home

Hillary on the Cusp of Historical Nomination

It's just about over. After her win this weekend in Puerto Rico, Hillary Clinton is expected to reach the magic number tomorrow and become the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party.

As for Bernie, I hope he goes off for a long overdue nap.

The LA Times endorsed Hillary, but not Donald Trump. The Times calls Trump "an astoundingly unqualified candidate." It refused to make a Republican endorsement.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's spokesman confirmed that Arnold, who will be succeeding Trump as host of Celebrity Apprentice, mailed in his ballot with a vote for John Kasich.

This thread is for all things election-related.

< Countdown to the End of Primary Season | Hillary Clinton Is The Democratic Nominee For President >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Can't wait! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    Jeralyn, you perfectly echo my sentiments about Bernie.  

    Hillary in on Maddow tonight (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 05:18:06 PM EST
    No great big deal but the promo is interesting it says

    ...she is likely to clinch the democratic nomination tomorrow....

    I'm thinkin that broke Twitter.

    This interview just got (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:20:44 PM EST
    More interesting.  Hillary is on stage right now.  They are saying neither campaign wanted this yet.  She has a big event at the Brooklyn Navy Yards tomorrow night.
    Also making it harder to get whiney azz Bernie baby to concede.  

    It could get unpleasant in the near future.

    Parent

    Bernie (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:24:09 PM EST
    may not concede but he won't be invited to speak at the convention if he doesn't. He can stand outside yelling at the clouds.

    He has got to be in a huge financial mess at this point.

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:30:56 PM EST
    Reminds me of his taxes (none / 0) (#43)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:18:27 AM EST
    He and Trump. I can understand the Donald because he probably has his taxes so intertwined that he does not want us to see he does not pay any each year. But Bernie, what does he have to deduct, No Brook Brothers for him.

    But here is the thing, why would any person who wants to be President of the US and spend the people's money not want to follow the rules themselves. I am referring to Bernie's really. The People's candidate who has his wife do theirs and she has not finished them at yet. We are expected to file by April 15th and cough up the money. They, on the other hand, can't even respect the law of the land they claim to love. Even with an extension, they have to pay the taxes. So if you have an idea of what you should owe, you have a sample draft of your taxes. And they both talk trust. Heh.

    Parent

    Chris tingly leg Matthews has finally (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:04:53 PM EST
    decided that he wants to see Bernie's taxes. Now, when nobody gives a sh!t about them anymore.
    Tad Devine
    Jeff Weaver

    We are never going to see Bernie's taxes.

    Parent

    Filing for an extension is (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:12:18 AM EST
    following the law. You still have to pay the taxes plus interest.

    As for Trump, he has said he has done everything legally possible to reduce his taxes. Don't we all?

    I mean, even Hillary used donations of Bill's old underwear as a deduction back in her "poor girl" days. Perfectly legal.

    This demanding to see the taxes is just another political move.

    Parent

    Then (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:40:07 AM EST
    he should own it and release his taxes. What is he afraid of?

    Parent
    I agree with everything you say here, Jim, except (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    for the last line. Demanding to see the tax returns of candidates for high office is totally appropriate. What someone does in private, when the stakes for themselves are high but they think no one (at least no one who is allowed to talk about it) will know, is an excellent test of moral character. And for a candidate who chooses to talk a lot about his financial prowess and his wealth, it could also provide a exceptional opportunity for an objective check on his honesty.

    Parent
    Do we really need to check on any (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 12:20:43 PM EST
    politician's honesty?

    Parent
    Apparently we only need to check (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:29:32 PM EST
    if they claim NA ancestry; in which case we need to check every five minutes, and then get as angry as Marvin the Martian when we don't immediate answers.

    Parent
    Obviously I have nothing but cynicism (none / 0) (#163)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 01:19:09 PM EST
    to inform me, but I suspect el Trumpo has a lot less money than he pretends.  His tax return would provide a good snapshot of his income streams and sources thereof, none of which I have seen documented anywhere.  He licenses his name.  I don't know how much he actually owns.  Does anyone?

    Bernie's finances are, I suspect, a mess.  I suspect that mainly because he's a senator and super busy and because he says his wife handles the tax return.  It was her financial planning that catapulted Burlington College into bankruptcy.  (Maybe Trump will choose her as VP)

    I don't know what you call it in the legal biz but in engineering, we look for patterns.

    Parent

    Jim, that's why they're called politicians. (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 10:51:59 AM EST
    Every breath they take, every move they make, every bond they break, every step they take, we'll be watching them.

    Parent
    We'll be watching them? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    You're showing our age. That was true before the news room became a profit center and ratings took control.

    And biased? They all are. Every time I see a discussion of Senator Warren's claim of being of native american descent I silently scream:

    "Won't some of you keepers of the truth ask her why she hasn't had her DNA examined?"

    Parent

    Maybe if she had a little more NA (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    ancestory she might've gotten a scholarship to Trump University, where people got really scalped.

    Parent
    I love the typo "ancestory" (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:34:24 PM EST
    I guess that's refers to a family story about where our ancestors came from. Most of us have some of those, I would venture to guess.

    Parent
    jim, since my birthday (none / 0) (#175)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jun 10, 2016 at 08:38:55 AM EST
    is December 2nd of our year, I would guess you're slightly older than me.  This is probably what gives you your political edge.  fwiw, my entire family were Republicans, and my grandmother said she would stop ironing my shirts if I voted for any of the damn Kennedys.  Sadly I admit I voted for Nixon twice.  Things changed when I moved from Portland to Aspen.

    Parent
    I see (none / 0) (#80)
    by Nemi on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:52:41 PM EST
    what you did there. Nice. ;)

    Parent
    You missed the sentence where I said (none / 0) (#106)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:44:37 PM EST
    You still have to pay up which means you pretty much Know what your taxes are going to be with the draft copy.

    No, this is not a political move. And how do you know about Bill's underwear deduction? Aw, you must have looked at her taxes which she made available. BTW, where do you think the GOP got so much of their info on her income? Good or bad, it is out there.

    Trump is just a bad boy getting away with his badness. Pffffffffffft.

    Parent

    ... of the Republican Party's present addiction to shtick, celebrity and gimmickry, in lieu of an actual bona fide commitment to responsible public governance.

    I remember when we were in Sacramento in December 2003, just a few months after Schwarzenegger's election, and the gift shop at the State Capitol was selling "Governator" t-shirts and other similarly-labeled kitsch, which I thought to be highly improper since proceeds from those sales were then going directly to Schwarzenegger's own campaign fund. Members of the state's ethics commission apparently felt the same way, because they put a stop to it by early 2004. Funds from those sales went instead to Special Olympics.

    Gov. Schwarzenegger may not have been the complete and total disaster that so many people now like to characterize his administration as being, but it was pretty clear from a relatively early point in his tenure that he was in way over his head as California's chief executive, having trivialized his official duties to the point of nonchalance, and that he really had no business being governor without an awful lot of outside help.

    Schwarzenegger's one saving grace was his own personal capacity for introspection and self-reflection, as exemplified by his willingness to turn to Democratic circles and ask for that help, in the wake of the political thrashing he had received at the hands of actor / Democratic activist Warren Beatty in the November 2005 special election which Schwarzenegger had called to pass his so-called "political reforms."

    Not a single one of those four ballyhooed ballot initiatives was approved by California voters, and the results weren't even close. Further, the fact that Beatty had gone after Schwarzenegger personally with a particular vehemence over those proposals fueled a lot of public speculation about Beatty himself, and whether or not he was planning to directly challenge the governor's re-election in 2006.

    Warren Beatty soon dispelled any intentions on his part to run for governor. Rather, as he stated afterward, he was offended personally by the crass manner in which the "Governator" himself had been commercializing his office for his own self-aggrandizement, and by the ongoing efforts of Republicans to nurture a cult of personality around Schwarzenegger.

    It was that concern which drove Beatty and wife Annette Bening to join the California Nurses Association and other state labor organizations, and front the statewide public charge against the administration's intiatives. By his own admission, he was frankly surprised at his own obvious success in persuading state voters to turn out for an off-year election and handily reject all four of the ballot measures.

