Obama: Media was harder on Clinton than me in 2008

Those of you who lived the 2008 election with us at Talk Left will be interested to hear this from President Obama in his interview with Politico's Glenn Thrush:

Obama hammered away at the notion that the New York senator was on the wrong side of generational change, and his team successfully convinced reporters that every Clinton campaign swipe was an underhanded personal attack – something he’s less than proud of in retrospect.

“The truth is, in 2007 and 2008, sometimes my supporters and my staff I think got too huffy about what were legitimate questions she was raising,” he admitted. “And there were times where I think the media probably was a little unfair to her and tilted a little my way in calling her out.”

Sound familiar? Anyway, the entire interview is basically a de facto endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President.

< Is Trump Taking Supporters for Granted? | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Good for him (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 08:39:47 AM EST
    As they say, he should know.

    I just (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 08:48:45 AM EST
    want to add that acknowledging this is a wonderful thing and goes a long way towards healing any rifts.

    Just want to add (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 09:00:43 AM EST
    There have not been "rifts" between Hilary and Obama in a long time.  And that was not his point or intention.
    It was intended to defend and support her not nurse sad forgotten grudges.

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    that however the acknowledgement is a big step.

    I thought you meant rifts between (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:24:10 AM EST

    Oh well that's different (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:41:17 PM EST
    Might not have worked. Some could say "too little too late".

    Some could.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:56:00 PM EST
    but you don't have the entire right wing scream machine trying to ruin your day everyday do you?

    If you mean (none / 0) (#52)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    the right wing scream machine that lives on this blog, then your comment is relevant. And I would submit that, yes, they do try to ruin my day every day.

    No (2.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    talking about the press in this country egged on by the same nuts in congress.

    But yes, on a smaller scale I'm sure the nuts here want to ruin your particular day.


    Read the parent of my (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:02:52 PM EST
    original comment. Oy.

    I think Obama (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by CST on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    Will be one of our bigger assets in 2016, especially if Hillary gets the nod.  She's not going to hide him, and he's a great campaigner.

    Yeah, I think people are forgetting about him as (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    a campaign asset, since he is not going to be on the ticket himself.

    Harder to use him as an asset if you are running away from him in the primaries.


    And it was still very close in 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 09:34:59 AM EST
    Hillary almost won.  Her campaign in the second half of the Primaries was better and she was very good in the debates.

    This feel the "bern" stuff just escapes me.   He is a one trick pony that has yet to face the right wing attack machine.....And there is plenty of fodder for them to work with.

    If "The Bern"... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    escapes you, you must be in good financial shape.  Good for you, but that's a uxury many in America don't know.

    If you're one of the 76% of Americans living check to check, and you're paying attention, you're feeling "The Bern" big time.  

    Unless you take your frustrations out by kicking the dog, then you're probably with Trump.



    Inspiration (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    is in the eye of the beholder. I'm frankly inspired by the fact that Hillary keeps on putting one foot in front of the other no matter what is thrown at her.

    Heck, I can do that (none / 0) (#48)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:44:15 PM EST
    I'm frankly inspired by the fact that Hillary keeps on putting one foot in front of the other no matter what is thrown at her.
    And no way should I be President.

    I understand the economic appeal (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:44:00 PM EST
    of his arguments.

    It is the effort to suggest Bernie is a messianic figure.....


    Now you sound little like (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    the folks who were always attacking the "Obamabots" in 08..

    And yes, I know you supported Obama.

    What do expect in country steeped
    in messianic mythology for hundreds of years?

    What did Eugene Debs say? A people who can be led to the Promised Land can be led back out again.


    A Bernie supporter (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:57:21 AM EST
    at Big Orange explained support for Bernie as a "faith" that had spread like "wildfire."  It was like the ""Fifth Great Awakening."

    That showed the poster was well educated on U.S. religious history.   And, yet, no hint of irony...on a progressive blog yet.

    In 2008, and even today, I thought Obama was great.  The transform politics stuff, I never bought even then.  I just thought it was hyperbole.  I liked it best in 2008 when Obama showed some Kennedy-like steel.  But the Bernie folks at Big Orange are so over the top and young sounding and naïve.  They will be disillusioned at some point.  Much of the 2008 Obama phenomenon was the act of electing a Black President.  Nothing really comparable with Bernie....

    And he does have a chance of winning the nomination.....That would be a real mess imo, but it would be a spectacle.


    If those 76% of Americans ... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    ... who struggle paycheck to paycheck were actually feeling "The Bern," I wouldn't be worried about this election. But they're not.

    Rather, a good number of them can once again be relied upon to vote against their best economic interests, by flocking to those candidates who pander to their worst fears and instincts about "The Other."

    (They don't understand, or even care to understand, that when we demonize others and fail to acknowledge their humanity, we demean ourselves and further betray the very values for which our country ostensibly stands -- but that's another discussion for another day.)

    So while my heart says "Bernie Sanders," my head screams "Hillary Clinton!!" I wish I could vote with my heart, but I can't. I'm just too much of a pragmatist, and speaking for myself only, the stakes are too frighteningly high at this point to risk this election with such an electoral self-indulgence.

    We have a very good chance of retaining the White House with Mrs. Clinton as our nominee, but that advantage clearly goes away if Sanders gets the nod, due to his being an avowed socialist.

    We can't afford to spend the entire campaign trying to explain to voters why socialism is not the scary evil prospect that Republicans will say it is -- which is exactly what we'd be doing with Sanders at the top of the ticket.

    Because like it or not, over 40% of likely American voters have said upfront that they won't vote for a socialist, and that number includes a lot of conservative Democrats. That's one helluva high bar we'd have to overcome, just from the outset.

    And that's why I'm convinced that Bernie Sanders can't win in November. Any polls hinting otherwise in late January are meaningless. Once he becomes the nominee, he will be labeled, that label will stick and we'll lose.



    Yeah (none / 0) (#89)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:33:04 PM EST
    Because it will be impossible to label the acceptable, middle of the road candidate that the GOP will surely offer.

    It (none / 0) (#99)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:33:56 PM EST
    will be impossible for the media to not label the candidates as they see fit. They will set the narrative, do you feel lucky? I don't.

    Given what we've seen from Democrats ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 06:51:49 PM EST
    ... in the past, yes, we'll be drowned out in the resultant din -- particularly if that GOP candidate ends up being someone reasonable-sounding like John Kasich. (I don't think it'll be Trump or Bush.)

    I wouldn't be saying that if I actually had any confidence in my party's abilities to outshout the GOP -- and that's what we would need to do here. But I don't have any confidence in that regard.

    Were Sanders to become our nominee, we'll likely be routed, just like we were in the '80s. The only way Sanders can potentially win would be if the GOP goes into full-blown, double live-gonzo meltdown during the campaign -- which they likely won't, because they tend to save the batschitt crackers stuff for the day after they take the oath of office.



    God, I have visions of (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:04:15 AM EST
    swiftboats dancing in my head.

