home

Trump and Hillary

Trump says Kaitlin Jenner can use whatever bathroom she wants. (NYTimes, no link, subscription required.)

Trump is reinventing his campaign and Republicans should be worried.

Hillary is considering a female running mate

When is Bernie dropping out?

< R.I.P. Prince and Open Thread | Republicans' "White Knight" Fantasy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It will be (perversely) interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    to see how Trump maneuvers the General Election 180...it's a fine line to soothe the concerns the sane have with him, bring down the 65% "F*ck Trump" rating, while not alienating the insane rabid base of support that got him here, to where they just stay home in November.

    He's liked for not being a politician, and there is no more prototypical politician move than the General Election 180.

    I'd say there is no way he can pull it off, but I thought he'd have been laughed outta the clown car 6 months ago...all I know now is utter bewilderment.

    Trump (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:02:36 PM EST
    is easy to understand. I mean you're a Bernie supporter so it's the same with them only on the other end of the spectrum.

    Parent
    His new comment... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:05:44 PM EST
    is support for trangender rights is not a surprise to you?  It will be a surprise to his rabid followers...like if Bernie had lunch at Peter Lugers with Lloyd Blankfein today.

    Parent
    kdog: Before the campaign (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 06:17:42 PM EST
    Donald Trump was not a part of the crazy right on the "social issues."  He lives in NY....

    What he has done is say every manner of anything to align with the crazy-house the Repubs have become ... so much a political move that he makes all other politicians seem as honest as newborns ... and, it appears, the personal image of hatred, bigotry, misogyny, braggadocio has brought him to the edge of the nomination.  IMO, Trump speaks & does what he needs to for the purpose of winning in his selected party.  The only puzzlers for me about him: (1) What is his real economic position in terms of US growth, jobs, etc.  (2) Did he move too early with the signal that he is not a total right-wing loon on the social issues front, etc.?

    Insofar as comparisons--if any there are--I would offer that Trump's general approach to campaigning in terms of mass audiences and hyperbolic language is quite similar on the right to Senator Sanders use of hyperbolic language on the left.  The techniques of crowd manipulation bear a certain resemblance.  (OTOH, I believe that the positions that Senator Sanders has voiced and put front & center are his genuine, consistently-held positions.  Unlike what I perceive to be Trump's position malleability, the Sanders' approach in terms of what appears to be a give no ground and do not change best resembles the True Believer personality that the other side has in the person of Ted Cruz.  Should you think that is meant to be a disparaging statement, you would be correct. :)

    Parent

    if you think of Trump (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    Like a racist democrat - this all makes sense.

    Transgender people are white people too :)

    Parent

    When America was Great... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:19:04 PM EST
    transgender wasn't in the vernacular, and black people being allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing was the debate of the day...to make America great once more as Trump has promised, don't transgender people have to hide in lifelong misery again while we go back to debating desegregated bathrooms and women in the workplace?  

    Nothing makes sense CST...nothing.  It's silly season!  

    Parent

    i feel.. (none / 0) (#98)
    by linea on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 07:59:58 PM EST
    you calling donald trump a racist is :rolleyes:

    that and the tedious hiltler meme.  just how i feel.

    Parent

    Well, I didn't (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    know that he had come out in support of LBGT rights. However I have no idea how this will play with his supporters. It will probably change nothing as I imagine Bernie having lunch with Lloyd Blankfein would change nothing. That lunch would be described as awesome because Bernie was probably lecturing them about how evil they are.

    Parent
    You don't give anti-establishment... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 04:48:05 PM EST
    people enough credit...we may be naive, idealistic, unrealistic, and dumb...but we're not stupid!

    Politically correct lgbt support is not what bitter old white people clinging to their Trump wanna hear...some will bail and stay home to build the doomsday shelter with traditional bathroom privileges.

    Bernie got two strikes...Tad and whoever the other clown is. Lloyd and he's out!

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 05:13:56 PM EST
    K-dog. So far we've seen Trump do a lot of stuff that you would think would run his supporters off but it hasn't. I'm not sure if gay people will be the straw that breaks the camels back with them or they'll just say he's getting ready for the general and doesn't really mean it.

    Parent
    Trump's criticism (none / 0) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    of North Carolina's bathroom bill surprised me. His bathroom stance was wide and courageous, given the hysterics of so many of his supporters on this issue.

     It will probably not hurt him much in the upcoming primaries, except, possibly, for Indiana. But, still it will be interesting to see if this will be just one more firmly held belief to be forgiven or forgotten by his followers. Because Trump.

     In a way it should not have been surprising to me, even though a Trump position of the past (including one held just a day ago) is not necessarily a Trump position of today.

      While trans issues were not on the radar in those days, Trump was once fast friends with the infamous anti-gay, gay Roy Cohn--of McCarthy era fame and the fictionalized evil character in Angels of America who was haunted by Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

     Roy Cohn became the aggressive attorney for the Trump family, mentoring Trump in the ways of the deal. (Cohn was also a friend of the notorious and reactionary Cardinal "Franny" Spellman, and was attorney for the NY Archdioces.). But, then, Trump is, no doubt, nothing if not a surprise, including to himself.

    Parent

    You did not ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    ... just credit Trump with a wide bathroom stance, did you? ;-)

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    It will surprise Cruz followers but won't bother Trump's supporters who are, dare I say it...? Mostly social liberals and populists.

    Parent
    You got it in the last sentence (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 08:06:26 PM EST
    Anyone who thinks he can't pull it off has not paid enough attention to what he has done since he rode down that escalator.

    I've been watching FOX some this afternoon.   The pivot has begun.  

    As I said, if anyone tells you he can't do it I would check their comment history regarding their opinions and predictions of what he can and can't do since last June.

    Parent

    what has he done? (none / 0) (#68)
    by pitachips on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 10:11:32 AM EST
    Besides manage to get between 35-40% in the primaries for a party that as a whole

    1. doesn't believe in science (what global warming? women who are raped can magically prevent their bodies from becoming pregnant!)

    2. doesn't believe in math (give a billionaire a tax cut so it can help the working poor!)

    3. are incapable of historical reflection (the slaves didn't really want to be free!)

    4. thinks that rounding and forcibly deporting 15,000,000 people is a viable plan to limit illegal immigration

    People talk about pivots - but usually these are slight adjustments. This guy is going to be doing somersaults - people will see right through it.

    Trump was lucky in the sense that he was able to run against so many candidates for much of the primary. The country is not going to give him the nuclear codes.

    Parent

    What's in a name? (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 06:14:31 PM EST
    The Donald is not running as a Repub.

    He is running as The Donald aka The Trumpster!

    He can only lose if he turns into a Repub and starts playing nice nice as did McCain and Romney.

    Parent

    I don't think she'll pick a female (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    EW comes to mind, but since the Republican governor in MA gets to appoint an interim Senator, there's no way this happens if it looks like Dems have a chance to take back the Senate - even if it's temporary and a Dem would win the seat eventually.

    I also think a female president would be a lot of change, and it might be too risky for an all female ticket (even if that is unimaginable to us, it might be a little too shocking for some).

    Tom Perez, the current Secretary of Labor, has endorsed HRC and I think been hitting the trail a bit for her.  Interesting possible VP pick - Hispanic, former civil rights attorney, and can definitely speak to jobs and wages.

