Countdown to the End of Primary Season

It was June 7, 2008 that Hillary Clinton withdrew from the Democratic presidential nomination race. I remember it well, since I was in Aspen for a NORML legal seminar and watched the speech on TV there.

Sanders, apparently, is not dropping out. No matter. He could win California and it still won't matter.

A whopping total of 475 delegates are at stake, but if it’s as close as the polls suggest, the winner stands to net a mere 20 or 30 delegates. Using this excellent delegate calculator, let’s go through all the remaining races and then circle back to the big prize, bearing in mind that right now, among pledged delegates, it’s Clinton up by 268, 1,769 to 1,501.


It has nothing at all to do with the superdelegates Sanders and Weaver have spent months traducing. It’s pledged delegates, earned in the voting booth (or at the caucus hall). Superdelegates will never, ever, ever undo such an outcome, and they never, ever, ever should. In a season when Sanders people have alleged a rigged system and sometimes outright theft, that would be the only actual case of theft in this season—for superdelegates to tell the voters sorry, you made the wrong choice when you chose your candidate, who is (incidentally) the first woman nominee in our party’s history.

Here's how the California primary works.

Hillary will be the nominee. The race between her and Trump will be interesting. At least Sanders doesn't seem to be front page news this week. He seems like the Pied Piper to me now, being followed and cheered by hordes of youth, and we all know how that turned out.

< Saturday Open Thread | Hillary on the Cusp of Historical Nomination >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    In Poland (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 04:14:09 PM EST
    More precisely, in the Czestochowa Shrine in the south of Poland with a number of monks, little children in white communion dress, and my cousin M as we were in the middle of a tour through Poland.  A monk there informed us of the 2008 primary conclusion ... and, we read about it later in Warsaw as I had a scotch & M had wine.

    The twists & turns of 8 years. Something.  I've come to respect and admire President Obama very much; and, under the challenging circumstances, this President has accomplished noteworthy advances here.  Come autumn, I expect to remember his good works and steady, honorable course with a toast with family & friends (and, if luck allows, with my cousin M.)  For now, tho ....

    For now, I look forward to next week, and to June 7th.  Looking with hope and crossed fingers to November, I am anticipating the first woman President in HRC, a strong and dedicated and truly civil servant who earned every inch and mile of that memorable trek.  And as for the fair & square way in which she will have achieved the Democratic Party's nomination, my not-so-private hope is that HRC will (!) secure the number of pledged delegates that, alone, will garner the needed 2383 since--as I read today--she should only require about 1 in 3 delegates at stake from here through June 7th AND (2) win the California primary so that any theories promoted by her primary opponent will fall of their own weight.

    In the end and under any scenario, I hope that Sanders is as mindful of the significance this year of party unity as HRC has always demonstrated when she did not prevail.  Perhaps, he will do the right thing when all is said-&-done next week.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 04:24:32 PM EST
    Clinton cannot win the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Just like Obama in 2008 the Superdelegates will put her over the top. The 1 in 3 from here to the end just keeps her with a pledged delegate lead.

    You are right, CG (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 04:55:41 PM EST
    I'm getting a bit exuberant. My dreaming error....

    By my count (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 05:23:15 PM EST
    Sanders needs 67.2%* of the remaining vote to take the lead in pledged delegates, thus giving himself a legitimate argument. Anything less and there is no case. That necessary number will grow slightly higher after this weekend.

    *He'll actually need more than 67.2% in each state. The delegate math rounds down in each election making the number more difficult to reach which is why I believe he needs 71% tonight to not lose ground.


    I think, but may be wrong, but.. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Cashmere on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 09:26:31 PM EST
    I think Bernie needs the "delta", meaning he needs to win by 67.2 points MORE than Hillary.  Apologies, but I don't have time to do the calculations.  My point is that if Bernie reaches 67.2 in any state, but Hillary is at 32.8, it still does not reach this goal, as the delta is only 29.9 here.  Again, I may be wrong.

    In a hurry and my calculations are not right... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cashmere on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 09:31:48 PM EST
    but I hope you all get my point.

    True, because the number of SDs is baked (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 04:40:16 PM EST
    into the number of what constitutes a majority. So even in a moderately close race, it is hard for anyone to win without SDs.

    But if we pretend there are no SDs, and say the new number it takes to win a majority is a simple majority of pledged delegates...gee, look at that, Hillary still wins pretty easily.

    So that is why Bernie now loves SDs...and indictments...


    How wonderful (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:56:51 AM EST
    We want to return to Poland before the year closes out. Josh just had a spinal fusion so this summer is probably off the table. We took trains from Stuttgart to Berlin, and then Berlin to Warsaw.

    Warsaw is a gorgeous city, and the family we know there such a gift, very politically astute. When we left we met a student on the train back who had been a foreign exchange student in the US twice. He was very pro-gun, viewed much of what Poland had gone through that he felt was unsavory as not enough weapons in the hands of the people. And he told us Warsaw was full of hippies which made me giggle.

    And I marveled at how different my nation was in many ways, but how similar.


    Warsaw is OK... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 09:58:44 AM EST
    but in the end its just another big city.  I loved Crakow and Zakopane in the Tatra mountains ("Polish Alps").  

    Next time I go, I want to see the Baltic coast and the Masurian Lakes region which is where my family comes from.


    Our Warsaw friends grew up in (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    Crakow. They suggest we visit there on our next trip. One thing I loved about Warsaw? In Germany the beer for sale is regional, but every German beer from every region is available at a Warsaw grocery store. The longest both sides filled beer aisle I've ever seen in my life ;)

    I was a little too early for Christmas market in Warsaw, but they were putting the stalls up when we were there. Their Christmas market looked more rustic than those in Germany, and the items they were starting to put out had more handmade appeal and I love that. They were even setting up a Blacksmith forge.


    That surgery is gnarly (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:42:35 PM EST
    I know several people that have had it and one going under the knife this week. It's a hell of a lot better than it used to be, though. Recovery is way shorter.

    He is sleeping a lot (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    Hates taking narcotic pain meds so is only taking ibuprofen now. He did have friends over on Saturday night. We haven't really taken him out of the house though since he got home on Memorial Day. He has been eating a lot of steak :) Lots of healing involved. Cadaver bone graft, and a 30 staple incision :(

    Did they fuse the whole thing? (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:30:04 PM EST
    Good luck and rapid healing

    Just the lower half (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    His ribcage vertebrae had self fused. But his incision goes into that area and I assume that for structure and stability the lower portion of the self fuse was used as well in stabilizing that lower curve. I shared with those close to the family, but now here too, that his surgeon looked like he had run an entire marathon.

    He was tired and challenged but full of endorphins. He was very happy with the 3 hr surgery. Seldom do you see a pediatric ortho surgeon so challenged yet happy. And there were no "events" of stress during the surgery. He said that the essential fusion hardware was very stable in incorporation.


    My nephew (none / 0) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:50:23 PM EST
    Who just had the horrible accident also got a cadaver graft and had 30 (they said stitches but they look like) staples.

    I will spare you the photo.  But weird huh.  Good vibes being sent.


    Shared good vibes..yes yes yes (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:26:54 PM EST
    Josh had had so many lengthening of the Veptr system that was used to control his scoliosis while he grew that his back tissue is very scarred. He used to have dissolving stitches, but when dealing with possible tissue challenges I guess the staples are superior. But must be removed. His GP here though was masterful at it in January...woohoo. That'll be another earned steak night.

    Sen. Warren doesn't like superdelegates. (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 04:54:29 PM EST
    Fair enough. I'm all for getting rid of them, too -- as long as we also dispense with state party caucuses, and go with a straight-up closed state primary election system with delegates allocated proportionally to the candidates based on the popular vote by registered Democrats. Otherwise, I think superdelegates should remain in place.

    (Sorry, but I don't believe in open primaries, either. If you want a say in a party's primary election, then you ought to formally state your party preference accordingly on your voter registration. Make a decision and pick a side. Otherwise, you can wait until November.)

