home

Saturday Open Thread

There's another GOP Debate tonight. I'm not wtching.

The Super Bowl is tomorrow and probably won't watch that either but that's cuz I'm really work busy. I'm a big Cam fan so pulling for anthers.

Open Thread.

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Dear God (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by smott on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:39:40 PM EST
    Christie destroyed Rubio.
    And then Rubio robotically repeated his little schpiel for the THIRD time in a row and Christie nailed him on it again.

    Christie on Rubios FL record :
    "That's not leadership, that's truancy."

    Ouch.

    Rubio comes across as (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:20:22 AM EST
    dumb as a rock. What is even worse is that Republican establishment thinks he is their best chance of winning and so far the polls agree with them.

    Parent
    What happened to him (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:34:37 AM EST
    Last night was entirely predictable.   I've been predicting it as have lots of other people who don't take their advise from cable news pundits.  Rubio has been far and away the most scripted and sheltered candidate in this race since day one.  It's been said he's been giving the same speech for years.  He is the only one who goes everywhere with a press person who shields him from the press and screens any questions they get to ask him.

    It was absolutely inevitable this could not continue.  Christie has been calling him "the boy in the bubble". And that's a pretty good description.  Last night the bubble got popped

    Parent

    Scripted & supposedly "smart" (none / 0) (#172)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    Don't you wonder, Capt., how could a "smart" person as Rubio's advance-people portray acted so dumb when Christie had televised his intent for days.  Rubio keeps repeating his rehearsed lines even on a national stage.  

    My Dad used to say about a supposedly smart man in our neighborhood--in our locale then, a man with a big-time degree was smart by that calling card--who clearly lacked down-to-earth living skills: For a smart man, he sure is dumb.

    Parent

    Yes, dumb as a rock. (none / 0) (#175)
    by KeysDan on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:06:21 AM EST
    Something Florida Democrats have known since his days in the Florida legislature.  It is a contest as to who is more unhappy with him in the US Senate--Rubio, himself, or many Floridians. If part of the job is showing up, he missed that part.

     He is not running for re-election, I believe it is because of the money.  He wants more.  His seeking the presidency for "change" means, in my view, seeking "coinage."    Of course, he is the world's oldest young man, as evidenced by his retro-ideas. It looks like he may have been found out. Whether or not it will have time to register in New Hampshire, is a question.  But, it will register. His Poland Spring moment was not a fluke.  

    Parent

    For the life of me, (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:23:56 PM EST
     can't understand how anyone could take him seriously after his Poland Springs moment.

    I'm not in the business, but I could sure write some great ads combing his Poland Springs moment with meetings with Putin and a vid of the sweating,  gulping Rubio asking do you trust this person with the nuclear black box.

    Parent

    I might vote for anyone (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:00:44 PM EST
    Who DIDNT wear a flag pin.

    Madeleine Albright: (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:21:34 PM EST
    "There's a special place in hell for women who don't" support Clinton.

    I confess to having been brutally surprised by the '08 backstabbing.  The ease with which wedges were driven between women and the vote for Clinton makes one realize: Nothing unites people like their willingness to be divided.

    I mentioned this in the last thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:27:57 PM EST
    It's pretty unbelievably tone deaf thing to say.  But to be completely fair she actually SAID "women who don't stand up for women".   But it was pretty clear what she meant.

    Parent
    What's worse than that is she (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:42:52 PM EST
    said this with Clinton at her side, and Clinton's reaction is what may be more damaging than just what Albright said.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:51:37 PM EST
    It was definitely the Hillary laugh but I thought beneath it you could see alarm.  And OMFG I have to act like this was the biggest joke ever.

    Seriously what else could she do?  Grab the mic from Allbright and smack her upside her head?

    Parent

    She looked a little surprised (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:02:14 PM EST
    Her quote (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:17:16 AM EST
    "Just remember, there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other."

    A phrase she has been saying since at least 2008.

    Tone deaf?  Eh, maybe, to those who want to be insulted. Again, this will make exactly zero people change their vote.  

    Parent

    It isn't at all about wanting to be insulted. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:39:09 AM EST
    And saying that it is really diminishes and demeans and disrespects anyone for whom Albright's comment did not sit well - and saying that what they feel doesn't matter because they probably weren't for Clinton anyway?  That's tone deaf.

    Parent
    See: Bernie Bros (none / 0) (#156)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:53:33 AM EST
    Or the Dem Dinner last night in New Hampshire , where Jeanne Shaheen was interrupted and heckled by rude and obnoxious Sanders supporters.

    Rudeness is tone deaf.  But hey, we're gonna have us a revolution!

    Parent

    I beg to differ (none / 0) (#155)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:42:48 AM EST
    There are only some that are 100% committed to a candidate, at this point. There are many undecided, and many more that are leaning towards 1 candidate or the other.
    Stupid comments, gaffes, are what propel these undecideds and lukewarm supporters in 1 direction or the other

    Parent
    I may have missed something. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:06:50 PM EST
    I didn't see a problem with Albright's statement.  I didn't see a problem with Clinton's reaction, a laugh.

    IMO, that was the really Hillary poking through the campaign greasepaint.  With all the dullards and sycophants and stage managed b/s that comprise her every days, she doesn't get much chance to interact with people at her own level.


    Parent

    Personally I don't have a problem (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:11:49 PM EST
    I know what she meant and didn't mean, I think.  My point was politically it was way dumb.  See comments in this thread and around the web.  It was a very impolitic thing to say.  At this time.  In this race.  IMO.

    Parent
    I also think (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:20:02 PM EST
    That, as I said, Hillary being as politically astute as she is was not as happy with it as she looked.

    Just my opinion.

    Parent

    I did a quick google search on it, and guess what? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:30:31 PM EST
    The vast majority of hits for that search bring up right wing sites reporting and commenting on it.

    That's why it was so politically dumb of them. Sanders supporters are certainly going to think it's insulting, and it won't change their votes at all. But right wingers are hoovering up every single faux pas to throw in her face if she's the nominee in November.

    The Clinton campaign is staffed by the same group of people who failed in 2008. Is there no one on that team that an exert some control over the message?

    Parent

    I don't think the politics problem (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:33:34 PM EST
    Is on the right.  

    Parent
    She's Hillary. She's going to get hit (none / 0) (#60)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:39:17 PM EST
    from all sides. I'm just saying, why give them even more ammunition?

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:24:45 AM EST
    no, it's not staffed by the same people in 2008. It's got a lot of Obama people too.

    Parent
    John Podesta is the campaign chairman (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:18:18 PM EST
    Podesta, fer gawd's sakes, who was Bill's chief of staff, and has been with the Clintons for so long he may as well have been born into the family. And all the close insiders are longtime Clinton aides and former 2008 campaign people--Neera Tanden. Huma Abedin, Mandy Grunwald, Robby Mook, Jake Sullivan.

    Yes, there are some IT, communications, and polling people who came over from Obama's team. But the top down stuff is all old Clinton people. There's nothing unusual about that. But if she wants to run a different campaign--a more nimble campaign, and one that appeals to a broader group of voters--she might have considered a different campaign management team.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:41:52 PM EST
    Bernie has Tad Devine the guy that goes back to Mondale on losing campaigns and the one who advised Gore to pick Lieberman as VP and to run from Bill.

    This whole argument is silly mostly because we have had one state vote and it was a state that was favorable to Bernie and he didn't even get people to show up for him. Yes, Hillary did not do well with very liberal white millennials in Iowa. Once the voting gets into more diverse states it may be that Bernie may not even win the votes of millennials. I would say in the middle of March we will know more about where things stand. I mean a lot of the entrance polling was not good for Bernie but apparently we aren't allowed to discuss that.

    Parent

    You're free to discuss whatever you want (none / 0) (#196)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:57:42 PM EST
    Nobody is shutting you down. Right now Clinton's campaign seems to be struggling on both messaging and nimbleness. If Sanders' campaign starts struggling, I'd think they should reconsider their strategies and advisers as well.

    Parent
    His (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:25:08 PM EST
    campaign IS struggling. It is struggling to expand it's appeal and so far that is not working. I heard and heard that he was going to win Iowa and yet that did not materialize so we move the goal posts once again. I mean if those entrance numbers in IA don't represent struggling I don't know what does.

    Parent
    Yeah, just dumb (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:08:18 PM EST
    I read someplace that it is a quote from one of her books or speeches, and I can see it being fine in another context. But not this one.

    Parent
    The unity question (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:35:45 PM EST
    The mutual support question has been a long time issue for women at multiple levels, Howdy.  It is difficult; it has been very real; it particularly exists in younger age groups where some of the struggles of the past are foreign to those who have not yet faced the ceilings.  Not to complain, but just to say.

    Older friends of mine who are Black have noted the age division too with regard to sons/daughters who have benefited from the earlier struggles of their parents, grandparents.  It is so important to see that progress, as my friends note; but, there are the underbelly issues alluded to here.  