    Chastened by his defeat, Schwarzenegger apparently took Beatty's criticisms to heart and reconsidered his entire approach to the job. Within weeks of that rebuke at the ballot box, he raised a lot of eyebrows by hiring as his chief of staff the very liberal Susan Kennedy, an openly gay woman who had served in a roughly similar capacity under his Democratic predecessor Gray Davis, and who knew her way around Sacramento's byzantine political mazes in a way which very few of her peers did.

    Kennedy basically cleaned house for Schwarzenegger, first by marginalizing the clueless wingbat ideologues who rode the 2003 recall wave into the governor's office, and then by reviving his office's ties with state Democrats, which quickly incurred the wrath of his fellow Republicans in the state legislature.

    Therein after, combative GOP legislators would move repeatedly to block his administration's budgets, thus forcing California to borrow tens of billions of dollars through state bond issues just to keep the doors open. That mountainous legacy of state debt is what the "Governator" bequeathed to his successor Jerry Brown.

    But on the plus side, Kennedy was rightly credited by Schwarzenegger himself for his administration's subsequent successes in getting the legislature on board for the landmark statewide mandate for historic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, passing a long-overdue water bill in 2010, and creating a workable $37 billion plan to rebuild the state's crumbling infrastructure, which Gov. Brown has since refined and implemented.

    While Donald Trump and Arnold Schwarzenegger are both obvious narcissists, Trump lacks Schwarzenegger's capability to do an about-face in the face of strong headwinds and not double down on stupid.

    Aloha.

    Well, those of us (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:41:33 PM EST
    who -- unlike media -- did even a wee bit of research into Ahnold's alma mater could have suggested that a degree by correspondence courses (mailed to a campus in Superior, Wisconsin, with an enrollment smaller than most California high schools) is not the mark of a well-educated man.

    But then, I haven't seen any media report that the president who killed the late and lamented Vermont college and claimed a PhD earned it by the more recent equivalent of correspondence courses.  I never have heard of a respected college president with an online PhD until Jane Sanders.

    Trump U is not the only academic scam out there.

    Parent

    We did not need the Governator (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:46:40 AM EST
    We had a very professional governor already who was screwed over by the Republicans. They blamed the electric folly on Gray Davis. Hello Enron. There was no reason to recall Davis. And the guy who got all the recall signatures for himself really, lost out to Arnold. I wonder what would have happened if Arnold had not been encouraged by Jay Leno on the Tonight Show to run, if there would not have been 'The Governator'.

    It was like the Trump thing where people think it is cool to have someone who acts like an idiot telling everyone off. They leave reason behind and elect someone who does not even understand the Constitution to run our country. And the ones with reason can not believe that the rest of their fellow countrymen buy into this lunacy. Unless the GOP can figure out how to get themselves out of this mess, they should just vote Democratic this time or leave it blank. That works. Heh. Secret ballot.  

    Parent

    That said, Gov. Gray Davis incurred the wrath of a lot of Republicans in 2002 when, running unopposed for re-election in the Democratic primary, he spent over $10 million encouraging California Democrats to cross over and vote for crazy-a$$ed wingbat Bill Simon in the GOP primary, because he didn't want to face L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan in the general. The gambit worked and Riordan lost in an upset, because enough Democrats heeded Davis's call to effectively choose the GOP gubernatorial nominee for the Republicans.

    Davis didn't deserve to be recalled from office less than one year after winning re-election, but he likely brought it on himself at least in part with his brazen interference in the Republican gubernatorial primary the previous year. That example is Exhibit A in my argument for closed primaries. Political parties have the right to choose their nominees without undue influence or interference from outside interests, who are often in pursuit of their own agenda.

    Hopefully, Californians have since learned a valuable lesson about the perils of engaging in such electoral frivolity. Given the enormous state debt that was rung up during Gov. Schwarzenegger's tenure and the pennies-on-the-dollar settlements he signed shortly after taking office with the energy companies who had fleeced state ratepayers during the faux 2000-01 energy kerfuffle, that lesson certainly turned out to be a very expensive one.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I am with you on closed primaries (none / 0) (#108)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:57:00 PM EST
    In Penna now and we have them here. I hate the way that another party which does not share your own beliefs is making a decision on your candidate. And that includes Davis's manipulation. For all we know it could be our own crazies who voted for the Donald to win the GOP nomination.

    Parent
    Ya forgot... (none / 0) (#171)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 06:05:18 PM EST
    the independents who share some or even most of your beliefs, they get tossed with the bathwater in your private primaries.

    That the state'ls fund with taxes paid for by independents and party members alike.

    It may not be textbook technical taxation without representation, but it's got the spirit of what the colonies revolted over.

    Parent

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 06:22:18 PM EST
    Exactly like taxation without representation.  

    Parent
    I'll see your Exhibit A (none / 0) (#109)
    by ragebot on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    and raise you with this Exhibit B.

    Currently around 40+% of registered voters are Independent, around 30+% are Democrats and around 30-% Republicans.  How do you justify excluding close to a majority of voters out of the nominating process.

    What ever one thinks about Sanders or Trump there seems to be widespread agreement that both have a lot of supporters in new voters; and many of them are Independents.

    The Democrats seem far ahead of the Republicans in voter registration efforts.  But I would bet dollars to donuts most of those registered by these drives are registered as Democrats.

    So how do you explain the trend for new voters to be registering Independent at the expense of both major parties?  And how do you think the growing number of Independents will react to being excluded by closed primaries.

    Parent

    If Independents don't care about belonging to (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:06:01 PM EST
    a party, why should they care who the party nominates? I used to register as Independent before I saw that I wanted to participate in the nominating process for the Dems. What would it have benefited me to keep my registration as Independent when I truly do align with one party?

    Parent
    You benefit (none / 0) (#119)
    by ragebot on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:43:19 PM EST
    if you want a voice in a closed primary.  The counter argument is the party may, and I emphasize may, benefit from an open primary by getting a feel for how independents will vote.

    This assumes those independents are good actors and not voting to distort the process.

    It would be interesting to poll on the motivation of those registering Independent given that more peeps do that than register for the major parties.  They see some benefit from doing that.  I wonder what that benefit is.

    Parent

    I would guess most people (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    Like myself, who advocate closed primaries would say whatever pros might exist are far outweighed by even the possibility of cross party trouble  making.

    As far as why, that's a kdog question.  

    Personally I don't care that much.

    Parent

    First (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:31:33 PM EST
    of all there are very few real independents. We discussed this the other day and I linked to pew showing you how that is true. So if it's too much to check a box they should make a decision on a party nominee is what you're saying?

    Besides a lot of this is up to the states. In GA you don't register by party but they could have you return a postcard to do so with very little effort. Why should democrats let the tea party ghettos determine who is the democratic nominee?

    Parent

    So why are so many folks (none / 0) (#121)
    by ragebot on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    registering as fake independents and more to the point how do you determine a fake independent from a real independent.

    Parent
    I think it entirely irrelevant (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:51:46 PM EST
    If they want to vote in a primary they should register in a party.

    Easy peasy.

    Parent

    You missed (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 05:12:04 PM EST
    my last part. Here in GA YOU DON'T REGISTER BY PARTY. You can't register as "independent" either. How many states even have registration by party? According to wiki it's about 28 states that have party registration which means these people are not registering as independents either. It seems they are just calling everybody who doesn't register by party "independent".

    Independent doesn't mean the same thing it did 40 years ago.

    Parent

    Would you also let me register as ... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 05:14:27 PM EST
    ... a voter in your state so I can have a say in who your next governor will be? I mean, seriously, dude -- how hard is it, really, to declare your preference for a particular party on your voter registration, if you want to have your say in who that party nominates for elected office?

    Why should I, as a Democrat, be allowed to vote in a GOP primary when I'm clearly not a Republican? Hell, given the opportunity, I would've voted for Trump just to phuque up  you guys on the right, because he's an obvious narcissist and unbridled crackpot.

    But that's not right. This is about political ethics, and it's simply not ethical to demand that you be allowed to parachute into another party's primary just so you can cast a ballot for someone whom you perceive to be a weaker candidate, and for whom you'd likely never vote in the general election.

    If you're a Republican or GOP-leaning "independent," you and your fellow GOPers have every right to determine who your party's nominees will be on your own, regardless of the office sought, and free of any interference from me and my friends on the left. All we ask is that you accord to Democrats and those who lean Democratic the same courtesy.

