Thursday Night Open Thread

My blogging hiatus is officially over. Everything is unpacked and the place is clean. All that is left is finding someone to hang my art and I'm not in any hurry. The place looks great -- just like I expected it would five months ago when I first moved.

What else I've been doing while not blogging: I'm almost done testing out my new Dell Inspiron laptop. I really wanted the new Vaio Canvas or Flip or upcoming Vaio S, or even the Dell XPS 15, but they were $1,000 more than the Inspiron (for the same features. ) The trade-off and sacrifice was weight -- the Inspiron weighs 6 pounds and feels like 8 (probably since I'm used to my Sony Vaio which weighs 4 pounds.) [More...]

Even though I hate the weight, I think I will keep it is really fast and the screen is so gorgeous (4k graphics) and I like the feel of the keyboard and both the touchscreen and the non-touch options.

I haven't uploaded any programs yet (like Word, Wordperfect or Adobe Acrobat or Photoshop) because I'm not positive I'm keeping it (I have 2 more weeks to decide.) In case I decide to return it, I don't want to waste a license activation, or go through the tedious process of deactivating and reactivating. Then again, unless $1k falls out of the sky pretty quick, I'll be doing that soon.

I really like Windows 10, and the Edge browser, although Firefox and Chrome are also essential, for different things.

On a TV note, I have been watching a lot of Food Network shows recently. Recently, the experience has been marred by so many Bernie Sanders' ads. His voice really grates on me. I'm not sure why. It's not his accent -- I'm used to Brooklyn accents (my parents, aunts and uncles and grandparents were all from Brooklyn)-- it's either his tone or I just really resent him taking credit for liberal positions that I (along with my parents, grandparents and every one of my relatives) have held for decades.

Back to the Food Network shows, I like Guy Fieri's new series about traveling through Europe with his son Hunter, who just graduated high school. In every country, Hunter has to learn to prep and cook the local cuisine, taught by owners and employees of the country's great restaurants and food shops. As we watch him milk goats, make espresso and gelato, catch a lobster and more, with Papa Guy doing little more than proudly watching on and eating, we actually learn quite a bit about making food. The show is on Friday nights, and so far, they've been to Greece and Italy. (There will be 7 countries in all.)

Also entertaining on the Food Network is the Kids Baking Championship. The finale is Monday, and all of the kids are adorable as well as incredibly accomplished in the kitchen.

I've also been watching some late night talk shows, which I rarely if ever do. I like Stephen Colbert, but that's not surprising. Everyone knew he'd be great. What is a little surprising to me is that I like the guy who comes on after him -- the Late Late Show's James Corden. He's pretty funny, and I really like his carpool karaoke and his cheerfulness.

Instead of having guests on by themselves, he puts them in a group where they all interact. The guests seem less formal than they do on the big three late night tv shows. Katie Holmes was on last night, and every two seconds she was pulling at her eyelash (something was obviously in her eye) or doing some other fidgety thing you would not expect her to do on TV. (I don't think I've ever watched her before, I kept thinking I was watching Sex and the City's Kristin Davis.) At one point she led the three men in a hand-holding dance where she did the highest leg raise I've ever seen. (On the Tonight show with Jimmy Fallon this week, she did a formidable Beyonce imitation. Guess she's really moved on from Tom Cruise.)

He's also a good sport. In a contest with Chelsea Handler the other night in which he lost every round, he had to eat or drink some of the most disgusting things -- fish eyes, pickled pigs feet, raw egg yolks, etc.

The thing I don't understand about him is why he is always shouting, as if the sound crew or equipment are so bad it's the only way we'd hear him. This is particularly obvious during his monologues, but he also does it when interviewing his guests. He doesn't seem to have a "conversation" tone -- I'm surprised his vocal cords haven't rebelled yet. His shouting doesn't detract from his entertainment quality, it just makes me feel exhausted for him.

Lastly, I just figured out that Xfinity's X1 service only lets you pause live TV and rewind if you are watching the main box. In other rooms, they give you a mini box with none of those features. The only way around it is to hit the record button for every show you watch, and then watch from the recording rather than live so you can pause and rewind and fast forward. This is so lame it's ridiculous (I also can't believe I just noticed this two nights ago when I've had X1 for 5 months.)

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< The Pope and Donald | Republican Town Hall in South Carolina >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So happy for you that (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:01:14 PM EST
    the move is finally done.

    thanks, me too (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:13:22 PM EST
    Just the last ten days: Five days of floor people, one day of cleaners, one day of movers, one day of unpackers, another day of floor people, then another day of cleaners. But, it's done and I'm now a happy camper.

    CROSSTABS! (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:46:44 PM EST
    Someone in the previous thread asked what crosstabs are.

    They are the finer grain results within a poll based on demographics, such as age, race, gender, income level, etc..

    "Crosstabs" (which is also written as "cross tabs" and "cross-tabs") is short for cross tabulation.  

    Cross tabulation is merely the breaking down of survey responses into demographic groups.

    Pretty simple, right?

    Well, strickly speaking cross tabulation ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:52:38 PM EST
    could mean breaking data into any mutually exclusive group.

    So it could include things like handedness or eye color.  But in the case of political polls it will be demographic data.


    I thought cross tabs (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:04:43 PM EST
    We're those little white uppers we used to get with crosses on them.

    Those were white cross, Capt. (none / 0) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:10:41 PM EST
    Now I remember (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:11:26 PM EST
    Brain damage

    No polling organization that I ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:36:50 PM EST
    know of releases the secret sauce they use in the final adjustment of their polls.

    But in poorly, or hastily, conducted polls you sometimes can get an inkling of data gaps from looking at the crosstabs.

    The CNN/ORC poll in Nevada, which had Clinton one point ahead of Sanders, looked like it had very large data gaps.  In fact, they didn't seem to have enough data to release a reliable poll.

    Whereas the crosstabs in the Gravis poll released today, which showed Clinton ahead by six points, look spot on.

    However, both are pretty small sample sizes.

    So, long story short, I would tend to trust the Gravis poll more than the CNN/ORC poll.


    You should never trust (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:07:40 PM EST
    that Gravis even did an actual poll.

    I'm finding the various ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:39:12 PM EST
    Bloomberg polls problematic this year.

    And they used to be excellent.

    It seems to change every cycle.

    At least we don't have John Zogby to kick around anymore.


    I found this ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    quote about the CNN/ORC poll from WaPo:

    "There wasn't a large enough non-white population for CNN to break out separately."

    In other words, as the crosstabs suggest, they simply didn't have many (any?) nonwhite respondents. And that makes the poll impossible to trust.


    I'm the one (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:42:09 AM EST
    that asked you about the cross tabs but I asked if you had looked at them. I can see now that you have.

    Someone else asked for ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:06:22 PM EST
    a definition.

    Not you.


    It was ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:28:58 PM EST
    Mr. Natural.

    He liked the post.  So I assume he got what he needed.


    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:47:26 PM EST
    for the explanation.

    Wrongly convicted man released after 18 years (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:31:33 PM EST

    The woman, whose identity is being withheld by The Chronicle, told Lake County investigators last week that she "feels really bad about taking 20 years of Luther's life from him and his family

    Identity withheld? If we're going to protect victims, alleged victims and even proven liars by not naming them, we should do the same thing to those accused of sex crimes.  

    I've argued that for a long time (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:28:08 AM EST
    It's wrong to name the accused but shield the identity of the accuser. Either name them both or protect the name of the accused until and unless convicted.

    Why? (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:35:52 AM EST
    The accused has a constitutional right to confront his accuser in court. That's it.

    Because many media outlets and journalists  CHOOSE not to disclose the names of complaining witnesses and victims of sexual abuse because it is an ethical and business decision.  There is no law against it, but since rape is a vastly underreported crime because victims fear the onslaught of outside attention, they are doing this because it's better public policy and arguably more morally correct.


