home

Sunday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:52:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Open Thread.

Super Bowl today. I bet Tails and the Panthers.

< Saturday Open Thread | Bernie and a Political Revolution >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Open Thread | 160 comments (160 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Bern Your Enthusiasm (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by McBain on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    Pretty good SNL Larry David/Bernie Sanders sketch

    I thought that skit was awesome... (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    ... the rest of the show was much better than usual. Typically, I'm mad at myself for watching SNL and not going to bed sooner, but last night was a lot of laughs.

    Parent
    Hi all, today's Halftime Show will be personal and (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:40:13 AM EST
    Hi all, today's Halftime Show will be personal and special.

    Coldplay will be performing and lead singer Chris Martin will be wearing a yellow item on his arm in honor of "Something Yellow: The Kevin Cordasco Foundation; committed to raising awareness for the Heroes of Childhood Cancer."

    The Cordascos are family friends.

    Kevin Jr passed away recently at age 17 after a 9 year battle with cancer. Kevin's foundation is named after Chris's song "Yellow."

    Tune in today and watch, listen, and enjoy.

    For more information please go to SomethingYellow.org.

    So sorry for your loss (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    17 is way, way too young.

    Parent
    I had not planned on watching (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:08:28 PM EST
    but I will now. Thanks for making it personal at even this remove. So sorry for your loss and that of the Cordascos.

    There are moments that the words don't reach.
    There's a grace too powerful to name.
    We push away what we can never understand,
    We push away the unimaginable.

     - Lin-Manuel Miranda "It's Quiet Uptown"

    Parent
    I repeatly asked what HRC could get done (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    Matthew Yglesias put out a list of a range of small- to medium-size initiatives a theoretical President Clinton could realistically achieve with a Republican Congress.

    A Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership:

    Corporate tax reform: ...The longstanding dream here is to cut rates, broaden the base, and grow the economy while generating some revenue.

    Boost in infrastructure spending: Many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are attracted to the idea of financing a boost in infrastructure spending, letting companies bring home some cash that they have currently stashed abroad for tax avoidance purposes at a discounted tax rate. (1)
    ...
    EITC for childless men: Both Barack Obama and Paul Ryan have proposed to expand the earned income tax credit to cover men who don't live with children, but they've both proposed highly ideological, very contested ways to pay for it.
    ...
    The Grand Bargain:
    ...
    Skilled immigration changes: ...

    But lurking in the mix has always been a third element -- business-friendly moves to allow more immigrants or guest workers with advanced technical skills to enter the country.
    Link

    (1)But saying that repatriated taxes "pay" for infrastructure is wrong. Over time, this strategy loses money: $96 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And the reason why is simple. "You're signaling loud and clear to multinational corporations to go ahead and start deferring earnings until the next holiday," said Jared Bernstein, former chief economist for Vice President Biden, now at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). "So you pay many times over for whatever revenue plug you get up front."

    This effectively lowers the corporate tax rate permanently, to whatever low number is granted in the amnesty. And not only do profits move offshore, but so do corporate investments. "It undermines some of the very economic benefits they're trying to get," said Chye-Ching Huang, a tax policy analyst at CBPP.
    Link

    Well it is an answer to what people think HRC can do as president.

    Uh, yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:48:47 PM EST
    It reads like the term sheet Mitt Romney was passing around.

    Parent
    Matt states that these are items (none / 0) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:12:40 AM EST
    that HRC could accomplish but Sanders would probably not pursue. One of his reasons why he believes these would pass.

    The legislative calendar, if there is one, will be composed of the laundry list of boring bipartisan ideas, often broadly supported by the business community, that enjoy support on Capitol Hill and K Street.

    The "Skilled immigration changes:" which would allow "more immigrants or guest workers with advanced technical skills to enter the country" would be a real winner for American workers, particurly recent college graduates, who are currently struggling to land good paying jobs so that they can pay off their massive student loans.

    Foreign workers who receive their degrees without amassing huge debt taking the high paying jobs should be real popular with the millennials. <snark>

    What I don't see on Matt's little laundry list is anything that would make college more affordable or anything that would help reduce the cost of our private health insurance system.

    Parent

    Thanks for that (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:13:09 AM EST
    I had read that articke earler, but couldn't refer back to it.

    Now we're all still waiting for your's or Anne's response as to why Sanderss would be better and how he would get his ideas introduced,  let alone out of committed to a floor vote and passed.

    Crickets.

    Parent

    Hillary supporters are the ones (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:35:56 AM EST
    stating that she can get things done. I OTOH have never claimed that Sanders could get his agenda items through a Republican House. What I have claimed is that neither HRC could get progressive legislation that actually benefits average citizens through the Republican congress.

    As  Matt clearly states, his list is comprised of items on the wish list of business and K street. What is obviously missing from his list of what can be passed by Clinton is any item that would provide universal health care, improve ACA, make a college education more affordable or any other more people centric items that are part of what HRC is campaigning on.

    I do think that the items contained on Matt's list are the things that HRC can get done. Personally, I am not in favor of passing the corporate centric legislation contained in the list which I feel would harm rather than help the average citizen and would prefer they not be passed. I trust that Sanders will not pursue this type of legislation just to prove he can get things done. Unfortunately, I do think that Clinton might. YMMV


    Parent

    So what you're saying is (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:49:03 AM EST
    You are supporting a candidate whom you know will not be able to get ANY of his ideas passed, and basically will be a placeholder for 4 years, until what?  Elizabeth Warren changes her mind?

    I guess, if that's what you want, then you should support that.

    Me. I want something better. Someone who leads and will fight, even if she loses or doesn't get everything she wants.  I want someone who has an interest in and knowledge of, more than just one or two issues.

    YMMV.

    Parent

    No I am supporting a candidate (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:30:57 AM EST
    That I trust will not promote legislation that will be disasterous to average Americans.

    I am supporting a candidate that will not drain the coffers by pursuing more and more U.S. Military intervention around the world.

    I am supporting a candidate that will use his bully pulpit to advocate for legislation that will help the poor and the middle class and move the Overton window away from the status quo of corporate centric legislation, such as that outlined on Matt's list, that enriches the 1% at the expense of everyone else.

    Sanders will fight just as hard for what he believes needs to be done. What he won't do is promote corporate centric legislation.

    Once again, HRC is not going to get anything other than items on the corporate wish list done. She will be looking for items that she can compromise on to be able to prove that "she can get things done." The things on Matt's list are the things that she can get done.

    Now, if you agree that the legislation outlined in the article is good legislation that you want passed then you definitely have a point that Hillary can get things done.

    If OTOH you want improvements to ACA, you will be seriously disappointed.


    Parent

    Hmm... (2.00 / 1) (#122)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:27:03 AM EST
    You don't want him to drain the coffers on military spending.  Yet, he already has helped do that every time he's voted for war funding.

    How do you square that?

    Parent

    So...what you're saying is that (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:44:54 AM EST
    Sanders won't lead and won't fight for anything?  

    Over the course of the last week or so, you've been provided a number of links to information about the things Sanders has fought for and gotten done, the issues he's interested in, and evidence of his progressive roots - and either you have read and are now ignoring them, you've read and are deeming them untrue, or you haven't read them and are just going to persist in this fiction that somehow she will be better at leading and fighting, even knowing that it's going to be a tough slog getting anything through a Republican Congress no matter which of them is president.

    Okay then.

    I suppose my question to you is whether you are going to be happy if what Clinton gets done are things that meet with GOP approval - like the things MOBlue provided?

    I don't think the Sanders supporters here are under any illusions about what any Democratic president can or will get done; what we've said is that while we are aware of and acknowledge Clinton's long record, we prefer to support the candidate who's been on the right side of issues that matter to us.

    It's fine that you're supporting Clinton - no one's trying to stop you - it's just that if you're going to keep telling us that she can get things done and he's just going to be taking up space doing nothing if elected, you're going to need to back that up in a more substantive way than just repeating, Rubio-style, the same canned lines.

    Parent

    I'm saying (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:25:16 AM EST
    What Sanders wants isn't ever going to see the light of day the moment should he take the oath of office.  Not because he doesn't want it, but because he will have to transform from being someone who represents a tiny, homogenous state where he had little political competition, to being in charge of a huge, diverse country with many competing interests and an opposition party that will be all up in his business every time he breathes.  Where he will find success, as you point out, like HRC, will be on the margins.  In other words, he will have to become an incrementalist.  His supporters won't like that, and many will be shocked to learn that's how it works.  See: Obama supporters 2008.

    Of course, this will be after he's already smashed one of his ideals and accepted money from corporations and Super PAC's who are not already funding him.  The story of the "small donation supporter" is a good one, but that will not propel him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    Parent

    So...you're apparenty admitting that (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:45:15 AM EST
    Clinton's only going to be effective on the margins, which pretty much levels that playing field, doesn't it?