    If you desire a say in the nominating process, then choose a side and make a decision. If you value your "independence" so much that you refuse to declare your party preference, then you can just sit it out until November, and choose from those names which have been placed before you in nomination.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I have (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    a feeling after this primary season both parties are going to want to close their primaries. And hey if you can't commit enough to checking a box then maybe you shouldn't be choosing a nominee. And maybe most of these people who don't check a box really don't want to pick a nominee. Maybe they don't care about primaries. Maybe they are the kind that will pick between the two that are in front of them when the time comes.

    Parent
    Arnold (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Jane in CA on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:10:33 PM EST
    Was/is a bully. When he couldn't reel in the spend-happy legislators that he had encouraged for five years, he took his revenge on state workers, who had nothing to do with the deficit.

    He all but admitted that he was using the worker to punish the elites who wouldn't do what he wanted. And, boy, did it ever work. Sacramento went from a thriving small city to one of the worst casualties of 2008 meltdown, thanks in large part to Arnold's policy of punishing the innocent. It may sound reductive, but that is the only type of thinking Governor Schwarzenegger was/is capable of. There are very few politicians I despise as much as I despise this man.

    Look at Brown. He came into the mess Schwarzenegger let, seized the opportunity to save money by furloughing state workers, while modifying the furlough program to ensure that workers could still pay their mortgage -- in other words, he figured out what was absolutely needed from workers to bring the budget under control, while making sure that that the penalty was not so draconian as to kill a city (as Schwarzenegger did). Furthermore, he promised -- and delivered on -- a raise for workers who had gone through the horror that was Schwarzenegger, once the crises was over.

    So, good for Schwarzenegger and all those things he did of which you now approve. I've noticed that people speak pretty blithely of collateral damage when they aren't the ones suffering it.

    I worked for an appointed officer, who refused to enact Arnold's petty and cowardly furlough program against state workers, so I did not suffer directly. However, a full third of my friends in State Government lost their homes before Brown came in.

    And the city in which I've lived and loved for many years, still hasn't recovered. The King's new stadium and the downtown recovery is supposed to help. We'll see. We've all heard it before. But the Sacramento before Arnold and the Sacramento after Arnold are two disparate cities; one a town in which you are proud to live, the other a town in which you still don't know week to week whether the business you've frequently for the last decade is still going to be standing next time you show up there.

    Arnold S. was, by far, the worst thing that ever happened to the state and to the city. I seem to remember that you have strong ties to this city? If you were still a resident, I fully believe you would have a very different opinion of the "Governator."

    In his movies, he always fought the big guys on behalf of the little ones. In real life, he used the little guy -- admitted using them, essentially ruining their lives -- because he couldn't get the big guys to pay attention to him.

    What a prince.

    Parent

    I simply recounted the record as it stands. Personally, I think that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a pretty lousy governor overall. As I clearly stated in this subthread, he ran up enormous state deficits that during his second term ranged from $12 to $26 billion annually, and had to be papered over by bond issues just to keep the state government functional.

    And what you noted about the vindictiveness of Schwarzenegger's furlough program for state workers was quite true. He had no use or empathy for organized labor, and he especially had it in for the California Nurses Association, whose a$$es he just loved to brag about kicking -- at least, he did until it became apparent by late 2005 that its was the nurses who were kicking his a$$, and not vice versa.

    Further, as I also noted in a related comment, there's certainly no question that Schwarzenegger sold out California ratepayers within days of taking office, by signing settlements for mere pennies on the dollar with energy companies that had fleeced the state two years earlier for what's been conservatively estimated as at least $15 billion. That's just for starters.

    But all that doesn't mean there weren't some good things that still happened on Gov. Schwarzenegger's watch, such as a landmark global warming bill and the development of a plan to repair state infrastructure. He even deserves credit for the fact that political redistricting in California is no longer the exclusive province of the political parties themselves, but has instead been delegated to an independent citizen's commission appointed by the state judiciary. That was an earth-moving change in your state's politics.

    Honest analysis requires that you not just cherry-pick the stuff which reinforces your own particular personal worldview, while purposely ignoring anything you might find inconvenient to some pre-conceived and favored narrative. That's the realm of political demagogy. Rather, you have to account for everything in the record, and base your assessments on its entirely.

    For what it's worth, I was born and raised in Pasadena, CA but have lived in Hawaii since 1986. I have no longstanding ties to Sacramento, and when I travel there it's more than likely work-related.

    But I've been involved in Democratic Party politics for a long time and for five years was a sitting board member of the Council of State Governments-West, which is headquartered in Sacramento, so I do have a lot of connections with my fellow Democrats in California and take a deep interest in your state's affairs as a former resident. California is a bellwether state, whether east coast residents choose to acknowledge it or not.

    I would suggest that you actually take a deep breath and read my posts for content, and stop being so overly passionate that you lash out in blind rage at those who very likely agree with you. Successful politics require that you control your emotions, and channel your irritation or anger into those activities where it can do the most good.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Blind Rage? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Jane in CA on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:52:37 PM EST
    Wow, no offense, Donald, but you sound like someone with a surfeit of rather bloodless acquaintances, if you think my post comes anywhere close to blind rage. I despise Schwarzenegger, true. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Sacramento who doesn't. I did not bag on you in anyway except for feeling that the theoretical good Schwarzenegger did was anywhere close to the very real damage that he did this city and to state workers.

    A blind rage, to me, anyway, is lashing out at people who have done nothing but their jobs, people who have have given up concession after concession in their jobs to save the state, and then, without further ado been, quite literally, thrown to the wolves of Wall Street because their governor can't get the big boys to listen to him. THAT, is lashing out in a blind rage. Clearly, we have a difference of opinion there.

    And I've read you for many years -- enough to believe that those things you praise Schwarzenegger for count for nothing against the ruin he rained upon thousands of undeserving people. Nor did he ever do anything politically courageous.

    Schwarzenegger signed into law a global warming initiative, that nearly everyone in the State supported. This was hardly a courageous political stance to take in California -- efforts to defeat the bill lost by a 23 percent margin. He simply did his job by enacting the will of the people -- one of the few times he did, as you, yourself observed.

    I have one problem and one problem only with your post, and that is the contention that this act redeems Schwarzenegger's governance. If I misinterpreted your hypothesis, then I apologize.

    Well, one and half problems, the second half being your whole infrastructure thing. Schwarzenegger may have pushed hard for it, but he simply didn't have the knowledge or the political capital to make it happen. Jerry Brown did. There is no doubt that California is finally getting its act together with regard to infrastructure, but the credit for that goes 99% to Jerry Brown. Not just in my opinion but in most folk's opinion in this state. Even the few republicans I know are very happy with Brown's work on infrastructure. Brown gets things done.

    One thing I did not know was the nurse's association with Schwarzenegger. Whatever his problem with them, he ended up giving them damned near as much power as the Prison Guard's Association, which -- ironically? Is the one thing I do give Schwarzenegger credit for. He finally broke the back of that union ( Even as a manager, I remain strongly pro-union, but you will agree, I think, that the CCPOA's power was unlimited, corrupt, and largely responsible for the state's budget problems, with new prisons going up everywhere). Had Schwarzenegger not weakened the Union as substantially as he did, Brown would never have been able to take it down and to pass the reforms he has passed in this state. That, in my opinion, was the best thing Schwarzenegger did.

    Still, it  goes against everything I believe in, to call the man who brought ruin to so many over a petty dispute of power, an effective governor. I'm not saying you did that, but I felt that it could be inferred as such; hence my response.

    Nor do I believe that anything Schwarzenegger did was worth the really horrible state he brought California to.  We were damned lucky that Jerry Brown parlayed a loophole in the regulations to come back and fix Arnold's mess. It completely validated my belief that my first primary vote for Brown was the right one.

    Parent

    That's strictly your opinion. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:45:01 PM EST
    You have every right to it, as I do to mine. I really don't get the animosity you're projecting toward me here, or why you even insisted upon taking personally what I first said in my initial post, especially since when we really don't disagree on the underlying fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a lousy governor.