    What is ethical (none / 0) (#35)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:50:46 AM EST

    What is ethical about protecting the name of a demonstrated false accuser. A false accuser is neither a witness nor a victim. It's the falsely accused that is the victim.

    There is nothing morally correct about shielding the name of a false accuser. I'd sat it's morally abhorrent.

    Most publications have still not released the full name of the infamous Jackie.  


    In this case (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:04:10 AM EST
    The accuser was 10.  The fact that she's an adult now is irrelevant.

    And most media outlets WILL publish the name of those (adult) accusers who are found out to be false accusers, so I have no idea what you're talking about.  Neither do you, apparently.


    What I'm talking about. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:09:20 AM EST

    The decision on whose name to publish is made well before it is known whether it is the accused or the accuser that is the victim. Do you think Jackie is a victim?

    No (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:36:05 AM EST
    Here is an excerpt from a January 16, 2016 repirt by the Washington Post (sorry, I still can't link from my phone):

    "The Washington Post, which broke many of the details that led to the unraveling of Jackie's story, hasn't named Jackie for a particular reason: The newspaper made an agreement with Jackie not to do so. In exchange for discussing her story with Post reporters, The Post agreed in late 2014 not to report her full name.

    "We told her we wouldn't name her, in large part because we thought she was a ­sex-assault victim at that time and we don't name victims of sexual assault without their permission," said Mike Semel, The Post's Metro editor. "That agreement for anonymity needs to be considered until we are absolutely certain that there was no assault at all."

    Steve Coll, the dean of the Columbia Journalism School, said he, too, would be against revealing Jackie's name. Columbia's highly critical report on the Rolling Stone article, which Coll co-wrote, didn't name Jackie when it was released in April.

    "It's an unusual situation, and I understand the argument on the other side, but I would not name her," said Coll, a former Post managing editor.  "She never solicited Rolling Stone to be written about. She's not responsible for the journalism mistakes. To name her now just feels gratuitous, lacking sufficient public purpose. That could change depending on how the legal cases unfold, but that's my sense now."


    What about the onslaught of unwanted attention (none / 0) (#70)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:40:20 AM EST
    for the falsely accused?  Sounds like you don't really care about them.  

    That's not what I said at all (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    But false accusations of rape are pretty rare (many studies to back this up) to begin with.

    The point is, we have LAWS in this country stating that judicial processes and records are generally open to the public.  There are no LAWS that state a complaining witness / victim of rape's name can't be made public - it's that media outlets and journalists CHOOSE not to do so.


    You forgot to include a link to those studies (none / 0) (#122)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:42:54 PM EST
    Yes, it's a media choice to name the accused but not the accuser... and it's a terrible choice.   Either name both or neither.  There also needs to be harsh penalties for making false rape accusations.  Right now, it seems prosecutors are afraid to press charges.  

    Even if, in this instance, ... (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 05:03:39 PM EST
    ... the accuser was 10 years old at the time? Besides, it was apparently her own mother -- then involved in a turbulent personal relationship with the falsely accused -- who put her up to it as part of an ongoing child custody battle. And that mother, "Elizabeth Woods," was named in your linked article by the San Francisco Chronicle. Isn't that enough?

    Even if she did so belatedly, this young woman -- well, maybe not so young now at 28 -- stepped up and did the right thing. That you'd now have her held accountable for the perjury her mother compelled her to commit when she was only 10 years old is nonsensical. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not going to restore the 18 years lost by the man she (and her mother) falsely accused of statutory rape. She's going to have to live with what happened to him for the rest of her days. Let it go.



    Either the false accuser or her mother (none / 0) (#179)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:39:23 PM EST
    or both should face criminal charges. Naming the mother isn't nearly enough. Having the daughter say she "feels really bad" isn't enough either. If sexual assault convictions carry strong penalties, so should false accusations.

    Why do we continue to let bad people off the hook in these situations?


    Oh, please! (none / 0) (#185)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:50:10 PM EST
    You've been a staunch advocate for letting bad people off the hook in these threads for some time now, the only difference being that most all of them have been in law enforcement. Don't start peeing on our legs now, and telling us it's raining. Whatever happens to these two women is up to local authorities, not you.

    Again, let it go.


    Donald, you know I'm (none / 0) (#187)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:00:46 PM EST
    not going to "let it go".  Every time a case like this catches my attention I'm going to post about it. That's one of the things this blog is for.

    I'm a staunch advocate for a good criminal justice system.  Ours works well most of the time but does break down occasionally when political correctness or money get in the way.


    ... an example of "good criminal justice." Rather, you're being so punitive that you'd punish a woman for wrongdoing that her mother forced her to commit when she was 10 years old! That's not justice. That's vengeance, and vengeance never leads to good outcomes -- particularly when you're hardly the aggrieved party in the matter under discussion.

    Okay, so what they did offends you. Well, it offends me, too. But what exactly are we supposed to do about it? We don't live in Lake County, CA. Honestly, I'm just glad the poor guy's been released, and hope that the State of California compensates him accordingly for the experience. Other than that, the legal disposition of his accusers is completely out of our hands, and for the local authorities to decide.

    So again, let it go and move on. Aloha.


    If you read the story (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:05:49 AM EST
    you'd realize the accuser was 10 years old at the time of the trial. That alone should be reason enough to never release her name.

    But I would agree, in a perfect world, it would be preferable if the names of those charged with any type crime not be released unless they are convicted.


    I don't understand (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:42:45 AM EST
    How not releasing an accused's name (when accused of any crime) comports with the basic concept of public proceedings and filings.

    I did read the story (none / 0) (#69)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:37:41 AM EST
    She claims to have been forced into the false accusation by her mother.  If true, that's terrible but it took her 18 years to come to her senses.  Either she, her mother, or both should be held accountable for destroying someone's life.

    Democratic townhall (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by AnnL on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:09:15 PM EST
    Lord I hate the commentators (Hayes and Maddow) their Bernie bias is so obvious

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:44:29 PM EST
    Chris Hayes had to be corrected on his reporting that Mrs clinton did not give priority to immigration reform. How about the including it in the first 100 days. As she stated, Rachel corrected after prodding by the Telemundo moderater,

    Hayes (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 04:30:39 AM EST
    Also had to offer a correction last week after cutting that clip of Bill Clinton to make it look like BC was criticizing  Obama, when in fact, BC was praising him.

    Rachel does the selective editing all the time and then will maybe offer a laughing apology on Fridays with an "oops!" like, no big deal here. (Wink, wink).


    I'm so used to this (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:51:10 PM EST
    From the MSNBC bunch I hardly notice it.

    I can't watch them any more. (none / 0) (#75)
    by sallywally on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    HGTV, Netflix,  crime and hospital dramas, PBS. Just infuriating. I forgave them for their obvious Obama bias and trashing Hillary in 2008 but don't know if I can do it this time. There is so much great stuff out there about her and no one covers it.

    "Brave" (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:40:14 PM EST
    Clinton's new ad.

    This is the best emotional appeal ad of this cycle.

    Sanders one with Eric Garner's daughter is quite good as well. But it doesn't match this one.

    Bet Clinton has already made sure things are okay for that girl and her parents.

    WHITE GOD (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:34:10 AM EST
    To clean my mental pallet after hours of political junk food last night I watched this

    It's been in my Netflix q for ages.  Amazing.  Subtitle "the revenge of old yeller"

    A dog move for dogs.  And dog lovers


    Imagine an "R" rated "Lassie" by way of "Spartacus." That's Kornél Mundruczó's "White God," a brutal but stirring fantasy about street dogs rising up against cruel and indifferent humans

    The use of classical music, including generous swaths of Wagner, is bold, and it's key to the film's magic; it confirms that "White God" is an unabashedly mythic melodrama that's always chasing the big moment, the grand gesture, the overwhelming feeling. When Mundruczó cuts from a dog fight to a shot of escaped dog running down a dark street, the camera tracking ahead of him at pooch-level, the drums pound and the string section swells, and you can feel your heart race. What's wrong will be made right

    Fair warning.  Bring a hanky.