    If you had bothered to read anything that had been provided for your further edification, you would know that Sanders is already an incrementalist, working hard to get some good things - quite a few of them, in fact - out of legislation that didn't have much to offer for Democrats.

    With all that Clinton is promising, how will her supporters react when much of what she is able to do is in the corporate area?  When they see that she can't get college loan relief, that she can't get all those improvements to the ACA - but she can lower the corporate tax rate?

    I don't get all the anger, jb, unless it's about there not being - yet - a clear and easy path to the nomination.

    Maybe one way to look at this is that the challenge should make her a better general election candidate; assuming she can trade in her lead-lined shoes for lighter ones, she'll have time to pivot and adjust her strategy based on the holes revealed in this primary process.

    I'm not under any illusions that he's going to start piling up wins as we move through these elections - I know he's running behind in many states, but I still have no idea why you're so angry that he's even in the race.  Is this going to be WWTSSQ?

    What I know is this: Clinton would not be running this more-to-the-left campaign without Sanders in the race to push her in that direction.

    Parent

    Too bad Clinton hasn't been able to force Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    to the left on guns.

    Even with a Sanders win tomorrow in NH, he still won't take a delegate lead. After tomorrow, the fledgling revolution will be over and the Clinton delegate rout will be on.


    Parent

    I think she moved him a little - didn't he (none / 0) (#133)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 11:35:14 AM EST
    say he now supports not giving the manufacturers and dealers immunity?

    I think his problem is that he's still thinking locally, not nationally, on this issue; he's still coming from the gun issue as a Vermonter - which may be an entirely valid point of view, but Vermont is not the entire country.

    Parent

    Anne (3.50 / 2) (#125)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:16:28 AM EST
    It actually seems like you and other Bernie supporters are in the WWTSBQ mode. Salon even has an article about how it's time for her to go.

    I have no problem with Bernie Sanders or what he believes, even if I have questions about the reality and consequences. I do not adhere to WWTSSQ.  (BTW, Clinton was already moving leftward even before Bernie entered the race)

    What I have a problem with are Sanders supporters who insist that everything about Clinton is evil,  but when their preferred candidate is challenged on his ideas, the chances of success (both in getting elected or implementation) or even his own past statements, actions and votes, the response is ALWAYS a version of 1) Goldman Sachs! 2) Iraq War vote! or 3) Hillary is ______.  Sorry guys, his past political life is fair game for questions and he needs to answer with more than just "look over there!"

    What I'm angry about is at Bernie supporters who act a lot like Obama supporters of 2008.

    You and MO have done it.  When asked how you think Sanders will accomplish his goal, it's always turned back to How will Hillary____?"  That tells us you know the answer - he won't. So, if they are the same, then why WOULD you support someone who won't be able to move the ball?  No, I don't expect her to get most of what she's promising done -she's a politician looking to get elected  (just as Sanders is).  Difference is:  I REALIZE she"s a politician  and not the saviour of us all.  I don't get the feeling many Sanders supporters understand that.

    Hillary has worked across the aisle with people like John McCain. Now, you may not like that, but if you believe any president can do lots of things without trying to build consensus, then you're dreaming.  Much as we keep getting pointed with "Hillary's gonna need young people!" well, guess what?  The president is going to need to work with at least some Republicans. Democrats-only is not a way to pass legislation.

    She's also worked as the nation's top diplomat to get things done -she knows how to work with sometimes even insane people who oppose her.  She hasn't been defeated yet by Republicans, even though they certainly keep trying. Bernie has never had to do that, and frankly, I don't think he has the stomach to do what needs to be done to deal with the current crop of Republicans.

    But I see demonstrated leadership in HRC.  I don't see that with Sanders. The fact that he hasn't thought the whole job of president through tells me that. That isn't an insult - I think he has different skills.  I think he needs to stay in the Senate, especially now that he will have a more prominent voice, and continue to be the little voice (or, in his case, the loud voice) constantly pushing her and drowning out the Ted Cruzes of the world.  I think he needs to be a surrogate on the national stage educating people on his specific issues.  But in the totality of what the job entails, I don't think it's a good fit.


    Parent

    There may be Sanders supporters who would (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 11:28:20 AM EST
     like Clinton to get out of the race, but I am not one of them, and I haven't "seemed" to be in anything close to WWTSBQ mode.  And having read the Salon article - written by someone who worked in the Clinton WH - I have my doubts now that you actually read it yourself.  It was a long and very detailed and thoughtful piece - and there isn't one word in it that comes close to suggesting it's time for her to go.  Not one.

    I have not taken the position that "everything about Clinton is evil;" time and again I have acknowledged her experience, her work on progressive issues, and have been clear that, should she be the nominee, I will vote for her.  I have tried, as much as I can, and as is usually my habit, to respond to challenges with information.  I've provided, for example, a lot of that on health care/single payer, and I find that most often, if it is even read at all, the response is along the lines of "but it will never work."  I've never said Sanders can't be or shouldn't be challenged on his record or his statements - nor, do I think, has anyone else here.  In terms of meeting the challenges that others present on Clinton, I really don't see where she herself has answered those challenges.  On the unbelievable amount of money that has been paid to her personally, she really has no answer, and that's why it keeps coming up.

    If you are angry with Bernie supporters who act a lot like Obama supporters of 2008, then be angry with them, not with someone who isn't acting that way.  The atmosphere here is much like it was in 2008, but it's the Sanders supporters getting the same kind of treatment the Clinton supporters got back then.

    In terms of what MOBlue and I and others have done, I think you have this a little backwards, jb.  It is the Clinton supporters making the claim that only she can get things done, that Sanders doesn't stand a chance of doing anything, and what MOBlue and I, and others, have gone to some lengths to try to get you and other Clinton supporters to explain is how, exactly, she will be able to do the things she is saying she wants to accomplish.  When someone says, "She can do it and he can't," it is up to that person to tell us how that will be so.  And so far, no one's done that.  

    In terms of what Sanders wants to do, I've been pretty clear that I don't regard him as any kind of savior; maybe there are people who do, but I'm not one of them, and I don't see any of them here, either.  I'm not someone who necessarily believes he can get more done with greater ease than she could, but I do believe his approach is one whose time has come.  More of us need to be voting, more of us need to be pushing our elected officials to work for us, not the moneyed interests.

    Sanders has worked across the aisle too, also with McCain, by the way, and in his time as mayor of Burlington; I don't have a problem with consensus, but I do have a problem with changing the starting point with no movement on the other side in order to reach a consensus that is really a concession.

    I truly have no idea on what basis you declare Bernie not to have the stomach to deal with current members of the GOP; it's another example of how you keep needing to denigrate him in order to keep her on top.  And it avoids the very real disagreement with some of her judgment calls while Secretary - and the concern that those judgment issues will carry over when she's in charge of policy, not just carrying it out.

    You can't see what you don't look at, can you?  There is a lot more to Sanders than you have ever been willing to give him credit for, which is a shame.  I'm already quite familiar with Clinton, but I didn't decide to support Sanders without finding out who he is and what he's been doing all these years.  I'm not about pie in the sky, or unicorns or rainbow ponies - I'm too old and have too much experience to believe that anyone is going to save us - we have to save ourselves.

    I come back to where I started in one of these comments: support whomever you wish, for whatever reasons you like.  But if you're going to make claims, you need to stop turning things around when others ask you to back them up.


    Parent

    Thanks Anne... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:09:31 PM EST
    ...that is about where I am at, I not even sure who I am going to cast my vote for, but this constant 'Bernie supporter tweeted this' or 'he can't push legislation through like Clinton can' and just a lot of other opinions being pushed and accepted as fact, that are not.

    With similar moderate legislation I think Sanders has an edge, certainly he is not at a disadvantage in regards to a candidate the right dislikes.

    Parent

    And because I think it's important (none / 0) (#144)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:19:07 PM EST
    to get a grip on the health care issue, I'm reposting this link to an excellent - if long - article about what was being said in 2008 and what is being said now, with facts and other information included.

    Parent
    Wait (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:28:06 PM EST
    "With similar moderate legislation..."

    Isn't that EXACTLY what he is campaigning against?  Isn't that the whole point of his "revolution"?  Why on earth would you vote for such an incrementalist?

    Parent

    JB... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    ...quite being obtuse & disingenuous, do you think they both aren't going to submit almost identical legislation, like raising the minimum wage ?

    Sans 4 or 5 issues, they are basically running on the same issues, but you know this and would rather mock than discuss what I actually wrote.

    Parent

    Once again (2.00 / 1) (#146)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:33:57 PM EST
    Lots and lots of words to accuse me of not understanding or reading.

    Yawn.  Come up with something new please.  It's completely insulting that you keep accusing others of "not reading " or whatever, because they disagree with your pronouncements,  especially, when at least twice in the last week, I caught YOU trying to make your point using bad data. Maybe you should take your own advice and actually read and investigate.

    Parent

    What's unintentionally hilarious is that (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:57:28 PM EST
    you just keep proving my point.