    Perhaps, those same matters are seen in the LGBTQ communities.  If so, perhaps we can understand the challenges faced.

    Request: Please consider and look into what Steinem and Albright have said ... and the important "why."  There are many legitimate reasons for their statements ... and, while the divide & conquer tactics & reality long challenging the advancement of women to all positions in our country are lessening, they are still an unfortunate reality. "Divide & Conquer" has always been a powerful opponent.  (Yes, I am an unabashed feminist.)

    Parent

    One can be an unabashed feminist (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:48:22 PM EST
    --as I am-- and still think the comments were insulting and politically stupid.

    Parent
    Albright didn't seem to have much concern (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:01:33 PM EST
    for women when she officiously wrote off and washed her hands of the suffering of Iraqi women and children under the sanctions regime..


    Parent
    In that regard, we all have unclean hands (none / 0) (#89)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:32:53 PM EST
    If not only Iraq, then throughout the world.  Mother Theresa is considered to be a saint by many.  Most politicians, unfortunately, are not.

    I do appreciate your comment, jondee. Yet, that comment begs the question ... or, at least, avoids the immediate matter and changes the subject.  (But, sometimes, we all need to do that.)

    Parent

    Well ... to each her own (3.50 / 2) (#74)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:56:49 PM EST
    Some of us older types have lived through the division we are getting glimpses of today.  

    Life experiences differ.  This aspect hit home to me and some of my contemporaries who live to tell the same tale.  As a matter of fact, I happened to read Gloria Steinem's reported remark before we left for dinner ... and I called out to my husband to say "Take a look ... see, my reaction of the classic divide is not nuts ... see what Steinem says" (etc.)  I really don't want to complain about this reality; but, it does have a deja vu quality to it.  An age divide? Probably.

    It is just a core personal matter to me.

    Parent

    That older type meme (none / 0) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:07:39 PM EST
    IMO is not going to be any more successful in getting women to vote for HRC than insulting young women (and yes, Steinem's comment was an insult).

    The majority of the women who comment here have lived through the same period of time as you and have faced as many or possibily more gender related problems as you have but not all think that automatically pulling the lever for the "f" should be the deciding factor in casting your vote.

    Parent

    The age group divide (none / 0) (#107)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:24:16 PM EST
    in toto and in gender is a finding of the many polls to date.  Fivethirtyeight.com (w/Nate Silver and Harry Enten and Claire Malone) offers various comments from time to time.

    Parent
    Yes a large majority of older women, (none / 0) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:23:20 AM EST
    especially in the 65+ age group support HRC in the Dem primaries.

    But I would think her objective would be to increase her share of votes from women in all age groups. She will definitely need them come November.

    The old adage of you can catch more bees with honey than with vinegar could be applied here.

    In looking at various Dem blogs, I haven't read any woman saying that they will change their votes to HRC because of Albright or Steinem's comments but I have read many who were offended or insulted by the comments.

    Parent

    Well, golly, then I guess there are an (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:50:21 PM EST
    awful lot of women headed for that "special place in hell" for not supporting Carly Fiorina, huh?

    Part of being a fully actualized human being who happens to be female means that I take no back seat to any man - or any other woman - when it comes to believing in my ability and capability to make the decisions that I believe are right for me.

    When I hear Madeleine Albright declare that there is a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, she's saying she has so little respect for my autonomy as a woman and as a person that she would consign me to hell if I decided not to support Clinton in the primary.  

    I hope Clinton was cringing on the inside, but I am here to tell you that her seemingly delighted guffaw at Albright's "honesty" will turn off a lot of women - and not just the younger ones.

    Parent

    If they were looking for or tending to (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:59:25 PM EST
    be turned off, Anne, I'm sure they will be :)

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:28:45 AM EST
    that's pretty much the way it seems.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:51:49 AM EST
    If that's all it takes for someone to change their vote, then they weren't really with you begin with.

    Parent
    I just think (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:20:05 AM EST
    the whole thing is kind of stupid. millennial women in IA didn't vote for Hillary but Bernie lost in almost every other category according to entrance polls. IMO it's a repeat of bros before hos and the young women that didn't stand up for themselves against that. But if they're willing to allow people to treat them that way there's nothing anybody can say.

    Parent
    "Bros before hos" (none / 0) (#197)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    You're just reinforcing the point about older women insulting young women with this comment, IMO.

    Parent
    Do you not re.ember 2008? (none / 0) (#198)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    Those were the Bernie Bros of the day. It was big Obama supporter meme.  I even worked with a guy who wore a t-shirt to work on Saturdays. It was real.

    It has nothing to do with "older women vs. younger women".

    Parent

    I barely remember it (none / 0) (#204)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    I'm not holding on to grudges from the 2008 campaign.

    Parent
    Unity with women (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:59:04 PM EST
    because they are women. Unity with Blacks because they are black.

    Really bad premise IMO.

    Women supporting the woman in 2008 would have gotten us a V.P. named Sarah Palin. Women supporting the woman in 2012 would have gotten us a president named Michele Bachmann. Blacks supporting black men would give Carson an increased chance of becoming president this year.

    Parent

    A good point as far as it goes ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:02:46 PM EST
    But, one may also recall that unity is a central aspect of modern Civil Rights movements.  The group & the individual ... always an American dilemma.  (And, I might add, a very personal dilemma as to approach.)

    Parent
    Unity in movements that you support (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:27:11 PM EST
    can and do bring about change either for good or ill.

    Unity for the sake of unity, when you oppose the policies that would be the basis for the unified group is self defeating. Once again unity in 2008 or in 2012 would have resulted in bat Sh!t crazy women being a V.P. or president.

    It is not to HRC's benefit to have her surgates threaten or insult young women that she will need if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

    Parent

    If Hillary Clinton were (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:05:34 PM EST
    Sarah Palin, your point would be well-taken.  Yet, even in the heat of political battle, we both know that HRC is a good Democrat ... not your kind of preferred Democrat ... but, a good Democrat who represents many good Democrats.  For that reason, we are not talking about an outlier.

    Sooner or later, civil rights movements succeed by sticking together ... the individuals therein rarely agree on everything, but they support each other eventually in whatever way they can.  The obvious exception, of course, is the Pallinesque version of Uncle Tom or Aunt Jenny.

    Again, MO Blue, I want to say that I respect your arguments and position in this matter.  That I disagree with your specific political choices does not mean--in any way--that I bear any bad feelings.  In my book, you always fight hard and you are as true blue to your position as they come.

    Parent

    We are talking about (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:32:58 PM EST
    There is a special place in hell for women who don't support other women. (no qualifiers)

    We are talking about casting your vote for a candidate because she is a woman and condemning women who chose not to do so. We are talking about presenting the choice (but only if the candidate is a Democrat) as a Civil Rights issue.

    We are talking about HRC surgates insulting young women and labeling them as nothing more than boy crazy, brainless idiots because they have chosen not to support HRC.

     We are talking about turning off a segment of voters that HRC will need to win in November if she becomes the nominee.

    So far HRC has failed to make the case that her presidency is a Civil Rights issue or an issue which all women should unite behind. Personally, I don't think that insults and condemnations by HRC's surgates will achieve that objective. In fact, I think those actions will drive women not currently supporting her away. YMMV

    Parent

    Supporting other women is essential (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:57:28 AM EST
    It was bad politics to say it in the context of voting for a candidate.  And more than a little weird because I think the main onus is on older women, those in a position of power, to support other women.  It is essential to progress that women not pull up the ladder behind them.  Women who are in positions of power (particularly in the workplace) should be helping to advance the prospects of young women because the playing field is still far from even.

    At the same time, I am tired of hearing from the young women that I know about how they don't care at all about having a woman President and I'm tired of hearing them denigrate Clinton's accomplishments.  Young women would do well to read a little history and make more of an effort to understand what the world was like for women just 30 or 40 years ago.  It would be a huge deal to have a woman as President in the same way that it was a huge deal to elect President Obama.  Being female is not the only determining factor -- I would never have voted for a ticket with Sarah Palin on it.  But it's a factor to be weighed.  And when young women declare to me that they don't care about electing a woman President, I ask them whether they think it's important that we have women on the Supreme Court.  They always say that it is.

    Parent

    That's because women are too diverse (2.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:12:54 AM EST
    You can divide women.

    You can't divide African Americans.

    this is why women will still be, and maybe forever be, not in my words, but in John Lennon's words, "woman is ni**er of the world."

    i really think this is why Albright said something emotional and unproductive.

    she doesn't understand why women can't unite the way other oppressed people united.

    Parent

    You can't divide African-Americans? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:32:16 AM EST
    That would probably be news to the AA community.

