Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Democrats have delivered the Square Deal, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and now… the Big Joe Biden Deal.

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.

Everyone is in a bubble, but some bubbles model reality far better than others!

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Chutkan laughs. Lauro sits back down.

This blog will pay for itself.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

I wonder if trump will be tried as an adult.

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

There are a lot more evil idiots than evil geniuses.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

Happy indictment week to all who celebrate!

Everybody saw this coming.

You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / MSNBC-Telemundo Town Hall: Clinton vs. Sanders

Reader Interactions

369Comments

  1. 1.

    Baud

    Not watching. I just realized it was on a couple of minutes ago.

    Glad to see you are able to post again.

  3. 3.

    gene108

    Posted this in a dying thread a couple of FP posts below. Thought it was interesting (emphasis mine):

    Anyway, here’s a list of Bill’s liberal accomplishment from a 1995 article:

    LEGISLATION

    1. Increased benefit levels and eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit–the biggest antipoverty measure enacted since the 1960s.
    2. Restored tax progressivity with higher rates on wealthiest taxpayers.
    3. Enacted gun controls, including the Brady Bill and restrictions on assault weapons.
    4. Passed the National Voter Registration Act (“motor-voter” bill), previously vetoed by Bush.
    5. Passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, vetoed by Bush.
    6. Restored First Amendment political rights for federal employees, vetoed by Bush.
    7. Passed crime prevention measures and new funding for community policing in crime bill.
    8. Targeted Chapter I funds to school districts with large numbers of poor children.
    9. Passed a child immunization program that provides free vaccines to six million additional children, covering over 90 percent of American two-year-olds by 1996.
    10. Passed legislation establishing national academic standards (Goals 2000).
    11. Enacted voluntary national service and education prepayment program for youth.
    12. Federalized college loan program.

    SNIP

    DEFICIT REDUCTION AND TARGETED FUNDING INCREASES

    17. Cut federal deficit in half.
    18. Increased Head Start funding by 20 percent, expanding coverage by 100,000 children.
    19. Increased coverage of Women, Infants and Children nutrition and health program (for pregnant and postpartum women) by 300,000 families, and broadened food stamp aid by an additional $2.5 billion over the next five years.
    20. Doubled the budget for aid to the homeless, to $1.5 billion a year.
    21. Expanded housing project grants, including aid to first-time home buyers and permanent extension of low-income housing credits.
    22. Increased funding by 12 percent for legal services for the poor after years of Republican attempts to abolish the Legal Services Corporation.
    23. Doubled training funds for dislocated workers, to $1.1 billion a year.
    24. Expanded AIDS public health services, including full funding of the Ryan White program.

    SNIP

    ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS

    25. Repealed abortion counseling “gag rule.”
    26. Revoked import ban on RU-486.
    27. Stepped up consumer protection through Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration.
    28. Revived antitrust enforcement, including first retail price maintenance cases since Carter.

    SNIP

    34. Ended blacklist of fired air traffic controllers.
    35. Stepped up response to equal opportunity complaints.
    36. Toughened enforcement of Community Reinvestment Act, requiring banks to make loans in poor neighborhoods.
    37. Adjusted census undercount to increase federal aid to urban areas.
    38. Appointed most diverse cabinet ever, including five blacks, two Hispanics, and five women.
    39. Introduced new antidiscrimination rules and procedures for gay civil service employees.

    There’s more at the link.

  4. 4.

    Betty Cracker

    @Baud: It is a crappy and dark photo. But if it was clearer, Daisy wouldn’t bear such a strong resemblance to Zuul!

  6. 6.

    Baud

    Oh god, this is the town hall that Chuck Todd is moderating. Not only am I not watching, I may need to burn my TV.

  7. 7.

    JPL

    I just don’t feel the bern. I was streaming but when asked about how to prevent racial profiling, and his answer was go to my web site.. well. I just don’t get it. Maybe the rest of his answer was better, but I decided to click off instead. Rubio gave a better answer.

  9. 9.

    Baud

    @JPL: I hate when any candidate says go to my website. It’s maybe acceptable in a closing, but never in response to a question. And I’m not picking because they all do it.

  11. 11.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    Bernie’s going first. Chuck Todd is being his annoying self and Bernie is smacking him down pretty effectively. “Hey, I’m not a dictator! I will need some help from the Congress.”

    Bernie is being pretty measured in his answers to questions from the audience. But he just went into a rant straight out of one of his stump speeches – a lot less measured.

    He is getting a lot more applause, etc., when he’s in his ranty mode, but he seems a lot more “presidendtial” (to these eyes) when he’s being more measured. I think he’s more effective when he’s not giving a canned answer that he’s given hundreds of times before.

    I’ll probably feel the same way about HRC’s answers too… :-/

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  15. 15.

    Applejinx

    I’m primaried out, but interesting that all of a sudden we get MOAR PRIMARIES…

    I’m all Sgt. Esterhaus at this point. ‘Let’s be careful out there’.

    The real enemy is busy battling Donald Trump for power. Can you believe we should be rooting for TRUMP as the lesser of Republican evils? Mindboggling, yet there it is. The others are worse.

  16. 16.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @JPL: The rest of his answer wasn’t bad, but leading off with that was certainly an own-goal. I heard a bit of annoyance in his voice when he started the answer, but maybe that was just me.

    The “go to my website” bit should always be the end of the answer, not the beginning.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  20. 20.

    magurakurin

    Primaried out. Waiting for March 2. There will be a lot more clarity after that. I suspect that certain segments of the intertubes are going to be like a wake on that day though.

  23. 23.

    jl

    I’m primaried out unitl after March 1. Then will be interesting to see how Dem candidates adapt.

    I might tune in for the Baud! 2016! segment. He is always very concise and mercifully very brief.

  27. 27.

    The Dangerman

    The real enemy is busy battling Donald Trump for power.

    I still don’t think Trump realllllllly wants to be President; he likes the fellating he’s getting as a candidate, but Presidentin is hard work.

    Sooner or later, this act of performance art will self destruct …. intentionally.

  28. 28.

    Calouste

    Kinda OT, but Kasich just torpedoed his chances, however small they were, by stating “Put me down in the pro-pope column, This man has brought more sense of hope.”

  31. 31.

    Aleta

    @Baud:

    more about Baud!, swipe right on Tinder

    With so many advanced “hobbies,” where will you find time to preside?

  34. 34.

    Baud

    @jl:

    . He is always very concise and mercifully very brief.

    “You’re an idiot, Chuck Todd. Go to my dark web site for the answer.”

  35. 35.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @jl: :-)

    Hmm. Bernie just started talking about how he would address Islamophobia “directly” and the TV just locked up. Is there a message there??!?!?

    (sigh)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  36. 36.

    Percysowner

    I’m a bit of a political junkie, so I’m watching. I’m not enough of a junkie to watch the Republican debates, but the Democrats I try to listen to everything they say. I’m leaning Hillary, but am open to Bernie, so I need to listen to both.

  40. 40.

    Adam L Silverman

    @boatboy_srq: He’s made a ton of money off of this segment of the grift. And so have his handlers. The people that find his life story compelling and aren’t willing to think deeply about how much of a buffoon he’s appeared in the primary will still do so. The rest of will continue to wonder if there’s something seriously neurologically wrong with him or, and perhaps more frighteningly, if he’s always been like this how in the world was he able to make it through medical school, let alone not kill every one of his patients.

  41. 41.

    Germy

    @Adam L Silverman: What disturbed me was the typo engraved on his wall. “poverb” Why didn’t anyone catch it, or is that a traditional “old” spelling, or is he an ignoramus?

  42. 42.

    Anne Laurie

    The Guardian is liveblogging both the Dem townhall and the simultaneous CNN Repub version.

    When dedicated commentors on a dedicated political blog like BJ can’t bear to watch any longer… I think that’s pretty much a sign that there’s been enough bad-dog-and-no-pony shows.

  43. 43.

    Betty Cracker

    Now Bernie is explaining the difference between democratic socialism in Sweden vs. Chavez’s Castro-flavored socialism in Venezuela at the prompting of Jose Diaz-Balart.

    @Percysowner: Gotta admit I enjoyed that last Republican debate more than any I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been watching since Reagan vs. Mondale! I just hate all the GOP candidates so much, and they were tearing each other down. It was beautiful.

  44. 44.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Germy: Have you seen my spelling in posts and comments?

    I’m amazed that no one caught it, though my guess is his guests have too much class to mention it to him and embarrass him over it. That whoever did the piece screwed it up and didn’t catch it is bad. The only thing I can think is it was done by a young relative or a young patient as a gift, so the mistake was by a kid and there’s enough emotion and sentiment behind it that the error just makes it that much more special.

  47. 47.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Betty Cracker: What is frightening was when I suggested dueling pistols in the middle of the last debate because it was in SC, I was kidding. I wasn’t expecting Governor Bush to go out and tool up a couple of days later.

  48. 48.

    Baud

    @Anne Laurie:

    What really got me down is the fact that every debate and town hall seemed to go over the same turf, and all you heard were the same stock answers to the same questions. Maybe this one is better.

  53. 53.

    SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel

    I am watching it, but unfortunately it is muted. Later I’ll be able to listen to it, but not watch. This is my bifurcated life.

    (I just posted on Facebook: FEELIN’ THE BERN. VOTED FOR HILLARY. NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. I am expecting to be unfriended by a dozen or so people.)

  55. 55.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    @Betty Cracker: Okay you’re forgiven. Just kidding, always happy to see a Zuul reference.

    There is no José Jiménez , only Zuuul.

    Edit: Wow, I just Googled some of those old routines, they were even more offensive than I thought. Yipes.

  56. 56.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    I wonder what Bernie said to Chuck when they broke for a commercial before HRC comes out. Chuck was cracking up…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  57. 57.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Kirk Douglas is still with us, I believe. Checked the internets, 99 last month. And I think Olivia de Havilland is still outlining her sister.

  59. 59.

    Anne Laurie

    Ooo…

    Richard Wolffe
    From the CNN Republican town hall:

    Jeb Bush made an impassioned plea for more brain research (“a moonshot”) to deal with drug addiction and autism, among other things. “We need to discover the brain!” he says, putting his finger on an unusual feature of the Bush male brain: their exceptional capacity for mangling the English language.

    Bets on which other candidate uses ‘discover the brain’ in an attack ad first?

  62. 62.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @Kay: I wouldn’t be surprised if the acoustics were horrible in that room. Bernie had to cup his ear and ask people to repeat themselves with several people.

    But Bernie might have been trying to finesse the issue too, so as not to upset voters who think the BLM is the devil incarnate, or something. But I think that’s less likely.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  63. 63.

    Mandalay

    Slimy guy in a $1,200 suit tells Jeb how drugs ruined the lives of his friends, and invites Jeb to tell us how awful drugs are.