    I was up for it because it's been a bad week for pets here.  A couple of days ago I shared my bad news then yesterday my sisters 12 yo Shih Tzu fell off the deck, which is higher that a second story window and broke her back and pelvis and had to move on.  This movie was exactly what I needed.

    Oh, Capt., you have had (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:49:30 AM EST
    a sad and hard pet week. My condolences.

    The GOP stakes in South Carolina (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:46:41 AM EST
    On the Republican side, while headlines will continue to blare as to who is winning and losing, no matter the outcome there is still no reason for anyone to drop out.

    South Carolina, just like the next 21 states or so that follow, have delegates that will be awarded proportionally for the GOP. That means that no one (other than maybe Carson) has any need to leave the race because the delegate count will remain tight. Would anyone want to be on the sidelines right now if there is a chance of a contested convention... when if you drop out you lessen the chance of a contested convention? Don't think so.

    March 15 is the real start of the GOP race. That's when the big chips start to fall, so there is probably no way Bush or Rubio or Kasich leave the race before then. On March 15, the GOP begins a batch of winner take all states and on that day will be three big prizes...Florida, Ohio, and Illinois.

    Would Bush or Rubio or Kasich drop out before a single day that could put them in the top 2, or in the lead? Not likely.

    While newsy types and blog commenters will talk of who is dropping out, in the grand scheme South Carolina means little.

    RIP Harper Lee (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:28:06 AM EST
    Is 'to Kill a Mockingbird' the most widely read American novel? It's so deep and simple at the same time, a true classic.

    I haven't read 'Go Set a Watchman', anyone here recommend it?

    My daughter, an avid reader, (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:32:35 AM EST
    couldn't make it through Watchman.  

    The Family Sarcastic read it last fall. (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:56:12 PM EST
    I believe I read that GSAW was written and submitted to the publisher, and due to the publisher's suggestions, the story finally ended up as TKAM.

    The trial was a small stepping stone in GSAW, rather than the bulk of the plot in TKAM.

    So, GSAW was, essentially, the first draft of TKAM.

    I really don't remember a whole lot about it, which it telling.

    I do remember that it was, imo, way too much "on the nose."

    Many, many, pages of exposition regarding race which read more like a research project or a thesis.

    TKAM achieves so much more by "showing, not telling." imo, TAKM was written with the understanding that the reader is already pretty well versed in race.

    And, Atticus Finch is not nearly as sympathetic a character in GSAW.


    I read "Watchman" when first published. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:27:59 PM EST
    While it's very well written, I can definitely see the reason why Harper Lee's editor urged her to rethink the story by focusing upon Scout as a little girl 20 years earlier, when she first submitted her original manuscript for publication.

    From a reader's perspective, "To Kill a Mockingbird" likely holds much more timeless and universal appeal, while "Go Set a Watchman" is very much a reflection of the times in which Ms. Lee first conceived and wrote it.

    SPOILER ALERT! Don't read any further if you want to experience "Go Set a Watchman" for yourself without any outside influence.

    Okay, but don't say you haven't been warned.

    The Atticus Finch whom the now-adult Jean Louise Finch -- aka "Scout" -- confronts in "Go Set a Watchman" is quite far removed from the iconic pillar of moral rectitude she once idolized as a child in "To Kill a Mockingbird." Those readers who shared Scout's adoration of Atticus might be distressed and perhaps even offended by the older, somewhat unreconstructed white supremacist introduced to them by Jean Louise:

    "Do you want Negroes by the carload in our schools and churches and theaters? Do you want them in our world?"

    Atticus' world in "Watchman," Alabama in the 1950s, is a white man's preserve, and his tolerance for the Negro's intrusion upon it would be about the same he might hold for a mosquito buzzing his bedroom at 3:00 a.m. He is clearly a man blinded by his own racial privilege, and Jean Louise -- who had earlier fled Alabama for New York due to her own personal incompatibility with this world -- eventually finds her own tolerance for his alternating latent and not-so-latent bigotry at a low ebb:

    "Atticus, I'm throwing it at you and I'm gonna grind it in: you better go warn your younger friends that if they want to preserve Our Way of Life, it begins at home. It doesn't begin with the schools or the churches or anyplace but home. Tell 'em that, and use your blind, immoral, misguided, [racial pejorative]-lovin' daughter as your example. Go in front of me with a bell and say, `Unclean!' Point me out as your mistake. Point me out: Jean Louise Finch, who was exposed to all kinds of guff from the white trash she went to school with, but she might never have gone to school for all the influence it had on her. Everything that was Gospel to her she got at home from her father. You sowed the seeds in me, Atticus, and now it's coming home to you ..."

    Further, while Atticus is arguably still a man of personal integrity, humor and patience, he's also maddeningly stubborn. The man refuses to lose an argument, because he simply won't give in. It's a personal trait that likely serves him well as a trial attorney. In the turbulent times of 50s-era Alabama, however, it's bound to cause him a lot of grief as the tide turns in favor of civil libertarians.

    He also acknowledges the hypocrisies of the white Southern society in which he lives and works. "Hypocrites have just as much right to live in this world as anybody," he chides Jean Louise when she shows impatience with Henry Clinton, a former childhood friend turned potential beau. Atticus realizes his Jim Crow-era world is collapsing, but that doesn't mean he has to like it, even if his own daughter so happens to approve of the forthcoming changes.

    Jean Louise makes clear in "Watchman" that she once idolized her father while she was a child, which of course provides the primary basis for the subsequent "Mockingbird." But this is altogether a very different Atticus Finch from the one we first met during his younger days in "Mockingbird."

    Has Atticus really changed in the ensuing 20 years, or was he actually always this way? Maybe Jean Louise was blinded by her father's true character because she stood in obvious awe of him as a child. And perhaps we as readers were suckered in by our own fascination with his archetype in "Mockingbird."

    Whatever it is, "Watchman" does eventually compel us to reconsider our own relationship with one of the iconic characters in American literature. Personally, I now see the Atticus Finch of "Mockingbird" as a two-dimensional cardboard cutout of Gregory Peck's upright character arguing on behalf of his client in court, and someone that's hard to imagine ever even using the bathroom.

    The Atticus I met in "Watchman" is much more complex and earthy, and suffers from an arthritic condition. He's still a man of honor and integrity, but there's no denying that he's also very much a man of his region and times. While he hardly approves of the brutality being visited upon Negroes by the KKK, he's not at all adverse to attending meetings of the local White Citizens Council and opposing the activities of the NAACP. He can't quite reconcile himself to what's taking place, yet he nevertheless raised his daughter in anticipation of this day so that she would adapt accordingly, even if he could not.

    For those who've never read "Mockingbird," I might cautiously urge them to actually read "Watchman" first, if only to see for themselves how Harper Lee's creative process worked in the gradual development of what arguably became one of the definitive novels of the 20th century.

    For although "Watchman" shares many of the same characters as "Mockingbird," it's a much different story in terms of literary perspective, yet it is just as fascinating in its own inimitable way.



    Robert Reich... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:23:31 AM EST
    chimes in on economic growth if we go Bernie's route.

    Ooops... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:25:29 AM EST

    A political genius and man of the people like Bill Clinton would never appoint no dummy as Labor Secretary.  


    Yeah (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    He doesn't address the improbabilites of the math Sanders is using and is sticking to the larger philosophy.

    Ralston (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:32:04 AM EST
    Reporting that the Sanders team has now put out an informational  YouTube video describing how to caucus that has bad information in it.

    Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver are either driving a clown car or are trying to be Karl Rove.

    I find (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    it hard to believe that Tad Devine who has been around the block a bunch of times would put out a video like that. This I would imagine is the work of Weaver who's never done anything outside of Vermont. It must have slipped past Devine or something.

    According to Ralston, the Dem. Party asked (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:53:56 AM EST
    Sanders' campaign to take the video down. The campaign has not done so.

