Hillary and Bernie Debate in Brooklyn

We've been spared Democratic debates for a month. There's one beginning in a few minutes on CNN.
If anyone's watching (and I will watch some)here's a place for your thoughts on it.

< Republican Gala in NYC | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Dana Bash (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 08:17:40 PM EST
    Is Killing Bernie, asks directly what Hillary did for the banks, he just went into standard rant.

    I thought Bernie won that exchange... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:58:03 AM EST
    when he said they don't give her money to change her positions, they give her money because they like her positions.  

    Bernie seems to have an incredible lack (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 08:31:05 PM EST
    of any real idea how to accomplish his goals. He appears to lack any depth of understanding about how the economy works. He has no plans. You cannot govern by slogan.

    He has been at this running for president thing for awhile now. He should have some very fleshed out plans. Yet nothing.

    This! (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Nemi on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 06:28:46 AM EST
    In Why I Haven't Felt The Bern, Paul Krugman explains why he, from the beginning, distrusted:

    ... both the movement and the man.

    What you see, on this as on multiple issues, is the casual adoption, with no visible effort to check the premises, of a story line that sounds good. It's all about the big banks; single-payer is there for the taking if only we want it; government spending will yield huge payoffs -- not the more modest payoffs conventional Keynesian analysis suggests; Republican support will vanish if we take on corporate media.

    In each case the story runs into big trouble if you do a bit of homework;


    Ad hominem attacks aren't a final line of defense, they're argument #1.


    It's about an attitude, the sense that righteousness excuses you from the need for hard thinking and that any questioning of the righteous is treason to the cause. When you see Sanders supporters going over the top about "corporate whores" and such, you're not seeing a mysterious intrusion of bad behavior into an idealistic movement; you're seeing the intolerance that was always just under the surface of the movement, right from the start.


    ... there is no evidence that [Hillary Clinton is] corrupt, and lots of evidence that she both thinks hard about issues and is willing to revise her views in the light of facts and experience. Those are important virtues -- important progressive virtues -- that seem woefully absent on the other side of the primary.

    (My bolding and my 'cherry picking', but the whole piece is worth a read.)


    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 08:50:12 PM EST
    tells white people to their face "there is systemic racism", very strong statement.

    There are boos when (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 08:55:55 PM EST
    Bernie is asked about the Sandy Hook family person who said he owes the Sandy Hook families an apology for a comment about gun manufacturers. I couldn't tell if the boos were for the question (and Sandy Hook families) or Bernie.

    Bernie says he won't apologize but he added he supports the families and anyone else who wants a right to sue.

    Bernie touts his long time support of banning assault weapons. He acknowledges and won't apologize for voting for the 1994 Clinton/Biden crime bill.

    The CNN debate moderator calls him out on his promise to reduce the numbers of prisoners in half during his "first term" since the vast majority are state inmates. He says he'll work with the states and that conservatives want to reduce incarceration numbers also. In other words, it's a promise he can't keep because he has no control over the states' incarceration numbers.

    Bernie (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:56:09 AM EST
    Also voted againat the Brady Bill 5 times.

    Not a hero.


    Next: Bernie in (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    hunting gear holding up a dead bird.

    I think I've seen enough. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 08:58:48 PM EST
    Wolf Blitzer seems more interested in provoking a food fight between the candidates than in moderating an exchange of views. And the panelists really ought to let the candidates finish their sentences before interrupting them. Besides, I've got other things to do this afternoon before I close up shop.


    Seriously, this is just awful (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 09:08:04 PM EST
    as was the predebate buildup by CNN, more appropriate to a WWF bout.  Then, allowing the audience to act like a WWF audience.

    And, yes, worst is the moderators constantly cutting off the answers.  

    CNN should not be allowed to do another debate.


    Ugh! No kidding. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by vml68 on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 11:40:41 PM EST
    I know I've been harping on this but the whole "Jane does our taxes and we've been a little busy lately" bit is really annoying me.  He is running for POTUS for FFS, what kind of bullish!t answer is that. I get that he does not want to release them but at least come up with a better excuse.

    And why do they have to keep mentioning that their taxes are going to be boring. I am starting to think that someone doth protest too much.


    But, but, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Nemi on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 05:45:49 AM EST
    they are so buzy, don't you see. No time for tax returns. Going to Rome and everything ...

    LOL, I think Obama is trolling Sanders. (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by vml68 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 02:29:22 PM EST
    May need H & R Block, (none / 0) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 03:33:18 PM EST
    since busy doing papal things.  And, Jane may not be the best at the job, anyhow.  As president of Burlington College in Vermont, she ran into some financial issues, such as, apparently, overstating pledged contributions in a loan application for the 2010 purchase of 32 acres of prime property for the Lake Champlain campus.  Mrs. Sanders resigned over differences of opinion on the future of the College.

     Now, two presidents later, the struggling College is selling off 27 acres to a developer, a controversial move that Mrs. Sanders is said to be against, but the documents in 2010 do look to development. (The Catholic Archdiocese of Burlington sold the former orphanage property for $10 million in cash needed for settlement of a sex abuse scandal, including involvement with some of the little orphans.)


    Wonder if Jane helps Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by vml68 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:04:10 PM EST
    with his Personal Financial Disclosures for the Senate. They should fire whomever is doing it and get some professional help. Handling financial reporting does not seem to be their forte.

    I did read about Jane's time at Burlington College. I have a feeling if Bernie somehow gets the nomination, we are going to hear quite a bit about that subject from the Repubs.


    yeah, my first thought was - Whitewater II (none / 0) (#154)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 05:52:52 PM EST
    If Bernie gets the nomination, and (none / 0) (#155)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 05:59:32 PM EST
    if he is elected, we will be hearing a lot from Jane. She will go on MTP etc. on a regular basis to complain about the continuing Borking of Bernie by the press.

    Chill y'all... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:04:28 PM EST
    the boring tax returns of one of the poorer members of the US Senate for 2014 will be released today, and the rest to follow.  

    Meanwhile, those Goldman Sachs transcripts will never ever see the light of the day...never ever, never ever ever.

    Not that I really need to see either to make up my mind.


    you think the full returns will (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:06:08 PM EST
    be released today? With faith like that, you should be Pope! Feel the Bern!

    That's what the man said last night... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    for 2014 at least.  We'll see, they've got another 10 1/2 hours EST.

    Did Jane go home (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    or to the Vatican?

    Yo no se... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    it would suck if she had to miss the trip just to shut you people up! ;)

    When in Rome, (none / 0) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:48:52 PM EST
    work on your taxes.  It's April 15, time to start thinking about those 2015 returns--or filing for an extension because busy.

    So hard to work sitting (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    On coach though. So crowded. No privacy.

    He took a coach? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:05:26 PM EST
    All those Bernie Bros coronation stuff must have gone to his head.  Besides, someone should tell him that we have steamships these days.

    They're not due until the 18th. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:17:03 PM EST
    Friday being a sort of catch all holiday for federal employees in D.C..  

    Jane Sanders (none / 0) (#143)
    by Nemi on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:30:08 PM EST
    attended the conference as 'Senior Adviser' but Bernie brought the extended family it seems:

    The Vermont senator was joined by all four of his children and four grandchildren, as well as his wife Jane. A small group of staff, Secret Service detail, and members of the press were also accompanying him for the trip on a chartered plane.

    From that same link: (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Nemi on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 05:06:52 PM EST
    He is not going to give a political speech," Devine said Thursday evening before CNN's debate, "he is going to go and talk about an issue that he cares deeply about, which is a moral economy in the world, and dealing with the tremendous income and inequality not just in America but everywhere. Bernie is a tremendous admirer of Pope Francis...and he really appreciates the opportunity to speak about this on the world stage.

    On "the world stage"!? Oh, for heavens - heh, no pun intended -  sake you guys, we're talking The Vatican. The worlds smallest (independent) state ... and by the way a stinking wealthy state. Why no concern about that wealth and how that was accumulated? Moral economy?


    He might (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    be one of the poorest or he might not but I'm willing to bet he's a multimillionaire.

    One of the Goldman Sachs speeches is online and you can watch it. So you're wrong about the "light of day" when at least one is already on you tube.


    Not going to chill on this one, Mr K. (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by vml68 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    If Hillary refused to release her tax returns I would have been just as vocal about it because I would have assumed she was hiding something.
    The reason we know about the Goldman speeches and how much she was paid is because she released her taxes. So, Sanders gets to hit her over the head with it because she was transparent.