    You think, the GOP would be smart enough to nominate Kasich?  

    Lordy, I may just go stick my head in a bucket of ice....

    I think I would take up learning to play the acoustic guitar, rather than watch the GOP dismantle Bernie.....


    Or (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:34:25 AM EST
    You might be supporting the person you think could beat Trump

    Perhaps... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    but then you're still feeling the Bern I would think, only going the Machiavellian route with your vote.

    Different than not understanding Bernie's appeal...if you're running to stand still economically, and have half a brain, Bernie has gotta at least appeal to you.  You might choose to vote another way is all.


    I completely understand (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:07:42 AM EST
    The appeal

    I know you do... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:23:57 AM EST
    how a smart guy like MKS can't is a mystery...you can support Hillary without denying Bernie's appeal.  

    Hillary isn't in denial about Bernie's appeal, that's why her left turn signal has been on since she got on the campaign highway.  


    What I meant by the 'bern" (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    is not the economic argument but the over the top emotional reaction of his supporters.   Big Orange, in other words.

    People got rediculously emotional (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:09:29 PM EST
    in '08..

    It's the nature of the beast.

    Sanders validates and gives a public voice to what a lot of people who have felt ignored and disempowered have been thinking and feeling for years..

    And he doesn't insult our intelligence by kissing Goldman Sach's as*.


    Over the top emotional reactions (2.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:21:27 PM EST
    Not sure it isn't a little scary. Same hysteria for Trump.

    Also interesting is how men express enthusiasm compared to how women express enthusiasm.


    "men" or "men at DK"? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    Because I sure don't see men like kdog and Scott acting over-the-top emotional about Sanders.

    Generalizations are easy to come by.


    Can someone explain to me... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    what Donna Karan and a large citrus fruit have to do with this discussion?  ;)

    I'm well aware Bernie Sanders is not a god, a miracle worker, or a member of The Justice League...he's just a guy with good ideas and a track record of integrity in public service.  Turning those good ideas into reality is almost entirely up to us and who we elect to represent us in Congress.  


    K-dog, you sound rational (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:00:07 AM EST
    Go check out Big Orange if you have not already....they ain't like you.

    I swear they bay at the moon over there.


    I'm a one blog pony my friend... (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:43:43 AM EST
    I only blog read and comment first class, not coach.  Talkleft or bust.  But I'll take your word for it!

    I think (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:52:35 PM EST
    she's talking about the Orangemen that are not from Syracuse.

    I did raise the issue of Orangemen (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:59:26 PM EST
    Were you talking to me?  But anyway, fyi, I am not a she.

    No (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 02:09:30 PM EST
    shoephone and km miller.

    I shouldn't generalize (none / 0) (#67)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    And it's not a generalization to say Miggs from SILENCE OF THE LAMBS just endorsed Bernie.  It gets pretty ugly though I admit it's pretty rare, these days, I hope.

    Let's put it this way.... after 9-11 there was an over the top emotional reaction to invade a country and Clinton had to play a part in that and she had to apologize for that, over the top emotional reactions they're just not always the best things.


    Molly Bloom showed (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:16:58 AM EST
    us how women express enthusiasm.   she yes sure did and yes made it clear yes in her dreams yes......

    ha I amuse myself....


    Nothing new there (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    DK commenters were that over the top with O in 2008. Maybe back then you just agreed with the DK Wave.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    We did have an inspirational candidate in 2008, and I still love the guy, but he did not transform politics, or other stuff.  He eked some wins, first the Supreme Court picks, maybe ACA, but his best work appears to be the walks and singles he is eking out recently--after he stopped trying to work with the Republicans.  

    The Hillary folks in 2008 were big on her being a workhouse (as opposed to a show horse) back then who could actually get things done.  I hope they are right, and I think she should get the chance to show us what she can do.

    Another inspirational candidate who draws big crowds in 2016?  Time to try another tack imo.


    I wouldn't deny the appeal (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    I would say its a political message not something Bernie intends to actually do cause he knows the limits of a presidency.

    Even as a young man he put the word revolutionary in quotes like this: "revolutionary" political meeting.

    So look... Churches know believing in God has appeal.  So I'm not denying the appeal.


    I remember being called a -bot (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:41:58 AM EST
    many times in the spring of 2008. Say something critical about Obama's ideas, I'm a Hillary-bot. Say something critical about Clinton, now I'm an Obama-bot. And here I just thought I was a liberal-bot.

    Yeah, good times.

    You are not alone (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:54:55 AM EST
    Krugman is also feeling the pain
    And the response of some -- only some -- Sanders supporters is disappointing, although I guess predictable given that somewhat similar things happened during the 2008 primary. There will, I guess, always be some people who, having made an emotional commitment to a candidate, can't accept the proposition that someone might share their values but honestly disagree with the candidate's approach.

    Not relly interested in litigating (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    2008, especially since Obama just said I was right about it.

    Reposting comment from Saturday (5.00 / 8) (#58)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:23:03 PM EST
    Open Thread because I do not want to type it out again.

    Having read and written here at TL (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:12:22 PM EST
    for some years now I feel confident that I can say that I am a liberal and to the left of many here who are also self-described liberals.
    When I look at Clinton's body of work- her votes, her policies, her speeches and public statements, the things she did at the State Dept., - I believe she is a liberal, not a neoliberal, but an old-fahioned FDR and JFK liberal. She is also a political pragmatist, which I think is a good thing since I am also a political pragmatist.

    I find it interesting that commenters here, people I believe would be backing Warren were she running instead of Sanders, reject the very idea of Clinton's liberalism even in the face of evidence that Clinton's record is, in fact, more liberal than Warren's.

    Yes, there was her horrendous Iraq war vote, a vote she has said repeatedly was wrong. To my mind that vote was no more injurious to the United States in the long run, and maybe less so, than Sanders' votes against gun control and against gun manufacturer liability. There is no politician that I know of, and I have been around politics and in politics for six decades now, who pleases 100% of her/his supporters 100% of the time.

    Because I have been undecided between Clinton and Sanders I have very carefully watched and read and listened as this campaign has unfolded. What I have observed is that Sanders is basically a one issue candidate. It is an important issue, a critical issue, but not the only important and critical issue facing the country. Yet time and again, no matter what the topic is, no matter what he is asked, Sanders pivots back to his one issue.

    Well, the country has a multitude of problems, problems that require more than angry denunciations of "the establishment" and calls for a "grass-roots revolution" to solve.

    Two things have been critical to my decision to support Clinton. One is the need to rebuild the party from the ground up and get whichever one of them is president a Congress they can work with. Separate from her own campaign, Clinton is pouring money and people and hard work into this effort. Sanders is not.

