Here’s the full Sanders Q and answer about Bill Clinton’s scandals https://t.co/DcFo3ViTJT pic.twitter.com/H6r3NrxkbP
— daveweigel (@daveweigel) January 8, 2016
As the Washington Post reports it:
TOLEDO, Iowa — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told a passionate town hall questioner here that he would not use former President Bill Clinton’s sex scandals against presidential primary opponent Hillary Clinton, citing his refusal to run a negative, personal campaign…
That answer echoed what Sanders had always said about the scandals that dogged most of Clinton’s presidency. In 1998, as a re-elected congressman from Vermont, Sanders condemned Clinton’s behavior while chastising Republicans for investigating it.
“Forty-three millions of Americans have no health insurance, millions of senior citizens cannot afford their prescription drugs, and this House is going to send to the Senate for a trial, to go month, after month, after month, where Bill Clinton touched Monica Lewinsky?” Sanders asked rhetorically, as he announced his vote. “Bill Clinton acted deplorably in his personal behavior, but what the American people are saying loudly, and clearly, is ‘let’s get on with business.'”…
As a candidate, even as Clinton has moved ahead in the polls, Sanders has consistently refused to attack Clinton personally, focusing instead on their divergent approaches to taxes, education, banking, and economic fairness. For 18 years, Democrats have criticized Republicans for their pursuit of Clinton and obsession with his sex scandals. In the last few months, conservatives have resurrected the stories of women who accused Clinton of sexual assault, but were not found credible by the long-running independent counsel’s investigation.
But in Toledo, no one apart from the lone questioner wanted to make hay of that…
More at the link, including video. (And of course that “lone questioner” does not sound at all like a Republican ratfvcker, does he?)
Town hall Q tells Sanders about the Fox News segment asking if Obama faked his tears.
"They said what? Oh, my god."
— daveweigel (@daveweigel) January 8, 2016
Your occasional reminder: The most favorably viewed 2016 candidate in either party is the 74-year old democratic socialist.
— daveweigel (@daveweigel) January 8, 2016
dubo
Yes how terrible. Next up we bemoan how politics can’t be focused on the issues instead of mudslinging, tipandronnie
Emma
He’s a decent guy. He wouldn’t be my first choice but I would have no problem voting for him in the general election.
VFX Lurker
@Emma:
Same here. I’m leaning towards voting for Hillary in the primary, but I wouldn’t have a problem voting for Bernie in the general election, too.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
And then some. I’d like to have 59 Senators and a couple hundred Representatives just like him.
David Koch
It was?
I am not a fan of Bill Clinton because of his policies and because of the racist campaign he ran in 2008, but I could care less about anyone’s sex life.
Do I care about Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt’s various sex partners – not in the least.
“Judge not lest ye be judged” ~ some carpenter from Nazareth.
laura
I’ll be happy to vote for Bernie in the primary and than vote for Bernie or the candidate he supports in the general.
And I support the adoption of Lemmium as 1 of the 4 new additions to the periodic table.
ThresherK (GPad)
Did this audience member mean anything except,
“You’re tired of (every idiot on TV trying, and failing, to fluff) Hillary’sEmailzzzzz! (into a scandal)…”
Really, this guy’s takeaway was that Bernie was targeting Hillary, not the shitshow?
amk
Did the ‘passionate’ jackass take a gander at the ‘great leader’ from the other side? That racist asshole actually said on live tevee that he would do his own daughter if he could, ffs.
Ultraviolet Thunder
@laura:
Octarine must be added to the Periodic Table.
Must.
benw
@laura: SANDERS/ZOMBIE LEMMY 2016
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@benw: I’m all for a Zombie on the ticket, but wasn’t Lemmy born in England? How ’bout Zombie Sinatra. If anybody can out-Trump Trump, it’s Sinatra.
Ultraviolet Thunder
I sincerely appreciate Bernie’s ethics and class. This is the standard that all politicians should uphold.
But they don’t. And sometimes your candidate has to throw an elbow where it’s deserved. I trust Hillary to have that elbow cocked and aimed.
Mike J
Love Bernie, hate the brogressives. He is solidly my second choice.
Ultraviolet Thunder
@efgoldman:
Reference to the eighth color of the rainbow, the color of magic invented by the late Terry Pratchett.
Wag
@VFX Lurker: and in leaning towards Bernie, but would have no problem voting for Hilary in the general.
Unlike my idiot 19 year old niece who is a Bernie purist and could bear to vote for Hilary.
lol chikinburd
@Ultraviolet Thunder: I vote for Upsidaisium (as Element -6).
