In it, the author revisits the debates on the plans of 2008, examines the punditry, analysis and politics at the time, and compares it to what is being proposed and said today.

• Lee Michaels, "Do You Know What I Mean?"
  
• Boz Scaggs, "What Can I Say?"
  
• John Lennon, "Whatever Gets You Through the Night"
  
• Bette Midler, "When a Man Loves a Woman"
  
• Black Oak Arkansas, "Lord, Have Mercy on My Soul"
  
• Rod Stewart, "Three Time Loser"
  
• Melanie Safka, "Brand New Key"
  
• Elvin Bishop, "Fooled Around and Fell in Love"
  
• Rickie Lee Jones, "Danny's All-Star Joint"
  
• Earth, Wind & Fire, "That's the Way of the World"
  
• Dave Mason, "We Just Disagree"
  
• Grace Jones, "La Vie En Rose"
  
• Loggins & Messina, "Angry Eyes"
  
• Linda Rondstadt, "Someone to Lay Down Beside Me"

As far as I can tell, Sanders and Clinton have the same plan for Citizens United - nominate judges that will overturn it. There are more actions that could be taken to up that pressure. I would love to hear either candidate make an issue out of one of these. Because right now I believe I am being presented with a choice that is same policy, different flavors. Sanders is knocking it out of the park presenting the problem, but the solution is no different than Clinton's, which brings the debate down to "who do you trust" - criteria that gets real prejudiced, real fast. Little victories along the way are necessary if we want to achieve anything greater. I think Obama was better able to make that point than either candidate now. We are in a Goldilocks situation right now - one too big, one too small.

As usual, there was an ad on for some drug, and the litany of side effects and reactions was being reeled off, each one worse than the next, and always leaving us both wondering if maybe it would be better to have whatever the drug was supposed to be taken to help.

Anyway, in the middle of it, my husband says, "Hey, I want seizures and migraines..." and I said, "you could just watch the next Republican debate for that," and the two us us just cracked up.

Rubio has a compelling story which is included in almost every speech, which rarely if ever changes. He is the son of Cuban immigrants who fled Castro (oops, that really was Batista), His parents were poor, a bartender and a maid, and he sympathizes with their hard work.  In his memoir, he says he joined his father in a union strike and became a "committed union activist."  That commitment ended as a senator, who now opposes raising the minimum wage and wants to eliminate rules that empower unions.  But, hey anyone can change his mind, unless Mrs. Clinton.

Rubio finally made it through college and law school, saddled with debt and a work ethic that did not help to pull himself up by the boot straps. He entered politics and found a sugar daddy South Florida car dealer who helped out by funding little show jobs for him and his wife.  And, almost everyone wanted to know more about this Rubio guy, and his memoir went like hot cakes, with a $800,000 advance. Rubio burned through his money and soon became broke, once again.  He and his friend, David Rivera, ran into trouble paying off their mortgage on their house in Tallahassee. But, as Rubio says, he did not inherit my money. The Florida Republican Party credit card did come in handy, however.

Rubio, the moderate, also has a lot of innovative and imaginative ideas reflecting his youth and the younger generation.  He is for reducing regulations and cutting taxes on rich.  He is against gay marriage and is anti-choice even in cases of rape and incest. He is against immigration reform, and is opposed to amnesty. On foreign affairs, his senate specialty, he is a neocon. Bombing is always on his mind, if not the table.  And, he has an up to date take on Cuba--1958 style. He was opposed to the Iran nuclear deal.  Now, these may not seem all that new, but, keep in mind that they are said youthfully.

Rubio may not be entirely coddled by his fellow Republicans at the debate tonight.  A battle for the soul of the Republican Party, as Chuck Todd might claim.  Christie is already on the job: "let's get the boy in the bubble out of the bubble"  And, with respect to his scripted, on message, on message, on message speech he is being dubbed:  "a computer algorithm designed to cover talking points."

In the twittersphere many clinton supporters are pointing out obvious things like its funny to see Andrea Mitchell talk about the issue given how much money Greenspan has earned. Yes he's no longer holding office but shes so sanctimonious so it looks funny.

I've already expressed how silly it is, IMO.  No its not silly for everyone but is for me.  Also now thinking there's some sexism here. Rep. John Lewis is giving a talk at Goldman Sachs and he's still in office. No ones scrutinizing him.