    Henceforth, I'm not going to engage you any further on this matter, because I'm really not in the mood to be the subject of your haranguing. I'm terribly sorry that Gov. Schwarzenegger was a big d!ck who ruined your life.

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    Haranguing? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Jane in CA on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 10:16:58 PM EST
    Animosity? I thought I was apologizing if I mistook your original comment, which I conceded it sounded as though I did.

    You are overwrought.

    Parent

    Excellent memory Donald, (none / 0) (#6)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 07:05:50 PM EST
    and well written.  I knew Arnold for a few years when he came to Aspen with the Kennedy's, but never did ski with him.  I did see him regularly at the Aspen Club gym when he was lifting massive weights.  I didn't go in there when the big guys were lifting, too noisy and humiliating.  I played tournament handball and squash, and he would often watch us.  The ski team had a much different workout routine than his.  He came in and gave us tips, but we mainly just stared at his sculptured body in awe.

    Parent
    when i worked at (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 07:17:41 PM EST
    Digital Domain in Venice i used to eat at Arnolds restaurant is Venice Schatzi.  it was lovely and open and not over priced and very close to work.  i went there at least a coupe of times a week.   i would often see him there.  i had also seen him at DD because at the time we were working on Terminator attraction at Universal Studios.  we never really spoke but he always said hello.  once he made small talk about the project and what a pain it was becoming.

    he seemed like a very nice guy.  i usually avoided whatever area he was in because, cigars.

    Parent

    I saw Schwarzenegger in Sacramento ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:53:55 PM EST
    ... when we were there in Dec. 2003. I was at the capitol building on business, when he came out of his ground floor office ahead of me with some aides. They were headed outside to light the State Christmas Tree, and he was apparently reviewing the public remarks he was going to make.

    For a moment, I initially didn't recognize him because I was behind him and much to my surprise, he was a lot shorter than I had thought. He's officially listed as being 6'2", but I'm 6'1" exactly and he was clearly a couple of inches shorter than me at about 5'11" or 5'10". And given his chest and those shoulders, there was no mistaking who he was as I passed him in the hallway.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by AnnL on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 06:51:53 PM EST
    I'm delighted that we will finally have a woman representing the Democratic Party for President of the USA!  It's quite a remarkable accomplishment!

    You must (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 07:09:46 PM EST
    have had to go into hiding to deal with all that has been going on the last few months. I remember you being quite upset about a lot of things.

    Parent
    Never understood (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 07:19:47 PM EST
    why anyone has to go into hiding.

    I hung tough until Hillary lost in 2008. Gladly and willingly supported Obama for the next 8 years. And happily hopped back on the Hillary bandwagon before she ever announced for 2016. Looking forward to another 8 years of a Dem White House.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 07:42:42 PM EST
    it takes a pretty thick skin to hang in there and some people just don't have that. So I understand why people drop out etc. for periods of time.

    Parent
    Ga6Dem (none / 0) (#34)
    by AnnL on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:45:52 PM EST
    Not hiding seriously busy. I'm always concerned  about the Bernie crazys

    Parent
    The AP decides to go first (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 07:43:29 PM EST
    The Associated Press has announced that Clinton is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party before polls even open tomorrow due to SD's that they know will endorse her over the next two days.

    Word is that Sanders had a lengthy conversation with the President today. I presume Obama told him the race is over and the White House endorsement for Hillary will come sometime Wednesday.

    The Sanders campaign (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    Has released a statement -

    It's unfortunate the media has chosen etc etc

    Just heard this on the NOOZE.  Still looking for the text

    Parent

    It is unfortunate (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:10:12 PM EST
    That the media, in a rush to judgement, are ignoring the Democratic National Committes clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of SuperDelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer.

    Translation

    Blah blah blah whine whine whine I ain't going no place.

    Parent

    FWIW (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:17:20 PM EST
    I have seen on other blogs that this whole thing with the super D's today might be a message to Bernie to quit the nonsense. They come out today and it's fair warning to Bernie.

    They also were polled and said they absolutely will not change their mind and overturn the will of the voters.

    Parent

    The only changes (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:18:49 PM EST
    (as I said long ago) will be from Sanders to Clinton.

    Parent
    Yes, and (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:20:55 PM EST
    I expect that tomorrow night they will probably all switch. Nobody expects DC to change anything and there's a possibility Bernie might not even make the threshold for any delegates in DC.

    Parent
    Sanders currently has 48 SD's (none / 0) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 09:39:53 PM EST
    according to Bloomberg. 46 according to the Green papers. We'll see where that number stands come convention time.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:22:15 PM EST
    He better wear a hat tomorrow cause the sh!t is comin down.

    Parent
    There are a bit more than 100 SD's (none / 0) (#26)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:27:45 PM EST
    Somewhere between 120-142 depending on your site of choice that haven't announced yet. At least 40 of those are expected to become official tomorrow night. That was as of yesterday. By Wednesday that number could jump to 100 more for Hillary with some switch over from Sanders to Clinton just as you saw from Clinton to Obama when he clinched the pledged delegate lead in 2008.

    Bloomberg news has added 23 SD's to the Clinton total in the last 60 minutes.

    Parent

    Campaign spokesman Briggs (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:30:19 PM EST
    Currently on Maddow reploughing the same tried bullsh!t we have heard for months.   Maddow is not being easy on him.

    Parent
    Is Lawrence ODonnell really this stupid (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 09:14:07 PM EST
    Or just asking stupid questions to have something to kill an hour?

    Eugene Robinson has the patience of a saint.

    Parent

    It's almost (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:04:26 PM EST
    like tomorrow is doing to be anti climatic after all the stuff that has been "leaked" out already.

    Parent
    Heavens, not at all -- as anyone knew (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:32:38 PM EST
    who was watching delegate trackers that Clinton needed only 23 delegates as of today -- and all that takes is a couple of precincts in Jersey by 9 a.m. tomorrow.

    Frankly, everyone but Sanders and his innumerate supporters (and his campaign staff padding their paychecks at hundreds of thousands of dollars per month) knew this was the math since mid-March.

    And Maddow can press all that she wants in the interview tonight, but Clinton can handle it -- because the big moment still is Clinton's rally tomorrow night in Brooklyn, where the campaign began.

    Parent

    Oh, I know (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:37:08 PM EST
    but I was all hyped up on letting those results from NJ roll in and then the announcement and watching the party at the Brooklyn Navy Yard and having her be "officially" declared.

    But I have to say does Bernie have to constantly rain on everybody's parade? It's like he's miserable so no one else should be having any fun either.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:36:02 PM EST
    Maddow just said the interview was from "earlier this evening" this is not what was being suggested.  Not clear if this was known at interview time.

    Parent
    It was before (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:40:10 PM EST
    She now says.  Wow.  That was spectacularly crappy NOOZE stuff.  Right there.  They were definitely making it sound like it would be live.

    I feel like a sucker.


    Parent

    Were it live, I can imagine Rachel's lead-in: (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:01:33 AM EST
    "Joining me now is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who's so graciously waited around for nearly 40 minutes while I babbled on and on about this breaking manufactured news story from our very own director of elections."

    ;-D

    Parent

    NBC (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:12:28 PM EST
    is also calling it

    Parent
    Maybe anti-climatic (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:14:24 PM EST
    But still fantastic when the announcement comes in tomorrow night.

    Of course there will be plenty of caveats about pledged and presumptive but the media will drop most of that within 24 hours just as they did with Trump.

    Parent

    They should (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:19:10 PM EST
    drop the caveats. To me and probably most people the conventions are more or less a formality when it comes to being a nominee.

    Parent
    I'm watching Maddow (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:26:11 PM EST
    And it's pretty caveat free.  She just read the full statement from Sanders and asked the guest something like "what are they doing?"
    Also just rather dramatically announced the first nomination of a woman in the history of the country.

    Parent
    Victoria Woodhull would ask you (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Towanda on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:56:39 AM EST
    for historical precision.

    Clinton will be the first woman nominated by a major party.

    Parent

    I believe she did actually say that (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    The above wording was mine.

    Parent
    The BBC on NPR this morning (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 12:59:14 PM EST
    was misstating it repeatedly, "first woman nominated to run for the Presidency." Definitely disregarding the National Women's Party, the Greens, the Peace and Freedom Party, and who knows how many others.

