Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Innocent people don’t delay justice.

This really is a full service blog.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

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

No one could have predicted…

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

The most dangerous place for a black man in America is in a white man’s imagination.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

In my day, never was longer.

“And when the Committee says to “report your income,” that could mean anything!

We’ll be taking my thoughts and prayers to the ballot box.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Mom & Dad Are Fighting Again!

Reader Interactions

431Comments

  3. 3.

    goblue72

    Just turned it on. Hillary is answering stupid email questions. And Sanders answering stupid email questions.

  10. 10.

    goblue72

    @Baud: I’m sick of hearing about half these questions.

    “Is Trump racist?”

    Though I would have preferred both to answer that question with “Hell yes. Next question.”

  17. 17.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    It might have made more sense to have more debates if we had 10 candidates or more. We might have greater viewership if we had a clown(they scare me) participating in a dick measuring contest on prime time TV. But we’re not Republicans.

  18. 18.

    jl

    I like Cracker’s great, fantastic and terrific, and The Best, illustrations, often praised by Top People.

    But Sanders doesn’t have nearly that much hair. Unfair to HRC!

  22. 22.

    SiubhanDuinne

    The moderators are terrific. HRC and Bernie are both really good at sticking to message and pivoting where necessary but I’m finding this among the best Dem debates to date.

  23. 23.

    jl

    The Democratic debated don’t have stop lights, or gongs, or bink-bonk noises. And these two bores are droning on about issues and stuff. No personal insults yet and we are almost half hour into the debate. No wonder no one watches them.

  24. 24.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    Bernie’s microphone(s) seem not to be working half the time.

    The questions seem to be pretty decent (except for the zombie e-mails again), but both of them are mostly going back to their canned answers.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  28. 28.

    Schlemazel (parmesan rancor)

    WAIT!!! I have been assure that the DNC has arranged for debates to only take place on Saturday night against some popular sportsball game.

  29. 29.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Bernie’s microphone(s) seem not to be working half the time.

    Conspiracy! Somebody dust for Washerman-Schultz-Brock’s prints!

    The questions seem to be pretty decent (except for the zombie e-mails again),

    The last batch of emails was released last week. They got hardly any coverage. I guess not even Sidney Blumenthal doesn’t even generate any outrage anymore.

  32. 32.

    jl

    @Baud: You should do your research on Baud! 2016! talking points before the debate starts. When are you on, anyway?

    They have these two boring old people on now, and they both sound sober. Baud! 2016! should be kicking their asses.

  36. 36.

    p.a.

    Either asked to explain the Michigan outcome?

    from Driftglass:
    As of this writing, Secretary Hillary Clinton still has a commanding lead in the delegate contest, and has earned every bit of it.

    But it turns out that Bill Clinton’s 1992 election strategy of “focusing like a laser” on the economy still has enormous resonance 24 years later with people who have been screwed, blued and tattooed by our rigged system.

    Senator Sanders took that message to America’s capital of de-industrialization and tomb of the American dream and told them that settling for a future of triangulation, crooked trade deals and amnesty for Wall Street hoodlums wasn’t good enough anymore. And voters responded.

    So good on him.

    Also both Democratic candidates continue to conduct themselves with light-years more substance and honor than the entire GOP field.

    So good on (almost) all of us.

  43. 43.

    TheBuhJaysus

    @jl:

    “The Democratic debated don’t have stop lights, or gongs, or bink-bonk noises. And these two bores are droning on about issues and stuff. No personal insults yet and we are almost half hour into the debate. No wonder no one watches them.”

    How do you compete with the freakshow on the other side?

    I’m watching Hawks and Blues. At least there’s plenty of bad blood in this matchup.

  44. 44.

    Aleta

    good answers on immigration. please don’t either of you lose. here come the attacks.

  45. 45.

    Llelldorin

    You know? I’m actually ok with having two of these a week until Philadelphia, if the alternative is weeks of nothing but Trump steaks and Cruz being insufferable.

    We have two very strong candidates. Let’s keep them on television.

  46. 46.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @p.a.: An early question to Hillary was (roughly) “what went wrong in Michigan”. She didn’t say that anything was wrong (“we’ve had some close contests, he won some, I won some…”). It was unreasonable to expect her to give a more detailed answer.

    The knives are coming out on the 2007 immigration vote now…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  47. 47.

    Mike in DC

    This is the last one until April. The April and May debates have not been scheduled formally, just agreed in principle.

  48. 48.

    goblue72

    Ok, I was falling asleep on the picking apart of immigration positions, but did Clinton just suggest Sanders support the Minutemen?

    Jesus.

  50. 50.

    Technocrat

    @p.a.:

    I’m always creeped out when we judge our candidates on their ability to read and manipulate the electorate. Selection pressure implies they will get better at that to the exclusion of much else.

    Smith 2057! “Because You Can’t Help Yourself”

  51. 51.

    jl

    @goblue72: One of HRC’s cheesier attack tactics backfired on her, and she had to backpeddle and take another shot at it. Hope both of them stay away from BS. I think Sanders BSd a little on his shifting arguments against immigrant visas.

    Edit: OK, HRC does some actual facts on immigration. I graciously pardon her for her recent transgressions.

  52. 52.

    SiubhanDuinne

    This is the most shallow thing I’ve ever posted here, but Hillary has had a very good lift. That droopy neck profile (from the January clip) is gone now and her jawline is much tighter now. But nothing obvious, nothing out of keeping with her age. Well done.

  54. 54.

    Aleta

    Instead of rehashing the bailout voting record again, it’s time to switch the focus and blame the Repubs for trashing the economy in order to leave Obama in a hole from the start.

  55. 55.

    PhoenixRising

    @jl: hahahahahahahahaha he stopped combing his hair with a balloon so you know he’s serious about this primary.

    More broadly, I love that they’re disputing the premise of The Trump’s wall. Because it’s not a possibility to do what he’s saying–that’s the difference.

  56. 56.

    scav

    Not going to watch, but if any raw — or cooked, I suppose, bottled — foodstuffs get paraded about will someone let me know? I’m making mental bets as to whether this Informercial political trend will continue or if it will warp into the Cooking Channel.

  57. 57.

    Davebo

    Bernie flubbed that one pretty badly. “Your children deserve to be with their mother”

  58. 58.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @SiubhanDuinne: I agree it’s shallow. Don’t yell at me Juicers! :-)

    Whoever does her makeup can do wonders, but it seems to vary from day to day. I don’t think she’s had any surgery done (how would she find the time?). There was a time in a debate in 2008 that she looked like she was 20 years younger, but within the next week she was looking closer to her age again.

    Bernie has aged a lot since that clip they showed…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  60. 60.

    TheBuhJaysus

    @goblue72:

    “but did Clinton just suggest Sanders support the Minutemen?”

    Bernie has a copy of Double Nickels on the Dime.

  61. 61.

    goblue72

    @PhoenixRising: I’d prefer if they led with “It’s Trump, so you know the Wall will be covered in fake gold and marble and light up at night in neon.”

  64. 64.

    Mnemosyne

    @Germy:

    I want one of those “King’s College Department of Drama” t-shirts.

    And Daveed Diggs seems to be under the mistaken impression that wearing glasses somehow makes him less hot. It does not.

  67. 67.

    jl

    Hmmm… looks like some GOP moles, who are pretending to be HRC fans, are saying that she looks like an old crone without a lot of face work and pounds of make-up. Unfair!

    What would Bernilly Clinters hybrid look like?

    Edit: I think my retinas just cracked into pieces with that hybrid thought.

  73. 73.

    jl

    Sanders will have to retreat into humorous snark to explain his BS on HRC speech transcripts.
    Which he seems to be doing.

    Sanders knows damn well there is virtually no chance anything interesting in those transcripts.

  74. 74.

    MomSense

    Secretary Clinton why aren’t you trustworthy?

    Senator Sanders do you think Clinton is trustworthy?

    And FFS Sanders either call her corrupt outright or stop with this BS about the speeches.

  75. 75.

    Kay (not the front-pager)

    @Baud: Whenever I see Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s initials I think at first that they refer to Designer Shoe Warehouse. Does that make me shallow?

  80. 80.

    jl

    Moderator questions edging toward standard CNN/Fox/broadcast network BS. Hope they get back to better questions.

  81. 81.

    goblue72

    @PhoenixRising: I highly recommend everyone to visit a Trump non-casino property at least once in their life. (Casinos are all tacky, so visiting a Trump one you don’t notice anything.)

  83. 83.

    Felonius Monk

    @Baud:

    How do you say “dick size” in Spanish?

    Depends who you ask. If it’s Trump, the reply is El Grande.

  84. 84.

    Aleta

    Been wondering why H doesn’t answer “I started out as a shy nerd …” She started in that direction tonight.

  85. 85.

    SiubhanDuinne

    Oh Bernie Bernie Bernie, PLEASE stop referring to yourself in the third person.

  87. 87.

    jl

    Debate now into GOP type nonsense attacks, but without the insults and yelling.
    Sanders clumsier at debate, but HRC is letting him get in good shots.

  89. 89.

    goblue72

    @goblue72: Oh Jesus. Now she’s trying to link Sanders with the Koch Brothers.

    The Clinton gutter politics & lies are coming out.

  90. 90.

    Betty Cracker

    Good for the crowd for booing the fucking Benghazi question. These moderators are Fox class, IMO.

  91. 91.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    Zooks! Benghazi question with a video from Fox News.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  97. 97.

    jl

    Benghazi/email/honesty trifecta angle! Daily triple points for this question?

    Edit: Sanders pivots away from Benghazi BS towards issues, but decides not to be gracious this time.

    [email protected]: and we have the debut of Bernie Danger?

  99. 99.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @jl: There’s this vague rumor that Sanders is a Socialist. Maybe they’ll ask about that after the commercials….

    (roll-eyes)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  105. 105.

    goblue72

    Would be nice if there was less Benghazi and more focus on foreign policy approaches. Its an area where there are meaningful differences between the candidates that gets at the core of the differing wings of the Democratic Party they each represent.

    Instead we get Benghazi.

  106. 106.

    mike in dc

    I agree, the two of them are starting to repeat both their talking points and attack lines against each other. It’s probably good that there’s only two debates left, and the next one won’t be for a while. She may not officially hit the number until June, based on some projections.

  107. 107.

    PhoenixRising

    @jl: that was a clean hit though.

    HRC is biased toward intervention. Sanders was happy that the US didn’t intervene in the post Vietnam era despite genocide in Cambodia. Theirs are legitimate disagreements about the role of US power in the world.

  108. 108.

    goblue72

    @redshirt: Never said that. But please exhibit the tone deafness and inability to listen to anyone older or younger than your generation that is the caricature of your generation.

  111. 111.

    Thoroughly Pizzled

    Please, Bernie, stop poisoning the well. I mean it. How are you going to restore faith in government if you convince people that you’re the only moral person in government?

  115. 115.

    different-church-lady

    @redshirt: He said, “Did you ever notice that everyone who drives slower than you is a moron, and everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac?”

  119. 119.

    FlyingToaster

    I just want someone to be brave enough to ask,

    ¿Quien es mas macho?

    And then say, “That’s who I’m NOT voting for!”

  122. 122.

    SiubhanDuinne

    Since the moderators arent asking about climate change, I’m glad Hillary brought it up herself.