    A kid not old enough to shave invites Jeb to tell us all how much he loves his wife.

    I’d sooner watch someone selling bed linen on a shopping channel than see any more of CNN’s swill. Beyond awful.

  64. 64.

    Kay

    Chuck Todd says not voting on a nominee is the same as not allowing a vote because of a (theoretical) filibuster.

  66. 66.

    SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel

    I don’t mean this as lookist, but Hillary looks fantastic. She should wear that hot pink fuchsia color a LOT.

    Tuck Choad, OTOH …. What is with the weird beard (or is it weard beird?) and those bro glasses? Sorry, it just all looks strange.

  67. 67.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Kay: This is what happens when you drop out of college because the BA in political science is too hard and become a journalist instead.

  70. 70.

    jl

    @Adam L Silverman: You serious? That is slanderous shit you are spouting.

    Edit: in order to avoid slander myself. I have worked with and taught PoliSci students who are brilliant, but other on the other hand.

    Edit: OTOH, the implication is that an undergrad polisci dropout is who the corporate media goes to for a ‘numbers guy’? That is a bad sign.

  72. 72.

    gogol's wife

    @Germy:

    The music is great.

    I saw that clip where Trump calls him a tough guy dubbed into Russian on a Russian news show. Really funny.

  76. 76.

    Adam L Silverman

    @jl: Nope, he majored in polisci and minored in music, but didn’t graduate. He was there for four years, 90-94, but didn’t finish. And is listed among George Washington University’s prominent, non-graduated alunmi:
    http://alumni.gwu.edu/prominent-alumni-school-non-degree-students
    Says something about a university when they make an alumni page for famous people that didn’t finish their degrees. Also, it abuses the meaning of alumni.

  77. 77.

    Mandalay

    The Democratic Party squeals that Republicans rig the outcomes of elections, but they are not exactly amateurs themselves…

    After the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has a small 36-32 lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But when superdelegates are included, Clinton leads 481-55, according to the AP count. It’s essentially a parallel election that underscores Clinton’s lopsided support from the Democratic establishment.

  79. 79.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    Hillary gave a good answer on the Apple encryption stuff. She said she’s not an expert, it’s a hard problem with legitimate concerns and issues on each side, but she would work to bring people together to try to figure out a solution.

    There was just some bough-ha-ha where she was yelling “It’s True! It’s True!” at the audience in response to some yelling/cheering. I’ll have to see what that was all about…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  80. 80.

    jl

    @Adam L Silverman: Chuck Todd, music? He should play some tunes, might do better at his job. (Edit: CNN headlines of the world, accompanied by master musician and world tunester Chuck Todd. Was he performance major or what?)

    Is this town hall any good? maybe I should tune in.

  82. 82.

    Adam L Silverman

    @jl: It is unclear why he didn’t graduate. If you go to the famous alumni (who aren’t really alumni because they didn’t) graduate link I just posted in comment 76, you’ll notice just below Chuck Todd’s name is Brian Williams. My guess is he was already interning for NBC and he figured if Williams could do it, so could he. He clearly knows very little about stats or anything else.

  83. 83.

    Betty Cracker

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: That was when she countered Todd’s observation that Sanders criticized Bill Clinton and Obama by saying maybe he (Sanders) just didn’t like Democrats since he wasn’t one himself until quite recently.

  84. 84.

    Adam L Silverman

    @jl: I’m now watching Young Auntie” on El Rey Network’s Salute to the Women of Shaw Studios (Women of Chinese Martial Arts Cinema) mini-marathon, so I have no idea. The Trail of the Broken Blade starts in ten minutes.

  85. 85.

    Kay

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:

    They asked her about Obama criticizing Dem Presidents (Obama, Clinton) and she said something about how Sanders wasn’t always a Democrat. I’m not actually clear why they booed that much. It didn’t seem out of bounds to me.

    It’s a funny crowd. They don’t want these two taking shots at each other. They booed Sanders when Sanders went after Clinton too.

  87. 87.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    Hillary said something like “that’s why I’m working as hard as I can to wrap this up as soon as I can…” in part of an earlier answer. Now she just said “that’s why we need a Democratic Senate…”. It’s good that she’s making the explicit connection. Bernie said he will need help from the Congress to get things done, but he didn’t go the extra step to say that people need to vote for Democrats down the line. I hope he starts doing that going forward…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  88. 88.

    Adam L Silverman

    @jl: And none of them graduated. Of course all of them are, or were, laughing all the way to the bank, so what do I know?

  89. 89.

    jl

    Broke down and tuned in just in time to hear HRC do her (to me) most annoying ‘mommy is really angry at you dang kids’ voice.

    But, interesting question on HRC’s previous position on Central American kid refugees. But is she filibustering the Q? Ok, she gets to substance.

  91. 91.

    Calouste

    @Mandalay: Funny that, the establishment of a party supports someone who has been a prominent member for about 4 decades over someone who only joined last year. Do you really wonder why?

  92. 92.

    debbie

    @JPL:

    I think all politicians say that to show they’re relevant because they use social media. Not that they know how to use it, but they do use it.

  93. 93.

    Cacti

    @magurakurin:

    so what. He is. Deal with it.

    If Hillary lost (again), I have zero doubts that she’d keep on being a committed member of the Democratic Party.

    If Bernie lost, not so much.

  95. 95.

    jl

    Gawdam transcript question?
    OK, my luck I tune in for that garbage.

    I’ll give this thing one more question.

  96. 96.

    Weaselone

    @Mandalay:
    You know, Bernie works with some of those super delegates in the Senate. Others aren’t too far away in the House and still others are from the state he represents.. He had and has the opportunity to get their support. That he has not gotten the support of what in many cases are his coworkers should be on him, not the DNC. It’s not as if this whole superdelegate things was instituted last year.

  97. 97.

    Kay

    @debbie:

    I think MSNBC blew this. There was a planted hostile question to Sanders and now here’s one for Clinton. They shouldn’t let people do that.

  98. 98.

    jl

    Stupid follow-up. Surely there are many better audience questions than that. I suppose MSNBC felt it had to throw in some dogs. (Edit: sorry for slander against dogs)

    Edit: Working to break down ALL the barriers. Is HRC making that a theme? She should. That line is a little inspirationy, IMHO.

  99. 99.

    Smiling Mortician

    According to the Guardian liveblog linked upthread, Bernie says: “I chose to run proudly in the Democratic primary and caucus process and I look forward to winning that process, but clearly as a nation I think that we flourish when there are more opinions out there.”

  100. 100.

    debbie

    @Kay:

    That is what politics has become: an endless stream of set-ups and plants. I just saw a clip of that weepy kid asking Kasich for a hug. Good grief!

  101. 101.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    Chuck Todd has taken the Friar Tuck approach to the heartbreak of hair loss.

    Hey, to each one’s own.

  102. 102.

    Betty Cracker

    @Cacti: I don’t think either one of them would change a bit after a loss. Hillary has always been more party-oriented and would remain so. Bernie would caucus with the Dems in the senate as he always has.

  103. 103.

    Mandalay

    @Calouste:

    Funny that, the establishment of a party supports someone who has been a prominent member for about 4 decades over someone who only joined last year. Do you really wonder why?

    Not at all, and I’ve repeatedly posted that Bernie can’t expect equal treatment when he refuses to become a Democrat.

    But the deck is so egregiously stacked in Clinton’s favor behind the curtain that it seems worthy of comment. Everyone’s vote counts, but the superdelegates’ votes count a gazillion times more.

  104. 104.

    jl

    Oh for God;s sake. Did MSNBC chose all the BS questions with BS premises for the audience? HRC turning it nicely, so as not to rudely insult a prospective voter for asking a BS question with a BS premise. (Edit: IMHO, the guy’s line about 21st century versus old fashioned financing is a tell that the guy has been feed, and he swallowed some PP centrist BS)

    I hope Sanders gave a similarly strong performance.

  106. 106.

    Kay

    @debbie:

    an endless stream of set-ups and plants

    I think it was always like that but you’d think with these big expensive media teams they could be a little savvier.

    “I would like to ask Secretary Clinton why SHE’S A LIAR with this prepared statement that is not a question” :)

  107. 107.

    Cacti

    @Weaselone:

    You know, Bernie works with some of those super delegates in the Senate. Others aren’t too far away in the House and still others are from the state he represents..

    When you’ve been in Congress 25 years and you can’t get members of your caucus to support you, maybe the problem isn’t everyone else.

  108. 108.

    gwangung

    @Weaselone:

    It’s not as if this whole superdelegate things was instituted last year.

    And it’s not like someone’s campaign manager didn’t help put the concept together.

    (Folks made fun of Clinton’s team not knowing the rules in 2008; I don’t think it’s fair to make a complaint when she’s learned her lesson and works the rules in 2016)

  110. 110.

    Betty Cracker

    @Kay: Yeah, it’s pretty transparently a set-up. At least they aren’t taking YouTube questions. I hate that. It’s like they (the media outlets) think putting up a grainy YouTube question makes them look all cutting edge and social media-ish. FFS. It’s not a new thing.

  111. 111.

    magurakurin

    @Mandalay: It’s a political party nomination. Non-members of the party are open to vote in some primary elections and long time party leaders have a level of influence which reflects their position in the organization. The super delegates have been around for a long time and have been constituted in various forms and under various rules. Anyone who doesn’t like the nomination process is free to begin a life in politics, become a Democratic party leader/insider and change the process. You know, similar to the way life long Democratic Party insider, Tad Devine, did when he was instrumental in instituting the current super delegate system in 1982.

    So, so, so tired of the noble outsider act from the Sanders campaign.

  112. 112.

    PsiFighter37

    I just watched clips of the Saturday GOP debate just now. Wow, no kidding – that was a complete shitshow. Great entertainment, but hard to believe one of these idiots will have a 45%+ shot at being president.

  113. 113.

    Seebach

    @Cacti: No, he’d probably go back to being a Socialist, as if party loyalty is the paramount concern when there are actually issues and voting.

  114. 114.

    J R in WV

    @Adam L Silverman:

    I went to college in Carlisle, for 2.5 semesters, then got a draft notice, never went back. But they treat me like an alum.

    I get the same begging letters a real alum gets!

  115. 115.

    seaboogie

    @Baud:

    If you want to learn more about Baud!, swipe right on Tinder.

    Baud-acious! 2016! And we are all members of the “Baud-y Politic”.

  116. 116.

    CaseyL

    So many people are sick and tired of the primaries, and we’ve only had… what, three so far?

    I’m not watching, mostly because I can’t stand the MSM moderators. I wish we had real debates, allowing the candidates to talk directly to one another. Actually talk and discuss, I mean; not yell insults like the GOP the other night. (Last night? It all blurs…)

    ETA: Last Saturday? The GOP train wreck was Saturday? Man, I am really not tracking time well.

  118. 118.