    Allow me... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:50:57 AM EST
    to make your next comment for you...

    Bernie Sanders shoe was untied for 3 whole hours at a campaign stop in Greenville.

    That guy is the worst, nowhere near the person Mitt Romney is!


    You are much more entertaining than (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:54:59 AM EST
    our mysteriously absent Bernistas.

    No Mystery... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:16:27 PM EST
    ...the Clinton click ran most of them off with their non-sense, even the ones that were regulars and well liked posters here have been run off.  Look around, some pretty great people no longer posting at TL.  And it's not enough to run them off, they get mocked in their absence.

    Every mention of Sanders gets 50 posts about how wrong they are why Clinton supports are without a doubt 100% right.

    It has become a place that is very hostile to any opinion that is not gushing over Clinton, and it's every thread.  It's shameful.


    to be honest (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by CST on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:18:01 PM EST
    I just assumed it's February vacation week and they were taking a break from posting.

    One week missing is not "run off".

    But yea, I hope they come back.


    Nope (none / 0) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:30:43 PM EST
    I guess (none / 0) (#115)
    by CST on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:35:29 PM EST
    I missed something...

    Me too..... (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    was there a bad break? I skimmed past some of the threads that got hot and heavy with the back and forth.

    No (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:48:23 PM EST
    Of course Bernie supporters were "driven away" by us mean and strident Hillary H8ters.  I'm sure it had nothing at all to do with the fact that both people who post on this blog are strong and vocal supporters.

    Not a chance.   It was all us.

    We after all were the ones constantly questioning the reasoning and deductive skills of Bernie supporters.

    Oh, wait.....


    I missed it, too, CST. (none / 0) (#123)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:43:33 PM EST
    I wish they would all come back. If we here at TL cannot discuss these two candidates in a civil and respectful manner, well, who the hell can?

    We have a community here at TL. Many of us have been talking with each other here for years.

    There is no good reason for supporters of either Bernie or Hillary to vilify the other candidate or that candidate's supporters here. No good reason. Comments that impugn either candidate's integrity, character, truthfulness, basic humanity, etc., should not rule the day.

    Criticize actual policy proposals, not people.


    Well (3.67 / 3) (#132)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:59:59 PM EST
    When it comes to elections,
    The character and integrity of the candidate matter greatly
    Not just their policy positions

    Otherwise there would be even more snake oil salesman entering the political field than there already are.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    I hope they come back too.

    But I think it was more of for once, they were in the minority around here  and they refused to discuss any criticism of their preferred candidate but only wanted to deflect at every opportunity with "Wall Street!" and "But...but...Hillary!" They are used to being in the majority opinion around here, so this was a different experience for them.  Since they often felt free to attack those with whom they disagreed, we all know they can take care of themselves, so I don't think they were "run off", which implies they were intimidated.

    I think you are seeing what you want to see.  

    I'm sure YMMV.


    Another narrative shot to hell (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 04:59:36 PM EST
    "Hillary is push polling in Nevada."

    No, she's not.

    See WaPo, Chris Cillizza today, (no fan of Hillary).


    You'd think... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    some of the TL community are getting checks from Lloyd too.

    Oh well, at least this only happens every 8 years.  Unfortunately it lasts for almost 2 years every 8 years.


    Honey, if we were getting hecks from Lloyd (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    We wouldn't be sitting around posting anonymously to a political blog.

    I mean (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    I probably would...

    Full time! (none / 0) (#182)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:44:16 PM EST
    Well played.

    Right... (none / 0) (#129)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:48:53 PM EST
    ... because doing it for free would be shameful.

    Shhhhh (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:01:16 PM EST
    They will hear you

    Yes (none / 0) (#103)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    I understand many prefer echo chambers

    Why thank you... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:08:51 PM EST
    you gotta have fun with it, or you'll go batty.

    Now stop driving my comrades away...пожалуйста!!!

    Speaking of entertainment...did you know you and Mr. Trump have something in common?  He once got dragged to a Ratdog show too.

    Speaking of Bob Weir, I broke the bankroll and got me 4 Dead & Co. tickets for Saturday June 25th, one of which is not yet spoken for.


    Trump the opportunist. (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:26:09 PM EST
    Weir "high energy"?  Depends on what "high" is I guess.

    What's happening 3rd week in April?


    3rd week of April... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:46:53 PM EST
    I'll keep my ears open...I know Santana is hitting The Garden sometime in April.  

    Oculus, why don't you (none / 0) (#94)
    by fishcamp on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    drag kdog to one of your operas or classical music shows?  Please take photos if you accomplish this.  He probably won't go.

    Does... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    Gogol's "A Diary of a Madman" starring Geoffrey Rush count?  That was one of our cultural adventures together, with our beloved ruffian.

    But other than that it's been me dragging her sporting heart into the rock-n-roll gutter;)


    That was soooo good! (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    Didn't she get you to something at Lincoln Center too? Or maybe you just met her for coffee near there...

    Nope that was it... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 01:28:09 PM EST
    but we have grabbed some Guinness before or after her many artistic engagements on her many visits to NYC.

    It was a great show...and our first in the flesh meeting.  We're overdue for another old pal, and as I said there is one Dead & Co. ticket unspoken for;)


    Frank Langella on Broadway. (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 04:59:21 PM EST
    Interested?  I have a ticket for 2 pm on April 20.

    Yeah sure... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:19:44 PM EST
    a 4/20 celebration. I'll look into a ducat once I rebuild the bankroll a wee bit.

    DO NOT under-rate kdog! (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 01:16:19 PM EST
    I believe oculus has already accomplished this!

    I have a photo taken at BB King's (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 05:04:09 PM EST
    place at Times Square. Classic blues--John Mayall.

    A photo... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:21:45 PM EST
    I am preparing litigation against Zuckerberg to have removed from Facebook for copyright violation!

    You're safe. Can't find it! (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:30:26 PM EST
    Shrug (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:05:00 PM EST
    When your schtick is that you aren't the establishment, and that you're different, be prepared to be called out for acting like just another politician.

    And in this case, this is giving voters and caucus worker factually wrong information.  It would be the same if they told them the wrong day to vote - would you have a problem with that?


    Keep digging... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:12:44 PM EST
    I will grant you this is better dirt than two staffers who may have allegedly claimed bogus NH residency.  Maybe you'll find something real juicy before you hit China.  

    And people knock my man Dadler for negativity with much more meat on the bone.


    Shrug again (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:31:35 PM EST
    These aren't big things,  but they are piling up. He's  just a regular politician, just like all the rest.

    Sierra Blanca. That's pretty big.


    He is a politician... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    but not like the rest.

    Sierra Blanca...at first I though that was a new nickname for Hillary lol. I see what it's about now.

    There are holes in Bernie's record on civil liberties, foreign policy, immigration, environment, and other issues...no denying it.  I just think the holes in Hillary's record on the same issues, plus economics, are bigger.


    And "meh" to voter misinformation? (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 01:02:47 PM EST
    There is no bigger "hole" than undermining the process -- and then, when caught, refusing to admit it or rectify it.

    It's what the worst of the Republicans do.


    totally confident (none / 0) (#101)
    by mm on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 01:52:00 PM EST
    that the media will have his back, sweep it under the rug and ignore the story completely.  And he's right.

    If it was Hillary it would be lead story on every evening network news program.

    That's the way I feel about it.


    Undermining the process? (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    Why that's a core issue of this primary, and something you may not wish to highlight.  Friendly advice.

    Here's another one for yas that may have more traction...Bernie Sanders Terrorist Sympathizer.


    You may not wish to presume (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    that I am as ignorant for the primary and caucus process as are those who think that a "core issue" is that the "popular vote" does not pick party nominees.  

    Friendly advice: Primaries and caucuses are party organizing processes to pick party delegates to pick party nominees at party conventions. See the common modifier?