    The second was illustrated by the response each of them had to the horrific water situation in Flint, MI. Sanders called for the Michigan governor Rick Snyder to resign. All well and good and I agree.  Clinton, however, called the mayor of Flint to ask what she, Clinton, could do to help. She sent two staffers to Flint to do anything and everything they could do to assist. While also thinking that Snyder should resign, Clinton publicly called on Snyder to apply for federal disaster status so that money could start flowing to Flint to help on the ground right now.

    These two examples illustrate what, for me, is a very important difference in the campaigns. Sanders is a big talker with big ideas. Clinton is a doer with policies and plans on how to actually do what needs doing.

    So, I have thrown my support to Clinton. Should Sanders win the nomination I will support him whole-heartedly, but now my money and energy go t

    o Clinton.

    Very well said (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:45:09 PM EST
    I agreed with that sentiment (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    when she posted in Saturday's thread and I agree with it now. And notice how she did it without insulting anybody or telling them how they should think?

    Yes (1.50 / 2) (#76)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:44:43 PM EST
    Maybe it's lesson you could study in depth.

    What's amazing is that you like to accuse others of making nonsense comments and being insulting, when frankly, you are the master, as even exampled by your passive aggressive comment above.  

    Waiting on the obligatory, gratuitous, and way overused "oy".


    this is pure (3.00 / 2) (#78)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:48:53 PM EST
    trolling. Inflammatory and insulting. And I have responded as such.

    You, however, will no doubt troll rate this out of pique as is your MO.

    When you're not using boldface to scream in my face.


    Since you are an expert at trolling (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:27 PM EST
    I guess you would recognize it.

    You generally offer nothing but cryptic comments, many times insults if the comment isn't from one of your "favorites". You are constantly insulting me, jim, GA, oculus, and others too numerous to mention. Most of the time, they don't offer substance to further the conversation, but rest assured, as much as I know you will respond to this with your usual trolling and down rating, I will not respond further because I know you MUST always have the last word.

    Have a nice evening.


    No Offense JB... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:30:23 PM EST
    ...but calling people "left-wing commie liberals" doesn't really line-up well with your statements above.

    I find it more than a little offensive now that you support Clinton your normal normal to-the-right views have all of a sudden become whatever it is on the left you have become, if you have.  It seems like you are trying to fit HRC into your like-right views to justify your decision.

    You have done nothing but insult democrats that don't agree with your take on Clinton.  I am glad you are voting D, but you have never demonstrated any sort of democratic views until very recently.  I like that you are supporting HRC, but this notion that you are an expert on how democrats should see things or behave is frustrating and your insistence that liberals are, or should do, this or that, is just plain insulting to almost everyone here.

    Supporting another democrat, Sanders, does not make someone stupid, a communist, a dreamer, or whatever other non-sense you have been flinging.  It most likely means they are to the left of Hillary a bit, and to the left of you a whole lot, nothing more/less.


    Do none of you people know how to read?? (2.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 09:06:20 PM EST
    SJ called herself that.

    You really should stop telling us left-wing commie liberals what a liberal really is.

    Jeezus - and this is supposed to be the place for smart people.

    Several of you are proving that point wrong!


    We not only know how to read, we (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 09:29:12 PM EST
    understand that you did not use the term in the same way sj did; you didn't repeat it back to her, you took it and made it into an actual insult.

    As I said in the Saturday thread, those of us who are liberals have for so many years been accused of being, or labeled, commies, dirty fking hippies, and the like.  When we call ourselves that, we are poking at the people who see us that way, not making an admission.

    If you were a liberal, you'd know that, understand that, and never use the term against her the way you did.

    We're plenty smart, and that's why we know what you really did, and your opinion of real liberals.


    The Exact Quote... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:01:46 PM EST
    Maybe being a "left-wing commie liberal" Isn't really about being "liberal".  Maybe it's just about just a commie.

    So maybe you'll stop telling the majority of the Democratic party, who are not "left-wing commie liberals" what is good for the party and that your ideas are best for the country.  Maybe you'l understand that most people do not agree with you, mkay?

    No one is taking issue with left-wing or liberal, and put in context, it's worse IMO.

    You are like a reborn democrat, hard core now and seem to feel entitled to criticize people who have held the same political views.  The only thing that has changed is yours, and policies you used to hammer at, you now defend since it appears that HRC is going to the Obama redux III & IV.

    Reading isn't my problem, it's the words you are writing.


    Thanks Scott (none / 0) (#124)
    by sj on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 11:29:43 AM EST
    but to be fair, I described myself that way. :)

    Would you two just (3.67 / 3) (#97)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:25:57 PM EST
    stop this sh!t?
    Yes, I realize that you both are definitely not on the same page politically, but really, when you start criticizing sj for "insulting" someone like oculus?   Really?  Oculus is the absolute premier master of the "cryptic comment."
    And jimakappj is our resident right-wing troll, and if you think that insulting him is something bad, then I guess I am definitely on the wrong d@mned blog.

    It's not ok to (3.67 / 3) (#111)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 08:58:34 PM EST
    insult oculus!

    If Secretary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 02:20:37 PM EST
    has made mistakes so far, in my view, it is (a) applying a general campaign strategy during the primary; (b) underestimating electoral flames fanned by the horse-race oriented media, and (c) utilizing too extensively the ill-suited, but customary tactic of pointing out the differences between her and the "insurgency" of Senator Sanders, rather than areas judged to be similar.

    Many Democratic primary voters are taken with Senator Sanders' ideals and seem to have discovered, or dusted off, "Hope and Change" yard signs of past electoral cycles.

     Mrs. Clinton, rather than throwing the cold water of political realism on what are not viewed by most Democrats as radical or extreme positions, such as Medicare for All, might instead, agree wholeheartedly with the value of the idea, and speak to concrete ways and means to head in that direction over time.

     After all, even Senator Sanders (and probably most of his supporters) admits that his idea will not be achieved on Day One, or maybe even year four (recognizing the inherent difficulties of achieving an abrupt, or any, change).

    It is the ideas that count. Progressives are about progress. And, progressives are underwhelmed by hearing how something can't be done, or that we tried that before and it did not work.

    Mrs. Clinton was right to point out the differences between Senator Sanders on guns, particularly gun manufacturer liability.  However, once again, she has a winning hand on this issue, if she sticks to her noble goals in gun control.  And, recognizes,too, the difficulties existent in achieving this goal, but fighting on as she knows best how to do.  

    Senator Sanders takes pride in being a democratic socialist, which if continued to be left to others to explain, would become a source of unrelenting distortion and criticism in a general.

    Some Sanders' supporters do not seem to know or care what he means exactly, other than it somehow means taking on Wall Street and the economic establishment. Again, the "taking on" is good; the taking down, less so.

    And, "taking on the establishment" up to then was reserved for the likes of Goldman Sachs, and then extended (albeit somewhat briefly upon criticism) to "the political establishment that included Planned Parenthood and HRC."  