    I think Albright said what she did because she supports Clinton and wants everyone to support her; she had already said a lot of good things, good reasons to support her.  This was sort of the ad-libbed portion of the appearance, and as sometimes happens when people go off-script, it was better left unsaid.

    Albright's comment doesn't bring women together, it pits them against each other and diminishes their autonomy.

    Parent

    I didn't say it (1.50 / 2) (#181)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:21:08 AM EST
    John Lennon was the one who said women are the ni*er of the world but what you don't have among women is a Cornell West shaming some women for being ni*arized although I do admit Abright came pretty close yesterday.

    Parent
    One add-on, MO Blue (none / 0) (#113)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:38:51 PM EST
    The Albright comments would be interesting to hear. Audio can be very important in sardonic march on type humor.  Also: The audience may not be what you suspect.

    Parent
    I listened to her comment (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:04:31 AM EST
    It really didn't get any better IMO with full audio.

    Humor, if that is what it was meant to be, is often used in an attempt to mask offensive statements. Can't you take a joke? Har har har

    Parent

    I posted a video clip, above; (none / 0) (#115)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:41:33 PM EST
    or you can find one online if you prefer to find it yourself.

    It's not just about hearing what she said, it's about seeing Clinton's reaction to it.

    Parent

    christinep, (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by NYShooter on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:10:51 AM EST
    if I may be so bold as to try and put into context what this dispute is about.

    I try to approach chatting on these kinds of sites the same way I do/did in my work: calmly, rationally, and logically. When the subject is Hillary Clinton, I don't think like a fan, or, supporter (which I am) but, as a trusted advisor. Obviously twisting, contorting, and bending things my "client" says or does in the best possible light even when he/she screws up isn't really being helpful to them, now is it? You do that when you're talking to their adversaries. If you really want to help your client you tell them they messed up when they truly did mess up. Obviously, you don't want them continuing to do/say damaging things.

    Albright said a politically dumb thing. Hillary should have just done a polite, minimal smile, and moved on as quickly as possible. We're not talking about the long term feminist movement issue here, in this venue. What's appropriate in one context may not be in another. We're saying that for Hillary's own political benefit, and that's the real context here, the comment, and Hillary's hearty response was inappropriate.

    And, just one more thing. Your little imbroglio here tonight is somewhat similar to the situation at the end of the Iowa caucus. I stated that it wasn't very smart for Hillary, and her team, to have behaved the way they did that night. And, I don't have to tell you, I got pretty well cremated for saying that. "A win is a win, is a win, is a WIN, Period!" Like I didn't know it was a win? That was one of the most bizarre episodes I can remember. However, the rest of the world saw it as a win, by two tenths of one point, which was truly shocking, based on the polling & expectations, and the way Sander's people were shut out when there were legitimate questions at the end was politically short sighted, and, I believe, damaging. The reporting afterwards vindicated my analysis pretty much.

    I think being honest about the candidate is far more valuable than shouting, "we won, we won, we won," when we're already part of choir.    

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#126)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:13:54 AM EST
    she won.

    it is what it is.

    Parent

    Now, don't hold back ....:) (none / 0) (#180)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:20:47 AM EST
    Let's wait for this whole primary election cycle to play out.  

    BTW, when it counts in politics, it is the overall strategy.  There are strategies even in Albright's & Steinem's comments ... for one thing it is important to know that both have been voicing these sentiments for years ... they are primarily used as an internal reminder & rallying technique for the converted, as it were ... that in itself is important for energy, active support, growing the campaign down-the-road.  

    At this point, NYS, a single gathering such as that is meant to reinforce & recharge  the "certains-near certains-people who already have an identification with the overall issue" to get out the vote in the snow in the voter-rich southern NH.  As for the youth, that outreach is via other youth, step-by-step in this process as we get closer to the general election cycle.  The NH stage is not about winning NH ... that was never going to happen in this case nor any primary since a New Englander as opponent averages a win by 15 points.  As I understand it, the HRC campaign would be smiling very broadly to come out of NH with a better-than-expected showing ... you know, the expectation-game that the media directs in the early stages.

    An aside: Remember that both Albright & Steinem are highly respected and admired by a couple generations of women ... many women, such as myself, absorb the comments with the touch of humor that these women trail-blazers are known to have ....

    Relax.  Politics is not for the thin-skinned.  That is why there is both passion and the strategy built for it.

    Parent

    The moral I think is (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:25:22 PM EST
    that they're people with all their own idiosyncracies and hopes and dreams and ideals before they're some homogenous, uniform mass called "women".


    Parent
    but i wonder (none / 0) (#122)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:52:00 AM EST
    if men dont benefit from women having their idiosyncracies and hopes and dreams and ideals before they're some homogenous, uniform mass called "women".  men might benefit from that?

    what would have happened in the civil rights movement if African Americans had their own idiosyncracies and hopes and dreams and ideals before they're some homogenous, uniform mass called "African Americans"?  hmmmm.

    was that offensive? well think about how your comment might have been offensive to people trying to break the glass ceiling of the presidency.


    Parent

    IMO a woman selling a grass roots (none / 0) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:33:19 AM EST
    campaign, with a history of taking on the big guys, could unite the majority of women of all age groups behind her. Hopefully, that will happen some time in the near future.

    Parent
    I hope so (none / 0) (#134)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:42:37 AM EST
    But many women are 'big guys' , or we have not come very far.

    Parent
    If my comment was not clear, (none / 0) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:16:57 AM EST
    the big guys I was talking about Wall St.,Pharma and other corporate entities.


    Parent
    I think uniting a majority of women on anything (none / 0) (#160)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:34:13 AM EST
    is going to be very hard. The diversity is great, as as been pointed out. The groups you mention as big guys employ many women, and their husbands.  I can't think of any issue other than reproductive freedom likely to unite a majority of women unless it is defined very narrowly as 51%.

    That is just to go to the point that yes, Albright's statement was boneheaded on may levels.

    IMO the only way 'hell' should be used in this campaign is preceded by the word 'living' and followed by  "of a USA with 4 more GOP appointed Supreme Court justices. "

    Parent

    I like the use of SCt as qualifier reason (none / 0) (#184)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    Great idea.

    Parent
    So dumb (none / 0) (#91)
    by lilburro on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:37:23 PM EST
    amazing how Clinton's campaigns have the ability to shoot themselves in the foot. They need to work on their messaging...but not like that

    Parent
    Speaking of shooting themselves in the foot (none / 0) (#162)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:48:06 AM EST
    Sanders is now being called out by veterans for using their pictures in campaign fliers.

    Parent
    Hmmm. Campaign practices/habits (none / 0) (#185)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:36:11 AM EST
    The drip, drip, drip of various staff excesses....

    Parent
    I Don't Agree With That Statement (none / 0) (#121)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:46:31 AM EST
    But first of all Mr Natural presented that quote completely incorrectly and probably dishonestly (Albright was advocating for ALL women even if some women disagree, that's fine, but that was Albright's intent) but no one called it a trolling comment... hmmmm.

    but i will say this just in a general sense, if Clinton becomes president, I do think that is a WIN for all women, even young women.

    If Bernie defeats her, I think that is a defeat for women, even young women...

    ok here's the thing i think is funny...

    i don't agree with that statement as it was expressed by Albright, that means i would not have expressed what she was trying to say that way...

    ok... But at least that statement is not passive aggressive insinuation and innuendo.  Albright had something to say and she said it.

    Parent

    I presented the Guardian's headline. (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 05:44:23 AM EST
    I placed the quotation marks precisely at the boundaries of Albright's words, to show where they ended and the Guardian's interpretation began.

    Please leave your crude innuendo outside.


    Parent

    yes, but then you added your own extra words (none / 0) (#165)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:00:16 AM EST
    after the quote to make your point. Are you going to say that was not intentional?  


    Parent
    I didn't add "extra words" Ruffian (none / 0) (#177)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:14:37 AM EST
    Since you were evidently too busy to follow my link to the Guardian headline, here it is:

    Albright: 'special place in hell' for women who don't support Clinton

    It wasn't "my point;" it was everybody's point.

    Parent

    So the guardian was being (none / 0) (#182)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    Incorrect and dishonest too it happens.

    Parent
    Is Cruz constitutionally eligible to be President? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:54:36 PM EST
    Two leading liberal constitutional scholars (Laurence Tribe of Harvard, and Jack Balkin of Yale) debate the point before a roomful of conservative Harvard Law students. If you have half an hour to devote to some high-level discussion of a fascinating, difficult question about what an arcane phrase in Article II of the Constitution means ("natural born citizen"), and how serious people go about addressing such questions, all the while having fun doing so, this is the place for you.

    Two More Gone (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:58:35 PM EST
    In the last few days two more prominent musicians died, and I had a connection to each of them.

    Maurice White was a founding member of Earth, Wind and Fire.  My longtime associate Bill Champlin, the front man for the band I roadied for, the Sons of Champlin, received one of his two Grammys for writing the EW&F hit, "After the Love is Gone."