NotMax
@lol chikinburd
Doesn’t come around all that often, but each time there’s a legitimate “submit a possible name for a new element” survey, have suggested Roddenberrium.
Although, come to think of it, Obamium has a nice ring to it….
Omnes Omnibus
She isn’t running on Bill. She isn’t Eva Peron. People shouldn’t pretend that she is trying to be. Judge her on her merits – she is running on them.
Ultraviolet Thunder
@Wag:
I guess young people strongly supporting a candidate is a bit of a mixed bag: on the one hand the zeal is off putting but on the other it’s better than apathy. Young voters’ turnout is pathetic compared to us olds. The earlier they get involved the better. And the benefits of progressives getting to the polls should apply to state and local races as well.
Omnes Omnibus
@efgoldman: Of course they do. We don’t have to fall for it. Also too, I just watched Grosse Pointe Blank again so I am in a comparatively nice mood.
PurpleGirl
I’ve been trying for at least 20 minutes to open the New York State Lottery page. It remains blank. I have it saved as a bookmark and I’ve a Google search for it to. Nothing — NOTHING — opens the page for me. If they don’t want to or can’t post tonight’s numbers, why have no page opening. Very bad form on their part. And yes, tonight’s number should have been pulled by now. And posted by now. (If they don’t want to post the Powerball numbers because some of the participating states may still selling tickets, fuck all, there’s more to the site than just the Powerball posting.)
ETA: I didn’t buy any tickets for tonight’s Powerball drawing but I want to check some other information at the site. I find this unacceptable.
Omnes Omnibus
@PurpleGirl: With a giant Powerball payout, you are surprised that a site is overwhelmed? Do you need to know now? Chill out.
John Revolta
@PurpleGirl: Try a news site
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@lol chikinburd: Thinking of you and your family. And echoing advice to shop widely within the predatory industry.
PurpleGirl
@Omnes Omnibus: There are other games to check out, not just the Powerball numbers. I think they should be able to handle a lot of hits at one time.
ETA: I’m cleaning my desk of paper and I’d to check some older tickets I bought. Tickets that are a month or so old. A news site isn’t going to have those numbers.
Omnes Omnibus
@PurpleGirl: When a jackpot is a big as it is now, it generates traffic that would not normally be there. Give them a break. B-J sometimes breaks on election nights, yes?
SFAW
@NotMax:
Discovered at Hyrax Hill, no doubt.
ThresherK (GPad)
@PurpleGirl: Does NYS sell Powerball now? I remember at least one rich CT town near the border wanting to keep the hordes of PB buyers out, several years ago.
(No word if the towne fathers were worried about Shifty and Surly selling drugs and impregnating Fairfield’s stock of white women.)
Steeplejack
@Omnes Omnibus:
Actually, this site was kind of choking (for me) at the end of that Steelers-Bengals game. I thought the upgrade was supposed to bring glorious new levels of lightning speed.
Adam L Silverman
@amk: Today he praised baby Kim in North Korea. We are through the looking glass.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: @efgoldman: You don’t know she’s not running on him. What they do in their private life is their business…
PurpleGirl
@ThresherK (GPad): NYS has sold Powerball tickets for years now. But I didn’t buy any of those tickets today — I usually don’t because the odds are so large. But, as I’m sitting here doing other things I wanted to clean off my desk of old paper, which includes some older regular lotto tickets.
Omnes Omnibus
@Steeplejack: I make no comments about the re-do. Tommy is a great guy and his threats don’t matter.
PurpleGirl
@Steeplejack: Since the upgrade I’ve not had loading problems with BJ. And when they have the certificate up to date, it doesn’t drive my Avast crazy.
seaboogie
I’m kind of up for a Clinton/Sanders ticket. They seem to have genuine affection and respect for one another, and would make a pretty good team, I think. Maybe not geographically strategic, but ideologically, I think that would be bowling a strike – or at least a spare.
RaflW
Pundits talk about the gender gap, and various other gaps between different demographics.
But I’d say the human decency gap between the Democrats and the Republicans is perhaps bigger than ever, but this is a good reminder that it was already huge in the 90s. And earlier, come to think of it.
“Have you no sense of decency, [Republican officeholder/candidate] at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Almost to a one, the answer now is no.
PurpleGirl
@seaboogie: The ages are wrong for them to run as a team. You want the junior member — the VP — to be younger than the senior or presidential candidate.