    Anyone who thinks party caucuses denote a fair process should take a look at what happened in Washington state this season. Bernie Sanders took 72% of the caucus vote on March 26, which had a turnout of about 230,000. Yet only eight weeks later on May 24, Hillary won the the much larger primary election in decisive fashion with 55% of the vote, thanks in party to a turnout of 675,000, nearly three times the number who showed up at the caucuses.

    If we're going to enact further reforms to the primary system, then let's not do it piecemeal by fixing only those parts you don't like.


    The same thing happened in Nebraska (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 05:11:08 PM EST
    with Sanders winning the caucus but Clinton winning the primary. Under the current Primary/Caucus/superdelegate method Sanders had a better chance of winning. With the proposed changes it would have made it more difficult for Sanders to win.

    Another thing that annoys me ... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 05:58:14 PM EST
    ... is all this talk in the media about Sanders having the momentum, when he's actually lost 7 of the last 10 primaries. By all means, let's trash the woman who's won 55% of the popular Democratic vote, and hand the nomination to the old white guy who's has 43%. And while we're at it, let's award this year's National League pennant to the Colorado Rockies, who've won 43% of their games thus far.

    As of this evening, you can now make that ... (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:19:21 PM EST
    ... 9 of the last 12 primaries that he's lost. Feel the Bern.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 07:50:17 PM EST
    I saw an analysis where 1/2 of all of his delegates were from caucuses.

    because Sanders supporters (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by texpolitico on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:59:23 PM EST
    have the requisite time to be at caucuses.  They are mainly young and affluent.  

    Affluent (none / 0) (#111)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 05:36:45 AM EST
    Hmmm....LA Times says otherwise

    Now, a Times analysis of nearly 7 million individual contributions has provided unprecedented detail about the army of people behind the $27 donations Sanders mentions at virtually every campaign stop.

    Many resemble Emily Condit, 40 of Sylmar, who has contributed three times -- $5 each -- to the Vermont senator's campaign.

    Condit, who has several physical disabilities, is among the largest single group of Sanders' donors -- those who don't have a job. Of the $209 million given to the Vermont senator's campaign, about one out of every four dollars came from those not in the workforce, who include the unemployed or retired.

    young and affluent.. (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:04:44 AM EST
    Funny, that was the stereotype of the Occupy movement that Fox and wingnut talk radio were always pushing..

    The subtext being: don't waste your time listening to anything those people have to say, they don't live in the real world.


    IMO (none / 0) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 07:05:17 PM EST

    IMO, both parties should go to winner tale all by congressional district. Totally proportional lets things drag on too long. Winner take all by state gives too much to the winner of a small plurality.

    That would (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 07:50:51 PM EST
    be great if the GOP would quit gerrymandering all the congressional districts.

    No matter how they are drawn (none / 0) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 09:28:05 PM EST
    They all have close to the same population. In any case it's hard to imagine the districts drawn after the 2010 census could possibly knowingly favor any current primary candidate.

    Nathan (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:19:12 AM EST
    Deal ghetto-ized the entire state after the 2010 census. So if you went by congressional district here you still would get Trump as the nominee because of all the tea party ghettos he created. You really have no clue if you think them having the same population numbers means the same thing as anything else.

    Please explain (none / 0) (#82)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 05:45:49 PM EST

    Is it your contention that in almost every state both Dems and Reps drew congressional district lines to ensure Tea Party majorities?  You may not have noticed that Cruz and Rubio both got a share of Tea Party votes.

    Even if that were true how would that make any difference to Sanders/Clinton?


    Certainly (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 06:38:30 PM EST
    in the south they did and they're Republican governors. There are no swing districts which has caused huge problems for the GOP is one of the reasons they are in the mess they are in currently.

    It would allow the voters in the tea party ghettos to load up delegates for some one like Sanders. So unless you also advocate closed primaries the tea party ghettos would be have a large influence on who the D candidate was and it would also be someone they would never vote for.


    I like closed primaries. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:40:57 AM EST

    If you want to be part of a party, registration is the very least you can do.

    And on that, we can agree. (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:03:35 PM EST
    Political parties have the right to choose their nominees without unwanted and undue interference from outside interests, whose own agenda may be entirely antithetical to the stated goals of the party itself.

    Maybe Warren was targeting Sanders (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ExPatObserver on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 05:35:32 AM EST
    with this comment. After all, he is the only one who could become nominee by the SD's going against the will of the voters.

    She is very evenhanded in a 'be careful what you (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    ask for ' kind of way. Sure let's eliminate SDs right now. Boom, Hillary wins the nom on Tuesday. Let's go a ahead and have the convention Wednesday and get this over with.

    I am not comfortable getting rid (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:10:36 AM EST
    Of all superdelegates. Makes it easier for a Trumpeseque candidate to rise to the top. If they want to scale back the superdelegate vote, I might consider that.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    Plus: If the notion of a party is to mean anything, the party must have ultimate authority to determine its direction, platform, etc. Without that kind or similar kind of structure, as you sense MT, it would soon become a billionaire's or other celebrities' free-for-all with much less control for anyone else than under the present structure.  

    I agree with your approach here, MT.  Improve, refine, etc.  From time to time, every organization--especially evolving political organizations should do a re-look and refinement of its processes.


    Yes!!! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 02:41:43 PM EST
    The left isn't demagogue proof. Having party structure and an old guard can prevent a demagogue from becoming a candidate we must all then attempt to survive while same candidate inflicts severe damage down ticket and to the base affiliation vote.

    The money remains a problem for all players and voters and citizens.


    Yes, but some states do not allow (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by midcenturymod on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 07:22:39 PM EST
    party registration with voter registration ie. VA for one. I think something like 1/3 to 1/2 of states don't so their primaries are necessarily open. I suppose party registration could be required independently of voter registration? I am definitely in favor of only party members selecting their candidates!

    Are you in favor of same day registration? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:46:43 AM EST
    There is no functional difference between that and an open primary.

    Sanders challenge in Puerto Rico Sunday (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 11:41:40 PM EST
    In 2008 Clinton received 67% of the primary vote in Puerto Rico. To get back on track to win the pledged delegate race Sanders now needs to capture 68.33% of the vote in Puerto Rico tomorrow.

    Futhermore (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Nemi on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 06:42:33 AM EST
    his/his campaign's constant accusations of fraud, rigging, lawsuits probably won't help him with the voters in Puerto Rico.

    [Bernie Sanders spokesperson Betsy] Franceschini had accused party officials in Puerto Rico of witholding certifications from Sanders officials, initially preventing them from organizing voters in prisons.

    "The claim that the Democratic Party is delaying the certification of the Sanders' poll workers is preposterous. The first complete set of pollworkers for tomorrow's primary we have certified were all from the Sander's Campaign."

    [Local Democratic Party president Roberto] Prats also said that certifying poll workers is out of the hands of the party and that the Sanders campaign did not allow much time before they began accusing the party of fraud.


    He also accused the Sanders campaign of stealing two boxes of ballots that had been cast by prisoners before delivering them to an election office.

    To be continued ...?


    Polls just closed in PR (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    they say it's a Hillary thing.

    Are they blaming (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 02:26:05 PM EST
    her for the long lines I read about? Apparently the VI didn't have as many polling locations as they did in the past due to the fact that they are having financial problems but apparently that is Hillary's fault somehow or a conspiracy against Bernie. I tend to get those two issues confused these days.

    the eternal victimization (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by texpolitico on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:02:51 PM EST
    coming out of the Sanders camp is akin to the Teabaggers and the far right.  Pathetic.  It's white privilege on display.  When they lose, it's because they were "cheated" or the system is "rigged".

    I know (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 07:41:02 AM EST
    and the passive aggressive whining is tiresome. So is the holy sanctimony that reeks out of Bernie.

    The Sanders Campaign (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 06:57:34 AM EST
    issued this statement - which Armando/BTD, on Twitter calls an outright lie. The Sanders campaign was on board the reduction, while Hillary's campaign objected.

    Just one more of the - astoundingly! - many lies that Bernie Sanders & Co. get away with -- except for mentions on social media.


    Bernie now planning to bring the revolution (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by sallywally on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 04:27:01 PM EST
    to the convention...a huge march the day before with "hundreds of thousands" of people.

    Words fail me.

