home

Wednesday Open Thread

No, I'm not watching the TV show about O.J.

Or following the campaigns in New Hampshire -- everyone should just declare themselves a moral victor and move on to states with more significance to the race as a whole.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sanders Complains About Party Staffing, Wants Results "Recreated" | Belated Post Debate Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    been thinking a lot (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    About my grandfather lately.  Yesterday would've been his birthday.  He loved this stuff, he's where I got my politics from.  He was Mr. New Hampshire Democrat, and they were always highly involved in the primary there.  That being said, he would agree with Jeralyn that it had too much significance, although he was also a believer in the closed primary so... yea.  We don't agree on everything.

    I thought about not posting that link, as it's somewhat personal, but I wanted to share the memory too.  I guess I'm just feeling nostalgic.  Although the sugarcoating of his Bio is so very WASPY.  Which is in a way fitting for the Hungarian Jew whose nephews grew up thinking they were German Christians, and only found out otherwise when they were at my grandfather's memorial service - in their 60s.

    Thanks, CST... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    "His only allergy was George W. Bush."

    Humor is a wonderful antidote to cynicism.

    Parent

    he was good with the one-liners (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    that's for sure.  

    My other favorite one is when he met Bush Sr. on the campaign trail, who asked him "What would it take to get your vote?"  And he responded "A large sum of money or a small ambassadorship".  Needless to say, he ended up voting for Clinton.

    Parent

    Isn't the large sum of money usually offered (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:11:19 AM EST
    in exchange for the small ambassadorship?

    Parent
    maybe that's what went wrong (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by CST on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:23:06 AM EST
    Although I'm not sure he had what Bush Sr. would consider a large sum of money.

    Parent
    He sounds like a lovely (none / 0) (#16)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:44:47 PM EST
    man and a great grandpa.

    Parent
    Based on when he ran for the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    and his campaign style, I'm guessing he may have been a fan of "Walkin" Lawton Chiles.

    Parent
    Awww.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:35:08 PM EST
    What a great guy he must have been!

    Parent
    Thank you! What great stories (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:40:44 PM EST
    Good to be reminded these voters are actual people.

    Parent
    A Staten Island boy... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    son of a gas seed proprietor...thanks for all the grass in our parks old pal! Very cool.

    Parent
    Err...grass seed! (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:29:38 PM EST
    Now the auto correct is f:ckin with me! I need to bite the bullet and get a proper home computer, this tablet shit is gonna drive me and my sausage fingers mad.

    Parent
    Army and Marine generals (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:44:41 PM EST
    Say women should have to register for the draft

    Can't say I disagree.  If we want to be considered equal to men, then this is something that should be done

    The way to ensure gender equality (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:43:23 AM EST
    in this regard, while preventing deprivations of liberty that serve no legitimate social or governmental purpose, is simply to abolish the sham process of draft registration entirely.

    Parent
    while true (none / 0) (#153)
    by CST on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    I also feel that including women in the selective service will make it that much less likely that we ever use it again.

    Parent
    Edit to read 2 Generals (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:27:55 PM EST
    while the rest remained silent.

    Parent
    Trumbo (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:19:28 PM EST
    Great movie, Bryan Cranston plays a Hollywood screen writer who was in the communist party during the red scare, he was jailed and blacklisted.

    How this didn't get nominate is beyond me.
    Trailer

    Totally agree (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    Been saying this since I saw it.

    Parent
    I Never Heard of It Until Yesterday... (none / 0) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:32:31 PM EST
    ... but I love finding gems, no expectations.

    Parent
    This starts Friday (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:43:58 PM EST
    I'm so there

    HAIL CAESAR

    Parent

    Channing Tatum (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:30:14 PM EST
    Tap dancing in a sailor suit would be worth the price of admission.

    Parent
    Marco is tap dancing (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:00:21 PM EST
    his way into second in New Hampshire....

    Parent
    Will (none / 0) (#106)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 06:06:23 AM EST
    Most likely tap dance his way to the nomination.

    When the rubber meets the road, I think primary voters will favor electability,
    And Rubio tops that list by far

    Parent

    Marco Rubio is a big phony ... (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    ... who talks in generalities and platitudes, and doesn't have an original thought in his head. He deigns to lecture the rest of us about fiscal discipline and personal responsibility, even though he ran up $180,000 on a Florida GOP-issued credit card in less than three years, including charging $19,000 for personal expenses, which was only paid back when he was caught.

    Rubio's campaign claims that he has reimbursed the state party out of his own pocket for those unauthorized charges, yet he refuses to provide any documentation to that effect, while for its part the Florida GOP says only that the party was eventually made whole -- just not by whom.

    The lack of details forthcoming from Rubio regarding his co-mingling of campaign and personal finances continues to be a sore point for Chris Ingram, a Florida Republican consultant who told Politico last November that the Florida senator shouldn't be granted the benefit of the doubt on this matter, nor should his claims be accepted at face value unless there's evidence to support them. "You can't take that guy for his word," Ingram said of Rubio. "I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog."

    Rubio's own personal finances have long been a total mess. By age 37, although he was drawing a six-figure salary from a Miami law firm, he was over $900,000 in debt, which doesn't include his mortgage that was in constant jeopardy of being foreclosed.

    Rubio was recently bailed out by a seven-figure book deal from a right-wing publisher to write his memoirs. The very first thing he did with the advance was to purchase an $80,000 sportfishing boat.

    This immature spoiled brat, reckless spendthrift and self-absorbed political con artist is the equivalent of Gertrude Stein's Oakland -- there's no there there.

    As such, he'd be the perfect GOP nominee for these times.

    Parent

    Imitation (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 06:30:44 AM EST
    is the sincerest form of flattery. I'm glad to see the GOP now embrace Obama with Marco who copies Obama verbatim.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#109)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 06:49:00 AM EST
    Some try to damage Rubio by calling him the Republican Obama,
    Well, if he can manage to be President for 8 years, so be it.

    And I think that the primary voters will begin to see that, politicians are not perfect, NONE of them.
    Purity tests are for fools, you can be a pure conservative or a pure liberal and watch the opposing party rule for 8 years.
    Our system is designed for compromises to be made in order for meaningful legislation to be passed,
    Although we seem to be headed towards an era of Executive actions, which does not bode well for the country, but may excite the most partisan members of both parties

    Parent

    Rubio's (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 06:56:44 AM EST
    problem is going to be his embrace of radical policies and the fact that he never seems to be able to show up for work. Also the GOP base hates him because of immigration reform. Hey, if Jeb Bush and his lame campaign could make me laugh at Rubio he's an easy mark.

    Parent
    He (none / 0) (#112)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 07:03:10 AM EST
    is the best choice among the top 3,

    And I think the primary voters will see that.

    New Hampshire will eliminate either Kasich or Christie, or both, Bush will survive to South Carolina.

    When it comes down to the top 3, I think Rubio's stock rises even higher, and he starts taking the winner take all primaries.

    But that is a long way off

    Parent

    I'm not (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 07:37:09 AM EST
    so sure they "will see it". It seems to me that the GOP voters are sick of losing with "establishment" candidates and Rubio to them smells of another loss.

    Parent
    He's going to tap dance (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:09:25 AM EST
    Right into the Trump buzz saw.   Right after Donald deals with Ted he will get to Marco and his cha cha heels.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:44:33 AM EST
    Two words "anchor baby" coming from Trump and that will probably be the end of Marco. Marco is going to be a lot easier to take down than Cruz has proven to be.

    Parent
    Maybe sooner than later (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:50:53 AM EST
    Just saw new UMass poll that has Mr Cha Cha heels in second.  Only 20 behind Donald.  

    Parent
    OH my (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:57:53 AM EST
    Same UMass poll has democrats tightening.  Hillary up 4 Bernie down 3.

    I predict more tightening.  Hillary might go for the kill tonight.

    Parent

    With (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:15:01 AM EST
    the screwy delegate crap Hillary can get 43% and walk away with half the delegates I read.

    Parent
    Please be right here (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    But in the end I think the GOP will nominate the one who currently polls best the Democrats.

    I think it will be that simple.  The problem for them is that the current polling is not, as we shall say, rock solid.

    Parent

    As I have mentioned before (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:35:04 AM EST
    You may be right.   I have been saying since the primary that chose McCain that the right was mad as hell and they were not going to take it any more.  So that view has been right and I have been wrong the last two republican primaries.  And very well could be again.

    I do not think it will be.  Or IF it is there will be such a massive backlash in the angry right that Hillary can go home, put her feet up and binge LOST until November and still win.

     

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:38:47 AM EST
    know about your area but here in GA "ain't nobody" voting for that "anchor baby Cuban" in a presidential election except some Republicans. I'm no sure which ones would vote for him. Certainly south and central GA would be sitting home for Marco.

    Parent
    For example (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    Donald can so easily disqualify Marco on immigration alone.    That is his most rabid following.   It was the first thing out of his mouth after coming down the escalator.  It is Marcos biggest weakness and he will beat him about the head and shoulders with it until even if Marco wins, he loses.

    Parent
    me too, making plans. Looks great. (none / 0) (#115)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 08:19:28 AM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:35:51 PM EST
    This is why my comments are important.  I posted the trailer for the months ago when it first landed on my TRAILERS app.
    Which is great BTW.  And free.

    Parent
    ... which was certainly well-deserved. But in my opinion, the rest of the film got shortchanged by members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who did not acquit themselves very well at all with this year's list of nominations.

    I mean, how do members ignore the unique likes of "Trumbo" and "Straight Outa Compton," while simultaneously bestowing ten -- 10! -- Oscar nominations on "Mad Max: Fury Road," an admittedly enjoyable action flick which was otherwise nothing really special? I  think the only logical reason is that they were all plied with a bong and some primo weed before the "Mad Max" screening, which then totally rushed them out.

    Sometimes, you just gotta shake your head.

    Parent

    OMG the poor schlub (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:32:00 PM EST
    Jeb! To (small) audience after a long awkward pause - "please clap"

    They should just get one of those applause signs they used to use when taping tv shows.

    cripes

    Shark, consider yourself jumped (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:57:30 AM EST
    Oh just pitiful. (none / 0) (#80)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:05:41 PM EST
    Dem Town Hall... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:20:45 PM EST
    Good format, much more average Joe than talking head.