    Cacti

    @Seebach:

    No, he’d probably go back to being a Socialist, as if party loyalty is the paramount concern when there are actually issues and voting.

    I agree, Bernie’s only interested in being a Democrat as long as his political career has something to gain from it.

    The moment he loses, he’ll go back to being better than the rest of us. Real mystery about why the lack of endorsements. ;-)

  120. 120.

    Gex

    @Mandalay: This is a line of attack I’m tired of. First of all, Bernie is newly a Democrat, only joining recently in order to make this run. The Democratic party does not owe him a complete rewrite of their nomination process because it makes him sad. He signed up to compete in the Democratic primaries that have rules and processes that evolved over years. He’s entirely welcome to put in the work to create his own party and nomination process if he wants to.

    Or, alternatively, since these same issues came up in 2008, he could have joined the party and worked on changing the process.

    He doesn’t even want to go the Ron Paul way, which as we recall in 2012 involved Ron Paul supporters favored working on getting the delegates they needed over going for flashy, but less meaningful “wins.”

    All of these options are/were available to Bernie. He and his supporters are choosing option D – whine about it. As though it is entirely reasonable to wait until results start coming in, discover they aren’t favoring you, THEN wanting a rules change.

    Given that this same thing happened in 2008 and Obama STILL became the nominee, it is really too soon for all the crying.

    Edited to note that Bernie is apparently now a Democrat, not an Independent.

  122. 122.

    Betty Cracker

    Hillary is telling more stories lately. That’s a good thing. She’s always had an impressive command of policy, but at this event, she’s making them more real by talking about real people she’s met. Smart strategy.

  123. 123.

    Cacti

    @Seebach:

    I’m glad Clinton trolls are only at this level.

    Weren’t you talking this morning about how only Bernie can save us from the Muslim death camps Clinton would surely open?

  124. 124.

    magurakurin

    @Gex: And they aren’t rejecting the 55 superdelegate votes they have already. Those are pure I guess. Only Clinton’s 350+ are tainted by insider corruption and rot.

  126. 126.

    jl

    @Gex: Sanders is posting here as Mandalay?
    The link quotes the Sanders campaign as blowing off the superdelegate issue, as he should if he is a good politician.

    @Mandalay: Hey, Sanders, your health care proposal roll out sucked.

  127. 127.

    Marc

    @magurakurin: It would be a complete disaster for the party if a candidate won a majority of the delegates awarded by actual votes and lost the nomination because of unelected delegates.

    That’s why superdelegates are an idiotic idea: their deployment in any consequential way would massively backfire on whomever they supported. This was stupid in 2008, it’s stupid now, and the party should ditch the idea. Clinton / Sanders has zero to do with it.

  128. 128.

    jl

    HRC said ‘Bully Pulpit’! Creeping Sandersism! Help her, help her!

    Edit: OK, I like HRC’s campaign style more and more as campaign goes on. Really have no preference now other than electability in the general. Questions I’m hearing not interesting enough to me to listen more. I’ll catch the clips later.

  129. 129.

    Seebach

    @Cacti: No, I said Bernie is making Clinton compete on the left wing and preventing her from immediately triangulating issues from the GOP, which she is so eager to do with her talk of new Iran sanctions and the like.

  130. 130.

    Cacti

    @Marc:

    It would be a complete disaster for the party if a candidate won a majority of the delegates awarded by actual votes and lost the nomination because of unelected delegates.

    That’s why superdelegates are an idiotic idea: their deployment in any consequential way would massively backfire on whomever they supported. This was stupid in 2008, it’s stupid now, and the party should ditch the idea. Clinton / Sanders has zero to do with it.

    Shame on you Tad Devine.

  131. 131.

    Cacti

    @Seebach:

    No, I said Bernie is making Clinton compete on the left wing and preventing her from immediately triangulating issues from the GOP, which she is so eager to do with her talk of new Iran sanctions and the like.

    Hmmm…no, I believe you used the exact words “death camps”.

  132. 132.

    Seebach

    @Cacti: Yes, I said he was keeping her from immediately going toe to toe with Trump on the proper size for Muslim Death Camps.

    That’s ridiculous of course, her Muslim slaughter will be done entirely via drone, I’m sure.

  133. 133.

    mclaren

    Meanwhile, at a recent campaign speech Jeb Bush spluttered: “It’s all decided, I mean we don’t have to go vote I guess, it’s all finished. I should stop campaigning maybe, huh? Let’s just—it’s all done! That’s not how democracy works, right?”

    Yes, Jeb, actually that is how democracy works.

    Go home.

    It’s over.

  134. 134.

    Mandalay

    @magurakurin:

    long time party leaders have a level of influence which reflects their position in the organization

    That’s meaningless babble.

    Sanders has won comfortably more of the vote in Iowa and NH, yet if nobody had voted for Sanders he wouldn’t be much worse off than he is right now.

  135. 135.

    Cacti

    @Seebach:

    Yes, I said he was keeping her from immediately going toe to toe with Trump on the proper size for Muslim Death Camps.

    Yep, that was it.

  140. 140.

    Jeffro

    @mclaren: It’s almost like, for some reason, he thought he was going to be able to waltz in and be the nominee.

    almost like Brinks Trucks had something to do with it, or something…

  141. 141.

    Emma

    @Seebach: I just figured out who you are. You’re the dumbass guy at the party who thinks he’s going to get attention by being obnoxious.

    Intellectual puzzle solved. Bored now.

  142. 142.

    Seebach

    @Cacti: y’know, not liking Clinton makes you a Sanders supporter by default. It’s not like there are other options. They were cleared away so Clinton could be coronated. It would be nice if there was more of a choice, but the anointed one has to have her time.

  145. 145.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Mandalay: Sanders has won comfortably more of the vote in Iowa a

    I guess “comfortably” is subjective enough a term to make that… an opinion

  147. 147.

    ellennelle

    @Weaselone:

    a, bernie has not been running for prez for the past decade.

    b, hillary has, and moreover has been lining up the SDs for almost a year now.

    c. add to that the DNC establishment pressure, and voila! it’s…. inevitable!

  148. 148.

    Seebach

    @Emma: I didn’t know it was supposed to be a puzzle?

    In return, you’re free to point out Sanders’ big donors and the corrupt things he’s going to do for them.

  150. 150.

    mclaren

    @Betty Cracker:

    Hillary has become an enormously better campaigner than she was 8 years ago. This puts the lie to the assertion that people are who they are and they don’t change. Hillary was a disastrous campaigner back in 1993 when she put forward Clinton’s universal health plan — she had the political instincts of a rock. Fast forward to 2008 and Hillary was a stiff but effective campaigner. She came within shouting distance of snatching the nomination from Barack Obama, a newcomer with few credentials.

    Now fast forward to 2016. Hillary is a smooth and polished campaigner with genuine warmth. Her ads have been pitch-perfect so far, nary a flaw in any of them. She projects a sense that she’s actually committed to real change. Not as radical as Bernie Sanders’ vision of change, but still, she’s convincing when she says she wants to improve things. Most impressive of all? Hillary very carefully avoids explaining how she’s going to enact any of her policies when the Republicans in congress are so fanatically committing to obstructing any Democratic president.

    I think dancing around that issue represents by far the most skillful and professional achievement of her campaign in 2016.

  151. 151.

    Cacti

    @Seebach:

    y’know, not liking Clinton makes you a Sanders supporter by default. It’s not like there are other options. They were cleared away so Clinton could be coronated. It would be nice if there was more of a choice, but the anointed one has to have her time.

    I know, right?

    Your tendency to see a conspiracy in everything and refer to candidate Clinton in GOP terms had me thinking lost Paultard for a while now.

  152. 152.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    @ellennelle:

    b, hillary has, and moreover has been lining up the SDs for almost a year now.

    It could be that being a long time member of the Democratic Party might just help a bit with that.

  153. 153.

    PhoenixRising

    @Murci:

    It would be a complete disaster for the party if a candidate won a majority of the delegates awarded by actual votes and lost the nomination because of unelected delegates.

    Is…there a possibility of that happening though? This is not a math issue but a behavioral one.

    8 years ago, Hillary had a LOT of super-delegates committed before IA, but as Obama won more support from actual voters, they shifted their endorsements first then changed their commitments. Almost as if the superdelegates were (mostly) elected officials in state and local parties who responded to their constituents.

    A party that put people in those roles who aren’t responsive to voters but instead behave as elites who get to pull the strings…would not be a Democratic party I’d want to support.

    I’m not endorsing the system as-is; I don’t know enough about why & how it was put into place, as a recently minted Democrat (Nov. 10, 2000) to have an opinion. I wasn’t entitled to one before that date and ever since it’s been ‘whatever, just get me a candidate to work for who isn’t stupid, crazy or both because WTF GOP’.

    But others may be able to chime in?

  155. 155.

    mclaren

    @PsiFighter37:

    I just watched clips of the Saturday GOP debate just now. Wow, no kidding – that was a complete shitshow. Great entertainment, but hard to believe one of these idiots will have a 45%+ shot at being president.

    They don’t.

    The next president will be a Democrat.

    Never in my life, even in the 1964 shitshow fail parade where the Repubs nominated Barry Goldwater, have I witnessed such a pack of total demented idiot losers vying for the nomination of a major party.

  156. 156.

    magurakurin

    @Cacti: To be fair to Devine, he isn’t the one whining about the supers. He is saying Clinton’s lead doesn’t matter because the supers can (and will) change their votes. But Tad has been around the block enough times that it can’t be him that does the inoculation on this point. He’s a hired gun and he’s doing what he’s paid for. Like he did for Viktor Yanukovych. These days Devine is all about taking down the 1% but maybe Tad was never actually invited to Yanukovych’s home

    .It was long known that Victor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s newly toppled president, had a fairly nice crib. Customs documents revealed a while ago that the wood panelling alone on the palace’s staircases cost around $200,000. But what no one could have expected was just how nice a crib it was.

    I guess the first rule of political consulting is the same as for transporting, “never look in the package.”

  157. 157.

    dslak

    Clinton is cheating by taking advantage of connections and knowledge of the system to increase her chances of winning. Ignorance is strength!

  158. 158.

    Nate Dawg

    Talked to my best friend in San Francisco. He’s a bernfeeler, though weak, and said basically, “well, it’s not gonna affect me much anyway.” To which I responded — EXACTLY.

    I would wager that Sanders is gaining support in areas that are liberal enclaves, and when HRC swings through the deep red shithole states, she’ll crush him.

    Also, HRC beat Sanders in California and Texas in 2008. I don’t see Sanders doing better than Obama in those two places. Without those, and the South, he has nothing. The Western caucuses are going to be a side-show.

    Super Tuesday can’t come soon enough.

  160. 160.

    mclaren

    @Marc:

    It would be a complete disaster for the party…

    Dude. Chill.

    Next president will be a Democrat.