    He used private email! (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 05:35:04 PM EST
    OMG! (none / 0) (#44)
    by sallywally on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 06:21:25 PM EST
    The difference is Trump is winning. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:29:58 PM EST
    Guiliani did not.

    And The Ghoul... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:51:15 PM EST
    got no votes in Dixie...they love Trump in Dixie.

    Parent
    I find the (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:57:22 PM EST
    fact that Trump is winning down here in Dixie completely hysterical simply because he's a lot like Giuliani but they would never vote for Rudy. Just in the local community newspaper all the elderly tea party people were writing op eds about Trump and how he's going to "save America" from all those dark skinned peoples.

    Parent
    Funny how it is always Tea Party (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 05:34:57 PM EST
    people with you people who have never been to a meeting.

    But hey! Don't let facts get in the way.

    Please watch my lips. The Tea Party people are Cruz's.

    Parent

    So when (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 07:48:16 PM EST
    someone says they are a member of the tea party I should think they are lying because I don't go to tea party meetings?  

    Parent
    There is no tea party (none / 0) (#135)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 08:18:06 AM EST
    It's just a subset of the GOP base. You know the ones that don't want to admit they fell for all that GOP nonsense and voted for Bush.

    Parent
    Imagine that... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    Rudy was the guy who actually made black people disappear and whitewashed major thoroughfares...Donald just yaps.

    Rudy done f;cked up by not waiting till after the first black president to run for the GOP nomination...8 years early and a nickel short, poor guy.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 05:11:52 PM EST
    You're right. Rudy should be running now because as it is the GOP doesn't seem to care that someone has been married a bunch of times, had mistresses or anything else. Rudy would probably be talking about his record and winning all over the place.

    Parent
    that comment was (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 02:58:42 AM EST
    deleted for name-calling and a personal attack on Trump. You may not call anyone a racist here.

    Parent
    Sorry, Jeralyn. I should (none / 0) (#67)
    by caseyOR on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 10:05:28 AM EST
    have worded my sentence more carefully.

    Parent
    Trump and Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 08:48:57 PM EST
    Months ago I remember saying something like "how amazing would it be to see a general election between Trump and Hillary". In one of these threads.

    I have not changed my mind.  It will be epic.  Awsum.  Mesmerizing.

    It will be the fitting climax to the most nofreakinwordstodescribeit election in any of our lives.

    I feel lucky to be a realtime spectator to history.

    I was thinking (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 08:53:09 PM EST
    about you the other day when I was reading about how her team was planning on running the general election and it apparently is to let her wicked sense of humor be on full display against Trump. You are probably going to think you died and went to heaven.

    Parent
    I read that too (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 09:04:37 PM EST
    He hates being laughed at.   It's perfect.  And brilliant.

    Parent
    And, the obvious approach (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 09:58:12 PM EST
    Talk about an actual clash of the titans & all that.  She won't blink.

    Parent
    There is some evidence to suggest (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by smott on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 08:18:26 AM EST
    That it was in fact, being laughed at and mocked (by Obama at the WH Correspondent's Dinner a year or two back) ,  which indeed spurred Trump's decision to run.

    He left the dinner immediately after Obama's spiel.  

    And YES, you can bet that, when campaigning for Clinton, Obama is going to go heavy on Mockitude, and I would wager, will love every minute of it.

    Judging by Warren's recent  (instant classic, check it out) Twitter nuking of Ted Cruz, she can be rather scathing as well. Here's hoping she goes on the trail for Clinton also.

    Much as I like simple scathing, I think laughing at and mocking Trump will be the hardest for him to digest, and hopefully give rise to some unforced errors on the campaign trail.

    Given the whole thing is going to be surreal, let's try to enjoy it.

    Parent

    It will be interesting to see if (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    Senator Warren does, in fact, "go.. on the trail for Clinton also."

    She has some profound differences with Secretary Clinton on a few issues. One that comes to mind is Hillary's apparent flip-flop on the 2004 Bankruptcy Bill. In an interview with Bill Moyer,  Elizabeth detailed how Hillary expressed support  for one version of the bill, then did a 180 flip-flop when it came to voting on the bill.

    I remember seeing the video of that interview, and was kind of shocked that Warren would, publicly, highlight Hillary's, "betrayal."

    When I went to look up that video to provide a LINK here, I got the message, "This video has been removed by the user."

    I'll keep on looking for another source, but, my point is, I doubt that Warren & Clinton are the "best buds" some folks would like them to be.

    Parent

    Not to worry, NYC (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 02:13:02 PM EST
    Senator Warren will be there for HRC. For one, she is a good Democrat.  For two, she is astute and understands that the best path in the Senate is to align with the next President of the US.  (Appointments, legislative support, and all that.)

    Parent
    I think Warren will be all in (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by smott on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 04:03:27 PM EST
    And Obama will give a brilliant tour on the campaign trail.

    Parent
    Yeah, there is no doubt in my mind (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 04:16:24 PM EST
    She is not the type to either sit it out or to go in halfway.

    Parent
    There's no doubt in my mind, either (none / 0) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 05:11:28 PM EST
    Even Senator Sanders said, regarding who he would support if he wasn't the nominee, "Look, on Hillary Clinton's worst day of her life she's 1000% better than anybody on the other side."

    I was thinking more about why I doubt E. Warren would consider becoming Hillary's V.P.

    Parent

    Yes, Senator Warren's (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 05:02:17 PM EST
    endorsement will be of more value and influence given at this point, or, at the conclusion of the primaries.

    Parent
    Okay. K-dog (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 08:55:54 PM EST
    never say Hillary didn't do a good deed. There's an place in NYC called Mikey Likes It. An ex-con started it and has been kind of struggling. So he made a sundae for Hillary called Victory and she went there and at least tasted it and put it up on twitter. It went viral and now people are lined up to get ice cream from there.

    That ice cream story (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by smott on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 08:47:57 AM EST

    The Mikey Likes It ice cream story was such a perfect encapsulation of the media's relationship w Clinton....an actual feel-good story about an actual issue (ex con starts his own business due to Check The Box inability to find a job) Clinton supports his issue (Ban the Box) and he names a sundae for her. As she's about to taste it, male reporter asks about the calories in it. Perfect on so many levels.  Subtle sexism, ignoring the greater issue in favor of an attack....name it.


    Parent
    That's cool... (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 08:42:57 AM EST
    I hope she does more penance for our nation's criminal justice sins upon being sworn in.

    Parent
    We can all do penance (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 10:52:30 AM EST
    On this issue--as you have forthrightly, strongly pointed out over the years--the most of us in the country have been slow to forgive in the fullest sense of the word.  What is promising now, I think, is the open & non-tentative way that people like Hillary Clinton and many others are moving on a number of fronts ...to begin, it is good that we have peeled the film off our eyes to acknowledge that those who have served their time and paid the debt to society should be considered, treated as full citizens with voting rights immediately restored.  As you also point out, these are just a few steps now ... but, I think the direction of reform by/of the system has a sense of realness, genuineness this time.

    Parent
    Photo-op reality (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 10:27:57 AM EST
    Maybe this is how Hillary REALLY is....you know, when she's not being a politician. Does she bowl?

    Parent
    Now, now Steve... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 11:23:57 AM EST
    blessed are the peacemakers...the primary is over;)

    I'm gonna take Hillary's advice...I'll go in with low expectations, and hope she over-delivers.  