    To me, both the Senator and Secretary are inspirational in their own way. Differences are apparent.  However, the issue in the primary is how their inspirations and visions inform  similar goals, and are tempered by experiences and a different style of leadership to get things done.

    i don't know how a candidate (none / 0) (#73)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:34:56 PM EST
    can be proactive about media insisting on a close race.  everything anything anyone ever does can be twisted as good or bad by those inclined to do so.  that's why i came out so heavily with a prediction that Sanders will win the nomination.

    i mean i sorta felt maybe it was because Clinton was allowed to answer first maybe she had an advantage but she was actually the candidate to FIRST make Flint headline news, but then both Maddow and Hayes ignored that and spun Sanders calling for a resignation tougher.  mind you a resignation doesn't help anyone in Flint right now, but i'm all for accountability too.  That snyder dude's days are numbered we all know this.

    so of course i still believe...

    Clinton could [insert miraculous amazing thing here] and the media would find some way to make it a bad thing....

    i just dont know how you proactively address that kind of thing...

    i mean Sanders hasn't been flawless, yes, there's been some gaffs of late, everyone on the internet is laughing at Bernie calling the HRC the establishment, and how can the Clinton campaign force a media to treat those gaffs in a way more to Clinton's advantage??

    they can't really.  the media throws Sanders a lifeline.  they want a close race.  they'll get it.  and if they want Bernie to win, he'll win.


    Be proactive (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    by heading the media off at the pass.  If only one horse shows up, the focus of the media will be on that one.  Yes, Mrs. Clinton introduced the tragedy of Flint during her "open question" turn in the debate. And, Senator Sanders, during his turn at an open question, agreed and added (resignation) to Snyder's malfeasance.

     But, this has been Senator Sander's debate style: he agrees with Mrs. Clinton's points, in large measure, and adds or subtracts.  Pointing out similarities whenever possible.

     Rachael Maddow noted the other day on her show that for her eight years or so hosting the show, she could never get President or Mrs. Clinton to appear as a guest.  Bernie Sanders was a frequent guest.  Now, Mrs. Clinton seems to have determined that there is no down side to her appearances, and only good.

    After the Benghazi hearings, Mrs. Clinton emerged stronger than ever. She demonstrated her knowledge and details of events. And, she demonstrated being battle-tested.  Her pools surged.  


    In some ways I agree (none / 0) (#94)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    Clinton not going on news shows I might agree that was a mistake, but that can have a downside too cause they're looking for gaffs a gotcha moment, so I can understand the thinking that says don't do it.

    So I guess I'm agreeing with that part.  but mostly cause she does well.  And doesn't take bait.

    But just to show there is a positive and a negative spin to everything:  isnt going on news shows the establishment way of running a campaign?

    Point is im agreeing in part but we both know there'd be someone in the media to call her a narcissist if she did as you suggest.


    Both Clintons (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:59:45 PM EST
    Have always been very good at going around the media.   It's one of the reasons they hate them so.

    To your question it's actually pretty common to go for local media markets and avoid the national media as much as possible.   I believe Obama did quite a bit of that.


    and that by the way (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:45:37 PM EST
    is the establishment propping up a false message of an anti-establishment candidacy.  for ratings.

    I don't doubt for a moment that (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:31:01 PM EST
    Obama has no end of respect for the person who was a formidable opponent, and given her near-constant invocation of Obama in this campaign, that he would like nothing better than to see her take up the torch he's carried for the last 8 years.

    But I also don't doubt that, in the unlikely event that Sanders would win the nomination, Obama would bring the full force of his support to Sanders' effort to win in November.  

    So, what we seem to have here is the Obama/Clinton Mutual Admiration Society: is there really anything surprising about that?

    I could actually do without Obama's retrospective epiphanies on his sort-of regret for having a campaign strategy that worked; I have a hard time imagining him making these same kinds of comments if his opponent had been a man.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not particularly looking for inspiration or a hero/heroine, as much as I am looking for someone who's on my side most of the time.  Who isn't actively trying to make my life harder.  Who doesn't play word games where the Constitution is concerned.  I'm looking for someone who understands that my vote means a lot to me, I don't cast it lightly, and I'd appreciate it not being taken for granted.  Don't tell me one thing, take my vote, and then do something else.  

    As far as I'm concerned, these Democratic candidates give me the only kind of hope that matters: that we will prevail in November, and have at least 4 years in which to demonstrate to the American people why Democrats are the better choice.

    I feel like, in the end, there is a greater benefit for Clinton and Sanders to be making the case for Democrats than there is in nit-picking over which one of them is better than the other.  Yeah, I get that they are running against each other, first, for the chance to run against the GOP, but they don't need to be helping the GOP game the general election, do they?

    Certainly. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by AX10 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 01:56:16 PM EST

    They still are against her.

    The far left and right are yet again ganging up to defeat her.

    It's deja (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 08:17:23 AM EST
    vu with the media again.

    Watching morning Mica (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 09:12:50 AM EST
    Do her stumbling bumbling best minimize the significance of this.  
    "Obama says you don't have the luxury of focusing on one issue"

    "But..but..it's a reeeeeaaally important issue"



    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:06:57 AM EST
    From 'probably was a little unfair' to 'Media was harder on Clinton than me'.  The first is the answer someone gives who doesn't want to say 'no' IMO.

    I seem to remember Clinton and the kitchen sink plan that I don't think any democrat found appealing.

    I read an article that summed up Clinton pretty well, uninspiring.  I think she would make a great President but I agree that she is more controlled and well thought decision maker, which is an excellent trait for a President, but not good for the election train, people want to be inspired.

    I still think she will be our next president.

    I think there are many ways to inspire people (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:13:57 AM EST
    No, she is not as inspirational as others with rhetoric or revolutionary ideas (well, except the idea that a woman can be POTUS). But I think her example of hard work, knowing your business, and focusing on what matters to you through the kind of public ridicule that would put most of us under our beds instead of running for public office is inspirational in its own way.  And I think lot of women feel that way.

    As much as Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:29:24 AM EST
    Liked to make fun of those who supported W  because he was "a guy they could have a beer with."  Funny thing is, many Democrats have done the same thing by saying the same thing you just said about Hillary Clinton - that she isn't "inspiring".   In other words, you don't feel she is someone "you could have a beer with."

    Personally, I don't care if someone is "inspiring" or not, although I disagree with your assessment that she is not I spring in her own right.  What she isn't, is exciting maybe, with big, pep rally spirit, but she IS inspiring.  I don't think it's a measure of what someone can do as president just because they can attract people to a big pep rally (see:  Donald Trump).  I'm looking for someone who inspires me with nose-to-the-grindstone, roll-up-your-sleeves hard work and tenacity.  Pep rallies have their place - we definitely need loud voices pushing our ideals and keeping them in the discussion - but that isn't necessarily the same skills that are needed for implementation.

    Getting stuff done is more important to mme.


    100% Agreed... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:51:53 AM EST
    ...but having a beer with and being inspired are not in any way the same thing.  You have obviously been inspired by Hillary for your own reasons which aren't anything like GWB.  