    You want to refer to articles on the basis of their titles, but can't provide me with any examples of where Bill Curry said Clinton needed to go.  Because there aren't any.

    I've posted links to some of Sanders' legislative accomplishments: you've ignored them.

    I've posted links to articles and analysis of health care and single-payer proposals, as well as to comparisons in the way that analysis is being presented, and all you ever say is "ain't gonna happen" and make wild-assed claims you can't support.

    Jesus, even when you read you don't get it right, so maybe it doesn't really matter; we'll just have to put up with your Marco Rubio-style, broken record comments that prove nothing.

    Parent

    I don't think JB's done that at all (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by vicndabx on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 01:21:54 PM EST
    you've ignored them.

    what I understand her to be saying is the achievements you point to are NOT in the vein of the type of change the campaign is pushing.  Thus it follows that people who make the argument that the specific agenda Bernie is pushing is possible are being somewhat disingenuous when they point to compromise and otherwise popular legislation as evidence of his ability to get hard stuff of the type he's proposing passed.


    Parent

    No, that is not what she's saying at all. (3.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    She hasn't said anything even vaguely like that. She's essentially - and endlessly - saying Clinton can, and Sanders can't.

    Admirable that you've tried to come to jb's defense, but your explanation just isn't based on the facts.

    Parent

    I'm glad someone understands English (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    Maybe I need to use smaller words for some people, since they just keep babbling with the same argument.

    But then, some people will only see what they want to see, or so I've been accused of.

    Parent

    What does WWSBTQ stand for? (none / 0) (#150)
    by shoephone on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    That's a new one to me, but I find it tiresome keeping up with pop acronyms.

    You sure do love to lump all "Sanders supporters" into one bag. Too bad the ones posting on this blog don't fit those characterizations.

    Parent

    It stands for: (none / 0) (#151)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    "Why Won't The Stupid Bxxxx Quit"

    Parent
    From 2008 (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 01:16:35 PM EST
    Why Won't the Stupid B!tch Quit.

    An oldie but goodie.

    Oh and I wouldn't say they don't fit at least some of those characterizations....

    Parent

    Well, I'm not one of the "they" (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by shoephone on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 01:20:36 PM EST
    making those kinds of comments. And none of the other Sanders supporters posting comments on this blog fit that characterization either, so you might want to think about the dishonest game you're playing and knock it off. If you want to be taken seriously, that is.

    Parent
    That's not what MoBlue said at all (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by shoephone on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 01:03:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Why do (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 05:03:14 PM EST
    you and others assume that the next president will face a republican congress?

    The trouble is, even with a democratic president, democratic senate and democratic house, Obama could get nowhere because there was no real "progressive" fire burning.

    The dems had the best opportunity in a generation to bring peace and income equality to the country.
    With the "great orator" in office to sell it.

    And they squandered it all.
    Because they really had little passion for reform - militarily, or economically.

    And the republicans began to take power again.

    With a passionate advocate of progressive change at the head of the ticket, perhaps we could repeat the electoral success of 2008 - and perhaps do something with it this time!

    Parent

    Gerrymandering (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 05:24:26 PM EST
    the GOP absolutely will have control of the house until redistricting in 2020.

    Parent
    Don't think so. (none / 0) (#74)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 05:33:39 PM EST
    A strong candidate could attract enough votes to win the presidency, the house and the senate.

    A Lyndon Johnson style landslide.

    Parent

    That was (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 05:38:54 PM EST
    before computer generated gerrymandering. It would have to be a very, very large wave to overcome the redistricting that was done at the state level in 2010 like close to a 60/40 race.

    Parent
    I don't think either of these candidates are that (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:03:43 PM EST
    strong.  It is a different world than it was for LBJ.  At best they can make some headway this year and more in 2020 if things go well.

    Parent
    Lyndon Johnson won a landslide in 1964 ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:48:12 PM EST
    ... not because he was necessarily inspiring, but because GOP nominee Barry Goldwater scared the bejesus out of a lot of Americans with his irresponsible talk about using tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam and his strident acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican Convention, in which he insisted that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." He proved himself to over 60% of voters that year as an unpalatable and unacceptable alternative to LBJ.

    That's likely not going to happen this year.

    From our "Did You Know That ...?" trivia file: Goldwater's running mate in 1964, the late former New York congressman William E. Miller, is the father of liberal radio talk show host Stephanie Miller.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#95)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:07:59 PM EST
    Cruz scares the bejesus out of me.

    It is amazing to me that he is not depicted that way by the media.

    I think it's time for both candidates on the democratic side to open up about how totally insane Cruz is. And Rubio.

    The only one consistently spoken of in a contemptuous manner is Trump.

    But although he would make me nervous, he doesn't seem as completely certifiably insane as Cruz.


    Parent

    Not unless (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:14:14 AM EST
    A giant sinkhole subsumed most of the country, except maybe the 50 largest cities.

    Parent
    Something about that "I" next to (1.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    .. his name..

    What is it about a guy who caucuses what 98% of the time with a party but he can't put a "D" next to his name for most of his politcal career.  This question has been rattling around in my addled and trolling brain for last couple days.

    In practical terms I think it only shows Bernie does look down his nose on Democrats which is fine but will render him an ineffective president alienating ALL law makers for 4 years, basically doing for the progressive brand what Carter did.

    In emotional terms, I do feel it's a bit of an outrage he now calls himself a democrat so he can have it both ways.   1) use DNC database to fundraise 2) leverage the democratic party brand built by Obama all the while taking large poops on Democrats.

    In any event allowing Bernie to run as a democrat. Not sure why anyone was really obligated to do that.

    Please (none / 0) (#9)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    What is the big deal, Democrats themselves cannot explain the difference between a Dem or a Socialist

    It seems to be the question Democratic Party figureheads don't want to answer: What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?

    Hillary Clinton, in an otherwise friendly interview on MSNBC, struggled to answer that question Tuesday when asked by host Chris Matthews.

    At first, the Democratic presidential front-runner seemed to suggest the question should be directed at her rival in the race, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist.

    "You see, I'm asking you," Matthews countered.

    Clinton simply replied, "I'm not one."

    Beyond that, she declined to explain the differences between the two.

    Parent

    What's the big deal indeed, Trevor? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:50:08 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "What is the big deal, Democrats themselves cannot explain the difference between a Dem or a Socialist[.]"

    Especially since you're obviously not supporting either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, having instead hitched your own wagon to now-charred and smoldering campaign of Marco Rubio, the pampered Robotron son of Cuban immigrants who proved to practically everyone last night that he (a) obviously hasn't had an original thought of his own for years, and (b) somehow faked his way into one of Florida's two U.S. Senate seats.

    As I specifically told and warned you yesterday, well before Rubio strutted confidently onto that Manchester, NH stage yesterday evening and imploded to hilarious effect before a nationwide TV audience, the honorable gentleman from Miami is all meringue and no filling. (To quote my late grandmother's favorite summation of those people whom she considered shallow and / or phony.)

    So, given that you apparently share Mr. Rubio's dubious penchant for regurgitating the silly talking points which pass nowadays for conventional wisdom in the Republican Party, you really have no business lecturing anyone about either of our own party's candidates, who on their worst days are both still more qualified to be president that any of the passengers currently riding in the GOP's clown car. Rather, your political analyses in these threads are the equivalent of Gertrude Stein's vision of Oakland. There's no there there.

    Good day, sir.

    Parent

    You're more polite than I'd have been, D. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:22:32 PM EST
    "cannot explain the difference between" is a great set-up.

    As online political expression devolves, friends and familiars blithely brutalized for a chance at scoring some snark, deleting instead of Posting is my goto default.

    Less is More.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:46:25 PM EST
    I still can't figure out why Democrats like Hillary, and DWS cannot explain the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?

    You huffed and puffed for a whole lengthy post,

    And Hillary is still no closer to explaining the difference.

    I have no "favorite" in the Republican race, I have expected Rubio to end up the nominee at the end. I also expected Rubio or Christie to emerge among the anyone but Trump/Cruz group.

    Still have to see where people vote, they have the final say.

    Parent

    Here ya go (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:08:11 PM EST
    dem·o·crat
    ˈdeməˌkrat/
    noun
    1.
    an advocate or supporter of democracy.

    so·cial·ist
    ˈsōSHələst/
    noun
    1.
    a person who advocates or practices socialism.

    de·moc·ra·cy
    dəˈmäkrəsē
    noun
    a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
    "capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"
    synonyms:    representative government, elective government; More
    a state governed by a democracy.
    plural noun: democracies
    "a multiparty democracy"
    control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.

    so·cial·ism
    ˈsōSHəˌlizəm
    noun
    a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
    synonyms:    leftism, welfarism; More
    policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
    synonyms:    leftism, welfarism; More
    (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

    Does that help?


    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:13:47 PM EST
    And as far as why

    "Democrats like Hillary, and DWS"

    Won't say this in public?   If you read those definitions I think that should be pretty damn clear.