    The only disaster any political party is going experience is the sinkhole of abject dementia and abyssal failure into which the Republican party is falling, flailing and thrashing and bursting into crispy puffs of flame like a nest of ants that has dropped into a red-hot barbecue grill.

  165. 165.

    Nate Dawg

    @Cacti: Oh come on. I’m supporting Hillary, and it irks me as well that she cleared the field.

    It’s bad for party building, and just plain presumptuous. What if she had a stroke and dropped out?

    We’d have *no* choice but Bernie, and that is genuinely scary.

    Sometimes, the things people say about the Clintons have some basis in reality.

  166. 166.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    @Nate Dawg: I can see Bernie doing better than Hilz in CA, but she’ll do better in NY and IL.

    @mclaren:

    Next president will be a Democrat.

    I don’t share your confidence, I wish I did.

  167. 167.

    mclaren

    @chopper:

    according to you Jeb! is supposed to walk away with the GOP nom. what gives?

    Eh?

    Show me where I said that.

    I have standing bets with several Democrats that Jeb Bush will not be the Republican nominee.

  168. 168.

    gwangung

    @Nate Dawg: Though I have to wonder…would it have made any difference if the field wasn’t cleared. Given the limp performance of O’Malley, who couldn’t get differentiate himself enough from Clinton, I’m wondering if a larger field would have made any difference.

  169. 169.

    SFAW

    @Germy:
    That was awesome, especially the sad violin.

    I think the only way to add to it would have been a voice-over by Marvin (from the original Hitchhiker’s, I haven’t seen any of the reboots).

  170. 170.

    Seebach

    @gwangung: Elizabeth Warren? The antisexism of Clinton with the policy of Sanders? Yeah that would have been a nightmare.

    We dodged that fucken bullet

  173. 173.

    PhoenixRising

    Seriously y’all my 16yo asked me why we have Republicans earlier.

    This was a few moments after I explained to her what the GOP candidates’ preferred abortion restrictions would mean (‘if a guy overpowered you and got you pregnant you’d have to have the baby, because it would be illegal for [your aunt] to give you medicine to make you not pregnant anymore’ was concise but hard to understand because it makes no fucking sense).

    And I was hard pressed to come up with an answer that relates to the country I live in, not the one I wish I lived in. ‘Why are there people who think these things in elected office?’ is a poser.

  175. 175.

    mclaren

    @Seebach:

    W Bush got close enough to steal it.

    W. Bush had a far-right-tilted Supreme Court backing him up. Plus, Dubya came off like Aristotle compare to the six stooges running for the Republican nomination this time.

  176. 176.

    slag

    @Kay: It’s interesting how Obama is frequently doing the job of the press by explaining to the American people how American politics works while the press is frequently doing the job of the politician by feigning outrage and playing dumb. Weird.

  177. 177.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Seebach: Huh. That’s not even close to what you said, but as you demonstrated this morning, you are a fucking moron.

  178. 178.

    aimai

    @Nate Dawg: That’s pretty nuts, you know? How is any presidential candidate responsible for making sure that the party has an alternative if they drop dead? Sanders self selected into the role of candidate and other people could have done so too. The party didn’t prevent them from running.

  179. 179.

    chopper

    @mclaren:

    right here:

    Jeb will be the Republican nominee. He could kick a pregnant woman in the stomach during one of the debates and the moderaters would praise him for his “refreshing refusal to follow the old tried-and-true hackneyed sound bites of Washington politics.”

  180. 180.

    Jacel

    @Kay: The framing of a federal land question (at least one I heard) was a little jumbled, but I think Bernie addressed the actual point of it, which was that since there’s now resistance to the idea of federal management of land, what would he do as President to live up to sustaining responsible use of federally managed land. I don’t think the question was in any way objecting to federal involvement.

  181. 181.

    Cacti

    @Seebach:

    Elizabeth Warren? The antisexism of Clinton with the policy of Sanders? Yeah that would have been a nightmare.

    We dodged that fucken bullet

    Warren underperformed Obama by more than 225,000 votes in solid blue Mass. during the 2012 election.

    The idea that she would have been a force of nature POTUS candidate in 2016 isn’t borne out by her actual political chops shown to date.

  182. 182.

    Seebach

    @mclaren: America is a trash country filled with the world’s biggest idiots, cowards, and immoral monsters. Why do you think anything good can happen here? We re-elected a warmongering torturer.

    Trump is more than we deserve.

  183. 183.

    Nate Dawg

    @gwangung: A presidential race raises the profile for back-benchers, and gives them the opportunity to test their message in a national election. This will be important in 2020, 2024.

    @Frankensteinbeck: Do you not think she did? She has a sycophant in charge of DNC, who rigged the debate schedule to be lean and unwatched. She lined up donors and party elites long, long in advance, and then used the aura of inevitability and entitlement to make a case against anyone getting in. I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that she made a positive case to a potential rival (Warren, McCaskill, perhaps), but that will never be known. You must be really, really naive if you think that an open election nets 1 actual establishment candidate by coincidence.

  184. 184.

    gwangung

    @Seebach: Hm. I had the impression Warren was like, “The Presidency? ARE YOU KIDDING??? Why the hell do you think I want to do THAT?”

  185. 185.

    chopper

    @Seebach:

    America is a trash country filled with the world’s biggest idiots, cowards, and immoral monsters.

    and also wonderful examples of humanity such as yourself.

    Trump is more than we deserve.

    some of us at least.

  186. 186.

    Scotian

    It seems to me rather obvious Sanders will only stay a Democrat as long as he is the Presidential candidate, else why would he still be running for the 2018 Senate seat in Vermont as an Independent? If he really was serious about being a Democrat he would have also made the change in designation there too, but as this link states he apparently has not done so.

    https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/bernies-running-for-re-election-too/

    I’ve been watching with befuddlement at the complaints of team Sanders about how the superdelegates are almost totally siding with Clinton, as if the fact she spent her adult life working for the party while he only joined after a quarter century a few months ago so as to run for the nomination carries no real weight or make any real difference between the two. I do find it somewhat telling that none of his fellow Senators seem to be willing to side with him in the superdelegate choices to date, since he supposedly is as good as a Democrat because he votes and caucuses with them there.

    Why should the Democratic party be required to rewrite its rules just for the Sanders campaign to make it easier for them? I just find that incredibly arrogant myself. For example I’ve been hearing about how Sanders won Iowa in the popular vote after demanding they release such, this despite my understanding of that process making it impossible for anyone to make that claim because there is no such record for such in the Iowa caucusing system. Why the need to make this sort of thing up when the process shows something different?

    Anyway, the main point being I simply see Sanders as a Democrat of convenience not of conviction, and if it is that clear to me, a Canadian up in Nova Scotia, I have to think it is for many within the Party itself and a major hurdle Sanders has to overcome, and a real problem as this moves into States where the loyalty to the party is greater and the bulk of the party membership is of the moderates and conservative Dems who are also a part of that party as opposed to the hard core far left and liberals that have been the main part of the Sanders “revolution” to date. The Democratic coalition is just that, and Sanders has to show he can really appeal to a much broader part of that coalition than he has to date, and so far, I’m not seeing that element of the Party feeling the Bern. If anything I get the vibe they are disturbed at the Berning down the party/house instead.

    Ah well, the next couple of weeks will finally start to really answer whether Sanders has that broad support and is viable as the candidate, or whether the Clinton side has been correct all along about the fundamental shallowness of the Sanders message and revolution. Sure there is intensity, but is there truly depth, that is the question that really goes to the heart of the electability question I submit.

  190. 190.

    Nate Dawg

    @aimai: STRAW MAN ALERT.

    It’s not anyone’s responsibility to make sure they have rivals. That is perfectly consistent with being irked that Clinton actively cleared the field.

    Again, to repeat, to the HRC backers here who can’t tolerate even the barest of criticism–she didn’t do anything illegal, nor even that unseemly. It’s just irksome that she cleared the field, and quite a gamble too.

    I would have preferred a real choice between two actual Democrats, instead of this nonsense.

    That said, she’s not taking *anything* for granted this time, and I’m glad she’s on our team.

    She may be shady, but I’m glad she’s going to be shady FOR US*.

    *(for the most part)

  191. 191.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Nate Dawg: The Republican field, this cycle and the last, was lousy with people who ran for president to sell books, boost their speaking fees, collect names and chits for future lower level candidacies. What stopped any Democrat– besides two barely-dems, Webb and Chaffee– from doing the same.

    Claire Fucking McCaskill?

  193. 193.

    Frankensteinbeck

    @Nate Dawg:
    I am not sure it’s even physically possible for her to ‘clear the field’, as witnessed by the fact that two other people are in the race. If you are saying they stayed out because she’s done a better job of preparing and they thought they couldn’t beat her, I’m not sure what you expect her to do differently. ‘Clear the field’ implies she took action to make them unable to enter, but what you’re describing sounds like she’s just the best campaigner and they decided not to get their asses handed to them like O’Malley is. So, what is she supposed to do? Not run? Tell donors ‘Oh, no, it’s not fair, go give that other guy money.’?

  194. 194.

    mclaren

    Just a friendly reminder to the hectic and worried among you:

    You’re the crew who assured us that doom was upon us at the end of last year when the debt ceiling “crisis” loomed. I told you to chill, it was a non-problem.

    The more excitable among you showered me with the usual shitstorm of invective.

    At the end of the day, who was right?

    You’re also the people who ran around like sow bugs under a burning magnifying glass shrieking that the supreme court would shut down the ACA. Even Cole became hysterical and starting shrieking that canard. I told you to chill, it was not going to happen.

    Once again we got the usual pissing contest. Unfortunately for you folks, if you want to get into a pissing contest with me, you’d better grab your scuba gear.

    Once again…at the end of the day, who was right?

    This election is yet another non-problem. We do have plenty of problems right now. Reining in America’s out-of-control military-industrial soft coup, in which the U.S. military/national security complex and its parasitic weapons contractors have effectively taken control of the U.S. budget and U.S. policy after 9/11. Reforming America’s broken health care system. Fixing our collapsing higher eduction system, now financed by a hopeless Ponzi scheme enforced by draconian bankruptcy laws that make it impossible to discharge college debt. America’s crony capitalist monopoly system of kakistokleptocracy, which used to be something resembling a regulated free market, and is now just a legalized loansharking scheme bloated up to obscene scale. Global warming. The coming robot-driven collapse of capitalism, where everything is mostly free and no one has a job.

    Yes, we have lots of problems facing us.

    But the next presidential election is not one of them.

  195. 195.

    mclaren

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    ‘Clear the field’ implies she took action to make them unable to enter…

    Well, obviously Hillary is going to deploy her ninja sniper squad if things get tough enough.

    (rolls eyes)

  196. 196.

    Seebach

    @Nate Dawg: Give it up man, Hillary Clinton is perfect. So perfect she’s way better than Obama, who stole her birthright from her eight years ago, and yet is somehow also the best president ever now and needs Clinton to carry on his legacy? I don’t really get it but

  197. 197.