    Gotta hand it to her, Clinton brought her A game. I almost found her endearing and that never happens.

    As did Sanders...the Bern is white hot. I can't believe the s.o.b. has me this sucked in, it's embarrassing.

    "revolution" (none / 0) (#100)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:14:05 AM EST
    is an intoxicating message i concur.

    Parent
    It's not (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 06:04:48 AM EST
    particularly intoxicating to me.

    To me, what Sanders is saying, at least on the domestic front, is just putting out there what we, as citizens, have a right to expect from our government.

    Our media, and our politicians, have ingrained in us that to expect universal healthcare, or free tuition, is wild and crazy and just nutty.

    "How we gonna pay for it", they yell...
    while they dump all of our money into mindless wars and weaponry and lots of money for their bloated lifestyles.

    Sanders is, hopefully, opening peoples eyes to the total domination of our lives by corporations who have their profit line as a first and only concern.
    And those corporations sponsor and buy the politicians and the media - who intern propagandize us into believing that this is the way it should and must be.

    Parent

    I'm, Not Sold on the Guy... (4.50 / 6) (#135)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:32:58 AM EST
    ... but I find it mildly amusing that in the land of many self-described liberals, that the most liberal candidate is routinely demonized for being too unrealistic, too outside the box, too liberal.

    I also find it interesting that many of the things that have been major grips in regards to the Democratic Party, are now available from a candidate that has a chance and they can't cling to the 'establishment' hard enough.

    I figure if no one is going to argue for Bernie why not, but damn it's sucks to be attacked by 50 people for every post, very aggressively.  I don't mind push back on my posts, but I don't particularly like taking on the majority of folks over a candidate that I am not so sure about.

    When JB and most regulars, even the self-described liberals, are on the same page, like identically, I don't even know what to think.  Well I do, but I sure as hell can't say it without 50 versions of you are a jack@ss.

    That being said, I am a one show pony, and I have no desire to go to any other place where Bernie is the focus either.  I just want to talk about his ideas without the HRC insanity.  And what a fear the most, is her actually winning, which seems likely, and 8 years of HRC is the bestest thing eva, and if you don't agree, F off idiot, you are wrong.

    It's like ABG, one guy unable to see any flaws in Obama, but it's 50 people unable to see any flaws in HRC.  She does have flaws BTW, but you wouldn't know coming here.


    Parent

    We must not be reading the same comments. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:50:12 AM EST
    Every day here at TL I read comments critical of both candidates. Have you never read comments from kdog or Anne or MoBlue, to name just a few Sanders supporters? And let's not forget lentil and shoephone. They tend to be quite critical of Clinton.

    On the other side we have jibindc and Ga9 and christinep who have been very critical of Sanders. CoralGables is less vigorously critical of Sanders, but still clearly in Clinton's camp, as are Capt Howdy and, well, me.

    Both candidates have their supporters and detractors here, and this is not a site where, AFAIK, commenters are shy about voicing opinions.

    In the end, just about everyone here, except kdog, has been clear that they will rally around the Democratic nominee be that Clinton or Sanders.

    Parent

    Oh, we're reading the same comments (4.25 / 4) (#211)
    by sj on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 03:19:43 PM EST
    Just have different glasses. For starters, you sound as if this was a polite difference of opinion, when what Scott is experiencing is a pile-on.

    It isn't the number of tick marks each candidate has in his or her supporter count. Try looking at the comment count and the vitriol contained therein.

    Parent

    Dude, read your own words (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by vicndabx on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:50:21 AM EST
    the other day you posted a comment stating people are often a mix of conservative and liberal depending on the issue and then today you state:

    mildly amusing that in the land of many self-described liberals, that the most liberal candidate is routinely demonized for being too unrealistic, too outside the box, too liberal

    flaws=subjective adjective that may or may not be true depending on the issue

    Parent

    That's Actually in This Thread (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    Not seeing your point, unless you are suggesting HRC is a liberal, yes it's a label, but if we can't use labels how in the hell are we going to have political discussions.

    But many who once wanted Medicare for all, a position almost everyone here was down with, who strongly criticized Obama for taking if off the table, are now down with it.  People who have spend hours calling out this puitfalls of Obamacare, not a problem now.  People who were once displeased with Wall Street money can't defend HRC taking loads of it vigorous enough.  Not to mention TTP & Keystone, things HRC full-heartedly supported but now doesn't.  No discussion, she says so, therefore it is.

    I am not saying Sanders is the answer, I never have, but I wouldn't mind discussing the pros and cons instead of insisting Sanders could never succeed while insisting HRC will.

    Parent

    Bottom line... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:42:27 PM EST
    it's hard to leave the cult of personality bullsh*t out of the discussion.  

    I think we all tend to bend over backwards to excuse our preferred pol's shortcomings, and at the same time skewer the pol's we don't like for theirs...and as you mentioned, sometimes they are the same god damn shortcomings!  I guess you could call it human nature.

    I don't know that it can be avoided, we can only try to stay conscious of it.  

    Parent

    Sounds like two different things (none / 0) (#175)
    by vicndabx on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:50:27 PM EST
    1-people's opinions changing here on TL
    But many who once wanted Medicare for all, a position almost everyone here was down with, who strongly criticized Obama for taking if off the table, are now down with it.

    2-our opinions of candidates changing their opinion

    Not to mention TTP & Keystone, things HRC full-heartedly supported but now doesn't.  No discussion, she says so, therefore it is.

    I am not saying Sanders is the answer, I never have, but I wouldn't mind discussing the pros and cons instead of insisting Sanders could never succeed while insisting HRC will.

    I would say the latter is more something people may want to discuss than the former.  Posters on a blog shouldn't have to justify changing their mind to anyone - we're all just regular shmoes.

    People have their reasons that they may or may not want to share.  Instead of reading into comments and assuming, let's just try to take stuff at face value and go from there.

    Parent

    Maybe you were being attacked (2.00 / 2) (#145)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:52:25 AM EST
    Because you kept spouting the same nonsense about coin tosses and vote counts, even after multiple people tried to tell you that you were misinformed and reading your own data incorrectly, but you kept arguing anyway.

    It was kinda like talking to a Tea Party fanatic, of which I am finding more similarities between them and Sanders supporters.....

    Parent

    Yeah, It Started After the Causus (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:52:38 AM EST
    It started the second Sanders became a threat, about a month ago.

    That is simply untrue, the post in which GA pointed out, and yours right after, I acknowledged my error.  I can't help 50 posts were put before I research and I admitted to being wrong.

    Jesus this is exactly what I talking about.

    Now I have the mentality of a tea partier... could you have proven my point more precisely if you tried.

    For the record, that was an honest error, and when pointed out, I was upfront about being wrong.  Like I always have been.  I have no agenda other than pointing out that there are flaws/problems with HRC, like you used to do with Obama, trying to impartial with the democrat candidates.

    Parent

    Sigh (2.00 / 1) (#163)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:06:31 PM EST
    No, it didnt.  You argued with vic, GA, me, Towanda, and FlJoe and then posted charts trying to prove your point, even after we suggested you look at what you were posting. You continued to argue.  It was only AFTER that you finally admitted you were wrong. So no, you can't use the "I didn't see your comnents below" excuse, when you responded to them in the first pace.

    And I didn't prove your point at all. You were relying on bad data, in the face of corrections, to argue your point.

    I'm sure it was an honest error.  That's why it was so frustrating that you kept ignoring people correcting you and disagreeing with them anyway.  You usually aren't like that.

    And I don't care if you want to point out flaws with HRC.  Go for it.  But because I choose not to bring up old and tired arguments doesn't mean I don't know about them.  I do!  And yet, I don't care! I still trust that she is the best person for the job and is, bar none,  the best person to keep us moving forward.   I've taken all that information into account already.

    But then you can't complain when I bring up not so stellar information about Sanders, because let's face it, most people really don't know much about him. He SHOULD be getting bombarded with information questioning everything about him, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Parent

    FWIW... (none / 0) (#171)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    ...there are a handful of commenters I take seriously, you being one of them and GA being another.  And if you look at the timing and posting hierarchy, I was getting out posted, like seriously, and was replying to the comments that I read next.  There was no purposeful deception.

    Yeah I made like 4 comments that were more of the less the same, but when I ran across GA's and yours I looked into it because you actually pointed out my error, didn't just state I wrong.
    -------------------

    But more to the point, that wasn't even what I was talking about, I was clearly wrong, I am talking about posts for at least a month in which anyone who criticized HRC is attacked, and mostly by you specifically, but you aren't the only one, just the most rigorous.

    I do look forward to your criticisms of HRC, must have missed all the others.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#182)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    I like your comments too.

    I'm just tired of old, tired arguments about HRC and from people whom I usually respect can't muster more than the "but.. but argument." It frustrates me because I know these people are smarter than that.

    Hate to say it, but the more people bring up Goldman Sachs, for example, the less I care.  I mean, no one is talking about the $280,000 she made speaking at A&E Television, (I tried to link to an article that listed all her speaking fees, but none of my buttons seem to be working right now), or how much she made speaking at tech companies, even though, as president, she will definitely be working with media and tech executives and they certainly want to influence her.  I'm not the only one who doesn't care -there are lots of us on the left side of the spectrum who also don't. Talk to us about things that can get done.

    And if Bernie gets the nod, we should start a pool on how long it takes before he "evolves" and starts accepting big donor and Super PAC money.  My guess would be 5 minutes after the convention ends. He's not stupid and he would get buried without it, so his supporters can start making the excuses then, I guess.

    I just would like to read and hear a little more scrutiny on his ideas and proposals, not blind acceptance from people around here.  I expect that nonsense from MSNBC - it's why I don't watch anymore.  But I expect critical thinking from this place.

    Parent

    In All Fairness... (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    ... with the environment right now at TL, a discussion of Sander's ideas cannot happen.  I want the same thing, what I really want is a honest run down of why Sanders should not get my vote that doesn't involved opinions like:
    And if Bernie gets the nod, we should start a pool on how long it takes before he "evolves" and starts accepting big donor and Super PAC money.

    That is what every Sanders discussion at TL has been, bad opinion from HRC supporters.  And I don't have the time or the patience to go out and find a blog in where I know whose comments to take note of and who to dismiss.