    Whereas, Mr. Transparency is the one hiding his. He has been in politics long enough to know that candidates for POTUS are expected to release multiple years of tax returns.
    Even if his taxes are squeaky clean, the very fact that his excuse for not releasing them is that Jane does it and they have been busy tells me that he is either incompetent, a liar or both. IMO, if he cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, he is disqualified from running for the presidency.
    They have both repeatedly mentioned that their taxes are boring, they are one of the poorer members of the Senate and yet Jane said that they have asked for an extension every year. Why is that?


    No idea... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:31:22 PM EST
    but I can't imagine what could possibly be in there that could possibly change my mind about the kind of people The Sanders' are. The summary already released is proof that they do their own taxes, just like me...I'm f*ckin' sold!  

    Now if they filed a 1040-EZ instead of a 1040, I might be so smitten I'd finally cough up my 27 bucks.

    I wonder who the last president was who did their own taxes...I just think that's so f*ckin' cool, if inconsequential.  


    I do my own taxes but I can guarantee (none / 0) (#91)
    by vml68 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:57:47 PM EST
    you would not want me running for POTUS :-)

    I don't know what we will find in their taxes either but some of the speculation I have read on the intertubes is
    a) they are worth quite a bit - gotta hide that if you are railing against the millionaires and billionaires
    b) they are not worth much at all - i.e., fiscally irresponsible.
    c) they don't give much to charity - not a surprise since Bernie did mention in an interview a while back that he does not believe in it. But, it does not look good when you are preaching about helping the less fortunate.
    d) they are exploiting every tax loophole to pay as little as possible - not cool from someone who preaches tax fairness.

    Right now, I am leaning towards (d) because I know how much my husband and I paid in taxes when we were earning what Sanders is and I can tell you we paid more than twice what he did. But, unless he releases his complete tax filing, we won't know whether his deductions were fair or iffy.


    The summary... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:16:43 PM EST
    seemed to indicate a rate of 19-20% if I'm not mistaken...a higher rate than most wealthy speculators pay (15%).  If that's more than you paid, I blame the Bush tax cuts! ;)

    There might be a "gotcha" in there, who knows, I doubt it will lessen The Bern, and who's undecided at this point in the home stretch of The Derby prep?  Not many, I'd guess.

    But if you find a bludgeon in there, have at it pal, beat the snot out of 'em with it from the NY Harbor to California! Though it might not have the desired effect.


    No point in doing this... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by vml68 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:46:29 PM EST
    But if you find a bludgeon in there, have at it pal, beat the snot out of 'em with it from the NY Harbor to California

    I doubt if it would change many minds.

    I just think that if he is going to go after her on the transcripts then he needs to release his taxes before he gets to make any demands.

    I have always had an aversion to preachers and holier-than-thou types and that is what grates on my nerves most about Sanders. Not to mention that pointy finger :-)!


    Funny... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 02:04:46 PM EST
    I usually have that aversion too...but I'm diggin' this sermon, this is Sermon on The Mount or Beautitudes sh&t right here.  

    I make exceptions for The Wailers too, and Bruce Springsteen.


    My (none / 0) (#151)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 05:12:55 PM EST
    pet theory has something to with this  
    Rep. Bernard Sanders' wife Jane was paid about $30,000 from 2002 to 2004 for work on his campaigns, while his stepdaughter Carina Driscoll got about $65,000 over a five-year period ending last year, a Sanders aide said
    Such payments are not illegal, but some watchdog groups say they raise questions about nepotism. "It's a form of self-dealing and anytime you're involved with self-dealing, questions are going to be raised," said Larry Noble, head of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based campaign finance watchdog group.

    Bernie's Senate campaigns spent roughly an order of magnitude more than his  house campaigns, you do the math.

    Fun fact: Per OpenSecrets, Bernie raised over 7 million in 2012 and spent less than half.


    Contributions? (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:09:01 PM EST
    Maybe it has to do with contributions?  Or source of income?  Some contribution or receipt that might not suit his postures .... When such a long period of time has passed and when we know that the documents exist because of tax laws, etc., why would anyone not just reach in the file-cabinet or whatever and publicize them (especially if they are so boring?)

    I'm not a betting person.  Yet, it really is fairly easy--under the circumstances--to believe, as I do, that HRC balks at the release of transcripts because this understandably highly-paid top-line celebrity speaker spoke nice things, told a few of the usual luncheon jokes, acted courteously, provided general commentary to an industry, and maybe even gave encouragement to the audience in their industry.  That is what usually happens anytime you pay to see someone (politician or not) ... it isn't nefarious, it just is the ongoing meet & greet syndrome in all walks of life.  One thing may be different, arguably: Knowing that Sanders is on a fishing-expedition for an issue, it may be surmised that any courteous sentence--no matter how nothing-burger--could & would be demagogued ala "Why did she say something nice to the bad guys" or "What did she mean by that" etc. etc.  From that angle it makes no sense & satisfies nothing to accede to a circular situation ... especially when there is not the slightest claim that any quid pro quo was even suggested.  

    What we know: HRC, as a paramount person of interest & celebrity internationally, was paid large sums to grace meetings, events etc. or business organizations.  As for Senator Sanders: What we know is that he has not released multiple years (or anything approaching that) of tax returns AND we also know that failure to release to date is at odds with what has become expected of candidates in presidential races.  It may be as much of a nothing-burger in the long-run as Clinton's speaking fees ... or it may be more problematic in view of the fact that he is the stone-thrower in this $$$$$ suspicion situation and in view of the fact that we do not know $$$$$ paid or contributed on his public watch.  


    I agree regarding HRC... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:30:43 PM EST
    she's in no-win situation...which begs the question Scott has asked repeatedly, if she knew she was going to run again, was all this worth a couple hundred grand?  It's not like they weren't already rich in 2008.

    I also agree there is no smoking gun in those transcripts...no "rob them suckas blind my brothers, pass the Cristal!".  Just pleasantries that would be politically damaging in light of the nation's income disparity and systemic fraud problems.


    This whole thing is a stupid non issue (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:39:31 PM EST
    No one cares about this besides BernieBros and Wolf Blitzer.

    She did it because it's a non issue.  Why the hell shouldn't she do it.   Every former SOS in history has been paid vast amounts for speeches.   That's how it works.   She might have even been able to predict the sillyness that's now floating around.

    One thing I can pretty much guarantee you, after all the Clintins have been through they do not start every conversation with "gee, I wonder how THIS will play?"


    It's not a speech at the rotary club... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:44:25 PM EST
    it's for a criminal organization who just paid a 5 billion dollar fine for massive fraud.  The mother*ckin' Vampire Squid!  

    It's not about the speeches, it's about who signed the check.


    You are getting on the high-horse (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 03:17:36 PM EST
    of changeable political morality, kdog.  Maybe this fever/passion for our candidate effects us all, but one of my biggest surprises at TL on this particular matter is your stringency with regard to Hillary Clinton almost all the way around ... while at the same time disregarding or disinterest or totally different presumptions if questions about money (as in taxes), behavior (the gun violence issue), attitude (recent name-calling), etc. so long as it is your guy Sanders.

    It is somewhat promising that in this thread--if I read it right--your comments seem to acknowledge that the difference in your reaction comes down to that old bugaboo that has nothing to do with anything other than liking-your-man & disdaining-the-woman-HRC; and, looking more like "Sanders good; Clinton bad."  'Nice to know.


    Of course it is (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    It's obvious that they never think about that (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:51:46 PM EST
    And maybe never thought about that.

    It's a nouveau riche mentality. Seen it many times before.


    That's your job (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    Dear St Bernie did not have any issues (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by vml68 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:59:46 PM EST
    As the fictional Senator Bulworth said.. (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:44:24 PM EST
    Who you gonna vote for, the Republicans?!

    You're not gonna vote for the Republicans.


    Tone shrill, knives sharpened, nothing else new (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Realleft on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 10:39:12 PM EST
    I'd call a draw on this one on debate points, almost, but then something larger seemed to happen.  

    I think Sanders got the better on economy/healthcare/education (combined discussion featuring his signature issues), and also on energy/climate change. Clinton won on guns women's issues and diversity.  Draws on various other issues on the table.