    As I have said before (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    I'm not looking to vote for a BFF.  I want someone who is smarter than me and who has the tenacity to get stuff done.  I don't need politicians to be "inspirational" in that they make me wanna join the popular kids' table.

    To me, HRC advocating for (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:29:33 AM EST
    gun control is inspirational.

    Her 11 hour Benghazi (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:45:57 PM EST
    testimony impressed the hell out of me.  Not just the substance, but the ability to testify under such vicious questioning for such an extended period of time without even, iirc, losing her train of thought or even mangling her syntax.

    I doubt there are many people who could do that.


    Agreed.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:33:57 AM EST
    ...but good thing her vagina doesn't matter.  I am joking, somewhat, but come on, this is why she is falling, her inspiration to many seems to be something that she was born as rather than her abilities to communicate her actual achievements and connect with the electoral.

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    People don't want to listen and take the time to learn.  They want to be spoon fed slogans and their eyes glaze over when wonky deep details get involved.  Let's face it, it's easier to be attracted to "Break up the banks!"and "Glass-Steagall!" than to endure discussions about shadow banking and Section 121 of the Dodd-Frank bill.

    Do You Live on Planet Earth... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    ...specifically in the US of A ?

    I don't disagree with most of your comment, but that is about as far removed from reality as any comment I have read.

    I would also argue just because you don't think it's possible to break up the banks doesn't mean it can't happen.  See hope comment above, most of us humans want it more that ole reliable, event he ones that are informed.  

    I think your comment perfectly illustrates HRC's biggest problem, the assumption that because she has the most experience and the most qualified that people will vote for her.  Never mind that wasn't true for Obama, GWB, or B Clinton.

    Is today a snow day in DC ?


    Yes, it's a snow day (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:51:21 AM EST
    Although it's a beautiful sunny day and over 40 degrees.

    I think your comment perfectly illustrates HRC's biggest problem, the assumption that because she has the most experience and the most qualified that people will vote for her.

    No, I think that because she has the most experience and is the most qualified, people (especially thinking people) SHOULD vote for her.


    I Agree, Again. (none / 0) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    That is your opinion, and it fairly obvious that a lot of people think that is her, and most other candidates, biggest liability.  

    Dang, a 4 day weekend, it's like Thanksgiving in DC, and I bet if the Lions played yesterday you would have been a happy camper.


    Let's not get carried away (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:26:23 PM EST
    If the Lions had been playing yesterday, it would be a miracle.  :)

    Promising sweeping change is always more inspiring (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:28:57 AM EST
    Clinton is coming across to me as campaigning on a third Obama term, policy-wise. That's not a bad thing, but it's not exciting. It's a message of tweaking and improving policies and programs that work rather than throwing them out. Liberal with a one-step-at-a-time flavor of progressive change.

    The message I get from Sanders is that we need to fight the establishment and distance ourselves from the last eight years. That sort of toss-it-all-out progressive change is awfully exciting, especially in a nation where "thanks, Obama!" has become a running sarcastic response to every misfortune.


    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:40:35 AM EST
    with the whole "sweeping change" is there's a lot of disillusionment when it's not produced. It's not realistic in the first place.

    To be honest, I'm not sure what I'd do (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    with a unicorn. Promising them seems well intentioned, but they just aren't all that practical.

    You understand why 'thanks Obama' (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:47:21 AM EST
    is sarcastic when Dems say it, right? it is making fun of the righties who blame everything bad that ever happened on him.

    At least that's what I thought it was. Are you saying Dems feel that way too? Wow.


    I'm saying it's a sarcastic response (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:10:37 PM EST
    especially in a nation where "thanks, Obama!" has become a running sarcastic response to every misfortune.

    Polling data shows that Dems like Obama. Over 80% of us think he's a great President. Simultaneously the same polls show that more Dems think the country is on the wrong track than think we're headed in the right direction. And who always gets the blame?

    So yeah, it's sarcasm. But it's popular sarcasm because it's sharp all the way around.


    I think if you're polling dems (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:27:16 PM EST
    They blame a republican controlled congress.

    Dear God (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by smott on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:49:33 PM EST
    My lord this has got to be the silliest post ever on this site, and God knows that's saying something.

    Oh YES we like Clinton simply BECAUSE she is a woman and has a vagina.

    Here's a clue:  Clinton inspires people (mostly women I guess, but I hope plenty of men too) not because she IS a woman, but because AS a woman, in a society and a political environment that has been stunningly hateful, misogynist , and full of mindless vitriol, she has pressed forward doggedly, even cheerfully, for about 4 DECADES.

    And continues to put forth common-sense policy proposals whilst building a record in the Senate as someone who could actually get Republicans to work with her, something our own President has struggled with.

    The notion that women might vote for Clinton simply because she has a vagina is so insulting and completely (purposefully ?) ignorant of what is actually inspirational about her, well,  I can only hope for your sake that you're trolling.

    If not, my God,  buy a clue.


    You Clearly Did Not... (none / 0) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 02:38:22 PM EST
    ...read more than a single comment and decided that is what I think.  I do not, nor did I write that.

    Not only do I think she would make a good president I also think she will be out next president, but that doesn't mean she inspires me for fock sake.

    To be clear, I, in no way, think the commenters here are voting for Clinton because she has a vagina.


    She connected (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:51:05 AM EST
    with that audience in SC during the debate.

    And I Think She Will Win the Election... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    ...but if she could inspire/connect like Bill, this would be a cakewalk for her because she out-qualifies the competition by leaps and bounds.  If only she was born in a little town called Hope...

    There is also the charm and (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    charisma factor there. It is undeniable that people possess those in different amounts. They definitely help on the campaign trail.

    I really don't think Bernie Sanders has any more charm and charisma than Hillary does. Certainly not to me anyway. I think (or want to think) that it is his ideas that are inspiring people. I hope they keep inspiring them even if he is not elected. The things he is fighting for are long term goals.


    But she wasn't. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:44:01 PM EST
    Rather, Hillary's originally from Park Ridge (IL), which sounds like it could be a name of one of the squares on the Monopoly game board.

    Ha! Yes it does. Unfortunately nothing (none / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 10:41:54 PM EST
    quaint about it, just another one of the sprawling Chicago suburbs, half of which have either Park or Forest in their names. Sometimes both. In fact I believe there is both a Park Forest and a Forest Park.

    I know you are joing,,but it is about a lot (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:13:48 AM EST
    more than a body part.

    And speaking of lady parts, ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:41:37 PM EST
    ... a grand jury in Houston, which had been convened by the Harris County District Attorney's office to investigate allegations of wrongdoing at Planned Parenthood's Gulf Coast chapter, has instead indicted the two anti-choice activists who were behind that now-notorious doctored video, which purported to show that the organization was engaged in the illegal sale of fetal tissue.