    Parent
    Jill Stein took offense today (none / 0) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:14:47 PM EST
    but went on the ledge and channeled a Trumpism in part of her response:

    "I'm still the most successful female presidential candidate in history" - Jill Stein

    Parent

    Jill Stein must really love to see ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 06:19:29 PM EST
    ... her name in the media and on that ballot. Because honestly, that's the only thing she'll ever accomplish in politics as a member of the Green Party. I'm not sure that the Green Party has even qualified for the ballot out here.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:01:29 PM EST
    the AP is announcing Hillary has reached the delegate threshold and is now the presumptive nominee. However Hillary has kicked it back saying people still need to vote tomorrow.

    She would like to get the big win in New (none / 0) (#35)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 08:48:29 PM EST
    Jersey and whatever win she can get out of California tomorrow. So, Clinton wants her supporters to vote tomorrow. All this talk about already having the delegates could keep voters home tomorrow.

    And those wins will perhaps encourage Sanders to endorse her and unite to defeat Trump.

    Parent

    I suspect Clinton voters (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 09:07:04 PM EST
    will be out in force tomorrow. There could be some drop off in Sanders voters because they know the revolution has come to an end. Clinton voters on the other hand will want to remember the day a female leads the ticket.

    Parent
    Nate Cohn of NYT (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:54:38 AM EST
    Just tweeted that so far there are 3.1 million mail in ballots (no party brrakdown) in so far in CA, and 68% of those are from people 55+.

    Parent
    There are a lot of down-ticket races ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:07:10 AM EST
    ... on California's ballot tomorrow, including the U.S. Senate, 54 congressional districts, 80 State Assembly districts and 20 State Senate Districts. I would hope that people realize that those elections are important, too.

    Parent
    An interesting read (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    That was very interesting (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    Thanks for linking.  It certainly sounds like this is a possibility being seriously considered.  Which makes me happy.

    Parent
    on the one hand (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CST on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:07:35 PM EST
    I like this a lot.

    On the other hand, for purely selfish reasons, I'm getting pretty sick of special elections. Between Teddy dying, the Scott Brown "experiment", and Kerry going to state, our senate seats have had more turnover in the last 8 years than the rest of my lifetime combined and possibly even my mother's lifetime.

    Plus, I'm a little worried we might end up with Stephen f**king Lynch, who is a Hyde amendment kind of Democrat.

    Parent

    in a way (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:11:53 PM EST
    it might all come down to Sanders and how he behaves going forward.  does she need the help in the general enough to make it worth it.

    Parent
    Nancy Pelosi endorses Hillary this morning (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:33:59 AM EST
    The withholding of endorsements from party leaders that stayed on the sidelines in deference to "the race for the nomination" has ended. Expect daily announcements endorsing Clinton for President the rest of the week.

    Kind of a Shame (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Jane in CA on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:27:05 PM EST
    They couldn't be quite so patient in 2008, isn't it? It makes me laugh when Bernie screams about unfair the system is. Does he think Hillary, who actually WON more votes than Obama, and still lost to him in 2008, doesn't feel the same way?

    Except Hillary swallowed her hurt and her pride for the sake of the party and made damned sure that Obama was, not just elected, but elected with joy and optimism. Her husband ensured Obama's re-election. Anecdotally, I know of many people who voted for Obama only because Bill Clinton assured them that he was the only one to bring back prosperity and that he was only doing what Clinton himself would have done.

    Hillary always does the right thing by the party. It's about damned time the party does the right thing for her.


    Parent

    Hear Hear! (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:03:25 PM EST
    And I'm over all that :) But my eyes are suspiciously wet right now.

    Parent
    Holy hell (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    Wake me up when talking heads have to stop saying BUT IF HE WINS CALIFORNIA blah blah blah blah

    GAWD

    Thinking back to 1992 when HRC first came on the (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:43:50 PM EST
    national scene - never would I have thought that this woman that was already taking slings and arrows for her inartful comments about not staying home baking cookies and not being a little woman standing by her man, her hair, her style, social criticism in the Washington scene, even her preteen daughter's looks being made fun of...

    Then of course later the made up scandals and the real scandals...

    She had no firm allies except her husband, and others that she earned with her own hard work. There is no 'plus' to anyone politically from being a Clinton supporter 16 years after her husband left office besides what they think they will get from backing a winner. It did not have to be her - supporters could have easily picked someone else eight years ago and built up the support. She convinced them.

    How this woman got to this place is one of the more amazing stories in presidential history and some day there someone will have enough objectivity to tell it fairly.

    and it will be a great story (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    but i have to tell you, for those of us who knew her before '92 its not such a surprise.  it was known in AR dem circles from the time of his first term that she was the smart one.  he was the glad hander, she was the wonk.  the citizens of this state always knew it was a team and she was a vital part of it. which is why the "two for one" line was used. why she was put in charge of health care as he put er in charge of so many thngs here.  they assumed the idea would be appreciated nationally as it was here.  sadly, no.
    but the rest is history.

    Parent
    I read (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    where one of the legislators after working with Hillary on an initiative said that Arkansas had elected the wrong Clinton. And the GOP must know this too by their behavior.

    Parent
    that was (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:28:38 PM EST
    a very common thing to say actually.   and you are probably talking about the education thing she pulled off here.  it left even her republican detractors with nothing but praise.

    Parent
    Always (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:59:01 PM EST
    interesting to hear your perspective on this kind of thing.

    Parent
    I have mentioned before on this blog (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:00:09 PM EST
    that that was my opinion when I met the them, already a couple, in 1973, as law students.

    Parent
    The courageous drive for healthcare (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    Howdy: I became a supporter of Hillary Clinton from the days of her willingness and perseverance in trying to advance healthcare.  In all her roles, she her roles, she has demonstrated the interior fortitude to get results that help people in their day-go-day lives.  

    IMO, the so-called scandals incessantly devised by the Repubs--in a strange way--betray these self-absorbed Repubs as being fearful of her abundant strengths and ability to get the work of the people done.  Also, in a strange way, the usual detractors have helped her grow stronger in the process (and have found legions of newer supporters for her who admire her dignity in the face of falsehood.)

    I am happy for her that husband Bill & daughter Chelsea have shown such steady support on the campaign trail. In the dark days, their nearness & loyalty must be soothing.  While she must miss her mother--who was with her throughout the 2008 campaign--I'm hoping she is sustained by the memory of her love.  It is hard not to wonder what emotions & thoughts she must be filled with at this time ... and, just for the fun of pure speculation, I'm guessing that the future as seen in granddaughter Charlotte and about-to-be new grandchild too must be part of that emotional texture merged in the personal and public self of this outstanding public figure.

    What a time to be living.

    Parent

    yeah but (none / 0) (#116)
    by mm on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:06:09 PM EST
    Didn't they make her change her last name because it was unacceptable for her not to take her husband's last name?

    Parent
    they didnt "make" her (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:16:07 PM EST
    she did it because it was the smart thing to do.  and it helped her get the things that were important to her, and him, done.

    i dont know where you live but the world was a different place in the late 70s early 80s.   and Arkansas was a different planet.

    she did what she needed to do.

    Parent

    ... the 1988 Democratic Convention in Atlanta (and addressed it and addressed it until ZZZZZzzzz) to place Michael Dukakis' name in nomination, Hillary Clinton was a high-powered partner of the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, and she had better name recognition than he did outside Arkansas. I had already heard of her long before I ever knew of him.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 06:43:29 PM EST
    that speech was legendary bad. He's certainly come a long way as a public speaker since then. LOL.

    Parent
    You have missed a bit of herstory, Ruffian (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 01:45:12 PM EST
    HRC didn't "come on the national scene in 1992."

    She made her bones in DC as one of John Doar's two or three lead assistants during House Judiciary (Peter Rodino) Committee's investigation of President Richard Nixon and his reelection campaign.

    Hillary Rodham was featured in a Time Magazine story of the day.  I was lucky enough to find it during the '08 campaign but cannot find it now.  At the time it was said that Bill Clinton was offered the gig but declined, saying he had to return home to Arkansas, supposedly recommending HR in his place.  No idea who said that; for all I know it may have been BJ Bill's B/S.

    John Doar died a year or so ago; I mentioned it here.  Look him up.  You'll be amazed where he shows up.