    On governing overall, it just depends on if you favor competent, insider, machinery politics or grand bids to change the  game at large.  

    On presence, I thought Hillary came across somewhat poorly early on with that kind of mean-spirited approach that I think was part of her demise against Obama 8 years ago, not because it's harsh for a woman, etc., but because it makes her look lacking in confidence and leadership, while Bernie loomed large and confident.  But by the end of the debate I thought Hillary owned the stage, with Bernie struggling to even be noticed, thanks to her repeatedly ignoring the moderators' attempts to stop her on time and claiming the stage more or less as her own campaign stop, particularly when she strongly protested that at no debate had women's issues ever been raised and then ruled on that issue for a few minutes.  

    To close, Sanders' closing speech won the hearts crying out against an almost wholly rigged system and you saw almost Beatlesque rapture on audience faces and long, strong chants of "Bernie!"  Then Clinton countered with a local, regional, soft-pedaled "we're in this together, us New Yorkers, we've been together since 9/11 and I've been honored to serve you and would be humbled to be your choice to keep moving forward together."  I thought it was the closest I've ever seen her come to channeling Bill Clinton's personal touch style, and it was powerful.

    Given her lead in the NY polls, and scoring big on women's issues and holding her own on diversity advantage, I think Sanders didn't get what he needed from the debate to change the likely win in New York for Hillary.

    Bad header (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Realleft on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 10:46:23 PM EST
    It's where I started, but I worked my way to a different point, didn't I?  There was something new, probably the ascendance of Hillary Clinton (already well ahead, but possibly rounding the corner to the nomination).  Maybe I misread, we'll see in a few days, but she only had to draw tonight to maintain her advantage, and I think she went beyond that in the end.

    Boy, he is condescending. (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by ExPatObserver on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 11:30:26 PM EST
    I don't think that will win him any extra support.
    Obama at his worst in 2008 wasn't openly scornful the way Sanders is.
    I thought Clinton's statement on women's issues was superb, very strong.

    Eye of the beholder (none / 0) (#115)
    by Realleft on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    Hillary had her fair share of sighs, laughs, eye rolling, low blows, and other condescensions.  And yes, her statement on women's issues was the home run of the evening, I thought.

    the attempt to get the Pope's blessing (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:29:03 AM EST
    is amazingly shameless. I know that's not a debate issue, but wow...

    I am reminded of Krugman's remark (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 07:07:31 AM EST
    that Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of a smart person. Sanders is a bit in that mold as well, in my opinion. He doesn't seem to know many precise facts, but he has the air of confidence and is a bit professorial, giving some people the impression that he's actually smart, and knows what the hell he's talking about.

    Why was Clinton and not Sanders (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by mm on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:35:46 AM EST
    asked about the 1994 Crime Bill, when Sanders was the one who voted it?  Then Sanders basically called Secretary Clinton a racist. For a word she spoke once 20 years ago.  

    The Sanders comment came when NY1 host and debate moderator Errol Louis asked Sanders why he had criticized Bill Clinton for defending his wife when confronted by protesters holding a sign that said "Black people are not super predators"--a term Hillary Clinton used in 1996 while campaigning for her husband and his criminal justice policies. "Because it was a racist term and everybody knew it was a racist term," Sanders responded to applause.

    I'm sorry to say, but Sanders is a nasty piece of work.  

    And CNN let Sanders skate on the issue even though he supported the bill and campaigned on it when you ran for the Senate.

    It is a racist term (3.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Realleft on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 02:04:04 PM EST
    That's why.  It's not nasty to call someone out on racism, it's nasty to say racist things.  To identify inner-city black men as superpredators was racist. It was all part of the mythology of crack-crazed African men preying on white women and girls.  The mythology was important in passing anti-black crime legislation that was surely among the worst things that happened in Bill Clinton's administration.  

    You can be supportive of Hillary without having to defend everything she's ever said, and without trying to offload blame on someone who calls her on it.  And, no, he didn't say she is a racist, he said it is a racist term.  And just like Sanders could have easily apologized to the families of Sandy Hook, she could have just stepped up and said yes, sorry, that was a mistake and it was wrong.  Pretty simple.


    She did (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by mm on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 02:30:13 PM EST
    In a written response to The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart on the issue Thursday, Clinton said: "Looking back, I shouldn't have used those words, and I wouldn't use them today."

    "My life's work has been about lifting up children and young people who've been let down by the system or by society, kids who never got the chance they deserved," Clinton continued in the statement. "And unfortunately today, there are way too many of those kids, especially in African-American communities.  We haven't done right by them.  We need to.  We need to end the school to prison pipeline and replace it with a cradle-to-college pipeline."

    To quote from Bob Somerby today,

    For the record, Hillary Clinton used the term in question exactly once, back in 1996.

     Twenty years later, it finally happened. Candidate Sanders dropped a bomb in response to that troubling act. "Everybody knew it was a racist term," the all-knowing bomb-dropper said.

     Did everyone know, or even think, that it was "a racist term?" Not to judge by the evidence!

    As we noted yesterday, the term was in fairly widespread use in the mid-1990s. It was used by an array of players arguing an array of viewpoints. There was no sign that these various players thought or knew that they were using a racist term.

     Luckily, we now have Sanders to let us know that they did!


    No one has better archives than (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 03:09:03 PM EST

    Need to dig into it this weeekend.


    Good for her! (none / 0) (#191)
    by Realleft on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 12:09:58 PM EST
    Didn't konw that.  Thank for sharing.  I wish she would've said those words that directly on stage and help to put this particular nightmare behind us. Obama is falling way short on his promise to release prisoners held on nonviolent charges trumped up by racism - it's easy to let these things slip by but I promise no one's getting out of prison if we end up with a President Ryan or other R....

    Fingers in your ear's much? (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by FlJoe on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    On the other side, there were decisions that were made that now we must revisit and we have to correct. I think that sentences got much too long. The original idea was not that we would increase sentences for non-violent low-level offenders, but once the federal government did what it did, states piled on.

    So we have a problem. And the very first speech I gave in this campaign was about what I will do to reform the criminal justice system and end the over-mass incarceration.

    ... and has since repeatedly expressed her regret for doing so. She most certainly didn't intend it to be racist, but it was in fact racist in its practical effect and subsequent application.

    That said, what I find both annoying is the opportunistic and selective recollection of her opposition, who take the entire crime bill out of its historical context to lambaste the Clintons as though they had somehow single-handedly crammed that measure down America's throat in 1994, even though -- harsh truth be told -- many of the crime bill's harshest critics today once likewise supported and even championed its passage 22 years ago.

    I think most all of us here can agree today that the 1994 Crime Bill was severely flawed and further, both Sec. Clinton and Sen. Sanders have pledged to undertake serious reform efforts to correct its obvious excesses. For that, they should be applauded.

    But it's politically disingenuous to then further insist that Clinton -- who, let's please remember, was First Lady in 1994 and not yet a member of Congress -- should now shoulder the primary burden of responsibility for the measure's original enactment, while simultaneously granting a set of mulligans to Sanders for having actually twice voted for its passage as a Vermont congressman. That's an illogical and odoriferous double standard which needs to be called out whenever it's raised.



    How about this (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:36:08 PM EST
    It may be impolitic but "super predators" is not an unreasonable term for the people she was describing.   Any one who has ever seen them in real life can tell you that.

    Now, this may be like "CP time" and since I never managed a campaign Im probably unable to grasp the subtle nuance of my betters who have.  But IMO this is more bullsh!t.

    If a person qualifies as a super predator it's not racist to call them that just because the are black.  


    I would (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:15:01 PM EST
    hazard a guess that many of the AA community leaders a had a few impolitic terms for them at the time.

    Read what I actually said, Cap'n. (2.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 05:50:58 PM EST
    "[I]t was in fact racist in its practical effect and subsequent application." (Emphasis is mine.)

    In other words, while Mrs. Clinton never intended the word "superpredator" as racist at the time she said it, per subsequent use it became such because like the term "thug," its application is almost exclusively analogous to a description of young African-American males.

    Therefore, "superpredator" is effectively racist because it's become a dog whistle that's since been used repeatedly by white politicians to conjure up images of menacing black men in the minds of their white constituents -- even though, truth be told, the appellation is probably much more appropriate in the case of the soon-to-be-sentenced serial child molester, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.