BillinGlendaleCA
@seaboogie: They’re too old to be on the same ticket.
amk
@seaboogie: That would be a great ticket. They strengthen each other’s weaknesses. Hope they go for it.
amk
@PurpleGirl:
ummm
dukakis/bentsen
kenyan/biden
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Steeplejack: I was getting “unable to make database connection” right at midnight (ET) so I’m not surprised. It seems better now.
Gremlins, I guess.
Cheers,
Scott.
amk
@Adam L Silverman: yeah, one wannabe douche dictator to another actual one.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@PurpleGirl: myself I’d rather see Sanders stay in the Senate, and campaign for Maggie Hassan and Ted Strickland and whoever winds up on the ballot in PA.
Adam L Silverman
@seaboogie: @BillinGlendaleCA: @amk: They won’t. Sanders should he not get the nomination, to be honest, like Senator Warren, can do more good in the Senate holding the line against regressive legislation and promoting the stuff that is going to do good. It is far more likely that Secretary Clinton, should she get the nomination, will pick someone like one of the Castro brothers. She needs regional diversity. And ethnic diversity is also good. Moreover, having one of the Castro brothers, most likely the one in the cabinet as you don’t want to put a House seat in play if you don’t have to, makes things difficult for the GOP in Texas. The Texas Hispanic population has increased and they are organizing and organizing on the Democratic side. It may not be enough to flip Texas in 2016 at the presidential election level, but it will make the GOP spend resources there they normally wouldn’t. And it will give these Texas Democrats, Hispanic or not, a needed boost in their efforts.
BillinGlendaleCA
@efgoldman: And one Castro could sub for the other, no one would know the difference.
goblue72
@Omnes Omnibus: You Hillbots can’t have it both ways. It can’t be “she’s her own person; she’s running on her merits”, and then trot out Bubba at campaign stop and photo op. And you know he’ll be a more visible presence as the campaign progresses. And you know there will reference to “remember how great things were when my husband was President”.
Now, if she divorced his lying/cheating ass at the time, it would be a different story.
goblue72
@Mike J: All of the young progressive women I know who are supporting Bernie would tell you to go kindly jump in a lake.
amk
@efgoldman: When compared to il douche, they are practically yung ‘uns. I am looking at exciting the eternally fickle dem base.
Adam L Silverman
@amk: I’m going to have to link to the professor from Canada’s book on authoritarian personalities on the front page if Trump keeps this up.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I admire your focus on the important issues that affect people’s lives.
BillinGlendaleCA
@goblue72: Other candidates spouses never campaign, got it.
amk
@goblue72: dude(tte), stop living in 90’s. like the rethugs.
ThresherK (GPad)
@seaboogie: Geographics will not matter, I think. At some point one really has to do something incredible with the second slot to make a difference. Dan Q and Deadeye Dick did not. The only one who did was Palin, and not in a good way.
At some point the chatholes are not going to like any D VPNom because they’ll be pining for Blowmentum II: Not-at-all-electric Snoozealoo.
I see nobody (ETA gov or senator) in a red or swing state worth a bother, but I could be persuaded if it’s not giving up a great Senator. (Or numerically important, to some shithead gov to replace.)
I can more than live with Bernie there as Shumlin is a Dem, and the electorate is solid.
Steeplejack
@PurpleGirl:
I haven’t had loading problems either, which is what made it so noticeable right at the (relatively) high-traffic time at the end of the game. And I’m talking about a page taking three or four minutes to load.
Omnes Omnibus
@goblue72: Please. I have trotted out no one. Will Bill campaign for his wife? Duh.
goblue72
@amk: I would be glad for the 90s reruns to stop. But apparently the strongest candidate that the Democratic bench can muster is a 1990’s First Lady.
Amir Khalid
@seaboogie:
I remember there were people who wanted an Obama/Hillary ticket for 2008. But Biden has turned out to be a fine choice. She and Bernie do indeed set an example of mutual civility and respect that one would despair of ever seeing in the other major party. But she should pick a VP for her administration, as Obama did for his, not so much a running mate for her campaign. She should be unsentimental about considering him for running mate.
ThresherK (GPad)
@Adam L Silverman: Some good ideas which I wish I thot of on my last comment, especially the “play defense” idea.
amk
@Adam L Silverman: I don’t think hispanics need one of their own to get them excited, come 2016. Il douche and the other build that damned wall kkklowns have already taken care of that. We need more of the eternally pissed off white bros on our side to win in 2016. Who knows, the ticket might even flip the senate.
amk
@goblue72: well, you can live in the present or in the past. your choice.
jl
Yeah, well, good on Bernie. I am a Bernie supporter as long as he keeps it positive like this. Not to be cynical, but it is also good politics. A recently acquired hobby of mine is to look at the HRC and Bernie interviews on youtube, and try to keep track of new BS media hype on them.