    Serious and aggressive economic reforms are probably off the table now, but I think we have a very good chance at positive reforms in criminal justice and other social policy areas under President H.R. Clinton.  

    Much like the Obama admin...progress in social policy areas, worsening income disparity and a failure to substantially address a rigged, unsustainable economy, and more of the same bad (but not as bad as the GOP) foreign policies.

    But watch out in 2024...I think the country will be ready to think bigger by then.

    Parent

    I don't think Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CST on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 12:28:59 PM EST
    Is stupid enough to ignore the writing on the wall re- the economy.

    Now, whether there will be enough members of congress to achieve that change is another question.  But one of the reasons that Obama has been more effective in social policy is the role of the court vs. congress on these issues.

    So let's just hope this is a big enough wave to impact the budget discussions.

    I agree about criminal justice reform, that's one of the few areas we seem to be seeing some bi-partisan agreement on.

    Parent

    I was on the phone (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by smott on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 04:16:13 PM EST
    Last weekend with the Clinton campaign making clear that the TPP needs to be scrapped and that we need to stop hollowing out the middle class.

    Whether that is possible with a GOP Congress of course is another story.

    Also as a PA resident (and talking with the Sanders campaign) I found the Sanders position on fracking wholly unacceptable. Basically it amounts to:

    1. We will ban fracking (impossible.... as it is a States rights drilling permit issue)....the only ban possible is on Federally owned land.
    2. We will "stand with" states who want to ban fracking.
    Well shee-it. That should help. Maybe as the Fed Govt you should think about actual regulations to make fracking much more restricted.

    But oh - that leads to  all those boring wonky details I got from talking with the Clinton campaign.

    Because THAT is what is possible at the moment. Regulating the balls off fracking. So it can't happen near a school or near a populated area, so the frackers must reveal their chemicals and so on.

    Here in PA we had (thanks to GOP Gov Tom Corbett who TG got the boot after one term)  House Rule 150 including ACT 13 which actually bans Doctors from telling their patients the name of the fracking chemicals that are poisoning them. Yes, it interferes with Dr-patient relationship in order to protect the Frackers form revealing their precious poisonous fracking formulas. Stunning.

    It is these kinds of details that actually have to be addressed.

    Not a simple "We'll ban Fracking" impossible panacea.

    Which was why I yelled at the TV when Sanders responded to Clinton's actually thought-out fracking answer with "My position is much shorter...I don't support fracking."

    NO it's not short or simple Bernie. It just isn't.

    Parent

    Sane regulation of fracking... (none / 0) (#97)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 07:08:25 PM EST
    (along with any number of other issues) starts at the local/state level.  It means getting the pro-fracking shills off Oil and Gas, Land Use and Zoning Commissions and city councils.

    It takes voting out Governors/legislators who want to turn over our Federal lands to the state so their Masters can exploit and profit off our natural resources and damn the consequences. Or ones that put forth legislation to overriding the wishes of the citizenry on a local level. Or appoint their cronies to the aforementioned Commissions.

    The oil and gas forces have nearly unlimited funding to put behind their interests, there needs to be a counter balance. It takes attention to, funding and getting out the vote for downticket races.  Things that Bernie apparently has no interest in.

    It's definitely not a short or easy fix. However, it can, should and needs to be done.

    Parent

    Same writing was on the wall... (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 01:21:59 PM EST
    when she was a Senator...from New F*ckin' York, where the problem has been on full display everyday in the real estate section and the help wanted ads and of course The Wall Street Journal.  And she left the Senate and went to work giving speeches for the primary perpetrators...if it ain't stupid, it's tone deaf.

    Will her intelligence & reasoning lead her to a guaranteed income solution, or is that too bold and risky?  

    The people have gotten louder about it though, so that's a good sign that has already yielded results in the platform.

    Granted, Congress needs to deliver the legislation...we may have to address the shady undemocratic gerrymandering of The House before we can address anything of substance.  And primary challenge some Senators & Reps like Chuckie Schumer that are holding Brand D in third way purgatory.

    Parent

    To address the House districting (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by caseyOR on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    Problems Dems need to control the 50 state legislatures. That means funding and supporting candidates in those darn downticket races in 2016, 2018 and, perhaps most importantly, 2020.

    Parent
    it's changed a lot since then (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 02:00:34 PM EST
    Louder is an understatement, it's the main issue that's dogged her this primary and it's the main reason she didn't put this away much sooner.

    Prior to this year, she never really had a hard challenge from the left on this, she was always fighting Republicans.  In 2008 she faced Obama who hit her from the left on foreign policy, but not so much on economic issues.  Those were the days of "they're both better than Bush".  Times have changed.

    Parent

    Too true... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 02:24:38 PM EST
    Last time, it was a contest of who could kiss more Wall St. arse...circumstances have changed.

    Just once it would be nice if the leadership of the party would get ahead of the damn curve and lead instead of being last to the party...but at least Hillary has appeared to have gotten the memo, finally, Debbie Wasserman Schultz's dog musta ate her copy.

    Parent

    Returning SCOTUS to sanity for a generation ... (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 05:04:00 PM EST
    ... would lay the groundwork for a coming-to-of-senses nicely. There is a HUGE opportunity there.

    Parent
    My Hillary 2016 tee shirt (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by fishcamp on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 07:24:43 AM EST
    is on the way.  Can't wait to wear it to the gym...

    Which (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 07:43:48 AM EST
    one did you buy? I think those "Hillary Y'all" buttons are awesome. I might buy some and start wearing them around here so I can watch some tea partiers have a stroke.

    Parent
    My next door neighbor is an aid to Earl Blumenauer (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Cashmere on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 08:28:45 AM EST
    who is our US Representative for the Portland area.  He mentioned Hillary is opening her office here in Portland and he may be able to get me tickets to an event.  Not sure, but would love to attend if possible.  Portland is Bernie town, but there is still a Hillary force here!

    Trump's Mentor: Roy Cohn (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 07:20:04 AM EST
    Cohn is wearing a beautiful suit in this photo with a much younger Donald Trump.

    Cohn and Koch would have appreciated (none / 0) (#102)
    by ExPatObserver on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 08:17:26 AM EST
    the young Trump.

    Parent
    The big difference between 2008 and 2016 (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ragebot on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:24:00 PM EST
    is the possibility (however remote) of blowback  from the FBI investigation of Hillary's email server.

    Even Hillary has admitted it was a mistake for her to have an email server set up in a bathroom.  While what she did was allowed under DOS rules at the time those rules have been changed.

    What ever Bernie does it should be obvious there will be lots of Republican attack ads mentioning the email server.  

    I would put the odds of any charges like drawing to in inside straight flush.  But there is a chance.  And the way Bernie is getting big bucks from small contributions it simply does not make sense for him to drop out.

    There is no there there (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:33:31 PM EST
    Do you HONESTLY think that a) she's stupid enough to have done what you seem to accusing her of doing, b) that Obama would have tactily endorsed her on several occasions, and c) that Biden would have refused to run if there was ANY chance something would come of this??

    Parent
    Yes, I think she is as stupid as Nixon was (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 06:15:39 PM EST
    Ego traps us all.

    Parent
    Happy to know (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ragebot on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:44:40 PM EST
    that my accusations are enough to start an FBI investigation of Hillary's email server.