    I met Dan Hicks when I was 19, and he was a featured performer at a folksinging camp I attended in 1965.  The next year he turned up as a member of The Charlatans, the first SF hippie band, but far from the last.

    When I moved pianos, I moved Dan's piano for him several times.  Very nice, gracious guy.

    oh damn, repack (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:15:46 PM EST
    now it's hitting home.

    Dan Hicks was a long time favorite.  "And little Betty Lou, Had a date, but didn't wanna..."  Where's the Money?

    The only thing you won't pick up, is a ringing telephone, ... has set my mind to wondering, is this my happy home.

    They were introduced to me by a girl (a Californian! (a woman)) I met in Mexico City at the tender age of 16.  

    Geez.  This sucks.

    Parent

    Hicks' wife (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:04:54 PM EST
    "My darling darling husband left this earth early this morning.  He was true blue, one of a kind, and did it all his own way always.  To all who loved him, know that he will live forever in the words, songs, and art that he spent his life creating. He worked so hard on each and every detail -- they are all pure Dan.

    - KQED

    A little Canned Music to play him offstage.

    Parent

    Just another Youtubey Sunrise... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:36:02 PM EST
    Dan Hicks: I Scare Myself

    I'm an Old Cowhand

    I know all the songs that the cowboys know,
    'bout the big corral where the doggies go,
    Cause I heard them all on the radio
    Yippee Yi Yo Kiyaa...

    This was the first music I could share with my friends.  I've always been behind the curve.  But when I came home from that interlude, for the first time in my life, I'd found something I could show my friends, something they hadn't heard first.

    Parent

    In reading of your losses ... (none / 0) (#186)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:41:51 AM EST
    the hurt rings clear in your words.  The sadness and smiles of memory...so stark.  Be well, Rider.

    Parent
    The ABC voiceover (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:05:57 PM EST
    Announcer sounds exactly like the Firesign Theater announcer.

    I can't believe I just heard (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:30:56 PM EST
    A candidate say a woman should be legally forced to die in childbirth.

    I did hear that, right?

    I'm not watching the debate (none / 0) (#59)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:37:58 PM EST
    Who said that? (Maybe I shouldn't ask...was it Mr. Cruzify?)

    Parent
    Rubio (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:43:29 PM EST
    No exception for lifre of the mother.  Apparently it's his stated position for a while.

    Parent
    Jeezus. (none / 0) (#64)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:44:58 PM EST
    Still think he would be (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:47:45 PM EST
    A big scary threat to Hillary?  I've always thought he would be the easiest of all of them.   For that reason among many others.

    Parent
    Rubio's repeating his script tonight (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:33:19 PM EST
    sure does support your theory about him.

    I had forgotten what an air head I thought he was, and the reaching for the water bottle during is SOU response.

    Parent

    I don't know if he would (none / 0) (#71)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:52:25 PM EST
    I don't recall ever saying I thought he would be (did I?), I just think he's candidate #1 for the GOP establishment. Personally, I think Kasich would be tougher for her to face in the general (not that he's got much of a chance).

    Parent
    No sorry (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:55:37 PM EST
    Just meant that is conventional wisdom.  See Trevor.   He is the font of conventional wisdom.

    Parent
    All the dumb sh!t pundits (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:56:52 PM EST
    Are now regurgitating this Marco krap.

    Parent
    As I told Trevor in the last thread, ... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:20:34 AM EST
    ... Marco Rubio is all meringue and no filling. And as though on cue, he marched right out there on that debate stage and proved it.

    Parent
    The "women's issue" is very real, Howdy (none / 0) (#62)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:43:40 PM EST
    Christie had (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:20:30 PM EST
    a good night, feisty but not bullying, as is his custom.  His background as a prosecutor showed in his take down of Rubio.  Kasich, too, did well.  As he said, conservative but also positive. So, apparently, they are not mutually exclusive after all,  At least for him.

     Jeb was better because he was not attacked very much by Trump or others.  Cruz was so disingenuous in everything--targeted carpet bombing? Maybe Mohawk carpeting and also use it for enhanced interrogation. I was waiting for him to say he would select Liz Cheney as a running mate--Cruz/Cheney 2016...Youthful torture is us.

    Trump just presided over the gang, sort of out-classed by even the worst of them, but it does not matter, he will be thought to have done just fine.  Carson was really hot under the collar of his freshly laundered shirt.  Cruz had better hope that Carson is asking his friend, God, to keep that knife sheathed. Maybe saving it for Benghazi.

     And speaking of the worst of them, Rubio clearly did not stay hydrated, although the camera did catch him taking a swig of bottled water.  The cameras did try to help him out with a shot of his family in the audience, but all I could think of is what if his wife or daughter was raped,..would his commitment to "life" hold.

    Hillary as the ogre was accompanied on several occasions by Bernie.  Rubio is looking forward to a debate with Hillary, but mostly Obama.

    Saw a description of Rubio tonight (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Coral Gables on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:37:34 PM EST
    as having the worst debate performance since James Stockdale.

    Headline in New York Magazine (none / 0) (#100)
    by Coral Gables on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:56:11 PM EST
    Rubio Implodes in New Hampshire Debate By Acting Like a Broken Robot


    Parent
    Christie taking down (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Coral Gables on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:02:01 PM EST
    Exactly, (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:15:29 PM EST
    You wouldn't think a politician would be caught so flat footed, and, paralyzed by stage fright but we saw it happening tonight. When they're doing their pre-debate rehearsals, I know they can't think of every possible scenario that might come up, but, it's surprising they didn't give him a response for when he's hit with a question that really stuns him. I mean, how many times have we seen a politician asked a question like, "how will you stop illegal immigration," and the Pol will answer how he'll balance the budget by getting rid of waste & fraud. And, rarely will a "journalist call him on it."

    Any inexperienced, non-politician whose done any public speaking can empathize with how he must have felt. Talk about, "deer in the headlights!"

    Parent

    This just in (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:15:09 AM EST

    So Sen. Marco Rubio is spending $300,000 for an ad tonight on Ch. 4 during the Super Bowl?

    Seems high, but that's the number on the FEC report for his super PAC, Conservative Solutions. He's come a long way, this son of a bartender, and don't you dare confuse him with John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, who is the son of a mailman.

    Marco is the RINO flavor of the week. If you thought the mainstream media were swooning over him before Iowa, that was nothing compared to the run up to last night's pre-New Hampshire primary debate in Manchester.

    This is the worst outbreak of journalistic b*mkissing since the AFC championship game two weeks ago, when there was absolutely no way the Patriots weren't going to stomp the Broncos by two, maybe three, make that four touchdowns and then - oh, er, never mind.

    Brady's gone, long live Marco. Yesterday the New York Post warned Democrats to beware: "Rubio is your worst nightmare." The Wall Street Journal reported that he's in a "New Hampshire crucible," but fear not, St. Marco's "anger tempered by optimism" will prevail.

    Link

    Parent

    I went to a George McGovern rally (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:26:06 PM EST
    He was pure--just like Bernie.  A genuine WWII war hero who had received the Distinguished Flying Cross.  He had the youth vote, as it was called, because he was anti-war (just as Bernie was when he opposed the Iraq War)  he had the youth who did not want to get drafted.

    McGovern supporters were all about overcoming the systemic corruption of the Democratic Party in 1968 and Mayor Daley controlling the convention and the streets. And those from 1968 who supported Eugene McCarthy were not be denied.  No more special interest corruption.  The liberals wanted to have their candidate, and the establishment be damned.  After all, what did the Democratic Establishment do except get us mired in Vietnam?

    I know how excited the Bernie supporters are.  Past experience, which you may or may not have had, does influence me.  Bernie looks just like George McGovern to me, and I loved McGov.  

    So, experience has its merits, even if that concept is expressed to you in a way that you find offensive.

       

    Likewise, I went to McGovern rallys (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:31:40 PM EST
    Even shook his hand. As a twentysomething, I was honored to vote for him.  The tears fell hard as the Repubs turned him upside-down; they fell again that night that Nixon walloped him electorally.  

    Parent
    I noticed (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:01:25 AM EST
    that McGovern's wife, Eleanor, was only 5'2" and he was so much taller and towered over her.  The girl I was crazy in love with back then was also 5'2", and I  thought that if the difference in height between McGovern and Eleanor was no big deal, it would work for me too.  5'2" and eyes of blue.

    Strange sometimes the thoughts of one's youth.

    Parent

    'Love it (none / 0) (#171)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:35:05 AM EST
    Strange & wonderful...really...our growing years.

    Parent
    The big issue (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:19:40 AM EST
    was the war during the McGovern run.

    Period. (In my opinion.)