    I am going to continue to stick up for Sanders until people actually use facts to back up their claims.  That is what has always set TL apart form other sites, people with reason, even if that reason goes against their party/candidate.
    --------------

    A&E did not cause the market crash, A&E did not facilitate the housing fiasco, A&E is not a threat to our economy, but you know this, but again can't help but deflect a serious problem with Clinton using soemthign no one cares about.  And you know damn well if she wasn't taking certain money it wouldn't be an issue.  She knows this as well, it's why her schedule on collecting big WS checks has been revamped.

    The fact that you are 'all in' on a candidate should give the regulars around her some hesitation.  Not a knock on you, but your opinions have anyways been to the right of most here, and now, nearly everyone agrees with you, that is beyond confusing.

    Parent

    Tired of it too (none / 0) (#187)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    They say "lost her mind" and then say "don't mean that as a criticism" maybe cause gosh I don't even know how that works.

    It's a criticism.

    Parent

    I can't speak for anyone else (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:23:59 AM EST
    But since you're trying to call me out (wow! JB and liberals agree!), I'm gonna respond.

    I'm not like ABG.  See, I KNOW that Clinton has faults and weaknesses and she's made some bad choices.  I've heard about them for 25 years now.  When you get something new on her, we can talk.

    I am also not someone who thinks that she is going to get sweeping change done.  No other Democratic will either, but that doesn't stop some people from thinking the One, True liberal will.
    When there is a question about him, the talk is changed to the "But...but..." defense as in "But...but...Hillary voted for the Iraq War!"  (Yeah....and?)

    Certainly the media coverage is just as horrible, and the liberal media outlets are the worst. Hillary could walk on water, cure cancer, and win the Super Bowl and the coverage would be "Sanders gets 5000 college kids to a rally, and oh yeah, Clinton voted for the Iraq War!" I think he's had it pretty easy in the coverage and I think that has skewed a lot of the way people view him and his plans. With rose colored-glasses.

    So yeah, I'm going to post reality checks about Bernie. It doesn't mean I dot see Clinton"said glaws, it'seems just that I need more than one vote and 25 years of ginned up outrage.

    Parent

    I Have Not Gotten That... (none / 0) (#176)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    ...from at you posts.

    While I don't want to argue about it, if you go look back, I don't think the ABG reference is too far off.  I don't care enough to look, but I bet posts criticizing HRC are non-existent this past month.

    Which is saying something considering that is your milieu, the antagonist, so much so that in 2012 BTD and others claimed you were for Romney.

    Parent

    Which proves (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    That in 2012, some very smart people were talking out of their a$$es and were not a reflection on me.

    Parent
    But you eant a criticism (2.00 / 1) (#190)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    Here you go:

    I wish she would/could stop trying to be something she's not - cool.  That's ok in my book.  I'm not voting for Homecoming Queen.  

    I wish she would/could stop trying so hard to get young people to like her (they actually do already, but you wouldn't know it know it from the media).  

    I wish she would/could tell some of the more obnoxious young Bernie supporters to "Grow the f*$% up. As nice as all kinds of free stuff sounds, no one owes you jack. Let's talk about problems we face and find real world solutions and let's get real commitments from you to help implement workable solutions and then let's move on to the next issues."  But of course, many of these same people are those who require trigger warnings in their college class syllabi, so that probably isn't workable.

    Parent

    The other thing (none / 0) (#183)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:12:44 PM EST
    I have noticed is the often mean-spirited nature of her supporters on this blog.

    It reminds me of the same thing that happened in the 2008 campaign - only that time it was aimed at anyone who supported Clinton against "The One".

    The same phenomenon - people writing numerous posts, numerous replies, changing the subject, insulting fellow posters.

    I have to wonder whether some of them are campaign operatives, as opposed to just people with an opinion.

    I guess we'll know for sure if they disappear after the campaign - as did ABG for example.


    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#186)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:15:38 PM EST
    I find it's the Bernie supporters who are unreasonable and sometimes mean and certainly don't want to hear anything negative about him.

    Parent
    I was (none / 0) (#102)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 05:54:22 AM EST
    drawn into Hillary as well...

    but then, kind of in the middle of a reply, her brain enters the picture and she flips into a recycled talking point...

    I don't mean this as a criticism, because she has been through a lot, but I think that she has lost her mind to a degree.

    Even though I'm prone to like her, or begin to respond to something that seems real, I haven't a clue where she is.

    Parent

    I see that too... (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:42:08 AM EST
    she'll be on an absolute roll and then it's like a switch flips and the internal political calculations take hold.

    I saw a little less of that last night than normal...but it was still there when medical marijuana came up...you could see the old drug warrior gears still turning.  Though I was thrilled to hear she'd finally work to get MJ off Schedule 1, but she's still hedging and calculating for the general which I'm not convinced is a smart tactic anyway, besides being wrong morally.

    I was disappointed with both of them too when the heroin epidemic came up...they get the treatment part right, but ignore the harm and danger of prohibition which leaves addicts with unsafe and impure drugs.  And both threw doctors under the bus, which inevitably leads to those suffering from chronic pain being denied necessary drugs.    

    Parent

    Where they (none / 0) (#181)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:03:37 PM EST
    both let me down is their respective positions on our military interventions in civil wars abroad.

    Hillary is not only for them, but reportedly encouraged Obama to get us more involved in Syria and in one of the debates indirectly (or directly) criticized him for not doing so sooner - and blamed him for the current situation there.

    Sanders, for his part, has not articulated an exit strategy - at least not that I am aware of.

    The only plus for Sanders is that at least he is not, and was not, an advocate for our military involvement in the region. One cannot say the same for Clinton, alas.

    But - I want us out.
    So, at the moment, I do not have a clear advocate running on that issue that I could unequivocally support.

    Unfortunate.

    Parent

    I don't mean this as a criticism (4.00 / 4) (#107)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 06:29:34 AM EST
    but I think that you've lost your mind to a degree.

    Parent
    So? (none / 0) (#169)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:31:49 PM EST
    Listen (1.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:57:22 AM EST
    This is precisely part of the problem of civilized debate.

    You say you don't mean it as a criticism but in your opinion then she's lost her mind..

    Get this: I don't mean it as a criticism but Bernie has spit dripping from his chin when he gets "passionate." he's a joke.  A left wing trump freak show with a team of sexist supporters who put sex toys in their profile pics.  

    but I don't mean that as a criticism.

    What's the point here: be nice.

    Or not.  If not.....

    Parent

    You don't seem (none / 0) (#168)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:30:17 PM EST
    to get it.

    I am not criticizing her.
    I am making an observation based on her utterances.

    I think she has so many pressures on her - coming from so many different directions - and she is trying to appeal to so many different people with differing agendas - that her mind sometimes is spinning.

    If you want to know what I mean, read a transcript of what she says - and see if you think it is declarative.

    Frankly, with all the glare on her personal life, and that of her fked up husband, I don't know how she can resist just screaming for everyone to go fk themselves.

    Parent

    You don't get it (1.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:39:32 PM EST
    Bernie's racist attacks on pres. Obama, it's just an observation I make based on his utterances.

    This isnt meant as a criticism I think he's the recipient of so much money from Karl Rove cause they know that's their only path back to the white house.

    We can keep attacking and LOL pretending it's not criticism if you want.  40 more comments plus or minus until 200.

    Parent

    Once again, with your racist b.s. (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    You are the one who keeps making racist comments about Sanders. And I'm going to call attention to it every single f*cking time you do it.

    Parent
    I'm going to just spell it out for you (1.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    I know when I'm being rude and making asinine inappropriate comments, therefore when so inclined I can stop doing that.

    In contrast you dont even know when you are being rude and making asinine inappropriate comments, therefore you can't stop doing that.

    Parent

    Good (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    Audit the results and maybe this will prompt Iowa Dems to join the 21st century.

    JB (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 03:10:33 PM EST
    I didn't want to rate this and put it out of order, but this is GD funny:
    Which proves that in 2012, some very smart people were talking out of their a$$es and were not a reflection on me.

    That is exactly what I am talking about, you calling a spade a spade and riling up a couple folks, me included.  I do not disagree, and the Obama fever, while I supported him, was off the charts here and I could always count on you laying the facts down with a hammer.

    On the Des Moines Register (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 04:24:14 PM EST
    'Looks like the paper may be trying to keep its hand in the game (or whatever.)  The Register--which was sold several years back & has been endorsing Repubs such as Romney (2012) and Ernst for U.S. Senate (2014) in the GENERAL elections--seems to be concerned about the messiness of the Iowa caucuses.  The bottom line seems to be that this paper does not like the rules & reality of the Democratic caucus process ... a longstanding process run by the Iowa Democratic Party.  The State entity responsible for it (the state party) seems satisfied, and turned down the request for now.

    My question: Has the relatively new management of the DMR called for an audit, as well, as to the troubled Iowa Republican Caucus ... that caucus that resulted in charges of stealing the vote & interfering with fraudulent tales by Cruz' people (see the ongoing skirmish between Cruz and Carson; and, see the public charges now by Trump to that same effect.)  My, my ... I'm guessing the an even-handed paper might want to call for an audit there as well.  

    It is getting a little funny to add to the continue whine of "not fair."  Maybe we could audit all the caucuses in both parties--Colorado, Nevada, Washington, Maine, etc.--before they even start.  Whoever loses can line up to complain the next day....  

    A prediction: Should the DMR, in the new role as party overseer that it has now adopted, decide to intervene in Repub party caucuses, then I withdraw my sarcastic & direct criticism in this comment.  I suspect, tho, that DMR will be able to forbear from looking at the Repub innards and then be ready, willing, able to continue to snap at the Dems in a lead-up to their endorsing the eventual Repub nominee in the General Election.  An easy bet.

    RIP Maurice White (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 06:12:01 PM EST
    Another great 70s band, Earth Wind and Fire.

    Shining Star..youtube

    I'm hearing she's doing well (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:08:23 PM EST
    She's conceding NH - brought up gun control in a gun friendly state, and going to Flint, MI on Sunday.

    Good move, I think.  Fight like hell, but show leadership / pander (depending on your point of view) on issues that are more personal to non-white, hyper liberal states.