    Yes! (none / 0) (#193)
    by Realleft on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 12:17:17 PM EST
    Separate bathrooms for Republican politicians...

    Ouch. (none / 0) (#192)
    by Realleft on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    Yes, it is still racist.  Because it is not isolated.  There is a very long history of governmental officials using racism to suppress and oppress minorities - it's how the foundational anti-drug laws were passed int he first place and in the context of several ramping up penalties based largely on laws that are biased in their core penalty structure and even more biased in the way they are applied, it can't be divorced from racist roots.  

    If Hillary later clarified and was contrite, then it's nothing to hold against her. I wish she would have reiterated on the debate stage. In the context of the debate, it was an answer to a question directly asked Sanders, so I give him a pass for mentioning it then.  But then enough is enough, so he should let it go now.


    Does anyone have any good sources (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Suisser1 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:53:08 AM EST
    for info on the ongoing investigation into Bernie's $10 million in undocumented campaign funds? More, why is this not news?

    Beats me (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Nemi on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    The response date to this one (PDF) was up two weeks ago. It has 90 pages documenting 'Excessive, Prohibited, and Impermissible Contributions'.

    Take a look at 'Barbara Bahnsen': Her donations alone take up almost three pages, heh. Sure doesn't look legit to me, but what do I know ...


    To be fair to Sanders, ... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 05:30:54 PM EST
    ... his campaign has long been financed by the 21st century equivalent of "Pass the Hat." But nowadays, campaign finance law now requires that even small $5-$10 contributions to be meticulously documented for Federal Election Commission purposes, and the candidates' campaigns must account for each and every one of those contributors.

    As I believe most of us know, there is a practical limit to what an individual is allowed to contribute in a given election cycle (primary and general), and contributions from foreign nationals are strictly prohibited. That appears to be the two areas in which the alleged violations are concentrated.

    Personally, given that the FEC has not leveled any accusations, but has instead asked for a more thorough re-examination and accounting of these contributions in its letter to the Sanders campaign, I don't think there's anything nefarious going on here. More than likely, the sheer volume of small donations to Sen. Sanders is taxing the physical capacity and ability of those persons who've been tasked with accounting and reporting them to the FEC.

    In other words, they're being overwhelmed by the generosity of millions of individual supporters, and are unable to keep up the pace per FEC rules and requirements regarding monthly reporting. Thus, the campaign will now have to devote more human and material resources to address and resolve the ongoing problem. Sorry, but I don't see any underlying scandal here. All campaigns should have the luxury of such "violations."



    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:33:22 PM EST
    it speaks to a general shoddiness in his software. I mean the FEC IMO shouldn't be pointing out to the Sanders campaign that someone donated 5K at one time. Of course, I'm not an expert on any of this but I would think software would be able to catch that kind of thing and not even let it go through.

    Senator Sanders (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    provided, in largest measure, the same answers to whatever question.  Most faithful debate watchers could  anticipate the responses, if not beat Bernie to his own punch.

     The difference, in this go-around,  was that Mr. Sanders presented them with emotions laced with less enthusiasm and more embitteredness. Mrs. Clinton tried to make a point without making an enemy, but soon found that the Sanders' point was to make her an enemy.

    The debate dilemna for Mrs. Clinton seemed to be how to titrate assertions and challenges against policies and politics. And, of course, how to manage it all while seemingly being transported into a Sanders' rally, what with chants of Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.

     That cataract soon fell away, and the course became clear---ignore the interruptions of the hapless and hopeless moderators and point out the less than pure record of Senator Sanders, being most successful on guns, along with pointing out his ineffectiveness of the past and his detail-shy plans for the future.

     Fortunately, for Mrs. Clinton, she did not have to confront the visual interruptions of Senator Sanders that may have annoyed her as much as it did many viewers--the finger raising and facial grimacing indicating displeasure, if not disgust with Mrs. Clinton's response. Surely they were blatantly wrong and needed instant correction:  But, not really.  Little of that urgency was carried forward when he was given, or took, an opportunity to do so.  

    Mrs. Clinton applauded those who applauded Senator Sanders, applauding their enthusiasm and involvement, now for Sanders, later, implied, for her.  Of course, Senator Sanders runs the risk now that much of this enthusiasm was spent last night, and other matters, such as exams (where the professors will likely insist on details) may prevent ballot box enthusiasm.  And, Mrs. Clinton runs the risk that Senator Sanders anger and embitterment will fuel the Bernie or busters. And, then, the real winner of this debate would be neither Sanders or Clinton.

     Hello, there, Trump.  Good Morning, Cruz.  

    Does this (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:45:54 AM EST
    Make sense to anybody? (my bold)
    BASH: ... Thank you, Secretary. Senator Sanders, you were recently asked what you would replace the big Wall Street banks with if you could break them up. You said, quote, "That's their decision."
    Why would you trust the banks to restructure themselves?
    SANDERS: First, Dana...
    BASH: when you said the whole business model was fraudulent?
    SANDERS: That's right. So, let's start off with the basic premise. A few days ago Goldman Sachs formally reached a settlement with the United States government for $5 billion dollars. What Goldman Sachs acknowledged was, essentially, that they were selling fraudulent packages of subprime mortgage loans.
    Goldman Sachs was not the only bank, other banks, of course, did the same. Now, I don't need Dodd-Frank now to tell me that we have got to break up these banks, A, because they're based on fraudulent principles, and B, because when you have six financial institutions that have assets equivalent to 58% of the GFP of this country, they are just too big, too much concentration of wealth and power.
    BASH: But, Senator...
    SANDERS: The point is we have got to break them up so that they do not pose a systemic risk and so that we have a vibrant economy with a competitive financial system.
    BASH: But Senator, you didn't answer the specific question which is not just about breaking up the banks, but why allow the banks to do it themselves?
    SANDERS: Because I'm not sure that the government should say is you are too big to fail. You've got to be a certain size. And, then the banks themselves can figure out what they want to sell off. I don't know that it's appropriate that the Department of Treasury to be making those decisions. What we need is to make sure that they are safe.

    Continued incoherence on his signature issue if you ask me.  


    He forgot to say "moral" (none / 0) (#64)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:52:21 AM EST
    10 times.

    Shorter (none / 0) (#76)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:14:03 PM EST
    Bernie: I don't need no stinking laws

    Over the line ? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by smott on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    Using the Pope

    What say you?

    IMO we are just reaching the (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    Bottom of the barrel.  As it becomes more and more obvious his campaign is hopeless I expect to see quite a bit more cringeworthy stuff.

    It's sad actually.  Sanders started this respected by almost everyone.  Even me.  He will pi$$ it away.  Every bit.  


    Back in the Pre-Michigan debate (none / 0) (#138)
    by smott on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:19:19 PM EST
    Sanders was notably more negative and aggressive.
    Then he won MI in an upset, and I remember thinking it's all gonna be $hit slinging from here on.

    Too true.


    Listening the last couple of days (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:23:43 PM EST
    I begin to think he really will try to blow up the convention.  He really seems to be laying the groundwork.

    The good news is the republicans are even way more fu@ked than we are.


    Certainly Weaver (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by smott on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    Is hyping it hard.
    But it's delusion.
    Sander has never done anything for these SuperDs just as he has done nothing for downstream  Dems in a year when at least taking back the Senate is crucial. And done nothing for the Party, except use its name to benefit himself.

    It's fantasy that the Supers would lift a finger for him, much less overturn a popular vote.

    In fact it's more than that, it's stunning arrogance.

    I've been so disappointed in the Sanders campaign of late, and though I think Weaver is the prime a$$hole in much of it, I have to blame Sanders at this point. This is his ship.

    Pope "endorsement" and all.


    Read the updated Associated Press story (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    about the "encounter" with the Pope.  Per the AP: Sanders & wife & another couple were standing in the lobby of the hotel where Pope Francis has resided since the beginning of his papacy.  When Pope Francis came downstairs on his way to Greece concerning the immigration situation, he spotted the small group in the lobby and decided--per the Pope's words--to greet them because it was polite and "good manners" to do so.  He shook their hands.  Pope Francis later said to press on returning to the Vatican that the encounter was not an endorsement, and that he was not getting involved in politics ... per the AP again, adding with a laugh that anyone who would think that his gesture was "anything but good manners" should "see a psychiatrist."