    Houston Chronicle | January 25, 2016
    Harris grand jury indicts pair behind Planned Patenthood videos - "A Harris County grand jury probe into Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast ended Monday with the indictments of two anti-abortion activists. David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were both indicted for tampering with a governmental record. An additional indictment for prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs was issued for Daleiden, according to a release from the Harris County District Attorneys Office. 'We were called upon to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast,' said Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson. 'As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us. All the evidence uncovered in the course of this investigation was presented to the grand jury. I respect their decision on this difficult case.'"

    Somewhere in heaven, Ann Richards and Molly Ivins are smiling.


    I don't have to find an article (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:27:29 AM EST
    to tell me what I know.

    I know that HRC is inspiring to me -- and to my daughter and niece and thousands of others less than half my age, with whom I have been when they heard her.  And after standing in line for hours to do so, owing to unexpected turnouts of thousands.

    She will be back on campus soon, and this time, the venue will be a lot larger, as uninspired admins have learned . . . even if they still don't get it, either.


    Probably Don't Have to Tell... (none / 0) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    ...you, while that is fine, her support is waning.

    How about your husband, sons, and nephews.  Not looking for an answer, just noting that she is going to need more than female inspiration to beat Trump, possibly Bernie, considering he is pulling in the millennial female vote.

    Seems like the responses to my comments are focused on her gender, and I find that bothersome.  I know it exists, but to have several commenters use that as to why they are inspired, isn't really inspiring me or a lot of democrats.


    That is what the (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:08:51 PM EST
    press is talking about however they are ignoring a lot of underlying issues Bernie has with the Democratic base. Charlie Cook at the Cook Report did an analysis of this.

    Besides it's politically smarter to let your numbers be downplayed than to tout them and come up short.


    What support is "waning"? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    The polls?  Which had a CNN poll out Thursday showing Sanders up by 8, but on that very same day a Loras poll showed Clinton with a 29 point lead?  (Do I think any of those are accurate?  No).

    I don't know what will happen, but the HRC campaign said way back last summer that it was going to be a race, so all of a sudden all these people who are amazed that the race tightened up are, well, amazing.  Iowa and New Hampshire are BUILT for Bernie, and yet, at least as far as Iowa is concerned, it may not work out for him.  Sheer numbers don't matter in caucuses, especially if those numbers are grouped in a few places (such as college towns), so Bernie could beat her by 10,000 there, and he will still get 1 delegate, while she could beat him in Adams County by 1 vote and also get a delegate.

    Democratic caucuses are quite undemocratic. Each precinct is apportioned a number of delegates based on Democratic turnout in the past two elections. It's like an electoral college at a micro level.

    This means turnout doesn't matter. If a precinct is supposed to have five delegates to the county convention, it doesn't matter if eight people show up to the Democratic caucus or 800. The precinct is still only getting five delegates. (Precincts elect people to the county convention, which elects people to the district convention, which elects people to the state convention.)

    After attendees show up to a Democratic caucus, they are divided into preference groups based on candidates whom they support. Bernie Sanders supporters will stand in one area, Hillary Clinton supporters in another. Once everyone is separated, there is a first count of how many supporters each candidate has.

    To be viable in each precinct, a candidate usually needs to receive the support of 15% of those who attend, although in some small rural precincts, the threshold is higher.

    If a candidate's support is under that threshold, his or her supporters need to induce others to join their group in order to reach 15%. If they are unsuccessful in doing so, their candidate is not considered viable and they can either go home or support a candidate who is viable instead. There is then a second count of supporters for each candidate and, from those totals, delegates are assigned.

    This means that if Democratic candidates are polling under 15% statewide on caucus night, they could significantly underperform compared to their polling.

    What will be key in many places could be where O'Malley supporters decide to go after their candidate is eliminated.


    Eight years ago I caucused in small town Iowa (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:44:17 PM EST
    Edwards' and Obama's supporters came into the school gym familiar with the rules and ready to go*. Clinton's volunteers seemed to expect a polling place rather than a caucus, and acted unfamiliar with how things worked. Their confusion and lack of preparedness sent some people to the Obama group in the second count, almost costing them their viablility.

    I can't speak for how typical this scene was, but I'd wager that the Clinton campaign in Iowa this year is far more ready than they were in '08.

    *One rule that Obama's people weren't familiar with had to do with giving away food. They were handing out donuts, cookies, coffee, and bottled water as people came in to the gym. When the caucus leader arrived she threatened them with disqualification, as using gifts to solicit support is considered quid pro quo and isn't allowed. They stopped, but by then half the attendees were standing around the food table stuffing their faces - squarely under the "Obama people here" banner.


    You Could Win... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:09:46 PM EST
    ...ruler of Earth with enough free donuts.

    For some reason, people go cuckoo over them at work, maybe it's the guilt of buying them ?  I don't know, but there are always breakfast tacos left over and they are like 3 times the price of donuts, which are always gone before I get in.


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:38:42 PM EST
    That makes me laugh. Years ago my sister worked at a company that encouraged their employees to initiate community projects. You had to write a proposal and lay out the logistics and plans. If your proposal was approved you were provided with a budget of some sort.

    I forget what my sister was organizing but the woman who helped her gave her this tidbit: People will work for a few hours for donuts.

    And for t-shirts they'll give up the whole day.


    According (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:53:53 PM EST
    to the Selzer poll Bernie's support is concentrated in a few places not statewide in Iowa.

    Charlie Cook said Bernie even winning Iowa wouldn't be enough. He would have to win something like 63% of the delegates in Iowa to have a shot at the nomination. According to Cook there are only two states in the primaries that are more favorable than Vermont for Bernie and they are IA and NH. It's all downhill for him after that.

    I still hate caucuses though.


    I hate them too (none / 0) (#62)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    They're not democratic, in any modern sense. And, in my state, it is the Democratic Party that still only considers the caucus outcomes for designating delegates. It's the Republican Party here that holds a primary. Go figure.

    IIRC (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:56:49 PM EST
    your state is a stellar example of why caucuses should be gotten rid of because I seem to recall that you had a caucus with one result and a nonbinding primary with completely another result back in 2008.

    Waning... (none / 0) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:12:30 PM EST
    ...the opposite of increasing.

    I was speaking in general. I don't think her support has gone up since she's been in, and it certainly dropped from large double digits ahead of everyone.



    I was reading up on Iowa pollsters (none / 0) (#107)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:27:44 PM EST
    recently, and Ann Selzer appears to be considered the best.  As you well may know, having noted that poll, but I share that for others interested.

    Ah, well . . . (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    I meant to say that my spouse (male) was with me and inspired as well, as was a friend (male) -- and as was easily half of the audience (male).  

    Your next concern?


    I Wasn't Concerned... (none / 0) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    ...just making note that there is a commonality in some of the people who are inspired by HRC at TL and it doesn't seem to be related to her skill set.  It is funny that your answer changed once I pointed it out, but that was probably just a simple oversight.  I get it, not entirely, but I understand it.  But that misses a whole lot of voters and it should not be a fairly regular argument for her being president IMO.