    Cacti

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    I am not sure it’s even physically possible for her to ‘clear the field’, as witnessed by the fact that two other people are in the race. If you are saying they stayed out because she’s done a better job of preparing and they thought they couldn’t beat her, I’m not sure what you expect her to do differently. ‘Clear the field’ implies she took action to make them unable to enter, but what you’re describing sounds like she’s just the best campaigner and they decided not to get their asses handed to them like O’Malley is. So, what is she supposed to do? Not run? Tell donors ‘Oh, no, it’s not fair, go give that other guy money.’?

    That’s why I find the “cleared the field” protests a load of crap.

    People cleared themselves for fear of losing.

  199. 199.

    Nate Dawg

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: As has been documented numerous times, HRC had locked up endorsements, donors, and party levers long in advance of the primary, such that the *only* people to run against her were moon-shot whack-a-loons.

    You want to ask who would run? There are plenty of candidates that might have tried their hand, had their been any air. We will NEVER KNOW because HRC cleared the field.

    Biden, Klobuchar, Warren, McCaskill, Hickenlooper. Any of these persons: https://democraticgovernors.org/

  201. 201.

    gwangung

    @Nate Dawg: That doesn’t quite follow directly from my speculation. How good of a test run is it if you sink without a trace before the first primary?

    And I think “lining up donors and party elites long, long in advance” is precisely what ANY candidate does to be successful. That’s not evidence of “clearing the field.”

    Clinton would have formidable in any conceivable situation as an experienced campaigner with international experience and long term work for the party. I think it’s equally likely that potential challengers took a look at that, did some soundings and concluded that they weren’t ready to challenge that yet.

  202. 202.

    SFAW

    @chopper:

    Why bother with him? As has become clear, whenever anyone calls bullshit on any of his pronouncements, he misdirects and tries to distract to some other issue, and eventually starts speaking in Tongues (figuratively speaking). The Elizabeth Warren idiocy is just the most recent example.

    I do admire your intestinal fortitude, however.

  203. 203.

    Frankensteinbeck

    @Cacti:
    It’s also not a ‘coronation’ if she wins because she kicked everybody’s ass so hard they didn’t even make a showing, and it’s not a ‘coronation’ if she has a serious competitor (even one who is currently losing badly, like Sanders) that she wins over.

  204. 204.

    Cacti

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    How did she clear the field? If people weren’t willing to run against her, how is that on her?

    It was mean and unfair that other Dems found her too formidable?

  205. 205.

    Nate Dawg

    @Cacti: Yes, that is what CLEARED THE FIELD means.

    I’m not saying she got all Vince Foster on her potential rivals.

    I’m merely irked that she so deftly used every resource available to her to make her nomination extremely likely.

    That said, I’m *glad* she has that fighting spirit. She’s on our side after all.

    Still, I preferred 2008 where there was a genuine debate among actual peers, rather than this Bernie sideshow with Chaffe – Webb asterisk candidacies.

  207. 207.

    SFAW

    @Seebach:

    Oh, quit whining, you candy-ass. You remind me of Jeb’s pathetic “please clap” whine.

    Yet another piece of evidence that your a Republican troll.

  208. 208.

    Seebach

    @SFAW: I don’t get how I’m the Republican troll when you’re the one defending the candidate with Republican talking points? Can’t people on the same side disagree over tactics?

  210. 210.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Nate Dawg:

    I’m merely irked that she so deftly used every resource available to her to make her nomination extremely likely.

    You are irked that a politician was good at politics? I am confuzzled.

  211. 211.

    Jacel

    @jl: I remember several decades ago when CBS was on the market and Garrison Keillor humorously announced he was the new owner of the network. He described plans for changes in the broadcasts, including adding a band to the CBS Evening News. Some days there’s more news of interest and other days you have to hype something up to fill the news hour. So on those days, when they finished all the news stories worth reporting, the CBS anchor would turn to the band and say, “Hit it!” for the remainder of the show.

  212. 212.

    gwangung

    @Nate Dawg:

    Yes, that is what CLEARED THE FIELD means.

    No. It doesn’t.

    I’m merely irked that she so deftly used every resource available to her to make her nomination extremely likely.

    Funny, I call that being competent.

  214. 214.

    SFAW

    @Seebach:

    You’re a Republican troll because you can’t take responsibility for how inane, childish, and bullshit your “arguments” are, and when you get called on them, you do your whiny, petulant schtick.

    And I’m not supporting a Republican, I’m supporting whomever is the Dem nominee. And last I heard, Hillary is the only Democrat still in the race. Or has Bernie suddenly decided to join the Democrat Party?

    ETA: And the only persons spouting “Republican talking points” are Republicans. I realize the voices in your head tell you otherwise, but those voices are, shall we say, confused.

  215. 215.

    Nate Dawg

    Seems that a fair number of you are such ardent supporters that you can’t acknowledge that clearing the field might have negative consequences, because that would be anti-HRC, or something.

    I get how from her perspective, she’s just playing politics. (And doing well at it, yes yes yes, thank Dog this time!)

    From a different perspective, it could have negative consequences and is quite risky.

    I can support her while acknowledging that. It’s okay. HRC’s winning this election won’t be affected at all by my acknowledgement of this. This will not cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe!

    Promise.

  216. 216.

    Suzanne

    @Betty Cracker: Honestly, I know that there are definitely legitimate, valid reasons to not be for HRC, but I believe that at least 80% of the people that find her quote-unquote “unlikeable” just cannot handle when a woman is smarter than they are. (Note I am just talking about those whom us on her likeability, not her policy positions.)

    The Rethugs are okay with women if they’re crazy and/or stupid. They’re marginally okay with smart women as long as they stand back and don’t say much. But a smart, outspoken woman is A WITCH and must be BUUUUURNED!

  218. 218.

    Seebach

    @SFAW: Seems like you’re sore that Bernie isn’t a so-called “Democrat” while you’re candidate is talking Iran sanctions, why it isn’t necessary to break up banks, why immigrant families need to be split up, etc etc

  219. 219.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Nate Dawg: Seems that a fair number of you are such ardent supporters that you can’t acknowledge that clearing the field might have negative consequences
    No, you just haven’t made a convincing case.

  220. 220.

    Frankensteinbeck

    @Nate Dawg:
    People are irked because ‘cleared the field’ implies she took steps to prevent competition, which in turn implies cheating and an unwillingness to face people on an equal platform. There is no evidence of any of that, only that she competed so well that a lot of people did not bother. If you’re saying it’s a shame she’s such a good campaigner that only two people even bothered to try, I’m not going to shed many tears for that loss. Bernie, who did bother to try, is doing a fine job of providing a conversation over issues.

  223. 223.

    Nate Dawg

    From a *party perspective”, it is best to have options. Options are good. For one candidate to gather the donors, endorsements, super delegates, and party levers (DNC, debate schedule, etc) before *any* votes have been cast is *not* exactly small-d democratic.

    Given this, that Bernie Sanders’ critique of her is so potent should really not be all that shocking. She is extremely vulnerable to this argument, and I expect Trump will make it effectively against her in the Fall (although, still lose).

  224. 224.

    SFAW

    @Seebach:

    I frankly don’t give a rat’s ass that Bernie has an I or a D after his name; you’re the only one who seems intent on calling the only actual Democrat in the race a “Republican.”

    OK, time for you to misdirect to some other bullshit talking point of yours. Go for it!

  226. 226.

    Jacel

    @Betty Cracker: Hillary’s first steps of low key “listening tours” seemed like a great approach to set the more personal tone of her campaign. If I remember right, it was her listening events early last year in New Hampshire that flushed out the heroin problem as a topic of great local concern.

  227. 227.

    Nate Dawg

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Jim, I’m not going to go personally curate a reading list for you so that you’re caught up on basic facts that have been well documented for about a year now. You can do that yourself.

    @Frankensteinbeck: Okay, fair enough. Probably a semantic problem here. Clearing the field is not in any way “cheating”. It’s good politics from a CLINTON perspective. From a DEMOCRATIC perspective, it’s short-sighted.

    I’ll just rest my case by noting that David Axelrod and the Obama administration have publicly expressed annoyance at Clinton’s inability to gain traction. It’s fair to say that their annoyance would be mitigated if there were any other potential candidate gaining support, instead of a non-Democrat democratic Socialist. That is, they are expressing annoyance that she has a) cleared the field and b) is fumbling the ball.

    This isn’t just me, y’all.

  228. 228.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Nate Dawg: She is extremely vulnerable to this argument, and I expect Trump will make it effectively against her in the Fall

    “Don’t vote for Hillary because she convinced people to support her”?

    Bernie’s charges that she’s a Wall St sell out, trump is already repeating.

    ETA:

    @Nate Dawg: You can do that yourself.

    Thanks, but I think what you’re arguing is… less than compelling.

  229. 229.

    Nate Dawg

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. She had the donors wrapped up BEFORE the votes were cast. The donors are Wall Street. She is bought and paid for, and bought the election. That’s the critique (I don’t agree with it, don’t flame.)

  231. 231.

    Seebach

    @Nate Dawg: Clinton supporters make supporting Clinton obnoxious! She’s probably our best option but the lack of ability to handle any criticism doesn’t bode well.

    “You just haven’t made any criticisms that are worth responding to,” uh-huh

  232. 232.

    SFAW

    @Nate Dawg:

    That is, they are expressing annoyance that she has a) cleared the field and b) is fumbling the ball.

    Yeah, B and Axe called me the other night, said exactly that.

  233. 233.

    Nate Dawg

    I just want someone to ask Bernie “How the FUCK are *you* going to accomplish more than Barack Obama did? Like really, man, really?”

    Everytime he runs against the “fake change” of the “establishment” (read: Obama), I want to barf. He’s spitting in the face of our hard fought gains (which he doesn’t value, obviously), and risking losing them altogether (which is not a big loss, because he doesn’t value them.)

    Not feeling the bern.

  234. 234.

    Nate Dawg

    @SFAW: Did you not see Axelrod’s public tweet criticizing Hillary?

    Read between the lines. If her support was going ANYWHERE ELSE, there would be NO REASON to tweet that. The *only* reason they are annoyed is because she’s the ONLY viable democratic candidate. If it were another Democrat that was threatening her win, they wouldn’t give two shits. They have come out in support of Hillary before South Carolina, which is an unprecedented move for a sitting President to anoint a successor…..

  235. 235.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Nate Dawg: @Nate Dawg: As has been documented numerous times, HRC had locked up endorsements, donors, and party levers long in

    I’ll just rest my case by noting that David Axelrod and the Obama administration have publicly expressed annoyance at Clinton’s inability to gain traction. It’s fair to say that their annoyance would be mitigated if there were any other potential candidate gaining support, advance of the primary,

    She had the donors wrapped up BEFORE the votes were cast. The donors are Wall Street. She is bought and paid for, and bought the election.