    I put the chances of Hillary being charged the same as a Supreme Court justice dying of heart failure in an election year.  Something that has only happened once in my lifetime.

    So Hillary being charged is a once in a lifetime event.

    Parent

    She won't be charged (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 04:47:48 PM EST
    Because no crime was comitted.

    Parent
    Your world, ragebot ... and, welcome to it (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 06:55:28 PM EST
    Grassley (none / 0) (#104)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 12:54:32 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/j543zcx

    Is talking out of turn

    There have been hints of a expanded investigation, including the Clinton Foundation

    http://tinyurl.com/hurhkxm

    The recent letter from retired FBI, involved in the Abscam investigation
    http://tinyurl.com/z7e75dt

    And Obama has no clue as to what the FBI has uncovered,

    The president assured Wallace that politics would not enter the investigation.

    "I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations," Obama said. "I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations."

    I definitely see more peril for her immediate staff at the State Department, the ones who sent her all the classified information. And I expect they will fall on the sword, if necessary.

    Parent

    How cute, Trevor.... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 01:07:48 PM EST
    The smoke that you're blowing must make tantalizing formations as it drifts off to nowhere.  From my perspective on the other political side: It is fascinating how longtime anti-HRC types seem to have an indefatigable ability to drift from one supposed scandal to another pipedream ... even as it amounts to nothing time & time again.  Ah well, if it amuses you ....

    Parent
    Nothing cute about it (none / 0) (#107)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 04:51:23 PM EST
    To blithely walk on by and say nothing to see,

    Well, that is ostrich in the sand mentality.

    Just the facts that are known (which are very limited) lend one to believe that a possibility of criminal charges is there. A Possibility.

    Top secret e mails, stored outside of the approved government location, not a good start.
    The choice to use a private server, well the explanation  originally used, she only wanted 1 device, has been proven false. So, what was the real reason?

    Which is probably the biggest reason why The Bern will not shut down his campaign. Just in case.


    Parent

    Since they wren't classified at the time (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jbindc on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 07:20:15 PM EST
    (But now we've moved to "Top Secret", I see), there was no crime.

    Seriously, if there was something there, it would have been found by now.  This has taken over a year - there weren't that many documents to review that it would take this long.

    There is nothing there.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#111)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 07:47:19 PM EST
    Has never been declared, regarding the 22 Top Secret  e mails.

    No one has ever said they were not classified,
    Just that whatever is in them cannot be released

    Parent

    not true (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ding7777 on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 09:46:11 AM EST
    Just google State Department spokesman John Kirby re 22 emails and you will find:

    "These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent."

    Parent

    You really think hat if there was any serious (none / 0) (#114)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 06:26:08 AM EST
    suspicion that state department employees were sending classified information across unsafe channels they would still have their jobs now, or not have been fined or prosecuted, all these years later?  You really better fear for your country's secrets if that is the case.

    Parent
    Short answer (none / 0) (#122)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 12:05:25 PM EST
    Yes.

    The people at the bottom  ...

    "On the theory people are putting forward for making this criminal, every single one of those people [who sent a classified message on an unclassified system] is equally guilty, probably more guilty" than Clinton, the ex-prosecutor said. "People three or four levels down, closer to the information, presumably had greater reason to know if it contained classified information ... It would make no sense to aim your fire at the person at the end of the chain, instead of at the beginning of the chain."

    I do not believe sent those e mails. They did not dare  e mail Madame Sec, only her inner circle had access to her . So those people are already gone from the State Department, and the State Department only recently, 1, 2 years ago, actually got all those e mails from Madame Secretary off of her server.

    The fact that they were stored offsite is also very problematic.

    Herridge noted that other emails from the server contain information from foreign government sources that is "born classified."

    Clinton has maintained she never sent or received any emails on the server that were "marked classified." She has said the emails were later deemed to contain classified information.

    Herridge noted that federal rules stipulate that classified material is based on "the content, not its markings.

    "

    But the details in those "Classified" stamps -- which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification -- appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

    The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go -- regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

    In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

    If I remember correctly, the State Department only said they were not MARKED classified at the time they were sent. But as I have stated from the beginning, only a complete idiot would send a e mail marked classified, because it is illegal to send classified information via e mail.


    Parent

    I gather you didn't read the link (none / 0) (#125)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    You are assuming that lower level staff emailed her directly. To be blunt that is a stupid assumption. Try email from a to b to c to the SOS (and longer).

    Your CDS is blinding your objectivity I am assuming you can be objective Lawyers must be objective to give good advice. They have to be able to make a case for either side to explain the pros and cons totheir client. A lawyer who cannot set aside prejudices (for/against) will not be a good  advocate and should consider passing on representation.

     Career prosecutors don't think this is a good case. What makes you a better judge of the case than they - particularly since you don't seem to be capable of objectivity with Hillary?

    Parent

    I have (none / 0) (#129)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 07:47:58 PM EST
    No idea of what the FBI has uncovered.

    I actually state that lower level employees never e mailed Madame Sec , at all. That most , if not all correspondence to Madame Sec from State Dept employees came from her inner circle.
    I also feel that career State Department employees are well aware of laws regarding classified information.
    All I have continually stated is that this has potential to be damaging, that nothing is known until the FBI releases its report.
    And that those most in jeopardy are Madame Secretary s senior staff, those directly sending her those 22 Top Secret e mails

    Parent

    Read my other reply (none / 0) (#131)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 08:15:25 PM EST
    There is a link you should read.  You might gain some insight

    Parent
    I read (none / 0) (#132)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 08:46:54 PM EST
    that POlitico article when it came out.

    It all depends on those 22  e mails, I would think. And no one knows what was in them , where the information originated from, and who sent them.

    Until then, it is safe to say no one knows where this is going.

    Parent

    Excapt (none / 0) (#133)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 09:29:03 PM EST
    The state department says they are not sensitive and is on record with that. Can't walk it back. So reasonable doubt becomes an issue. 2ndly you need review the other cases. What element did they have that this case doesn't?

    You should be objective in this. Otherwise you'll end up "unskewing  polls".

    Parent

    I think you need some perspective (none / 0) (#116)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 07:58:29 AM EST
    This might aid your understanding of the email story.

    Lawyers say the broad circulation of the information State now says is classified points to another potential problem with prosecuting Clinton: the question of how many others would or should be charged in such a case. Almost all of the now-classified messages on her account were sent by other State officials. Should they be prosecuted? What about those who didn't send her such information but wound up with that information in their work accounts and even personal ones investigators are now combing through?
    "On the theory people are putting forward for making this criminal, every single one of those people [who sent a classified message on an unclassified system] is equally guilty, probably more guilty" than Clinton, the ex-prosecutor said. "People three or four levels down, closer to the information, presumably had greater reason to know if it contained classified information ... It would make no sense to aim your fire at the person at the end of the chain, instead of at the beginning of the chain."

    Here is another problem: The persecutors have to stand up in court and convince a jury that the emails were highly sensitive when the State Department has already publicly said they were not and are not going to contradict that on the stand. Does the phrase reasonable doubt enter your head? I assure you its entered into the persecution's head and they are not going to indict because its a weak case.  