    I'm just counting the seconds these days (5.00 / 4) (#227)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:11:10 PM EST
    waiting for the moment when you folks finally turn full-on neocon and start defending the Iraq invasion -- if for no other reason than because Hillary voted for it.

    Because she's just that gosh darned impressive when she displays her innate, far-sighted genius for foreign policy.

    Really, all one can do is stand in awe as one's puny critical thinking faculties stand in abeyance.

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:20:47 PM EST
    Just because you think you can define what a progressive is doesn't mean you actually can.

    Just because you believe yourself to be the ultimate arbiter of critical thinking doesn't  mean you actually are.

    I'm right there with you, jondee. (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:24:06 PM EST
    Hero worship comes in handy at the oddest moments.

    Right shoe (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:34:55 PM EST
    Because only you and jondee are mature and informed enough to support a candidate for valid  reasons that go beyond "hero worship" or "lack of critical thinking skills".

    I wonder if you even know how insufferably condescending and small that is.  But I don't really give a sh!t.

    I Googled "Chris Villisca" ... (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:42:37 PM EST
    jbindc: "Chris Villisca tweeted something ..."

    ... and found out that the town Villisca, IA was the site of a rather horrific mass murder of two adults and six children back in June 1912, which remains Iowa's most notorious cold case. I learn something new every day, and I'll file that in my treasure trove of obscure (and likely useless) trivia.

    (P.S.: I figure you meant Chris Cillizza, the Washington Post's resident gossip columnist whose bi+chy little tweet you cited tonight, and I proudly admit that I haven't paid any attention to that silly twit since he worked for Roll Call.)

    ;-D

    This is what it's like to be screwed (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    by Martin Shkreli

    PATRICK'S STORY  (report by Dana Schuster, The New York Post, 2-5-2016)

    Earlier this autumn, I got a call from a specialty pharmacy in Michigan.

    My insurance would no longer cover the cost of Daraprim, a vital medicine in my Lyme disease treatment. They said the drugs would cost me $US30,000 ($41,800).

    "Thirty thousand dollars a year?" I asked, flabbergasted.

    "No, $30,000 a month," they responded.



    Man alive, I heard Kato Kaelin on the radio (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:04:11 PM EST
    today and he is quick-witted, funny, and very verbal.

    Why, when he was on the stand during the trial, could you not ever tell if his answers were yeses or a noes? Or even if he understood the questions?

    Trying to decide if I really want to know (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:16:53 PM EST
    what he's been doing all these years.

    Parent
    Reality and game shows. Surprised? (none / 0) (#199)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:04:51 PM EST
    Imagine Brian Willaims (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    Miost smug and snarky anchor voice-

    "Thanks (whoever) from the arena in Arkansas, yes Arkansas that's where Donald Trump will be making his next "appearance" in this campaign."

    Gawd.  What an a-hole.  That was after whoever trotted around asking people really stupid questions like "do you think Donald Trump lost Iowa?"
    The look he got from the person he asked that question was pretty funny.  

    Strange days.  Note sure which is weirder, Donald is coming, it's been mid 70s or I just filled up and it was 1.48 a gallon.

    This just (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:14:10 PM EST
    shows the attitude of the news people. What is wrong with a candidate going to Arkansas? Would he say the same if it was Ted Cruz in Arkansas?

    Parent
    Well guess what (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    Arkansas votes. So does the rest of the south.  It's no accident he is coming here.  As I've said many times this is Trumpland.   IMO if Trump has a firewall, it's the south.

    Parent
    What were you saying about strange days? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:50:30 PM EST
    A New York City real estate shyster rules Dixie.

    Still can't wrap my head all the way around it...

    Parent

    Nobody told me there'd be days like these (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:03:58 PM EST
    On the surface (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:58:02 PM EST
    it sure is amazing because "on the surface" he is everything they purport to hate. However everything that comes out of his mouth is pure gold as far as Dixie is concerned.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:41:41 PM EST
    my problem was with the condescending attitude of "why would anyone go to Arkansas". Williams needs to use his brains. Trump also went to Alabama and other places. I don't understand the attitude.

    Parent
    I understand it (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:48:14 PM EST
    I've seen it from the Brian Williams of the world my whole life.

    Bill Clinton was the Arkies revenge.   The press never got their minds around the hicks taking the White House.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:58:57 PM EST
    that is their problem with Hillary too. She's not "good enough"

    Parent
    I'm definitely watching the O.J. series (none / 0) (#5)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    It's got everything you could possibly want....
    An easy and inviting made-for-TV feel
    Bad wigs and make up
    Unnecessary Kardashian children references

     

    I watched (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:36:16 PM EST
    this thing once back when.

    That was enough.

    Parent

    Yeah, me too. But I am tempted (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    I guess Jeralyn doesn't even want to see who plays herself as a commentator on TV.  I will report back...I probably won't be able to resist watching it.

    Parent
    LOST-series review (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:44:19 PM EST
    OMFG just do it.

    End of review.

    Parent

    It has guilty pleasure written all over it (none / 0) (#14)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    Cuba Gooding doesn't really look like O.J.... not big, muscular enough.  He actually looks more like Marcus Allen.  But I think he's doing a good acting job so far.  

    Travolta looks like a Star Trek alien.  

    Parent

    I forgot (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:47:43 PM EST
    I was so into the binge.   Just set the DVR.   Ep 1 is repeated tonight.

    Parent
    Travolta looks like a Hollywood lawyer (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 08:36:46 AM EST
    that spends all his weekends in Palm Springs. I think he is nailing it! Can't take my eyes off him.

    I think Cuba is just too small of a guy to play OJ...he is doing the best he can given he does not look like him at all, and does not have the presence. He has the switch on/off of the charming public persona down well.

    Ep 1 puts the case in context of coming just 2 years after the verdict in the case against the cops that beat Rodney King, which is important to do.

    I was one of the people glued to the trial at the time. I was working a lot of night shifts in the simulator lab at the time, and on travel, and was basically planning my daytime sleeping around the trial schedule. So I saw a lot more of it than I would be able to do today.  

    Don't know quite why I want to take this particular trip down memory lane, but I'm in for the duration.


    Parent

    Travolta is an alien (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:07:10 AM EST
    Planet Kolob.   This is known.

    Watching it now.  Without commercials.  I'm hooked.  Makes me feel good that I never wasted any time on it at the time.  
    Also makes it more fun because except knowing how it ended I really don't know much about.
    I had a tendency to wander away when people talked about it in real time.

    Parent

    It is quite surreal to me (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:54:49 AM EST
    remembering laying in a hotel room bed in Oklahoma City in the middle of the day, watching it between naps.

    And I remember my brother happened to be down there for a conference at the same time I was, and we watched the replay of the closing arguments together in his hotel room - he had a suite! Dang academics get all the perks. /snark

    Parent

    Seeing it then (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:59:23 AM EST
    Do you find the recreation realistic as far as you can tell?

    Parent
    So far, yes (none / 0) (#134)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:31:37 AM EST
    that is to say, the crime scene and OJ's house activity is portrayed as I remember the police testified it was, and looks how I pictured it, with the narrow path beside Kato's guest house with the air conditioning unit.

    Most of what they have shown so far is behind the scenes stuff, so hard to say how accurate it is. the film is based on Jeffrey Toobin's book, which I read along time ago and believed was a fair portrayal.  

    I remember the videos of OJ behind his house in handcuffs - it was interesting to see the news cameraman climbing the fence to get that footage.

    Ep 2 will have the epic slow motion Bronco chase...the little of it they showed at the end of ep 1 looks like they even managed to make the freeway look like 1994 instead of the cavernous expanses that are there now.

    Parent

    Curious to see (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    How you think Sarsh Paulson dies as Marsha Ckark.  She is such a chameleon

    Parent
    She is always so good, I have no (none / 0) (#158)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    doubt she will nail it in the court scenes. The hair and makeup and wardrobe are doing a lot of the work for her so far in the behind the scenes stuff. I think I had one of her suit jackets!

    Parent
    I'm think they're giving Clark too much credit (none / 0) (#162)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:59:48 AM EST
    so far.  She's being portrayed as smart and stressed but I don't see the overconfidence yet. Given that, I think Paulson is doing a fine job.  

    Parent
    I did not watch it (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:50:03 PM EST
    When it happened.  I was totally not into it at the time as reality TV.  As a tawdry tv series with John Travolta overACTING and my favoiprite American Horror Story regular, I'm in.

    Parent
    This is Wierd... (none / 0) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:09:55 PM EST
    ...like the shuttle and 911, I can remember exactly where I was during the OJ slow-speed chase, at a bar in Milwaukee with everyone watching and wondering what the F.

    I watched a little, but got daily updates from my co-worker who was very vocal in his belief that they framed OJ.  He was black and it was beyond annoying, like Benghazi, every day the endless minutia about the frame-up.

    He later told me that he just wanted to see a black man get away with killing a white woman.  While it get it, I never really did get it.

    Parent

    I felt the same way. (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:17:32 PM EST
    I got it in an abstract sense, yet I didn't get it at all at a very visceral level.

    In that abstract sense, I understand fully that these events occurred only three to four years after a number of white LAPD officers were acquitted by an all-white jury in Simi Valley for brutally beating Rodney King half to death (breaking his leg in the process), which sparked a bloody three-day race riot across the city that left 55 people dead in its wake.

    Racial tensions in Los Angeles County at the time were admittedly quite high. Residents of differing races and ethnicities were polarized and highly suspicious of one another. And unfortunately for justice, that all played out in the O.J. Simpson trial.

    Conversely, had Simpson been tried in Santa Monica in front of a majority white jury rather than in a downtown L.A. courtroom, I think he likely would've been convicted, but just as likely we'd still be questioning how much race factored into both the case and the jury's overall decision making.

    But on that visceral level, I also realize and acknowledge that our legal system, as it then existed in Los Angeles, twice failed Nicole Brown Simpson very badly -- first as a victim of domestic abuse and violence because her husband was a celebrity, and then as a murder victim for pretty much the same reason.

    To that effect, I seriously doubt that I'll watch any more of this series. For sure, what I saw of it looked good. But speaking honestly as a former SoCal resident, the jury's verdict in that murder trial left a really foul taste in my mouth.