    Looking at which story is most likely accurate ... the Popes version, clearly.  Perhaps, Mr. Sanders in his anxiety about possibly being embarrassed by the costly flight to & from Rome with his entourage somehow saw the encounter as something more.  If so, he ought to heed Pope Francis' advice.  

    As my husband said when reading the AP story: 'Looks like Sanders tried to play the Pope, and got caught."  <My only comment: Sanders & his group did seem to play the NYT, tho, as witness its early story allowing Sanders to describe meeting-with-the-Pope (?) in glowing terms.  Hmmmm.  Remember the changing story about Kim Davis & the short greeting at the Papal Nuncio's residence in D.C. last Fall???>


    It's (none / 0) (#205)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 01:12:11 PM EST
    pope stalking! LOL.

    All true (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:57:34 PM EST
    Still there are plenty of procedural things they could do at the convention to keep Sanders in the news.  They would have the entire media/celebrity cess pool doing their best to give cover and legitimacy to every thing they do.

    It will fail.  Of course.  But so what we have all known for months Sanders would not be the nominee.  I think we have gone beyond the place where that is even the point.


    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by smott on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    We've gone past simple self righteousness and intolerance with Sanders and we are deep into narcissism and arrogance.

    And every bit of it helps the GOP.

    Sanders has now come out against Obama's SC nominee.

    Go TEAM!!


    Beware the man... (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:34:29 PM EST
    ....believes himself to be a movement.



    I recommend the D party (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    eat some prunes.

    Cause in the end (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    He's not a movement.   He's just number 2.

    Nope (none / 0) (#195)
    by Realleft on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 12:28:54 PM EST
    This little infighting stuff isn't anything compared to real political battles and most won't remember it even if Sanders doesn't win, which isn't decided yet.  If Hillary gets the nomination (not assured yet), the Republicans will hit her so hard on Benghazi and the emails that almost no one will remember any of this.  Before the election, she may well face charges or at least an extended investigation by the FBI and the Benghazi committee will likely hit her hard.  These may both be old issues to most of us, but they'll be played out through the Republican echo chamber as traitorous acts and will be convincing to people inclined to be convinced.

    You can be bothered by the to and fro, which I think Hillary does every bit as much as Bernie, but many of us will remain grateful that Sanders is the only politician on the stage talking about many important foundational topics that I personally all progressives should be thrilled to hear.  

    Clinton may well be the more experienced person, more connected and involved, with more detailed and realistic plans, but along the way she lost her ability or maybe just willingness to talk about the things that are killing us - excessive corporatism and militarism and a government that serves special interests and the rich, and prioritizes international wheeling and dealing over the interests of the bulk of the American people.  I'll say over and over that if she wins the Democratic nomination, I'll support her for the presidency, but I don't feel the need to bury my head in the sand and not see what's real.  And although I think Elizabeth Warren is an even better carrier of the torch, I will remain appreciative of Sanders for raising it higher than it's been raised in decades.


    Beaten to the punch (none / 0) (#131)
    by smott on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 03:53:10 PM EST
    Above! Apologies.

    Even Huffpo says Bernie is losing (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:10:10 PM EST
    the race... and you know, when you've lost Cronkite, you've lost the war.

    MSNBC saying Bernie's w/in (none / 0) (#168)
    by sallywally on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 07:23:17 PM EST
    Two points of HRC in polling nationally. Can this be?

    Only (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 07:28:18 PM EST
    on a poll that was done on the internet. National polls are stupid at this point because so many people have voted already and Bernie is losing.

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#171)
    by sallywally on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    So much for CNN.

    RCP (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 07:50:57 PM EST
    has it +1.2, lots of small sample RV polls. Huff Post has it 3.2 RV and +6 LV.

    Still the gap has been steadily closing and there is no doubt that many people are buying into Bernie's revolution.


    I noted that most of the so-called (none / 0) (#201)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    national polls were taken of "Adults" (and not "likely voters" or "registered voters."  I may have misread ... if, however, it was a sample of "adults," the results more often than not will differ by several points from the more controlled for polls.

    the war is the contest for delegates (none / 0) (#177)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    Cronkite/Huffpo admits this is hopeless.

    As much as it pains me... (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:38:29 PM EST
    to admit it, Tent is right about one thing - Pols are Pols.  They're all flawed, craven, self-involved/self-interested psychopaths who will say and do anything to get elected.  Its just a matter of degree.  But make no mistake, there are no heros in politics at the national level.

    Someone once said that all politics are local and if this country is to progress, it starts there.  Keeping the reactionary, ignorant SOB's off our school boards and out of city/county/state government is so important. Those down ticket races are so vital. I'm worried too many people are caught up in hero worship to realize this.  

    Anyway, enjoy some Tacocat and Car Seat Headrest.

    Read "The Psychopathology of Politics" (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    Harold D. Lasswell wrote that major thesis along about 1937/38.  Among other things, the document is the first chronicle of political science's study of what makes the politician, the public official tick.  When I was young, I thought Lasswell was too cynical ... ha, now he sure seems to have grown in smarts & comprehension.  

    Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:53:53 PM EST
    pulls a fast one,aided by Wolf and
    CNN SANDERS: Well, I think we got one that's coming out tomorrow.

    BLITZER: Which one?

    SANDERS: Last year's.

    BLITZER: 2014? [ed note: check your calendar Wolf]

    SANDERS: Yes.

    He came through on his word all right, releasing the same return he made public months ago. Link

    The brilliant journalists on CNN on acting like it's breaking news of course.

    Oh, good grief (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 07:27:12 PM EST
    It's still the same thing and he hasn't released any other years.

    and (none / 0) (#173)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 08:02:21 PM EST
    of course they cycled back to "demanding" that Hillary release the GS Transcripts, I mean it's only "fair".  

    These so called journalists are a joke. I recognized Bernie's rerun in a second and verified it less than a minute. Of course it was a nothingburger, that's why he released it months ago.


    And if she (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 08:45:49 PM EST
    has acted like he has you wouldn't even know about the speeches.

    now asking... (none / 0) (#2)
    by linea on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 08:26:43 PM EST
    QUESTION: Why doesnt Clonton release the transcripts of her speaches to Goldman Sachs and put the issue to rest?

    Question (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:15:52 AM EST
    Why are no other candidates being asked to do this?

    Then (none / 0) (#4)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 08:33:56 PM EST
    predictably to tax returns. Hillary said I don't want to,  Bernie I'm still busy but any day now.
    They both squirmed a bit.

    Becsuse (none / 0) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 09:32:45 PM EST
    When a big buck speaker comes in the tell the employees how important their work is and how valuable to the community. With Bernie bashing the big banks release of those words would now be embarrassing.

    No (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 10:34:52 PM EST
    you're wrong. Do you really think they hire Hollywood people to say that kind of thing and people expect them to take the speech seriously? What the speeches are are schmooze fests that you invite customers to. One of Hillary's speeches is online and you can watch it. It's called 10,000 women entrepreneurs.

    This is an example ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23:11 PM EST
    ... Of her defensive instinct not doing her any favors. It's the worst of both worlds not to release them.

    She's probably afraid they'll be distorted by her opponents and the media, but that'a happening anyway. Alternatively, she's got her eye on the GE, but even so it's the wrong move.


    I don't think it is the wrong move. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by vml68 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    She is still ahead in terms of both the pledged delegates and the popular vote, so it is not hurting her, yet.
    If it starts to look like it will, then she might want to consider releasing them.
    Shades of wanting Obama to release his 'long form birth certificate'.

    I agree (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    If it wasn't this it would be something else.   She is doing the right thing.

    Uh, no, not really. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:34:34 PM EST
    vml68: "Shades of wanting Obama to release his 'long form birth certificate'."

    First off, any decisions regarding the public disposition and release of President Obama's original long-form birth certificate rested with the State of Hawaii, which possesses the original, and not with Obama himself.

    Further, per administrative rule, our state has long had in place a standing policy prohibiting the public or personal disclosure to outside parties of anyone's original birth documents, not just the president's, due to obvious and justifiable concerns over one's reasonable expectations to a right of privacy and confidentiality.

    Obama had to request both Gov. Neil Abercrombie and State Health Director Loretta Fuddy to waive that administrative rule, and I can assure you from personal knowledge that both were very loathe to do so because of the potential legal precedent it might establish.