So I'm wondering after hearing all the talking heads opine on this issue:  I have to wonder if Barack Obama or Michelle Obama will have to say "no" to offers to speak at a bank (or anywhere) if they wish to pursue any other political career?  

Thoughts on that question are welcome.

Onto the topic of campaign finance. First I'm for public financing (I think it's funny most of that money will still come from the super rich and wall street) cause it removes appearances of conflict of interest

Now I would be saying this even if Clinton wasn't running cause it just never made sense to me.  I hear these arguments, they seem to suggest that if you gave Rubio enough money he would support the Iran deal. Does it really work that way?  Probably not.  

So I think a politician has a record or a set of policies they support and they are rewarded for advocating and pursuing those policies by donors who agree with them. Simple as that really.

So why does anyone at Wall Street want a certain progresive politician?  Well this goes back to being able to have a broader view of Wall Street.  We already know millionaires like JJ Abrams and Susan Sarandon support dems but why?  Dems will raise their taxes substantially, right?  Well these two 1%ers want their taxes raised cause they know it is not only their civic duty, giving back to the country that made them so rich, but also out of self Interest.  They believe if they pay more taxes, there will be a more robust economy and more people will be able to watch more of their movies.

Now if thats not so hard to imagine, why is it so hard to imagine there are people, very very rich people on wall street would have the same values as their hollywood counterparts? A robust middle class means more people investing, right?

We already know two examples, Soros, and Buffet.

Anyway I just don't ever see any quid pro quos on this issue.  If there were quid pro quos Clinton would now say she supports legalizing marijuana after receiving a huge (massive actually) check from Soros.

The poll also showed that Sanders, who is from neighboring Vermont, leads Clinton, 50 percent to 41 percent, with 8 percent undecided.

The key factor contributing to Sanders' lead over Clinton is his advantage among independent voters, who favor him over Clinton, 57 percent to 30 percent. Sanders also leads among men, 59 percent to 30 percent, and in the areas along the Vermont state line, 60 percent to 32 percent.

One complication, according to Paleologos, is whether independent voters are drawn into the Republican primary. That adds to the volatility in predicting Tuesday's results. Independent voters can take either a Republican or Democratic ballot on primary day.

Then the mad dash to Crooklyn to see Ryan Bingham with the concert crew. Hey Hey Hurrah!

The total state delegate equivalents that are being challenged are 1.7947.  HRC's win was by 3.77.

Since Sanders' plan is silent on the Hyde Amendment, as he has been, and since his plan would forbid any private insurance that duplicates services in his single payer plan, what are the odds that insurance companies will stay in business just to sell abortion policies?

And how would this square with the Hobby Lobby decision?  Could companies opt of paying into the federally run single payer health system on religious grounds? (Thereby also reducing the money to pay for it?) Are private insurance companies going to stay around to sell contraceptives?

I thought Dreyfus was compelling as the character he was portraying.

However, I thought that they really let the SEC off the hook for the most part.

Markopolos was presenting them with evidence of Madoff's thievery for over ten years.

And they ignored it.

Except for a sentence or two, the SEC gets away with it in this tv version.

Harry Markopoulos's book, "No One Would Listen", really tells it the way it happened. The SEC is indicted as an organization which does nothing to protect the people. Rather it is shown to be but a tool of corporate Wall Street.

The TV show backs away from making this plain.
And I think it is a glaring omission.

It shows, imo, how much power these s.o.b.s still sway.

Madoff, alternately was depicted as a sympathetic rogue, a family man who only cheated people who were out to get what they could get, and someone who cheated honest people out of their life's savings.

Mostly about his dealing with the very rich, and very little about his swindling the helpless - the working stiffs.

Some of his dialogue seemed to me to be stolen from, or heavily influenced by, "Goodfellas" - the voiceover - or narration - from "Madoff" - (as spoken by Dreyfus) was similar to that of "Henry Hill".

And there was entirely too  much goo. Imo.
Madoff the Family Man. Who needs that?

And it also takes a stand on whether the sons and Mrs. Madoff knew what was going on. The show says they didn't, but I am not at all sure on what they base their conclusion.

In all, I think that they let Madoff off too easy.
Pulling off a scam on rich people who are already looking to scam their way into even more money is different than screwing working people who are looking for little more than to survive.

All in all - mediocre. imo.

Is ABC still owed by Disney?

Of course both have to be nominated. As I said while you were gone.

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.