    I close my eyes, and I'm still haunted by the visions of Ron Goldman's sister shrieking in utter disbelief and collapsing in anguish when that verdict was read in court, O.J.'s nervous yet obvious look of relief because he realized he dodged a bullet, and the huge crowd outside the courthouse cheering wildly at the outcome, as though O.J. had just scored the winning touchdown against Notre Dame.

    As far as I'm concerned, that day was totally surreal, and a very dark moment and low point in the history of Los Angeles. The Simpson-Goldman murder case is the story of a profound family and community tragedy, any way I look at it, and I don't feel like reliving the experience.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The Verdict Sucked... (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:03:45 AM EST
    ... but Fred Goldman did break OJ financially, he never let up and I would think his persistence led to OJ's eventual arrest and conviction for burglary.  It also lead his to book 'If I Did It', which is was basically a confession.  Never of which would have happened if Goldman was taking every cent OJ tried to make.

    I think he got 30 years.  While he will probably get out before he dies, prison life has not been good for him, and in a since, justice was served.
    ---------------

    For the guy I worked with, this was blue collar employment, and I got it because he was a black guy that I am positive was the kind cops like to F with.  I got it, he wasn't particularly interested in OJ going free, more about the cops being called out, and for white folks to understand how much racial injustice hurts.  But he was a cocky SOB which made an otherwise understandable frustration just plain bothersome.
    -----------------

    Not sure if anyone else remembers, but the trail was going on when OKC bombing occurred.  I just remember switching between trial coverage and OKC coverage for weeks at that job.

    Parent

    The verdict sucked for the victims' families (none / 0) (#164)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    but I don't blame the jury one bit. There were plenty of mistakes by the cops and prosecution team to warrant an acquittal.  

    I saw an interview with Allen Dershowitz yesterday.  He's still sticking it to Clark, Darden, Fuhrman and Vannatter.... pointing out the the mistake with the glove demo and also suggested the planting of evidence.

    Dershowitz also described the defense as the "Nightmare Team" because they were always arguing and competing for media attention.

    Parent

    I think it's amazing (none / 0) (#166)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:17:58 PM EST
    That the defense was able to convince people that a) the LAPD was so incompetent, yet at the same time b) they were such amazing masterminds as to concoct a whole conspiracy involving dozens, if not hundreds, of people,  in a matter of a few hours, all while still not knowing if OJ had an alibi or not  (like he was giving a speech at a dinner in New York, or something).

    And the glove...oh, the glove.  So many things wrong.  Here's a way the prosecution could have blunted that impact, if they HAD to have him try it on: they should have pointed out, (and gotten OJ to say on the record) something everybody already knew - while he was an athlete, <b>he was also a paid professional actor.</b>  You think an actor couldn't struggle with getting a glove on, especially when his life depended on it?  I'm not a 6' male athlete, nor an actor, but I can tell you that if my life was in the balance, that glove wouldn't have fit my hand either.

    Parent

    and bumbling keystone cops.

    Also, I remember listening to an interview with one of the somewhat elderly jurors after the acquittal who said something like "and all that DNA talk, that's just stuff they were trying to trick us with."

    Parent

    The glove demo was indeed a huge mistake (none / 0) (#185)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    But I have never bought the evidence planting theory in this case. Anything is possible, but as I recall it would have indeed have had to be a vast conspiracy. I am NOT going to hash is all out here! I'm sure they will lay out the competing theories in the mini-series...they already foreshadowed part of it when they gave OJs blood sample to the medical examiner and he did not go right back to the station and lock it up.

    Parent
    ... and Alan Derschowitz is all mouth. He's merely stating the obvious about Marcia Clark, Mark Furman, et al., bungling the case. But even that said, there was still more than enough evidence presented for the trial jury to convict Simpson of double homicide. That jurors chose not to do so, for whatever their reasons, rationales and excuses, renders the responsibility for that verdict entirely on them. I can accept their decision as final because I have no choice. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with or approve of it.

    Parent
    I do remember it was at the time of the OKC (none / 0) (#165)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:10:24 PM EST
    bombing because I happened to be in OKC a lot that spring for work. It is a weird mash-up of memories for me.

    Parent
    Personally, I really can't say that ... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:50:03 PM EST
    ScottW714: "I think he got 30 years. While he will probably get out before he dies, prison life has not been good for him, and in a since, justice was served."

    ... justice was necessarily served in Las Vegas, as much as I'd like to believe that O.J. Simpson's own karma finally caught up to him in that city and exacted its due. His conviction for armed robbery came on the 13th anniversary of his acquittal in his murder trial. And so what happened in Vegas, is now staying in Vegas for 9 to 33.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I was at work (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    At Digital Domain in Venice CA.  There was a tv in the cube area.  That day everyone including me was crowded around WTFing.  Most honestly only cared how it was going to effect their homeward commute.
    All the OJ trial I saw I saw walking by that tv.  Which was on it pretty much for the duration.  

    Parent
    I was in the 6th grade (none / 0) (#131)
    by CST on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:03:24 AM EST
    And one of two white kids in my class.

    I remember not having any vocal opinion on the subject at all.  To the point where I don't even remember if I let myself have an actual opinion and what it was.  I just sat in the back and tried to disappear.  I do remember there being a diversity of opinion about the case among my classmates though.

    Parent

    The Only Interesting Thing Would Be (none / 0) (#87)
    by RickyJim on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:43:36 PM EST
    if the series got into how it exposed, to a sophisticated viewer, the weaknesses of US Justice.  The late Judge Harold Rothwax described it as, "Everything wrong with US criminal law rolled up into one big media event."  It certainly didn't do the reputation of the adversary system any good but it didn't cause any reforms, unfortunately.  

    Parent
    How exactly would you reform the system, ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:23:50 PM EST
    ... when the obvious flaws in the O.J. Simpson trial were rooted almost entirely in human error? I think we like to scapegoat "the system," because it deflects both blame and responsibility from us as individuals.

    I mentioned above that the legal system in L.A. twice failed Nicole Simpson Brown. How exactly did it fail her, given that there were clearly laws in place at the time to protect her from domestic abuse and violence?

    What went awry in her case was the conscious failure of select individuals within that system to do their job in enforcing those laws, without regard to the social status of the alleged victims and assailants. Instead, those individuals considered O.J.'s celebrity, and regardless of whether they did so unconsciously or consciously, they carved out a virtual exemption for him from compliance with the law based on that celebrity.

    Truth be told, WE are the system. And if we seek to reform the system to ensure that it works to its optimum capability, the very first place to start is with our own understanding of the effects that our own behavior can have upon that system.

    As the noted humanitarian Jane Addams once observed, the essence of immorality is our own tendency to make exceptions of ourselves. If we truly seek reform to our legal and penal systems, then we need to first rid ourselves of our own double standards.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    As An Exposition of the Evidence, (none / 0) (#118)
    by RickyJim on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 08:52:17 AM EST
    the criminal trial was an abomination.  Rothwax related that a French lawyer, who was taking a class he was giving at Columbia, told him that the OJ trial wouldn't have lasted more than 3 weeks in France. The common law adversary system, run by the lawyers instead of the judges, where nobody asks questions they don't know the answer to already, doesn't qualify as a serious search for the truth.

    Parent
    I Am Positve... (none / 0) (#149)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    ... there is no criminal justice system, including France's, without flaws, and in OJ's case in particular, the LA Police's reputation and handling of evidence was the main reason for the acquittal.  they were sloppy, unprofessional and the defense simply exposed them for what they were.  It would have been irresponsible not to, IMO.

    The notion some French lawyer said so isn't really proof of anything other than you put a lot of stock into a French lawyer's opinion.  But even if true, there is a huge leap to assume that they would have found him guilty, which seems to be what you are suggesting.

    Parent

    All the stuff about LAPD (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:26:20 AM EST
    Is true.  Which means the unmentioned character in the drama was the background to it.

    One of the very interesting things the FX thing did IMO is the first scenes we see are of the police beating Rodney King and the riots that followed.   Nothing happens in a vacuum.

    Parent

    In a Competently Run Trial (none / 0) (#179)
    by RickyJim on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:56:05 PM EST
    it would have been evident to everybody that the suggestion that the totality of the damning evidence was caused by a combination of incompetence and malfeasance by the police, was unreasonable and thus he was guilty.  Trials, with passive searchers for the truth, depend too much on the quality of the presenters of the evidence for the the deciders to come to an intelligent decision.

    Parent
    Spin. (none / 0) (#10)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:38:37 PM EST
    Cruz finished first.
    Trump finishes second.
    Rubio finishes third.

    The press seems unanimous in stating that the big winner was Rubio.

    Way over my head.

    all about expectations (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:39:52 PM EST
    Iowa is notorious for picking Republican losers.

    Trump underperformed, Cruz did about as expected, Rubio way overperformed.  He's now got legs.  The establishment was desperate for an alternative.  Enter Rubio.

    Parent

    I think Rubio (none / 0) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:40:34 PM EST
    was telling the truth, for a change, when he told FOX that he was not Jesus..."there is only one Savior, its Jesus Christ who can down to Earth and died for our sins."   Rubio was a loser, he came in third, behind Trump at number two, and Cruz at number one.

      But, you are right, the Republican establishment is trying to gloom on to someone. And, he causes David Brooks to skip a heart beat just thinking about him.  But, it will be Rubio's turn for a hard look...which as Romney found out, is not always flattering.  He has a fake smile and Cruz has a real smirk, but otherwise there is not a whole lot of difference between them.

    Parent

    I have to (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:45:35 PM EST
    say Rubio comes off really, really badly when he plays the religion card. Cruz can somewhat pull it off but Rubio looks like he's pandering. That advertisement where he talked about religion was just cringe worthy.

    I have to say though if Jeb Bush as lame as he has been can make me laugh at Rubio he must be a pretty easy take down.

    Parent

    Have to slightly (none / 0) (#65)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:38:07 PM EST
    disagree.

    They both make my flesh crawl... but Cruz quoting scripture?

    God's eyeballs must have been spinning.