    McGovern was a terrible candidate, in my opinion.
    Then, there was the debacle over his choice of running mate. Eagleton wasn't it? Then it wasn't.

    After saying he "backed Eagleton 100%", McGovern dropped him from the ticket.

    Not a great presentation for the American people.

    I also thought that his delivery was, compared to Sanders, comatose.

    I did not love him.

    I found him to be deeply disappointing.

    To me, there is no comparison between the two - McGovern and Sanders.

    It reads as yet another attempt to make us feel that someone going out there to directly confront the inequities - economic and political - in our society is condemned to lose.

    It is another way to tell us that we are wrong, even selfish, to support a candidate that actually might represent us.

    It's the "he can't win" mantra that has been floated by "liberals" since the beginning of his entry into the campaign, and gets more fierce as it appears that he could, in fact, win. Not only the nomination, but the general.

    I can only express a subjective opinion:
    I think Sanders would defeat any of the republicans. Handily. Because he knows how to speak directly to people. It is not just his issues, it is his passion. He is the opposite of the arrogant bloated imbeciles that the Republicans are presenting to us.

    Clinton, I submit, would have a much harder time, imo, because she is to a much greater extent, mired in the same mindset of the "opposition".

    As Elizabeth Warren said recently, Clinton not only takes a lot of money from Goldman Sachs and the like, she considers them a "constituency".

    Not good, imo.

    If I am going to search history for an analogy, I would think of the Humphrey campaign. He was the Establishment candidate on the wrong side of a genuine upsurge of popular support for a disengagement from our war of choice at that time: Vietnam.

    Finally, becoming "his own man" - the happy warrior - whose doomed establishment candidacy gave us Richard Bloody Nixon.

    Parent

    The U.S. has never elected (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:55:33 AM EST
    a candidate of the unabashed Left.

    Another analogy would be Williams Jennings Bryan.  With his Cross of Gold speech he was the anti bank, anti Wall Street candidate of his day.  He was the original Progressive/Populist candidate and he focused almost exclusively on the rigged financial system of his day.

    McGovern is a very good analogy.  The Liberals got their dream candidate.  He was anti war period as you say.   But that is like Bernie being anti-Wall Street period.   McGovern also was liberal (the word "progressive" being somewhat of an affect, I think) and offered a plan of governmental payments of $1,000 to everyone.

    You have no historical precedent that supports what Bernie is trying to do, and plenty in the opposite direction.  I suppose Bernie could make history and get elected.  And then the disillusionment would set in.  He cannot abolish greed. He cannot abolish the power of money.  No matter how many rallys he does.  He would accomplish nothing really.   And have one term written all over him.  But maybe his election would be enough for Progressives, who eschew the label Liberal for some reason.

    Bernie would have to compromise if elected.  He would end up doing the things that would ruin his pristine image and his support.  None of the economic things he suggests would happen.  But he would be a mess on foreign policy. Not invading other countries is great, but it is not a foreign policy.  I think he would actually do little at all.  He would in the end discredit Progressive ideas because of his inability to do anything.  He would look weak.

    But in the end, you may get your wish and have Bernie as the nominee.  And Liberals will again have to re-learn the same hard lesson.

    Parent

    Do you really think HRC will be able to (none / 0) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:14:23 AM EST
    do any of the positive things that she proposes?

    Giving people a $5,000 tax credit to help offset their high deductibles might be helpful.  Do you believe she can get that through the Republican House?

    On foreign policy, do you think that she could set up a no fly zone over Syria? Do you think that is a good idea? Do you think more U.S. Military involvement in the M.E. and elsewhere represents a good foreign policy?

    Parent

    I think Hillary is far more likely (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    to make incremental progress.  She did get SCHIP after all.

    Another thing about Bernie, he is too far left on foreign policy.   The current consensus that invading Iraq was a mistake does not mean the country is anti-war across the board.  Another San Bernardino type attack would make that all too clear.

    Bernie is reflexively anti-war.  God bless him.  But that is his template--always against the use of military force.  He was against the First Gulf War.  That was a mistake by him.  Kuwait was physically invaded.  

    When you say Bernie has an inspiring speaking style, I don't see it.  He is monotone loud and angry.  But many people are clearly emotionally invested in his candidacy.

    Bernie is too far left because no only is he left on economic issues but also left on foreign policy issues.   We have never had someone like that elected.  FDR was not "left" on foreign policy --back then liberals were more hawkish than many of the Republican Isolationists.  JFK was a Cold War Warrior.   Bill said there was no daylight between his foreign policy stance and Bush, Sr.'s, and he heavily bombed Kosovo.

    Bernie looks pretty close to being pacifist.   When combined with being socialist, it just will not fly in a General Election.  

    Bernie polls well (now) against the GOP because the GOP has yet to attack him.  On the other hand, Hillary is getting attacked as dishonest by BOTH the GOP and the Sanders people.    

    Parent

    He polls well (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:51:43 AM EST
    Because most people giving him positive marks have no freaking idea who he even is and probably could not tell who their senators are.   They are saying not Hillary.  

    And far from not attacking him the right has been running ads for him because they are salivating at the idea of running against him.    IMO they are smart enough to know that won't happen but the more they prop him up the more damage he can do to Hillary.

    IMO he has no interest in foreign policy.  It's completely clear in his responses to questions about it.  I thought his foreign policy answers in the last debate were downright frightening in their total cluelessness.

    While it's a nice idea to have a president who is totally focused on domestic issues the fact is presidents have limited control over domestic issues.  Except for the ACA Obamas influence has been mostly with executive orders.   The first and primary job of the president is Commander in Chief.  I honestly can not imagine giving that job to Bernie Sanders.  

    Parent

    The bottom line (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:10:13 AM EST
    is Bernie will be portrayed, and not entirely unfairly, as a  Socialist and a Pacifist. It would be brutal.  

    And, Cap'n, I think you are right, he has no interest in foreign policy whatsoever.  He is an "accidental" Pacifist on top of it all.

    Obama was able to hit the sweet spot in his 2008 campaign on the use of military force.  He was not against all wars, but just dumb wars.
    During the debates with McCain, he said he would "kill Bin Laden and crush Al Qaeda."  He said it with such conviction, it made me sit bolt upright in my chair. That made me think he was more JFK than Adlai or Carter.  Obama had the appearance of squaring the circle on Democrats being weak on national defense.  And he got Bin Laden.  I don't see Bernie doing that.

    In fact, I don't see Bernie having the foggiest idea what to do about terrorism, or even believing that it exists.  

    Parent

    Just saw Bernie in Face The Nation (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:13:34 AM EST
    When asked to respond to the criticism that he is not ready on foreign policy, he responded that it was the same criticism of Obama, and he has conducted an admirable foreign policy...then in the next breath he said Clinton does not have good foreign policy judgement because of the Iraq vote. Who does he think was one of the architects of Obama's "admirable" foreign policy? He went on to say he will appoint good people...like Obama did?

    Just a mess, IMO.

    Parent

    He just told Jake Tapper (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    "I do not have a SuperPAC.  I don't want a SuperPAC.  I don't want their money."

    Better tell that to National Nurses United...

    Parent

    Maybe h doesn't care if Dems win in the general (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:32:04 PM EST
    but its kind of important to some of us. I'll support renouncing SuperPAC money when the GOP does.  

    Parent
    You still did not answer my questions (none / 0) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:14:58 PM EST
    Giving people a $5,000 tax credit to help offset their high deductibles might be helpful.  Do you believe she can get that through the Republican House?

    On foreign policy, do you think that she could and should set up a no fly zone over Syria? Do you think that is a good idea? Do you think more U.S. Military involvement in the M.E. and elsewhere represents a good foreign policy?

    Parent

    Your question was not directed (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:19:17 PM EST
    at me, but here's my answer. No, I do not think either Clinton or Sanders will get much, if anything, through Congress in the first term unless, and this is so very unlikely, the GOP goes so totally off the rails that the voters give Democrats control of Congress.

    This means the president, Clinton or Sanders, will be wielding a very busy veto pen and ! Hopefully, making full and constant use of executive power.

    IMO, Clinton will be better at this than Sanders. She has years of executive branch experience that Sanders lacks. Additionally, thanks to her years as a senator, she knows how the levers of power work in the legislative branch.

    She thrives on the details of things. She drills down deeply into everything. To me, it is clear that Sanders is not a natural, well, wonk, like Clinton. His lack of knowledge in foreign policy is proof of that.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:30:55 PM EST
    On a tax credit, it may be possible because the GOP likes tax credits.  Depends on what she can negotiate.

    On the Middle East, I am not sure about a No FLY Zone.  It may not be needed, as some gains have been made without it, and ISIS has at least been stopped.  I think the ME is very complicated and we need to stay engaged, not retreat completely.  Hillary has the best chance of anyone in navigating such perilous waters. j

    Bernie's interviews this morning were even worse than stated above. When asked who his foreign policy advisors were, he stumbled badly.  He may have talked to somebody once a long time ago, but basically, he has no such advisors.