    The parties let us play in their sandbox every four years, to pump up interest (read: donations and turnout for the general election), but it's really not about us . . . unless we join a party, pay dues, and volunteer every day, not every four years.


    Yes, we can clearly see (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:39:59 PM EST
    it's Marc Lasry's "party" and the common people are merely a necessary evil.  

    No, you clearly cannot see (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:52:13 PM EST
    how you are being manipulated -- because one of the major architects of the current Democratic Party process was Tad Devine . . . currently the strategist for Sanders.  

    And I think the holes in Bernie's (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:22:42 PM EST
    record are bigger, in some cases much bigger.

    Bernie is a politician just like so many other politicians. He has cast votes to curry favor with constituents, to get elected, to provide an economic advantage to his state. He has brought home plenty of pork to Vermont, some of it pork that was based on bad policy. He is an American politician. No better and no worse than many other politicians.

    This story that Bernie is some rare pure unsullied politician is just as potentially damaging when people realize he is just a politician as was the dawning realization that Obama could not cure all the ills of the UnitedStates by the sheer force of his Obama-ness.

    I fear that if Bernie loses, or if he wins and then makes some of the kinds of decisions he campaigned against, people who have bought into the myth of purity Bernie will be so discouraged they will just give up on American politics. They will not keep on fighting.


    Though much of Bernie's support... (none / 0) (#160)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:26:26 PM EST
    comes from people who already gave up on politics, and are just now getting back in because they see hope where there was none before.

    Should they disengage again we've lost nothing, with the potential for great gains if they remain engaged. Both for the country and for Democrats if they would embrace the message instead of poo-pooing it.


    Waging revolution is hard. (none / 0) (#164)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:57:45 PM EST
    And it takes a long time. A lot of one step forward, three steps back.

    If Bernie and his supporters are fighting a revolution the presidency should be a battle, albeit a major battle, but not the war. If Bernie loses the nomination, and I do not assume he will lose, but if he does I would hope that he rallies his supporters to, yes, support and campaign for and vote for Hillary, but to also continue the fight.

    Although it often seems that all the gains and promise of the '60s have been lost, there are those of us who continue in ways that are mostly small but there nonetheless, to fight the revolution.

    If Bernie's election is the be all and end all of the Bernie revolution, well, how is that a revolution? Isn't that just another political campaign?


    And I'm pretty confident... (none / 0) (#172)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:21:44 PM EST
    Sanders will do just that. Whether hard lefties will listen I don't know...most will. I'll throw Jill Stein some love;)

    It might help if Bill Clinton would chill. He should be on the stump talking about Hillary fixing his f#ck ups. And Sanders f#ck ups on the Crime Bill and toxic waste.

    And lord knows I know no matter what happens, we keep trying to live right and fight the good fight in our small yet meaningful ways.

    And its not all doom and gloom...we got this culture war locked up I think;) And a good awareness of race and gender issues with a growing consensus. Economics, criminal justice, environment...these are  the tougher nuts.


    I would venture (none / 0) (#167)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:02:36 PM EST
    That much of The Berns support

    Are 1st timers into the political world.


    His strongest demographic... (none / 0) (#175)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:33:06 PM EST
    and most vocal with their tweeting and what not, but   all ages can be sick and tired.

    Not a good day for 84 yr old writers (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:05:28 PM EST
    RIP Umberto Eco. Sad for this loss. Haven't read him for a while - brain getting too lazy for the challenge.

    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:05:00 PM EST
    You are not the not be who finds Bernies voice grating.  In fact I'm absolutely sure.

    Congratulations on completing your 5 month move


    I'm watching the republican thing on CNN.  First up is Kasich.  I feel like I am watching him commit slow motion suicide.

    (An audience member just called him Governor Cancer)

    That person is now telling him Obamacare was a godsend.

    This will be interesting.

    Kasich was surprisingly (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:14:35 PM EST
    boring on Colbert last night. I expected more personality from him. It's just not there.

    He is boring (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:16:23 PM EST
    Jeralyn. I remember seeing him back in the 90's on 60 minutes. Of course he probably has to work on boring because if he's not boring he starts to twitch and bob and run his words together like he has ADHD.

    By the time this is over (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:23:59 PM EST

    may officially be a swear word.


    kind of like (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:25:24 AM EST
    Guy Fieri's "shut the front door" for STFU?

    He used to have (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:26:42 PM EST
    a weekend talk show on Fox called Heartland. I was a guest on it several times, and I liked him. He seemed very rational. He didn't shout and cut you off, even if his opinion was different.

    He does (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:35:33 PM EST
    seem rational especially in comparison to the cast of clowns they have running.

    He isv (none / 0) (#78)
    by sallywally on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    Working with the Ohio legislature to  ake abortion illegal in Ohio. They have voted to defund Planned Parenthood.

    He is now doubling down (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:09:28 PM EST
    On what a great idea it was to accept Medicaid expansion.   Does he not know this is about a SC primary?

    Don't laugh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:14:47 PM EST
    but there might be more people there that agree with him than not. He might as well embrace it. It's like Hillary embracing Obamacare. She's going to get tagged with it so she might as well embrace it.

    There's going to get to a point where people in SC are sick of suffering. However I do not think that is going to be anytime soon.

    My mother in SC went to see Kasich today. I did not ask her what she thought because I avoid these kinds of conversations with her.


    I'll be honest, when Hillary first got into (none / 0) (#154)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:10:04 PM EST
    the Senate race, she said 'you know' about 5 times a sentence in her TV interviews and it drove me up the wall.  Reactions like that are hard to stop. She must have gotten some feedback on it, and has improved a lot. She still throws it in there a lot, but not nearly as much as she did.  I don't think it's wrong or 'fake' to learn to change your speaking voice or anything else for more effective communication. If Bernie modulated more instead of the monotone he'd be easier to listen to, and his message would get a cross better.

    I suspect (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:23:50 PM EST
    Training yourself to not say "you know" woukd probably be easier than training yourself to not sound like Waldorf

    Gerald Friedman (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 04:49:48 AM EST
    Remember him?  He's the economics professor who has been widely touted by the Sanders campaign and supporters as the guy who shows how Bernie's economic plan works (and who subsequently frustrated other liberal economists for his analysis). Sanders and his team responded to this by suggesting that those who criticized Friedman's work as being on "Team Hillary".

    Turns out, Friedman's on Team Hillary too.

    Gerald's retort... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:56:18 AM EST
    "I don't know if they read my report."

    It's good he supports Hillary, maybe his report will be given a fair(er) shake.


    His report (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:11:52 AM EST
    Forecasts sustained levels of growth that have not happened any place at any time in history.

    And since other liberal economists who criticized his findings cited things like Friedman's footnotes, I think it's fair to say they read his report.


    I'm no economist... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:18:46 AM EST
    but I don't if there are forecasts for an America where the 76% who currently live check to check have some money to spend, and maybe even invest.

    Stands to reason when people who never have money get money, they're gonna run out and spend that sh*t which should theoretically spur economic growth.  But that's economics for ya, everything is theoretical it is not an exact science.


    I don't think you need to worry (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:36:39 AM EST
    Bernie is not going anywhere.   His prime time speaking slot at the convention is sealed.   Bernie has had a powerful and (mostly) positive effect on this cycle.

    I think CG meant that hopefully the media would stop their 24/7 desperate losing Hillary BS.

    I'm pretty sure not all will.  Hopefully some will.


    Oops (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:39:32 AM EST
    That was supposed to be a reply to your comment

    My fear is... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:29:58 AM EST
    they ignore the ideas when the campaign dies...which is why it is important Bernie takes it all the way to the convention, regardless of primary results.

    The Dem stakes in Nevada (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:52:35 AM EST
    On the Dem side it's a little more interesting but still unimportant to anyone but Sanders. A win in Nevada gives Sanders another week of headlines. A loss in Nevada and news outlets will start talking about the death of the Sanders' campaign.