    Grassley is laying the ground work to claim the Obama Whitehouse interfered because he knows the case is so weak, there will be no indictment. Grassley was around for Whitewater, Madison Guaranty, Vince Foster "murder" and knows innuendo is the tool to use when there is no there there.

    The question is, how many times can the GOP go to the well? Lincoln is alleged to have said  "you can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". Are you in the first category?

    Parent

    Oh, good lord (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:49:47 PM EST
    The server was not set up in a bathroom. Y'all make me laugh and laugh with your nonsense conspiracy theories about all this. I know you're wishing and hoping that something comes of this simply because it's the only hope the GOP has right now.

    Has it ever dawned on the GOP that maybe instead of sitting around and hoping for something to happen to Hillary that they could be doing something productive like attempting to modernize the fossilized GOP?

    Parent

    "..doing something productive (none / 0) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    like attempting to modernize the fossilized GOP"  But, this would be another one of those Republican solutions in search of a problem.  Nothing to change,  all are thoroughly modern Millie's.

    Parent
    Oh, c'mon, GA! (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 08:14:48 PM EST
    You and Cruz are fixated on bathrooms (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 06:13:02 PM EST
    and furthering lies, long since discredited, like that mythical location of the server.

    You and lyin' Ted need to flush your minds to rid your brain cells of so much . . . well . . . cr@p.

    Parent

    Why on earth would Bernie drop out? (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    He is right where Obama was against her in 2008 and her negatives are HUGE. And the evidence of massive voter disenfranchisement is pretty strong. She is a hardball player, and you expect her opponent, who represents a radically different vision of the nation and party than she does, to just fold his tent. Come on, Jeralyn. Be serious. I had no idea law & order fake liberals, responsible for making the lives of clients like yours hell, is someone you'd go to the mat for.

    Very interesting.

    Bernie is where Obama was in '08?!? (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:33:18 PM EST
    Huh?!?

    Obama was about 100 delegates ahead at this point in '08.

    And had many other positives that Bernie lacks.

    Parent

    And Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:42:27 PM EST
    Had more votes, so an argument to the superdelegates.

    Bernie is in NO WAY in the position Obama or Hillary was in.

    Parent

    Ain't that the truth... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    he hasn't kissed any rings on Wall St. to get this far...a rarified position for anybody with that many delegates and primary/caucus victories under their belt.  

    Parent
    that's one view (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by CST on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:11:46 PM EST
    the other view is that he lost minorities by a massive margin and that's why he's this far behind.

    Parent
    And most Dems (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    Over 40 (people who actually vote) haven't bought his shtick.

    Parent
    Hey now... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:22:41 PM EST
    minorities have it hard enough with Trump, don't give people another reason to pick on them! ;)

    Parent
    Check out online NYT for a lengthy article (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 05:34:07 PM EST
    HRC's relationship w/the U.S. military, her current advisors, her advocacy as S of S. You'll feel quite validated.

    Parent
    Excuse me, but would this so happen to be (5.00 / 10) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 07:52:46 PM EST
    ... the same New York Times that:

    And would this also be the same New York Times which continues to employ and publish the poisonous musings of a hate-blinded opportunis-- uh, excuse me, I meant to say "the stellar analysis of a fair-minded op-ed columnist" -- named Maureen Dowd, who to date has:

    • Accused Mrs. Clinton of having a "smile [that] was not connected to her face" (May 26, 1999);

    • Accused Mrs. Clinton of being a "politically castrating dominatrix" (July 17, 2007);

    • Accused Mrs. Clinton of wanting to hamstring Barack Obama so that she could run for president in 2012 (September 10, 2008);

    • Accused Mrs. Clinton of being on Iran's payroll (March 16, 2015);

    • Advised Mrs. Clinton to "campaign like a woman" because she was "oozing testosterone" (April 19, 2015);

    • Advised Mrs. Clinton to "run like a man" because she was "awash in estrogen," while furthering likening her to a dog (January 17, 2016);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to the title character in "Alien" (November 24, 1999);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to the title character in "The Attack of the 50-Foot Woman" (April 23, 2008);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to Marlo Thomas's title character in the 1960s TV sitcom "That Girl" (February 9, 2000);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to the title town's programmed women in "The Stepford Wives" (June 15, 2003);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to Gary Oldman's title character in "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (November 4, 2004);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to the title character in Euripedes' "Medea" (February 8, 2006);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to the title character in William Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew" (August 5, 2006);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to Sally Field's title character in "Sybil" (February 27, 2008);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to Anne Baxter's title character in "All About Eve" (May 25, 2008);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to Jessica Walters' scorned and vengeful fan in "Play Misty for Me" (June 10, 2008)

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to Glenn Close's scorned and vengeful lover in "Fatal Attraction" (February 8, 2006);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to Reese Witherspoon's scorned and vengeful candidate for student council president in "Election" (April 6, 2008)

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton and her husband to Kathleen Turner's and Jack Nicholson's contract killers in love with one another in "Prizzi's Honor" (February 25, 2001);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to Queen Gertrude of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet" (August 13, 2008);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to Faye Dunaway's caricature of Joan Crawford in "Mommie Dearest" (June 14, 2014)

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to Leonardo DiCaprio's character in "The Revenant" (January 13, 2016);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to Richard Nixon plotting the Watergate cover-up (April 12, 2015);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to New England Patriots QB Tom Brady plotting to deflate footballs prior to game time (August 2, 2015);

    • Compared Mrs. Clinton to figure skater Tonya Harding plotting to kneecap her rivals (July 16, 2003);

    • Accused Mrs. Clinton of being a "counterfeit feminist" (June 18, 2014);

    • Accused Mrs. Clinton of being an "Überfeminist" (August 2, 2015)

    • Accused Mrs. Clinton of "playing the feminist card" (February 6, 2015);

    • Accused Mrs. Clinton of "playing the victim card" (December 13, 2006); AND (drum roll, please)

    • Accused Mrs. Clinton of "killing feminism" (February 13, 2015)???

    Are we talking about THAT New York Times?

    ;-D

    Parent

    Less (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 09:47:37 PM EST
    is more, Donald.

    Parent
    Oh, no, Mr. Natural. (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 10:41:44 PM EST
    When it comes to documenting the New York Times's often twisted coverage of the Clintons, you run up the score given the opportunity, so as to leave no doubt whatsoever in anyone's minds about that paper's longstanding bias. If you don't want to read it, then please move on.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Y'er right, Donald (none / 0) (#117)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 09:15:36 AM EST
    There is no earthly reason to criticize St. Hillary and certainly none perceivable by a mere mortal like Maureen Dowd.

    Underpinning that point, Hillary Clinton has officially been deemed good enough for that long time friend of Progressive values, Koch brother Charles Koch.

    So just click your memes together and recite after Bill, "she's a change-maker; she's a change-maker; she's a change-maker..."

    Parent

    Honestly, do you really believe that Mrs. Clinton solicited that particular opinion? And further, would appreciate it if one of us were to search for those selected instances when your own political opinions dovetailed with, say, Condi Rice or Mitch McConnell, and then use that as a means to try and smear / discredit you?

    I don't think so. Look, you've every right to express your own opinions about Mrs. Clinton. But as you just proved, it doesn't necessarily follow that those opinions are solidly based upon facts and logical assumptions thereof, rather than your own particular personal animus and emotion.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    With a bit of research you would realize I am (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 10:17:09 PM EST
    a committed supporter of HRC. Kdog is not.