    As long as they keep the misogyny and violence (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 05:24:13 PM EST
    to a bare minimum....I'm fine with it.

    Bernie stays in (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by thomas rogan on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 05:26:23 PM EST
    "And he admitted that the only way Sanders will win the nom is if Hillary gets indicted -"

    The reason to stay in is to lay claim in the unlike event of a email or a bribery (taking hundreds of millions into Clinton Foundation while being sect of state--no blind trust?) indictment.  Otherwise it is Biden.

    The fact that Biden is even mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 05:31:21 PM EST
    in this context shows that you don't have to have run a primary campaign to be the -go-to guy if any of that happens. Bowing out gracefully after CA gives him just as much of a shot at that particular brass ring as staying in until the convention. Probably more in terms of good will and gratitude of the party.

    No (none / 0) (#87)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 06:45:36 PM EST
    Bernie knows many of the Establishment Democrats already have Biden lined up as the insurance policy,
    If The Bern is no longer a candidate  it makes it that much easier to appoint Biden.
    If he is still in the running, he can claim by default he should be the nominee.

    And that is why he is still running, along with the fact I don't think he believes anything Madame Sec is saying.

    Much like Jon Stewart, he recently stated in a podcast with David Axelrod.
    What are her convictions?????

    "Hillary is ... a bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I don't know what they even are," says Stewart -- an assessment I have heard time and again in private conversations with Democratic strategists over the last few years


    Yes yes (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 06:59:14 PM EST
    Time and again in private conversations with democratic strategists.  Seriously?  Do have many conversations with democratic strategists?  I would love to be a fly on the wall for some of those.

    he's quoting (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 07:03:38 PM EST
    from the Council of Concern Trolls manufactured by a right wing website. It's actually pretty hysterical. I wonder what on earth they are going to do once Bernie drops out because they won't have anyone to hide behind.

    The Washington Post? (none / 0) (#91)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 07:15:24 PM EST
    Jeff Bezos?

    Right Wing website?


    Try dealing with what Jon Stewart, liberal dragonslayer of all evil conservative trolls,
    Actually had to say about Madame Sec


    Do they all change from year to year?
    Election to election?


    Chris (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 07:40:29 PM EST
    cilizza the ultimate Wa Po concern troll who also suffers from CDS and comes from an elite background. Not surprised you would be quoting him.

    She has an entire voting record full of her convictions. Good Gawd concern troll. The people who have no convictions are the GOP who are lining up behind a reality star well, unless you consider him someone with convictions since he's loud and proud with his racism and everything else. I guess if you loudly call people names it's called "convictions" in the GOP playbook.

    Y'all are beyond hysterical.


    Sigh (none / 0) (#109)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 05:28:08 AM EST
    That is why she polls over 60 % do not trust her, they do not feel she is telling them the truth

    Because they have no idea where she stands on the issues, they feel she puts her finger in the wind, sees which way the wind is blowing, and thats where she goes

    And this comes from the liberal white knight conservative dragon slayer,
    Jon Stewart


    Is quoting Jon Stewart supposed to add some (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 11:59:28 AM EST
    validity to your point? Do I have to agree with everyone that ever said a bad thing about conservatives?

    Stewart slayed no dragons. That was not his job. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:01:20 PM EST
    He just made us laugh at them, which made us feel better. It is not a substitute for getting to the polls and voting them out of office,m which he would be the first to point out.

    Her conviction are readily apparent ... (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:24:03 PM EST
    ... to those who will simply open their eyes. And speaking of convictions, what are yours? You appear to be anti-Democratic Party, merely for its own sake.

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 08:48:58 PM EST
    won Puerto Rico looks like 65/35.

    CNN reporting (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:45:27 PM EST
    a landslide of Superdelegates ready to announce for Clinton Tuesday evening.

    With current results in PR, the biggest thing Tuesday night will be the announcement of the first time a female gains the nomination of a major party for president in the nation's history.

    My congratulations to all the women here that have dreamed of this day.

    I read that a number of Superdelegates (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by vml68 on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:56:02 PM EST
    are ready to announce their support for her now but that her campaign has called them and asked them to hold of until Tuesday.

    After her concession speech in 2008, I thought she was done. I did not expect her to run for POTUS again. I am really looking forward to hearing her speech on Tuesday.


    And to you, too (5.00 / 11) (#105)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:13:54 AM EST
    As for me, I'm so wonky that, cripes, I just started crying from looking at my delegate calculators and seeing the tally top 23xx, thanks to the lovely Caribbean isles this weekend. . . .

    I never thought that I'd live to see this -- that the tears at this time in 2008 would turn into tears of joy.  And I'm not alone in that, of course, as journalists on the campaign trail are tweeting today that they are seeing the same thing, as so many women today are realizing it's real.

    Not that we're "excited," of course.  We don't do massive rallies (since the '60s, anyway).  We don't beat up other candidates' supporters.  So, so few journalists understand what they're witnessing. . . .

    This moment reminds me of reading the reporting by a woman suffragist, and journalist, who was my age now, when -- after much of her life for the cause -- she watched from the "ladies galleries" in the House as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment was sent to the Senate, for the second time, after what suffragists called their "century of struggle."  The first time, the year before, when the House sent the bill to the Senate -- the women had rejoiced, literally singing praises (hymns). The amendment had failed in the Senate.

    So, this time -- almost on this day, late in May  1919 -- she wrote:

    "There was no excitement, no jubilee on our side. . . . The fight had been so long, and the victory had come so gradually, that it was difficult to grasp.  We filed out, smiling quietly at each other, and that was all."


    "few journalists (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Suisser1 on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:26:46 AM EST
    understand what they are witnessing" ... This is perfect, Towanda. Just perfect. Sometimes I am caught off guard and it hits me, just what is about to happen and I am left a little frozen in disbelief, or rather some fear of belief.

    My mother died yesterday. (5.00 / 8) (#133)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 11:20:47 AM EST
    Now, this was not a surprise. She was 87 and in very poor health. Still, it is a sad thing, the loss of one's mother. In addition to the incredible sadness I feel at losing her, I am furthered saddened because of two things:

    My committed New Deal Democrat mother, who always referred to Nixon as "that god damn Nixon", a woman who grew up during the Great Depression and WW II, put herself through nursing school, always worked outside the home, for the most part raised her children on her own, and spent most of her life thinking a woman president would never happen in the U.S., died just two days before a woman, not just any woman but a woman my mom liked and admired and agreed with on a number of policy issues, becomes the presumptive presidential nominee of a major political party.

    And the second thing that saddens me is that my longtime Cubs fan mother will not be here for what could very possibly be a Cubs World Series win.

    Life is not fair.


    Sorry to hear (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 11:31:25 AM EST
    about your mom, Casey. I hope she at least was well enough to vote for Hillary in the primary but I know that would not be the same as seeing a woman president.

    very sorry for your loss (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by mm on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    My 85 year old mom can't wait to vote for HRC and I will be bringing her there

    I'm so sorry for your loss. (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:03:38 PM EST
    May beautiful memories of your mother's presence in your life sustain you during this time of bereavement. She raised a fine daughter to carry on and as her spirit burns within you, she'll always be there with you and for you.

    Me ke aloha pumehana.


    Oh no, very sorry for your loss (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:03:59 PM EST
    Casey. That is really hard no matter how old we all are. So sorry she will miss both of the historic events we hope to see this year, and you will miss sharing them with her.

    My dad died at 82 and never saw his team the Cubs in the World Series. I was beginning to think I would be the same.


    Sorry to hear this Casey, (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    but you knew it was coming.  You have been a terrific daughter to remain with her all this time.  It took a very long time for both my parents to pass away from cancer.  They were both smokers.  Then nobody knew mom had a million dollars stashed away in municipal bonds.  One sister thought I didn't deserve one third since I hadn't lived in Oregon for so long.  Now I have a good sister and a bad one.  Sad.  Will you be returning to Portland?  

    Condolences, casey (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:34:41 PM EST
    and although my mother -- of the generation of your mother, and mine's life was similar down to the epithet for Nixon! -- also is gone, let's imagine that they now are with Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Coffin Mott, and many more who never even had the vote . . . but those foremothers fought for that progress for our mothers to make the progress that they did, too, for us, their "daughters' daughters," as they sang, so that we could take another step on the way today.