    Bernie is far worse on foreign policy than previously thought.

    Parent

    She was Sec of State (none / 0) (#201)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:23:07 PM EST
    So, of course she's well versed in foreign policy. But what kind of foreign policy? And who does she consider to be good counsel on foreign policy? Her friend, that infamous war criminal, Henry Kissinger? No thanks!

    It's not enough to say she has more experience in foreign policy. So do Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and a whole bunch of neocons I wouldn't want anywhere near a Democratic administration.

    I'm not pretending Sanders has gobs of foreign policy experience or that it's at the top of his list of priorities. Obama, like Sanders, had little experience in foreign policy--in fact, much less, simply by virtue of the fact that he only served in the Senate for four years before running for president. What's important is the policy positions they espouse, and yes, who is going to be on that team? Because if Clinton wants to keep using Kissinger as her counsel--and she bragged in the debate the other night about having his endorsement--then that's a huge problem.

    Parent

    Since you like to ask questions (none / 0) (#202)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    And keep demanding answers, how about you answer some?

    1) How is Bernie going to pass single oayer, especially since he hasn't been able to do it as a member of Congress?  Who will introduce such legislation?  How will such legislation address the economic impacts of completely eliminating the insurance industry?

    2) Since he is proposing tax increases to pay for "free college for all", what additional taxes do you think he can get passed to pay to educate people like Bill Gates' and Donald Trump's children?  "Tax the rich" is not an acceptable answer.

    3) Since Senator Sanders co-sponsored and ushered legislation that allowed for levels of nuclear waste to be dumped in Sierra Blanca, TX, and because his response to the Flint Water crisis is to call for the governor's resignation, how can you be confident where he stands on environmental issues?

    4) Any in-depth foreign policy question.


    Parent

    MO Blue (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:52:28 PM EST
    You still can't answer the questions.  That's ok - we know the answers. Why you want to support Bernie though, knowing that not only will he get none of his plan through, it will actually make Republicans even more entrenched and any semblance of what he wants will never be spoken of again.  And then, we'll have lots of surprised and disappointed supporters - many of whom don't seem to actually understand that this was all predictable.

    Here's something - she actually HAS worked with Republicans to get something done, so there's that.

    But yeah, it would be really nice if Sanders supporters could actually explain what will happen after "the revolution!"

    If Albright Had Said This to get Palin... (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 11:47:19 AM EST
    ...or Fiorina elected, you can bet the bank that a lot of people would understand the problem they aren't understanding.
    Just remember, there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other.


    Let me suggest--with all due respect-- (3.50 / 2) (#94)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:41:31 PM EST
    shoephone: Empathy of other women' reality in their experiences is a good quality.  I recognize that in the significant contributions of Ms. Steinem and Ms. Albright ... they are courageous women who have blazed a trail for other women ... I respect them and their opinions mightily.  And, I find particularly offensive the rush by yourself to mock their personal observations.

    Maybe it is you, shoephone, that is the one who should get off your high-horse.  

    Try again (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:44:01 PM EST
    Because, so far, you are dead wrong.

    Parent
    An objective tidbit (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:55:07 PM EST
    Should you choose to check out age correlations with political attitudes & preferences, you might find interesting the analytical aspects evidenced by polls of what Steinem loosely refers to as the adherence of younger women to "the boys."  (BTW, that is not unexpected ... some might say that "it is ever thus.)

    Parent
    An objective tidbit (none / 0) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:38:54 AM EST
    It was still a stupid comment that will do nothing to garner HRC more votes from young women.

    Parent
    Maybe it won't bring them to HRC, but if it (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:04:08 AM EST
    makes them look a little harder at their own decision making process, it is worth it in the long run. Learning about yourself at an early age is invaluable for reasons personal and political.

    Parent
    The lesson Steinem is teaching is (none / 0) (#189)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:59:08 AM EST
    that young women are not thinking human beings but only females who are only interested in attracting males. Learning that the older generation of women are stereotyping them as unthinking people whose decisions are dictated by their hormones is not a lesson that I would like them to learn. In fact, I personally see little difference between Steinman's sterotyping and that of men who put down women on a regular basis.

    I am finding it hard to process the fact that HRC's women supporters are in one breath championing that women must always support other women and in the next breath not only defending Steinem's insulting statement that women are only supporting Sanders because that is where the boys are but agreeing with it.


    Parent

    I saw the Steinem interview live (none / 0) (#170)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:23:38 AM EST
    as it aired. My response when she said that was more along the lines of 'wow, she went there'.  I don't know if that phenomena is as strong as it used to be - maybe it isn't and she is just outdated. But it sure was a factor when I was young, and probably even more so when she was young.

    She was on the show because she is on a book tour, not as a Hillary surrogate. She was telling it like she sees it, as she always does, not trying to persuade people to vote for HRC. I didn't even think of it in campaign terms until I saw all the hubbub about it.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#178)
    by KeysDan on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:19:48 AM EST
    I saw the show live as well.  It did startle me as it did Bill Maher.  But, her context and perspective as an 81 year-old toiling for so long in the vineyards, provoked some thought.  Also, it was not evident that Ms. Steinem was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton from her assessment, rather, she was giving her explanation of the attraction of younger women to Senator Sanders. She seemed out-of-date to me, but she has made so many contributions, I just gave her some well-deserved slack. And, moved on to await the vapid comments of Bill's guest, PJ ORourke.

    Parent
    Addendum: I travelled to DC often (none / 0) (#97)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:48:49 PM EST
    My work station was not in DC, however.  

    Almost forgot: If you need to convince yourself that I am "desperate" for anything, then do so.  But, my words at TL are not about convincing anyone because most come here already convinced in their positions.  My words are an expression--usually--of my beliefs and positions in writing.  I find that worthwhile in itself.

    BTW, if my writing style doesn't suit you, that may be your issue... not mine.  Good luck to you in your political endeavors.

    Parent

    Still.Missing.The.Point (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:15:18 AM EST
    Steinem and Albright made unnecessary political errors, and Clinton is the one who is going to suffer for it. Think about that. Their accomplishments twenty, thirty, forty years ago are irrelevant to this presidential campaign if their efforts in the past two days only serve to further cement the problems Clinton has in drawing young women to her side.

    Older women scolding younger women never, ever works out well. It just comes off as bitchy and patronizing. It always backfires.

    I've been saying this for weeks: Clinton needs new messaging, new advisers and new surrogates. Otherwise it really is going to be deja vu all over again.

    As for luck in my political endeavors, thanks. I'm happy to report that a project I embarked on ten years ago is starting to pay off with action from the state legislature. The people of Washington may actually see millions of dollars freed up to fund much needed programs. We're about to see a lot more accountability and transparency from corporations. Citizen activism scores one for the team.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:02:55 AM EST
    As much as the candidate in 2008 himself suffered from his own words and actions (not even a surrogate): "sweetie", "I got 99 problems...."  "likeable enough., etc.

    Yep, young women and liberals really abandoned him after that.

    Parent

    It is only scolding and insulting (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:43:58 AM EST
    when it comes from an old woman.

    Parent
    How about the old woman (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    Who dismissed "vagina voters".

    Parent
    The press (none / 0) (#158)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:07:30 AM EST
    Gave BO numerous mulligans.
    Clinton, not so much.

    Parent
    Let me suggest, christine, that (none / 0) (#104)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:06:27 PM EST
    smart, accomplished women are as capable as anyone of saying and doing dumb things - and what smart, accomplished Madeleine Albright did, in that unscripted moment, was say something dumb.  Hillary Clinton, in finding Albright's comment to be guffaw-worthy, managed to put a stamp of approval on Albright's comment.

    It doesn't matter to me, and it's not going to matter to a lot of women, and some men, too, what Albright's accomplishments are, they're just going to have the same viscerally uncomfortable reaction.

    Somehow, "vote for her, or go to hell" doesn't seem like a winning slogan, and that's what Albright's comment boils down to.

    Parent

    it's true (none / 0) (#123)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:59:00 AM EST
    with Albright being a woman people will just have a visceral reaction to her comments and NEVER take into account her accomplishments.

    that's how it works.  it's called sexism.

    Parent

    This lastest (none / 0) (#142)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:40:58 AM EST
    maneoeuv, reminds me of the 2008 campaign.

    Clinton was doing very well with the "black" community. (I put "black" in quotes because I don't like to use those labels.)

    Then, at a point similar to this one, voices began to emerge that Black people should vote for Obama out of race pride. How much it would mean to have a black president. (Forget about his white mama. She didn't count.)

    So, you would have thought that we might have learned something from that experience.

    I think Hillary Clinton would have done much more at that time for all of us.