    Parent

    That said (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:16:16 PM EST
    We.can be absolutely sure republicans will have no problem whatsoever saying it in public loudly and often.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#110)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:21:31 AM EST
    I guess you should be running.
    A marked improvement over the leading candidate and DWS

    Parent
    I'm sorry for not making myself perfectly clear. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:44:55 PM EST
    So I'll be short and blunt. I don't care what think.

    Adios.

    Parent

    That's not the point (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    Why put an "I" next to your name if you caucus with party "D" 98% of the time, what's the thinking behind that?

    Srsly steuggling with that question.  

    She avoids the question, btw, cause semantics/labels don't really interest her.  What she should say ... What I would say is Bernie isn't a socialist cause he believes in private property.  And just leave if at that.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#11)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    He can get away with it in Vermont. He is further left than most (all?) in the Dem caucus, and wanted his constituents to know it.

    Not a big deal, at least in the Dem primary.

    Parent

    But why even try to get away with it? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    I still don't understand it except to say he looks down his nose on Dems.  It's beneath him to put a D next to his name until he needs it for a nation wide donor base.

    Parent
    Hold The Phone on those transcripts (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:44:45 AM EST
    I just found out on twitter that in the speaking fee contract it is stipulated that the speaker owns the transcript ... This prohibits Goldman Sachs from publishing and profitting from the transcripts ..

    And what that also means Is that these transcripts are Hillary Clinton's intellectual property. And no one has yet to observe these transcripts are ... worth money ...

    If all that is correct (im not a lawyer) then Clinton is being asked to give away intellectual property for free and to put this in context pretend Paul Simon ran for president and it was discovered Goldman Sachs sponsored three of his concerts where he made 600k ..  Would we then demand he release those live recordings for free?  Because maybe it would be fun to create a hit piece quoting Paul Simon thanking the sponsor, Goldman Sachs?? (oh and before anyone who thinks Paul Simon would never take money from Goldman Sachs, I still haven't fully digested Iggy Pop's Chrysler commercial).

    I don't want to bring sexism into this but it sure does look like a woman is being denied the opportunity to earn money off her intellectual property and I do know it was dudebros at the intercept, Glenn greenwald and Lee Fang, who pushed this story into the mainstream.

    No, what it really means is that (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:26:51 AM EST
    she doesn't have to "look into" whether she can release the transcripts, since she owns them and presumably has the right to do with them what she will.

    For someone who says she doesn't want to bring sexism into this, you sure have a way of doing just that, much as you do with racism.  It's very Trumpian of you.


    Parent

    Not For Nothing... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:43:17 AM EST
    ... but Paul Simon most certainly does release whatever analogy KMK is trying to make, to the public.

    That is how you turn intellectual property in dollars if you are a song writer.

    But I do find the notion that HRC has words so valuable they can only be spoken to GS and not the public.  Good thing she not running for a position that might actually require she try and help the public more than GS.  Guess we will have to purchase her State of the Union speeches...

    If only Romney had realized this bit of genius, he could have sued over the 'moocher class' recordings.

    The notion that the public has to pay a politician for their words is beyond ridiculous and I can't imagine that is a stand HRC is willing to make it's so abysmal.

    Parent

    One of the speeches (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:51:21 AM EST
    is on you tube. It's called empowering women entrepreneurs.

    Parent
    I could be completely wrong (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    But my guess is that all of her speeches were in this vein.

    I guess if I were among the truly paranoid among us, I might think that a speech to GS might start like this:

    "OK.  Hi everyone.  All the cameras and recording devices locked up? Good.  Now we can get down to business.

    Here's some secret inside I formation coming from the administration so can trade your stocks and build your profits. ____  Ok, got that?  Now here are the ways I will help you guys if you support me and get me elected.  

    Shhh. Don't tell anybody.  We don't want plebeian to know, but together we can take over the world!  BWAHAHA!"

    =====

    It's a great story, but the fact remains that "Wall Street" still gives lots more money to Republicans.

    And why does she get hundreds of thousands for a speech?  I dunno - maybe it IS nefarious or maybe it's because she's arguably the most famous woman in the world and people want to get their picture taken with her to put on their "brag wall".  By the way, has anyone here ever BEEN to a corporate meeting where they has a paid speaker?  I have and it's not nearly as exciting or devious as you may think.it's pretty boting, generally.

    I know years ago I stood in line for 4 hours to get an autograph of the Detroit Red Wings' goalie and it cost me something like $20.  (It was a gift).  Clubs pay celebrities to show up at their establishment so they get some buzz.  So, A&E Tekevision, and giant tech companies, and yes big banks, want someone famous to come and speak and then give the audience.

    I hope she does release the transcripts and then I will put money on the fact that they will turn put to be a big pile of "empowering womem"-type speeches.  Not that it will stop the people who want to see evil behind every corner, but everyone else will say, "oh".

    Parent

    I asked this question somewhere in (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:02:47 PM EST
    one of these threads, but I don't think anyone's responded.

    It has to do with the access that all of this money buys.  

    Do you think Lloyd Blankfein (or Jamie Dimon or fill-in-the-blank) knows how to get Clinton on the phone?  And do you think she takes his calls?

    Conversely, do you imagine that John Doe or Jane Smith would be able to get Clinton on the phone, or have their calls taken by Clinton, if they contributed $25 or $100 or $250?

    These guys give the way they do for access, for an ear, for the opportunity to put their ideas and their thoughts in the minds of people in positions of power.

    How many of us ordinary citizens can get that kind of attention?

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#139)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:09:31 PM EST
    I also think Cecile Richards get her calls taken, I think Dennis Williams, the head of the USA gets his phone calls taken, I think Anthony Romero, head of the ACLU gets his calls taken as well.

    No, regular citizens do not get to do that.

    But do you think a president can also just ignore "Wall Street"?

    Parent

    Dennis Williams - head of the UAW (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:09:58 PM EST


    Parent
    First Off... (none / 0) (#143)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:16:56 PM EST
    ... Hillary Clinton is not the President.

    But you must believe that she would give out that number and take those calls if no money exchanged hands.  I do not.

    But more importantly, we shouldn't have to worry about the appearance, that money should not be part of the game, and just because HRC might not be influenced, most certainly WS money influences Washington policy.

    Parent

    Just saw a clip of (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    Lindsey Graham fluffing his buddy Jeb! and explaining why he was going to win.
    Here's the thing, he talking about past NH since Jeb! is probably going to finish a strong 6th there, he was talking about SC.
    He blathering on as he does and he says (paraphrase) 'oh yeah, they love the Bushes there, just looooove them!  41 won there 43 won there and Jeb is going to win there'

    Now,  putting aside the delusional part, what kind of a moron do you have to be to say THAT and think it's actually going to help?

    Well (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    I would say they do still love the Bushes in SC but it sure isn't showing up in the polls. You got to realize the fact that Lindsay is actually promoting Jeb is a lot more deadly to Jeb than promoting the fact that his father and brother won there.

    SC broke the baa baa baa mold in 2012 when they voted for the Eye of Newt. Trump or Cruz is the perfect candidate for SC I would say.

    Parent

    I just thought referring (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:52:34 PM EST
    To them as "41" and "43", obviously inferring Jeb!  would be "45" and that somehow that was what anyone anywhere would want was about as politically skillful as "a special place in hell...."

    Parent
    Crusing (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:16:17 PM EST
    around the web it seems that Christie has made Rubio the butt of many jokes. I wonder if this will have any effect on the voting in the primary.

    Nate Silver (none / 0) (#21)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    Thinks perhaps not

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    it might have happened too late for NH but I'm sure Christie or someone is cutting the ads as we speak for another state.

    Parent
    Last night's huge gaffe may not hurt Rubio ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:59:47 PM EST
    ... immediately, but it certainly doesn't help him going forward. Odds are better than even that he'll be a national punchline by tomorrow night. I think that this was akin to Rick Perry's prime time "Oops!" stumble in 2012, and will later be seen in retrospect as the moment when the public ceased taking Rubio at all seriously.

    Parent
    Over last five minutes (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:21:23 PM EST
    I've seen Clinton chastised by CNN for being transparent and advising people of Flint their image might be used in advertisements.

    Three tweets later.....

    In a very small media outlet that nobody listens to, a factual report of the Bernie campaign using people's images in their ads without consent or same said advisory.  A consistent pattern that was brought up during the debate, but then forgotten in favor of two news cycles about speaking fees cause women politicians can't make money in private sector, only men politicians I guess.

    BTD betting against Denver sports again.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by magster on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 12:53:41 PM EST
    Color me shocked.

    While I'll be rooting for the Broncos, ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:19:51 PM EST
    ... I share BTD's belief that this day will likely belong to Carolina. I really have no effective argument to make against a 17-1 team that rolled through the regular season and playoffs, as the Panthers did this year on their way to Santa Clara.

    I wouldn't mind if Denver proves wrong, though.