    One of the slams against Hillary comes from the lawyer who was the House Judiciary Committee's "usual" counsel at the time, Jeffrey Zeifmann.  He was really angry that John Doar was brought in as Special Counsel to handle the Watergate stuff.  You see the description, bitter, used quite casually now but Zeifmann's ire defines the definition.  His claims are not credible.  


    Parent

    Actually, she made national news in the '60s (none / 0) (#168)
    by Towanda on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 02:35:34 PM EST
    when her speech as the first-ever student speaker, selected by her peers, at the Wellesley commencement in '69 made Life magazine -- and other media outlets, too, since Life was an agenda-setter, as one of the largest-circulation magazines in the world.  She spoke truth to power then, too; it's worth reading about it.

    I remember reading about it then -- and reading about other accomplishments from then to '92, including (to befit this blog) her significant work as a leader in the sisterhood of women lawyers.

    Parent

    there is an audio (none / 0) (#174)
    by mm on Thu Jun 09, 2016 at 01:35:14 PM EST
    recording of her address.  I actually listened to it last night on Twitter, someone tweeted a link.

    Amazing woman.

    Parent

    OK, I should have said 'to my awareness' (none / 0) (#169)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 03:02:10 PM EST
    sorry - I need an editor.

    Parent
    btw (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:05:54 PM EST
    the slings and arrows about baking cookies ...
    that was a confused and frustrated response to the hostility she encountered but over came here.

    the national enemies were much better organized.

    Parent

    I think the young women today that (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    do not really understand what a big deal this is are very lucky. Good for them to have little idea of the punishment that had to be endured for walking a nontraditional road. Or grow up thinking your middle class job options, if something horrible happened and you did not get married, were secretary, nurse and teacher.

    Even if it were Carly Fiorina getting the GOP nom tonight I would be thinking: well there is a horrible candidate I will never support - but at least it is a horrible woman candidate I would never support. It would be progress.

    It is a big deal.

    Parent

    very big (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    never meant to suggest otherwise.  just sayin Hillary has a lot of history before 1992.  Watergate, law practice.   its a very big deal.  but not such a surprise that its Hillary.

    Parent
    I knew what you meant! Just adding to it! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:38:34 PM EST
    Truthfully (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:38:35 PM EST
    I think a lot of the young women don't have the life experiences that a lot of us have had to understand what a lot of this is about. After being in the working world for quite a few years they may change their minds as I'm not quite sure all that much has changed in that arena.

    Parent
    I think I heard Joe Biden say (none / 0) (#107)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:55:45 PM EST
    'This is a big flocking deal'

    Parent
    I've never been a big Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:30:01 PM EST
    but I have to laugh like hell when I think about the veritable national forest's worth of paper these delusional right wing jamokes have wasted on all those "The Truth About Hillary" books. All to no avail.

    They might as well all climb to the top of a very high hill and empty the world's biggest spittoon into the wind. Which would be a more substantive contribution to American political literature than what they've offered up so far.  

    Parent

    theres a new one (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    you probably knew that.  NYTimes best seller.  DRUDGE headline for days now.

    Parent
    Sold primarily in"bulk", no doubt.. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    the way they always are.

    That Best Seller list is another NYTimes fraud on the level of Jason Blair, Judith Miller and wmds in Iraq.


    Parent

    You said it, ruffian. (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    So True! (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jane in CA on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:09:48 PM EST
    I remember her saying she was going to run for senator from New York City and being absolutely appalled, thinking her middle name must be "Masochist."

    Now I just think she is a Great Lady.

    Parent

    Me too - same thoughts both times she has (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 07:41:25 PM EST
    run for POTUS too. I did not think she would do it once, much less twice. BTD had us all beat on predictions there.

    Determined does not begin to describe it.

    Parent

    New ad by Hillary Clinton. (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 06:25:53 PM EST
    History made.

    I got a little verklempt :-)

    verklempt, that's great vml68 (none / 0) (#161)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 08:35:06 AM EST
    I knew what it meant but still looked it up.  The Apple dictionary has a great list of Yinglish words, most of which I've never heard.  Growing up as a Catholic boy we didn't have those words in our vocabulary.   But I had a Jewish uncle who came up with most of them at dinner parties, especially after a couple of drinks.  He kept us all laughing since he made up  rhymes that included many Yinglish words.  The video was very funny too.

    Parent
    Fishcamp any and all yinglish words I know (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by vml68 on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    I learned after coming to this country.
    Growing up in the middle-east all references to Israel and Jews were blacked out of books, atlases, encyclopedias, etc.
    The only time I heard about Jews (ancient bible day, not modern day) was in church (raised Catholic).
    I was standing in line to collect my college id my freshman year when the guy standing behind me started chatting with me. I am not sure how the topic turned to religion or what he said but I still remember very vividly me saying, "Oh, you are a Jew!" and his reaction and response when he relied, "You have a problem with that?"
    My comment was meant more along the lines of "wow, I just spotted an exotic creature" but he obviously did not know that. I was absolutely mortified by my faux pas.

    Parent
    Hillaty (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by AnnL on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 06:38:03 PM EST
    I'm beyond excited about tonight's outcome!

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 06:45:16 PM EST
    apparently what is old is now new again. The Dump Trump movement is being revived. Carville is saying that Trump may not end up being the GOP nominee after all and apparently Chuck Todd is hearing the same thing.

    It definitely is (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 06:56:51 PM EST
    Donald has said

    FINE
    I won't talk about the damn judge.  It might be to late.  Or not.

    It's a massive step to take but they can absolutely do it.  The republican lawyer on MSNBC was talking about it earlier.  Simple, he used the word elegant, rule change at the convention and the can nominate you if they want.

    I tend to think it will take more insanity from Donald.  What are the odds?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:00:42 PM EST
    here's my take on the whole thing. Donald has a constituency in the GOP. Anybody they replace him with will have no constituency save the group of men in the smoke filled room. I guess they will have to decide which is worse: losing with Donald or losing with someone else. And I can't imagine the smoke filled room candidate would do any better for down tickets than Donald.

    Parent
    I can (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:05:07 PM EST
    I am beginning to totally be able to imagine they could be willing t lose with someone that will not destroy the party for generations.  Which Trump is totally in the process of doing.    With a person who may lose but they will not be embarrassed to support.

    Not saying it will happen.  Yet.

    But I can totally imagine it.  Actually Chuch Todd just made a very good point.  Let's see how the feel at convention itime f Trump is down 10 or 12 points.  Or more.

    Parent

    That was an interesting conversation (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:20:22 PM EST
    It will be wild if they Dump Trump at this point. Nicole Wallace says it is impossible, which makes me pretty sure it will happen.

    Now I have gone over the edge, watching Sherrod Brown, imagining him in a Blackfish suit. Maybe I hit the gin and tonic too early

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:27:57 PM EST
    either way they've got a mess. Like Donald says below Trump takes a not insignificant amount of wingbat voters with him if he's gone. However, maybe long run that would be a good thing. They would no longer have to play the whole game they've been playing for decades with race.

    Parent
    Unless Trump himself agrees to vacate, ... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:08:42 PM EST
    ... I don't know how the GOP leadership is going to force him out without stepping on their own d!cks. If Trump is muscled aside in Cleveland by the party elite, I don't think he leaves empty-handed. He may take a lot of disaffected white-wing voters with him.

    And that could be the harbinger of the sort of wholesale public repudiation and across-the-board rout of a political party that's been only been seen once in modern American politics, back when President Herbert Hoover and Republicans were summarily sent packing by the voters in 1932. Even Speaker Paul Ryan's seat in Wisconsin could be in play if that happens.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:17:49 PM EST
    Your last paragraph, that's already coming if Trump is the nominee.  It's coming.  And they are beginning to realize that.  They are talking about losing the House.

    Would it be worse for that to happen with a candidate that down ticket candidates can at least say they support?  Maybe you think so.  I don't.   And I think many republicans agree.

    Ousting Trump would be disasterous.  Nominating him will be disasterous.   Do you die on your feet with your head up and a nominee you can support or on your knees with your head in your hands behind a guy who is a total embarrassment to the party and the country.

    Sucks to be a republican.