    Because Dem states are awarded proportionally throughout, there is no single day on the calendar where Sanders can make a big move. Saturday looks like the last chance for Sanders to make a headline splash. After Saturday, it's a downhill slide. He can stay in to the end and get his moment in the sun at the convention, but the news cycle will switch gears quickly. If Clinton wins Saturday, the headlines for Sanders will be done as it becomes obvious that Clinton will begin to clean up on the delegate count every election day from here to the convention.

    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:56:53 AM EST
    Except for maybe the media letting go.   I fear Bernie might have to be pulled from their cold dead hands.

    My fear is... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:29:58 AM EST
    they ignore the ideas when the campaign dies...which is why it is important Bernie takes it all the way to the convention, regardless of primary results.

    To the Soap Opera Digest, it's all about Bernie, to us (or at least me) it's all about the ideas.  If Bernie drops out, I think Hillary starts subtly reassuring her corporate and finance backers, and the swing back to the center-right commences.  Regardless of which candidate you prefer, that's bad for the ideals we share.  


    Right... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    ... had she said 'no' to WS the primary would have been cake walk.  Sanders probably would not have been in the race and she would have mopped the floor with O'Malley.

    Her ties to WS has caused her a great deal of political capital.  She needs those votes, she needs the people she would have easily had had she told WS 'no'.

    If she loses the general it will be because of her ties to WS.


    I disagree, Scott. (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    No way, no matter what, would Hillary Clinton have gotten a pass. O'Malley would have jumped in no matter what. He wasn't there because of her WS speeches. He was there because this was his chance to be president, and by yelping about the evils of a "coronation" for Hillary he got himself some headlines.

    Bernie jumped in because 25 years of lies and innuendo make Hillary an easy target. And Bernie continues to use those lies and that innuendo in his campaign. He could have primaried Obama in 2012. Bernie kept saying someone should. The economy was in even worse shape then, but he did not. Obama has ties to WS. Why is Hillary somehow more evil?


    You might want to check out (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    William D. Cohan's piece on Politico  (yes, yes, I know).   The title is a bit misleading, I think. "Too big to fail comes back to haunt Hillary".  He examines her speeches to Goldman Sachs by talking to more people than the couple who recently gave breathless fodder to Sanders supporters.

    Basically, it's a bunch of....nothing.  The worst is when he mentions a couple of times, when, if taken out of context, could be made to look as if she were in GS's pocket - she called him Lloyd!  But people who want to believe, ala Fox Mulder, will believe what they want anyway.

    And seriously, the law of large numbers says there have had to have been people in attendance at these speeches that are not fans of Hillary Clinton - don't you think we would have heard details of SOMETHING that would be damning to her??


    Point Missed Entirely... (none / 0) (#108)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    ...no gives a F what she talked about, maybe not entirely, but the association is the problem.  She took money from the what used to be a democrat bugaboo.  Like one step above getting paid by the Koch Bros to speak.

    When was that? When was the last time a Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:35:46 PM EST
    was offered and refused to give a speech to a group of bankers?

    I'm sincerely asking.


    As far as I can tell, giving (5.00 / 6) (#127)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:47:18 PM EST
    speeches to bankers did not become a mortal sin until Hillary did it.

    This kind of double standard makes me a little crazy.


    I don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:25:40 PM EST
    The Wall St. meltdown and Occupy Wall St and Citizens United and income disparity ever-worsening have really brought the issue to the fore, and every presidential primary & election since that time until now has had all the contending candidates on the Wall St. & Big Business take, there was no contrast.  

    I think it's not a double standard so much as voters revising their standards.


    And that is different than acting like Hillary (none / 0) (#143)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:55:04 PM EST
    Clinton, in the interim between the end of her SoS term and announcing her run for president, has singlehandedly sullied the squeaky clean Democratic party.

    You know me... (none / 0) (#145)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 04:13:35 PM EST
    I left the Democratic Party 20 years ago because it was too sullied. Anybody who thinks this is new hasn't paid attention.

    I understand why you would feel Hillary gets picked on unfairly, and she has been at times. But at this time she is the only other candidate for president on the D side. I'm sure we all wish we paid as close attention to Congress, but the presidential race gets all the ink.


    No (none / 0) (#130)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    Only private citizens warming up for a run at the Presidency

    Then, Yes it matters

    It matters a lot


    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#133)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    ... in the search bar to your right, type in "Occupy Wall Street" and you will see how the politics of personality has flipped many here.

    0ne step above getting paid by the Koch Bros (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:40:40 PM EST
    Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
    Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
    Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price"

    Yeah and Like 20 Movies Jim (none / 0) (#140)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    What are you saying, that the Koch Brothers are John's and your boy Scott Walker is prostitute ?  I could not agree more.

    What I am saying is that (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:37:53 PM EST
    money is the mother's milk of politics."

    If you don't think Hillary and Bernie and Cruz and Jeb and Rubio and Kasich aren't bought then you haven't been paying attention.

    Trump has his own and I don't think Carson has been seen as viable enough for the big dollars to show up.


    Still waiting (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:46:05 PM EST
    For you to rail against the money she took giving speeches to tech companies - you know the ones - they have the power to turn over all your information so the government can spy on you, ones that get hacked and let your data be stolen etc.

    Honest to god, I really don't care anymore who took money for speaking to legitimate businesses, especially if they were a private citizen when they did it.  Until someone can prove some nefarious plot between speaking for money and evil doing, I just don't care anymore.  

    I'm not the only one.


    I Have Only Commented Like 50 Times... (none / 0) (#139)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:49:38 PM EST
    ...but you can't seem to understand that some sources of money are fine and others are not.

    Tech companies did not take the country to brink of economic collapse nor were there Occupy Silicon Valley protests.

    This notion that you have that all money, from no matter whom, is equal, is wrong.  As mentioned above, Koch Brothers money would be bad, money from Playdough Inc would be OK, even if the speeches were identical.

    If I am not mistaken, you didn't get Occupy Wall Street either, and of all the HRC supporters you are one of the few who has been consistent on the issue.


    Money is money (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 04:55:53 PM EST
    Both industries are significant parts of the economy.   Both are inolved in many important issues that concern everyday people.

    Talk to me when you've got more than - "she gave a speech".  Because unless you can show actual malfeasance, you got nuthin' but pure conjecture and projection.


    Money is money... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:49:34 PM EST
    And fraud is fraud.

    Now Apple and Google commit their frauds I'm sure, but Goldman and Chase and Citi and BofA are original  gangsters...there is no comparison on that front.


    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:01:37 PM EST
    But I wager that Apple and Google are quick learners, and their business model is one of immense growth, and power...Information

    They will shortly surpass Goldman and Chase as gangstas

    Although, the younger generation (more so) seems so ready to waive any sense of privacy,

    Apple , Google will be Orwell's nightmares come to fruition


    The younger generation (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:08:42 PM EST
    are waiving their sense of privacy due to their having grown up in an environment where technology was involved in every part of their lives.  In short, they accept it as a normal part of existence.

    It is a scary "frog in the boiling water" scenario.


    Yea (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:13:54 PM EST
    But I am in that water  too

    I hear ya... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:42:36 PM EST
    I hope I die before the google truck driving matrix goes Maximum Overdrive.

    Do you mean to say that the movement (none / 0) (#152)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 05:29:17 PM EST
    dies if he does not get nominated to run for president? Millions of people marching in support of his bills in the Senate to support his ideas would be effective whoever wins the election in November.

    Not at all... (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:35:48 PM EST
    I hope the movement rocks on after Hillary wins, and   I think it will...but to what degree is the question. The presidency draws attention like Congress never will, unfortunately.  Sanders has become the leader, whether he (or we) like it or not.

    It would certainly be easier if he was 30 years younger, better looking, better dressed, a better speaker, etc.


    This guy (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:12:04 PM EST
    has 27 million you tube followers.

    You don't have to be president these days to draw a crowd, or get a message out.


    "El Viejito" (none / 0) (#200)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:56:48 PM EST
    vs "La Hillary" in Nevada.