    Parent

    To quote William Shakespeare: (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:27:32 PM EST
    "Mark you this, Bassanio,
    The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
    An evil soul producing holy witness
    Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
    A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
    O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"
    - "The Merchant of Venice," Act I, scene 3

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#64)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:36:30 PM EST
    all he has to do is keep coming in third and they'll give him the Oscar.

    Parent
    Well, they're probably not going to ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:38:09 PM EST
    ... give Marco Rubio a credit card, given their previous experience.

    Parent
    Well in Their Defense... (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:52:30 PM EST
    ...they gotta live under whomever is president as well.  Just kidding.

    You can't build people up and then tear them down without building them up and tearing them down.  They are chopping at the bit to tear Trump and Cruz to shreds, and to some extend both democrats as well.

    This is what happens in a very close race, wait until someone actually does crush it.

    Parent

    An odd thing to say (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kmkmiller on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:55:22 PM EST
    You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive.

    I liked (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:59:38 PM EST
    "Some of my best friends are moderates"

    IMO this is a good conversation for Hillary.  In the long run.

    Parent

    How so? (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:02:50 PM EST
    Hiw can whipping the idea (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:05:52 PM EST
    Of Hillary being a moderate help her in a general election?  Oh, I don't know.  Just a feeling.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:17:55 PM EST
    I disagree with his entire premise - a moderate can absolutely be liberal, without being as far left as he is.

    Parent
    Who cares (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:20:22 PM EST
    I loved Hillays response.  She did not literally brush off her shoulder but that was the response. Enough of this krap.

    Parent
    Perfect (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    As seen on Twitter by liberal podcaster, Bob Cesca:

    The Democrat who's about to win New Hampshire is now defining who gets to self-identify as progressive. So much for the big tent.


    Parent
    A Big Tent? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 07:05:08 PM EST
    "Discontented and alienated" is never looking for a big tent.

    Parent
    But then there's everybody else (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 07:02:04 AM EST
    Change to (none / 0) (#193)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:43:01 PM EST
    Some of my best friends are _______

    Parent
    I Disagree... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:36:15 PM EST
    ...for example one can be progressive in regards to social issues, be moderate in terms of fiscal issues, and one can even be hawkish on matters of foreign policy.  

    That is three, there are almost no end to where one can stand on different issues and to be called a moderate when you might champion for poverty, yet still think the death penalty is OK.

    It's the flaw of the two party system, you get pigeon holed into a label, and to be a conservative you can't waver on say, the big woman's right issue, because all of a sudden you are not a real conservative, even though 99 of 100 views are very conservative.  Just like a liberal could never push for gun rights, yet I am sure in both instances that makes up a large number of people.

    Parent

    Under Bernie'Sanders definition (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:35:00 PM EST
    Of "progressive", the late Senator Paul Wellstone would not qualify because he cited for DOMA.

    Parent
    Voted for (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:36:15 PM EST
    Not cited

    Parent
    Thanks you describe me (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:49:30 PM EST
    .for example one can be progressive in regards to social issues, be moderate in terms of fiscal issues, and one can even be hawkish on matters of foreign policy.  


    Parent
    Screw the labels... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:59:11 PM EST
    what's your idea? proposed solution to a problem? If  it makes sense, I don't care if you call yourself an astronaut.

    Parent
    Agreed, but unfortunately too many people (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:09:19 PM EST
    demand that you agree on everything or else you are an enemy and must be attacked.

    Parent
    What ? (none / 0) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:22:44 PM EST
    You just labeled yourself, how can you possibly agree with 'screw the labels' one comment later.

    Parent
    Watching the Dem Town Hall... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:08:14 PM EST
    Hold on to our hats Jim, Hillary is basically making the same point on labels. Gasp! ;)

    Parent
    No Jim, That is Now How I Would Describe You... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    ... that is how you describe yourself.

    I was actually describing Clinton if you must know, I thought it was obvious when I added the hawkish part.  But thanks, knowing that you think you have the same political mapping as Clinton is pretty damn funny.

    You also made my point crystal clear.

    Parent

    No, that describes me (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:17:57 PM EST
    completely. And you can research all the way back and you will find that to be true.

    The problem, as I pointed out, is that since you disagree with me over foreign policy and national defense you must attack me despite the fact that am I very liberal on social issues.

    But don't get the big head. You're not unique. I have people who agree with me on foreign policy/national defense  who totally disagree on social issues. However, since these are face to face they don't throw the snarks and slurs we see on the Internet.

    And that's sad. Because we just might get some of our social issues fixed if the Left didn't try to run off anyone who thinks our foreign policy is wrong.

    Parent

    I Wrote the Words... (none / 0) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:28:45 PM EST
    ... I am positive I know who I was describing, but damn, I honestly cannot stop laughing.

    I don't like you Jim because you are not a likable person.  But this thread is not about you being attacked, it's about HRC and labels.

    Parent

    This thread is an open thread (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 07:34:16 PM EST
    And you, as I described, are an attacker because you don't "like me" because you disagree with two of three positions that I, and thousands like me, support.

    Or else, in your mind, I represent someone you can attack with no possibility of harmful blow back.  

    Now that is a real adult attitude.

    And it is the same attitude that many of those on the far Right have. Same coin. Different sides.

    And the politicians love it.

    Hillary won't fix "it." Bernie won't fix "it" nor will any of the Repubs except Trump might. Of course he isn't a Repub and I hope he is pragmatic enough to do some things that none of the "insiders" will do IF he gets nominated and elected. He is the only one who "might."

    Just think. A true single payer healthcare program and the decriminalization of the majority of our drug laws.

    'Nuff said.

    Parent

    You are right, (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:53:09 PM EST
    labeling may be discrepant with the dynamics of thought. But, my perspective on "progressive" implies commitment to progress.  The paths that may take may vary, from rolling the issue out carefully and cautiously to abrupt change.  And, much in-between.  But, progress is the idea and the goal.  In the context of holding different views on poverty and the death penalty, I think of them in terms of liberal positions and conservative positions.  

    But, my point is that Senator Sanders is casting his criticisms of Mrs. Clinton too narrowly--progressive and moderate are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    Parent

    Maybe it depends (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    on what your definition of progressive is.  Progress is the strategy; moderate can be the tactic. But, the tactic can depend on the strategy.

    Parent
    I just want to believe (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kmkmiller on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:17:51 PM EST
    A moderate can be progressive.

    His circles on the venn diagram aren't even overlapping.

    Parent

    PFK, vol. 2/3/16 (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:20:00 PM EST
    "For The Queen"

    Men are just too obvious
    Everything hanging out
    All the mommy issues
    All the penile doubt

    But women are the earth
    Layer upon layer
    All rock and heat and gem
    Most guys don't have a prayer.

    Cuz men are much too mansy
    All the false bravado
    Like they'd rather just be under
    Their best bro's El Dorado.

    Women on the other hand
    Cannot afford that noise
    They're too busy dealing with
    The chaos made by boys.


    Sex assault case against Cosby moves forward (none / 0) (#41)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:48:31 PM EST
    Judge denies defense request to dismiss.

    This seems a little like the Roman Polanski case where an agreement was broken because of public opinion/pressure.  

    Or... (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:54:05 PM EST
    ... the current DA didn't make a deal with anyone.

    Parent
    Not sure how it holds up on appeal (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:19:11 PM EST
    The defense attorneys can speak to this with more authority but the fact remains that Cosby waived his Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination.  I don't know how the judge can now say - "Well, it only counted when the other guy was in charge."

    Promissory estoppel and all that.

    Parent

    Cosby's mistake. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:34:07 AM EST
    He didn't get it in writing. It was merely a verbal promise by the old DA. I agree that the new DA should not be bound by that. Plus we all know cops and prosecutors lie. A lot.

    Parent
    If Cosby can now show that he testified (none / 0) (#142)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    and failed to invoke his Fifth Amend rights in reliance on that promise, then he will prevail. It is his (past) lawyers' fault for not getting the alleged promise in writing, or even confirming it in writing ... or even putting a memo in the file about it. (WTF?) The press release they now point to doesn't go that far.

    Parent
    BTD is Twittering (none / 0) (#44)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:51:27 PM EST
    with tweets by the dozens about Sanders, said to be implicitly attacking Obama politics, policies, and more.

    She wants to have it both ways; (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 07:55:30 PM EST
    since Sanders got into this race, she's gone out of her way to neutralize his unabashedly liberal views, in some cases by changing her previous positions.  At the same time, she doesn't want to be branded a commie liberal, so she likes the moderate label.

    Is she wrong that she's supported some progressive issues?  No.  She's supported some very good things that have helped many people.

    But...Sanders isn't wrong when he reminds us that she's supported a number of not-progressive things.

    And this is true, too:

    Most progressives I know were against the war in Iraq. One of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the United States.

    Most progressives that I know were opposed to the Keystone pipeline from day one. Honestly, it wasn't that complicated.

    Most progressives I know are firm from day 1 in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They didn't have to think about it a whole lot.

    Most progressives that I know don't raise millions of dollars from Wall Street.

    Is the problem that he's questioning her progressive credibility, or that it's negative?

    He's said these things in debates, so why is Twitter a problem now?

    One thing's for sure: this might be one hell of a Democratic debate.  If they begin from the confines of steel cages, I guess we'll know for sure.  

    Parent

    She who? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:09:27 PM EST
    BTD?

    WTF?

    Parent

    Hillary Clinton. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:30:20 PM EST
    It wasn't clear right at first, but I got it in context.

    Parent
    Apologies for the confusion. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:25:28 PM EST
    There's been a twitter skirmish between Clinton and Sanders, begun apparently when Sanders was asked if he thought Clinton was a progressive, and he responded with "some days."

    Since Towanda didn't provide any links to the tweets she referenced, I gathered that this criticism of Obama and his policies was related to the Sanders/Clinton thing.

    If not, perhaps she could be more clear about what specific tweets she says Armando is tweeting about.

    Parent

    Tonight's (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:56:08 PM EST
    town hall.

    Parent
    my take away from that twitter skirmish (none / 0) (#101)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:17:50 AM EST
    some guy on twitter criticized Clinton for observing that Bernie's twitterfit also incriminates Sen. Wellstone.  i gave him some info about Sen. Wellstone receiving 700k from lobbyists and he never replied.

    oh well.

    Parent

    The whole (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 06:05:50 AM EST
    purity stuff is nonsense.