    My mother actually already was gone in 2008, but my daughter and I, when we went to the polls together in the primaries, talked of her and others as we walked there.  We cast our votes for all of our foremothers, who made that day possible for all of us -- and yours did, too.


    Dear CaseyOR, (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:34:44 PM EST
    Losing your mother at any age is a deep and significant loss. You were, indeed, blessed to have such a wonderful human being as a part of your life.

    So, so sorry. (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by sallywally on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:41:42 PM EST
    Every day I remember things my mother taught me.

    I'm sorry for the loss of your Mom... (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by desertswine on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:45:55 PM EST
    Even though it was expected, it's still a tough loss to handle.

    I am so, so sorry (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:53:17 PM EST
    Please know that my thoughts are with you and your family.

    I am so sorry for your loss, Casey. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by vml68 on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 01:02:24 PM EST

    Hi CaseyOr - I just saw your post (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:28:11 PM EST
    I am so sorry for your loss.  From your description, your mother was an amazing woman, and that she will miss out on Hillary and the Cubs is so very sad.  I hope she had an inkling of the way things were turning before she left you.  

    I can't imagine what it will be like when I lose my mother.  My stepfather (my mom's husband), who was like a father to me, died about 3 months ago.  He was also 87.  His health was failing, but his mind was sharp until the end.  My mother is so sad and lonely without him, and we all miss him terribly.  I hope I understand just a bit of what you are going through.  Take care and my thoughts are with you.


    Deepest Sympathy, casey (none / 0) (#176)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 06:38:54 PM EST
    And, blessings on your mother and on you.  I hope that someday soon there will be a special comfort for you--and the warmth of a loving smile within your spirit--when the progress that your mother believed in happens in our land.  

    Thank you, everyone, for your kind (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:34:41 AM EST
    words and thoughts.

    My mother was a lovely and delightful woman. The kind of person people of her generation would call a "firecracker" or a "pistol."

    We had our share of rough patches, as mothers and daughters do, but I have enormous respect for the way she handled the challenges in her life. I did not, I am sorry to say, always have that respect, teenagers can be so judgmental and self-righteous, but as I have gotten older I have come to understand the decisions she made even if they were not the decisions i might have made.

    She had a hard life in many ways. A tough childhood, a very bad marriage that lasted way too long, the task of being essentially a single mother at a time when she could not even get credit in her own name, the challenge of being a working mother during an era when schools and church groups and scout troops expected mothers to be ready and willing and on-call as volunteers.

    And yet my mom was one of the funniest most fun-filled people I have ever known.

    I miss her.


    Towanda: A grateful Thank You (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 06:11:29 PM EST
    for saying what so many of us are permitting ourselves to feel as this dream becomes almost real. As we move through this transformation, I think that we will also follow your lead in recalling our suffragettes, the brave foremothers of full liberty. The day is really coming ... yes, it is.

    Yesterday (none / 0) (#112)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 06:43:04 AM EST
    I read a wonderful 'storyfied' twitterstream, from a phoner for Hillary. He mentioned how he had spoken to a woman who didn't bother to vote ... until he asked her to consider how amazing it would be for her, to be able to look back and see that she had been part of making history. :)

    Really, one of the most (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Suisser1 on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:22:51 AM EST
    deeply infuriating things about the Bernie  Bros assault is the extent to which they have effectively and gleefully stolen the legitimate, historic and glorious importance of FINALLY seeing a woman poised lead the country. I can't even articulate how angry I am when I stop and think about it.

    So you'd consider it some sort (3.50 / 2) (#124)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:36:07 AM EST
    of significant victory if say, Sarah Palin was poised to be President?

    Nice shootin', jondee (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 10:15:56 AM EST
    They won't appreciate the humor, of course.

    We appreciate humor (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:52:13 PM EST
    When it's actually present. In jondee's case, it's just dumb and purposely obtuse trying to pass itself off as snarky and witty.

    It's amazing that we're finally going to have a candidate who is not only a woman, but the most qualified candidate forfor the office of POTUS any of us have seen in our lifetimes.

    There.  Fixed it for you and jondee.


    Nothing like a good metaphorical tasing (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    and blackjacking first thing in the morning from the site's resident bad cop wannabe..

    If she meant a woman's unique individuality, ideals, and intelligence counted for more than fulfilling some momentary identity politics feel-good function, all she had to do was say so jb.  



    I just don't reply (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Suisser1 on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 02:04:26 PM EST
    to knee jeck, lazy comments to my posts.

    If it wasn't just a troll (2.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 03:12:38 PM EST
    to stir up the puma posse, your initial post was incredibly lazy and entitled-sounding.

    Another attempt (none / 0) (#164)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 01:46:42 PM EST
    It's almost sad that you REALLY, REALLY keep trying to be snarky and funny, but you always miss.

    But not that sad.  It's amusing actually.  And the added bonus is you try to include what you think are clever insults, but they aren't.



    They? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 02:27:41 PM EST
    As in ... women?

    Ok, I'll raise you one and bet you don't appreciate the sentiment and humor of this, from Melissa McEwan talking to her husband:

    Last night, while I was saying the words "first woman nominee for president" to Iain, I just burst out crying. (LOL!) Not dainty, choked up, charming crying, either. Big, blubby, sobbing, wiping-snot-on-my-sleeve kind of crying!

    I do. As I'm sure many others do regardless of gender.


    But you're still not saying (2.00 / 1) (#170)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 03:20:35 PM EST
    Any woman would do. Or are you?

    Did you feel an upwelling of emotion when Carly Fiorina came walking out on stage? I mean, CEO ain't exactly chopped liver..


    Please, jondee (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 06:13:02 PM EST
    Don't cheapen what is happening for so many of us.

    What? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 04:05:50 PM EST
    What does your apparent affection for Carly Fiorina have to do with me? Or with my comment directed at someone else? Hint: Nothing.

    Please do try to check out and follow 'Parent'. Even your own!

    "Still ...", lol.


    She wrote woman "poised to lead country" (none / 0) (#181)
    by Towanda on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 10:08:34 AM EST
    which is what Hillary Rodham Clinton is prepared, fully prepared from hard work for decades now, to do.

    But you read woman candidate = "has a vagina."

    You ought to be so embarrassed by what you have revealed about yourself.  But, of course, someone who could reveal that is incapable of doing so.


    After 2008 (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:03:31 AM EST
    I never thought I'd see it in my lifetime.

    And I'm 47 - how's that for cynicism?

    What's amazing is that it really isn't being grasped yet by so many media outlets.

    Imagining today what the old boys with powdered wigs and white knee high stockings would be thinking today....


    I felt (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:10:15 AM EST
    the same way, JB.

    Hi Coral! (none / 0) (#101)
    by texpolitico on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:57:07 PM EST
    From your post to the flying spaghetti monster's ears!!

    As a former PUMA and a TalkLefter... (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by texpolitico on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:55:27 PM EST
    I had to come back and see what the position is for Hillary this time around.  I am quite baffled by the behavior of Sanders and the violence that surrounds his campaign.  Yeah we were pissed in 2008 but violence never begat the primary back then.  Can't wait for NJ to put Secty Clinton over the top Tue

    hi tex! I just found stellaa on twitter (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 11:42:37 AM EST
    Miss her here, so was glad to find her. She is still on top of things as ever.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    it would be nice if we knew everybody's twitter so we could follow them. I have noticed there are a lot of people who seem to have left blogs for twitter.

    @michgirlindc (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:01:33 PM EST
    I try to be funny and pithy, but no guarantees.

    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:22:27 PM EST
    I found you and I'm probably your newest follower. LOL.

    I don't tweet much of anything, just a lurker (none / 0) (#148)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:08:28 PM EST
    and occasional re-tweeter of Armando and some others. Maybe I should set up an account that is not my whole name and I would feel freer about it.

    I think you can (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:23:24 PM EST
    change your name tho I have my real name on my account. I did not realize that your real name showed up when I signed up.