Seems to me from recent ‘analysis’ (aka BS and gas) pundits are churning out, trying to take down Sanders as really being another crappy politician who is really doing personal attacks despite his promises is a developing pastime for idle pundit class.
So Sanders has to really watch it. It is good politics as well as decency.
I do admire the media hack work on Sanders, since at least they put some work into it. The HRC stuff is just too lazy. Usual headline is ‘New Hillary email surprise, how it could hurt her’. And more than half to the time it is some BS somebody forwarded it to her, which seems to make it a ‘Hillary email’.
RaflW
Apropos of not much, this just amused me.
And now it’s time for bed. See y’alls later.
Adam L Silverman
@ThresherK (GPad): What we don’t talk enough about is that personnel is policy. So let me unpack this. Depending on who you pick for key positions, or if you’ve had to reward a political supporter with a principals spot who you pick as the deputy, translates into what your policy preferences are going to be, what the policies will be, and how they’ll be pursued. This is why President Obama took so much flack for some of his key personnel picks – both the formal ones and the informal ones. Some of those key picks turned out to be excellent: Secretary Clinton at State for instance. Maintaining continuity at Defense with Secretary Gates was both understandable and Gates was a good SECDEF. I liked the Hagel pick, but he wasn’t effective. Panetta – both at CIA and Defense was terrible because Panetta is always a terrible pick as Panetta’s concerns are Panetta. Not sure about the current SECDEF Carter. GEN Dempsey as CJCS was brilliant as a pick. But the early Treasury and Fed picks were meh and the Intel agency lead picks have been kind of meh as well. Part of that is who has been picked, part of that is the current nature of our Intel Community – which has become a creature unto itself. Another pick I don’t like is the current FBI director. If the President felt the need to recycle a high level Republican DOJ appointee he should have gone with Fitzpatrick.
Now when you’re picking running mates at the Presidential level you’re doing something additional. You’re signaling to different regions and communities that you think their members are not just important enough to do this type of work, but to take over the Administration should the worse happen. People like to see themselves represented. Its an important motivator. And if you’re looking to create electoral coat tails for your party, this type of strategic selection is equally important from a political signaling and messaging perspective.
seaboogie
Glad I brought this up – this is an interesting discussion. Also agreed on Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren being more useful as Senators pushing their agenda with passion, v mitigating that in the administration.
Okay – technical question – can Hillz pick Big Dawg as her Veep? Because he is reliably even more handsy than JoeBiden. Folksy too…..
Adam L Silverman
@amk: People like to see themselves reflected in the candidates choices. Having a Texas Hispanic on the ticket sends an important political message and signal beyond “we know we can count on you now, because our opponents have been consistently demonizing you for 24 months”.
Adam L Silverman
@seaboogie: No she can’t. Two primary reasons: 1) they’re from the same state, which is prohibited and 2) because of the 22nd Amendment’s limiting Presidents to two terms period. The Vice President’s two enumerated duties are to break ties/preside in the Senate and to replace the President should anything happen to the President.
BillinGlendaleCA
@jl:
Probably something from a Nigerian prince.
amk
@Adam L Silverman: Kenyan didn’t pick one from south or west and still won. Twice. I think the whole north-south balance meme deserves to be mothballed. Are the red states gonna vote for Hillz/Bernie ticket? Most probably no. But the swing states like OH, FL et al will go for the ticket.
BubbaDave
@goblue72:
Really? Because the strongest candidate I see was a US Senator for most of the 2000s and Secretary of State this decade, and in between was the runner-up in the closest nomination contest of my lifetime. It may well be true that her time as First Lady gave her a major advantage in winning that first Senate election, but she’s where she is now because she did well with that opportunity and kept plugging away.
This ain’t Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush running for office, and pretending that Hillary is just a 90’s First Lady makes you look either extremely sexist or extremely stupid.
seaboogie
@Adam L Silverman: @Adam L Silverman: I understand the two terms bit if that is legally so, but “from the same state”? That cannot be a legal thing – just a strategic one.
I’m not serious about this, but am politi-curious.