    I like HRC, don't find her inspiring, but I do find her trustworthy and experienced.  I like Bernie and he is inspiring to some, but he's said some things and seems to be a less measured, which for President isn't a good quality.

    What I can't get past, is what if Bernie can lay it down, that seems like a risk a lot of people want to take.  The notion that HRC is going to get more cooperation from Congress than Bernie, to me, isn't reality, neither is going to get any R help passing legislation not matter how moderate/liberal it is.

    My real concern, that she can't beat Trump and I don't think I am the only one.


    Let's please not assume that ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    ... Trump will be the GOP nominee, before the first vote in the first caucus or primary is even cast. Yes, he currently has a plurality of voter support at roughly 34%, and that support has held steady. But conversely, that also means that one week out from Iowa caucuses, 66% of Republicans are still looking to support someone else.

    Donald Trump is a very polarizing figure, even within the GOP. And as the candidate field starts to narrow from its present 15, supporters of those who will withdraw can't necessarily be counted on to simply shift to Trump. And that's what's keeping guys like Jeb! Bush and John Kasich in the race, as the so-called "sane" GOP alternative to the Trump / Cruz crazy train.



    Polarizing? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    Sheesh Donald. Every politician is polarizing it seems. Donald's problem is what he actually wants to do and says he wants to do.

    I would agree with you (none / 0) (#92)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:45:02 PM EST
    Let's please not assume that ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:25:06 PM MDT

    ... Trump will be the GOP nominee, before the first vote in the first caucus or primary is even cast.

    Playing Devil's Advocate, I don't see you importuning people the same way in the Dem race.

    And polarizing. Donald Trump. There is no one in the Dem race who could be considered polarizing, right?

    Just sayin'

    But I understand and agree with you that no one knows what track that crazy train is riding.


    Actually, I have done so, ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:57:46 PM EST
    sj: "Playing Devil's Advocate, I don't see you importuning people the same way in the Dem race."

    ... just not in that particular comment. Speaking again for myself only, I believe that good politicians know to never take something or someone for granted, such as one's likelihood of nomination or victory. And as a Clinton supporter, I've always known that this would be a tough race.

    In answer to your other point, no, I don't see anyone in the current Democratic race who can be considered polarizing, at least not within the party itself during the primaries and caucuses. Unlike the GOP strata, our Democratic candidates are all fine people who bring both significance and gravitas to the table.

    But in the general election, Sanders' avowed socialism will go a long way to negate whatever baggage a guy like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will have, because a very large percentage of likely voters have stated repeatedly to the polls that they will not vote for a socialist.

    I truly wish it wasn't that way because personally, I find nothing at all wrong with or scary about Bernie Sander's vision of democratic socialism. But convincing the American people otherwise about socialism will require a sustained educational effort, one which will take years before we see or achieve positive results.

    It certainly won't be accomplished during the course of a single presidential election campaign, and were Sanders to be our nominee, the label of "socialist" would be hung on our party's neck like an albatross. To quote Paul Krugman's column from just the other day:

    "The point is that while idealism is fine and essential -- you have to dream of a better world -- it's not a virtue unless it goes along with hard-headed realism about the means that might achieve your ends. That's true even when, like F.D.R., you ride a political tidal wave into office. It's even more true for a modern Democrat, who will be lucky if his or her party controls even one house of Congress at any point this decade.

    "Sorry, but there's nothing noble about seeing your values defeated because you preferred happy dreams to hard thinking about means and ends. Don't let idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence."



    Ah, I see (none / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 11:24:33 AM EST
    In answer to your other point, no, I don't see anyone in the current Democratic race who can be considered polarizing, at least not within the party itself during the primaries and caucuses.
    I misunderstood. I agree with you within that context. Mostly. You can actually see some polarization here. But more broadly speaking that's true.

    In the general, however, it is increasingly possible that we could have two "polarizing" candidates. Not that they are remotely similar.


    We live in a highly polarized country (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:16:06 PM EST
    Hardly surprising we would have polarizing candidates.  

    Beter Question... (none / 0) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 05:28:34 PM EST
    How Can they Not be Polarized when the electoral is.  Obama tried to reach across and got smacked down by both sides.

    Actually (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 04:53:56 PM EST
    There's 11 not 15.  And if you add up the support of every one below third they don't come to half Donald's support nationally and in most states except Iowa.

    I think I might, you know, assume.


    Call me when Donald Trump cracks 40%. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 06:34:25 PM EST
    Because right now, I put his ceiling at perhaps 30-35%, though even that might be high. (See below.) That's still a very significant chunk of support, no doubt, but while Trump's managed to perhaps consolidate his base, I don't necessarily see him expanding it.

    Quite the opposite, in fact. Those Republican voters who love Trump, embrace him wholeheartedly, but there are a lot of other GOP voters, such as three of my uncles in Illinois, who've come to loathe him with every fiber of their being.

    Further, Trump's support appears to come from those disaffected souls who are mostly disengaged from the process, and that's a flimsy and tenuous floorboard at best. The question now is whether they'll in fact show up at the polls.

    Because if they don't, and Trump's performance in the early primaries and caucuses winds up falling well short of what are rapidly inflating expectations, I think his candidacy will pop like a party balloon under a heat lamp. Per Alfred Tuchfarber, Professor of Political Science (Emeritus) at the University of Cincinnati, a very well-respected pollster of considerable experience who also doesn't believe that Trump will win the GOP nomination:

    "Who can and will defeat Trump? The answer is obvious, but also not obvious because the question seems to beg the name of another candidate. The `who' that will defeat Trump is not another candidate, but is most likely to be the Republican voters who actually turn out in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and the other contests.

    "About 75%-80% of the Republican primary voters in the early states are not likely to vote for Trump. How can that be? Aren't the RealClearPolitics and other polling averages now showing Trump getting 25% to 35% or more in those states?"


    "Trump has alienated many other Republican candidates and their followers. As second and third tier Republican candidates drop out after poor performances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, it is unlikely that Trump will pick up many of their voters. Rather, those votes will mostly go to other top tier Republicans, both outsiders (Ted Cruz) and insiders (Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush).

    "Trump's 'ceiling' appears to be hovering at 25% to 30%. This is too low to do well in the winner-take-all Republican contests starting on March 15 in states like Florida and Ohio. There are several other winner-take-all contests throughout the rest of the primary season, requiring majorities or big pluralities to win significant numbers of delegates.

    "It is nearly impossible to say now who will get the Republican nomination, but it is unlikely to be Trump. It will be the voters who end his quest for the presidency based on their evaluation of him. It will not be the Republican National Committee or some conspiracy.
    - Alfred J. Tuchfarber, founder, The Ohio Poll, "Trump's Biggest Obstacle" (Dec. 17, 2015)



    Will do (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 06:46:28 PM EST
    Alfred too.