    He said he and his sister Nancy, 22, would caucus for Sanders, not least because of the senator's call for a $15 federal minimum wage, something that would transform their lives.

    José was among several voters in Nevada, a state reliant on low-wage workers at hotels, casinos, restaurants and golf courses, who mentioned the Vermont senator's minimum wage proposal in interviews with the Guardian. All of them pointed out it was $3 more than Clinton's proposed hourly minimum.

    I'm with you (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:45:13 AM EST
    on that. He could lose 11 out of 12 states on Super Tuesday and the media would still be talking about how he was going to get the nomination and was tied with Hillary.

    Yep, because: superdelegates bad (none / 0) (#50)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:27:38 AM EST
    . . . as everyone knows that the media ought to pick the party nominees.

    Really, I weary of the Sanders' camp's attacks on superdelegates, as if the popular vote ought to pick the party nominees -- and this is for a candidate who refused to belong to the party.

    The media also refuse to report the reality that primaries and caucuses are only organizing events for the parties, by the parties, for picking delegates for their party conventions.  It's not at all as complicated as media -- and the politically naive -- like to pretend, all to pump up ratings to pump up advertising revenue from pumping up primaries and caucuses as the sort of contests that they never were.  (Nobody paid any attention to Iowa caucuses from 1846 until a few elections ago, when media needed to create something for the post-holiday revenue slump.)  

    I'm about ready to rally for the whole process to go back to smoke-filled back rooms.


    Tad Devine (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:11:49 AM EST
    senior adviser to Bernie helped set up the super delegate system. That is what is most ridiculous about the whole super delegate whine.

    I wouldn't be against the popular vote winner getting the nomination however Bernie is not going to get that according to the numbers.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:04:36 AM EST
    Bernie could get more staffers to "domicile" themselves in campaign offices so they can register to vote as two staffers allegedly did in New Hampshire.

    The Union Leader is reporting that two staffers are being investigated for such acts.


    Nate Silver (none / 0) (#104)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    Plots out The Bern 's path to the nomination!!


    We can try to answer all of those questions with the help of the gigantic chart you'll see below. On the left-hand side of the chart, you'll find a projection for how each state might go if recent national polls are right, with Clinton ahead of Sanders by about 12 percentage points nationally.

    More V.A. news (none / 0) (#38)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:04:06 AM EST
    Some packages of blow (none / 0) (#42)
    by fishcamp on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:43:22 AM EST
    Just washed up on the beach across the canal and highway from my house.  There's at least three different police force members standing around staring at them.  Looks like I'm stuck at home since they are filming a sequence of Bloodline on my street, which is blocked off, and it's too windy to go anyplace by boat.  I just know there are more floaters out there...

    I was (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:46:56 AM EST
    just checking on when Bloodline's 2nd season was going to air the other day. What I read said probably not until April at the earliest and most likely May. Sounds like May if they are still filming.

    You have such an interesting life, fish. :) (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:48:02 AM EST
    Get that money fish! (none / 0) (#47)
    by vicndabx on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:06:36 AM EST
    Stay safe... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:55:12 AM EST
    till the narco-frogmen head back to the station Fish!  

    Kdog, you're absolutely right. (none / 0) (#60)
    by fishcamp on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:15:31 AM EST
    All the alphabetical henchmen are on the water on the ocean side looking.  There's a big Coast Guard or Naval ship way offshore with medium sized Coastie boats out a ways, and close in we have the 18 year olds in small hard bottom rubber boats speeding around, all armed to the teeth.  An hour ago I saw a Coast Guard Lear jet flying by slower than I've ever seen a jet fly.  He was about two hundred yards above the water and the same from shore.  They will find more.

    People dump their loads while being chased, usually way out in the Gulfstream.  The stream is like a river in the ocean flowing north, carrying flotsam and jetsam and bales.  When nthere's a strong NE wind it blows stuff out of the stream and onto shore.  There are very few beaches down here, but many mangrove islands for stuff to get washed into and hidden.  Tomorrow I'll pole some likely locations in my trusty bonefish skiff.  


    I hope Trump does not... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    get wind of this phenomenon, he might propose building the largest seawall in the history of marine engineering and place it right between you and your catch of the day.  

    Not sure which cartel will get the bill.


    I Am Curious Where Republicans Stand on (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:18:00 AM EST
    ... Trump's latest.
    Trump was asked about his previous comment that Bush should have been impeached for the war in Iraq. After trying to dodge the question with his I'm a businessman, and I get along with everybody song and dance, Trump said, "Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big fat mistake. Now, you can take it any way you want...The war in Iraq we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. We don't even have it. Iran is taking over Iraq with the second largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."

    Trump was asked if he still thinks Bush should be impeached.

    He answered, "You can do whatever you want. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."

    Jeb Bush jumped in and said that he was sick and tired of Obama blaming W. for all of his failures. Bush said that while Trump was building a reality TV empire, W. was building a security apparatus to keep America safe. Trump pointed out that 9/11 happened on W's watch, which drew more boos. Marco Rubio blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11, and the crowd went wild.

    Trump, more or less, put ISIS on republicans and his popularity hasn't moved.  It's rather shocking to see the republican anti-establishment candidate blame the republican establishment for the mess in the middle East.

    How does this not effect his popularity, it's insane, Trump basically said what every democrat has been saying for at least a decade and remains popular among the people who have trying to put the mess in the Middle East on Obama.

    Trump is saying his supporters and many other republicans are completely wrong.

    I believe you misunderstand his support (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:59:42 AM EST
    He is appealing to a vast group of voters who feel completely betrayed and forgot by the GOP.   They have bait and switched these people for decades and it's coming home to roost.

    Bush was not a popular president with the right wing.  Under him spending exploded we jumped into every war we possibly could, which the children's of poor republicans disporportionally fight, and he did none of the things he and every republican has promised for decades as far as social issues.   Abortion is legal.  Gays can marry and serve in the military.  And Obamacare thrives.

    Far from saying his supporters were wrong, he is saying they were right.   He gets them.  And the (think) they get him.   In addition a huge part of Donalds support is purely and simply a middle finger to the republican establishment.

    Trump was in every respect created by the establishment republicans by feeding and riding the paranoid fantasies of their looney base for decades.

    To them I say

    There was a young lady of Niger
    Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;
    They returned from the ride
    With the lady inside,
    And the smile on the face of the tiger


    Btw on the tiger thing (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    There has been speculation for a while that a split was coming between the Republican Party and the tea party/whatever wing.

    The talk has recently moved to speculation that it's not the tea party/whatever wing that will leave but the establishment.

    If Donald takes the nomination the establishment is dead within the Republican Party.


    I think (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:13:22 PM EST
    the establishment is more likely to leave or establishment types sit home in the 2016 presidential election. I never thought there was much chance of a split.

    More Curious What Republicans Think... (none / 0) (#109)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    ...I know what democrats think about what republicans think.

    And betrayed or not, they don't believe GWB lied, and that Obama isn't 100% at fault for the the chaos going on in Iraq.


    I wonder (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:31:14 PM EST
    the same thing. Most Republicans I know will never admit Bush lied.

    Bill Clinton 1998 (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:45:13 PM EST

    That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

    If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

    I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

    Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

    And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.

    The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions.

    Consider this already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden around the country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.

    History (none / 0) (#146)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 04:28:59 PM EST
    all too many forget that time.

    Oh, that's (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:14:35 PM EST
    been debunked a million times and I'm not going to argue Bush apologia.

    Lol (none / 0) (#171)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:19:14 PM EST
    That is a copy of Clintons speech

    Good luck debunking Bubbas speech


    ... that you were likely one of those Republicans who were yelling "Wag the Dog!" when that particular speech was first delivered.

    So giving (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:56:49 PM EST
    a speech is the same as saying Sadaam was going to attack us and he caused 9/11. Lying that Sadaam met with Mohamed Atta is the same as a speech. And you're also forgetting that the WMDs were gotten rid on the 90's by the inspectors. And no, they were not hidden somewhere in another country like Syria.