    But she faced folks like Chris Rock - speaking at an Obama rally at the Apollo theatre in Harlem - berating the audience and saying... "I know some of you are thinking about voting for that white lady..."

    Obama, in the wings, said nothing.

    And it worked.
    And what did that constituency get in return?

    Albright, who was sometimes referred to as "Halfbright", I remember her as a war-monger.
    That might be unfair. She said that she regretted some of her statements, but it seemed to me that she went out there trying to put a good face on our bombings of Muslim targets during the Clinton administration. In particular - Iraq - keeping that conflict burning - primed for the subsequent actions by the GW Bush administration.

    To me, the place in hell she spoke of during her latest foray into public life, is reserved for progressives who will not help progressives.

    Parent

    So why (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:00:08 AM EST
    Are most members of the Progressive Caucus in Congress endorsing her?  I guess they aren't "real" progressives, but only commenters here are the true progressives.

    This happened last night.

    I'm Al Franken, I'm a Senator from Minnesota, and I hold the seat that Paul Wellstone once held. And I can point to someone on this stage whom I wouldn't be senator from Minnesota [without], and that is Hillary Clinton. My first election was kind of close. I won by 312 votes. Hillary Clinton came twice for me, once in October and then I got a call from her the Sunday before the election, she said "I'm coming out." And we did a big rally in Duluth and got more than 312 votes at that rally, I gotta tell you. I'm a Paul Wellstone progressive. And let me tell you what that means: Paul said, "We all do better when we all do better." Now if I knew what a haiku was, I'd say that was a haiku. But evidently I'm told it isn't. But Paul knew that we all do better when we all do better.

    SNIP

    "Sen. Shaheen, my colleague, and I, like the only other [Senate] Democrats who have endorsed in this race, have endorsed Hillary Clinton for a reason," he said. "Because this is serious stuff. This is serious stuff. This is Sherrod Brown. This is Cory Booker. This is Tammy Baldwin. We are progressives. And we know what it takes to get things done."


    Parent
    And yet (none / 0) (#143)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:51:59 AM EST
    You were very dismissive of the very real "Bernie Bros" phenomenon.  You even posted an article by Glenn Greenwald - one he must have written while living in non-reality bizzaro world - that denies this as a real thing.

    And "vote for her, or go to hell" wasn't what she said, but you knew that, so I'm not sure why you put in quotes, except to serve a narrative.

    Parent

    And Sanders (none / 0) (#164)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:55:43 AM EST
    Had to condemn them again this morning.

    Much more likely to turn off voters than something Madeline Albright said.

    Parent

    shoshone's comment (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:51:48 PM EST
    was deleted for name calling and personal insults.

    Parent
    Mr Natural, it is just that your quotation policy (3.00 / 2) (#206)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:42:00 PM EST
    eludes me...you put the part in quotes that is actually Albright's words, but leave the words in, just not in quotes, that you know were not Albright's words, but was misquoted in the Guardian headline. Just to tell us what the Guardian is misquoting. Got it.

    I gone (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 06:28:14 PM EST
    watch debate tonight because I know how to watch for since the NYTimes and more told me what to watch for. I can just watch and see if they right in telling me good watching points.

    One thing I know for sure thanks to good help:

    Rubio is the top one to watch cuz he finish third in Iowa.

    It could well be (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 06:36:29 PM EST
    The longest three hours on Marcos life.  

    Parent
    It's three hours? Lordy. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:00:50 PM EST
    I have it set to record in case I have to stop for a sanity break.

    Wonder how Marco's going to deal with his cotton-mouth...when he gave his post-caucus speech, I thought he was going to eat his face, what with all the lip-licking.

    I expect Trump to be in full bully-mode with Jeb - I read somewhere that W used to bully his younger brother, Jeb, when they were kids, and that's why Jeb doesn't handle it well when Trump sticks it to him.

    I expect Cruz to be orders of magnitude more insufferable than ever; I can't wait to see if they ask him about the dirty tricks in Iowa.

    And if we drink every time Christie says, "former federal prosecutor" we'll all be on our asses by 9:00.

    Buckle up, folks!

    Parent

    Yep 3 hours (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:04:14 PM EST
    Maybe Jeb could have W come onstage and stand next to him to intimidate Donald.  Or better yet Barbara.

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:48:08 PM EST
    Shots all around

    Parent
    Lol (none / 0) (#5)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:07:22 PM EST
    I will read about it tomorrow. But you are right, they are going to hammer him left and right. Hope he has those tap dancing boots on.
    Bush Christie and Kasich have him lined up in their sights.
    Not exactly sure where Cruz and Trump will be throwing their bombs, I guess Marco will get some, but I still think they will toss the heavy artillery in each others direction.

    Parent
    Oh, (none / 0) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:34:17 AM EST
    Do you think he put taps on his boots. ;o)

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:12:23 PM EST
    Officially looking forward to the candidates just to get these insufferable pundits off the stage.

    I hope to god there is not an hour of this.

    That (none / 0) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:18:31 PM EST
    was weird


    Ben has fire in his eyes (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:24:36 PM EST
    I think it's fire.  

    Ha (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:25:42 PM EST
    I will not savage senator Cruz but allow me to savage senator Cruz.

    Parent
    I saw this before (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:33:32 PM EST
    Marco is trying to embrace the comparison with Obama.  I would say a risky strategy.

    Like I said (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:44:22 PM EST
    Risky

    Parent
    Christie is (none / 0) (#11)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:35:54 PM EST
    bashing Rubio, calling him on his canned talking points. Rubio just keeps circling back to them.

    Rubio gettling flayed alive (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:03:04 PM EST
    by Christie.

    Rubios's going back to his memorized speech after Christie accused him of using a memorized speech was just an act of beauty.

    Parent

    I guess the moderators (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:39:04 PM EST
    Didn't get the memo about Kasich being the flavor if the week

    I (none / 0) (#14)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:40:20 PM EST
    noticed that.


    Parent
    I bet he made that (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:42:52 PM EST
    Town hall joke up on the spot.  Don't you think?

    Parent
    He (none / 0) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:44:43 PM EST
    is the one guy I could have a beer with.

    Parent
    I was joking (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:45:47 PM EST
    That was so transparently rehearsed

    Parent
    of (none / 0) (#22)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:48:16 PM EST
    course but he still comes as the most human of them all.

    Parent
    Pretty low bar dude (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:49:33 PM EST
    lol. More to the point, he's the kind of guy (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:56:15 PM EST
    you could reunite Pink Floyd with.

    Parent
    Jeez (none / 0) (#15)
    by lentinel on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:42:21 PM EST
    A question posed suggesting - advocating - preemptive strikes against North Korea.

    What is happening to our country?

    Could I ask (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:47:31 PM EST
    What the hell is an American student doing in North Korea?  I'm assuming they were IN North Korea.

    I don't know if it's the case here, (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:09:11 PM EST
    but there are a bunch of starry eyed fools who travel there to plant bibles, because, of course, what's wrong with North Korea is an insufficiency of bibles.

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:10:34 PM EST
    Then why do we care?  Get why they care tho.

    Parent
    Is it my (none / 0) (#24)
    by lentinel on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:54:22 PM EST
    imagination... or they not asking anything to Trump?

    Rubio is really (none / 0) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:55:50 PM EST
    tap dancing around his gang of 8 bill.

    That answer (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 07:57:15 PM EST
    Made no sense

    Parent
    Actually, (none / 0) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    compared to his other answers I thought his immigration answer was pretty good.

    It's pretty interesting though how it looks like there's a conspiracy among them all...."tonight we take out Rubio." And, it's working pretty well.

    One by one, that's going to be the plan until they get to Trump.

    You saw how nuts he got when Megyn Kelly asked him about what he's called women. The closest thing tonight has been the eminent domain for a limo parking lot.

    Oh, and when he boasted how he's going to take the jobs back from China, Japan, etc., no one thought to ask him where his "Trump" brand shirts were being made? Answer: China, Mexico, and Brazil.

    And, after he, somehow, got through that answer, the next follow up should be: "Whatever happened to your shirts?" Answer: "Bankrupt."

    And, there's about 100 similar examples of his business prowess, and, his concern for the "little-guy.".

    Parent

    Trump (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:07:45 PM EST
    is a relief from the other people on that stage.

    What does that even say?

    Gotta say (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    I loved slapping the audience for being "a bunch of doners"

    Parent
    Really can't blame him for running (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:08:55 AM EST
    When he looked around and saw his choices of petiole to donate to this cycle. Who would want to put their hard-inherited wealth behind any of them?  

    Parent
    Christie (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    Is having a good night so far

    Christie is making (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:05:52 PM EST
    Rubio look like Dan Quayle....

    And Christie repeatedly nailed Rubio a la Lloyd Bentsen, "You're no Jack Kennedy."

    Rubio's debate debacle was one of the all time great implosions.....Especially because it was not a one time gaffe like Gerald Ford's, but an inability to leave his prepared speech.