    Twitter handle (none / 0) (#175)
    by texpolitico on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 06:19:43 PM EST

    On May 14, 2016 (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 07:46:35 AM EST
    Al Giordano wrote on Twitter:

    If Philadelphia is at all like this shit show in Nevada today, I will personally go to VT for the 2018 cycle & take @BernieSanders down.

    And while Al Giordano has repeated this threat ever since and has garnered quite a following with promises of support on Twitter, Bernie Sanders hasn't taken the warning. Or maybe he is just as reassured as his followers who never tire of mentioning that: He has the highest approval rating of all senators so ha-ha, good luck with taking over his seat.

    But now the challenge has become so serious/close to fruition that Al Giordano has given his first interview. To Joy-Ann Reid Meet Al Giordano, The Man Who Wants To Take Bernie Down:

    Giordano is referring not to Sanders himself, but to his most fervent online followers, who have blasted away at everyone from John Lewis to Delores Huerta to Elizabeth Warren, and most recently Barney Frank, for failing to support Bernie's "political revolution," or worse, for backing Hillary Clinton, who is loathed by a swath of the Sanders faithful. Giordano says he blames Sanders for the vituperative tendencies of his shock troops, and for failing to talk them down.

    "For me this is not about Hillary Clinton, who has her strengths and she has her flaws," he says. "This is about a coalition that has saved the United States and can keep saving it, and this is what needs to be protected. And so maybe it's time for the Obama coalition to go to Vermont."

    And while he still calls his bid exploratory, Giordano has changed his Twitter header to read: "Al Giordano. Vermont. 2018. Bring it on."

    SO Done with Sanders (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by smott on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 05:51:06 PM EST
    I'll donate money to Giordino if he takes on Sanders in VT.

    I hope the Dems never give Sanders the time of day, ever again.
    No more meetings, no more discussions, not even on a critical vote. Consider him a Republican, an enemy of the party. No more committee positions.
    No. THing.
    Except a Gioridino EVERY. ELECTION.

    So done with this arrogant jerk.

    In the Virgin Islands Today (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    There are 7 pledged delegates at stake. For Sanders to make it easier rather than harder with each subsequent state (or territory) going forward, he will need to take 71% of the vote today to get 5 of the 7. If he wins 4 of the 7 his path actually gets harder.

    Sanders failed to get 15% (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:00:59 AM EST
    I think that means Hillary gets all the VI delegates

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 02:31:38 PM EST
    Yes, she got all 7 pledged delegates ... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    ... which basically trumps -- no pun intended -- the 6-del. advantage Sanders received in the Michigan primary. How long now before Bernie advocates for the elimination of all U.S. territorial delegations?

    I was thinking the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 05:25:26 PM EST
    surely a true pure progressive is against holding territories. These votes don't count- just part of the rigging.

    Of all places, "The Military Times" asks (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 08:27:02 PM EST
    Yes, and Yes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 10:11:15 PM EST
    If by 'hijacked' you mean 'become the party of choice'.

    The same question could be ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Erehwon on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 09:12:55 PM EST
    asked about The Military Times itself, if you look at the comments to the articles at your link!

    Hillary wins the Virgin Islands (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 09:44:54 PM EST
    Don't have the margins yet but safe to assume Sanders fell at least 2 delegates short of his needed goal there.

    Early (?) reports from the islands (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 10:20:27 PM EST
    Clinton may have done VERY good.

    Could be a 6-1 delegate split for Hillary


    86% to 12% (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 10:27:24 PM EST
    according to The Green Papers and Nate Silver

    I figured the violence in San Jose would have been (none / 0) (#21)
    by McBain on Sat Jun 04, 2016 at 11:30:34 PM EST
    big news.  Instead, many in media focused on Trump's comment "Look at my African-American over here", trying to make it into some horribly racist remark.  Turns out, that individual, Rep.congressional candidate Gregory Cheadle,  wasn't offended at all...
    "The overwhelming majority of people felt offense, which kind of startled me. Wow, we're so polarized and sensitive in this country now. It's frightening," Cheadle said Saturday.

    But I get it.... Trump comments are big ratings.  Still, I'm very disappointed with the horrible behavior that occurred in the town I grew up in.  When the media finally did mention the violent protests, they focused on the woman who got egged, not the men who got punched and tackled.
     ABC's GMA was one of the few networks that thought the violence was a big deal.

    ... is not the big story here. It's a sideshow. Neither the Clinton campaign, the Sanders campaign nor the Democratic Party countenance such political violence. The mob isn't on the ballot.

    If anything, the mob is helping Trump (none / 0) (#24)
    by McBain on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 01:36:16 AM EST
    The big story for me was the San Jose Police Dept. acting like the Ferguson police during the Michael Brown riots. Political correctness prevented them from doing their job. They weren't prepared and were afraid to confront the criminals.  

    What happened in San Jose ... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 01:49:07 AM EST
    ... will be forgotten in one week's time. And since I don't recall you expressing a similar level of alarm about campaign violence when the Trumpsters were the ones meting it out, I'd say it's pretty obvious that you're concern trolling here. So, I'm not going to waste any more Open Thread bandwidth talking about it. Have a nice evening.

    As I mentioned twice before (none / 0) (#53)
    by McBain on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 12:54:33 PM EST
    This nonsense happened where I grew up.  Only about 10 miles from where I live now.  But you're probably correct when you say people will forget all about it in a week.



    Okay, so it happened 10 miles from home. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 03:52:31 AM EST
    Nobody here is condoning political violence, regardless of whether it comes from the left, right or center, or whether it occurs down the block or on the other side of the country. If those who committed mayhem in San Jose can be identified, then they should be prosecuted by the authorities.

    But your notion that the mob action in San Jose is likely to drive voters to Trump is nonsense. The battle lines are already drawn, and the media has moved on.



    How else (none / 0) (#27)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 06:12:03 AM EST

    Would they react after being repeatedly told

    Trump is a fascist    

    He may be a loudmouth bully with little sense of how our government works

    Which is the greatest reason that the illegal executive overreach taken by the Obama Administration, should continue to be rebuked and reversed by the Judicial system, because I recognize that I might not like the next President  even though I might approve of the executive actions taken by a President I support.


    Question for Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:58:03 AM EST
    I'm curious about why you appear to be supporting Donald Trump? You can express yourself fairly well ... can you talk about what good presidential qualities that you see?  If possible, could you discuss only his qualities, experience, record in that regard.  

    While I'm guessing that your position--like others who appear to be leaning toward--may well be influenced by your response to his opponent ... for the sake of focus, my question to you is specific:  Please define what presidential qualities that you believe Donald Trump may possess.

    Note: However one might feel about this question, it would be difficult to argue that it is not a fair question ... IMO.


    Nice job on the straw hordes, ChristineP (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 10:41:40 AM EST
    Trevor says "Trump is a fascist"

    You respond, "you appear to be supporting Donald Trump"

    You've implied that Trevor is a fascist but don't have the guts to say it or the evidence to support it.  So you sneak it in as crude innuendo.  Are you done?  No.  You follow up by completely impeaching your credibility.  You admit, "I'm guessing."

    If you want to be considered a writer, learn to read, learn to reason, and learn to edit.


    I only said my opinion is (none / 0) (#162)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 01:38:38 PM EST
    that trevor is supporting Trump.  I might add after trevor's semi-clarification:  It surely is tough to be a Repub these days ... being stuck with Trump.  You and he, for example, may have to consider if you want him as President.  Imagine that, Mr. Natural.  Imagine that ... the android-like "I'm gonna build a wall" Trump as leader of the US and free world, etc.  My, my.

    Here is the bottom line: You really may have to confront the probability that HRC will become President not only because the strong majority will see the contrast and vote for her; but--and this is the crux--some Hillary-haters will actually help that result.  Trevor and you can be part of the Trump vote or, by abstaining from that, add a greater margin for HRC. (Thanks.)


    I'm not (none / 0) (#46)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:24:09 AM EST
    Some of his policies may make sense, many I disagree with

    Am totally turned off by his personality

    I understand   somewhat.. his appeal

    I just never realized the distrust of our political class had grown to these proportions,
    On both sides of the aisle.