    Parent

    Backpfeifengesicht.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:28:55 PM EST
    meaning a face in need of a good punch.  A neurologist tries to explain the unexplainable.

    His ex-roomate still gets angry emails (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:18:43 PM EST
    from people blaming him for not smothering Cruz in his sleep..

    I shouldn't laugh about that, but..

    Though, much more than that face does that insufferably honeyed, unctuous delivery of his drive me up several walls..

    It's the voice of some cable tv preacher who just heard from God that his ministry needs a Lear Jet in order to help spread the Good News.

    Parent

    Pffft (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:37:16 PM EST
    Why do so many people instantly dislike him?  It just saves time.

    I did as he said and googled "Ted Cruz smiling"

    Eeuuu.

    Parent

    A really good encapsulation (none / 0) (#16)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    From LGM:

    I've said this before but the people I know with the most Clinton hate on the left (both Bill and Hill) tend to be well-educated (at least in the "I went to schools with name recognition since kindergarten sense), upper-middle class or above, heterosexual white guys. These guys dislike the Clintons for the Welfare Bill, for the Crime Bill, for Triangulation, DOMA, etc. The most striking things about these guys is that they are not in finance and most of them have a dislike for fratty type of atmospheres. I would guess that they are not Bros but kind of anti-Bros and still harbor deep suspicions against finance and jock types over elementary to high school bullying.

    My LGBT friends have largely, if not completely, forgiven the Clintons for DOMA. They are also more economically centerist than the people who support Sanders.

    I do think that a lot of Sanders supporters can be unconsciously affected by sexism and GOP propaganda especially the younger ones who were kids during Bill Clinton's Presidency. There are also real policy differences between Clinton and Sanders and it can be very hard to separate a legitimate policy difference from some sexist dislike of HRC*. These things can be and often are intertwined.

    There has been a lot of ink spilled on the differences between Sanders and Clinton. Sanders is for the romantics and Clinton is for the pragmatists. TNR (or maybe the New Yorker) had a good sum-up of this a few weeks ago when they observed that Sanders was the candidate for Democratic types who think Finance takes too much of the economic pie. The people arguing for Clinton basically believe that there is nothing to do about this and we live in finances world. The Atlantic (I think) had an article this week about how Sanders largely one the among Democratic caucasers with low to moderate incomes and Clinton won in Iowa among upper-middle class and above professional Democrats (along with blue-collar women). I can't find the article now but the picture used to illustrate the difference showed Sanders supporters as being young, edgy and bohemian (tattoos, multiple piercings that scream "I will never work in an office.") The Clinton supporter picture was a well-groomed guy in his late 20s or early 30s in a pink shirt and blazer.**

    *This weeks viral piece was the All-CAPS response to Bernie Bros or something like that. A lot of my female friends were posting the article in firm agreement. I got to say that the article turned me off initially and then I tried to look at why. The All-CAPS and Gif version of internet communication turns me off. Is this because of age? (At 35, I am a bit too old for net speak) sexism? a bit of both?

    **Income and how one makes a living seems to be a more accurate version of the divide. A lot of my friends who earn their incomes from arts, humanities, academics, etc. tend to be Sanders supporters. The more professional ones who feel at home in Capitalist and competitive industries tend to be Clinton supporters.

    I would only say this (none / 0) (#17)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 01:57:03 PM EST
    ". The people arguing for Clinton basically believe that there is nothing to do about this and we live in finances world"

    Is an over-statement.

    There is by no means nothing to be done. There's plenty, but not through revolution.

    Again, the pragmatist's view.

    Parent

    I would add (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    Many, many Democrats also do not view capitalism  as an inherently bad thing.  Tighter regulation is needed, yes, but capitalism is so much, much better than any of the alternatives, especially when you have a large diverse country like we have.  

    Parent
    There's nothing inherently wrong (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:46:20 PM EST
    with "Capitalism" in theory; in the abstract, just as communism, socialism, and anarcho-syndicalism etc in the abstract sound like they could be social approximations of what was discussed in the Sermon On The Mount..

    But of course, as they say, the devil is in the nitty gritty dirty details..

    "Capitalism". The question is, WHICH capitalism?

    Maybe we need some new terminology to talk about what the best economic system might be..

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:05:23 PM EST
    You can demogog those words all day, the allocation of scarce resources is the issue.... the terms I would use to discuss politics:

    Competence and incompetence.

    For instance it's been 14 years and the only person I ever came across to speak intelligently about the Iraq war is Gen. Wesley Clark. He will say it was a bad idea but then spend another hour also detailing how, not only was it a bad idea, but a perfect storm of incompetence borderline criminal negligence.

    Point is this if you apply my philosophy it's possible communism didn't work in Russia because it was managed by dopes who had a simple and single minded view of the world.

    And obviously I just got done ranting the last few days about how the business model of wall street is not fraud. There is corruption and incompetence in a business model we kinda all, when we are not emerged in our own financial situation (crippling income inequality), agree on.

    Parent

    Hey, I have to agree about Wesley Clark (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    I'd even go so far as to say that all things considered, I think he might make a good president.

    You know the late great cyberneticist/biologist/anthropologist Gregory Bateson used to say that the root problem was that the model of how systems, biological, social, and psychological actually work in reality, "in the real world", are still based on a disasterously outmoded root paradigm more appropriate to the European civilzation of two hundred years ago and that this distortion effects, to one degree or another, every realm from economics to science to our relationships with each other.

    For what it's worth..

    Parent

    I would not be at all surprised if he is Clinton's (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:45:59 PM EST
    running mate or Sec Def. Hope so anyway. He also understands climate change and its effect on the global situation.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#20)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    It maybe strayed a bit too personal with remarks about getting bullied in HS....dunno.

    But overall I thought this was a pretty comprehensive viewpoint.

    Interestingly it did not really delve into the female support of Sanders.

    (As did Steinem, shooting off Clinton's foot yet again!)

    Parent

    We won't speak of (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:29:18 PM EST
    Cornel West shooting off Sanders foot... Or Sarandon or Ruffalo shooting off Sanders foot when they tweet out a republican smear of Obama's state department.

    Oh well Steinem did apologize but frankly I can understand her frustration.  Young women just have yet to experience a lifetime of sexism.

    (btw I did want to say when I was in college I wasn't the only one in my group who thought going to a protest rally was a great way meet people of the opposite sex.  Doesn't mean you don't also believe in the cause, but I wanted speak frankly on this issue even though I do know youre not supposed to say it).

    Parent

    Cornel West (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 05:31:01 PM EST
    is one of the reasons why Bernie is not getting the support of African Americans.

    Parent
    It's just, IMO, such a dumb word (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    It means nothing.

    10 years ago you would have said gay marriage is revolutionary but now we have gay marriage ... and what?  The revolution never happened?

    The word means nothing.  As I keep saying even
    Sanders himself understands revolutions don't exist in context of US government.  As a young man he put revolutionary in quotes like this: "revolutionary."

    Trump wants a revolution.  Who doesn't want a revolution?

    Parent

    Just one man's opinion.. (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    but the more aware women are of themselves and their aforementioned individual "hopes and dreams" etc, the more in touch they are with their sense of empathy and solidarity with other folk's individuality and with their own instincts for social justice.

    And, also, the less likely they are to be emotionally bullied into relexively falling in line by the public pronouncments of celebrity authority figures.

    Parent

    And calling an AA president (none / 0) (#33)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:49:24 PM EST
    "ni**arized" isn't bullying?

    She apologized today?  It was divisive language. Still waiting to hear from Mr. West.

    Speaking of divisive language and trying to raise the level of discussion in our happy democracy, Bernie did ask his followers to cut out the sexist attacks today, he doesnt want that "crap" in his campaign.

    And yet I don't think he realizes that crap, that aggressiveness is just the logical extrapolation of his passive aggressive insinuations.


    Parent

    Right.. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    I get it.

    As long as you insert "passive aggressive insinuations" you can make, or try to make him, personally reponsible for any and very idiocy and excess expressed by his supporters.

    I doubt at this point that Sanders could blow his nose in public without convincing you that he's been bought off by the Kleenex Inc.

    Parent

    Ok (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:14:18 PM EST
    Lets hash this out ...

    When there is disagreement there are two ways of dealing with the person you disagree with...

    1. They are wrong but sincerely believe they are right.  Wrong but not a liar.

    2. They are wong and they know they are wrong, they are lying for some reason.  (in this case money). Wrong and lying.

    Which of those two attitudes -- after injected with, let's say a mix of steroids and heroine (add in social media) do you think would lead to a more toxic environment?

    And which of those two attitudes do you think Bernie has towards people he disagrees with?

    Parent

    I would say Bernie has a shifting mixture (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    the way most people do. Depending on the day, the setting, and the topic under discussion.

    His overwrought True Beliver acolytes, and Hillary's equally overwrought True Believer acolytes (of which there are a few here) I don't have the energy to address at present.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:29:09 PM EST
    There's no mix being communicated by his campaign.