    Parent
    As a supporter of the Democratic Party, (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Farmboy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 08:10:49 AM EST
    I find this tack of party-purity off-putting and insulting.

    In its history the party has been home to both liberals and conservatives who shared the goals of the party. Different means to those goals were supported over the years (hence the liberals and conservatives), and the goals themselves changed, but all of them were progressive to one degree or another by definition because they wished to effect change in order to improve the human condition.

    I don't like getting told that if I don't support a candidate's proposed means to reaching the party's goals that I'm not a progressive, not a supporter of those goals, and by extension, not a Democrat.

    Parent

    Is it "party purity" or (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:19:10 AM EST
    "full disclosure?"

    Because I think Sanders' point - and one made by people here from time to time - is that while Clinton certainly has supported some very progressive policies and initiatives, she's also supported some decidedly non-progressive things.  I happen to agree that being progressive doesn't mean supporting the TPP, or fracking, or the stranglehold of the national security state, or the death penalty, or more war, but Clinton - and some people here - are taking more of an a la carte approach.

    We're all engaged in the same exercise: trying to decide which candidate most aligns with where we stand on the political and ideological spectrum, and this may be the first presidential primary in a while where Democrats have a candidate who stands quite firmly on the left side of that range.   For me, anyway, I haven't found an issue with Sanders where I've found myself saying, "okay, so I don't agree with that, but overall, I can support him."  Do I think he's necessarily handled everything 100% as I might have wanted him to?  No, but that's delivery, not substance.

    With Clinton, there are many things she favors that I absolutely agree with, but there are more than a few where she and I part company.  There are issues on which she and Sanders agree, but I have to say that I trust his ability to stick with his positions more than I trust her.  She's come kind of late to a few things, and I'm not sure she's as committed to them as I would like her to be.  Given all that's at stake, though, there's no question in my mind that if she's the nominee I will vote for her.

    I think Clinton's put herself in a kind of awkward position, and I think it's Sanders' presence in the race that has moved her there.  She sees the interest and excitement he's been generating, the young people he's been inspiring, and she wants in on that - I can't blame her for that.  So, she wants those people to know that, hey, she's as progressive as anyone - but she's having a problem selling her progressive cred because of the weight of the stuff that isn't.

    Bernie Sanders is, as all of us are, entitled to define his own position, and to assess the positions of others in relation to himself.  And he's equally entitled to advocate for his vision; it's then up to us to choose.


    Parent

    He's free to define himself as being (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Farmboy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:38:28 AM EST
    a progressive. And he's free to define what it means to be progressive as he sees fit. However, his freedom to express his opinions doesn't make those opinions into facts.

    The progressive movement didn't start with Bernie Sanders; it won't end with Bernie Sanders; and I'm not happy about an ideologue who sees themselves as arbiter of who is a part of that movement, and who isn't.

    To be clear, if he gets the nomination I will vote for him. There's my "party purity" promise, because the nation doesn't deserve another conservative president.

    Parent

    That's an opinion (2.00 / 1) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:43:21 AM EST
    Not shared by most here I think.   You have the points down but the fact is there are some ugly holes in his shiny liberal armor.   His views on Israel and the Palestinians for one and way more importantly to me and I think many others, guns.

    Before we get a essay on how he has changed all those positions be aware he changed those positions.   Something you love to bash Hillary with.

    You have an opinion of what progressive means.  But that's all it is.

    Parent

    What is wrong with his position on (none / 0) (#141)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:47:54 AM EST
    Israel/Palestine?  He believes in the two-state solution - is that the "wrong" side of the issue?

    As for guns, if people are willing to accommodate the nuance of Clinton's Iraq war vote, they should at least be willing to accommodate the nuance of Sanders' gun votes - shouldn't they?  Or educate themselves on what those nuances are?

    Here's a lengthy article you may find of use.

    I thought I had done a pretty good job of explaining that I was expressing my own opinion about labels, so I don't know why you felt the need to remind me that what I had expressed was only my opinion.  

    Parent

    Alternet (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:09:58 AM EST

    The most glaring example of this is a raucous town hall he held in the summer of 2014. While he condemned Israeli attacks against United Nations schools, he also defended the wider Israeli war, and even tried to deflect attention from the conflict by talking about ISIS. As his constituents grew more and more angry, he threatened to call the police on them.

    Watch it:

    Sanders' defense was that he did not cosponsor the legislation before Congress that praised Israel's war on Gaza. But his failure to do anything to block it (it passed by unanimous consent) reinforces the idea that while Sanders does hold somewhat dissident views on Palestine, he fails to vote his beliefs.

    Since that town hall, questions about Palestine have dogged him. During a panel he held after a massive climate change march in New York City, Sanders was confronted by Palestine activists who unfurled a banner criticizing him for failing to oppose the war against Gaza.

    Sounds almost like the criticism of Hillary for being mealy mouthed doesn't it?


    Tensions between progressives and Sanders on the issue of Palestine aren't going away any time soon.


    Parent

    Yeah "nuances" (2.00 / 1) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 11:11:22 AM EST
    Only Bernie gets to have those, right?

    Parent
    The ash heap (none / 0) (#174)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:45:57 PM EST
    IMO, the turmoil and downspin in the Repub party these days--but, as Ga6th has noted for the past few years--give a clue as to what might await any party that gets ensnared in Purity Tests.  Our Democratic Party would be wise to avoid the party holier-than-thou routine lest we follow the same destructive pattern via the vessel of Who-is-the- Progressive-in-the-Room-theme?

    Should we trap ourselves as a political party into mandating homogenous allegiance, history suggests that we will ignore the probable ash heap consequences.  The intolerance underlying any contention that only a segment of any group is the purist of the pure ultimately poisons a group as it diminishes numbers and inverts energy. IMO, the place for that kind of purity pledge is definitely not the secular world.  Even religious groups insisting on total adherence to a narrowly-defined purity are destined to disappear ... see, e.g., the Shakers limited history.

    Yes, we should cuss & discuss; and, it is healthy that we are doing that.  BUT, it is a far different thing when the element of Political Purity is injected into a political party with fairly similar goals. That kind of intolerance gets ugly very fast. Let's avoid that unnecessary divisiveness ... if only because public venting of spleens about who is the Purest of the Political Pure typically causes many observers to walk away, the participants to get little more than red-faced and self-righteous, and--if a loss in the general election likely results--a wait for the Supreme Court to become even more conservative.  

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#127)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:55:49 AM EST
    not.  Not many hours later.  Not the way that Twitter works.

    Parent
    Sanders judgment needs to be questioned too (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    On April 13, 1994, in a speech given by Sanders on the floor of the House of Representatives, Sanders denounced America's prison system and blamed crime on poverty.

    A week later, he went on to vote for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994) and the Ominibus Crime Bill of 1994.  The VCCLEA passed the House, but didn't pass the Senate.  This bill didn't become law, but soon after, a similar bill called the Omnibus Crime Bill,  was voted on in the House (where Sanders voted "yea"), and after the bill passed the Senate, it eventulally became law.  

    Both of these bills expanded the application of the death penalty on more crimes, included a federal version of "three strikes" and the Omnibus bill also decreased the minimum age for minros to be tried as adults.

    To recap: Sanders gave an impassioned speech on the House floor about the crime bill, yet he voted not once, but TWICE, to pass one of the worst and most comprehensive domestic policy bills in the modern age. The passage of this bill affected hundreds of thousands of people, in a negative and sometimes life changing ways.

    Clinton votes to pass an awful foreign policy bill after giving a speech - it follow her around forever and this is presumably clear evidence that she does not have good judgment.  Sanders votes (TWICE) for a terrible domestic policy bill and there is no question of his judgment or his liberal bonafides?

    I hope they ask about that.

    I hope they ask how he squares claiming he only votes for war when it is "a last resort", yet his votes for war in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia don't really bear that out? (especially in Yugoslavia, where little to no diplomatic remedy had yet been tried).  Why did he vote to fund the Iraq war if he was so opposed to it?

    Was it because he had to (gasp!) compromise or move along incrementally?

    I hope they ask him about another time he ran against a woman - the sitting governor of Vermont - a woman who, at the time, had come under attack for supporting the ERA.  I would like him to be asked why he said she had done nothing for women and that he would be a better feminist.  I would like him to be asked about his judgment in that.

    To start.

    Parent

    Brava, jbindc (none / 0) (#177)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 12:53:03 PM EST
    Thank you for the timely compare-&-contrast examples.  Good, factual examples.

    Parent
    I must have missed it (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:26:29 PM EST
    When exactly did you personally become a huge fan of Obama's policies?

    Did you personally agree with the way he negotiated with himself prior to trying to get a bipartisan agreement with the Republucans?

    Did you personally agree with the bargains that Obama made with Pharma when he chose to abandon his campaign promise to negotiate drug prices?

    Did you personally agree with Obama's pursuit of the Grand Bargain and establishing the Cat Food Commission?

     The TPP trade deal is one of Obama's current agenda items.

    Did you become a fan of the TPP trade deal when Hillary stated that the TPP sets the gold standard of trade deals? Are you now a fan of the deal?

    IIRC you personally did not agree with many of Obama's policies. Are they now the gold standard and above criticism now that HRC wants to maintain the status quo?

    Parent

    You are seeing (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:53:13 AM EST
    . . . things that aren't there.

    Parent
    Just signed up. Could (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:54:06 PM EST
    be a full time job!

    Parent
    Who are you on (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:56:36 PM EST
    twitter? I will follow you.

    Parent
    I don't blame you for not watching ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:44:16 PM EST
    ... "The People v. O.J. Simpson." Like FX's earlier "Fargo," it broke for commercials every six to eight minutes.

    We finally got tired of that and changed the channel to our local PBS affiliate and watched "Murder of a President," which was presented as part of the ongoing anthology series "American Experience." It was about the assassination of James Garfield, who only four months into his first term was ambushed and shot in July 1881 at the Washington, D.C. train station by a disappointed office seeker, who himself was likely schizophrenic.

    Although President Garfield miraculously survived the July 1881 shooting, he eventually succumbed to septic shock two months later thanks to the careless ministrations of his personal physician, who didn't believe in the virtues of antiseptics. His body ultimately wracked by massive infections, Garfield's death was a long and painful demise.