    Finally, the mere fact that the State of Hawaii had formally -- and repeatedly -- acknowledged its possession of the original document in our Health Dept.'s files should've been sufficient to put any lingering doubts about Obama's birthplace to rest.

    And quite honestly, of all the nonsensical crap that Obama has had to endure over the last eight years, the GOP's repeated attempts to manufacture controversy over his place of birth has to be the most ridiculous, idiotic and vile.



    I think maybe (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:43:19 PM EST
    You missed the point Donald

    I've already spoken here about this very issue at length quite a few weeks ago, and I'm really not interested in wasting any more of my time further arguing with the same people about it over and again. There's no convincing the all-knowing and adamant.

    Suffice to say that I believe the entire manufactured kerfuffle over the speaking fees of Bill and Hillary Clinton to be all meringue and no filling. And if their critics aren't carping about that, then they're complaining about Bill Clinton having once seduced their grandmothers or some other baseless notion. I can't do anything about it but pity the fools.

    Dogs bark, and the caravan passes.


    I care (none / 0) (#196)
    by Realleft on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    when politicians take very thinly veiled bribes by industries that hurt us, the people.  And make no mistake, the speaking fees are very thinly veiled bribes. There is nothing else they could be.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    then you should have a problem with Sanders taking lots of money from the NRA too.

    Bernie's (none / 0) (#5)
    by FlJoe on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 08:34:41 PM EST
    Laughs at gun violence ?

    That was a weird moment (none / 0) (#116)
    by Realleft on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    They both seem so angry (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 08:37:08 PM EST
    and are screaming rather than debating. This debate is more like the earlier Republican screamfests than early Democratic debates. No one will learn anything from this debate.

    I couldn't watch it (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 07:41:24 AM EST
    It's like a family argument to me. I will just wait until they both calm down and make up later. My daughter texted me and said she hates it when Hillary and Bernie fight (she's a Hillary supporter). That made me laugh and tell her, maybe we can get a win/win with Hillary as President with many of Bernie's policies...she agreed!

    You probably should have (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 10:17:01 AM EST
    Then you might have a clue what you are talking about.

    And they say Bernie nasty! (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:46:16 AM EST
    A fundamental difference of opinion is not ignorance, old friend.

    You cannot discuss the debate (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:58:14 PM EST
    Unless you saw the debate.

    Our blog brother... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    was discussing the debate in relation to why he didn't watch it, I thought your response was a bit harsh.

    If you're voting on gun control, Hillary is your horse...It's not in my Top Ten issues.  I'm more in line with Jeralyn's feelings on gun control.  It's security theater, like at the airport.  And like drugs, if you want 'em there will always be someone to sell 'em.  Political capital spent to reduce violence would be better focused on mental health and...(cover your ears) income disparity.  A person with a job and a little cash in their pocket is a happier person.  


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:49:56 PM EST
    Our blog was discussing in some detail what happened and did not happen in the debate.  

    As far as guns our hostess has a position that does not match the vast majority of democratic voters.  Including myself.   Sanders wants to milk how much we hate Wall Street, fine.  The other teat is how much we hate guns.  Welcome to the Democratic Party.  To you both.


    Also (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    If you are talking about the gun issue, opinion has nothing to do with it.  As once was said, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

    Facts are facts.  

    You can make up fantasy speeches Hillary gave to Goldman Sachs if you want but you can't make up Sanders voting record.  And you can't hide from it.

    And Sanders can't hide from his smarmy slimeball chuckling about the gun discussion that he did last night.  But he sure is trying to.   Thank god for video.


    Chill (none / 0) (#121)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    I was just humanizing the discussion a little.

    Hillary's taking dead aim at the NRA. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 09:00:05 PM EST
    And she ties her opponent to that organization, using Bernie's own autobiography against him to note the NRA's support of him. Suffice to say that the prolonged struggle for the Democratic nomination has taken its toll on the tone and demeanor of both candidates. She clearly wants to put him away next week and is being very aggressive.

    strange reaction from progressives (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by mm on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:01:53 AM EST
    Clinton has shown tremendous political guts going after the NRA as forcefully as she has from Day 1 of her campaign.  She's not pulled any punches and has very clearly made the NRA her enemy.

    Instead of giving her credit for taking a gutsy position, it seems some progressive Bernie supporters are intent on undercutting her position on guns and snapping at her ankles to protect poor pure Bernie from any criticism of his track record on the issue.

    Pure hypocrisy.


    As is Bernie (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 08:30:43 AM EST
    I think Bernie realizes he has to fight back just as hard so he doesn't get swift-boated on the gun issue.

    Swift-boating this ain't. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 08:39:58 AM EST
    Sanders long-held, "principled" pro-gun positions are coming back to bite him now. Boo hoo.

    Isn't it great how (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:12:14 AM EST
    "Swift boating" for the Sanders campaign has become accurately describing his actual votes and positions?

    Do you thnk they ever knew what it really was or just think it's "saying something bad" about your opponent?


    Swift-boating consists of (none / 0) (#40)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:22:26 AM EST
    telling the public about Sanders' votes, without letting him explain what really happened. And let's not forget that "this was just one piece of a larger bill", which he says a lot.

    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:27:03 AM EST
    Instead of band aids with little Purple Hearts Hillary supporters could wear fake bullet holes all over their bodies to the convention.

    They should come to the convention (3.67 / 3) (#60)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:25:15 AM EST
    costumed like little Iraqi refugee children with missing limbs.

    Give it a break. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:57:10 AM EST
    Never (4.00 / 4) (#99)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    But by all means, feel free to post a Joyce Carol Oates-length rejoinder that boils down to saying "everyone makes mistakes".

    I do understand your fixation (none / 0) (#129)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    or special focus on the vote more than 13 years ago.  For years, I held special contempt for the enablers of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (Vietnam) and for the Iraq war decider Bush as enabled by certain Nader voters (see Florida.)  Clearly, there were many deaths & disfigurements & savagery traceable to both situations.  To a lesser extent, I'll even confess a lesser distaste and anger at Senator Feingold's decision to vote for CJ Roberts & Justice Alito in view of his position that, absent obvious specific disqualifying factors, a President's Supreme Court nominations should be given much deference.

    At some point, it occurred to me that my holding on had no effect on anything or anyone other my being stuck ... and the unintended consequences of facing unending acrimony or worse replacements because I would not face the reality that--as you say--"everyone makes mistakes."  My Dad would probably have added one of his favorite living reminders: "Don't cut your nose off to spite your face."  


    It's all they've got (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    "Speeches" and that.

    Thats it.  The fixation becomes understandable in that context.


    It's swiftboating when (none / 0) (#47)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 10:06:53 AM EST
    Hillary says that Bernie Sanders, with a D-minus NRA voting record, is all-in for the NRA and gun manufacturers. And owes an apology to the Sandy Hook parents.

    It is ludicrous on the face of it, but she insists on pushing his one vote to define his whole position on guns.

    Should Bernie go after Hillary for being against freedom of speech, that has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court?


    You must've missed the part of the debate (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by vicndabx on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 10:13:58 AM EST
    where Hillary detailed how since Bernie first lost his bid for Congress (and changed his position on guns to gain support in VT for a win - his words) he has consistently voted against gun control measures.

    Talk about pot calling the kettle black.


    I will look closer, but (none / 0) (#122)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 02:51:48 PM EST
    with a D-minus NRA voting record, I don't believe he "consistently voted against gun control measures". Unless you think litigation against gun manufacturers is the only kind of gun control.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-berni e-sanders-has-been-largely-ve/

    Clinton said Sanders "has been largely a very reliable supporter of the NRA."

    This is a stretch. Sanders won his congressional bid about 25 years ago thanks at least in part to the NRA, and has voted against major pieces of gun control legislation. However, he has also cast votes for gun control and has received low marks from the NRA for the past 20 years.

    Neither the gun lobby nor gun control advocates claim Sanders as their own.


    Sanders is more pro-gun than the majority of Dem. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Anc260 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:48:28 PM EST
    Senators. There are ~ 40 Senators with lower grades from the NRA. The NRA has praised Sanders during this election cycle.

    I agree calling him a "reliable supporter" is a bit of a stretch, but it's far more accurate than Sanders' accusation that Hillary Clinton is a corporate shill.


    What do you call (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 02:53:37 PM EST
    Voting against the Brady Bill 5 times?