  127. 127.

    Steve in the ATL

    @Felonius Monk:

    How do you say “dick size” in Spanish?

    Depends who you ask. If it’s Trump, the reply is El Grande.

    According to his ex-wives, it’s Pepe Pequeno.

    El zing!

  128. 128.

    misterpuff

    What is MSNBC thinking? Rubio Town Hall Dead Man Walking? Chuck Todd in the tank for establishment GOPers. Hope the ratings cratered.

  131. 131.

    PhoenixRising

    @Alex: oh, stop picking on him by pointing out his past votes on amendments and bills related to relevant issues! It’s mean to ask him to be accountable for the real consequences of his votes.

    Because he’s a revolutionary thinker with big ideas.

  132. 132.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @MomSense: What bothers me with Bernie’s approach is this:

    Even if one accepts that Millionaires and Billionaires™ are a big problem, the people in the Courts and in the Legislatures around the country have agency. They don’t call up Wall Street or Koch Industries every morning to figure out what to do that day. Lots of people have different views that have nothing to do with what the Millionaires and Billionaires™ want that particular day.

    How is Bernie going to get the Legislatures and the Courts to do what he wants when he’s basically calling everyone who doesn’t agree with him either a moron or corrupt? Maybe the Millionaires and Billionaires™ are a problem (I think they are), but I think a much bigger problem is reactionaries in the Courts and the Legislatures who have no intention of implementing his policies even if all the taxes Bernie talks about are imposed on the 1%.

    “Ah, but that’s where the Political Revolution™ comes in.” No, that’s not an answer. People getting riled up and sending letters that say “We agree with Bernie!” isn’t going to do it. Look at Sandy Hook…

    :-/

    Now he’s wanting to refight the health care battles. It’s not just the health insurance companies that don’t want to start over…

    (sigh)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  133. 133.

    Mnemosyne

    Since the debate sounds boring, I should probably push through and finish my Scrivener tutorial. Only 6 more chapters to go!
    /facepalm

  135. 135.

    Peale

    @Mnemosyne: How is scrivener? Did you also consider page four? I’ve been outlining a novel for a few months now and its time to begin.

  137. 137.

    Redshift

    @Aleta:

    I just want them to double team the Repubs all night long.

    That’s be nice, but their job right now is to try to draw distinctions between the two of them. Supposedly Hillary was pivoting to talking more about Trunk and less about Sanders after the last debate, and then Michigan happened, so we probably won’t be seeing that again for a while.

  139. 139.

    PhoenixRising

    @Peale: Scrivener is great software. I’m concerned that a tutorial makes it sound a lot harder to use than it is. Didn’t take one, didn’t need one.

  140. 140.

    Goblue72

    @Alex: You gotta dig pretty hard to treat that nothing burger as something. If THAT is anything serious, then Benghazi is most important topic in this election.

  143. 143.

    chopper

    @PhoenixRising:

    Because he’s a revolutionary thinker with big ideas.

    that’s on even numbered days. on odds days he’s “captain incrementalism, amendment king of the senate”.

  146. 146.

    Peale

    @Goblue72: Triangulating means reading polls and trying to figure out what appeals to voters. In a democracy, that’s a good thing. It’s a lot more responsive than trying to force ideas through the system. Want a revolution? Well throw out the democracy part. Its faster.

  147. 147.

    PhoenixRising

    @Goblue72: well, TBF, Sanders’ plan to continue bringing bills that even Democrats don’t support to die quietly in the Senate has no chance of affecting the problem. So…your point about how terrible compromise is, well taken.

  149. 149.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: . Look at Sandy Hook…
    Now he’s wanting to refight the health care battles. It’s not just the health insurance companies that don’t want to start over…

    The environment’s another issue that isn’t so clear cut. Coal especially is as much a cultural issue as any other sort

    MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — Shelley Brannon, 62, can sum up the Obama presidency with three words. Well, three words and an exclamation.
    “He screwed us,” said Brannon, a coal miner from Wise County, Va., as he sat outside a rally for the United Mine Workers of America. “Man, he screwed us.”
    He shook his head under a camouflage hat that matched his camouflage UMWA T-shirt, and he described his fantasy of dumping nuclear waste in the yards of environmentalists, “if they think coal’s so bad.” He mulled over the mistake he says the UMWA made in 2008, when it endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    The goober in question thinks he’s voting for Sanders, because Mr Peabody hasn’t told him that Bernie wants to take his job away.

  150. 150.

    sdhays

    Have the compared the size of their tallywackers yet? It’s 2016. How can we compete without being reassured about the size of their tallywackers!? Some people even say that HRC doesn’t have one!!!

  152. 152.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Alex: See, when Bernie votes for things that don’t look great, it’s for GOOD reasons, whereas when Hillary votes for things that don’t look great, or even when she wasn’t even able to vote on them, it’s for BAD reasons, like pretty much the worst possible. HTH.

  153. 153.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @MomSense: Join the club. We have a governor in VA who has tried all sorts of ways to do it but the Teabaggers in the Legislature won’t do it. It’s infuriating.

    But it’s all the fault of the Millionaires and Billionaires™ and the Corrupt Campaign Finance System™

    :-/

    I understand the reasoning about why the Debates haven’t mentioned the Republicans very much. But Bernie has no compunction about showing how much better he is than famous Democrats – it would be nice if he would talk half as much about how much better is than the Teabagger Legislators…

    The man has found an in with people who are angry at how the government has been run for a long time. It would be nice if he would talk more about the roadblocks and right turns that have been imposed on us by the GOP. It’s really hard for me to see how a Bernie Presidency would work if he actually won.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  155. 155.

    pseudonymous in nc

    @Goblue72:

    What’s Clinton’s plan? Triangulate her way to taking back the House.

    I’d be comfortable with that: there were some pretty shitty Blue Dogs, but Nancy SMASH got them lined up when she needed their votes. Is the Bernolution going to take back state legislatures and county boards?

  156. 156.

    MomSense

    @redshirt:

    With the Republican choices narrowed down to the two most terrifying, I’m thinking this is not the time to run against the Democratic Party. I’ll probably get slammed here for saying this but we don’t have time for a vanity candidate. As you and I know well, it ends in suffering.

  157. 157.

    SarahT

    @TheBuhJaysus: Re, “Bernie has a copy of Double Nickels on the Dime” – Nice one ! But “Brother Can You Spare A Dime” is probably more Bernie’s era.

  158. 158.

    FlipYrWhig

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Bernie genuinely thinks that everyone who isn’t him is an idiot or corrupt. The Matt Taibbi essay from 2005 about how fucked up Congress is was organized around Taibbi shadowing Sanders as he griped and harrumphed at everyone in sight. He’s an asshole.

  161. 161.

    redshirt

    @MomSense: I can’t believe it happened twice!

    I’m more pissed at Cutler voters then I am at LePage voters.

    But then, I feel that Cutler vibe with many Bernie supporters, and it does indeed worry me. The “Holier than Thou” shtick.

  162. 162.

    chopper

    @efgoldman:

    you funny old guys. I can make fun of you cause you won’t hear it anyways, on account of you don’t ever fucking listen to anyone else.

  163. 163.

    FlipYrWhig

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: it will work because The People will have demanded that it work. That’s what he thinks. That’s the “political revolution,” which he erroneously called the “people’s revolution” in that weird half-assed speech in front of wooden slats at some hotel in Florida last night.

  164. 164.

    Peale

    @MomSense: Yeah. I’ll gladly give up the party of the GOP promises to give theirs up first. Just like I’d be happy if Dems signed a no corporate money pledge and a no pandering to non-liberal voters pledge as soon as the voters agreed to promise to actually care about honesty consistently.

  168. 168.

    Alex

    @Goblue72: I don’t really care that much, but the vote did happen and just saying it shouldn’t count is a weird thing.

    I suspect Sanders voted for it as part of the process of getting legislation through. But saying that means he’s not pure, so everyone just shrugs and pretends it didn’t happen.

    It’s an odd thing, which pretty much comes down to that the votes Sanders takes don’t count.

  169. 169.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Alex: And yet NAFTA is attributable to the First Lady. The rules of causality have a way of warping around St. Bernard of Burlington.

  170. 170.

    Goblue72

    @Omnes Omnibus: Clinton’s “down ticket” fundraising has been to the DNC.

    Why would Sanders raise money for the institution headed by Clintonista DWS and dedicated to nominating Clinton?

  174. 174.

    jl

    @chopper:

    ” I thought hillary’s paid speech to the american camping association was the biggest story of the campaign. ”

    I want the transcirpts. Hillary is obviously in the bag for Big Camping!

  175. 175.

    FlyingToaster

    @Goblue72: Because he wants a Congress that will introduce his proposals as legislation and then vote on them and send them in for him to sign?

    Or is he running for God-King, like Trump?

  176. 176.

    Baud

    The best part of this debate so far was the booing of Benghazi. Sometimes, regular Democrats make me proud.

  177. 177.

    Thoroughly Pizzled

    @Goblue72: I want to hear one name, one candidate that Bernie is funding to bring the revolution to Congress. He can’t do it alone.

  178. 178.

    Steve in the ATL

    @jl:

    Hillary is obviously in the bag for Big Camping!

    Hillary is obviously in the sleeping bag for Big Camping!

  179. 179.

    aimai

    @Goblue72: Because without money going to the DNC, the DSC, and the DCC there won’t be enough democratic senators and congresspeople to get the President’s policies through. HRC has been fundraising for the down ticket people. Not for herself.

  180. 180.

    redshirt

    @MomSense: I’ll never ever support 3rd parties in America unless we adopt parliamentary voting systems. A viable 3rd party as it is now almost guarantees a majority of voters are getting screwed.

  181. 181.

    seaboogie

    I just had to yell out loud, because Hillary said Roe v. Wade is decided law, and Citizens United should be overturned. BOOM!

  184. 184.

    SiubhanDuinne

    Bernie has really been testy only once so far about interrupting and having his say. He must read Southern Beale.

  185. 185.

    PhoenixRising

    @Goblue72: because he’s running for the job of leading the Democratic Party?

    It’s possible that St Bernard’s decades of self righteousness in Congress before joining a party he had already applied for the job of leading might be the reason that party leaders aren’t gung ho to get him elected. But since he isn’t running a third party campaign, because he wants the goodies…he might consider leading the party by raising money.

    The Koch bros aren’t going to fund everyone’s PAC you know.

  186. 186.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @FlyingToaster: Bernie is magic. When he speaks, mill-yunns and mill-yunns of young people will materialize, or manifest, or apparatus, on the lawns and window-ledges of Senators and House members, which they will understand means they have to vote with Bernie.

    It’s really all very simple if you’re not some dumbfuck baby boomer.

  187. 187.

    pseudonymous in nc

    @Goblue72:

    Why would Sanders raise money for the institution headed by Clintonista DWS and dedicated to nominating Clinton?

    Ah, the bleachy smell of purity.

    For all its talk of revolution, Bernieism is built upon sheer force of will from the very top.

  190. 190.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @Goblue72: The DNC has the only bank that Bernie can use? Democratic candidates can’t have a fundraiser without going through the DNC?

    The Democrats shouldn’t have a strong, well-funded national political party infrastructure?

    Really?

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  191. 191.

    Ruckus

    @PhoenixRising:
    It’s like anything else. How easy it is to learn depends on your experience and understanding of the software. I’ve used cad/cam programs first time I’ve sat down that I’ve never seen before successfully because I have a decades long background in the area and understand the logic and and background. I’m not as prolific as a long time user for sure but I get along and learn more. Pull me out of that bubble and I have to start off like anyone else, page one.

  193. 193.

    FlyingToaster

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: But, alas, I AM a dumbfuck baby boomer. And I’ve run my own business, and I can fucking add. And I’ve voted in every Federal (and state, and municipal) election since 1980.

    I took Civics in 1975-76. And before that, I watched Schoolhouse Rock. And I still remember how it all works.

  194. 194.

    jl

    @Amir Khalid: What was that? Blowhards for Bernie?

    I still like Sanders better on the issues, but he is still a very long shot for the nomination. Sanders seems to think if he can hold on, he will win big on the Pacific Coast. I don’t know about OR or WA, but I have doubts about CA. Despite CA’s reputation as lefties and DFHs, the state likes moderates on economics. So, I wonder if Sanders can close that last 10 percent or so and win CA.

    Sanders is betting on some upsets completely changing the map, and setting up more upsets that confound the polls, and a big payoff in liberal states out west. But, we all saw how the huge MA upset sealed the deal for HRC and doomed Sanders to perpetual lose, right?

  195. 195.

    goblue72

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: The DNC is not a national party infrastructure. Its a Presidential election infrastructure. Donating to the organization that is supporting your candidacy (DNC – Clinton) is a bit self-serving She also has a SuperPAC that has raised more money for her than she’s donated to the DNC. He’s got no SuperPAC.

    That said, would be good to see him raising some money for other Dems, but facing the big money juggernaut that is the Clinton machine, I don’t hold it against him that much.

  198. 198.

    goblue72

    @Amir Khalid: By and large I don’t read Salon. They specialize in lefty clickbait. I read a few of their articles once and now they clog by FB newsfeed. Every day their articles are a ping pong match between pro-Clinton and pro-Sanders. I can only assume they have some readership metrics driving it all – if we make X crowd mad enough, they’ll click!

  200. 200.

    goblue72

    @FlipYrWhig: I don’t judge Clinton on NAFTA passing while she was FLOTUS. I do pass judgment on her husband since he was President.

    OTOH, Clinton’s position on TPP while SoS IS relevant.

  203. 203.

    goblue72

    @jl: WA and OR I can see. CA is a much bigger mishmash of various overlapping interests, some of which don’t align with his positions.

  204. 204.

    SiubhanDuinne

    Thank goodness the debate is over and I can once again comment from my iPad instead of iPhone. Can hardly type on that tiny-keyboarded fucker, but when I’m streaming the debate on the iPad I can’t comment without losing the feed and having to start again from scratch. So, is a puzzlement.

    Every time I watch a Democratic debate or town hall, I don’t even care who “won” and who “lost.” I can get pissed, or not, at the quality of the moderators, or the heft of their questions; I can get sidetracked into wondering whether Hillary has had a little nip-‘n’-tuck, or whether Bernie’s clothes fit him better than last time; but mostly I can be thrilled that we have two passionate, articulate, liberalprogressive candidates on our side, both of whom have said that they would happily support the other. Who needs a “deep bench” when you have this kind of quality? We are incredibly blessed in this election cycle. Let’s not fuckin’ blow it, okay?

  206. 206.

    FlyingToaster

    @srv: Not when it was part of Saturday morning cartoons. And yes, I know those have gone the way of the dodo as well. I have an eight-year-old after all.

  207. 207.

    jl

    Anyone have ideas for a Bernie Danger theme?

    I think overall, Sanders came out slightly ahead, partly because of some clumsy moves by HRC.

    But, I wonder if Sanders’ kind words for Castro and Ortega (it was Ortega of NIcaragua) will hurt him in Florida. I don’t care that much about Ortega, but Castro is nasty in many ways and Sanders should have given a better answer, and many Hispanic voters in Florida may care a lot.

  212. 212.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @SiubhanDuinne: Cosign. We need to win this election and run up the score to flip the Senate (and cut the margin in the House).

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  215. 215.

    eemom

    @FlipYrWhig:

    He’s an asshole.

    [sigh]

    I dunno. All snark aside, I started out this thing respecting Bernie’s passion and relentless calling out of what is, indeed, the root of all evil in this clusterfucked plutocracy we’re living in. I said that I was equally cool with him or Hillz….unlike in 2008, when I was totally pro Obama and Hillz grated on me like nails on a chalkboard.

    Then, Bernie outed with his pie in the sky Medicare for all fantasy, throwing Obamacare under the bus, and exuding contempt for all of us poor old establishmentDemboomerwhores who dared asked the question: “Yeah, but how exactly is that gonna fucking HAPPEN, Bernie?”

    It was at that point he lost me as a serious candidate. However, I’ve continued to believe that he IS sincere, and means well, and is not, in fact, an asshole.

    So tell me, is that wrong? IS he really an asshole?

    /honest question

  216. 216.

    jl

    @SiubhanDuinne: I watch them to see how well both are doing at the debating and the campaign political attack and defense game. I wish both were better. HRC still relies on what are IMHO cheesy tactics that often backfire, particularly the triangulating attack from a quasi-centrist Very Serious Person, or even Establishment GOP perspective.

    Sanders is not very quick on his feet, and if you listen to his stumpers, he is much better at remembering a good stump line to respond than ad libbing. Many of what seems to be ad libs are Sanders searching his memory banks for the most relevant response from his standard stumper.

    I wish both of hem were better. I see HRC evolving towards better, and Sanders is Sanders.

  220. 220.

    Oldgold

    Someone said the other day that HC should agree to release transcripts of her paid speeches right after t-Rump shows his dick.

  222. 222.

    goblue72

    @MomSense: Beer ice cream floats have been around for decades and are served in lots of places – usually places serving craft beer.

    The classic – which has been around since at least the 1990s – uses Guiness.

  223. 223.

    japa21

    @goblue72: Has he ever in the past? No. Has he campaigned for other progressive candidates? No.

    I like Bernie and a lot of his ideas, but his ego is way over-sized. Far bigger than Hillary’s and that’s saying something.

  225. 225.

    Alex

    Haven’t been watching the debate, but from the twitters they pretty much agree on everything and are arguing over petty stuff.

    So like every other Democratic debate so far.

  226. 226.

    gwangung

    @amk: Yeah…sees certain thing and thinking stops, not stopping to think on exactly why things might be the way they are.

    Supplant the machine, take over the machine , but don’t doubt the need, particularly when going up another machine.

  227. 227.

    Mnemosyne

    @Peale:

    It looks like Page Four is Windows-only, so it never came up on my radar. I’m all Mac these days. They look pretty similar to each other as far as organizing goes.

    Since I’m all Mac, the only other one I seriously considered was Ulysses III, but most of the reviews said that was more suitable to nonfiction and I’m writing fiction, so I went with Scrivener. I just spent a few minutes copying a bunch of PDFs and webpages into my “Research” folder using the Import -> Web Page function.

    @PhoenixRising:

    The tutorial is basically a manual that you can click around in. I’m glad I read it, but it took for freakin’ ever.

  228. 228.

    pseudonymous in nc

    @jl:

    Castro is nasty in many ways

    I don’t have much time for most Florida Cubans, but the gay Cubans who fled persecution? I want them on the first diplomatic flight back to Havana, as an escort for the first US ambassador, being fabulous.

  232. 232.

    pseudonymous in nc

    @japa21:

    Has he ever in the past? No. Has he campaigned for other progressive candidates? No.

    I’d excuse him for being Vermont’s single independent congresscritter and then one of two senators, again, as an independent, but there’s no excuse now: he needs to offer something to those, per DKos, who want ‘more and better Democrats’ elected.

  233. 233.

    mclaren

    @goblue72:

    You people are obsessed with laundry the way sports fans are. But, this is a centrist, yellow dog type site, so I am not surprised.

    Actually Balloon-Juice is a right-wing DINO site. In Europe, Balloon-Juice would be considered an extreme right-wing website. For example, typical political positions held by the majority of Balloon-Juicers include — the president allegedly has the right to order the extrajudicial murder of U.S. citzens; raising taxes to the level of the Republican 1950s Eisenhower administration is “extreme” and ‘radical’ and cannot be contemplated by serious politicians; universal national compulsory I.D. cards are a good idea, and surely would never be abused by our wonderful federal government; spending 63% of the annual budget of the biggest economy on the planet for death and destruction is reasonable and uncontroversial; when Hillary Clinton gets paid $200,000 for giving speeches to the Wall Street hedge fund where her son-in-law works explaining that int he aftermath of the 2009 economic global meltdown, “bashing the bankers is unproductive” and “it has to stop” is in no way corrupt or a conflict of interest; that Bernie Sanders, with lower negative polling than any other candidate, is “unelectable” because he proposes “radical measures” like applying the laws on the books to regulate Wall Street and big business, is a reasonable and sensible conclusion; that Barack Obama’s policies of murdering women and children with drones in a country with which we are not at war, and signing off on the NDAA which legalizes the presidential kidnapping of U.S. citizens without a trial, mark Obama as a “left-wing liberal progressive.”

    In Europe, these kinds of political beliefs are typically found only in the National Front in France or other crypto-fascist authoritarian fringe parties. In America, these policies are considered “left-wing”…but only because the right-wing policies now advocated in the U.S. are outright fascism: viz., Trump advocating that all muslims get rounded up and be “given the choice of either a trench or a ticket home,” “I’d do a lot worse than waterboarding,” Ted Cruz advocating a return to the gold standard and gold coinage, etc.

    In short, Balloon-Juice is an extreme far-right website. It only seems centrist because the true right wing in America is so batshit insane they’re giving Peron a run for his money.

  234. 234.

    goblue72

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: As in “someone who will vote for any candidate, no matter who it is, as long as they are wearing the right laundry”.

    There are a number of folks here obsessed with “Team Democrat” as if its a sports team. And obsessed the Sanders is an independent (who always caucused with Dems) and not a “real” Democrat.

    But hey – whatever floats your boat on Friday night at the high school football game.

  235. 235.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @jl:

    Good analysis of both. I think Hillary is the better debater of the two, and if either of them ends up going toe-to-toe with Trump, I think she would chew him up into little pieces, swallow the fiber, and spit out the rest. Bernie, I think, would get angry and flustered, which is no place to be when you’re up against Donald Trump; The Donald will win that one every time.

    I have been pleased to see a quote from HRC making the rounds on Facebook, to the effect that “If I am fortunate enough to be your nominee, the first person I’ll consult for advice is Senator Sanders.” He has said something quite similar about her. They both know that what they have in common far outweighs their differences, but that is a message that understandably gets lost in a debate context.

  237. 237.

    redshirt

    @efgoldman: I was only here for one of the times. I don’t get it either.

    From what I can tell, his “base” is rich white totebaggers from like 10 ten towns in southern Maine.

  238. 238.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @goblue72: Since the mention of raising funds for down ticket Dems was in response to your question about what HRC was doing to change things in Congress, this is either a moving of goalposts or blatant BS.

  240. 240.

    BR

    @eemom:

    You pretty accurately described how I feel about Bernie, and I’m a second-generation “Millennial” (I hate that term) who volunteered for Obama in 2008.

  241. 241.

    redshirt

    @mclaren:

    In short, Balloon-Juice is an extreme far-right website. It only seems centrist because the true right wing in America is so batshit insane they’re giving Peron a run for his money.

    Is this a Zizek quote?

  244. 244.

    Amir Khalid

    @Goblue72:
    It would seem that Bernie is not entirely clear on the concept of “party”. He may have a perfectly legitimate beef with Debbi Wasserman-Schulz and her partiality toward Hillary. But the thing is, is he a Democrat or isn’t he? If he is, let him show it with some form of tangible support for the party and its candidates. He is, after all, a newcomer to the party with some bona fides to establish.

  246. 246.

    jl

    @SiubhanDuinne: I think Sanders would do OK against Trump. The Fox HRC/Sanders townhall started as a scheme to put on a Sanders/Trump debate, and Trump chickened out. If Trump is confident that he can chew up Sanders, I don’t know why he would turn down a chance to show he would win ‘very easily’ against either Democrat and also lose all the free PR from a inter party primary debate.

    I don’t mind Sanders going after HRC on the big donor issue, though I do think the corporate talk transcripts aspect of it is BS. Trump will definitely go after HRC on it, and in a much more dishonest and personal way, so HRC needs to get better at responding.

  247. 247.

    chopper

    @goblue72:

    to go with the sports metaphor, you want us to go to the Super Bowl with a quarterback who has not only refused to even meet his teammates, he thinks it would be way cooler to play baseball instead.

  249. 249.

    goblue72

    @japa21: Now that I would consider a fair knock. Candidates who don’t take money from corporations, PACs, etc, hold big donor fundraisers, etc. tend not to have much in the way of spare war chest dough to spend on other candidates.

    But he certainly could have spent some time campaigning for other progressive candidates in the past. On the other hand, I don’t recall seeing Barbara Lee campaigning for other progressives either, and I don;t hold that against her.

  250. 250.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @efgoldman: Jebus, what are you dragging me into a mclaren thing? I am fighting a flu thing with a tea/lemon/honey/brandy concoction and just waiting until I am sleepy enough to collapse.

  252. 252.

    scav

    Well, apparently nothing will work in America until the pure replace all aged, bought-off, unhearing, yellow-canine, right-wing extremist Americans and then the three pure-of-heart youngsters will able to work everything out perfectly. Because, honestly, none of us are really living up anything. Amazing that no one the planet to date, ever, has recognized how pure and inerrant youth are. Or, maybe it’s just not been so blessed ever in all the generations until now.

  253. 253.

    mclaren

    @efgoldman:

    Having said that, why DWS still has the job leads me to believe she has the whitey tape in a vault or something. Obama is titular head of the party, he could have eased her out at any time, and should have.

    Hillary and Barack obviously have made a Grand Bargain. He got her on board as secretary of state in return for her swinging her supporters to him in the 2008 election, he’s backing her to the hilt politically in her run for the presidency. It’s smart politics.

    Unfortunately, that brand of smart politics also involves dirty deals like Barack bailing out the Wall Street crime lords without sending any of ’em to jail because he needed their cash to run again in 2012. Thus it also means dirty deals like Debbie Wasserman Schultz coming out in support of payday lenders who charge 200% interest rates.

    This is how you get a Democratic party that slides down the slippery slope to authoritarian crony-capitalist corporatism indistinguishable from Nixonian Republicanism. If there is one policy the Democratic party should not be supporting, it’s helping shield payday lenders from the law…payday lenders whose business model involves economically raping poor people with 200% interest rates via legalized loansharking.

    Dirty ratfvcking of the average working family like this is what makes people say “there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats.” It’s a bad bad bad bad bad idea. And it’s the kind of evil shite we’re going to see lot more of under a Hillary Clinton presidency.
    It’s a pretty goddamn dark day in America when the Democrats feel compelled to support legalized loansharking in order to get re-elected. But that’s where we are in 2016.

  254. 254.

    Steve in the ATL

    @redshirt: To be fair to mclaren (why? no idea, but let’s go with it), the US is far to the right of most countries politically, with the obvious exceptions of dictatorships and theocracies. I have had many conversations with Euro people who talk about their many political parties that are “all well to the left of your Democratic Party.” And I myself have often said that I look forward to the day when today’s Democratic Party is considered a fringe right wing party. But that is not where we are today. In today’s US, BJ is pragmatic left, with moments of harder leftiness.

    So mclaren, if you are using hyperbole when you say that “Balloon-Juice is an extreme far-right website” then ok, we are not that far off from you. But if you are being serious about that, then you are not a well person. BTW you can’t get away with that kind of hyperbole in light of your track record….

  255. 255.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Hey, remember when Barbara Lee ran for President on a platform of singlehandedly bringing about a political revolution by shouting it over and over again? Good times.

  257. 257.

    Joel

    @goblue72: I understand where you’re coming from, but institutional support matters. I’ve seen what a lack of legislative backing can do to an executive with an ambitious agenda, and that was on a much smaller scale (mayor/city council). That said, the “independent” designation for Sanders is a red herring. He’s been a senator for ten years and was a congressman for even longer.

  258. 258.

    jl

    @Omnes Omnibus: All loyal comrades are called to man the barricades for each night’s final climactic battle that settles everything forever. Which side are you on?

    Only rootless cosmopolitan traitors to the Revolution would hide behind a tea/lemon/honey/brandy concoction.

  261. 261.

    Amir Khalid

    @goblue72:

    Candidates who don’t take money from corporations, PACs, etc, hold big donor fundraisers, etc. tend not to have much in the way of spare war chest dough to spend on other candidates.

    Isn’t Bernie’s campaign the one bragging about how much money they’re raising from all those small donors?

  262. 262.

    goblue72

    @redshirt: I realize you are slow and not that bright so I will try to explain it simply.

    I will vote for the Democrat in November.
    I do not have to cheer for the laundry.
    I don’t care if someone was a lifelong Democrat or not.
    That is irrelevant.
    I will not volunteer for Clinton.
    I will not give money to Clinton.
    I will not phonebook for Clinton.
    I will not door knock for Clinton.
    I only give my time and money to progressive candidates or causes.
    I am not going to provide any resources in support of pro-corporate candidates.
    But I will vote for the Democrat in November.

    Have I passed your loyalty test now, grandma?

  263. 263.

    David S

    @eemom: I also like Uncle Bernie’s passion and enthusiasm but “ain’t it awful” is not a political strategy. Righteous indignation can only go so far far. What really matters is a track record in getting things done, in the existing environment, with the people and players that are there. That’s where Bernie loses me. I just don’t see any clear thinking about how to accomplish all these great ideals. Hillary on the other hand may be less flamboyant but she is incredibly determined and sees the big picture and I really think she’s likely to get more accomplished. That said I’d hope she’ll find a place for Bernie in her administration, as an adviser, or else encourage him to continue as as an advocate and ally in the Senate.

  264. 264.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @goblue72: You’re new to this thing called “American politics”, aren’t you?

    The context is, Bernie is going to need help in the Congress to get his program through. That means votes. That means he needs people who are willing to stop taking all that Corrupt Campaign Finance™ money and take money from him (and his supporters) instead. It takes money to campaign for Congress, after all.

    Bernie not campaigning for, raising money for, and endorsing people who will support him in Congress is something he should change if he wants votes to pass his legislation.

    HTH.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  265. 265.

    Davebo

    Message to Bernie about college funding.

    It’s a problem, to be sure. But the bigger problem is that far too many companies require a college degree for a position as a receptionist.

    Those who, wisely, chose not to saddle themselves with college debt are being crushed right now by corporate America. The days of “college degree or equivalent experience are going the way of the dinosaurs.

    I have no idea how to address that but it is a problem.

  266. 266.

    mclaren

    @chopper:

    to go with the sports metaphor, you want us to go to the Super Bowl with a quarterback who has not only refused to even meet his teammates, he thinks it would be way cooler to play baseball instead.

    As opposed to the president who not only refuses to pick up a saber in a duel to the death, but thinks playing eleven-dimensional chess is soooooooooo much cooler and more effective.

  267. 267.

    redshirt

    @Steve in the ATL: It’s true of America compared to Western European nations; still wouldn’t mean this is a far rightwing website. That’s hyperbole, meaning mclaren is on a down day.

    There’s a pattern I’ve yet to decipher, but it’s there.

  268. 268.

    goblue72

    @Joel: And caucused with the Democrats the entire time. As I noted above, I think criticism of him not campaigning on behalf of other progressive candidates is legitimate criticism.

    But the “he’s not a real Democrat” crap is just so much “he’s not a real Red Sox” type crap.

  270. 270.

    FlipYrWhig

    @eemom: This is all impressionistic based on reading around and knowing people I think are kind of like him, but… Yeah, I think he’s an impatient know it all who has contempt for money and thinks politics is very simple: stand up for what you believe in, never change, and get rewarded for it. It works in Vermont. It’s working to a degree other places. I think he thinks it could, should, work everywhere all the time. I don’t think he’s willing to understand that there are things like home state interests that might lead a liberal politician to stand with some big business or special interest. He just thinks that’s bad. And he has a lot of faith in “the people,” which I don’t share, and I’m SURE Hillary Clinton doesn’t share. So his ideology strikes me as praiseworthy but the personality is obnoxious and the solution is naive. YMMV.

  271. 271.

    mclaren

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:

    You’re new to this thing called “American politics”, aren’t you?

    The context is, Bernie is going to need help in the Congress to get his program through. That means votes.

    You’re new to this thing called “the Republican party,” aren’t you?

    Explain to us how Hillary Clinton gets her program through congress when the entire Republican party remains convulsed in a white-hot ball of seething hatred for all things Clinton.

    If you want to unite the Republican party in a colossal and unprecedented frenzy of rage, electing Hillary Clinton is absolutely the best way to do it. Republicans who would otherwise not bother to vote will crawl over broken glass to get to the polling place just so they can vote against Hillary.

    While you’re at it, genius, explain to us why it matters whether we elect Hillary or Bernie when neither of them has a prayer of getting any of their policies through a Republican House and senate.

  273. 273.

    chopper

    @mclaren:

    As opposed to the president who not only refuses to pick up a saber in a duel to the death

    you must watch different sports than I do.

  274. 274.

    MomSense

    @Steve in the ATL:

    Yes we are far to the right of many other countries. This country is far to my right but most of us decide at some point that we have to try and make as much progress as we can. We’ve had some major setbacks like Citizens United which was brought to us by the fools who were too pure to vote for Gore and went with Nader instead. For all the people who thought there was no difference between Bush and Gore, Roberts and Alito would never have been nominated by President Gore.

  276. 276.

    The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I don’t think he’s willing to understand that there are things like home state interests that might lead a liberal politician to stand with some big business or special interest.

    I’m pretty sure the Senator from Lockheed Martin who dumps his nuclear trash in Sierra Blanca understands this quite well.

  277. 277.

    redshirt

    @goblue72:

    I realize you are slow and not that bright so I will try to explain it simply.

    I will vote for the Democrat in November.
    I do not have to cheer for the laundry.
    I don’t care if someone was a lifelong Democrat or not.
    That is irrelevant.
    I will not volunteer for Clinton.
    I will not give money to Clinton.
    I will not phonebook for Clinton.
    I will not door knock for Clinton.
    I only give my time and money to progressive candidates or causes.
    I am not going to provide any resources in support of pro-corporate candidates.
    But I will vote for the Democrat in November.

    Have I passed your loyalty test now, grandma?

    No, but I do appreciate the personal insults.

  279. 279.

    redshirt

    @mclaren:

    While you’re at it, genius, explain to us why it matters whether we elect Hillary or Bernie when neither of them has a prayer of getting any of their policies through a Republican House and senate.

    This is probably true, so it doesn’t matter which Dem gets nominated as long as they can get elected.
    Unless that is they can help change the dynamics of Congress.

    Which Bernie is doing absolutely nothing about. Ergo….

  281. 281.

    jl

    @FlipYrWhig: Sanders political revolution is really a breakthrough in raising really big campaign money from grassroots small donations, and ability to mobilize a lot of enthusiastic volunteers quickly. I think that is impressive, and Sanders has made a real, and I hope lasting contribution in pioneering a campaign that cut loose from big money and doing well financially.

    I have serious doubts that the Sanders ‘political revolution’ would work as well as Sanders thinks it would in pressuring Congress,particularly a heavily gerrymandered House GOP under a Sanders administration.

    It might be a very influential thing, if Sanders can keep it going, Sanders can wield in a Democratic Senate under an HRC administration. We will see. Sanders has accused Obama of shutting down his grassroots org after the 2008 election and Sanders intends to keep it up and running. If Sanders is serious about his political revolution being just as important as his candidacy, we will see how that experiment turns out in a year or two.

  283. 283.

    jl

    @Mnemosyne:

    ” If I liked beer, that would sound really good. Maybe I’ll just have the ice cream. ”

    Start with Guiness ice cream smoothie and work up from there, maybe.

  284. 284.

    different-church-lady

    @Goblue72:

    Why would Sanders raise money for the institution headed by Clintonista DWS and dedicated to nominating Clinton?

    Because he declared himself a member of that institution back in November and is attempting to become its de facto leader?

  285. 285.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @efgoldman: What makes you think that goblue72 has any interest in persuading anyone about anything?

    I also wonder, having been born in the second half of 1964, why I am considered to have more in common culturally with someone born in 1948 than someone born in 1965?

  286. 286.

    mclaren

    @FlipYrWhig:

    This is all impressionistic based on reading around and knowing people I think are kind of like him, but… Yeah, I think he’s an impatient know it all who has contempt for money and thinks politics is very simple: stand up for what you believe in, never change, and get rewarded for it. It works in Vermont. It’s working to a degree other places. I think he thinks it could, should, work everywhere all the time. I don’t think he’s willing to understand that there are things like home state interests that might lead a liberal politician to stand with some big business or special interest. He just thinks that’s bad. And he has a lot of faith in “the people,” which I don’t share, and I’m SURE Hillary Clinton doesn’t share. So his ideology strikes me as praiseworthy but the personality is obnoxious and the solution is naive. YMMV.

    This is all impressionistic based on reading around and knowing people I think are kind of like Hillary Clinton, but… yeah, I think Hillary is an impatient know it all who has contempt for principles and integrity and her politics is very simple: bend and twist your positions inside-out, make compromises with evil sociopaths so that you’re now implementing their sociopathic policies like starving poor families with that 1996 welfare “reform” or bombing brown babies in the poorest third-world countries (Iraq 2003, Syria 2015) or stealing American jobs with job-destroying trade pacts like NAFTA and the TPP, and you’ll be rewarded for it. It works in New York, a state run by Wall Street crime lords. It’s working to a degree in other places, like Davos Switzerland and London England, places also run by the mega-rich. I think Hillary thinks it could, should, work everywhere all the time. I don’t think Hillary is willing to understand that there are things like needing a viable tax base of voters whose jobs have not been shipped overseas that might lead a triangulating DINO politician to stand with average worker instead of the billionaires she hobnobs with when she flies to Davos in her private jet. Hillary just thinks that’s unnecessary. And she has a lot of faith in “the magic of the market,” which gave us the subprime mortgage collapse and the dot-com bubble and in which I don’t share, and I’m SURE Bernie Sanders doesn’t share. So Hillary’s ideology strikes me as cringeworthy “might-makes-right” cronyism but her personality is obnoxious and her solution (sell out the working class until America is economiccaly hollowed out and collapses) is naive. YMMV.

  288. 288.

    chopper

    @redshirt:

    actually, if the assumption is that neither dem could get a thing passed, why would any progressive want bernie in the WH? if he’s gonna be a lame duck from day 1, his platform gets painted in loser stink. bye bye, great revolution, hello president cruz in 2020.

  289. 289.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @mclaren: Ah, but that’s not the question.

    The question, again, was what is Bernie doing to lay the infrastructure to get his program implemented. Hillary isn’t saying a “Political Revolution™” will make it happen. Hillary isn’t saying that the Corrupt Campaign Finance System™ and Millionaires and Billionaires™ is the primary cause of our problems.

    Bernie is.

    It’s self-evident that Bernie needs actual human being legislators to vote for his program. He has seemingly done almost nothing to get legislators on his side. (Maybe he has done a lot but hasn’t talked about it.) Maybe he thinks he will get their support by default simply by winning the nomination. If so, I think that’s a very bad, and a very high risk, strategy.

    I’m old enough to remember Jimmy Carter in 1977 thinking that he could propose a budget, send it up to the Democratic House and Senate, and have it considered and acted upon. He quickly found out that it didn’t work that way.

    Bernie needs allies in the Congress. What is he doing to get those allies? Sloganeering won’t get him votes in the House and Senate.

    That is the question to GoBlue72.

    Not anything to do about Hillary. If you want to talk about Hillary, feel free, but start another thread. :-)

    Cheers,
    Scott.
    (Who will be hitting the sack soon.)

  290. 290.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @mclaren: Davos is largely run by innkeepers and and lift companies. But the skiing is brilliant. Try the Parsenn next time you are there.

  291. 291.

    pseudonymous in nc

    @Davebo:

    the bigger problem is that far too many companies require a college degree for a position as a receptionist.

    The biggest problem is that too many companies require a college degree in intermediate widgetry instead of being willing to train new hires in how to make widgets. Fuck that tight-arsed shit.

  293. 293.

    mclaren

    @efgoldman:

    I cannot possibly be hyperbolic, since my epsilon is never > 0.

    That, incidentally, involves a joke you’ll have to know something about orbital mechanics to get.

  295. 295.

    chopper

    @efgoldman:

    And no, surrounding the well of the house with a battalion of Army Rangers doesn’t count.

    it will in a trump administration.

  299. 299.

    gwangung

    @jl: In others, supplant the machinery or take it over. Without an institution and institutional memory, a movement will soon dissipate and it’s certainly no match for an established machine (I.e. The Republicsns)

  300. 300.

    mclaren

    @efgoldman:

    If you know a way for any president to force a recalcitrant congress to do anything it doesn’t want to, you probably should share it.

    You mean, like the signing statements routinely used by Ronald Reagan?

    Or the fund sequestering used by Richard Nixon?

    Or the recess appointments used by both Reagan and Nixon?

    Or the use of a deadline following which refusal to nominate high court appointees constitutes consent under the legal principle silentia consenit, as advocated by Matthew C. Stephenson in the article “Can the President Appoint Principal Executive Officers Without a Senate Confirmation Vote?” in the Yale Law Journal, Volume 122, issue 940, 2013?

    Or forcing congress to stay continuously in Washington D.C. if they want to declare themselves permanently in session, so that no obstructionist Republican congresscritter or senator can fundraise for re-election as long as they’re obstructing the president’s agenda by declaring themselves continuously in session 365 days a year?

    You mean those kinds of proposals?

    Those kinds of tactics I have been proposing Barack Obama use literally for years now?

  302. 302.

    different-church-lady

    @Oldgold:

    Someone said the other day that HC should agree to release transcripts of her paid speeches right after t-Rump shows his dick.

    She should release the transcripts if it prevents T rump from showing his dick.

  305. 305.

    chopper

    @gwangung:

    well, “take it over” isn’t going to work. the democratic party isn’t really interested in being taken over right now. bernie trying to do that will just break the party in half which is electoral poison. shit, it’s exactly why we fantasize of trump getting kicked in the balls by the GOP establishment and going 3rd party.

  307. 307.

    FlipYrWhig

    @goblue72: If you were born in 1972, this fiery young progressive vanguard shtick of yours is wearing about as well as, to put it in terms you’ll recognize, parachute pants.

  308. 308.

    Amir Khalid

    @different-church-lady:
    For the sake of everyone who follows American politics, I would rather Hillary did not release her speech transcripts. They would reveal that Goldman Sachs paid her a quarter million dollars a pop for 45 minutes of tedious platitudes. I’m not sure which would reflect worse on her: taking all that money for old rope, or that her thoughts just aren’t all that.

  309. 309.

    different-church-lady

    @scav: If you listen to certain people, you’d be convinced the only thing they’re teaching in school nowadays is that old people suck.

  311. 311.

    different-church-lady

    @Amir Khalid:

    They would reveal that Goldman Sachs paid her a quarter million dollars a pop for 45 minutes of tedious platitudes.

    This would surprise anyone how?

  314. 314.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @efgoldman: No, I am saying Soyuz and JFK’s assassination all happened before I was born. Watergate happened around the time I turned 8. Kurt Cobain’s suicide was more culturally relevant to me than John Lennon being shot.

  316. 316.

    Socraticsilence

    @MomSense:

    The problem is that a large part of the Democratic base has essentially been sold out in the same way a large part of the Republican base has– say what you will for the merits of Free Trade but it essentially hollowed out the Midwest.

    Bernie is able to capitalize on this– it doesn’t help that Hillary pretty blatantly changed her position on say TPP only when Unions were waivering on endorsing her– it seems almost certain that as early as possible she’ll shift back in favor of the agreement- likely by saying “she was able to see new data which relieved her temporary concerns”

  317. 317.

    inventor

    @efgoldman:

    If you know a way for any president to force a recalcitrant congress to do anything it doesn’t want to, you probably should share it.

    Obviously he needed to yell LOUDER and call them names, really really bad names.

    That’s the BernieBro way! THAT’S how you get an agenda passed through Congress!

  318. 318.

    different-church-lady

    @mclaren: Do you have, like, a game board spinner and there’s a bunch of slices that say “sane mclaren” and a bunch of other slices that say “ranting nonsense mclaren”?

  319. 319.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Amir Khalid: Nancy La Tourneau at Washington Monthly linked to a filmed version of one of the GOLDMAN SACHS ones the other day. It was about women and entrepreneurship.

  322. 322.

    Felonius Monk

    @MomSense:

    Hey are you going to Vogue Live Knitting in May?

    You crossed my mind when I read an article in one of our local mags about a group of women here who meet regularly at a local biergarten to knit and crochet and drink beer. They call themselves the Drunken Hookers. They do some charity stuff like baby hats for a local hospital NICU.

    I thought this was kinda cool.

  323. 323.

    mclaren

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:

    It’s self-evident that Bernie needs actual human being legislators to vote for his program. He has seemingly done almost nothing to get legislators on his side.

    One senator has very little power to sway his colleagues. A president has a great deal of power to reward or punish members of his own party to get to do what he wants.

    So in effect you are now criticizing Bernie Sanders for not doing the things which we can only do as president. Nice try, but that kind of reverse logic won’t work any more than criticizing someone is not standing for not running will work.

    (Maybe he has done a lot but hasn’t talked about it.) Maybe he thinks he will get their support by default simply by winning the nomination. If so, I think that’s a very bad, and a very high risk, strategy.

    So what’s your low-risk very good strategy, mastermind? Bernie will face a fanatically obstructionist Republican congress, just as Hillary will. Walk us through your low-risk strategy for getting things done when the Republicans vote “no” on everything a Democratic president proposes.

    Hillary’s strategy is to offer toxic policies the Republicans will vote for — that’s how she proposes to get things done in Washington. Hillary will offer another bill to ship more jobs overseas and the Repubs will fall all over themselves to vote for it. Hillary will send up a resolution to bomb brown babies in some third world country, and the Repubs will have spontaneous orgasms. Explain how those kinds of policies help America. Hell, explain how those kinds of policies are even progressive or liberal. They’re just Republican lite. Hillary wants to bomb only 3 different countries in the middle east, instead of wanting to bomb all of ’em like the Republicans. Hillary wants to use kinder gentler methods of extraordinary rendition, instead of “a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding” that the Republicans advocate. Hillary wants to ship most of our middle-class jobs overseas with atrocities like NAFTA, instead of all our middle-class jobs like the Republicans.

    I’m old enough to remember Jimmy Carter in 1977 thinking that he could propose a budget, send it up to the Democratic House and Senate, and have it considered and acted upon. He quickly found out that it didn’t work that way.

    So now we’re back to the failed and nonsensical Jimmy Carter analogies. Jimmy Carter was not a Washington insider — both Bernie and Hillary are. The Democratic party in 1976 was fractured and at war with itself. The Democratic party in 2016 is more unified than it has been since FDR. The Republican party in the 1970s was full of evil geniuses like Richard Nixon and Karl Rove and Lee Atwater and sinister pols like Reagan who had a dark genius for disguising their destructive middle-class-impoverishing agenda with code words a la the Southern Strategy. Whereas today, the Republican party is chock full of insane losers including a billionaire nutjob who brags about his pen!is size in the middle of a national debate, and the middle class has awakened to the Republican scam of destroying their jobs and siphoning off their income, and they’re mad as hell about it and they’re not going to take it any more.

    1976 and 2016 are in no way even remotely comparable.

    Bernie needs allies in the Congress. What is he doing to get those allies? Sloganeering won’t get him votes in the House and Senate.

    Hillary also needs allies in the Congress. What is she doing to get those allies? Offering to compromise with Republicans won’t get her votes in the House and Senate, just as we saw with Obama, who bent over backwards to the extent of offering a Republican-designed health care plan, and yet got not a single Republican voted for it.

    Face facts, buckaroo: neither Hillary nor Bernie will get a single Republican vote. Neither of them will get anything through congress. So the only question becomes: who is better equipped to stand fast and refuse to give in when facing that human wave of Republican bonzai charges?

    Hillary?

    Or Bernie?

    You know the answer…

  325. 325.

    jl

    @chopper: I don’t see Sander’s revolution having potential to split Democratic party the way Trump is threatening establishment GOP. Trump messaging is to open about the racism, and he is openly opposing one of the big GOP money bags’ dreams: destroying social security and medicare (though what Trump’s true intentions are, who knows, but the mere fact he will campaign on a promise to preserve those programs is intolerable to big money backers).

    Sanders funding resolution can fit well with the Democratic Party. I think it needs some quick successes if Sanders hopes for it to last. I think much better chance of quick success under HRC in WH and Sanders in Democratic Senate, than with Sanders in WH. Sanders will be in the very position where he will be held to all of his promises, and he won’t be able tot deliver most of them quickly, or at all, even if there are mass marches in DC. The GOP House won’t care (Edit: or might even like it, for its own fundraising operation).

  330. 330.

    Socraticsilence

    @Peale:

    Well hell, Obama should have followed Hill’s example and given up on that whole Health Care Reform deal then huh– I mean once it became unpopular what was the point of doing it.

    This favoring what’s popular over what’s right is how you get a Democratic President signing DOMA into law.

  331. 331.

    different-church-lady

    @efgoldman:

    Why don’t they just shortcut it to “Don’t trust anyone over thirty”

    Well, so much for Bernie then…

  335. 335.

    No One You Know

    @Steve in the ATL: Hillary is in the sleeping bag in the Big Tent for Big Camping!

    I just had to go there. I’ll probably see that some one said it hours ago…dang left coast…

  336. 336.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @mclaren:

    So in effect you are now criticizing Bernie Sanders for not doing the things which we [sic] can only do as president.

    Nope.

    Read it again.

    Bernie isn’t running for King or Benevolent Tyrant. He’s running for President.

    Read my previous post again and see if it sinks in. If not, more words from me won’t help.

    Have a good night.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  337. 337.

    Mnemosyne

    @SiubhanDuinne:

    The historical romance I’m working on may end up with a Canadian hero. His mother needs to be a French emigre from the Terror, and not many of those stuck around in the US for some reason.

  339. 339.

    Socraticsilence

    @FlipYrWhig:

    That does seem unfair, you don’t sue a Surgeon’s wife for malpractice. Then again a surgeon’s wife doesn’t cite that experience as a reason to be made head of Cardiology. See my problem is that Hillary tries to have it both ways claiming her experience as First Lady as something that has real value in the policy realm but when the negatives of the Clinton Administration come up suddenly she has no culpability.

  340. 340.

    jl

    @FlipYrWhig: Good idea. If Sanders had more vision, he might do that.

    Neither HRC nor Sanders are the quite the political masterminds we would wish.

  341. 341.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Socraticsilence: You know what was a good example of triangulation? The crime bill of 1994, which stuffed VAWA and an assault weapons ban into the same package as Three Strikes and whatnot. And Bernie Sanders voted for it.

  342. 342.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @FlipYrWhig: I keep waiting to hear that he’s calling on his supporters to work for Maggie Hassan or Patty Judge or… but maybe they’re not pure enough

  344. 344.

    mclaren

    @efgoldman:

    Do you know anything about Schenker analysis?

    You mean the pursuit of the magical mystical urlinie which allegedly underlines the “great” compositions, yet which cannot actually be demonstrated to exist by observables?

    You mean those Schenkerian diagrams that simplistically reduce all musical compositions to all harmony and no melody, in contradiction to all known cognitive neuroscience and psychoacoustics research on the human ear/brain system?

    You mean the Schenkerian scheme based on overt racism (conveniently excised from susbequent English translation editions of Der Freie Satz) and hand-waving appeals to God as the alleged source of the genius which produces the urlinie we find in the great composers?

    I’ll outsource my debunking of Schenker’s pseudoscience to Kyle Gann:

    Then there’s also Schenkerian Theory, which, since it is faith-based rather than evidence-based, I urge relegating to the religion department.

    Source: “Music Theory: The Case for the Prosecution,” Kyle Gann, 2004.

  346. 346.

    different-church-lady

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Kurt Cobain’s suicide was more culturally relevant to me than John Lennon being shot.

    I just can’t talk to you anymore. And I’m only a few months older.

  347. 347.

    jl

    @Socraticsilence: I haven’t followed HRC’s use of the Big Dawg years to know if she is trying to play it both ways.

    She did have a personal role in health care reform, and that is what I have heard her taking personal responsibility for.

    I don’t see the problem of HRC campaigning on the general economic policies of Bill Clinton administration for general point that Democratic policies are better than GOP policies, while admitting in hindsight that there were some mistakes and misteps. I don’t know if she is getting more specific than that.

  348. 348.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Socraticsilence: A fair point, in that I do think she implicitly counts First Lady as public service on the metaphorical resume. OTOH she did have an actual policy brief sometimes; and IMHO she was used as a spokesperson at times _because_ she had a more-liberal-than-Bill rep, as for instance on welfare reform.

  353. 353.

    redshirt

    @FlipYrWhig: I think it does cut both ways. She was part of that world, that atmosphere. The highest politics in the world. And had some influence, because she is smart and was the First Lady.

    She didn’t negotiate or agree to or sign NAFTA. She doesn’t have to be beholden to anything during Bill’s Presidency except as any Democrat would. She could actually be her own person with her own ideas.

    Or, one head of a two headed political monster.

  355. 355.

    Kropadope

    @FlipYrWhig:

    You know what was a good example of triangulation? The crime bill of 1994, which stuffed VAWA and an assault weapons ban into the same package as Three Strikes and whatnot. And Bernie Sanders voted for it.

    At least he had the foresight to point out the damage that would come from the three strikes law, using his speech on the floor to rail against mass incarceration. Certainly, he didn’t try to paint broad segments of the population as super-predators who deserve to be locked up and have the key thrown away.

  357. 357.

    PhoenixRising

    @mclaren: wrong again.

    GOP critters want Congress to do nothing & stop the executive branch from doing anything.

    What are these attacks you speak of? They don’t exist. There is literally no benefit in policy terms to electing a stubborn, dogmatic politician whose one idea comports with the times, on the basis thate he has proven that he will never compromise.

    this planet can’t afford another 4/8 years of Congress doing nothing. Bernie has no chance of sweeping Dems into Congress because his brand is Above the Party & he does nothing to move the party forward.

    Be nice if purity were a strategy but if all your opponents want is nothing…it ain’t.

  358. 358.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Kropadope:

    At least he had the foresight to point out the damage that would come from the three strikes law, using his speech on the floor to rail against mass incarceration.

    And then he voted for it.

  361. 361.

    redshirt

    Asked below and asked again now, while considering the possibility of an actual coup, what if as per mclaren Obama gave the Senate notice of a notification and advice period, say a month, and lacking any action on confirmation, he just appoints someone to the Supreme Court.

    Could it work? Would it cause widespread right wing violence?

  362. 362.

    NR

    @MomSense: Karl Rove thought that John McCain would win Ohio and the presidency in 2008. The fact that you’re citing what he thinks as evidence of anything would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.

  365. 365.

    mclaren

    @Betty Cracker:

    Christ Jesus, are there no original questions in the world?

    Betty, the range of acceptable political discourse has become so narrow and so rigidly circumscribed within the Beltway and the American mainstream media that there are only a handful of questions now in political debates in America which do not transgress into the bounds of unacceptable political speech.

    Here are 11 questions which no one will ever hear asked in a major political debate in the near future:

    [1] Since America depends on a viable middle class tax-base, how do you as a candidate propose to halt the decline of labor force participation due to automation/artificial intelligence/robots/big data/data-mining? And please don’t answer “retraining” or ‘education’ since as Larry Summers and Paul Krugman and other Nobel laureate economists have pointed, this merely forces U.S. workers into a cruel game of musical jobs.

    [2] How do plan to change the Pentagon’s culture of failure in which they’re all our wars now turn into Viet Nam, and stop the endless growth of the American military-national security budget?

    [3] How you plan to stop the accelerating process of American economic bubbles and ever-more-catastrophic economic crashes that has spun out of control ever since the USSR collapsed in 1991?

    [4] How do you plan to govern when one party has gone insane and is dedicated to destroying democracy and turning America into the Confederacy?

    [5] How you plan to fix America’s broken collapsing medical-industrial system, since the ACA is clearly only kicking the can down the road since people with Obamacare insurance have such high deductibles they can’t afford to use their medical insurance?

    [6] How you plan to reverse the limitless growth of corporate power?

    [7] How you plan to reverse the limitless growth of the panopticon surveillance state?

    [8] How does a representative democracy function when the economic model for journalism has gone away?

    [9] With the advent of ‘software eating the world,’ the biggest U.S. companies now generate enormous revenue with ever-smaller numbers of employees, so we are clearly headed toward an economy where most of the people don’t have jobs — how do you plan to keep the U.S. economy functioning under those conditions?

    [10] How do you plan to reverse Paul Nitze’s NSC 56 drafted in 1950 in the Cold War, in which military Keynesianism substituted military industrial growth for civilian economic growth, now that the Cold War has ended and large-scale land wars are a relic of the past?

    [11] How do you plan on dealing with the accelerating global climate change which has outstripped our worst most pessimistic models, and which is now on a trajectory toward breaking agriculture worldwide — at which point this planet will sustain at most a global population of perhaps 500 million people, if not fewer?

  367. 367.

    mclaren

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Actually, Schenkerian analysis is one of my pet peeves, right up there with homeopathy, crystal healing, rational choice economic theory, and game theory.

  368. 368.

    pseudonymous in nc

    Looking at Josh Marshall’s writeup of the debate reminded me of another problem I have with the Bernster: because everything goes through an economics filter, things like climate change are seen as being just about fossil fuel corporations, not ‘fuck you pointy headed liberal scientists, I’m going to turn on all my lights and roll some coal in my pickup truck’. There’s not an pointy-headed economic argument about keeping inefficient incandescent bulbs on the shelves.

    Hillary understands the culture war aspect — the sheer love of hating, the embrace of Cleek’s Law — of modern conservatism. She’s lived it. And the reason why Der Trumpfer gets the nomination is much about the culture of ‘fuck you liberals, fuck you Mescans, fuck you ni-clangs’.

  370. 370.

    Kropadope

    @Omnes Omnibus: Well, that’s what you do when you have a bill that’s problematic, but has good aspects that you want to pass into law. Speak out against its problems and vote for the damn thing if it’s an improvement on balance. I know at least one person who was decidedly less critical of the bill.

    ETA: Then work to mitigate or eliminate the problems created by the bill. Which he has and still is.

  371. 371.

    chopper

    @redshirt:

    if it came to the point that the president really intended to use such a goofball idea, the senate would say okay, fine and bring the guy to a vote. and the guy would lose. bunch of senate democrats would come out against the idea as well, i’d assume. it’s the ‘trillion dollar platinum coin’ of judicial appointment ideas.

  372. 372.

    Felonius Monk

    @mclaren: Well now there is a conundrum for you.

    Starting from the premise (based on empirical evidence presented on a daily basis) that the mental acumen of the pool of journalists who would be tasked with asking these questions is only one or two points greater than the average supporter of Donald Trump, your question #8 would have to be solved before there were journalists capable of asking any of the other questions. This will never, ever happen during our lifetimes.

  373. 373.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Kropadope: And that’s what the triangulation strategy is. A way to let some people vent about some aspects, others about others, and in the end the thing manages to get passed by making everyone equally grudgingly not-quite-satisfied. I still say what Hillary did was lend liberal credibility to the conservative-friendly parts. She wasn’t using a law and order argument at all. She was saying in effect “I, a noted liberal, think this approach is just the right amount of tough.”

  374. 374.

    mclaren

    @pseudonymous in nc:

    Hillary understands the culture war aspect — the sheer love of hating, the embrace of Cleek’s Law — of modern conservatism. She’s lived it. And the reason why Der Trumpfer gets the nomination is much about the culture of ‘fuck you liberals, fuck you Mescans, fuck you ni-clangs’.

    This is one powerful argument for a Hillary presidency. She and Bill have been through the wringer (read The Hunting of the President) so the understand the visceral irrational mindless rage and hate that drives the Republicans. Bernie I think believes that it’s not so much lizard-brain rage and hate, as greed, which is part of the process of the Republican belief system, but not all of it, or even the major part.

    As Rick Perlstein has pointed out in his classic article “The Long Con,” Republicans are actually willing to impoverish themselves as long as they can make things even worse for liberals. This doesn’t fit into the classic progressive “top-hatted rich guys consumed with greed” model of Republicanism. As a result Hillary is probably better equipped than Bernie to deal with the sheer subhuman tidal wave of hatred and obstructionism headed for the next Democratic president.

    The hope for both Bernie and Hillary is that (a) the Republican party seems to be in the process of breaking up, and probably won’t survive a Trump candidacy, at least in its current form as a coalition of the super-rich and the resentful deep southern working class; and (b) there are real signs that the public is getting so fed up with congressional obstructionism that the next Democratic president may be able to effectively campaign against a do-nothing Repub-dominated congress, as Harry Truman did in 1948.

    Either or both of these developments could break things wide open at the House level, which is what we really need in order to change the political dynamic in D.C. If sufficient public rage builds up, redistricting without gerrmandering could be on the table, and a sea-change election could sweep in a solid Democratic majority in the House. At that point, lots of things change systemically, especially since the next Democratic president is likely to appoint at least 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices.

    Think what happens if Citizens v. United gets repealed, the AUMF gets declared unconstitutional, warrantless wiretapping gets declared unconstitutional, drone murders of civilians get declared unconstitutional, and a House majority votes in things like major infrastructure spending and possibly even a CCC-type government-funded jobs program.

    We could see things change politically and economically in this country fast once that sea-change breaks through the accumulated layers of Republican obstructionism.

  375. 375.

    jl

    @different-church-lady:

    No point to that. Sanders: cream cheese whipped with maple syrup, or some Ben and Jerry’s cheese flavor (does Ben and Jerry have a Filipino yellow corn and cheddar ice cream? they should for that is good, though not as good as macapuno). For bagels. HRC, I assume Berkshire Blue, or New York cheesecake, or whatever cheeses of Arkansas can be mentioned in polite company, depending on most apt geographic ID for her on particular night.

    Nest: their favorite sammiches.

  376. 376.

    Kropadope

    @FlipYrWhig: Her argument for the bill sounded more to me like “some segments of our population are basically sub-human and beyond rehabilitation.”

  377. 377.

    FlipYrWhig

    @pseudonymous in nc:

    because everything goes through an economics filter, things like climate change are seen as being just about fossil fuel corporations

    He thinks The Establishment (billionaires, Corporations) brainwash people and that’s why they believe bad things. He thinks it’s true for every issue. He thinks this is why there are Republicans and why there are racists. It’s aggravating.

  380. 380.

    mclaren

    @chopper:

    You’ve missed the point. In so doing, the Democratic president would have forced the senate Republicans to hold a vote.

    So then the president immediately nominates another excellent highly-qualified candidate. Fine, the R’s vote him down. Then the president nominates another. And another. And another.

    At a certain point, the accumulated public pressure for the senate to stop holding hearings and goddamn get the Supreme Court working against will become unbearable. Don’t underestimate the sheer power of public opinion: international public opinion brought down apartheid in South Africa. Even the most entrenched intransigence tends to fall before it.

  383. 383.

    chopper

    @efgoldman:

    Of course, he couldn’t be bothered to google the NLRB decision that limits the recess appointment power

    mcdlt has already come up with an argument for that – even though NLRB only came out a few years back, and was unanimous at the time against the president, it’ll totes work this time under the legal doctrine of “secondi times dacharm’

  385. 385.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Kropadope: Serious answer: I think that’s fair. What’s not fair is to say that “superpredators” were a euphemism for all black youth. The CBC wanted to protect black people from out of control crime too.

  386. 386.

    Anne Laurie

    Shiny new thread up top, if this one is beginning to feel crowded.

    @jl: Cabot Creamery (best known for cheddar) is based in Vermont. So Bernie would pick Cabot cheddar. Hillary, for Brooklyn (headquarters)/Chicago (hometown/Obama) cred, would go with cream-cheese-on-a-bagel.

  387. 387.

    pseudonymous in nc

    @mclaren:

    At a certain point, the accumulated public pressure for the senate to stop holding hearings and goddamn get the Supreme Court working against will become unbearable.

    At a certain point, it becomes pretty fucking cruel on the nominees, who are by definition SCOTUS-worthy, but are being asked to serve as political chow to be chewed up and spat out by the dipshits of the GOP Senate caucus.

    This isn’t like submitting a budget for approval and having it pissed over. It’s taking some of the senior judges in the nation and frankly fucking with their lives.

    Obama’s not going to do that. He’s going to pick a single candidate who he’s sure will be able to cope with the political shitfit for the next 10 months or so.

  393. 393.

    chopper

    @mclaren:

    Don’t underestimate the sheer power of public opinion: international public opinion brought down apartheid in South Africa. Even the most entrenched intransigence tends to fall before it.

    ha! in “shithole america”?

  394. 394.

    mclaren

    @efgoldman:

    Of course, he couldn’t be bothered to google the NLRB decision that limits the recess appointment power…

    We have been over and over and over NLRB v. Noel Canning 573 U.S (2014). The solution to that one is as I stated in my list of remedies — if the congress wants to declare themselves continuously in session, fine, but the president does have the power to force congresscritters and senators to physically stay in the capitol in order to declare themselves in session. If a Democrat chooses to exercise this power, Republican congressmen and senators would have to forgo fundraising in their home districts in order to continue to obstruct the Democratic president’s agenda.

    This is an uncontroversial suggestion. Many others have proposed this, it’s not new.

  396. 396.

    Goblue72

    @Peale: you’ve basically described spinelessness and having no core values.

    In other words – Clintonism.

  397. 397.

    redshirt

    @mclaren: So the R’s keep a Senator or 3 on hand, or even better pass a law that says when their “representative” is present it counts as the Senate being in session. What then?

  398. 398.

    mclaren

    @efgoldman:

    For better or worse, we’re not the lawless party.

    Exploiting ambiguities and gray areas in the existing parliamentary procedures for running the U.S. government is a far cry from lawlessness.

    The constitution of the united states does not spell out exactly what ‘consent’ means in the context of nominating supreme court justices, so this is legitimate area of legal wrangling.

    What I’m most curious about, though, is that the united states constitution very clearly does spell out that murdering American citizens or kidnapping them without a trial or an arraignment is against the law. This is spelled out absolutely clearly in the due process clause of the fifth amendment, again in amendment 8 (unless you want to try to argue that murdering someone or kidnapping them and hurling ’em into a dungeon indefinitely is not ‘cruel and unusual punishment’), and yet again in amendment 14 (unless once again you want to try to argue that murdering someone or kidnapping them and hurling ’em into a dungeon indefinitely is not a violation of their civil rights).

    Why are so all-fired enraged at the thought of a president doing something slightly ambiguous like giving the Republicans a deadline and if they don’t respond, directly seating the nominated supreme court justice on a well-established legal principle…

    …When at the same time you seem perfectly comfortable with giving the president of the united states the Al-Capone-like power to murder any U.S. citizen without a trial and without even accusing hi/r of a crime, or giving the president the Stalinesque power to order a U.S. citizen into a dungeon forever without a trial or criminal charges?

    Please explain this contradiction. Enquiring minds want to know.

  399. 399.

    Kropadope

    @efgoldman: I can understand the urge to let the banks fail and it’s disgusting that the Bush administration administered its portion of the TARP with no strings or punishments for the bad actors. Still, I think the TARP was worth supporting but, hey, no one’s perfect.

  400. 400.

    mclaren

    @Goblue72:

    Well…maybe it would be better to describe Clintonism as “having no core values you’re not willing to compromise.”

    The one thing you have to admire Repubilcans for is their ability to pick a hill and be willing to die on it for a principle. Their principles are insane and evil, but they are united and determined.

    Democrats at some point have to pick a hill they’re willing to die on. They have to be able to nail a set of theses on the door and proclaim, “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

  401. 401.

    mclaren

    @redshirt:

    At that point you’ve got a real constitutional crisis. I don’t know what happens at that point. Either the Democratic president is going to have get creative with the gray-area procedural rules to get things done, or the government grinds to a halt. And I mean, absolutely to a halt. No continuing resolution. No money. The federal government shuts down. The military stops getting paid. The lights go out.

    My guess is that the Republicans aren’t willing to go there. Like all bullies, they’re all bluster but fold in the clinch.

  403. 403.

    cckids

    @efgoldman:

    And no, surrounding the well of the house with a battalion of Army Rangers doesn’t count.

    Well, we can dream, can’t we?

    Yes, I’m snarking.

  405. 405.

    fuckwit

    @FlipYrWhig: And he’s right about economics being the root cause of every problem… except racism. That’s why he’s tone deaf on it. It’s also why he’s tone-deaf on guns too: the source of that problem is racism as well.

    Someone should sit Bernie down with a copy of Bowling for Columbine and force him to watch it over and over until he sees the light.

    Or, maybe, one of the old Civil Rights leaders he worked with in the 60s should sit him down and set him straight on all this.

    No wonder the Occupy kids are feeling the Bern. Bernie *was* an Occupy kid… back when kids weren’t sitting in to stop the 1% or war but rather to stop racists:
    https://pajamasmed.hs.llnwd.net/e1/election/user-content/49/files/2016/02/bernie_sanders_arrest_photo_2-20-16-1.sized-770x415xc.jpg

    If he gets this straight within the next few months we’ll be fine.

  409. 409.

    mclaren

    @PhoenixRising:

    this planet can’t afford another 4/8 years of Congress doing nothing. Bernie has no chance of sweeping Dems into Congress because his brand is Above the Party & he does nothing to move the party forward.

    If this planet “can’t afford another 4/8 years of Congress doing nothing,” you’d better go into your kitchen and open up the knife drawer and take out a serrated steak knife and cut your throat and pray there’s a heaven to go to when you die.

    Because that’s the only place you’re ever going to see a Congress that does anything instead of nothing in the next 4/8 years.

    Blunt reality: the House today is dominated by Republicans. There is zero likelihood this will change as a result of the 2016 election.

    This means that the House from 2017-2019 will be dominated by Republicans, and they have declared their intention to obsstruct by any means possible anything the next Democratic president does.

    So for the next 4/8 years, you will witness a spectacular panorama of the Republican-dominated congress doing absolutely nothing. The Republican dominated congress will do nothing if Hillary is president. The Republican-dominated congress will do nothing if Bernie is president.

    Unless you believe Trump will become president (and I don’t), then for the next 4/8 years the Republican-dominated congress will do absolutely nothing but obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

    Get used to it.

    That’s the reality.

    That’s where we are.

    These are the facts on the ground.

    Hyperbole like “this planet can’t afford another 4/8 years of Congress doing nothing” doesn’t change the cold hard fact that regardless whether Bernie or Hillary is president in 2017, congress will do nothing but obstruct.

    So the question then becomes: why not vote for Bernie?

    The next Democratic president is likely to be a placeholder for the real change that will probably occur when we get the next big recession.

    And make no mistake about it, folks, we will get another serious recession. And at that point what happens?

    What happens is that the fanatically Republican-dominated House will vote against any stimulus plan. This congress is far more extreme than the 2008 congress that voted in TARP and the 2009 congress that voted for Obama’s stimulus funding.

    And since we are now at the zero lower bound in interest rates, the Federal Reserve can’t do anything significant to boost the economy by lowering interest rates, since the prime rate is now effectively at zero after accounting for inflation.

    So what happens in the next economic crash sometime between now and 2020?

    What happens will be a replay of the Great Depression, only worse. No stimulus funding. 25% unemployment. Mass homelessness. Cops forming lines with rifles at state borders to stop impoverished families from crossing the state line to look for work. We’ll see economic shrecklicheit so bad, no living American has imagined anything like it. We’ll see starvation, mass unemployment, police burning tent villages of homeless formerly middle-class people, we’ll see riots and bread lines and mass panic. We’ll see the U.S. military called out to deal with armies of homeless formerly middle-class people, just as the Army got called out to deal with the bonus marchers in 1930.

    That’s when we’ll finally see the Republicans in congress get swept out in a mass election that changes everything. Just as during the Great Depression, when things get so bad that even the deep red states in the south vote in Democrats because they either vote Democatic or their families die of starvation, that’s when we’ll see real change.

    See Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the ‘Longest Depression’, World Post, by economics professor Brad DeLong, 8 January 2016.

    Or take a look at the interview “Barry Eichengreen Worries About the year 2020 (and the Next President)”:

    [By 2020] Central banks will not have been able to normalize the level of interest rates. They haven’t been able to do anything. And fiscal policy is really gridlocked as well. So for the first time in 50 or more years I think we will see what a recession looks like when there is no available policy response and I think the picture won’t be pretty…. We would be set up for a much more serious, deeper and more prolonged recession than we’ve seen post World War II.

  410. 410.

    cckids

    @Kropadope:

    some segments of our population are basically sub-human and beyond rehabilitation.”

    Well, I look at George Zimmerman, Dick Cheney, and the Bundys & I can’t entirely disagree.

  412. 412.

    joel hanes

    @goblue72:

    you’re dumber than I thought

    Alexander’s Law :
    You cannot simultaneously antagonize and influence.

    If you must tell someone off, go ahead, but don’t fool yourself that you’re going to change their mind in the process.

  413. 413.

    joel hanes

    @mclaren:

    Actually Balloon-Juice

    By Gad, sir, you do earn your keep around here. What a lovely rant.

    Have you seen the first episode of “The Newsroom” ?

  414. 414.

    joel hanes

    @mclaren:

    While you’re at it, genius, explain to us why it matters whether we elect Hillary or Bernie

    Oh!

    And you were doing so well. I had thought … well never mind.

    You see, there’s this thing called “The Executive Branch”, and the President (nominally) owns it …

  415. 415.

    MDC

    Please knock it off with the “Bernie doesn’t support Democratic candidates” baloney. Actual facts below.

    Bernie Sanders: Prolific Democratic Party fundraiser
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/index.html

    In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s retreats for the “Majority Trust” — an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year — at Martha’s Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.

    The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.

    …Sanders has been an Independent while in Congress, but has caucused with the Democrats since he was elected to the Senate in 2006, helping them maintain their majority for eight years.

    Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, said Sanders has “raised more money for the Senate Democrats than almost any other member of the Senate Democratic caucus” because he sees helping the party regain the majority as critical.

    “He has in the past written letters and helped Senate Democrats elect Democrats. He thinks that’s very important to the country,” Briggs said.

    …[W]hen then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was being nominated at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, Sanders was among the senators who met with Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “Legacy Circle” donors who had given the legal maximum to the DSCC five years in a row or $500,000 over their lifetimes.

    He paid dues to the DSCC, too, with his Progressive Voters of America political action committee cutting checks for $30,000 to the group during the 2014 election cycle.

  416. 416.

    Kropadope

    @cckids: Well, nonetheless, I think we’re better off trying to help people be functional in society than paying to imprison everyone.

  418. 418.

    Bruce K

    So I slept through the debate (hey, I’m two hours ahead of London, so prime time in the US is stupid o’clock my time) and all I’ve gotten so far is some rumblings that apparently Hillary called the mother of one of the people killed in the Benghazi attack a liar, from sources I don’t quite trust to be thinking rationally on the topic.

    Anybody got a pointer to a written transcript of what went down, or better yet, is anyone willing to throw together a quick-and-dirty précis?

    Much obliged.

  422. 422.

    Bruce K

    @Anne Laurie: Thank you kindly! Sadly, it seems some people either can’t tell the difference, or choose to ignore the difference, between being wrong and lying.

  424. 424.

    Applejinx

    @mclaren:

    At that point you’ve got a real constitutional crisis. I don’t know what happens at that point. Either the Democratic president is going to have get creative with the gray-area procedural rules to get things done, or the government grinds to a halt. And I mean, absolutely to a halt. No continuing resolution. No money. The federal government shuts down. The military stops getting paid. The lights go out.

    My guess is that the Republicans aren’t willing to go there. Like all bullies, they’re all bluster but fold in the clinch.

    I think the Democrats aren’t willing to go there either… unless they have a Not Real Democrat in the White House they can blame for it. From the Taibbi article in 2005, it seems like Bernie’s well aware of all the twisty little passages of Congress and how things are obstructed. Dems are not willing to clear those obstructions, but may welcome someone coming in and cleaning house as best he can.

    It poses opportunities for Dems to negotiate with Republicans, saying: give us this, together, and retain a certain amount of our familiar corrupt system, or this guy will wreck the joint. He’s not one of you but he’s not one of us either, and procedurally he has the power to X, Y, and Z, and he knows it.

    I like that scenario, though we still wouldn’t get single payer or ponies out of it. But we’d be dismantling SOME of the hellscape that is Congress.

  425. 425.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Applejinx: Sanders and Taibbi walk around Congress shaking their heads about how everyone’s a schmuck and/or dirty. Maybe you think it makes Sanders seem principled. I think it makes him seem like an ass who alienates people. That’s probably why the only politicians who like Bernie Sanders are people like Keith Ellison and Alan Grayson who joined the House after he left it.

  426. 426.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Applejinx: What can he “wreck” exactly? He has practically zero supporters in Congress. Kind of the problem with being a lone wolf. A pack comes in handy.

  427. 427.

    Applejinx

    …citation needed. Yikes, Whig. It’s possible that making wild baseless claims also alienates people. I think you might owe ol’ Bernie an apology. People can like him and still refuse to do what he wants, because he’s not been in the most procedurally powerful position all these years.

    RBG liked Scalia. People can LIKE him, it’s about what he’s in a position to actually do.

    And if there’s any truth to Taibbi’s article, which I linked rather than just making claims about what it meant, then everyone in Congress IS dirty, led by the Republicans. Of course they’re fucking corrupt! This is news to anybody? Public approval of Congress is historically low for just this reason. They can’t even pass wingnut bills, it’s a nadir.

  430. 430.

    MDC

    @Kropadope: In fact, a Clintonite I know posted this article a while back on FB as proof of Sanders’ corruption. Then a week later she accused Sanders of never doing anything to support other Dems. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.

Comments are closed.