    I agree with that assessment, Donald (none / 0) (#104)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:02:40 PM EST
    I think what people are forgetting is that The Donald's polling results are coming from him vs. a dozen other candidates. So, his 30/35% number is quite misleading. The question is, what will his numbers be as, one by one, his competitors drop out? Take Marco Rubio, for example. Where will his, approximately, 12% go if he drops out? Will they go to Trump, or, to a candidate more aligned with Rubio's stand?

    My guess, anyone, but, Trump.  


    Trump plus 10 others (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:17:14 PM EST
    Some numbers from RCP.  Trump + Cruz = 54%.  If you add in Carson it's 63%.
    Supposedly the most common second choice for those guys is one of the other.  So the last one standing will probably win it seems to me.  We can argue about who that will be.  I think it will be Trump.
    Now, if you add the next  7 others, including Marco, you get 29%.



    that's nationally.  If you look at state polls he is often leading by significantly more that that.


    The point I intended to make (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    Is the real question is not who Marcos supporters will go to.  It's who Cruz and Carson supporters will go to.   Do you think that will be Marco?  Jeb!  Kasich?

    I do not.  I think it's most likely the outsider vote will stay outside.

    We will know in 7 days.


    Yeah, you know, (none / 0) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:52:43 PM EST
    I started playing that game in my head, "Who will Jeb's/Christie's/Huck's/Kasich's, etc. supporters go to?"

    All I got was a migraine.

    Thanks, Howdy.


    Ha (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 08:01:50 PM EST

    Just trying to avoid denial.  But I understand the attraction.
    I really do.


    I (none / 0) (#113)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 09:26:21 PM EST
    think the questions come further down the road, especially which one of the establishment survives through super tuesday or more specifically how many.


    If you really want to make your head spin try to figure out the delegate math. There are proportional, winner take all and hybrids with trigger levels. Trump could sweep all the early states and only be up by a handful of delegates.

    Even a strong run on super tuesday he will still only be grabbing around 35% at best of the delegates by my estimation that will be only around 20% of the total needed by the end of super Tuesday.
    If two of the establishment plus a strong Cruz make it to March 15th and the first of the big winner take all Trump will probably grab  Florida and Ohio almost locking it up

    The one advantage that the anti-Trump crowd has is that they just have to stop Trump from getting a majority and taking their chances on a brokered convention, but they need to get their act together by March 15th they are doomed.


    speaking about (none / 0) (#115)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:02:08 PM EST
    making your head spin.........

    I haven't seen any talk about what the possibilities would be if a viable, well financed, and, credible, third party candidate really makes a run for it.

    You would think that with Michael Bloomberg raising this trial balloon the media would be all a-buzz about the possibilities.

    I'm talking mainly about the Democratic side here. I'm guessing that quite a few Democrats who, in other times, would've tossed their hats into the ring, stayed away this time because of Hillary's perceived invincibility. Now that its been shown she's, simply, human, and, possibly vulnerable, are any of them kicking themselves for taking themselves out way early?

    p.s.....Martin O'Malley doesn't count.


    I think Bloomers really might run (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:06:55 PM EST
    I've thought so for a while.   What that means?  I have no idea.  All I know is it means you could win with 35% of voters.


    And Jim Webb is still making noises.


    Been reading (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:29 PM EST
    That the thought police are starting to move away from the idea of a brokered convention.  It seemed likely for a while but supposedly is becoming less so because they have decided a convention mess, it would be a mess, would be even worse than Trump as a nominee.  Plus it it seemed in any way they were "stealing" it from Trump I think they fear for their very lives.

    Otoh on Lawerence Robert Reich just endorsed Trump over Cruz so that might doom Trump.  Seriously I will be surprised if it's not in a Cruz attack ad tomorrow.

    To funny.


    I Feel Fairly Confident... (none / 0) (#129)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 04:02:48 PM EST
    ...in calling Trump the nominee.

    There is literally no competition, Cruz can't get his own party's support, and no one else is even scratching the surface.

    IMO the only way Trump doesn't get it, brokered convention or some other oddity.

    At this point I think he has  better chance than HRC at getting their respective nominations.  If he doesn't this race is going to be pretty easy for HRC.


    Excuse me, my answer did not change. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:24:59 PM EST
    I added to it, since you asked.

    Cute trick you tried there.

    But your trick inspires me only to . . . well, we won't go there.


    David Axelrod (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:59:34 AM EST
    Was on CNN yesterday with Alisyn Camerota and she asked him about this, pointing out that Obama said his supporters and staff did this.  When she pointed out that the statement included Axelrod, as the campaign manager, he hemmed and hawed, and then made a comment about how Obama was in the room for many of those decisions.

    It was a surreal exchange, with co-anchor Jon Berman getting in a good one at the end:

    BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (voice-over): The truth is, in 2007 and 2008, sometimes my supporters and my staff I think got -

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How dare you. they were -

    OBAMA: Too huffy about what were legitimate questions she was raising. And, you know, there were times where I think the media probably was a little unfair to her.


    CAMEROTA: David, I mean he's sort of talking about you. Were you unfair? Were you too huffy with legitimate questions?

    AXELROD: Well, Alisyn, part of - part of being staff is that when the principal wants to kind of distance himself from you, that's part of the deal. You sign up for that.

    The truth is that the message in 2007 and 2008 was very much about challenging the system. It was against sort of conventional politics. And it was very successful then. And it was the right message at the time because of the situation that was going on in Washington.

    Now you have a democratic president who has produced real change and has come up against the realities of life in Washington. And so there is a case to be made for preserving those changes, protecting them and building on them in a more incremental way and that it will take someone who knows how to navigate that system when it has broad experience to do it. And I think that's the case that he was making. I happen - I kind of remember him joining in those arguments back in 2007 and 2008, but that's another question.

    CAMEROTA: I think that's called throwing under the bus, but not - not from your side to his. David Axelrod, thanks so much. Always great to get your impressions of all of this stuff.

    AXELROD: Nice to see you.

    CAMEROTA: You too.

    AXELROD: Have a good day.

    JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Another way to say it is, I know you are but what am I, he's saying to President Obama right there.

    I can't help but think (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:17:56 PM EST
    what a better position we be in as a nation and as a Democratic party if there had been a Clinton-Obama ticket and victory in 2008. Obama would still be a young pol today, running for president as the sitting VP.

    Just my opinion of course, but it is as strongly held today as it was then.  And I did happily vote for Obama in the general, I might add.


    The American media isn't HARD on anyone (none / 0) (#134)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:04:34 AM EST
    Give me a break. If American pols lack the imagination and courage to fight back unsparingly, and in an unedited and honest fashion, then phuck them. We ALL know the American media cow to ANYone who puts them in their place. Dems are so pitiful at this it is sickening. And it is so because the party lacks any and all, AGAIN, GET READY FOR IT, imagination, which they have ZERO excuse for having.

    A decent comedian, with a few decent writers, could put the American media to shame. Lord, our pols are not just pathetic, but as infantile and corprately corrupt as the press they criticize.