in Jan 2017.  It won't change a damn thing.  ADAPT is what we must do.  Can "we" do that?  I sure the f@ck hope we can.

    Jeb!mentum! (none / 0) (#208)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 12:02:27 PM EST
    Jeb surges to #2 in NH

    He must have gotten the Barbara Bump.

    The comeback codger!! (none / 0) (#209)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 12:07:33 PM EST

    ADAPT (none / 0) (#210)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 12:21:01 PM EST
    ADAPT is what we must do.  Can "we" do that?  I sure the f@ck hope we can.

    I do to, but after the B Clinton flap from Trump, I don't think HRC is anywhere near being ready for a someone with no boundaries.

    Since the last R debate I am really worried about this guy.

    Civil War Correpsondent (none / 0) (#211)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    by PJ Harvey. (LINK)

    Words leave my heart dry
    Words can't save life
    Love has no place here
    No joy, no tears
    Darling, time's changed
    Time leaves, time fades
    Please see through my eyes
    Save your tears for the next who dies
    I shout but he don't hear
    I put down on a page
    Darling spare me your tears
    Just send me the light of day
    I shout but he don't hear
    Just put down on the page
    Darling spare me your tears
    Dear God please send me the light of day
    I can feel his
    Heart wired
    Heart like

    Here's a nice piece (none / 0) (#212)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    How Can Kelly Not Get Spun (none / 0) (#213)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    The guy who is going to take on ISIS, scare the world into submission, take on Russia, is worried about being treated poorly in a debate.

    Come on, someone can frame this in a way that Trump can't not reply.

    I expect this from D's, they never know when to bite, but if 7 GD republican campaigns can't challenge Trumps delicate ego over this...

    Adele should sue. Huckabee (none / 0) (#214)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    campaign ad uses Adele hit "Hello" as melody for Iowa ad.

    Please tell me this is a joke.

    I saw this at Digby's place. Say it ain't so, Huck.

    I Don't Know (none / 0) (#215)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 02:38:35 PM EST
    Under the Video:

    Mike Huckabee For President.

    If you enjoyed this parody, learn more at hvvp://MikeHuckabee.com

    The link, which I added the 'vv', is a link to his website.