    Parent
    And while we're on the subject ... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 04:26:14 PM EST
    ... of the lovable and cuddly Maureen Dowd, I believe that were she to return in her next life as an otherwise highly respected Ivy League institution's terminally cynical "liberal" academic, she and Camille Paglia could easily switch places, and most people would likely be none the wiser:

    "What is it with the Hillary cult? As a lifelong Democrat who will be enthusiastically voting for Bernie Sanders in next week's Pennsylvania primary, I have trouble understanding the fuzzy rosy filter through which Hillary fans see their champion. So much must be overlooked or discounted--from Hillary's compulsive money-lust and her brazen indifference to normal rules to her conspiratorial use of shadowy surrogates and her sociopathic shape-shifting in policy positions for momentary expedience.

    "Hillary's breathtaking lack of concrete achievements or even minimal initiatives over her long public career doesn't faze her admirers a whit. They have a religious conviction of her essential goodness and blame her blank track record on diabolical sexist obstructionists. When at last week's debate Hillary crassly blamed President Obama for the disastrous Libyan incursion that she had pushed him into, her acolytes hardly noticed. They don't give a damn about international affairs--all that matters is transgender bathrooms and instant access to abortion.

    "I'm starting to wonder, given the increasing dysfunction of our democratic institutions, if the Hillary cult isn't perhaps registering an atavistic longing for monarchy. Or perhaps it's just a neo-pagan reversion to idolatry, as can be felt in the Little Italy street festival scene of The Godfather, Part II, where devout pedestrians pin money to the statue of San Rocco as it is carried by in procession."

    Oy veh. Where does one even begin? Well, since that one happens to be me, I'll leave it to Esquire's inimitable Charles Pierce to analyze the sum total of our dear Prof. Paglia's component parts:

    "Now that, as regards the presidential nominating process, it's all over but the endless recriminations, the country's pundits have a chance to kick back and let their freak flags fly high and proudly. And nobody's flag is freakier than the one belonging to Camille Paglia, who intermittently gets one of the security guards at Salon HQ drunk, lifts the keys, and gets to a computer terminal before the rest of the security staff wises up. The results are generally spectacular. This week was no exception."

    While he's on a roll, he also takes a pretty good swipe at the GOP establishment's resident Keeper of Reagan's Eternal Flame, Peggy Noonan:

    "I thought this might be the worst piece of political analysis I would read this week. But I had not reckoned with the cartoon canaries that flit in and out of the ears of Our Lady Of The Magic Dolphins. The canaries were unusually active this week. Why are the canaries screaming, Clarice? They are screaming because The Moment has arrived. What Moment, you might ask. The Moment when Peggy Noonan realizes she has drifted off into the land of fog and mist, never to return? The Moment when Peggy discovers that The Foot of Reagan has been buried forever beneath the sod of Simi Valley? The Moment when the paramedics break down the door? No, as it turns out, it's The Moment when you realize that you've been fronting for madmen your entire public life."

    Take no prisoners, gang.

    Parent

    Queen bee syndrome. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 04:59:46 PM EST
    Short, direct, and (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 05:20:43 PM EST
    probably right on the money, oculus.  

    Yet, I'm torn. For years, I couldn't figure out from whence came the sneering, dripping, Dowd venom.  Now, whatever underlies Maureen Dowd's constipated temperament is being blotted out by her own Dorian Gray-image ... until it is almost mesmerizing to watch her own blob & smear self-definition.

    Parent

    Are you attempting to say something? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    short and direct.. (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 12:00:11 PM EST
    a couple of others here might want to consider adopting that approach on occasion..

    Parent
    "Queen Bee syndrome" is not real (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    according to a Columbia University survey:

    A survey by Columbia Business School in New York of 1,500 companies over a 20-year period suggests that female in-fighting is a myth. And there is no such thing as "Queen Bee syndrome", whereby successful women scheme and connive to keep all the corporate honey for themselves. The results of the survey will be presented at a conference of leading British girls' schools this week.


    Parent
    I am very sceptical, as are many of those (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 30, 2016 at 04:19:47 PM EST
    who commented on the Guardian article.

    Parent
    Wow! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Nemi on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 07:16:18 AM EST
    Just - wow!

    While I've seen the name Camille Paglia on and off over the years, I've never read anything by her or even come around to find out who was behind the name. Actually I was never quite sure whether it was a woman or a man, but the Hillary Clinton-hating headlines the name was often attached to made me guess the latter.

    Recently I planned to find out more, but thanks to your comment I see that I really don't need to spend more time on her.

    But what still puzzles me is: Where does all that hate, and not only hate but such venomous hate, come from!? And that goes for the other two too. It's a bit frighteneing and certainly not sound?

    Parent

    So ... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Nemi on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    I went back on my decision to not further 'explore' Camille Paglia and read an article I had recently bookmarked, from The Independent 2012, and came away with some understanding of both her anger and its origin.

    Then I read the article Donald linked to, once again, and surprisingly didn't see it as quite as bad/hateful as the first time around. Actually, if only she'd been more diplomatic, I could to a certain degree follow her, re Hillary Clinton's wardrobe. I know we are not supposed to notice or remark on that, still I'm sure most do. And I too wonder why she, Hillary, having admitted to not really being interested in clothes doesn't pay someone who is, to choose her outfits for her. And if she already pays someone, my advise would be to find someone else. She seems both lost and 'all over the place' and sorry to say often makes me cringe. It's an unnecessary distraction but when she hits the bullseye she does it with aplomb. :)

    Angela Merkel has in my opinion found the perfect solution with her 'Merkel Pantone'. Love the expression ;) The writer of the piece mentions, which I believe to be true, how

    A german friend-of-friend weighed in with the anecdote that Merkel had found a cut she could stand and then ordered by the dozen, so she could get back to the serious business of running Europe.

    Back to Camille Paglia, I ventured into watching several videos with her. She comes across much more angry, annoyed, unforgiving than actually hateful, and I wonder if her lashing out - at all and everything it seems - hasn't in fact more to do with what I've experienced before in other highly intelligent people, which I have no doubt that Camille Paglia is, that she simply lacks social intelligence?

    I find her interesting, intriguing, intimidating ... but hard to stomach; and way out of my league.

    Parent

    With a few exceptions, I stopped reading ... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 10:48:00 PM EST
    ... Camille Paglia back in 2001. I generally find her insufferable, because she conveys to me a condescending and snobbish sense of moral superiority that is undeserved and often isn't borne out by the actually facts of whatever topic she's discussing. And as an openly gay woman, her sense of trust in the GOP -- particularly when George W. Bush was first running for president -- appears to be rather grievously misplaced. And really, anyone who would call Gloria Steinem the "Stalin of feminism" really has no business expecting progressives to take her at all seriously.

    Parent
    hm.. I think I stopped 30 years ago. (none / 0) (#113)
    by ExPatObserver on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 02:00:52 AM EST
    Maybe Paglia should've called Steinem (none / 0) (#142)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 12:06:09 PM EST
    the Richard Helms of feminism, taking into account Gloria's CIA background and her attraction to people like Dr "power is the greatest aphrodisiac" Kissinger..

    Parent
    She is quite brilliant; so (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 10:51:51 AM EST
    nice to see you actually read some of her stuff rather than relying on third-hand bloviation.