    Anyway, I've already expressed my views on money in politics.  I was just now thinking it would be funny if Wall Street said "ok you think government doesn't work for the people cause of money from Wall Street.  Ok let's test that theory, for 10 years a full decade ..... all of us on wall street agree we will not put any money into politics at all, not through lobbying, nothing. Hell not even speaking fees (sorry Barack and Michelle bad timing I guess)."

    Now if that was even possible it would be funny to see government remain dysfunctional over issues that people disagree on. Much of that government may even be not for the people cause all the politicians actually believe propping up corporations helps people.

    So 10 years goes by, Wall Street goes to Amaerica still locked in ideological gridlock and says "ok we tried it your way, can we at least give Barack and Michelle the speaking fees now?"

    Parent

    It's really a whole lot simpler than that. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:26:50 PM EST
    Here's a question I'd like someone to ask Mrs. Clinton:  "When Lloyd Blankfein calls, does he get through?"  Or maybe, "Does Lloyd Blankfein (or Jamie Dimon or name-your-Wall-St.-titan) have your telephone number?"

    Because here's the thing: is there anyone who believes that Joe Blow or Jane Doe, who contributes $25 or $100 to her campaign, not only knows Clinton's telephone number, but, assuming they did, that their calls would be answered?

    It isn't just about whether a politician is influenced, it's about how much access the high-dollar donor has.  

    She says it's never influenced her decision-making, her votes; that's not completely believable, because access is influence.

    Parent

    But I just hope Joe Blow (none / 0) (#101)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:18:50 PM EST
    And Jane Doe understand that if a CEO calls a senator or a president there might be a good reason for it
    ... something they might agree with.

    You see all the Clinton critics speak in hushed tones about this issue like if Blankfein called they are aghast plotting the demise of the middle class and that's just silly silly silly. LOL.

    Safer bet Blankfein called to let her know they reached a milestone in the 10,000 women program.  Something anyone reading this can look up on the internet.  And then judge for themselves if a president should be taking a call from a CEO.

    I also hope Joe Blow and Jane Doe know that if they need to talk to a politician they might be surprised to find how responsive a state representatives can be.  They are committed to resolving local issues.

    Parent

    I wouldn't call it bullied (none / 0) (#38)
    by vicndabx on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:22:47 PM EST
    some women need to be reminded of their forebears struggles and goals.

    Individual empathies and instincts are good, but so is realizing a collective goal that is a long time coming.

    Parent

    I wouldn't make lemonade for Albright (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:01:23 PM EST
    from the sweat of my brow if she were dying of thirst.

    As she said about the women and children of Iraq, "we think her sacrifice is worth it"

    Parent

    Do you hav a link (none / 0) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    for that LGM piece? I looked, but cannot find that particular article.

    Parent
    Apologies (none / 0) (#30)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:38:26 PM EST
    Meant to include
    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/02/youre-not-helping

    Parent
    What's "LGM?" (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:25:41 PM EST


    Parent
    LGM is (none / 0) (#59)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    Lawyers Guns and Money

    Interesting blog for the most part. A lot of labor law stuff from Erik Loomis and more pol stuff from Scott Lemiuex and others.

    Point of view very much from the educational/university side.

    Sometimes a bit clueless outside that arena.

    Parent

    They fixed the errors in Iowa (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:02:29 PM EST
    HRC still won.

    The corrections gave Sanders a gain of 0.1053 state delegate equivalents. Clinton lost 0.122. And Martin O'Malley, who finished in a very distant third, gained 0.0167. The error corrections changed only five county convention delegates out of more than 11,000 elected on caucus night, McGuire said.
    in your reply (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    on the previous open thread, you asked:
    So why (a)re most members of the Progressive Caucus in Congress endorsing (HRC)?  I guess they aren't "real" progressives, but only commenters here are the true progressives.

    You did not answer the question:
    You quoted Al Franken who said he was a progressive in the mold of Wellstone. Maybe so. But Al was for the invasion of Iraq while a radio commentator.
    At that time, Paul Wellstone was one of the few bright lights in the Senate urgently speaking against the proposed invasion.

    So, Al can say what he likes, but to me - he is no Paul Wellstone.

    The others you quoted simply said that they wanted to "get things done". That's the HRC formulation justifying her "moderate" stances.

    I, for one, do not define people as progressives or anything else.

    Since Bill Clinton, and even before him, we have "liberals" and progressives supporting the death penalty, the cutting of benefits to welfare recipients, bombing without the approval of congress, trade deals that impoverish the already impoverished, talking about their religious beliefs... So what do these labels even mean?

    But people who do define themselves that way, and say that they agree with Sanders on the issues, are the ones I am addressing when I note that they are more often prone to slime him rather that congratulate him for taking the fight to the people.

    I have seen his followers demeaned as old white people. Old = bad. White = bad.

    Now, his followers are being described as young white people. Young = naive. White, still bad.

    What a bunch of cr@p.

    People who say that they support Sanders on the issues, but go for HRC because she can win or get things done are, to me, unconvincing.

    I think that they just identify with HRC's politics, the way she has conducted herself lo these decades, and are comfortable with going for her.

    I have no problem with that whatsoever.

    But, if we are interested in ending our involvement, our "leadership" in fighting these civil wars abroad, or interested in ending the domination of Banks and Brokerage Houses on our lives, I have little faith that voting for HRC is the way to go.


    Parent

    Paul Wellstone (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:33:58 PM EST
    Voted for DOMA.  Does that take away your perception of him as pure?

    You want purity of ideals.  I, and many others, want to get stuff done.  

    Parent

    Have you told us how Clinton's (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    actually going to do that if she has a Republican Congress?  

    Let's look at a few of the things Clinton says she's going to do in her "plan to raise American incomes:" (all from her website, btw):

       Give working families a raise, and tax relief that helps them manage rising costs.

        Create good-paying jobs and get pay rising by investing in infrastructure, clean energy, and scientific and medical research to strengthen our economy and growth.

        Close corporate tax loopholes and make the most fortunate pay their fair share.

    And:

    Provide tax relief for families. Hillary will cut taxes for hard-working families to increase their take-home pay as they face rising costs from child care, health care, and sending their kids to college. She is calling for extending a tax cut of up to $2,500 per student to help deal with college costs as part of her New College Compact, and for cutting taxes for businesses that share profits with their employees.

    Unleash small business growth. Hillary's father owned a small business--and she understands that small businesses are the backbone of jobs and growth in America. She's put forward a small-business agenda to expand access to capital, provide tax relief, cut red tape, and help small businesses bring their goods to new markets.

    Create a New College Compact. Hillary's New College Compact will invest $350 billion so that students do not have to borrow to pay tuition at a public college in their state. Her plan will also significantly cut interest rates on student loans and enable an estimated 25 million Americans with student debt to refinance at today's lower rates, saving the typical borrower $2,000 over the life of their loans.

    Boost public investment in infrastructure and scientific research. One of the best ways to drive jobs and improve our nation's competitiveness is to invest in infrastructure and scientific research. Hillary has called for a national infrastructure bank that would leverage public and private funds to invest in projects across the country. She will call for reform that closes corporate tax loopholes and drives investment here, in the U.S. And she would increase funding for scientific research at agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

    Lift up participation in the workforce--especially for women. For too long, issues like equal pay, paid leave, and affordable child care have been put off to the side as "women's issues." Hillary believes they are crucial to our competitiveness and growth--and to lifting incomes for working families.

    And that's just one set of promises she's making.

    I am on the edge of my seat wanting to know how she's going to get these things through a Republican Congress, because we all know that however incremental, however much sense they make, they are likely as dead-on-arrival in the Congress as anything any Democratic president would try to get enacted.

    How is she going to do it, jb?  By "working with" the other side?  Can you find me anyone who has served with Bernie in any of his many elected offices who describes him as someone who is so doctrinaire he cannot and does not "work with" the opposition to get things done?  

    I figured you would know, obsessed as you are with digging for dirt on Sanders; as determined as you are, I can't imagine how you will be able to pivot if by some miracle, Sanders would get the nomination.  Maybe you won't pivot.  Maybe you'll just hold your nose and vote, and won't be here trumpeting the Democratic cause like you would if Clinton is the nominee.

    I don't know and I don't much care.  I'd just like it if you'd stop selling this "Clinton can get things done" meme, since we both know she's going to struggle as any Democratic president dealing with a GOP Congress would.

    Parent

    Mebbe (none / 0) (#42)
    by vicndabx on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    but starting from far fetched is worse than starting from a place of greater consensus.

    Parent
    Clinton has a record of crossing the aisle (none / 0) (#44)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    http://correctrecord.org/the-points/attack-right-wing-ignores-hillary-clintons-achievements-as-senat or/

    Parent
    I know Sanders (none / 0) (#51)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:04:04 PM EST
    Worked w McCain on a Vets rights bill, but I'm not sure much else about his record of coalition building....
    I will have to read up.