    Jesus, you’re all over the place

  240. 240.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Seebach: I hope the Quinnipac polls are skewed.

    Actually, there have been a lot of problems with their sampling in the last couple years. But I suspect they’re correct in that Bernie does very well when no one runs against him.

    @Nate Dawg: Don’t argue in bad faith. It’s rather childish.

    It’s not bad faith, I genuinely find you completely fucking incoherent.

  241. 241.

    divF

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:
    I am not worried about a Donald vs. Hilary battle. A few examples:
    – Donald will lose his shit when Hilary starts laughing at him.
    – Donald reminds every woman of a loud-mouthed, asshole, overbearing ex-boss / ex-boyfriend / ex-husband – the gender gap will peg the meter.
    – New Yorkers, to a large extent, detest The Donald, even right-wingers. That includes the ones who retired to Florida.

  243. 243.

    Nate Dawg

    Just watching this townhall and noticing that Bernie Sanders says about *everything* “I fought against”

    TPP, NAFTA, Iraq, Guest Worker Program, etc.

    He’s literally the least successful member of the Senate by his own admission because he’s *failed* at stopping everything he’s fought against. That’s the impression, at least. Has he accomplished anything he’s proud of? I’d be curious to hear about that.

  247. 247.

    Nate Dawg

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: I think the cognitive dissonance for you is that I can a) support Hillary and b) criticize her risky backroom tactics.

    It’s a more sophisticated view than the rah-rah cheerleaderism you’re accustomed to, sure, but it’s not incoherent.

  250. 250.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Nate Dawg:

    criticize her risky backroom tactics.

    What many of us are questioning is what is it that she did that was, in your opinion, a risky backroom tactic?

  251. 251.

    SFAW

    @Seebach:

    Oooh, another “My arguments are silly, so I’m going to point at something else!” thing out of you. What a surprise.

    Or, as Shakespeare or someone else said: “Grow the fuck up.”

  252. 252.

    Nate Dawg

    @SFAW: He was literally a Republican for most of his career and came from a local Republican dynasty.

    What is the mental illness where someone knows nothing but thinks they know everything? You might wanna self-diagnose.

  253. 253.

    Seebach

    @SFAW: Nah it’s just been a thing I noticed with your “voices in your head” schtick that goes on. When’s the last time you volunteered in a mental hospital?

  255. 255.

    SFAW

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    OK by me. Although sometimes I think the responses of certain commenter(s) here is a latter-day “The Punk And the God Hog Blogfather”

    But that’s because I’m an evil person who apparently makes fun of persons with mental illness.

    (By the way, Nate Dawg, apparently you suffer from mental illness? At least according to “Seebach.” I didn’t realize that, My apologies.)

  257. 257.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Seebach: everyone who disagrees with you is mentally retarded

    Not a term I throw around, and neither should you, asshole.

  258. 258.

    SFAW

    @Seebach:

    Doesn’t commenting here count?

    You may be the thinnest-skinned commenter we’ve seen here in a long while. Kind of ironic, with all your gratuitous, omnipresent “Hillary is a Republican” bullshit.

  259. 259.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @SFAW:

    But that’s because I’m an evil person who apparently makes fun of persons with mental illness.

    Well, yeah. You are a Jets fan, right?

  260. 260.

    Nate Dawg

    @SFAW:

    (By the way, Nate Dawg, apparently you suffer from mental illness? At least according to “Seebach.” I didn’t realize that, My apologies.)

    That’s kind of you, thanks, but I don’t know Seebach, and s/he doesn’t know me. Not true, also, I think! :-)

    We can stay on topic and not get into tangential irrelevancies here. You didn’t offend me in the slightest.

    EDIT: Which is to say, I like BJ because it’s not an easily offended commenting crowd, so let’s keep it that way, @Seebach.

  261. 261.

    Seebach

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Oh I’m sorry, what does “puddinghead” refer to? Or is that an acceptable way to put it? What are the correct, funny ways to say it where you don’t have to feel guilty about being a bigot?

    Or is his head made of delicious dairy treat? That would be the “literal” read

  264. 264.

    Seebach

    @SFAW: For a charge that has no merit, it sure makes you have schitzophrenia! And anorexia! I have a medical book here LOL I can read big words

  265. 265.

    Nate Dawg

    @Seebach: He was referring to a classic of American literature….

    And it was actually kind of cute, given the shit I had thrown at him a few lines up.

    Lighten up.

  273. 273.

    Seebach

    @Omnes Omnibus: I dunno, Mark Twain coined the term the “Gilded Age” and thought massive inequality of wealth was a bad thing. I’d hate to make Clinton supporters feel uncomfortable with his intemperate rhetoric.

  274. 274.

    SFAW

    @PJ:

    About time someone picked up on that one! “Back in the day,” someone would have spotted that within one or two replies. (Well, that assumes anyone actually reads my replies, which may not be a valid assumption.)

    Anyway, I was doing it for Seebach’s benefit. Interesting that he took it all in stride, no comment like yours, all after pretending he’s not a Repub troll.

  275. 275.

    Jacel

    @Nate Dawg: The 2008 Democratic presidential candidate field, at the time, brought tears to my eyes at the time of how good that group of people on the debate stage were. Everyone was proven in substantial public office. The debates, even with a slew of people (was it 8?) were illuminating. I was very proud to be a Democrat. I went in supporting Edwards, as I did in 2004 when he actually looked better. When he faded, I was rather surprised to find myself casting a primary vote for Obama. Compared to Clinton and others, Obama was new to me. But the primary process and the frequent debates had established him as my first choice out of a good field.

  276. 276.

    Nate Dawg

    @Seebach: I love when Republicans pretend to be offended at social injustice to stir up shit.

    It’s like watching a blind man play darts. They don’t even know where the target *is*.

  277. 277.

    Seebach

    @SFAW: Sure you were doing it to catch me. However, if you’re the actual Republican troll it would make sense why you would be so supportive of a neoliberal warhawk.

  278. 278.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Seebach: Oh, I have the answer to your request from this morning. It isn’t numbers, but the number proving HRC isn’t a Republican in drag is 42. Happy to help.

  280. 280.

    Seebach

    @Nate Dawg: You were just attacked by rabid Clinton supporters yourself not ten minutes ago and now I’m a Republican. You do realize which candidate you’re arguing for, right? The one who won’t release her Goldman Sachs speeches until Sanders releases his Vermont County Fair speeches?

  281. 281.

    SFAW

    @Seebach:

    Wow, now you can’t even construct a coherent sentence. Outstanding!

    And, genius, nowhere did I use the term “schizophrenia.” My response to Jim was probably a little too obscure for you, because it didn’t refer to anyone saying Hillary was a tool of the banksters or some such. I’d guess a fair number of the others here, however, got the Ben Carson ref.

    Or maybe you did, and are just playing stupid.

  283. 283.

    Seebach

    @Omnes Omnibus: “in drag” wow, nice sexism. And I read Hitchhiker’s Guide too like 30 years ago. That’s dated.

    She’s not a party member of the GOP. She just shares their outlook on the world. Superpredators and such

  284. 284.

    Nate Dawg

    @Seebach: I don’t base my political decisions on a comment section.

    I realize that shatters the entire premise of your endeavor here, but it’s the rational thing to do. Sorry.

    I’m voting for Hillary, and you should too. :-p

    EDIT: Also, rabid? You wanna see rabid, look at any leading Republican rally. This is just smack-talking among friends and fellow-travelers. Which you most certainly are not. Good-bye.

  286. 286.

    SFAW

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Oh, I have the answer to your request from this morning. It isn’t numbers, but the number proving HRC isn’t a Republican in drag is 42.

    Ah, but what was the question that resulted in the answer of “42”?

  288. 288.

    SFAW

    @Seebach:

    She’s not a party member of the GOP. She just shares their outlook on the world.

    You just keep getting sillier and sillier. Reince must be so proud.

  289. 289.

    Seebach

    @Nate Dawg: I will if she can win the primary with her “I’m not inspiring and trying is too hard but here are some weak promises I may back out on if it becomes convenient to triangulate with the Republicans on increasing our involvement in the middle east or waging the drug war” schtick. I know that sells me on her “don’t hope and slight change” Obama playbook.

    I can FEEL the halfhearted incrementalism if it doesn’t get in the way of my making cash on the side vibe.

  290. 290.

    Nate Dawg

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    @Seebach: You are, I submit, not very well informed.

    @Seebach, Can I be you for a second and save you the effort?

    Here goes: “Making fun of those who aren’t well educated, eh? I guess that’s to be expected from someone who supports the candidate of the neoliberal elite.”

    See, you aren’t necessary. You can leave now.

  291. 291.

    Seebach

    @SFAW: I have never been a Republican and do not support the Republican agenda. I find this non-negotiable, whereas your principles are apparently based on convenience.

  293. 293.

    Seebach

    @Nate Dawg: Neoliberal is key, but I feel you’re leaving out the warhawk part. Both are key to Clinton’s character. Obama was neoliberal but he’s nowhere as hawkish as Clinton. It’s the combination of both that’s just bad news.

  294. 294.

    Nate Dawg

    @Seebach: Losing general elections and having all your principles thrown to the wind is rather inconvenient, though, you must admit.

    Convenience for the win, I say!

  295. 295.

    SFAW

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You don’t normally state the extremely obvious – everything OK?

    And — apropos of nothing in particular — why the hell is it 15 degrees warmer in Green Bay than in Mass? Won’t all the cheese melt prematurely?

  296. 296.

    Seebach

    @SFAW: Silly is good, and I can accept this because it doesn’t involve mockery of mental illness. You’re learning how to be a decent human, and these are good steps to take before casting an important vote.

  297. 297.

    Nate Dawg

    I remember when Al Gore was such a neoliberal warhawk that we needed to vote for Ralph Nader.

    It certainly kept America’s hawkishness in check. Sure did, yup yup yup!

  299. 299.

    SFAW

    @Seebach:

    I find this non-negotiable, whereas your principles are apparently based on convenience.

    Ah, yes, the well-documented Republican projection. You got it in spades.

    So do your checks come from the RNC? Or Jeb!’s campaign directly?

  301. 301.

    Seebach

    @Nate Dawg: No, the argument was that Bush and Gore was essentially Coke vs Pepsi. Neoliberal wasn’t really a popular term and hawkishness was more in terms of interventionism, like in Bosnia/Kosovo, than in launching unprovoked “preemptive” wars based on shady intelligence only incompetents and craven opportunists voted for.

    Being a hawk now is an entirely different beast. Also after the 2008 financial crisis being in favor of too big to fail banks also makes you look unprincipled.

  302. 302.

    Seebach

    @SFAW: Jesus Christ, if I were a Republican I’d have better financing than fucking Jeb!. I only get my money from the finest Goldman Sachs donors.