    I think The Donald benefits most.

    Parent

    IMO Donald was going to be first anyway (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:08:41 PM EST
    I think you might see others like Christie or Kasich rise a bit.

    Parent
    Even (none / 0) (#50)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:12:34 PM EST
    Bush might gain, the pundit on ABC called it revenge of the governors, I agree.

    Parent
    Yep, (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:16:02 PM EST
    Rubio now sweating a lot like Nixon.

    Man, I could feel sorry for this guy.

    Parent

    It's sickening (none / 0) (#40)
    by lentinel on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:51:44 PM EST
    to see Cruz dragging his sister's life through the mud.

    What would you expect from a guy (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:05:47 PM EST
    who doesn't think waterboarding is torture, and who wants to bring back "enhanced" interrogation?

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:44:52 PM EST
    Carson - don't bury me I'm not dead.  No matter how it looks.

    Donald skewers Cruz and the all laugh.

    First pundit (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:46:15 PM EST
    What the hell happened to Marco?

    Told ya so upthread.

    Marco Rubio is not human. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:57:59 PM EST
    He is a wind-up doll who, tonight, seemed to have a glitch in his program, re-setting numerous times to not just the same topic, but the same, exact words, delivered in exactly the same tone - which, by the way, is flat: it gets louder, but it's the same tone.  It's robotic.

    The folks at NY magazine, who were tweeting throughout the debate, said Rubio was channeling Bircher memes all night long.  I'm not really up on my Bircher lingo, but Rubio just made my head hurt.

    Who was that Mary Catherine woman - her questions were so loaded with right-wing tropes I couldn't stand it.

    Parent

    Mary Catherine (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:03:22 PM EST
    Wants a job at FOX.   Or maybe she has one.

    Parent
    Mary Catherine (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:37:21 AM EST
    Who was recently in the news as she lost her husband, Jake Brewer (the Obama White House technology adviser), in October in a biking accident and again when she gave birth to the couple's daughter in December.  She is the editor of HotAir.com.

    Maybe she's looking for a better gig, now that she's a single mom.

    Parent

    Mary Catherine Ham (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:39:18 PM EST
    A protege of Hugh Hewitt.  The conservatives are trying to boost her career as a GOP pundit.

    Parent
    Didn't see it, but from this thread (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:45:19 AM EST
    I gather the bullies ganged up on him?

    Sounded brutal.

    Parent

    It does look like Rubio (none / 0) (#68)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:48:47 PM EST
    is the designated loser tonight.  My, my ... it could get complicated-ly interesting.  

    Watching Hillary and her water carriers (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:50:43 PM EST
    play the "female" card reminds me watching politicians in my youth explain that I must vote for them because they were white and I was white.

    Not a nickels worth of difference.

    When did we decide that women are too dumb to figure out who will the best leader for the country?

    Hint: I don't think we have.

    Well, just out of curiosity, (none / 0) (#72)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 09:54:30 PM EST
    have you been a big supporter of any non-white candidates? (Not a trick question.)

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:41:44 PM EST

    Now, any other questions?

    Parent

    Yes. Who? (none / 0) (#112)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:36:44 PM EST
    no the thread is not about you (none / 0) (#129)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:55:17 AM EST
    so please don't ask people if they have questions for you. Open thread is not an invitation to make the thread about you.

    Parent
    Donalds wife (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    Is really stunning

    Former model, (none / 0) (#86)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:26:38 PM EST
    I believe.

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:32:35 AM EST
    She's is beautiful and very striking looking. She is the former Melania Knauss, 5'11" tall, has been married to him since 2005 -- their son Barron was born a year later. Photo of the three here. This one's good too. He seems more relaxed around them.

    After studying architecture and design at Slovenia's University of Ljubljana, she began modeling regularly, working for fashion houses in Milan, and later, in the pre-Mrs. Trump years, posing for photographers like Helmut Newton and Mario Testino, and even appearing in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition in 2000.

    She has also been in Vogue.

    In November 1998, Melania met Donald at a Fashion Week party hosted by Paolo Zampolli, an Italian entrepreneur and founder of the ID Models management agency...Melania was 28, and Donald was a father of four, 24 years her senior, and recently separated from his second wife, Marla Maples.

    She's fluent in Slovenian, Italian and French. She's taught Barron how to speak Slovenian.

    She was born in the former Yugoslavia, came here from Slovenia on a work visa in 1996 and got her green card in 2001. A year after she married Trump (2006), she became an American citizen.  and became an American citizen in 2006, the year after she and Donald were married.
    He's lucky to have her.

    Parent

    IN spite if his multiple marriages (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:21:57 AM EST
    Donald has a pretty impressive family.  If he get the nomination I think they will be a significant asset to him.  

    Parent
    I've seen too many movies (none / 0) (#93)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:41:10 PM EST
    You say stunning, I think of Tasers, I think Ilsa, She Wolf of the West Wing...

    Parent
    Doess have a bit of a predator look (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 10:49:44 PM EST
    Know what I like tho?  She doesn't stand there and gaze on him as if transfixed and hanging on his every word like the typical political wife.

    See Mrs Christie.

    Parent

    Yeah, the transfixed thing never did it for me (none / 0) (#101)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:00:01 PM EST
    Reality would be if they stared off into space because they've heard every freakin' thing he said a million times alread.

    Parent
    Salon (none / 0) (#141)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:30:11 AM EST
    The final proof that it is rag.  This made me laugh, though, touting "It's almost over for Hillary."

    Let's talk again in May and see where we are.

    Basically "wwtsbq" all over again (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by NJDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:07:18 AM EST
    If this is Sunday, (none / 0) (#187)
    by KeysDan on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    Maureen Dowd must have another screed on Hillary. And, she does not disappoint. In keeping with her slightly out-of-date cool pop references, the title of the article is: "Hillary Battles Bernie Sanders, Chick Magnet."  

     Miss Dowd starts by recalling how Miss Rodham grabbed the national spotlight 47 years ago as an idealistic young feminist, chiding the paternalistic establishment in her Wellesley commencement speech.

     And, now, here she is getting rebuffed by young women who believe she lacks idealism and that she is the paternalistic establishment.

      The rest is Clinton animus, including her wonderment that she is not doing so well with women against "a grumpy grampa, a stooped socialist with a narrow message, brusque manner and shaky grasp of world affairs."  

    Senator Sanders, by the way, was on SNL last night sparring with his doppelganger, Larry David. His skit was brief, about a minute, involving a sinking ship, like the Titanic, with an argument about the one percent getting the life boat.  It was moderately funny. An earlier skit about Bernie, but without him, was much funnier. But, this is not his medium.  Mrs. Clinton's skit a while back was very funny, when she played a bartender named Val, serving drinks to a "Hillary." impersonator.

    Gloria Steinem (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:52:17 AM EST
    Just apologized for her comments.

    As apologies go, (none / 0) (#194)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    It was a pretty good one.

    Parent
    Shoephone (none / 0) (#207)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:15:04 PM EST
    If you don't remember it, then you owe GA an apology because you were talking about something completely different than she was and trying to conflate the two.

    HRC supporters claim that she can get (none / 0) (#208)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    things done. So I think it is up to them to tell what type of things HRC can get through a Republican House.

    I OTOH have never claimed that Sanders could get the items contained in jb's list approved by the Republican House. What I have claimed repeatedly is that both HRC and Sanders would encounter the same level of difficulty getting anything that is beneficial for the average citizen through the Republican House. Yet, over and over the claim is that HRC can get her proposals passed.

    It would be real nice if the claims that she can get things done were backed up by details.

    A president (none / 0) (#209)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:52:26 PM EST
    With an opposition Congress can get things done

    They just have to be willing to compromise and negotiate.
    To get what you want , you have to give up something the opposing party wants
    And the base from both parties erupt in outrage.

    jbindc et al: Vermont & Healthcare (none / 0) (#211)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 05:00:14 PM EST
    I know this is at the end of the thread, but ....
    The matter of the ideal or the practical--for want of a better descriptor--keeps coming up here and everywhere.  The classic question, as so many have noted.  

    In that regard: What is the Vermont story about single-payer healthcare? What has been written about is that the idea was to move ahead on the single-payer track, but that the Governor pulled it during the process since it analysis ostensibly showed that the tax increase in Vermont would approximate 11%.  Any further info or correction? If Vermont finds that single-payer was unfeasible in that fairly progressive state, what does that portend for the national level?  Of course, the Vermont situation could be an anomaly ... is it??

    There is a lot to get done that (none / 0) (#212)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:02:11 PM EST
    has northing to do with getting things through Congress, as Obama is finally starting to realize and demonstrate.  I think Clinton understands the executive office and the various agencies of government better than Sanders, and has the intellectual energy and interest to use them all to their utmost advantage.