    Parent

    Nicole Wallace talked about how the shocking thing (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:40:19 PM EST
    for the GOP congress-critters is that they are starting to realize it is their own people in their own districts that voted for this dope. So how do they defy that?

    I say - use a little thing called leadership and tell your base they are acting like racist rubes and you are not going to care to them anymore.

    Or else go down with the ship, either way, Im good with it.

    Parent

    C Todd (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:24:04 PM EST
    Is reading a blistering quite from Mitch McConnell.  It's very clear this is being considered.  I will link when it's up.

    Parent
    Mitch Slap (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:46:48 PM EST

    The Kentucky Republican called on Trump to "start talking about the issues that the American people care about and to start doing it now."

    "In addition to that, it's time to stop attacking various people you competed with or various minority groups in the country and get on message," McConnell said on Tuesday. "He has the opportunity to do that."
    In a Sunday interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," McConnell said that he "couldn't disagree more" with what Trump has said about Curiel.
    "This is a man who was born in Indiana," McConnell said. "All of us came here from somewhere else."

    "Well, it's pretty clear he's going to be the nominee, and I would think the better path to take would be to unify the party rather than settling grudges or old scores," he said. "I hope Trump will go in a different direction."
    "He's not a dumb guy, he's a smart guy," McConnell continued. "He's earned the nomination. Now's the time to put the party together, and I would put aside all the score settling with people who competed with him for the nomination or said things."



    Parent
    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by AnnL on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:04:40 PM EST
    Why oh why does Hillary Clinton  continually have to accommodate the Bernie Sanders contingent?  Why can't she get to enjoy the moment?

    As a Democrat, (4.43 / 7) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    I celebrate the presumptive nominee of the party being a woman.  A woman named Hillary Clinton, who is among the most experienced and qualified individuals to seek the presidency.

     Barrack Obama was the first of another kind, the first African American nominated by a major political party, once again, the Democratic Party. And, subsequently, elected  the first African American president.  

    The nomination of Mrs. Clinton is, for our country, an example of its continuing quest for a more perfect union.  A union in which the highest office of the land is a realistic aspiration for all citizens.  Gender is not a singular factor, but a component of criteria. The factor of gender does not rise above criteria, but neither is it denied or abridged owing to oppressive gender notions and traditions.  

    In a recent speech in California regarding this historic nomination, Mrs. Clinton cogently noted that her nomination advanced the country not only for little girls and women, but also, for little boys and men.  It is a celebration to behold for all. Now, as with President Obama, on to another critical and overdue first. Progressing from realistic aspiration of nominee to the realized one of president.

    Hear, hear! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    Sanders nap time (none / 0) (#3)
    by texpolitico on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 06:17:27 PM EST
    I'll be happy to supply the sleeping pills for him to sleep until the 2nd week of November.

    How Does One Get to be Optimistic (none / 0) (#40)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 09:24:43 PM EST
    about the state of US foreign relations in a Hillary Clinton presidency? Here is somebody who seems to be just as scared as I am.
    Please, no "the alternative to Hillary is worse" replies.  I am looking for a positive evaluation of her foreign policy skills.

    I think you should hide under your bed. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:33:23 AM EST
    I promise to tell you when it's safe to come out. Honest. Cross my heart. Really. Trust me.

    Oh, who am I kidding? No, I won't. Wingers like you, who cheered wildly while President C+ Augustus led this country to wage war in Iraq under patently false pretenses, really have no business lecturing anyone else about foreign policy. You guys shot your wad on that topic when you declared "Mission Accomplished" eight years prematurely.

    As for Jeffrey Sachs, we're presently taking up a collection to buy him a fork, so he can finally see for himself that yes, Bernie Sanders is indeed done.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I wonder what Truman's grade (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:24:03 AM EST
    point average was.

    Oh, wait. He never went to college so he couldn't have been elected to the Senate...as VP....ended WWII and fought communism..

    But he did.

    Parent

    And your point is -- what, exactly? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    That George W. Bush has an MBA from Harvard, and yet he became the most consequentially incompetent president of our lifetimes?

    Parent
    You haven't answered the question, Donald (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 01:49:37 PM EST
    One thing Truman never did (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    was be deluded, presumptuous, and idiotic enough to publicly claim to have more scientific understanding than the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community.

    Parent
    Have you read her book? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:08:00 AM EST
    Yes it is a slog and I am not done with it ...have not gotten to anything controversial yet. I am listening on audiobook so not skipping ahead. But I had no clear idea of the intricacies involved in something that seems relatively easy, like which foreign leaders to see on trips, what message to send, who not to see for what reasons, etc. All of these things have consequences for the US and the world. What I have seen so far gives me confidence that she (and her colleagues, because of course she does not do any of this herself) have the intelligence, judgment, and skills to make the right decisions and do the right things most of the time.

    I do not agree with her on many things - Libya for example, I was against. But I suspect when I get to that chapter and read about all that went into that decision I will respect her process even if I do not agree with her judgment.

    So no, I am not afraid  - no more than I would be with anyone else. It is just as likely that someone with little experience and bad if well intentioned advice will stumble into something dangerous.

    Parent

    Really? Jeffery Sachs? (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:53:09 AM EST
    Sachs is a major supporter of and advisor to Bernie Sanders. He helped coordinate Bernie's Weekend at the Pope's. He hates Clinton.

    If you take the time to look into Clinton's record as Secretary of State, the things she actually did on a day-to-day basis, you will find someone very committed to the use of diplomacy, and not some trigger-happy cowgirl.

    People who are either not well-informed about her tenure at State, or who have an agenda, talk about Clinton as though she is Dick Cheney in drag. She is not.

    I disagree with some of Clinton's foreign policy positions. She has more faith in the idea that the U.S. has a responsibility to act than do I. And if she is President, it will be incumbent on all of us, as it is regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, to hold her responsible for the decisions she makes in our name.

    Parent

    After reading (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 10:34:17 AM EST
    that article he's inadvertently making the case that Bernie should be nowhere near the oval office. I'm sure that is not the point he was trying to make but he's sure making it.

    Parent
    I tried (none / 0) (#42)
    by pitachips on Mon Jun 06, 2016 at 10:48:13 PM EST
    But honestly I could only come up with "the alternative will be much much worse."

    Parent
    You can't be anything but scared spitless (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:26:55 AM EST
    with the thought of Hillary at the helm.

    I give you the Russian "reset," Egypt, Libya and her part in the Iran deal...and not to forget that she had input on pulling out of Iraq.

    Parent

    I'm positively thrilled with Hillary at the helm (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:36:20 AM EST
    And know you're almost speechless knowing she'll be taking the Presidential Oath at noon on January 20, 2017.

    Parent
    A statement (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:42:40 AM EST
    like that coming from a nihilist like Jim I'll take as a compliment.

    Parent
    Scared? Nope (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 12:17:56 PM EST
    Sad? Yes. The thought of the first female president  being someone like Hillary makes me very sad. There are so many other women who would be great.

    Maybe it won't happen. There is an election before she can be crowned queen for the day.

    Parent

    Not queen for a day (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:10:24 PM EST
    President for at least 1461 days.

    Parent
    Would you please list the (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:19:43 PM EST
    "so many other women who would be great" [as the first female president]

    Parent
    You first (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:56:29 PM EST
    you made the statement (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:41:21 PM EST
    Your the one wanting names. (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 11:03:27 PM EST
    and I just couldn't resist the line reputed to have been used by Hitchcock when bearded by a lightweight in Gollywood.

    Obviously Carly and Condi cone immediately to mind.

    Parent

    lol. Condileeza Rice? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 01:51:38 PM EST
    She was one of the idiots who got us into this mess.

    Parent
    Along with Hillary, yes. (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 05:56:33 PM EST
    But Hillary has doubled down in Iran and Libya.


    Parent
    Jim, would you rather have (none / 0) (#92)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    Donald Trump as president?  So you don't like Hillary, but who do you like that's running now?  

    Parent
    I haven't "liked" a candidate from any (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:55:54 PM EST
    party since Kennedy. And I was young and very dumb. He almost got us in WWIII.

    Who do I think will make the best of our two choices?

    Trump. The entertainment will be mind boggling.

    Parent

    Trump as America's landlord-in-chief (none / 0) (#167)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 08, 2016 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    He seems to have quite a problem taking advice from his advisors.  In a job as overwhelming and superhumanly enlarged as the Presidency, that is a serious disqualification.

    Parent
    Why (none / 0) (#123)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:56:32 PM EST
    in the hell does every Hillary critic rewrite history as if she was acting in a vacuum?  
    She has favored one war of choice after the next: bombing Belgrade (1999); invading Iraq (2003); toppling Qaddafi (2011); funding Jihadists in Syria (2011 till now). The result has been one bloodbath after another, with open wounds until today fostering ISIS, terrorism, and mass refugee flows.

    Let's deconstruct:
     Belgrade- Bernie voted for it! Hillary was nowhere near the levers of FP but supported her husband who supported the multilateral NATO operation that stopped a blood bath by a war criminal. All in all a successful operation with zero blowback.

    Iraq-Bernie voted for regime change twice during  
    Bill Clinton's admin. Hillary admitted she make a mistake with her vote, but she made it clear with statements at the time that she was not advocating war with the AUMF but trying to send a message to Saddam to comply or else. It actually worked as he did allow the inspectors back in, but of course Bush blew it. I don't think any Democrat and maybe a couple of Republicans would have voted for it if they thought it was going to turn into a full scale(unnecessary)invasion. it was indeed a bad move on her part but she was not alone and she was an extremely minor player in what ensued.

    Libya- Once again  Bernie voted for regeime change and no fly zone, The US was part of an international team , with widespread international support operating under a UN resolution(against a war criminal who was threating a bloodbath). Contrary to popular belief no foreign powers disposed Qaddafi, International military actions did swing the balance in favor of his opponents, but that's pretty much what everybody, including Bernie wanted.

    Syria- it is ludicrous to think that Hillary somehow started the civil war, she did, along with many others call for regeime change and advocate for supporting the opposition after it started, but in the end we did very little in that regard towards that end, we certainly did nothing that led to the rise of ISIS.  


    Parent

    Next Statement From Trump (none / 0) (#50)
    by Menanna on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 07:08:08 AM EST
    Frankly, Honestly, Believe me ...Obama will endorse Hillary because he is biased ageist me for believing he is not an American citizen...


    And it begins - Media now "grappling" (none / 0) (#76)
    by pitachips on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    with their role in basically helping Trump hijack coverage of the election.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/how-donald-trump-bent-television-to-his-will?utm_term=.cgP3yLR8x #.agNJLNRX2

    This was so predictable. And this is why from the very beginning that Trump had zero chance of winning this election. Media builds him up, and now thankfully they will destroy him. This entire election, moreso than any in the past, has been nothing but one big pump and dump scheme by the media. They did such a great job that even otherwise intelligent people started fearing a Trump presidency. Now we get to read about how so many in the industry were actually "troubled" by their role in this mess.

    Someday people are going to realize that every few years the media NEEDS to screw this country over in the name of protecting its profits. It is like clockwork. We had Iraq in 2002-2003; the Great Recession in 2008-2009; and the "Rise" of Trump in 2015-2016.    

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    And Trump had absolutely no chance of winning the primary either.  Right?

    He had a chance.  He might still have one if he stops acting like a maniac.  Which seems unlikely.  But it's ridiculous to say he never had a chance.  The nominee of one if two parties by definition, has a chance.

    I think many in the media assumed Trump would start acting sane after winning the primary.  I did.  If he had done that he would have had a chance.  

    What he is doing now is entirely inexplicable.  And the media is reporting it that way.  He is no longer winning.  And they are reporting that.  In the primary he was winning.  They reported that.  

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:39:51 PM EST
    I'm not going to defend the media. You are correct that they could have done the vetting all along. However there was nothing stopping a GOP super PAC from doing the same thing. As far as I can recall the GOP never touched the Trump University scam all during the primaries.

    However it's not just Trump that they didn't vet. They didn't vet Bernie either.

    Parent

    I don't even think (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 01:46:38 PM EST
    TrumpU is a serious problem for Donald.  He has survived much worse.  The problem is what he is saying about it.  If he had just kept his mouth shut it would not have been a serious problem for him.  It was delayed until after the election.

    Parent
    Probably true (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:00:28 PM EST
    but the judge released the documents and that seems to be what spawned the media madness but yeah, without the documentation they probably would not have talked about it though I bet the GOP elite knew it could be a problem.

    Parent
    if Donald had not started (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:04:25 PM EST
    bashing the judge the media would have talked about it for 5 minutes and forgotten it.   this is all about Donald bashing a judge thats been very fair to him.   its not about the documents

    Parent
    Have you seen this ad by (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 02:40:31 PM EST
    Priorities USA? Devastating.
    Grace

    Parent
    You can learn things (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 04:45:23 PM EST
    Even from Chuck Terd

    I did not know this

    Hattie Wyatt Caraway
    The first woman elected to the Senate was Hattie Wyatt Caraway of Arkansas. Appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the death of her husband, U.S. Senator Thaddeus Caraway, Ms. Caraway then sought and won election on her own in 1932. She was reelected in 1938 and served until 1945.



    We might also take note that this week ... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 06:47:14 PM EST
    ... is the 44th anniversary of Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm's victory in the 1972 New Jersey Democratic primary. She holds the distinction of being the first female candidate to win a major party presidential primary in U.S. history -- and in fact, she won three of them in 1972, having also triumphed in Louisiana and Mississippi.

    Congresswoman Chisholm's groundbreaking and singular accomplishment was overshadowed, as it is today, by the fact that New Jersey holds its primary the same day as California. But on the basis of her stunning and decisive victory in New Jersey, Congresswoman Chisholm actually finished ahead of Sen. Hubert Humphrey in the number of pledged delegates won in 1972, even though Humphrey is often remembered as George McGovern's main rival that year.

    Tonight's celebration in Brooklyn will also be for Ms. Chisholm, Patsy Mink, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and every other woman who advanced the cause over the course of their respective lifetimes.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    True! (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Jane in CA on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 09:12:48 PM EST
    And when asked if it was harder to run as an African American or as a woman, Chisholm did not hesitate to say, "A woman. It was far harder to run as a woman than as anything else." Or words to that effect.

    Parent
    Hillary wins NJ! (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:08:52 PM EST


    YEs (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 07, 2016 at 08:15:27 PM EST
    and she might pull out South Dakota.

    Parent
    More about the (none / 0) (#176)
    by Nemi on Sat Jun 11, 2016 at 07:56:45 AM EST
    Historical part of Hillary's nomination, in this great piece at CNN by Ellen Fitzpatrick, professor at the University of New Hampshire: Hillary Clinton makes and inherits history

    [Dismissals of Hillary Clinton for a varity of reasons] may or may not be vindicated when the votes are counted on Election Day. But they ring hollow when one considers Clinton's bid in the long historical arc of women campaigning to be commander in chief.

    From that vantage point, Clinton emerges as an extraordinarily adept political figure. She has already overcome many of the obstacles that derailed every single woman who has sought the presidency before her -- from Victoria Woodhull in 1872 to Shirley Chisholm in 1972 to Clinton herself in 2008 and many, many in between.

    [...]

    ... What usually counts as success for a presidential contender -- adequate financing, support of party, deep experience, public visibility and a proven record of vote-getting -- morphed into negatives during this primary season when for the first time a truly viable female presidential aspirant had finally achieved them.
    [...]

    ... Compared with her more than 200 female predecessors who set their sights on the presidency, no woman presidential candidate before Clinton from a major political party has ever managed to garner anywhere near the level of support she has amassed from party elites or from voters.
    [...]

    If 2016 suggests there is no failure like success ---

    Right! Add 'success' to the long list of Q:"When is [insert accomplishment] not an accomplishment?" A: "When Hillary Clinton ..."

    Old school? Establishment? Perhaps. But without that background she wouldn't be where she is today -- the first woman to come within striking distance of the presidency.

    That's the race Clinton has already won. It's a historical reality those who await a "better woman candidate" or a "tougher" political leader may wish to consider when they take the measure of Clinton and the current race.

    I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton will talk about this in the coming months: The women that came before her, and her own accomplishment ... and in the coming years. She no longer needs to shy away from her gender not to risk alienating voters. That alone is quite an accomplishment.