    Bush lied to you and everybody else. Either that or he was a complete moron. Take your pick.

    I mean this whole wingnut welfare talking point has been demolished time and again. I'm surprised you would even venture to go there.

    Heck, even Republicans accept that George W. Bush was nothing short of a disaster except apparently you and others like you.


    Lol (none / 0) (#190)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:10:32 PM EST
    BDS lasts forever, doesn't it?

    Clinton specifically mentioned military intelligence. All the Democrats in Congress with clearance also saw intelligence reports after 9-11.

    But if it helps you sleep at night,......


    Nope (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:21:51 PM EST
    totally different context but not that it matters to you anyway. BDS is short hand for you're a Bush apologist. Yes, we know that already. No need to remind us.

    You did not keep up with the info but the wingnut welfare brigade is not going to tell you the whole story. I guess you are not aware of the fact that Bush deliberately withheld information from members of the intelligence committee that under cut his argument like the CIA telling him that Sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Continue on with the Bush apologia...and enjoy it. Even the GOP would prefer for him to be hidden in a closet.


    Lol, (none / 0) (#193)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:31:09 PM EST
    You are just making things up

    After the intelligence failures in Iraq, Bush appointed the nine-member commission led by Laurence Silberman, a senior federal appellate court judge and a Republican who was in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and former Sen. and Virginia Gov. Chuck Robb, a Democrat.

    An October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warned that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, had reconstituted its nuclear weapon program and had biological and chemical weapons.

    The Bush administration used those conclusions as part of its argument for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    But the Iraq Survey Group -- set up to look for weapons of mass destruction or evidence of them in the country -- issued a final report saying it saw no weapons or no evidence that Iraq was trying to reconstitute them.

    The commission's report said the principal cause of the intelligence failures was the intelligence community's "inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions rather than good evidence."

    The report said analysts were "too wedded" to assumptions about Saddam Hussein's intentions.


    Sorry (1.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:38:16 PM EST
    but it was widely reported. Here is just one example. Bush lied to you, me and everybody in the entire country. Again, it's not like the wingnut welfare brigade is ever going to tell you the truth about any of this.

    Do you know a lot of republicans? (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    I know way to many.   And I know plenty that think GWB is a worthless lying sack of sh!t.

    And yet ... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:38:30 PM EST
    ... they likely voted for him anyway, didn't they?

    Probably (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:03:29 PM EST
    But there are a helluva lot who would not have voted for him again.   Even if they could have.  

    One other interesting comment up there about how republicans blame "everything on Obama".

    There are a lot of republicans who blame Bush FOR Obama.


    Well, I can certainly see why. (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:04:44 PM EST
    By 2008, things were in such a mess thanks to George W. Bush that Barack Obama looked like the Second Coming. His appeal was primarily messianic in nature, and he really did nothing to discourage it.

    That's why so many of his most fervent supporters were so disheartened to discover after the election that what Gov. Mario Cuomo once observed many years ago also applied to their savior, which is that you can campaign in poetry, but you have to govern in prose.

    While there are no white knights in politics, there's never any shortage of people who are looking for one. And invariably, they'll always end up disappointed.



    Here (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:46:27 PM EST

    Why Conservatives Hate Bush
     It's not because he's an ideological heretic. It's because he's a loser.
     By David Greenberg

    If I were a Bush administration insider, I'd be scrambling right now to get my book contract. No path leads more surely to critical acclaim these days than the White House confessional. What the insiders are trafficking in, however, isn't the usual gossip about infighting or turf wars but a matter of considerably greater importance: the president's alleged ideological apostasy. President Bush, a fleet of his former enthusiasts now insist, is no conservative

    from 2007


    I've been trying to tell youi (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    that Trump's support crosses party and religious lines.

    And he didn't let Obama skate. He blamed him for leaving.


    Nope, Not at All... (none / 0) (#141)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:52:13 PM EST
    ... I think they call that projecting.

    I think you know no one but people (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:42:00 PM EST
    just like yourself. So you can't imagine a Demo being a Demo unless s/he has all the biases you have.

    Trust me. It is a big world outside.


    Perusing (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    the facebook posts of people who I went to high school with etc. in SC and other conservatives is hysterical. One says that Jesus is telling her to vote for Trump and the local Megapastor that is against Trump she has now decided is evil. They believe all kinds of conspiracy theories regarding Hillary (no surprise there). It literally is becoming more of a food fight than I thought it was. Some evangelicals love Cruz while other scream he makes their skin crawl. Then there's the one that says unless Cruz and Trump team up "the establishment" is going to force a candidate down their throats.

    some non-primary (none / 0) (#131)
    by CST on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:56:05 PM EST

    I don't have much to add other than - this article speaks for me

    "Since 2001, more than 300,000 people, about 13 percent of all troops, have been forced out of the military with less-than-honorable discharges. Congress has recognized in recent years that some of these discharges were the fault of dysfunctional screening for PTSD and other combat injuries, and it has put safeguards in place to prevent more -- including requirements for mental health professionals to review all discharges. In recent years, less than honorable discharges have dropped drastically; and today, troops with PTSD are more likely to be medically discharged with benefits. But that has done little to help those like Mr. Goldsmith who were discharged before the changes."

    VINYL (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    I finally got around to this.  I liked it a lot.  I was in NY in 1973.  I've never seen a more dead on snapshot of the street.

    Looking forward to the rest.

    So (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:30:02 PM EST
    January was the warmest ever in, like EVER

    This Feb 19th it's currently 78 on my back porch.

    I know climate change will be disastrous and catastrophic and all so we may as well be all glass half full.

    I could totally get used to winter being just like summer without needing to cut the grass.

    Would that mean year-round (none / 0) (#138)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:34:04 PM EST
    garden tomatoes? If so, i am in.

    For my neck of the woods (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 03:58:13 PM EST
    it would mean year-round sunny side up fried eggs.

    This is too, too rich. (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:02:45 PM EST
    Daily Beast interviewed Sen. Sanders' brother Larry, who lives in England, hates Bill Clinton, and says Sen. Sanders has told him (Bernie's brother) that the campaign is hard and he is tired.

    Boo frickin' hoo (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:13:33 PM EST
    Know what else is hard?  BEING PRESIDENT.

    I read that and (none / 0) (#157)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:20:16 PM EST
    that Sanders the Elder thinks that Dubya Bush was a better president than Bill Clinton.  

    Starting with that made the rest of the interview just sad, as I think that the guy may be going in and out a bit -- because I heard an interview with him a while ago, and he sounded more reality-based.


    I am still amazed that (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:58:45 PM EST
    there is a real life Larry Sanders. Calling Gary Shandling.

    Towanda: "Sanders the Elder thinks that Dubya Bush was a better president than Bill Clinton."

    ... when one has lived in England for the better part of the past three decades.



    I know he has, but (none / 0) (#196)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:42:39 PM EST
    I also know a lot of Brits who have lived there for the same decades and clearly are a lot smarter about American politics, even though they were not lecturers at Oxford.

    Larry (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    antiestablishmentarianism (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:27:22 PM EST
    We have totally been missing the chance to use this word

    1.  a policy or attitude that views a nation's power structure as corrupt, repressive, exploitive, etc

    I won't be typing that on my iPad (none / 0) (#195)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:39:06 PM EST
    I like the etc. at the end. Covers it all!

    Easier to type (none / 0) (#197)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:43:34 PM EST
    I'm against etc.

    Millenials explain Socialism (none / 0) (#202)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:40:51 PM EST
    "If Karl Marx were alive today, chillin' in America... he'd probably have a lot to write about.  Or blog about.  Yeah, he'd be busy on his blog.  He'd be on Tumblr.  His Tumblr, he would have so many notes.  But the second he vapes, I don't respect him."  

    Also: Millenials explain Millenial slang