    When we keep pushing, preaching (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 02:50:27 PM EST
    distrust, what do you think happens ...you get the distrust & the cynicism in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Turning to the first sentence of your reply, I'd like to push back: Could you expand on your general statement about Donald Trump and "some of his policies may make sense...?"  BTW, the reason that I ask is not to focus solely on your statement--because I ask for specificity from anyone with whom I talk these days to focus on what we like about a candidate, about what we want from such candidate, and about the specific issues where we align with the candidate.

    This morning, Stephanopoulis (sp?) interviewed Sen. Bob Corker (R) about how committed Repub leadership might be to Donald Trump.  When asked what he liked about Donald's approach, the Senator started talking about HRC and how bad she was, etc.  I've noticed that the go-right-to-the-opposition without saying what they respect, follow, like about Donald seems to be a pattern these days when Repub officials are pressed.  Except here, George S pressed by asking again what Corker personally liked and/or agreed with when it came to Donald.  Corker stuttered a bit, and then said that he was confident they would work it out.

    In this election--where we are all imagining how tough and slugfest-level it will get--it could be more important than ever to be able to state what it is that you like & agree with, specifically, about your candidate.  Just a thought; so, I'll ask that question of you again .... hmmmm.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 04:45:46 PM EST
    Immigration - Made this country great, and was mostly legal. Ellis Island was a checkpoint that my grandparents came through, not under a fence or by paying a coyote. Sanctuary cities protecting felons here illegally are a dis service to all Americans. New reports today of ICE releasing felons instead of deportations, and their resulting crimes afterward are shocking. Reports of ICE picking up "non mexican " illegal immigrants at the border , driving them to bus stations and paying for a ticket is mind blowing.

    Business Regulations- Mountains and mountains of business regulation need to be rolled back, the only ones soon capable of hiring will be Governments and multinational corporations, small business is being strangled.

    Foreign policy - Reduce our involvement in NATO, financially and otherwise. Let Europe pick up the cost and responsibility for keeping themselves safe. We should always be there to back them up, but they must take control.

    Just for starters


    Turn it off, because it's eroding your grey matter and with it, your ability to think for yourself. ICE isn't releasing felons into society or buying undocumented bus tickets. I mean, jeez, Trevor, that's the same crap George Putnam used to spew on the L.A. airwaves back in the 1980s and '90s, and that ol' wingbat's been dead eight years now.

    Get a grip.


    Actually, they are (none / 0) (#110)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 05:34:15 AM EST
    lol. you missed Corker's point completely (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 02:58:46 PM EST
    Corker said exactly what he liked about Trump.



    That is what I tried to say as well (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    He hemmed a bit, but said nothing (because what could he say.)  This could get really interesting IF the Repub powers-that-be can't come up with a talking-point about Donald other than he is the presumptive Repub nominee.

    Question for Christine (none / 0) (#48)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:27:32 AM EST
    I agree with Turley in this article


    Any point where he is off base?


    It has taken almost 50 years, but the Democrats have finally found their inner Nixon. Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the most Nixonian figure in the post-Watergate period. Indeed, Democrats appear to have reached the type of moral compromise that Nixon waited, unsuccessfully, for Republicans to accept: Some 71% of Democrats want Clinton to run even if indicted.

    While Obama could be criticized for embracing Nixon's imperial presidency model, his personality could not be more different from his predecessor. Clinton however is the whole Nixonian package. On a policy level, her predilection for using executive and military power is even coupled with praise for (and from) Nixon's secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. However, it is on a personality level that the comparison is so striking and so unnerving. Clinton, like Nixon, is known to be both secretive and evasive. She seems to have a compulsive resistance to simply acknowledging conflicting facts or changes in position. She only makes admissions against interest when there is no alternative to acknowledging the truth in a controversy.

    Turkey and Susan Sarandon (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    Great minds-

    Actress Susan Sarandon says Hillary Clinton's foreign policy makes her a greater national security risk than Donald Trump, adding that it's "inevitable" the White House hopeful will be indicted.

    "I believe in a way she's more dangerous, except they're both talking to Henry Kissinger apparently lately," Sarandon told The Young Turks on Thursday.

    "Her record -- I mean, she did not learn a thing from Iraq. She is an interventionist. She's done horrible things, horrible things, and very callously," she added.

    "I don't know if she's overcompensating or what her trip is. I think we'll be in Iran in two seconds. That scares me. That frightens me."

    She knows about "trips" remember Sarandon has intentionally driven off a cliff before


    Both of (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 12:58:24 PM EST
    them are desperately hoping for a white knight to come in and deliver the nomination to Bernie much like that same wish from the GOP.

    We can add Cenk Uygur (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    to the mix, as well.  Raging against super delegates while, at the same time, going after them. Their "revolution" seems to include democratic principles; fewer votes, fewer delegates, fewer states, but claims to better pre-attack polls in a Trump/Bernie match-up.

     And, those declared super delegates should not be put in the column for their declared candidate.  After all, they could change their minds, maybe the FBI will save Bernie for his coronation.


    We have (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 02:04:59 PM EST
    two candidates and their supporters playing Calvin Ball 24/7. Hint their name is not Hillary.

    I saw funny Facebook post with (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 05:41:11 PM EST
    a picture of Bernie pasted into the Thelma and Louise car going over the cliff with Susan.

    Turley is being rather cute (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 03:11:40 PM EST
    Surprisingly, tho, he has been moving in that direction for years.  

    When we recall HRC's early legal assignment with the Watergate investigative team--and, the resulting success of that congressionally authorized investigation--we can see that her experience there had an effect.  Since you asked for something in the nature of surmise (since Turley himself seems to be creating the tale out of somewhere other than recorded facts), here is my surmise: One of the big humiliations in government & politics during the latter half of the 20th century was the infamous Watergate together with the infamous Nixon ... Clinton was assigned a legal role in the investigation that ultimately saw Nixon resign ... the Repubs have never forgotten that.  Take it from there.

    So... Mr. Turley is trafficking in cute; and, takes on the mantle of coy as he delivers what (and this is just a guess from a strong Democrat) Repubs long for ... and, that is a Democratic equivalent full-blown scandal involving a favorite enemy, HRC.  The only thing is: That bunch have overplayed their hand with so many claims of scandal over a quarter century, that most of us know the game.  (I seem to remember that Jonathan Turley wrote a decent account of the Reagan years politicization of EPA & Interior under Gorsuch & Watt ... don't honestly know what happened to him since.)


    No, No and No (3.50 / 2) (#72)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 04:38:05 PM EST
    Actually, Turley is quite accurate and precise.

    However, it is on a personality level that the comparison is so striking and so unnerving. Clinton, like Nixon, is known to be both secretive and evasive.

    I find that the similarities can perhaps be laid at the feet of a very critical and unforgiving press, for both Nixon and Clinton. I have found Hillary Clinton very Nixonian.
    Everything in the IG report was the opposite of what Madame Sec has claimed for a year. Out and out lies, with no remorse.
    You are either too close to the forest to see the trees, or just love the kool aid.

    Of course, politicians are not known for their allegiance to the truth, and Clinton may be a standout in that group, but she is hardly unique among her peers. However, that tendency is often checked by a staff that forces politicians to recognize reality and even the truth of controversy.

    Like Nixon, Madame Sec has surrounded herself with sycophants and Yes men. Wasn't their one advisor close to her that could have told her that private servers are not permitted, classified information should remain on a a government system. Or at least push her to get a legal opinion from State Department lawyers?
    Again, so Nixon like.

    Turley has always been a liberal, with libertarian leanings. Over the last 8 years he has been dismayed that the executive power grab of the Presidency has only accelerated under Obama, despite his pre election claims that Bush had overstepped his legal authority.

    And Madame Sec's work on that Watergate Commission, was..well, just the first sign of her Nixonian traits

    Jerry Zeifman said he supervised Hillary Rodham Clinton as she worked on the team that worked on the Watergate impeachment inquiry, and that during the investigation Hillary Clinton had "...engaged in a variety of self-serving, unethical practices in violation of House rules."

    Specifically, Jerry Zeifman said Hillary Rodham Clinton and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office so Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy would have a better chance of being elected president. Zeifman said a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him in August of 1974 to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with "...her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel -- as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon."