    Parent
    Here's a link to help you get started: (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:11:36 PM EST
    Bernie Gets It Done

    It doesn't surprise me that more people don't know this - I didn't know it, either.  Now that I do, perhaps it explains why I find it so annoying that Clinton is treated as if she can lay sole claim to "getting things done" territory.

    Parent

    Speaking as a Clinton supporter, ... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:26:29 PM EST
    ... I would urge you to take a look at Bernie Sanders' record as the 4-term mayor of Burlington, VT. He did an outstanding job there and turned that city around by working well with others.

    I'm still supporting Hillary, but Bernie's certainly a far better and more qualified candidate than anyone the GOP is presently offering.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    At this (none / 0) (#64)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:52:29 PM EST
    point, I am sick of this kind of aisle crossing.

    Let the republicans cross the aisle.

    We have reason and compassion on our side.
    They have meanness and war on theirs.

    Yet we are the ones that are supposed to cross over and knell at the shrine of their savagery? We are supposed to find common ground with madness and greed?

    To he!! with them.

    Obama has been genuflecting for eight miserable years. And now we have three wars instead of two, with a fourth front, Libya, in the wings.

    Let's hold our ground for once.
    That is if we really stand for anything.

    Parent

    I think she is far better able to (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:48:54 PM EST
    figure out how to make progress on those things without any congressional action, by knowing the levers of the executive office to use.  That takes a thorough knowledge of the job, which she has.

    Parent
    I didn't (none / 0) (#62)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:47:11 PM EST
    say that Wellstone was pure.

    I said that he was articulate and passionately against the war in Iraq.

    I also said that Al Franken was for it - so to describe himself as being in the mold of Wellstone is self-serving cr@p.

    As for getting "stuff" done...

    What in the world is "stuff"?
    Getting out of Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya?
    Taxing Wall Street trades as a means to finance social programs?

    Look.
    As I say, you like her? Vote for her.

    From my point of view, the major obstacles to us getting reforms to the tax code, to ending our "leadership" in these wars all over the globe are two: The rabid Republican right, and the alternately frightened and comfortable "left".

    Parent

    I'm pretty close to writing a long essay (none / 0) (#102)
    by Kmkmiller on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 10:40:01 PM EST
    About what it was like in 2002 when Colin Powell made the case.

    Not to say it was correct to support the Iraq war just to say I was there, and even though I wanted Dems to vote no, I also understood the mood of the country.

    I feel the same way about a lot of issues.  In 2016 its just amazing to think what kind of coward you had to be if you didn't support gay marriage in, say, 1995.  It's now a human right and that's a good thing!!

    Anyway, I know for a fact that theres more to the story than just "voted for the war" but I also accept that's now the accepted way to oversimplify that vote and if you did trust Bush to use that authority honestly, then you made a mistake.

    Parent

    Not here, this is not a place (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:11:23 AM EST
    for long essays by commenters.

    Also, you have over 30 comments in this thread. Please don't blog clog. There is no reason to post more than five or six in any given thread.

    Parent

    Ok (1.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:53:38 AM EST
    Its just that Im having a hard time finding places on the Internet where you can support Clinton without being attacked so I admit I'm coming to this site too much.

    I will limit myself to 3 first comments per open thread and 20 comments total per open thread. Giving me 17 chances to reply and converse with others and if no one replies to me than it will just be three comments from me per open thread going forward.

    Parent

    Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:03:56 AM EST
    your strong suit.

    Jeralyn has requested you limit your comments to five or six in any given thread.

    Five or six does not equal 3 original comments and 17 replies for a total of 20 per open thread. Five or six comments per thread equal 5 or 6 comments per thread.

    Parent

    Is your limit 5? (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 02:15:10 PM EST
    It would be important for rules to be clarified and if they don't apply to everyone equally then let's be honest about it.

    For now I've made my promise and the best way to make sure I only ever post no more than three comments per thread is for others to not reply to any of my comments.

    Lastly it seems the last msnbc debate was praised cause they allowed a lot of back and forth.

    Parent

    I would love that solution (none / 0) (#159)
    by sj on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:26:02 PM EST
    is for others to not reply to any of my comments.
    Nothing good ever comes from feeding trolls.

    Jeralyn clarified exactly what the rules are, and that they don't apply to everyone equally. She was very specific about what rules applied to you.

    You just go on ahead and ignore her warning, though. That should work out perfectly.

    Parent

    Talk Left is not a democracy; it is not (none / 0) (#160)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:38:59 PM EST
    governed by plebiscite.  Jeralyn makes the rules, and applies them as she sees fit - that's her right, as the blog-owner, and you ignore them at your peril.

    It isn't up to us to structure our comments so as to help you stay within the limits outlined for you; you are going to have to make decisions about what you want to say, and how important it is to you to respond to those who engage you.

    If you want to argue for more latitude in commenting, I suggest you e-mail Jeralyn and have that discussion off-blog.

    Parent

    Paul Wellstone's Legacy (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 05:14:02 PM EST
    - The Atlantic

    When today's progressives remember Paul, they tend to focus on his sheer political courage. Paul was the only senator up for re-election in 2002 to vote against the Iraq War -- a vote he told people he was convinced would cost him his job. (He was wrong, by the way -- polls showed him winning at the time of his death.)


    Parent
    I was in (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:23:39 PM EST
    Minneapolis speaking at a criminal defense seminar when the news came in he died. It was awful. I recounted it here.

    Parent
    V.A. Scandal (none / 0) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:44:58 PM EST
    No one indicted.

    No one fired.

    Now no one even demoted.

    There's accountability for you.

    Hey Captain.. (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 02:55:23 PM EST
    Lest I forget, there's also a very strong implication in Millers Crossing that John Turturro's character Bernie Birnbaum, "the schmata kid" is also gay..

    One subplot is that Mink is sneaking around behind Eddie Dane's back and "jungling up" with Bernie..

    Bernie's ever-loyal sister Verna says "people hate him because he's different"

    Parent

    OH yeah (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:48:55 PM EST
    Seen it a few times myself.   For some reason I just flashed on that old conversation when you mentioned it.

    Fwiw that person was a bit of a self loather so.....

    Whatever.   I thought it was pretty obvious but I guess we see what we want.

    Ps
    I like that you replied this to mr Gilbert and Sullivan.

    Parent

    Clinton-esque!! (none / 0) (#41)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 03:30:58 PM EST
    And for those of us who have difficulty imagining Clinton overcoming the enormous negativity from our famously Free Press, here we have noted Progressive Dude Josh Marshall finding a way to compare Rubio's disaster last night to Hillary Clinton. I kid not.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/rubot-s-excellent-adventure

    J is pretty strict (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:34:45 PM EST
    About link formatting.  Some of these might work but there is at least one up there that will be deleted for sure.

    Long links mess with the site somehow.

    She suggests if you have trouble with the linking button to use tinyurl dot com.

    Parent

    Apologies are these working or (none / 0) (#60)
    by smott on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    Do I need to re-post somehow?

    Parent
    Just passing it on (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    She will let you know.   The short ones may work but the longer one up thread probably not.

    Parent
    I read the piece in question (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:45:49 PM EST
    Link

    Watching the fall out from last night's debate, the Rubio camp's response strikes me as very Clintonesque. But the key for me is that's not a negative word and in this case I don't mean it in a negative way. I'm just dubious it will work. The Rubio camp - and in this case, I use that collective term very intentionally - is responding to last night's gaffe in the best and only way they can. Don't run away from it, don't ignore it: try to repackage it and drive right into it at full speed with a semi-truck. This is a big thing I remember from Clinton's 92 campaign. Never go on defense. Find a way to repackage it as offense and keep hitting, keep running forward.(Ed)



    Parent
    it's because the site has (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 11:28:09 PM EST
    very narrow margins, long url skew the site. If I notice it skewing, I delete the comments with urls not in html format -- I really don't know which one is causing the site to skew and don't have time to figure it out. It' easier just to delete the ones I see.

    You can use the link button at the top of the comment box or get a tiny url.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:53:20 PM EST
    smott: "Clinton-esque!! And for those of us who have difficulty imagining Clinton overcoming the enormous negativity from our famously Free Press, here we have noted Progressive Dude Josh Marshall finding a way to compare Rubio's disaster last night to Hillary Clinton. I kid not."

    With all due respect, please re-read what Josh Marshall actually wrote:

    "Watching the fall out from last night's debate, the Rubio camp's response strikes me as very Clintonesque. But the key for me is that's not a negative word and in this case I don't mean it in a negative way. I'm just dubious it will work. The Rubio camp - and in this case, I use that collective term very intentionally - is responding to last night's gaffe in the best and only way they can. Don't run away from it, don't ignore it: try to repackage it and drive right into it at full speed with a semi-truck. This is a big thing I remember from Clinton's 92 campaign. Never go on defense. Find a way to repackage it as offense and keep hitting, keep running forward."