  303. 303.

    SFAW

    @Seebach:

    Yeah, whatever. Oh, was I supposed to get all het up over your weak attempt to insult me? Sorry to disappoint.

    Now toddle off and tell Reince (or Jeb!) what a big boy you are, and can they pleasePleasePLEASE give you your allowance.

  304. 304.

    Nate Dawg

    @Seebach: Wait, did I say I was in favor of “too big to fail banks” or is some troll putting words into my mouth?

    Principles will only get you so far, kiddo. They won’t put food on our families, as Dubya would say.

  305. 305.

    Seebach

    @SFAW: I only take my money from Goldman, like I said. Something I’m sure you appreciate. We’re very ethical when we take our money from Goldman.

  306. 306.

    Seebach

    @Nate Dawg: You may not be, but your candidate certainly thinks breaking the banks up is useless. After all, it wouldn’t fix racism or sexism. So why even try?

    Why even try? Clinton 2016

  307. 307.

    SFAW

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Fondue!

    I said “prematurely.” (Although, I have to confess, I guessed you would have responded with “Tuna Melt.” With freshly-caught Lake Michigan tuna, of course. Which is why I added the adverb.)

  309. 309.

    Nate Dawg

    @SFAW: Silly is good, and I can accept this because it doesn’t involve mockery of mental illness. You’re learning how to be a decent human, and these are good steps to take before casting an important vote.

    This really should go in the Hall of Fame of trolling. Look at the form!

    And this was after recovering from a string of incoherent faux-“SJW” critiques that had fallen flat due to @Seebach’s ignorance about American literature.

    But it got right back up on that …. what animal do trolls ride around on? Well, it got right back up on that animal and kept at it.

    Bravo.

  312. 312.

    Nate Dawg

    @Seebach: Running on a platform of breaking up the big banks is useless, yes. That’s what Bernie Sanders is doing, and it is *indeed* useless. Clinton is savvy enough to know this, and so she doesn’t promise it. What she knows (that he doesn’t apparently) is that there are regulations that can be put into place to curtail the excesses of the financial sector without nationalizing the banks, which is, to be clear, a complete pipe dream.

    Sanders platform is “I FOUGHT AGAINST THAT”. What he doesn’t say is, he failed.

    Sanders 2016 — Not Too Proud to Lose

  313. 313.

    SFAW

    @Nate Dawg:

    Almost makes one miss Reich to Rise.

    No, not really. At least, not the racist part. But RtR was so full of shit, and such easy pickings, and just as intellectually dishonest as Reince’s Newest Pet. (RNP?)

  315. 315.

    Seebach

    @Nate Dawg: Ah, so she’s savvy! She’ll put those regulations back in place! The ones her husband helped remove!

    I’m so happy Hillary is going to undo the massive damage done by William Jefferson.

  316. 316.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Seebach: If you want to offer an argument for Sanders or against Clinton, go ahead. Just don’t base it on shit you pulled out of your ass.

  322. 322.

    Nate Dawg

    @Seebach: Glass-Steagall is not the only way to curtail speculative banking. It’s a blunt instrument, sure, and I’d support it being reimposed, but it’s not the only way to skin the cat.

    But let’s do Bernie a minute, since you’ve nailed Hillary so well:

    I”m gonna KEEP FIGHTING against ALL THESE THINGS I’VE FOUGHT AGAINST and I can promise you I’ll have the Same Success Rate I’ve had in Fighting against things–zero percent–because there is absolutely no way in hell a Democratic Congress, much less a Republican one, will approve even a fraction of my platform. But don’t let that stop me from taking your money, crashing the Democratic party, and promising the moon to the young and hopeful.

    Bernie Sanders 2016 — Because Pipe Dreams Really Can Come True

  323. 323.

    Seebach

    @Omnes Omnibus: What guarantee is there that Clinton’s cult of no personality will actually hold her to any of her promises? Their battle cry of “why bother” will surely take hold once the Republicans dig in and refuse to do anything. This is my major concern, assuming Clinton wins.

  326. 326.

    mclaren

    Because the shitstorm of frenzied envenomed verbal abuse aimed at me appears to have abated, here’s another cattle prod to stimulate the devotees of learned Democratic helplessness to shriek crazed insults at me:

    The intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic Party is nowhere more evident than in the looming presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Assumptions of the inevitability of her candidacy tend to ignore policy matters, focusing instead on her gender and her twenty years as a Washington insider. Many usually thoughtful people can find nothing more substantial to say in her favour than ‘it’s her turn.’

    …In slogging through it, one is reminded of why the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency is so dreary. … Nothing could more clearly illustrate the merger of economic and political power in the oligarchy that dominates American public life. Were Clinton to win, her victory would ensure the continuation of business as usual in Washington. The only change would be the return to power of the Clinton machine, an army of loyalists who have been milling about the capital for two decades but whose command has now shifted from Bill to Hillary. Despite their differing styles, the intent is the same: rewarding friends and punishing enemies, the latter with such precision that one of her staffers fears Hillary will come to seem little different from ‘Nixon in a pantsuit’.

    The sense of continuity is reinforced by the blizzard of worn buzzwords and market-researched phrases regurgitated by Clinton as she races round the globe…

    Source: “We came, we saw, he died,” Jackson Lear (review of volume 2 of Hillary Clinton’s autobiography in the London Review of Books), 5 February 2015.

    Meanwhile, Alex Pareen at Gawker has this to say about Hillary’s debate performance:

    At last night’s Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton invoked an unexpected figure: Henry Kissinger. “I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time,” she said, in an off-hand aside. It wasn’t an endorsement of Kissinger, or really much of anything. It was just a little brag that would have played well in a different room.

    The sort of room it would have played well in, really, is the sort of room in which the worst people in the country congregate. The fact that Clinton lapsed into speaking as if she were in that room is more or less why she’s having trouble, once again, convincing the Democratic electorate to nominate her for the presidency.

    Henry Kissinger, for the record, is a bad man, who waged a terrible and illegal war in Cambodia, supported a horrific right-wing strongman in Chile, and generally ran America’s foreign policy apparatus in the most amoral way possible, as a point of pride. However, in the bubble of elite American society, the bipartisan consensus, shared by politicians and members of the media alike, is that he’s simply a respected elder statesman.

    …Hillary Clinton exists in a world where “Henry Kissinger is a war criminal” is a silly opinion held by unserious people. Her problem? Lots of those silly and unserious people want to wrest control of the Democratic Party away from its current leadership, which is exemplified by people like Hillary Clinton.

    Source: “Hillary Clinton Has a Henry Kissinger Problem,” Gawker website, 5 February 2016.

    With Donald Trump blasting away at Jeb Bush for supporting endless unwinnable foreign wars that accomplished nothing but creating thousands of new terrorists while wasting five trillion dollars to accomplish nothing but create failed states, we now face the prospect that if Donald Trump is the nominee, he will be able to run against Hillary Clinton from the left.

    Seriously?

    You really want to go there, Hillary supporters?

    You really want to field a Democratic presidential candidate who can be successfully attacked from the left on foreign policy by the Republican presidential candidate…?

  327. 327.

    SFAW

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I don’t believe that is in the text of Hamlet. Maybe the Director’s Cut. I haven’t seen that.

    Actually, it’s the Tarantino reboot. In it, Hamlet decapitates Scar Claudius with a katana, Horatio blows away Laertes and Gertrude with an H & K MP5, and Ophelia ODs on placebos.

    It’s as close to a love story as Tarantino could come up with.

  328. 328.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Seebach: Actually, fuck you. You are suggesting that the people here who have made a decision for or are leaning toward HRC just have given up on liberal politics. A lot of us have volunteered, given money, canvassed, called and written to various politicians to support our views. We will continue to do so.

  329. 329.

    Seebach

    @mclaren: Of course they do. If Clinton goes all the way to the right, that means it’s ok, because she says she’s a Democrat on her poster, so anything she does is for the good team.

  330. 330.

    SFAW

    @Nate Dawg:

    My condolences to your ears and eyes.

    No worries. My “sacrifice” was for a good cause.

    Or at least, that’s what I tell myself as I’m trying to stop them from bleeding.

  332. 332.

    Nate Dawg

    @mclaren: Donald Trump isn’t going to be the nominee.

    Also, this is where we are: we have Bernie supporters cheering on Trump because he is the *only* candidate Bernie could conceivably win against.

    Although, it’s an interesting point that the Republican frontrunner can attack the Democratic nominee from the left. It’s been stated what an oddball year this is.

    But none of that is actually a positive argument for Bernie Sanders. Can we please make that argument, instead?

  333. 333.

    Seebach

    @Omnes Omnibus: Yes, I am. But I’m glad to hear about the writing and the calling and stuff, although Clinton probably doesn’t need the money of anyone here.

  334. 334.

    Seebach

    @Nate Dawg: Yes, Trump is going to be the nominee. Do you not see how terrible the Republican party is?

    Also, why is it not possible to point out that Clinton is a shitty candidate without thinking Sanders can win? He can’t. But can she?

  335. 335.

    mclaren

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Actually, fuck you.

    We can tell that Omnes Omnibus is a practicing lawyer rather than a lowly private first class in the Pentagon sub-basement hired to astroturf far-right talking points on liberal forums like this one because of Omnes’ sterling legal reasoning.

    Impeccable lines of legal logic like the above assure us that Omnes Omnibus is a Very Serious Person who must be Taken Very Seriously. Rather than, you know, some shmuck paid to astroturf this forum with pre-written talking points.

    Pro tip to the sock puppet operating Omnes Omnibus’ i.p. address tonight: this is what is known as “a rip in the legend,” a case in which the sock puppet pretending to be a lawyer violates the purported cover story under s/he operates that hi/r fake identity on the internet can no longer be taken seriously.

  336. 336.

    SFAW

    @Seebach:

    If Clinton goes all the way to the right,

    Other statements with the same likelihood:

    If you Republicans stop trying to block Obama wherever you can
    If I wake up tomorrow with a full head of hair
    If Ted Cruz becomes likeable
    If Ben Carson wakes up and says something coherent

  339. 339.

    mclaren

    @Nate Dawg:

    Donald Trump isn’t going to be the nominee.

    @Seebach:

    Yes, Trump is going to be the nominee. Do you not see how terrible the Republican party is?

    Listen all! This is the truth of it. Fighting leads to killing, and killing gets to warring, and that was damn near the death of us all. Look at us now, busted up and everyone talking about hard rain! But we’ve learned! By the dust of them all, Bartertown learned. Now, when men get to fighting, it happens here, and it finishes here! Two men enter; one man leaves.
    And now, I’ve got two men — two men with a gut full of fear. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, dying time’s here!
    Thunderdome’s simple. Get to the weapons. Use them any way you can. I know you won’t break the rules. There aren’t any. — Dr. Dealgood, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, 1985.