    I bought a copy of Sexual Persona many years ago, couldn't put it down until it hurt too much to continue.  I couldn't come close to the depth and scope of her references.  She collected her royalty and luckily for me, the world kept on turning after I abandoned my reading.  

    Paglia's efforts go toward poking sticks at anything anyone believes about anything.  I happen to agree with that modus vivendi.  Perhaps my only belief is that beliefs and believing are the least useful of human characteristics and should be poked with sticks at every opportunity.

    Parent

    Yes, I've noticed (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Nemi on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 02:28:49 PM EST
    - your propensity for verbally 'poking sticks' that is. But from what I've learned about her so far, where you differ from Paglia is, that you obviously have a sense of humour. Albeit often a bit too sarcastic for my liking, if you don't mind me saying so, but still so much better than none whatsoever. :)

    Parent
    Nobody here is questioning Prof. Paglia's professional credentials. Rather, and speaking for myself only, my concerns with her rest entirely upon her ill-breeding, specifically her apparent presumption that those aforementioned credentials somehow elevate her political opinions above those expressed by the rest of us mere mortals, and further grant her license to talk both to and about everybody else as though they're a bunch of effin morons.

    Parent
    I can't believe I am commenting on (none / 0) (#108)
    by caseyOR on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 06:19:15 PM EST
    Clinton's clothing, but here goes. Her original pantsuit look was created for her by Oscar de la Renta. Perhaps, since his death, she has not found anyone to take on that task. She has been pretty busy what with the whole running for president thing.

    As to Paglia, I first read her eons ago. She was then, and remains today, a nasty piece of work.I find nothing redeeming in her writings. It goes beyond a simple lack of social grace. She is vicious and hateful particularly toward other women. And I do not find her diatribes indicative of great intelligence or deep thought.

    Your mileage obviously varies.

    Parent

    I don't know that my (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Nemi on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 06:56:43 AM EST
    mileage obviously varies

    ... from yours all that much? The linked article was the very first thing I ever read by Camille Paglia. Up until then I had no idea who she was. And I was shocked by the hate, "venomous hate" I even called it, she seemed to express.

    But please don't call me out for trying to educate myself and learn more about this to me unknown woman - or 'phenomenon' - that is Camille Paglia, before I judge her. No different, actually, than expecting people to educate themselves about, say Hillary Clinton, before making judgement about her.

    And please don't call me out for at least trying to understand, find a reason, an explanation, the source for - redeem if you will - what at first look comes across as uncontrolled hatred.

    As for Hillary Clinton's wardrobe I knew it was a controversial subject to bring up, though I really don't know why. And I'm sure noone forced you to comment - lecture - on it if you didn't want to.

    But what is so wrong about wishing, and expressing that wish, for her to look her best? Wanting her to 'look up to her god given potential', so to speak? And although Oscar de la Renta among other things made a couple of gorgeous evening dresses for her to wear at Chelsea's wedding even he didn't 'decrypt' 'how to dress Hillary'. In my opinion. And whether we accept it or not, looks does matter. And women's wear is debated. Endlessly.

    Parent

    I was not trying to (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by caseyOR on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    "call you out." Clearly it came across that way to you, and I am sorry about that.

    I am retired now, but during my career as an executive I was constantly subjected to comments about my appearance. All kinds of people felt free to question my choice of lipstick color, wonder why I wore flats rather than heels so often, shake their heads when I wore slacks rather than a skirt, suggest I needed a new hairdresser, etc. None of the men with whom I worked, no matter how rumpled and ill-fitting their suits, was ever subjected to that kind of criticism. It got in the way of doing my job.

    What I learned from that experience is that there is no way a woman can win in that situation. No matter what Clinton wears there will be people who will feel free to criticize simply because she is a woman and we still give a woman's appearance an excessive amount of weight in deterring her worth. It is a way, IMO, of keeping a woman in her place.

    So, I am quite sensitive to any attempt to give any positive spin to such commentary on a woman's appearance.

    As to Paglia- I was not criticizing you for reading more of Paglia. I was offering my opinion of her work, ideas, commentary, etc., based on my own eons long familiarity with her work.

    The comment on mileage varying was an observation, not a criticism.

    Parent

    Thank you for your reply (none / 0) (#124)
    by Nemi on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    and as I said - ok, wrote - I don't really think our mileage differs all that much :) and I totally get what you're saying about a woman's appearance.

    In the case of Hillary Clinton I know she's had to take so much crap - also! - concerning her looks, her whole carreer. I just wish she would let someone with flair and an interest in making her look her best, while at the same time feeling comfortable, choose and coordinate her wardrobe. I know I would if I had the money.

    But yes, men has it so much easier in the clothing department, yet if a woman dressed as 'uniform' as a man, she'd be critizied for that too. Which I'm sure even Angela Merkel is being. But I assure you, my admiration for the two, Clinton as well as Merkel, is undeterred no matter their wardrobe. And that goes for you too. :)

    Parent

    I have (none / 0) (#109)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 06:24:44 PM EST
    Usually enjoyed reading Paglia, mostly her articles over the past 8 years or so. Have never dove into her earlier writing.
    I have not agreed with many of her musings,
    But she is different, provocative, and not bashful.

     

    Parent

    The hit dig always yelps (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 05:24:00 PM EST
    Clinton has said she can be trusted to spurn her donors on critical issues, noting that President Barack Obama was tough on Wall Street despite his prolific fundraising there. But her earnings of more than $21.6 million from such a wide range of interest groups could affect public confidence in her proclaimed independence.

    The game ain't over until it is over.

    Parent

    I know that. ;-D (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 10:35:40 PM EST
    I simply couldn't resist the piñata you had so thoughtfully dangled before me with that post, especially since this election season I'm already carrying a bat in hand, just looking to swat at something. Muchos mahalos.

    Parent
    Donald -- Thank you for your post above! (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cashmere on Sat Apr 23, 2016 at 11:26:59 AM EST
    re: the NYTIMES...I am saving it... It is PERFECT.  Thank you again.

    Parent
    Probably a good reason why (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 09:11:11 AM EST
    He got his butt handed to him in the NY primary - since 1 in 9 jobs in NYC alone are directly or indirectly related to Wall Stret.


    Parent
    Wha? Obama was beating her in 2008 (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    at this point, and his supporters and their media mouthpieces  were pressuring her to drop out even though she was not as far behind Obama as Sanders is behind Clinton.

    Parent
    In 2008 (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:29:05 PM EST
    Hillary didn't suspend her campaign until June.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-drops-out-of-u-s-presidential-race-1.755018

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008#Pledged_delegates

    "April and beyond[edit]

    On May 18, Obama speaks to a crowd of 75,000 in Portland, Oregon.[110]
    As the race continued to Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina, many observers concluded that Clinton had little chance to overcome Obama's lead in pledged delegates.[111] Even if she were to succeed changing the dynamics of the race, there would not be enough pledged delegates remaining for her to catch up under most realistic scenarios.[112] Some analysts believed Clinton could still win the nomination by raising doubts about Obama's electability, fighting for Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated at the convention, and convincing superdelegates to support her despite her expected loss in the pledged delegate vote.[113] However, the window of opportunity for re-votes in Michigan and Florida appeared to close in late March,[112] and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chairwoman of the Democratic National Convention, said that it would be harmful to the party if superdelegates were to overturn the result of the pledged delegate vote.[114]

    Complicating the equation for Democrats, presidential candidate John McCain clinched the Republican nomination on March 4. With Obama and Clinton engaged in the Democratic primary, McCain was free to define his candidacy for the general election largely unchallenged. Some Democrats expressed concern that Clinton stayed in the campaign through March and April, when they felt she had little chance to win the nomination, but a much greater chance to damage Obama's candidacy in the general election. However, others defended Clinton's right to continue on, arguing that a sustained campaign was good for the Democratic Party and that Clinton still had a realistic shot at the nomination.[115]"

    Perhaps Ms. Marcote should stop thinking of Sanders as just someone in Clinton's way and let the process play out. There is no reason for Sanders to suspend his campaign unless Clinton has the majority of pledged delegates.