    Sorry, Steve, but the immunity issue (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:07:23 PM EST
    is the big one ... and Sanders & the NRA know it.  This isn't about gun-owners; HRC wisely realizes that the real issue relates to the responsibility and/or irresponsibility of the largest gun lobbies.  That's where the $$$$$ are and, that is where bullet violence peddling starts. That is the source, and Sanders (from Vermont) knows it.

    Whaddya mean "they" (none / 0) (#48)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 10:09:47 AM EST
    Are tou insinuating that I don't know what swiftboating means? I certainly do and I used the word after much thought. It's insinuating that a person with an impeccable record on something (Kerry-bravery, Sanders-guns) is somehow the opposite using half-truths.

    OH my! (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 10:14:01 AM EST
    I am not "insinuating" you don't know what it means I'm saying it flat out.  You don't know what it means.

    Hillary recited Sanders voting record on guns.  He voted against the Brady Bill 5 times.  He voted to shield gun makers from liability.  Those facts (that's what those things are called) may make you unhappy.  But they are facts. If you dispute a single word of that please provide links.  Or stop whining.

    As far as your bunched panties, get over it.


    swiftboating (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by mm on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    Kind of like trying to portray Hillary Clinton as a racist.  I think that kind of fits the definition.

    Ok, I take it back. "Borking" (none / 0) (#54)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    might be a more accurate label for what happened to Sanders.

    Position"s"? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:58:22 AM EST
    Are you telling me that there is more than a hair's difference between HRC and BS's gun policies? To make Bernie out as a gun loving, Sandy Hook children hating NRA-fan is more than disingenuous, it's sickening.

    There (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:11:02 PM EST
    is a definite difference in their policies and in their voting records.

    As far as Sandy Hook goes, Bernie did that to himself when he started laughing about the massacre.


    The laughing was weird, (none / 0) (#117)
    by Realleft on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    but that's ridiculous.  Of course he wasn't laughing over the massacre.  Come on.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    he was laughing and the massacre was being discussed. Perhaps he is hard of hearing or something. Take from it what you will but it really looked either stupid or incredibly insensitive. Even you're saying it was "weird".

    You are way too sensible... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    for silly season, my friend.

    I thought it was obvious he was laughing at being painted him as the NRA's best friend...just as Clinton snickers when she is painted as Goldman Sachs best friend.

    It's up to each voter to decide which paint best matches the interior.


    Actually (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 10:15:34 AM EST
    If you believe that I'm telling you you are delusional.

    Boo hoo, Bernie (none / 0) (#21)
    by ExPatObserver on Thu Apr 14, 2016 at 11:28:50 PM EST
    He DID TOO support the bailouts.
    What is this question about Minutemen? I'm watching clips and saw Clinton accuse Sanders of standing with the Minutemen.

    "That was part of a much larger vote" (none / 0) (#24)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:17:24 AM EST
    .. I'll wait for Jane to dig up my 2006 position on that one, right after she finishes talking to Sheriff Joe.

    "My views are that of the Latino (none / 0) (#25)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:21:47 AM EST
     community" , from at about 1:20.

    hmmm, link didn't load (none / 0) (#26)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23:35 AM EST
    It was an interview he walked out of, when asked about the Minutemen and Sheriff Joe.

    Here you go :) (none / 0) (#28)
    by Nemi on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:14:59 AM EST
    He really does talk - and talk, and talk (not to mention attack!) a whole lot more than he listens, doesn't he.

    Btw (none / 0) (#30)
    by Nemi on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:34:32 AM EST
    seeing that clip again I think I now understand why Jane Sanders was so upset over the way her husband was treated by the NYDN: That was probably the first interview in which he wasn't allowed to just drone on and on and on, uninterrupted and without taking questions.

    It's as if he thinks he's a pundit, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:42:17 AM EST
    not a politician.

    I think that's exactly right (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:16:49 AM EST
    I thought the moderators did a (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    Reasonably good job of stopping the crosstalk and keeping them on topic.  Especially Sanders.

    Pope alert -- Pope just apologized, because he (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cashmere on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:57:58 AM EST
    will not be able to meet with Bernie...

    Bernie flew to Rome to make a 10min (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Cashmere on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    speech in front of an academic committee, and now is staging a media event following his speech, to be back in NYC Saturday afternoon.  

    Bahaha (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 10:18:43 AM EST
    I'm thinking that was not the plan

    It was evident from the beginning (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Towanda on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:15:04 AM EST
    of this story that Sanders would not meet -- and was not invited by -- the Pope.  But Sanders' campaign staff continued to claim otherwise (I saw one lying again about this, last night), as did too many media.

    And I really do not get why the campaign paid for three generations of the Sanders family plus a dozen staffers to go along -- for a day in Rome.  


    It is a very stupid stunt. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    Besides the appearance of desperation, people will wonder why he spent all that money.

    Speaking of stupid stunt... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by vml68 on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    this is over the top!
    So much for his statement that the trip to Italy was not about politics.

    If Jeb Bush kisses Pat (none / 0) (#72)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:05:05 PM EST
    Roberton's a**, or Bernie tries to kiss the Pope's ring, I am equally turned off.

    Oh, my (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:17:16 PM EST
    That's to the point of being comical sad to say.

    Not the first time (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by smott on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    Mr Purity has mis-led voters about who appeared to endorse him.

    The use of his campaign logo on that picture is just way over the line IMO.

    Media has not appeared to notice though.

    Yay, famously free press.


    Imagine for a moment (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 03:57:29 PM EST
    That was Hillarys logo

    yes (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by mm on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:04:49 PM EST
    You wouldn't be able to peel Chris Matthews off the ceiling for a week if Hillary had pulled this stunt.

    Double standards (none / 0) (#139)
    by smott on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:20:17 PM EST
    Are SO liberating!....

    Well (3.00 / 2) (#179)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 06:56:43 AM EST
    Madame Sec lef tNYS also, to rasie some mor ecash
    From the 1%


    Holding signs that read "Hillary: You can't sit with us unless you have money" and "$353,000 for Dinner? And you thought SF home prices are high," while banging pots and pans, protesters were vocal about Clinton's ties to big money.

    "Hey, hey, ho ho, Hillary Clinton has got to go!" the crowd, many of whom appeared to be in their twenties and thirties yelled out. "Bernie or Bust!"

    She (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 08:18:28 AM EST
    is raising money for downticket dems increasing the odds of making people like you less relevant every day.

    No complaint from our resident concern troll about how Bernie spent hundreds of thousands of dollars flying his entire family to Italy I see.


    Well (none / 0) (#182)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 09:25:16 AM EST
    Discussing income inequality with the POpe,

    And breaking bread with the 1%, smiling , nodding your head, and accepting their checks in your outstretched hand



    So again (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 09:42:26 AM EST
    no problem with Bernie spending hundreds of thousands on a private jet from people who gave him $27 donations? Hillary also went and played dominoes with senior citizens. You are so elitist Trevor.

    Madame Secretary (3.00 / 2) (#186)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 11:09:31 AM EST
    Has no moral or political compass.

    She will do or say anything to become President.

    She reminds me too much of Gollum, the goal is the One Ring.

    She has been on both sides of almost every issue.

    Power corrupts, and she has spent too much time in the company of power, and just craves its presence, the feel of it in her hand.

    No thank you, I do not agree with most of The Bern's policy prescriptions (I would like to break up the banks though, we should never ever have too big too fail again) , but there there is honesty and integrity there, more so than most politicians


    When (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 11:19:36 AM EST
    the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser - Socrates.

    Yes, we know that the GOP has been completely fluffing Sanders. You are a perfect example of it. The irony is the reason you guys think he's honest is because he admits he's a socialist and you think everybody else is a socialist and they don't admit it therefore they must be lying. You also believe you can beat him. If socialist wasn't such a negative do tell why has the GOP being screaming that word for a long, long time?


    Lol (none / 0) (#188)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 11:23:52 AM EST
    Slander, try truth. Check Madame Sec's positions from 1994 throughout the years. She wets her finger, sticks it in the air and determines which way the wind is blowing.
    And this election cycle, she is not even trying to hide that fact.
    Anything Bernie preaches, he can preach too.
    But he believes what he says , she doesn't.

    Slander (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 11:32:55 AM EST
    because if changing stances on an issue is bad then you would have to criticize Sanders too. Yes, we know by now the GOP is terrified of Clinton and will sling much and scream and slander because they know they can't beat her and you are a perfect specimen.