Adam L Silverman
@jl: @BillinGlendaleCA: You’d be amazed what you get sent or what you might send someone. For instance, I have a list of senior officials, general officers/flag officers and senior executives, including an ambassador, that I’ve provided support to over the years. When I do a report for one of them, if I think it is germane and appropriate to be seen by some or all of these others, I push it along. I try not to abuse this and treat these as launch and forget – sometimes I hear back for followup, sometimes I just get a thanks, keep it coming. Sometimes they’re very busy and I don’t hear anything. I try not to over do it, but the amount of emails senior folks get every day is just staggering.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@RaflW: can’t remember the last time I saw/heard someone quote MoDo. Especially with the advent of twitter, it’s telling that our erstwhile snark queen doesn’t generate any buzz. A while back I skimmed over one of her columns, and she was actually making Obama golfs too much jokes. She’s cribbing shtick from Reince Priebus.
BillinGlendaleCA
@seaboogie: Nope on the Big Dawg. He’s ineligible to serve as President and he’s from the same state which cause electoral college problems.
amk
@Adam L Silverman: All those executive picks come after you become the CEO. You have to become the CEO first. The winger base is energized – ‘cos kenyan – and they will turn out in yuuuge numbers regardless of which kkklown wins the nom. The dems need to counter that. I see this ticket as winners. Don’t forget uncle joe too ran against the kenyan in 2008. So, it’s not something new to coopt your competitors.
Adam L Silverman
@seaboogie: Here’s the official explanation:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/16/lawrence-odonnell/president-vice-president-same-state-allowed/
Its an artifact left over from before electors cast separate ballots for the president and the vice president. Its taken as the common rule, for lack of a better term, but I’m not sure if it would hold up should someone challenge it in court.
BillinGlendaleCA
@amk: Biden was chosen for foreign policy experience.
ThresherK (GPad)
@efgoldman: Dickless had to pretend he was from Wyoming in 2000 to be Constitutional. Big signal of what we were in for.
amk
@BillinGlendaleCA:
So Uncle Sanders can be then picked up for domestic policy experience since hillz got that fp experience covered. As I said before, they can fill each other’s shortfalls.
BillinGlendaleCA
@efgoldman: 12th amendment.
Adam L Silverman
@amk: Your vice presidential choice is the first of the executive picks. It tells you something important about the nominee. The choice of Sarah Palin clearly demonstrated that Senator McCain was too much in thrall to the neo-Con strategists and ideologues in the beltway establishment, that he and his people were unable to properly vet these executive choices, which would not bode well should he be elected, and that his own judgement and instincts for the people to fill those choices would not be good.
I cannot prove that Secretary Castro will be the pick. Nor can I prove that Senator Sanders won’t. But I think that the odds of the former are greater than the latter.
mclaren
@goblue72:
Respectfully, I have to disagree on this one. Bill Clinton represents an important asset to Hillary’s presidency as a source of advice and experience. Why not capitalize on him?
Dude, this guy was president of the United States. How many times has a husband who has been president become available as a sounding board to a woman who becomes president? Same would apply if a woman had been president and her husband got elected to the presidency — Bill Clinton did a pretty good job (with a few exceptions, like that horrible 1994 welfare ‘reform’ legislation, and agreeing in ditching Glass-Steagall, and starting the whole extraordinary rendition atrocity fail parade) as a president in the 90s.
If Bill is going to have a say in cabinet meetings, let Hillary trot him out at campaign stops. It will remind folks of the good times we had when competent Democrats ran the country, and it gives us a chance to hear the kind of policies Bill will advocate if and when he weighs in at cabinet meetings during Hillary’s presidency.
Of course I prefer Bernie Sanders. If he becomes president, it’s all moot. But what’s the harm in the meantime?
BillinGlendaleCA
@amk: As I said, earlier, they’re too old for the same ticket.
mclaren
@VFX Lurker:
This, incidentally, is why a Democrat will be the next president. The entire Republican party is going nuts and freaking out trying to prevent their current frontrunner from getting the nomination. Meanwhile, the Democrats are united in support of whomever gets the nomination.
amk
@Adam L Silverman: I don’t think what the nutz from the other side do as a referral point is a good idea.
Obviously, both hillz and sanders have a yuuuge appeal to their base. Best to combine them instead of fragmenting them. Outside of these political blogs, who knows who castro is really?
Adam L Silverman
@amk: I’m honestly not sure how to reply at this point, so I’m simply going to stop.
BillinGlendaleCA
@amk: He did the keynote at the last DNC, they guy who did that in 2004 was the nominee in 2008.
PurpleGirl
@Adam L Silverman: Also in terms of the Castro brothers themselves — it’s time for either one of them of advance to the national level.
amk
@BillinGlendaleCA: If age is the criteria, then both of them and donald dreck shouldn’t be running. And as I said, Biden is old and still kenyan went for it.
BillinGlendaleCA
@amk: Age and experience played a part in Obama(remember O-man was in his mid 40’s at the time) selecting Biden, that’s why it’s generally considered that HRC will select someone younger.
amk
@BillinGlendaleCA: apples and oranges. Castro ain’t no Obama, fersure?
More over the country is freaking out non-whites getting into power, however stupid or ridiculous it may seem. I just don’t see how castro is a big get for the dems in that political atmosphere. No big name recognition outside of TX and blogs. And as I said, hispanics are motivated enough to turn out thanks to trump tantrums.
seaboogie
@Adam L Silverman:
@efgoldman
@billinglendale
Thank you for your knowledge and perspective.
jl
In his stump speeches Sanders is yelling, or intoning, or saying very loudly and clearly, that his political revolution is just as important as his candidacy for president. I don’t think VP is a good power base to try to continue a political revolution, trying to do that is really inconsistent with the job description. So, I think that if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination, he will go back to the Senate and try to use his Berniebots as a political base to try to maximize his influence.
In one way that is good news, since Sanders will have a much easier time trying to lead his political revolution as part of Democratic majority in the Senate with an HRC administration. So, I think he will keep his word to to support the Democratic nominee and be earnest about helping out in the general election.
But if HRC is crazy enough to ask him to be VP nominee, I am pretty sure Sanders will say no thanks.
Matt McIrvin
@Omnes Omnibus: She isn’t running on Bill, but at his best, Bill is an incredible asset. He gave Obama a lot of help at the 2012 convention. If they can force her to keep him in the background, that’s one less weapon she has in play.
seaboogie
@efgoldman: And so we have this interesting discussion about qualifications of the down ticket, and the other side is choosing between the heinous and the horcrux for the top of their ticket. Way for them to force the whole “end times” thing.
Adam L Silverman
@PurpleGirl: Yep. My guess is you’ll eventually see one run for governor of Texas and the other to either be the VP or in the Senate.
seaboogie
@jl: Agreed.
Matt McIrvin
@Adam L Silverman: The rule that electors can’t cast both the presidential and vice-presidential ballots for someone from their home state is pretty explicit in the Constitution. It’s hard for me to imagine it not standing up in court.
However, if it’s possible for the slate to get elected even without those votes, there’s absolutely no legal or constitutional impediment to that.
The problem is that states like Florida and New York are large states with a lot of electoral votes, and it’d be nuts to have to give those up and risk getting some weird thing like a split ticket actually winning the Electoral College.
Adam L Silverman
@seaboogie: None of us is as dumb as all of us put together. Wait, that didn’t come out right…
amk
@efgoldman:
This is an unique election where those running on the other side are all fully nutso extremists. Mebbe, time to throw the CW out the window and try some ‘radical’ ideas? At the end of the day, hillz might go for the young castro or (gulp) a dlc type, who knows?
seaboogie
@Adam L Silverman: Kind of scary, isn’t it? You have nephews for whom you bake cookies (she said, gramatically)…what sort of country and planet do we hand off to them?
Adam L Silverman
@seaboogie: The best one we can. All you can do is try to fix the problems, large or small, that you can address. The past is never as good as we remember it to be and things in the present are never as bad as they seem. Or, if you prefer, “the empire is always in danger”.
Brachiator
Fine. Good. Whatever. Move on.
Sanders should be campaigning hard. I want to hear more about what he would do as president, not how fair he is going to be to Bill and Hillary.
jl
@Brachiator: No no, you are impertinent, my good Sir, sit back and let the media tell you what is important.
David Koch
@seaboogie: I don’t think there’s enough Geritol for two septuagenarians. Plus think of the rest of us who aren’t boomers, we’re tired of hearing about the 1960s.
PurpleGirl
@David Koch: There are even Boomers who are tired of hearing about The Boomers.
Adam L Silverman
@seaboogie: Let me elaborate a bit in reply beyond my last one and then I’m to bed.
What we either forget or don’t realize is that our system is designed for process. Process systems are frustrating, especially at times of real or seeming crisis, as the best they ever seem to produce is incremental change. However, they also have advantages. One is that they have some built in protections that make it hard to hijack the system. A number of us, both on the front page and in comments, often point this out without explicitly talking about the process component of our political system. And when we do we normally get picked at by folks that are rightly frustrated about something needing to be done and we just don’t understand and its clear they are passionate and frustrated, but the US just isn’t set up to be anything but conservative in the small c sense of incremental change and adjustment. Even when we’ve gotten major change, as a result of a crisis, if you carefully look the implementation was still process based and incremental. Which is frustrating as hell.
But the same thing that infuriates also protects us all. The folks that are convinced that Paul Ryan is a socialist and the President is a fascist and those of us that find those two ideas to be absurd on their face. Is it possible that should a demagogue – whether Trump or Senator Cruz – get elected and decide to just govern by fiat? Sure, its possible, but the govern by fiat part is highly unlikely. Because of the process nature of the system. Far too many people would have to roll over and pee on their bellies for it to happen. And that’s just not going to happen. Mr. Trump would quickly learn that being president is not the same as being in charge on The Apprentice. And Senator Cruz would quickly learn that being anointed at the age of four as America’s savior is not going to get anyone in the Senate to abandon the rules of the world’s greatest deliberative country club that makes each senator a center of gravity unto themselves.
Process is slow, painful, and frustrating as hell. It also protects all of us. The lunkheads at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge don’t understand this. The friend of a friend of mine who last week tried to explain to me that Paul Ryan was a communist and that regulations enacted by a municipality are somehow a failure of the Federal government doesn’t understand this. Several people running for President clearly do not understand this, or are pretending that they don’t. But in the end, no matter who gets elected in November, there will be limits, because of process, to what they can do. The biggest impacts will be on the Federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, and in Cabinet picks that will effect regulation. Congress will still be slow, internally conflicted, and minimally productive. For it to be otherwise its members would have to care much more about the institution than they do having the perks that come with being in the institution – including a platform to air their views.
And with that I wish you and everyone else still awake in here a good night.
jl
@Adam L Silverman:
Just thought I would fix an obvious typo since AS went to sleep.
“makes each senator a center of a galaxy unto themselves.”
David Koch
–
BillinGlendaleCA
@David Koch: [snort]
Ruckus
@Adam L Silverman:
This.
Glad we have someone who can explain this in a way that it should be able to be understood by anyone who is capable of understanding the difference between air and water.
Suzanne
I love Bernie. I don’t know who I’m voting for (because I don’t expect him to be in the race at all by the time I vote), but he has great strength of character and a good soul, and I hope his political revolution is real and lasting.
Gretchen
Bill Clinton is not running for anything. Why is anything Bill Clinton did in the 90’s an issue this year since, I repeat, he is not running for anything?
Gretchen
@amk: @amk: @amk: @amk: This old progressive woman is telling you to go jump in a lake. Hillary is not Bill. Whatever he has done doesn’t color her, and isn’t her fault. The Christian Conservatives who put marriage as the ultimate good suddenly want to criticize her for sticking to her marriage when things got tough? Sorry, doesn’t work. And, having stuck to her marriage when things got tough, she’s not supposed to accept the help of her husband? She’s not Bill, and is not responsible for bad decisions he made about other women in the 90’s, which caused her a lot of pain, but his administration was a good one for most Americans, and he thinks she would do a good job bringing back those good times for most Americans, and we’re supposed to reject his opinions because rumors?
Steeplejack
@Adam L Silverman:
After one particularly weird phone call, the Car Talk guys concluded that it was actually possible for three people to know less about a topic than one person.
Amir Khalid
@Gretchen:
And why is Hillary, the injured party in Bill’s infidelities, the one being attacked over them?
Applejinx
@Amir Khalid: Because some guy asked Bernie this, publically, in the presence of reporters:
Show me on the doll where Bernie made that shit up. I don’t know whether that’s an overly-clever Clinton operative setting up a narrative, or some Republican ratfucker trying to damage both Dem candidates, but that’s what the guy asked and Bernie had to answer something. That’s the real disgraceful thing: the whole process isn’t honest.
low-tech cyclist
Bernie Sanders is a mensch. That’s all I have to say.
low-tech cyclist
And anyone who’s going to throw Bill Clinton’s sex life from 20+ years ago into this campaign, ought to be prepared for a full discussion of the drug-running mobster in Marco Rubio’s family.
You know that BS about people supposedly getting killed on account of Bill Clinton in Arkansas? Well, Rubio’s brother-in-law was a major player in a multi-million dollar cocaine syndicate that killed two informers. That really happened. And BIL is still a Rubio family member in good standing, living with Marco’s parents.
There are certainly two sides to the question about whether Rubio’s BIL is an appropriate subject to bring up if Rubio’s campaign gets more traction. But if Bill Clinton’s sex life is fair game, then so is Rubio’s drug lord in the family.
IANAL, but I play one on the 'net
@Adam L Silverman: This overstates the case — it’s not that simple.