    Jerry Zeifman also said that Hillary Rodham Clinton regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, which was a violation of House rules. Zeifman said in addition to helping Ted Kennedy win the presidency, Democrats also didn't want Nixon to face an impeachment trial because they feared he might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy as part of his defense.

    But while Jerry Zeifman has been consistent in his criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton's work on the Watergate investigation, circumstances surrounding her termination are less clear. In a 1999 interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, Zeifman said he didn't have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have:


    Here is what I observe (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 05:55:48 PM EST
    In your response, trevor, once you get started talking about HRC & your negative take, you appear to have trouble getting back in control.

    For many of us, Turley lost his credibility a long time ago.  Who knows why?  But, unlike the quote you post above from him wherein he succumbs to emotional blather, I have no idea why he is blowing bubbles.  One thing I do understand:  There is a market among longtime HRC-haters for that kind of fact-free spiel.  If that imaginary work of his satisfies you, then you dream about the coming whatever ... meanwhile, I'll be working to elect Hillary Clinton, the most experienced and best candidate there is.


    Turley (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 06:19:10 PM EST
    was saying that Bill was going to be impeached and removed from office even after all the head counters said it wasn't gonna happen. he can't deal with facts for whatever reason and went beyond the bend eons ago.

    Fact free? (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 06:30:38 PM EST

    Inconvenient truths.

    Turley never lost any credibility, he is still standing for what he always fought against,
    Except for the last 8 years , much to Turley's disbelief, it has been a Democrat that has usurped so much power into 1 branch of government

    In a December 2013 congressional hearing, responding to a question from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) about the danger posed by President Obama's apparent unilateral modification of laws passed by Congress, Turley said, "The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch. This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is [sic] two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction."[34]

    ChristineP: (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 07:46:10 AM EST
    "For many of us, Turley lost his credibility a long time ago.  Who knows why?"

    You should have aborted that post at that point.


    Special reply to Mr Natural (none / 0) (#161)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 01:30:14 PM EST
    You must be vying for the politically Cute Award yourself.  Good luck with that :)

    Jerry Zeifman? Seriously? (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:11:55 AM EST
    OMG.  Thanks for the laugh.

    So much bulls--- in your link


    Republicans (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:32:20 AM EST
    and/or conservatives are the most gullible people around I do believe. They will believe anything that is thrown out there and never check to verify anything. They have become so invested in "The Big Lie" that they have come to believe it themselves.

    He doesn't believe it (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 09:08:12 AM EST
    Most of them don't.  Which makes it suck even more.  It purely political and it's all bullsh!t.   Fortunately like most, he's really not very good at it.

    It's funny (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 09:28:16 AM EST
    because if you google what they are saying it's like the Council of Concern Trolls sent out their statements for the day and then they run around posting it on blogs.

    The truth is they are cornered rats who are desperate so they'll throw anything out there because they have nothing to lose at this point by doing it. IMO it's just more evidence of how the GOP is circling the drain.


    I mentioned that during the Dubya regime. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:03:47 AM EST
    People were going nuts over Dubya's "executive overreach," and they were going gaga over Obama's promises to retrench.

    The retrenchment never happened.  It was never going to happen.  After all, how many would have the moral grounding to surrender those cool new executive superpowers?  Certainly not our St. Obama.

    As to what Trump needs to know about how our government works, I refer you to a point he made during the first debate.  He said that every other Pol on that stage had been bought and paid for.  Their "service" had a price tag.  He even boasted about the return on investment he got from his donations to Hillary Clinton.

    When it comes right down to it, I don't have to know anything more about Trump than that he's a property developer, the lowest form of life on this planet.  It's what gives hope to even the most depraved and indifferent that there's a crappier circle of hell than the one in which they'd end up.

    Sadly, there is no hell.  Creeps like Trump have nothing to lose.


    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:07:15 AM EST
    He could lose the election

    He is (none / 0) (#47)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:24:13 AM EST
    And has been a real estate developer.

    High risk, high reward.

    Once that sinks in...

    Not many would really support a country , or their retirement fund on that premise


    So if (none / 0) (#29)
    by Nemi on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 06:50:29 AM EST
    for example Donald Trump calls me a c***, it's not a big deal if only I'm not offended? I don't think that's quite how it goes when calling out bigotry.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#30)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 07:50:50 AM EST
    Sure , be offended all you want, and vote for your candidate.

    At least Ezra Klein took action,

    An editor with the website Vox was suspended Friday for a series of tweets encouraging protesters to "start a riot" at Donald Trump rallies - shortly after the Republican candidate's supporters were attacked outside a San Jose rally the night before.

    "We welcome a variety of viewpoints, but we do not condone writing that could put others in danger," the site's founder, Ezra Klein, said in a statement announcing the suspension of Emmett Rensin.

    Huh, to you too (none / 0) (#41)
    by Nemi on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    I was reacting to and questioning the claim, that Donald Trump saying "my African-American" isn't to be considered racist, because the man in question himself wasn't offended.

    Any "riots" probaby just play into (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 01:48:10 PM EST
    Trump's flaccid little hands..

    I don't know why anyone would encourage it unless they were some sort of provocateur, which is entirely possible..

    It's interesting though that it seems lately that any organized protest associated with anyone on Left is automatically labeled by some with the dog whistle word "riot" (as in "race riot")..


    I think Trump has crossed yet another (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 08:49:33 AM EST
    line with his comments about the ANERICAN of Nexican descent judge and now Muslim judges being biased against him. I've is basically admitting that he himself as president would treat these Americans differently. That is beyond a strong borders policy. Way beyond.

    We need all hands on deck against this wannabe tyrant.

    The good news (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 09:24:21 AM EST
    Relatively speaking, is that he keeps doing it.  And keeps doing it.  And keeps doing it.  
    I'm starting to think he is on the payroll of CGI.

    Haha (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:29:32 AM EST
    Yeah, I seriously have moments when I think the same thing. Man that Big Dawg is a genius!

    iPhone typing fail, but I think it is readable! (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 08:50:35 AM EST
    I am always learning something new (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    From my husband's Independent perspective. Cenk was just on CNN talking Bernie. I felt annoyed by the Bernie justifications, and Cenk argues well. I was very surprised by my husband's outright anger though. He says he cannot abide the nihilism message that continues to trickle from the Bernie campaign in various forms from various messengers.

    Makes sense. Independents must feel/believe that our foundation is worth preserving as is, otherwise how could you be an Independent? I wonder, do most Independents abhor nihilistic campaigning?

    He did say that if Sanders won, at this point with the nihilistic threats, he has nobody he can vote for.

    Anger is the correct response IMO (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:11:26 AM EST
    But Bernie won't win.

    There was a link posted at the end of the last open to a  Chicago Sun Times piece by Gene Lyons.  Who I have always admired.   If you if your hubby has not read it you should.  It will cheer you up.


    A very good read (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:31:07 AM EST
    Completely (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    understandable IMO. He's seen the lets just blow everything up and hope for the best strategy up close and personal.

    Yeah, he really has (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 11:30:20 AM EST
    He has seen an entire less than perfect social structure upended and gutted, and rivers of blood followed...everyone's blood.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 04:13:45 PM EST
    And the people that advocate this 'blow it all up approach' are the people with he least ability to pick up the pieces afterwards. That will be up to the people like your husband.  Furthermore they know         that they just get to shoot off their mouths now knowing what they want just is not going to happen because 'sellouts' like me and the other adults in the room are not going to let it happen.  That is why the more Hillary owns, the louder they get. The stakes for them get smaller and smaller.

    owns = wins. Can't even blame the iphone! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    Both gym guys (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by fishcamp on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 05:01:01 PM EST
    loved Hillary's speech, but they still hate her.  They're  both hoping for Bernie, since the Donald has lost them.  They have nobody to vote for, and don't like it.  I don't say a word anymore.

    Too funny (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 05:38:48 PM EST
    and once the GOP slime machine got done with Bernie they wouldn't vote for him either.