    Heh, that's good humour (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Nemi on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    Discussing income inequality with the POpe

    Allegedly they met by chance in the lobby of the hotel (damn [mea culpa!], no photographers in sight, so no documentation) - and how can we be sure, that Bernie Sanders hadn't actually stalked the poor man, heh - the Pope on his way to Lesbos to save a couple of refugee families and bring them with him back to Rome, Sanders on his way back to the US on board his chartered - $300.000? - jet, own family, media and security in tow. As seen on Twitter: 'Fuel the Bern!' :)


    Comments from the pope about the visit (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Cashmere on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 01:07:07 PM EST


    Direct quote from the pope.  

    "The pope told reporters about the meeting with Sanders in his own words Saturday, describing his greeting as simple "politeness" and denying that he was "meddling in politics."

    "When I was leaving (Casa Santa Marta) Senator Sanders was there, he came to the meeting on Centesimus Annus, and he knew that I was leaving at that time, and he had the courtesy to greet me," Pope Francis said. "I greeted him and his wife and another couple that was with him."

    "So when I went down, I said hello, a shake of the hand and nothing more," he continued. "This is politeness. This is called good manners, not meddling in politics. And if anyone thinks that to greet someone means to meddle in politics, then I suggest that they find a psychiatrist."


    idiots (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by mm on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 08:23:54 AM EST
    the fundraiser is for the Democratic Party.
    If Sanders somehow inexplicably won the nomination, he would be using that money as well in the general.

    The trip would be (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:38:21 PM EST
    worth it, if Sanders asks the Pope (or the Pope Emeritus) about this: Tony Spence, the director and editor of the Catholic News Service since 2004 and a staff member for 25 years, was fired on Wednesday by the US Conference of Bishops after he made posts on Twitter castigating religious freedom laws as "pro-discrimination" laws against gay people.  The Bishops gave Tony the boot after several conservative Catholic groups posted articles calling attention to his comments.  

    Meanwhile (none / 0) (#146)
    by Nemi on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:44:48 PM EST
    in Italian media, Corriere della Sera. :)

    What Could Possibly Be in the Transcripts? (none / 0) (#55)
    by RickyJim on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 10:58:26 AM EST
    I still can't imagine what incriminating or embarrassing statements Hillary could have made to Goldman-Sachs audiences.  Wouldn't somebody in attendance have leaked them to the press?  Or is this more of a "Why would they pay you so much for such drivel and how dare you accept it" sort of thing.

    I suspect the latter (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 01:51:41 PM EST
    I'm sure they will be most embarrassing in their banality.

    Frank Bruni and Paul Krugman duke it (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    out in the NYT.  

    While on the west coast, ... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    ... the LA Times chronicles the recent abusive behavior by some of Bernie Sanders' more enthusiastic supporters and strongly suggests that at this point in the campaign, they are hurting the candidate rather than helping him.

    Our new (none / 0) (#137)
    by smott on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:17:41 PM EST

    Repubs take 98% of FF donations but hey here's a website attacking the Clintons.

    It makes you despair

    At least Nader (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 04:20:32 PM EST
    Never called himself a democrat

    Neither has Bernie, unless I (none / 0) (#156)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:01:15 PM EST
    missed something. He's wearing a D hat, for sure, but did you notice  "Please give generously" written beneath?

    His answer to that last night was interesting (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:06:55 PM EST
    "Whullll, why else would I be running in the democratic puarty"?

    Actually I can think of several reasons right off the top of my head.


    there must be tons of videos (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 09:53:38 PM EST
    of him saying "I'm a Socialist and proud of it!"
    Nominate Sanders and say hello to President Crumpz

    How do you (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2016 at 06:25:03 PM EST
    even know it's not Republicans running the website?

    Not sure if you have seen this from Krugman (none / 0) (#184)
    by Cashmere on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 09:59:09 AM EST
    It's pretty amazing (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Realleft on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 12:39:10 PM EST
    that Krugman has the @#($ to say this:

    "It's about an attitude, the sense that righteousness excuses you from the need for hard thinking"

    It's like he bumped into a mirror or something.

    He jumped the shark so long ago on issues related to this election that it's too bad he doesn't have anyone to save him from himself.  


    You've got to (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 12:52:32 PM EST
    admit that he has a point. Bernie couldn't explain anything in the NYDN interview.

    I agree Ga6thDem (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by Cashmere on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 01:11:03 PM EST
    Many Bernie supporters have no interest in whether he can get anything accomplished, or whether he has a plan to enact his goals.  Krugman is 100% correct here.  

    Thanks (5.00 / 5) (#206)
    by FlJoe on Sat Apr 16, 2016 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    for the validation. Krugman has been a valuable and reasonable voice on the center-left for a long time. Yet instead of arguing the points he makes you resort to name calling and ad-hominem attacks.

    Krugman many other left leaning economists have long cast doubts on Bernie's plans using reasonable analysis with real numbers and models, and boy were they attacked by the "righteous" hordes.

    I have long respected the professor, his views rarely wander from the basic old school tax and spend Keynesian Democrat,  very supportive of infrastructure spending and the safety net. But also is politically pragmatic and calls it like it is, again  mostly with reasoned analysis and empirical reality.

    However, now that this long time respected voice on the left has the temerity to question Bernie's policies he becomes a pariah, a whore if you will.

    Krugman is 100% correct. Sander's  campaign abandoned hard thinking a long time ago, if they ever did much in the first place. Recently it has morphed into almost a messianic "morality play", anybody who dares question Bernie's is attacked as some variety of sellout. Long term colleagues from the House and Senate(who he both raised and accepted money from) are cast as whores and organizations such as PP are derided as part of the "establishment". This dismissal of Democratic leaders and liberal organizations who do not support him has been going on since day one, at least subtly.

    This dismissal has now escalated into virtual demonization. When your campaign manager goes on live TV and says Hillary is "unqualified" because "She really made a deal with the devil, and we know the devil wants his money in the end. So that's the kind of campaign he's running" leaves  no doubt about it. shark jumping indeed.

    Shark jumping, indeed.



    Krugman (none / 0) (#207)
    by Realleft on Sun Apr 17, 2016 at 09:25:41 AM EST
    Replying to FlJoe...

    Actually, I was pointing out how Krugman has descended to name-calling and ad hominem attacks.  That's my complaint. Sure, I used a bit of sarcasm in so doing...

    Here's my take, at the moment.

    Krugman writes now including himself as a character in the play he wishes to comment on, misrepresents Sanders' points, ignoring the  detail Sanders has provided in order to press a point that Sanders has no details.  Including himself as part of the story is an issue he's had in his writing a long time, since early Obama administration.  Now, fine, it's an op-ed, not supposed to be journalism.  But Krugman has a lot of smugness himself and to go on an ad hominem attack like this is what I'm pointing out.  It doesn't stop me from liking him quite a lot still and appreciating many of his viewpoints, but he's so deeply embedded in being anti-Sanders and pro-Clinton that he's lost his way on this topic, IMHO.  When I find that article where he critiques some of her ideas the same way he has Obama's, forget even Bernie for a moment, I'll look for some balance in his writing on this particular topic. Until then, I'll recall his many op-eds that expressed views much closer to Sanders on a number of economic issues and wonder why he's putting his thumb so heavily on the scale in this primary.

    The Krugman I respect is the one who maintains at least a modicum of distance from the fray, and from that distance, offers on a fairly frequent basis interesting observations and analyses.  That's the one I miss as he's so embedded in the current to and fro that he doesn't have much perspective IMO.  

    Krugman is 100% correct?  Nobody reaches that standard. Nobody.  And it's not that he doesn't make some good points about Sanders' lack of specificity - I'm no fan boy of any of these people, and it's a reasonable critique of Sanders.  But some balance and nuance would be appreciated as well.  And to quote him once more:  "It's about an attitude, the sense that righteousness excuses you from the need for hard thinking."  My criticism of Krugman on these issues is that he has developed a strong attitude on this issue, one of righteousness that he is using to excuse himself from hard thinking.  I see it whenever someone can only find fault in one direction and validity in another. It's taking sides, and the way of thinking is rampant in American discourse.

    this thread is closed (none / 0) (#208)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 17, 2016 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    we close them at 20 comments.