    Marshall is obviously referencing Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and further, he explains why that campaign's ability to ignore bumps in the road and continue to move forward won't necessarily work for Marco Rubio. There's no mention at all of Hillary Clinton in the entire post. He concludes with the following observation:

    "Political obsessives usually over-estimate the impact of the things they obsess over. And to me it's not clear how much immediate effect Rubio's stumble will have. I doubt many confirmed supporters will abandon him over it. For more damaging is that he is now facing two and a half days of press and campaign mockery rather than two and a half days of press cheering about inevitability. He was not a frontrunner needing to avoid a mistake. He was someone who was behind but appeared to be making rapid progress. I think this may seriously blunt what seemed to be a rush of voters in his direction.

    "The deadliest thing for a politician is always becoming an object of mockery and ridicule. That's what Rubio's facing during a critical two day period."

    I don't disagree. Aloha.

    Parent

    Gumby on bath salts (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:56:46 PM EST
    Pineapple Calamari

    I feel sure there is a message in here someplace but perhaps as Obi Wan said of the cave, the only thing in there is what you take with you.

    Wallace and Gromit on Ativan (none / 0) (#72)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 05:29:07 PM EST


    Parent
    I was pleased (none / 0) (#69)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    to see that in an informal poll on ABC's website, Bush came in last. A distant last.

    That is the only way it seems that people across the board can express their contempt for his loathsome brother.

    And that goes for that whole family. Including Dad and Babs.

    One other note;

    I thought it was illuminating that Trump revealed that tickets to the ABC debate were limited to donors of the candidates. The public, it seems, were not invited.

    If true, I think it is scandalous - and ABC should be ashamed if it was the corporate entity making that decision.

    In the coming debate this week, PBS (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:27:04 PM EST
    has rented a venue of 750 seats on a campus.

    The campus gets 25 seats.

    The top administrators will get those.  

    None for students -- unless they're major donors to the state (not even local but state) Democratic Party.  (Joke: As if students at an urban "access" campus have funds to be major donors.)

    The state party gets an undisclosed but sizable number for its sizable donors -- after the pols get theirs, of course.  

    The most seats go to media, about 400 credentialed to attend.

    It's not just ABC.

    Parent

    This is too (none / 0) (#94)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:02:04 PM EST
    serious to be left in the hands of hucksters.

    These "debates", which they are not, should be sponsored by non-profit organizations.

    I believe at one time debates were under the auspices of the League of Women Voters.

    They should be again - or in the hands of an equally serious and non-commercial entity.

    And PBS is disqualified. Since they started taking corporate and government money, for many moons now, they are as jaded and bloated as the worst of CNN, Fox or the rest of that despicable lot.

    Parent

    You believe? (3.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:32:32 AM EST
    Of course, the debates long were run by the League of Women Voters.  This is not a matter of belief.

    How young are you?!

    Parent

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:16:38 AM EST
    Presidential debates should not have audiences to change the dynamic (or heckle).  I believe it should just be the candidates and the moderators.  

    Parent
    Defense wins championships (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:08:43 PM EST


    What's the over-under on Lord Grantham making (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 06:43:20 PM EST
    it through the Downton Abbey series alive? That is my big question of the night!

    He's not going anywhere (none / 0) (#86)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:50:02 PM EST
    except, perhaps, to the shinier hospital in York. They would never kill off Donk.

    Parent
    And this softening the Dowager Countess's (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:01:36 PM EST
    stance on York taking over the local hospital....yes, I can see it.

    But - will Daisy let Mr Mason and Mrs Patmore find love at the pig farm?

    Parent

    Good question (none / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:05:02 PM EST
    IN a perfect world, Daisy--who has been mothered by Mrs. Patmore for the duration of her employ at Downton--should have no problem with having her as mother-in-law!

    I'm still waiting for Molesly to propose to Baxter, or vice-versa.

    Parent

    How soon does Mrs. Hughes crack (none / 0) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    And bop Carson over the head with a frying pan?

    Parent
    Hahaha! Asked my daughter the same (none / 0) (#91)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:42:05 PM EST
    question last week...

    Am pulling for Mrs. Patmore and Mr. Mason, for Edith and her new man, for Baxter and Mr. Molesly - and I've really been enjoying Tom's sideline dating advice to Mary.  And the humanization of Mr. Barrow has been interesting - I just feel sorry for him.

    I'm going to miss the good folks of Downton - upstairs and down!

    Do you watch Call the Midwife?  I think it's back on next month - it's been an excellent series.

    Parent

    I, too, feel sorry for Barrow. (none / 0) (#92)
    by caseyOR on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 08:56:12 PM EST
    That final scene tonight of Barrow by the fire was just so sad.

    I do hope Daisy gets over this bout of jealousy she is stuck in With regard to Mrs. Patmore and Mr. Mason. I, too, would like to see all these potential couples work out.

    Please let Edith be happy!

    I do watch Call the Midwife. And I will need something once DA ends.

    Parent

    It starts on April 3. (none / 0) (#93)
    by RCBadger on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:00:50 PM EST
    It's already airing on the BBC.  So far, all 5 episodes have been excellent.

    Parent
    I adore Call the Midwife! Glad it is back soon (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    Poor Barrow, I hope there is a good ending for him. I know he did some bad things in the past, bit they are meaner to him than he deserves.

    Carson is cruising for a bruising ....he wants his cottage run like the big house. Not letting poor Mrs Carson have some wine was the last straw!

    Parent

    She sure seemed ready to (none / 0) (#155)
    by shoephone on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 01:34:51 PM EST
    whack him on the head with his coveted walking stick. He was so insufferable, on every level, last night, that I feel certain there will be a showdown next week, on the order of, "I was doing fine on my own, thank you. If you'd like to be on your own again, I'll be happy to sign the divorce papers, and then you can satisfy yourself with perfectly cooked and garnished smoked salmon and braised duck, sitting all by yourself next to a roaring fire for company. And you can still adhere to your rule about loyalty to Lord Grantham equaling no wine at dinner, or ever again, while I knock back a well deserved glass of burgundy, at dinner with some new friends I met in town. In other words, don't mess with a Scot, Mr. Carson!"

    Parent
    Super Bowl (none / 0) (#84)
    by fishcamp on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:45:42 PM EST
    Great half time show...

    Beyonce was great (none / 0) (#129)
    by fishcamp on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:56:53 AM EST
    is what I really meant...(-:

    Parent
    For a Dear Old Friend of Mine (none / 0) (#123)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:29:48 AM EST
    Who is struggling, as my wife and I are, with an excruciatingly smart and difficult and angry teenager.

    "Dr. Seuss Writes a Scrip for Beer"

    Once we were so little
    Desperate in our straits
    Our families were messes
    Peace and Love not our states.

    Then we dreamed of normal
    Asleep in lonely beds
    Wondering if we'd make it
    Through all our pain and dreads.

    Soon life became repair
    A narrow sort of trip
    To fix the dents and cracks
    On which we'd always slip.

    So, married we mothered
    And married we fathered
    But often contentment
    Just could not be bothered.

    While significant others
    Rubbed their worried chins
    We kept hating ourselves
    Kicking our own bruised shins.

    As our sons and daughters
    Grew older and younger
    Our craving for more than
    Did not lose its hunger.

    But historic traumas
    Our mindbody beings
    Always demanded of us
    These odd kinds of seeings.

    I wish we did better
    At mothering our Selves
    Or had better fathers
    To pull down from the shelves.

    What we are, however
    Are late blooming gardens
    So ready and anxious
    For everyone's pardons.

    But the pardons we need
    Come not from without
    But the child within us
    Still so aching with doubt.

    Cuz these kids make it all
    Hurt that much and more
    The kids that we parent
    And the kids that we store.

    Though it will take more years
    For them to understand
    The old family form
    Is the real promised land.

    Plus, the tougher truth is
    That no one's a sculpture
    Our kids are raised as much
    By sh*t dollar culture.

    So be patient, sweet queen
    My comrade, soul sister
    All of this will soon be
    A forgotten blister.
     

    Beyonce dancers ask for justice for Mario Woods (none / 0) (#130)
    by McBain on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 11:13:30 AM EST
    Link

    Here is the video were Woods is shot and killed by police. Hard to tell exactly what's going on but sounds like the police gave him several chances to put down the knife.

    My take on the "Rubio glitch". (none / 0) (#131)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 11:14:31 AM EST
    Hope you find it amusing.

    Now here's a campaign tactic (none / 0) (#134)
    by CST on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 11:36:06 AM EST
    For Wall Street

    Kinda like (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    (From "The West Wing")

    Everyone who is a gun control advocate should join the NBA and vote the crazy and corrupt out.

    Parent

    NRA (none / 0) (#141)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:10:25 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm sure the NBA (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CST on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 12:16:38 PM EST
    Has plenty of corrupt craziness too.  Although I think for sports organizations FIFA takes the cake.

    Parent
    Sunday Open Thread | 160 comments (160 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment