For example, financial con men should, if convicted, be stripped of all their assets, banned from any work in the financial industry and, maybe, given a very heavy dose of community service. Some, those at the top, maybe should serve time given the egregious nature of their acts.

End the War on Drugs. Put people in treatment, not prison.

Because it seems like it's not enough for us to watch for ourselves, or read for ourselves, we have to defer to the opinions of so-called experts in order to confirm or validate what we're thinking.

Consider the questions posed in the last GOP debate: they could not have been less objective, more leading, more designed to provoke headlines.  In the last Democratic debate, I found Lester Holt's questions to be pretty good ones - I cannot say the same for those posed by Mrs. Greenspan, who doesn't seem to be able to stop herself from being utterly transparent in her desire to "get" someone, preferably Clinton.

The Sunday Shows are a colossal waste of time; I had to stop watching them in order to ensure that my TV didn't end up shattered in a heap on the floor.

Those who didn't watch don't have to take others' word for what transpired: pretty sure you can find it online.  When you take out the commercials, it's probably only about 90 minutes of your time.  Seems like getting a first-hand experience is better than spending the same amount of time - or more - flitting from one pundit to the next finding out what each of them think.

I've checked them out, and it's interesting to contrast my own experience and takeaway with what the so-called experts are saying.  And it's interesting, when you've watched for yourself, to see how much they get wrong, how much they slot into a different context.

They all have a dog of some kind in this hunt; the challenge is sussing it out, digging to find the connections, and taking it into account in their analyses.

Jerry Ford was by all accounts the most athletic president in history.  He was an all state football player as a sophomore in highschool, the captain of his national championship university football team, and a first round NFL draft choice of the Detroit Lions; yet he is mostly remembered as a stumbling caricature on SNL.

Much more press than necessary was given to Jimmy Carter's encounter with the killer rabbit.

LBJ famously said "If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: 'President Can't Swim.'

For example, just because the progressive ideas have been languishing for decades - and he is courageous enough to actually run on those ideas, he is condemned as not being a visionary?

I can accept that people might favor Hillary Clinton on the issues. But why the animosity toward Sanders.

You prefer Clinton, vote for her.

One little note:
Jeralyn, if memory serves, has written several posts about ISIS. In them, she has expressed the notion that our deepening military involvement accomplishes little or nothing and serves to put a target on our backs. She then expresses hope that Obama will resist the pressures upon him to deepen our involvement - with the attendant dangers to us.

So, guess who has been applying the pressure? And who has forcefully and pridefully asserting having done so? HRC. That's who.

Twitter response:

Cecile Richards ‏@CecileRichards 8h8 hours ago
disappointing to hear this

Nobody is better in this race than Sanders at taking the fight to Wall Street, corporate welfare recipients, and Super PACS. But, wow, painting PP and Human Rights Campaign as "part of the establishment" is way off base. That's like saying the ACLU is part of the establishment. Yeah, they're part of the established organizations fighting for civil rights.

Planned Parenthood I support wholeheartedly, and always have. At one time, I got most of my medical care there. Faye Wattleton's leadership of PP is what really pulled me in as a financial contributor when I was in my 20's and working three jobs to make ends meet. Wattleton was brilliant and courageous at a time when Operation Rescue and the religious right groups and their fringe actors were bombing clinics and shooting doctors, and during the time of some very important SCOTUS decisions (Webster and Casey). Cecile Richards is, in my view, more of an establishment figure than Wattleton...Richards comes from a political family, and worked for Pelosi. But I accept that, perhaps even grudgingly, because she has also led the organization through some tough times--the Komen nonsense, the recent rightwing video, and now the murder of three people at the PP in Colorado.

How many organizations that are "part of the political establishment" get bombed and shot at on a continual basis? What does "establishment" really mean, as it relates to civil rights organizations?

with respect to the "War On Drugs" and the DEA, get rid of both of them. neither serves any useful purpose, and have simply been a drain on scarce, allocable resources since their inception. the DEA has also (in a clear effort to maintain its existence) been the source of many lies about drugs and drug use, stated as facts, with no scientific evidence to support them. disposing of both will be difficult, since there's a lot of money/jobs at stake.

I still don't think Clinton will win but if so the media propping up the angry white dude only gave those supporters the context by which they'll be even more enraged when she wins.

The Affordable Care Act was one step down the road towards universal health care. Sanders advocates at least aiming to travel the whole road; Hillary Clinton's position is not only that universal health care is impossible, but that a candidate in the Democratic primary should be attacked for supporting universal health care!

Wrong.  Once again, this is written by someone who doesn't understand what "universal coverage" means and that yes, Hillary Clinton is for it and always has been.

This commenter gets it, IMO:

...and it is also a moot point, because the federal minimum wage, which currently stands at $7.25 per hour, will not be more than doubled by this Congress.

Riddle me this Hamilton:

How can you choose to be pragmatic here, recognizing that Congress will at no point in the near future go for a Sanders' policy proposal but be unwilling to recognize that about other portions of his platform?

The next Democratic president, barring a complete Republican meltdown that somehow manages to cost them the house, has precisely zero chance to do any better than Obama managed to do. They will not be able to make tax rates more progressive. They will not be able to break up TBTF banks. It simply won't happen.

She is, as I mentioned before, very adaptable, not to say opportunistic. If Sanders's campaign is less about personality than Obama's was, it is also true that his appeal to voters who don't trust Clinton has something to do with character. With most issues, including the ones that ought to matter most in this election, you know where Bernie stands: it's where he's stood all along. He may lack polish and aplomb, especially compared with Obama, but he's solid

No I don't - I have no idea where Bernie stands on a whole host of things.  I know Bernie has no idea on a number of issues ranging from foreign affairs to issues impacting minorities.  I know Bernie displays the same "adaptability" as Hillary does.  Or do the two recent changes reflect consistency?

 Adhering to this notion, I concluded that there is no other candidate, and probably few others breathing, who know more about government, details and its workings than Mrs. Clinton.

  And, she demonstrates a control of the debating stage whose debating skills are superior to either Senator Sanders or Mr. O'Malley.  An example, being the deft pivot on the tough question of her about Wall street to one of an affront to President Obama. Deft, in that it shifted the target and pleased the Obama supporters.

 However, if Mrs. Clinton is picking up on Sander's qualities, it should extend only to some of this positions, not to the decibel level to which he is accustomed. An occasional burst for emphasis, but her Benghazi hearing demeanor suits her better.

The debates provide the opportunity for Senator Sanders to not only propose and respond to the specific issues raised, but also, to serve as a means for voters to determine how he defends and responds to questions and challenges.

  For me, his proposal for a complete re-organization of health care was a disappointing presentation.  This serious proposal deserves more than the sure-fire applause line to be expected from most all Democrats that 'heath care is right not a
not a privilege."  Perhaps, this may be a novel concept for younger voters.

 A better encapsulation that anticipates criticisms should not be that hard. While better than Trump's: "I am going to replace Obamacare with something terrific," it does not provide the information that might be expected for many Democrats to jettison the imperfect bird-in-hand, over the promise someday of two-in-the-bush.  Senator Sanders does presents his idea with the caveat that it will not occur on Day One.  I suspect that he, as well as many of his supporters would acknowledge on a clear day, that it may not be on day one, or in year four.

 But, this is probably not the point: it is Sanders' idea that matters to them.
The reality is likely to be that whomever is the Democratic president, the efforts in health care will be to fight off Republican destructive onslaughts. As ACA becomes more established over the next few years, and evaluations come in, the chances of making improvements, that at once, put ACA on a glide path to universal health care, or even Medicare extension, are more likely.  

Senator Sanders' debating skills are akin to his everyday style. They work well, especially in light of the fact his comments, in large measure, build on the comments of Mrs. Clinton.

 Such as, I agree with what Mrs. Clinton said, but add...But, he is good at saying something that he says he will not say...I will not talk about the abominable actions of Bill Clinton.  But, what I find annoying, but perhaps a good technique, is his use of side eye, or saying "no" while Mrs. Clinton is speaking.

  The body language indicates that he does not agree, or that Mrs. Clinton is somehow off-base, but when given the opportunity to respond, there is no articulated rebuttal. I want to hear the objection. I want to hear the words: in the courtroom, the nod of a witness, for example, is not adequate. It is necessary to speak up and say, yes or no.  I like that.

So who won the debate?  This seems to be the year of the broad brush. Specifics, details?  The Flint water disaster is instructive:  Mrs. Clinton brought his one up.. described the unconscionable Gov. Snyder and indicated not only her great concern, but also, the actions she took and more that should be taken.

When you decide to look into it, this is from a letter from the IG, and he is discussing info above Top Secret.