    Clinton did stay in until (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:41:23 PM EST
    the last primary. What she did not do was attack Obama, accuse him of cheating, impugn his character, trash his integrity and generally provide material the GOP could use against Obama.

    Also, in 2008, Clinton won the popular vote, Sanders isn't even close to doing that. Additionally, obama's delegate lead was smaller than Clinton's lead this year.

    Sanders should stay in as long as wants, but stop the attacks on Clinton. He is only helping Trump/Cruz at this point.

    Hey, what if Sanders focused on the issues instead of character assassination? Now that would be an interesting campaign.

    Parent

    I think he will do that, as Clinton did in 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:46:44 PM EST
    "Ahead of the West Virginia vote, Obama took the lead in committed superdelegates on May 9. Obama had picked up seven endorsements from superdelegates since the May 6 primaries.[367][369] Recognizing that the nature of the contest had changed, Clinton largely eliminated mention or criticism of Obama from her stump speeches and advertisements.[367]

    Clinton won the state by a 41-percentage-point margin,[368] and told supporters that she was "more determined than ever to carry on in this campaign".[370] After exit polls revealed that large numbers of Clinton supporters were planning to vote for John McCain rather than Obama should she lose the nomination,[368] Clinton said it would be a "terrible mistake" for those voters to do so: "I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."[368]

    Parent

    If that is his plan he might (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    want to tell his senior staffers and surrogates. Weaver and Devine are still out there on the airwaves spewing Clinton hatred left and right.

    Parent
    If Bernie (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:57:12 PM EST
    and his senior campaign staff would quit acting like Bernie Bros it would be a step in the right direction.

    Parent
    Better also let Jane know. (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 09:08:15 PM EST
    and then (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by mm on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 03:28:00 PM EST
    Senator Robert Byrd of WV - and a super delegate -  immediately endorsed Obama.  Ah yes, I remember it well.

    Clinton won the state by a 41-percentage-point margin,


    Parent
    Hillary has done it to herself (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 05:25:37 PM EST
    ....and generally provide material the GOP could use against Obama.


    Parent
    And FWIW (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    That "75,000" in Portland was a warmup to a Decembrists concert

    Parent
    Yeah, the Decemberists (none / 0) (#7)
    by caseyOR on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    played that day, but Oregon was definitely Obama country in 2008.

    Parent
    Definitely was Obama country in 2008, and (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cashmere on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 04:48:42 PM EST
    Bernie country today.  It is tough being a Hillary supporter here in Portland, OR.  Just today, I overheard a co-worker, who is a huge Bernie fan, emphatically state to another co-worker that there is no need to worry as Bernie will be able to swing the super Ds to his side, and that Bernie will be winning like 80% of the remaining pledged delegates. New York was an "outlier".   I was happy to hear the other co-worker laugh at him and tell him that he was dreaming.  Other co-worker is also a liberal but does not believe a word Bernie says.  I stay out of it as I don't like to talk politics between cubicles.

    Parent
    Wrong viewed this way too. (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:54:14 PM EST
    Clinton was much closer to Obama and she had the disputed Florida and Michigan delegations. If seated they would have put her in the lead. She was also ahead in the popular vote.

    Sanders has none of these things. He's just way behind in the popular vote. And delegates. And has been so for a long, long time. And has no disputed delegations to lay claim to.

    2008 isn't a good comparison. It was a very different race.

    1984 is a better comparison.  But, even then, Hart was doing better than Sanders. And he still lost.

    Parent

    It was the May 31 (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Suisser1 on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 09:03:23 PM EST
    DNC rules and by-laws committee ruling that killed her chance. A week later, she ended her run, gave that terrific, heartbreaking speech and went to work to get the Democratic nominee elected.

    Parent
    I would (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 21, 2016 at 02:54:59 PM EST
    never suggest Bernie drop out. In fact I would never suggest any candidate drop out. Bernie is burning through cash like crazy and there are rumors that he is 20 million in debt at this point. If he wants to go through June he should do it. A lot of it depends on how many losses he's willing to take until then. I understand that there is only one more caucus and next week is looking to be particularly bad for him.

    Parent
    how odd (none / 0) (#99)
    by linea on Fri Apr 22, 2016 at 08:59:26 PM EST
    is there any sort of national poll on "jenner using the womens restroon" or similar poll? i wonder what the average union democrat in Iowa feels about this.

    Wait for government law (none / 0) (#134)
    by thomas rogan on Sun Apr 24, 2016 at 09:41:42 PM EST
    No one knows that was in the 30000 "scrubbed" emails.  Hillary's server guy still refuses to testify despite immunity.  Someone might indite for "bribery" as in taking millions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favorable State Department actions.  This isn't much talked about,  If the supers switched tomorrow to Warren, everyone would be overjoyed, and you all know it.  Bernie's staying in it so that Hillary needs the supers at the convention and so that it becomes a brokered convention if something ugly happens and the supers abandon her.

    Give (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 08:49:54 AM EST
    up the whole white knight is going to come along and magically deliver for the GOP. It's not going to happen.

    Parent
    Actually, no (none / 0) (#138)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 09:48:00 AM EST
    He's "refusing to testify" because the committee is on a witch-hunt and he doesn't give up his constitutional rights. (And I noticed when I searched this out. It's only the Washington Free Beacon and other right wing rags portraying it this way).

    What does immunity represent? Does it mean that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. Pagliano first invoked his Fifth Amendment rights because a House Republican-majority committee was hauling him in. I served as General Counsel (Acting) for the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993-94, and continue to remain informed of its practices. Confronted with one of those committees, I think a witness like Pagliano would be very well advised to invoke the Fifth Amendment, because the committees act in a blatantly and aggressively partisan way and do not behave at all fairly with witnesses. He would be well advised to do what he did, and eventually give a full account, not to such a committee, but to the FBI and DOJ.

    Immunity means the Justice Department must forego bringing a case against him, but if the DOJ thought they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. They would prosecute that case, or else make a plea deal which could include the grant of immunity. They are granting him immunity because there is no case they are foregoing, so, this way, he can and will give them evidence.

    Link

    But don't let facts get in the way.

    If Congtess really wants him to testify, instead of giving conservative media new talking points, I believe they could grant him congressional immunity, but that is very rare (the last time it was granted was to Monica Goodling in 2007).  But even the GOP has been at odds about what to do.


    Parent

    Thank you for sharing. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 07:54:02 PM EST
    It's been a busy day, and I really needed a good laugh.

    Parent
    Trump Reinvented? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 08:08:10 PM EST