  340. 340.

    mclaren

    @Nate Dawg:

    I”m gonna KEEP FIGHTING against ALL THESE THINGS I’VE FOUGHT AGAINST and I can promise you I’ll have the Same Success Rate I’ve had in Fighting against things–zero percent–because there is absolutely no way in hell a Democratic Congress, much less a Republican one, will approve even a fraction of my platform. But don’t let that stop me from taking your money, crashing the Democratic party, and promising the moon to the young and hopeful.

    Bernie Sanders 2016 — Because Pipe Dreams Really Can Come True

    Now let’s try the Hillary Clinton version of your caricature:

    I”m gonna KEEP FELLATING ALL THESE TOXIC FAR-RIGHT IDEOLOGIES I’VE SUPPORTED and I can promise you I’ll have the Same Success Rate I’ve had in offering slightly more liberal version of neocon warmongering and trickle-down Reaganomics–zero percent–because there is absolutely no way in hell a Republican congress will approve even a fraction of my platform. But don’t let that stop me from taking your money, crashing the Democratic party, and promising to alienate the young and hopeful from our party forever.

    Hillary Clinton 2016 — Because You’ve Been Fucked Up the Ass For So Long by Republicans, You Won’t Care If A Woman Does It With a Strap-On

  343. 343.

    mclaren

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You were sane earlier this evening. Analytical even. I agreed with you. What happened?

    The private first class who operated your sock puppet earlier tonight from that Pentagon sub-basement left you incomplete and inaccurate notes on the internet conservations she initiated when it came time for change of shift, and you took over the sock puppet named Omnes Omnibus.

  345. 345.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @mclaren: So you were insane earlier? Got it. Not like shit posted on the internet is forever. It’s just up thread.

    ETA: Crazy now or crazy then. Pick one.

  346. 346.

    mclaren

    @Seebach:

    Of course they do. If Clinton goes all the way to the right, that means it’s ok, because she says she’s a Democrat on her poster, so anything she does is for the good team.

    Sadly true. IOKIYAD.

    AKA “It’s not fascism if WE do it!”

    As opposed to the Trump right-wing version.

    Incidentally, I love the December 8 Daily News with Trump’s right arm raised and the headline THE NEW FUROR. Such good times. Folks, we’re gonna party like it’s 1939!

  348. 348.

    mclaren

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Yet another rip in your legend. My oh my oh my. This is what happens when different operators fail to leave complete notes for their sock puppet’s behavior. Just upthread, the previous operator of the sock puppet called Omnes Omnibus said:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You need the argument, don’t you? Not tonight, honey, I have a headache.

    And now here you are arguing. But since you’re a different operator working the same sock puppet handle to astroturf this forum, of course you didn’t notice the discrepancy. The rest of us did, though.

    Ask your handler for larger cash payments. You’re just not incentivized enough to make this sock puppet thing convincing and successfully astroturf us with your right wing talking points.

  349. 349.

    Nate Dawg

    Wow. The Bernie people around here are batshit insane.

    (NB: Yes, I said night. Now I’m back. I must be a sock puppet.)

  350. 350.

    mclaren

    @chopper:

    Wow. Yep, back on October 2 of last year I did think Jeb would be the nominee. In all fairness, it’s been quite a while since then. What, 4 and a half months? A reminder to everyone: back then, Donald Trump led the Republican field by only 9 points.

    I haven’t thought Jeb would be nominee for quite a while now.

    Circumstances change, and when they change, I change my mind. What do you do?

  351. 351.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @mclaren: I wasn’t arguing, dear boy. I was pointing out that your comments on this thread are inconsistent. Facts are facts. People can read them.

  353. 353.

    Nate Dawg

    @mclaren: Can you point out where OO stated he was a lawyer and where he stated he was a pentagon grunt? That would make more sense. Right now, it certainly appears you’re spewing conspiracy theory.

  354. 354.

    mclaren

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Of course you’re arguing. And now you’re trying to deny that the previous operator of your sock puppet said what she said. Classic defense techniques for disinformation providers — deny, disrupt, degrade, deceive. Shift the conversation to a definition of terms whenever your sock puppetry gets outed and your astroturfing gets discredited.

    For anyone who’s interested in hi-tech disinformation campaigns like Britain’s GCHQ or the Kremlin online troll factory, see the article “How Does Disinformation Spread Online?”

  355. 355.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Nate Dawg: FWIW, I am a lawyer. And I was, between undergrad and law school, an army officer. To be specific, a parachute qualified field artillery officer.

  356. 356.

    mclaren

    @Nate Dawg:

    The sock puppet named Omnes Omnibus has never stated he’s a Pentagon grunt. I’m guessing that one. He has said he’s a lawyer in the past. He also claims to be ex-military, which is probably part of the `make the legend real’ cover. Every disinformation operator who needs to create a legend gets advised to keep the cover story as close to reality as possible, the better to avoid embarrassing lapses of memory. It would make perfect sense that the sock puppet called Omnes Omnibus claims to be ex-military, since he probably is a member of the military right now and likely works in some military-civilian liaison job involving online astroturfing.

    As for “conspiracy theory,” need I remind you that everything we progressives have been claiming for the past 10 years got dismissed as a conspiracy theory and then turned out to be true?

    * We claimed Dubya was lying about the evidence for WMDs in Iraq in 2002. “Conspiracy theory.” Turned out to be true.

    * We claimed Dubya was engaged in a massive effort to discredit and disrupt the Democratic party using government resources, including ginning up bogus indictments of Democratic U.S. attorneys. “Conspiracy theory.” Turned out to be true.

    * We claimed Dubya was using massive NSA surveillance against the entire American people. “Conspiracy theory.” Turned out to be true.

    * We claimed Obama was using the DHS to crush Occupy demonstrations. “Conspiracy theory.” Turned out to be true.

    And so on. “Conspiracy theory” in 2016 is the disinformation talking point for dismissing tomorrow’s headline.

  357. 357.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @mclaren: Address the disconnect between your earlier comments and your current ones. I dare you.

    I’ll look in the morning.

  358. 358.

    mclaren

    For those of you with short memories, my point 2 above refers to the 2006 scandal involving the dimissal of U.S. Attorneys.

    From wikipedia:

    The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy was initiated by the midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006, by the George W. Bush administration’s Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters. The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

    A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was “arbitrary”, “fundamentally flawed”, and “raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions.”

    There are an enormous number of additional outrages and scandals and war crimes and criminal acts committed during the Bush administration that I could just as easily cite as claims initially dismissed as “conspiracy theories” and then later proven true. It’s late in the evening, however, and people already complain about the length of my posts.

    In any case John Cole already has a term that covers this kind of disinformation effort: “The dirty fucking hippies were right.”

  359. 359.

    mclaren

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    The disconnect exists in the minds of your previous operator and in the current operator of your sock puppet. There is no disconnect out here in the real world.

    Address my suggestion that the U.S. government almost certainly currently operates a far-right astroturfing operation designed to discredit anti-war and anti-military/national security atttitudes and information, when we already know the Russian and British government operate such online astroturfing operations staffed by military and government personnel.

    I’ll study your response in the morning. (But there won’t be one, since disinformation operators have as their number one priority to steer the conversation away from their own astroturfing.)

  360. 360.

    Nate Dawg

    You’ve yet to show the disconnect that proves OO is an astroturf sockpuppet. Should be a simple cut and paste job. Like most conspiracy theories, (not all), it’s lacking evidence.

  361. 361.

    Applejinx

    @Nate Dawg: Why? The new Minneapolis Fed is prepared to consider it.

    I really, really don’t like when Democrats reflexively push for policy that’s more Republican than what Goldman Sachs alumns are suggesting. It makes it seem like present-day Democrats are nothing more than ‘Beltway Serious People’ wearing slightly different suits.

    I really, really don’t like behaving like this is football rivalries. Try this: to me, Bernie not being a ‘real Democrat’ is profoundly in his favor, because Democrats are those people who’d rather wank with superdelegates than turn people out for midterms. Democrats are killing us. They deserve no loyalty, and it seems to shock ’em when they get none,

    Earn people’s loyalty or get the hell out of the way.

    How right-wing would Clinton be right now if we didn’t have Bernie Sanders literally compelling her to tack left against her will and the will of ‘Democrats’?

  362. 362.

    SFAW

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    a parachute qualified field artillery officer.

    Must’ve been a humongous chute, for you to jump carrying a 155.

    ETA: And that’s what I would call “incoming.”

  363. 363.

    Neldob

    Do Democrats vote for whomever they are given and Republicans not so much? Why are our choices Bernie or Hilary? And the Republicans have more choices and dumped their annointed one. I agree, Hilary is pretty far to the right.

  364. 364.

    chopper

    @Nate Dawg:

    if you ever get on mclaren’s bad side (basically, disagree with him more than once) he starts accusing you of being part of a secret CIA psyop program deep in the pentagon, “getting paid cash money to disrupt my truth on political blogs”. it’s just part of his illness. i usually just roll play when he levels it at me.

  365. 365.

    chopper

    @mclaren:

    A reminder to everyone: back then, Donald Trump led the Republican field by only 9 points.

    a reminder to everyone: the post just above your post i referenced showed that trump was ahead of jeb by over 20 points at that time.

    so let’s just say your predictive abilities are, well, as worthless as the rest of the bilge you cough up on the days you’re off your meds.

  366. 366.

    SFAW

    @chopper:

    accusing you of being part of a secret CIA psyop program deep in the pentagon,

    Shit, I better not get on his bad side, or my cover will be blown.

  367. 367.

    Socraticsilence

    @magurakurin:

    To be honest Bernie’s been pretty lenient on bring up past opinions of Hillary Clinton in a way Republican candidates won’t be as well.

  368. 368.

    Socraticsilence

    @Nate Dawg:

    Honestly clearing the field was a double edged sword- it eliminated the chance of a superior politician with substantially similar positions on most issues but better skills and judgement trouncing her as happened in 2008 but it also raised the chance of what’s happening now – a candidate who actually pushes her hard ideologically emerging as the rival – – frankly she’s really, really lucky that the candidate is both protective of the party (almost strangely so from a person who only recently became a Democrat) and a relatively uncharismatic candidate who reads to most people as a typical old white guy (notwithstanding his actual life as a religious minority) – even a Warren level figure would be on the verge of breaking the race open much less someone with Sanders’ views but Obama’s skill set.

  369. 369.

    Socraticsilence

    @Marc:

    This, looking back on the 2008 arguments by Clinton partisans for flipping things with eh Super Delegates is…just wow– “Obama should wait his turn or come on as VP” even reading them now the sheer obliviousness is stunning- you actually had people argue that flipping the nomination was okay because African Americans are loyal Democrats and would still vote the right way but that Hillary would get the party’s base out- which I mean…..

Comments are closed.