There were reports of secret waiting lists to hide long delays in care. Whistleblowers said as many as 40 veterans had died waiting for appointments. And Congress was demanding answers.

Despite mounting evidence of trouble at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Senator Bernie Sanders, then the chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, initially regarded the complaints as overblown, and as a play by conservatives to weaken one of the country's largest social welfare institutions.

"There is, right now, as we speak, a concerted effort to undermine the V.A.," Mr. Sanders said two weeks after the story was picked up by national news organizations. "You have folks out there now -- Koch brothers and others -- who want to radically change the nature of society, and either make major cuts in all of these institutions, or maybe do away with them entirely."

But the scandal deepened: The secretary of veterans affairs resigned. Reports showed major problems at dozens of V.A. hospitals. And an Obama administration review revealed "significant and chronic systemic leadership
failures" in the hospital system.

Mr. Sanders eventually changed course, becoming critical of the agency and ultimately joining with Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, and other colleagues to draft a bipartisan bill to try to fix the veterans health care waiting list.

Mr. Sanders's chairmanship of the committee, his most notable leadership post in the Senate, has become a go­to credential in his upstart quest to win the Democratic nomination for president. He routinely boasts of praise from the largest veterans organizations, who lauded his fight to expand benefits. And he frequently speaks of how he helped devise the wait time fix and was able to "crack the gridlock" of Washington, as one of his campaign mailers put it.

But a review of his record in the job also shows that in a moment of crisis, his deep­seated faith in the fundamental goodness of government blinded him, at least at first, to a dangerous breakdown in the one corner of it he was supposed to police. Despite inspector general reports dating back a decade that documented a growing problem with wait times, Mr. Sanders, who had served on the committee for six years before he became its head, was quick to defend the agency and slow to aggressively question V.A. officials and demand accountability.

His major objective as chairman was to expand the menu of veterans benefits. It was an ambitious goal, and as with his proposals today for free public college and universal health care, many viewed it as unrealistic. The cost was so high that even Republicans who normally favor more aid for veterans blanched at the dollars involved -- while fearing that more offerings would cause even longer waits at the overburdened V.A.

"His ideological perspective blurred his ability to recognize the operational reality of what was happening at the V.A.," said Paul Rieckhoff, the founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "The reality was that he was one of the last people to publicly recognize the gravity of the situation."

SNIP

In an interview last week, Mr. Sanders rejected the notion that he was slow to respond and lenient in his oversight, saying, "We did the very best that we could to make certain that veterans get the quality health care that they need." Instead, he spoke of his chairmanship as a period of accomplishment,
highlighted by the passage of what he called "the most comprehensive" veterans health care legislation in "many, many decades."

But when Anderson Cooper of CNN asked him on Wednesday about why he did not act sooner to address the wait times, Mr. Sanders conceded, "We should have done better."

It's only going to be a problem with people who don't want to support her anyway.

You think Republicans are going to use it?  Nope.  They are blasting it now because of course, they'd like to see her defeated because they think they can beat Bernie much easier.  In a general - you gonna risk telling some people who are very religious that if they don't vote for your opponent they are going to hell?  

• Opioid-Induced Constipation (OIC), OK presumably this is a real issue, but do we need thick globed up paint and intestine clay animation to understand what constipation is, and during the Super Bowl ?  I know what constipation & IBS are I don't really need some marketing team hatching some way to show what it really looks like using fancy paint and animated intestines.  I am trying to eat from time to time while watching football.

• Cialis, so now it's official the men using this are younger than me in the commercials, big deal, what bothers me is they show couples, on a huge dock, at the movie, and other public venues when it says something like, "Don't have the time to take a pill, Cialis."  WFT, when do you not have time to take a pill when you are public, or are they actually suggesting taking Cialis to engage in public sex at ~50.  I don't get the commercials, which of course always revolve around some contrived female fantasy where the man is helping her plant flowers, or walking hand & hand shopping, or there are two bathtubs on a lake.  Maybe if they started having contrived male fantasy they wouldn't need medication to get it on.

• Lastly, I hate walking into a doctors office and the sign in sheet & pen are clearly some Pharma Reps free-bees.  Jesus, they can't afford pens and paper to at least try an appear impartial to my treatment.  It's getting harder and hard to find a doctor in which there aren't advertisements for medications everywhere.  It's like they don't even care that you know they are getting paid to deliver the drugs Big Pharma wants you taking.