    And as the show noted, although Garfield had been completely disabled by his wound and his condition was both grave and debilitating, there was no then-existing provision in our U.S. Constitution to provide for a functional transition in the White House on those occasions when an actual vacancy on the Oval Office didn't yet exist, such as the president's physical incapacity through injury or illness.

    So, for nearly nine long weeks during the summer of 1881, our country was effectively without a president. Vice President Chester Arthur refused to take the reins of government as acting President while Garfield was still alive, considering that to be disrespectful to both the man and the office, and Congress refused to order Arthur to do so for the same reason. Sometimes, our country has somehow managed to persevere despite our own apparent efforts otherwise.

    Aloha.

    This is why (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:46:52 PM EST
    Grown ups have DVRs

    Parent
    Grown ups can also choose not to watch, too. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:28:31 PM EST
    Trust me, my Tuesday evenings won't be empty without "The People v. O.J. Simpson" in it.

    Parent
    DVRs make it better (none / 0) (#74)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 07:33:56 PM EST
    But Donald's point is still valid.  I really shouldn't support TV shows like O.J. and Fargo that do that nonsense.  

    Parent
    Bad news for Hillary (none / 0) (#71)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 07:16:30 PM EST
    Guccifer welcoms extradition.  He is facing a nine count indictment for among other things hacking and releasing emails between Sid and Hillary.  The release of one of Sid's emails is often viewed as the beginning of public knowledge that Hillary had a private email server and was not using an official DOS one.

    Not bad news at all (none / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 07:28:12 PM EST
    Perhaps he's thrilled with the idea of an American prison rather than sitting in a Romanian prison.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 07:34:36 PM EST
    somehow someone getting extradited for hacking into a recipient of Hillary's email is bad news for Hillary? I guess it is if you believe the conspiracy theories shopped by banjo boy.

    Parent
    I'm confused if that comment is meant for me (none / 0) (#77)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 07:46:57 PM EST
    Kind of (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 07:49:55 PM EST
    but mostly I guess for the wingnut welfare crowd.

    Parent
    Three wars (none / 0) (#103)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 05:58:00 AM EST
    is not enough it seems.

    WASHINGTON -- President Obama is being pressed by some of his top national security aides to approve the use of American military power in Libya to open up another front against the Islamic State.

    The White House just has to decide," said one senior State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity...

    What that means, "The White House just has to decide.." is that they have decided, but they don't want us to know about it just yet.

    They want us to get just a little more numbed first.

    On a note unrelated to the ongoing primaries (none / 0) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 08:39:08 AM EST
    Four people ate still holed up at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge today.  David Fry, 27, of Blanchester, Ohio, Jeff Banta, 46, of Elko, Nevada, and Sean Anderson, 48, and his wife, Sandy Anderson, 47, of Riggins, Idaho still remain.

    They're insisting on immunity as a condition for leaving. Not the brightest bunch these four. My guess is all four are included in the sealed indictments.

    Tell me... (none / 0) (#189)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:28:27 PM EST
    If Bernie continues to shock the world and make this a prolonged primary, it's gonna be worse than 2008 around here isn't it...

    Unless Bernie manages to change the math (none / 0) (#191)
    by CST on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:38:31 PM EST
    with minorities, I don't think he stands a chance at prolonging this one.

    So you know, let's not cross that bridge till we have to.

    And for what it's worth, I feel like we all more or less managed to "get over" 2008.  Most of us anyway :)

    Parent

    Like my man Cornel West says... (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:08:49 PM EST
    the brothers and sisters are just getting to know Bernie. They're gonna love him!

    Whether there is enough time for enough minorities to feel The Bern is the question.

    I still see Hillary as a huge favorite, but I'd set the odds on Bernie at around 20-1, down from 99-1 in May.  

    When you've been betting on 99-1 shots you're whole voting life, 20-1 feels like 5-2.  No matter what happens in NH and beyond, Sander's candidacy has been a roaring success.  And I think he's given Clinton the confidence to let her liberal flag fly will less reservations.

    Parent

    That's what the media wants (none / 0) (#192)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:39:28 PM EST
    And yeah I think it will be worse, I mean Obama was at least a dem, putting a D beside his name that's beneath Bernie.

    It's just people notice he's given access to DNC database to fundraise but contributes zilch to DNC and down ballot dems.

    It is kind of shocking.

    Parent

    It's already getting worse here, kdog (none / 0) (#197)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:00:05 PM EST
    And we even have a new troll -- just three weeks old -- to throw more sh*t onto the pile.

    Parent
    But (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    It wasnt meant as a criticism, ok?

    Parent
    With all due respect (none / 0) (#207)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:35:51 PM EST
    going 0 for 1 is only shocking to those that thought Sanders would win Iowa. Get back to us on that shock the world if he can see the back end of Clinton's delegate count with binoculars at the end of March.

    Parent
    Well, well, well... (none / 0) (#194)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:47:50 PM EST
    <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181">Condoleezza Rice aides, Powell also got classified info needed personal emails</a>

    Sorry (none / 0) (#195)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    I don't know why my links aren't working.

    Check out NBC News.  Condoleezza Rice aides and Colin Powell had classified info on their personal emails too.

    Parent

    Here's (none / 0) (#203)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:18:45 PM EST
    This is how you retire (none / 0) (#198)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    <a href="http://www.wptv.com/news/local-news/water-cooler/video-retiring-colorado-deputy-tony-scherb-busts-out-whipnae-nae">Link</a>

    And (none / 0) (#204)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    Thanks CG (none / 0) (#205)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:24:04 PM EST
    Noting's working - bolding, italics, underline  - nothing.

    Des Moines Register calling for audit (none / 0) (#206)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    The Register, which endorsed Clinton, is calling for a full audit that would include a release of raw vote totals and the results of coin tosses.

    "Too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems," the Register writes.

    "Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night's chaos."

    The Register notes that the party's refusal to provide additional accountability "confirm[s] the suspicions, wild as they may be, of Sanders supporters."

    Link to DMR

    Link to The Hill

    Greed Gets its Poster Boy (none / 0) (#213)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 05:19:14 PM EST
    Remember Martin Shkreli, the guy who hiked the price of a life-saving drug 5,000%, from $13.50 to $750, then defended it?  It'll be hard to forget his face after Thursday, when he smirked and grinned his way through a congressional hearing instead of answering questions. Shkreli refused to testify, repeatedly citing his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. "It's not funny, Mr. Shkreli," Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. said. "People are dying, and they're getting sicker and sicker." After the hearing, Shkreli removed any doubt about his feelings via Twitter:

    "Hard to accept that these imbeciles represent the people in our government."

    These are Not Criticisms of HRC. (none / 0) (#214)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 05:27:39 PM EST
    More like personality traits you dislike that are backhandedly blaming others for them.

    • I wish she would/could stop trying to be something she's not - cool.

    • I wish she would/could stop trying so hard to get young people to like her

    • I wish she would/could tell some of the more obnoxious young Bernie supporters to "Grow the f*$% up.

    I mean seriously, can't think of one thing related to her polices that you dislike ?   How is that not ABG, that is exactly the stuff he would have listed about Obama, maybe not the actual specifics, but the same low level quirks. But never in policy, no way, no how, would he ever really criticize Obama's policies.

    I do appreciate the effort, really, but that list says what I have been saying.  The person who can find the chink in any armor, and has, can't find it with HRC.  Nothing wrong with it, you like HRC a whole lot, I get that, but there clearly is no objectivity from one of the most object posters at TL.

    Scott (none / 0) (#215)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    I don't believe her when she says she's sorry about her Iraq War vote.

    I will be surprised (none / 0) (#217)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:04:31 PM EST
    If Hillary's polł numbers in NH do not improve as a result of this debate.

    She killin it.

    Bernie has 2 answers (none / 0) (#219)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:10:56 PM EST
    Wall Street

    I voted against the Iraq war.

    He seems completely lost (none / 0) (#220)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:13:38 PM EST
    On foreign policy.

    Hillary Clinton brought her A-game tonight. (none / 0) (#221)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:17:12 PM EST
    Her breadth of knowledge and experience is very much on display.

    She really did (none / 0) (#222)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:21:45 PM EST
    The contrast is incredibly stark.   IMO at least.

    Bernie to Hillary: correct me if I'm wrong (none / 0) (#223)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:25:17 PM EST
    I think you can count on that Bernie...

    Bernie has the right answer (none / 0) (#224)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:27:58 PM EST
    On the Iowa question.  Good for him.

    I'm a little surprised how fair the questions are.  I suspect they noticed the universal criticism of the CNN thing last night.

    Chris Villisca tweeted (none / 0) (#225)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:30:33 PM EST
    Something like Bernie has a moun, a verb, millionaires, billionaires

    Shkreli's Congress Tweet "Unfortunate" (none / 0) (#226)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:04:13 PM EST
    his unfortunate Lawyer said after Shkreli shared his feelings about his Congressional interrogators with everyone on planet earth.


    What I caught of tonight's debate (none / 0) (#231)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:37:05 PM EST
    was good from both sides although far too much time was spent arguing about labels which are meaningless. What constitutes a progressive is a huge waste of debate time.

    Agree about labels (none / 0) (#232)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:41:08 PM EST
    But it was still far and away the best and most substantive debate so far.   And I actually thought Todd and Maddow did a good job..

    Not a good writeup for Sanders (none / 0) (#234)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:57:43 PM EST
    Yeah, I had read that earlier CG. (none / 0) (#235)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:01:50 AM EST
    And, I don't think Bernie has done a good job of explaining how he would go about effecting the changes he's advocating.

    However, a "revolution" first begins with agreement of the cause(s) of the problem. And, I have contended, as has Bernie, that the high jacking of our government was caused by the titans of Wall Street, The Corporations, and other assorted Million/Billion-aires.

    I think he sees himself as the guy lighting the match which will result in the explosion, the point of critical mass, whereby the citizens unite, and throw the bums out.

    It's a tough sell, I know. But, it's only meant to be a start. And, that hasn't been articulated very well by Sen. Sanders to date.

    But, U.S. News comparing Bernie's Ideas to the Tea Party, well, they're simply out of their minds.