    Tell them about (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 07:00:27 PM EST
    Gary Johnsnon.  The libertarian candidate.

    tell every republican you know (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by CST on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 10:13:54 AM EST
    About Gary Johnson!

    That's their problem. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:50:10 PM EST
    Please don't make it yours. People who b!+ch like that want others to do the heavy lifting for them. They'll never attain enlightenment without some serious self-reflection on their part -- and that requires personal effort and a commitment to change.

    I saw a segment with Cenk on Reliable Sources (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 04:09:27 PM EST
    Maybe it was the one you saw. I think he just has huge blind spots, and has had for some time. It's why I stopped listening to his show a while back. He only had one woman regularly on it and she was basically telling him how wonderful he was, and doing entertainment news.  He would never talk about Obama the same way he talks about Clinton now. All along he has given Obama credit for the historical achievement of being the first black president, even as he has disagreed with him a lot. (And I agree with that stance.) Now he was visibly rolling his eyes when the Reliable Sources host asked him if he could not see how it would be revolutionary to have a woman president. Cenk answered something to the effect that it is not a historical achievement if she still takes campaign donations from the same establishment sources everyone else does. As if Bernie could win in the GE without those donations.

    And he admitted that the only way Sanders will win the nom is if Hillary gets indicted - and he thinks that is a strong possibility.  I'm going to look up some actuarial tables, because I think there are about the same odds that a 74 yr old man has a heart attack in the next 6 months.

    I just saw a friend, an older woman who is my one real leftie friend, and she is feeling the Bern.... she claims not to remember any time when Hillary was defined as a liberal, or attacked for proposing socialized medicine.

    I am just done with the double and triple standards.


    I stopped listening to Cenk years ago. (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 05, 2016 at 10:36:28 PM EST
    He's a one-trick pony, who likes to surround himself with people who agree with him. Substantively, he's really no better than Hugh Hewitt, in that both prefer spin to analysis.

    So, Sir Donald, (none / 0) (#117)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 07:51:20 AM EST
    who likes to surround himself with people who agree with him.

    on how many right wing blogs do you proselytize?

    I listen occasionally to radio shows ... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 01:17:46 PM EST
    ... and Fox News, just enough to get an idea what's boiling away down there in the right-wing fever swamps. I also try to read National Review regularly, although the quality of analysis and writing there has seriously deteriorated over the last 20 years.

    And I'll peruse the transcripts of the Sunday gasbag shows where far too many wingbats now hold court, thanks to the singular determination of producers to inject their special brand of poisonous nonsense into the mainstream. This little ball of babble from National Review's Reihan Salam on Face the Nation yesterday stood out for me:

    "There's a version of what Trump is saying. Even actually when he's talking about nuclear proliferation, there's actually a version of what he's saying that is, in my view, defensible. He does not make that case. Time and again rather than making, you know, an affirmative case for his use on immigration and trade, he actually keeps getting drawn in to talking about his personal business affairs rather than talking about the unemployment rate.

    "So when you're looking at Republicans, as [Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today] is saying, there is this jockeying for position, what do we do now that we know the Republican Party has changed in this meaningful, material way? And you see some smart people, like Tom Cotton, the senator from Arkansas, he is looking around the bend and he's actually trying to be very cautious. Being a good soldier for Trump, but also recognizing there is this national constituency in the country, how do I speak to it in a coherent and defensible way?"

    It's rather amazing to see in conservative media the great extent to which the right holds intellectual featherweights like Tom Cotton and Bob Corker in such high esteem and regard. Otherwise, were you to go simply on how they play on Sundays, you'd dismiss them as not ready for prime time -- and not without good reason, if these rather insipid remarks from Sen. Corker on ABC News' This Week With George Stephanopolous yesterday are any indication:

    Stephanopolous: "Is it realistic to expect Mexico to pay for that wall?"

    Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): "Well, again, I don't want to get into a debate about the nuances of that. I mean it's a statement that [Donald Trump] has made. I thought this interview was going to be more about the foreign policy arena. I think he has a tremendous opportunity there."

    Stephanopolous: "Well, our relations with Mexico is foreign policy."

    Corker: "Okay."

    That's why I think it's important to see for yourself what your opponents are actually saying, rather than getting it from secondary and tertiary sources. Maybe if you actually took the time to do the same, instead of furiously bouncing off the walls of your own echo chamber like Cenk Uyger and the Huffington Post's Seth Abramson, you might contribute more to these discussions than left field bleacher banter.



    You would do well (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 01:41:14 PM EST
    To not dismiss Tom Cotton so lightly.   The way you dismissed Trump for as long as you possibly could. And for the same reasons.   He does not meet your test for "intellectual heft".  Cotton is a smart and very ambitious man,  he is much smarter than Donald Trump and in his own way much more dangerous.

    Allow me to make another prediction you can sniff at with indifference.  You will hear a lot more for Tom Cotton in the next few years.   Or decades.  If we live that long.


    He's creepy (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 09:10:13 PM EST
    And as discussed on here previously, he has an impeccable military record. He requested to do the hardest, most self deprecating and dangerous assignments, and he came home safe-like. Thing is, I'm used to people who put themselves in harms way performing similar assignments having a great deal of empathy for others, but he doesn't. So he's even scarier. It is as if he is a deliberate living/breathing self serving even in combat and war, political construct. He exudes sociopath to me.

    In his NYTimes column (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 10:53:19 AM EST
    of June 7, 2016, Frank Bruni reports the continuing "hold" Senator Cotton put on Cassandra Butts for Ambassador to the Bahamas. The reason was that Miss Butts was a close friend of President Obama's having served in the office of legal counsel and first meeting while students at Harvard Law. Cassandra Butts died, at age 50, awaiting removal of Cotton's hold.  

    Interestingly though (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 02:07:14 PM EST
    he seems to have been pretty quiet lately.

    the smart ones in the GOP (none / 0) (#167)
    by CST on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 02:09:39 PM EST
    are the ones staying on the sidelines this year.

    "socialized medicine?" (none / 0) (#128)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 10:08:44 AM EST
    That's what you're calling HillaryCare?

    It is what the critics of it were calling it (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 11:44:02 AM EST
    in the 90s.

    And preferably (none / 0) (#136)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 11:35:40 AM EST
    Mexican? '-)

    Word is (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 11:55:10 AM EST
    The president will in some way endorse Hillary this week.

    They will both be in NY (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:00:34 PM EST

    I get the feeling (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 12:07:52 PM EST
    He is ripped and ready to start campaigning against the Head Birther

    Oh wow, Trump on script (none / 0) (#189)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:12:26 PM EST
    Seems so weird...and he looks like Marlon Brando playing Marc Antony giving a speech in the forum, with that head looking up and eyes down thing.  

    Reaching out to Bernie people.

    He's a giver, he just wants to give back (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:16:41 PM EST
    Going to give a speech next week exposing the Clintons grift in the Clinton Foundation. I guess that is what Bernie is waiting for.

    Marlon Brando (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:17:12 PM EST
    Playing Marc Antony in clown makeup.

    I love this AP headline

    Sanders 'disappointed' and 'upset' at news of Clinton's win


    haha - is that from 6 weeks ago when it was (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:20:11 PM EST
    obvious she would win?

    No! (none / 0) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:22:39 PM EST
    I just...cant... (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:24:42 PM EST
    Can we just hail him as a hero already so he'll take his hurt feels back to Vermont? Maddox says that's what it will take.

    All I can take...I gave it a try. (none / 0) (#192)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:19:10 PM EST
    The best thing (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:32:17 PM EST
    Was when he could not pass up the opportunity to make a pee pee joke when talking about TPP.



    OMG. I missed that. Such an overgrown child (none / 0) (#199)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    It was seconds (none / 0) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    After you posted a comment saying you were out.

    Wash D.C. Primary today (none / 0) (#201)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 04:48:44 PM EST
    TG it's the last one.

    I wonder if a certain candidate has reflected on his options and role going forward....

    Based on his "speech" (none / 0) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    Today I think more reflection is needed.  He might be the best thing that could have happened to DWS.    If he wants people to take sides maybe he should have joined the party a bit sooner.  

    Who knows.  Never had much love for DWS but I find my self rooting for her.