Point 1 was adequately addressed by @Matt McIrvin : it may be a bad idea (electors in the common home-state would have to make an off-ticket vote, making things ugly if the overall electoral vote is split narrowly), but it not constitutionally prohibited for P and VP to be “from the same state”.
As to point 2, the 22nd does not limit presidents to “two terms, period”. The 22nd limits presidents from being elected to more than a second full term:
It is actually an open legal question as to how this interacts with the eligibility requirements for VP, in particular, this phrase from the 12th amendment:
The issue here is that the 12th states an eligibility to serve, while the 22nd states eligibility to be elected. If someone were to be bold/crazy enough to try and nominate someone who would be ineligible to run under the 22nd as their veep, the case would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court, and we would then finally learn what the law really says here. ;-)
amk
@Gretchen: ???? May be you should read what I wrote before I jump in the lake for you.
Zinsky
Even though Hillary is probably the most qualified candidate, I have Clinton fatigue so badly, I can hardly stand it. I just won’t able to take eight more years of Whitewater, Vince Foster, Juanita Broaddrick, etc., etc. I just can’t take it….
I wish Bernie were 20 years younger, but I think having the first socialist president might be more needed and more meaningful than having our first woman president!
BillinGlendaleCA
@Zinsky:
Looks like the Republican PR machine has worked as intended.
ETA: I would suggest reading “The Hunting of the President”.
Amir Khalid
@Applejinx:
Is Hillary’s failure/refusal to divorce an unfaithful husband a sign that she lacks moral authority? Was her choice to save their marriage a sign that she supported Bill’s infidelities? Bernie’s questioner seems to think it’s yes to both questions. How about you?
BillinGlendaleCA
@Amir Khalid: It reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw in the Fry’s Burbank parking lot about a year ago; “If she can’t control her husband, how can she be Commander in Chief?”. As I said above, the Republican PR machine has worked as intended.
cleos mom
@Zinsky: But you’re going to love the golden era of President Cruz or President Trump, fur shurrrrrrrrrrr.
msdc
Just a friendly reminder that today, eighteen years later, with a population that’s 15% larger, the number of uninsured Americans is down to less than thirty million. Thanks to Democrats.
Socraticsilence
@David Koch:
I mean the Lewinsky thing is pretty clearly something that’s unacceptable today regardless of who initiated the relationship– a 50+ year old man who is essentially the most powerful person on the planet should have the self control not to sleep with an intern in her early 20s– hell the power dynamics alone arguably push it into the realm of sexual harassment.
Socraticsilence
@Adam L Silverman:
The secret service should require them to wear different ties when they visit each other. On the other hand The POTUS Trap sounds good.
Gvg
Bill’s personal behavior was not approved by me, however at the time the republican’s were trying to make hay with it, he vetoed a couple of bills that were IMO really detrimental to women’s legal best interests. That rather cemented my views on pragmatism in voting and how a polititian’s personal sex life was not my priority in picking votes. There are personal acts I would take into account like murder, child abuse…not sure there are more. Bill had a record before he was president too that showed he was a reliable vote/veto in certain areas. Not perfect but pretty good.
That Bernie is speaking for the common good in shooting down dumb scandal mongering is good for our republic and needs more fellows doing the same, it makes it more effective when it’s seen as passing up some opportunities for self advancement too. I actually think the perception of advantage is wrong as we have over done the cheap shot attacks over the last few decades and it no longer works as well but that is MO.
Howlin Wolfe
@goblue72: And in this decade, SoS. That’s why her honorific is “Secretary” instead of plain old “Mrs.”
Howlin Wolfe
@Adam L Silverman: The whole is less than the sum of its parts?
Howlin Wolfe
@jl: A black hole, then?
Thoughtful Today
Sanders’ full response:
My complaints about Hillary and Bill have been consistent: Their right-wing economic _theories_ hurt working Americans.
They are a power-duo in this: Hillary’s Walton billionaire employers were helped by President Bill’s right-wing trade agreements.
It’s inseparable.
blueskies
@David Koch: David, Bill Clinton had an affair with an employee, a very, very young one at that. There is inherent abuse to that situation. It’s not the sex, it’s the power.
blueskies
@PurpleGirl: Yeah, just like Obama and Biden. Or JFK and LBJ. I know, I know. Exceptions that prove the rule…
blueskies
@goblue72:
I don’t know; sounds like politics to me! ;)
blueskies
@amk: Geeze, amk, you don’t have to be an asshole ALL of the time.
Why don’t you tell us what forward-looking policy promulgation is being espoused by The Big Dog? I’ll grant you that he did cop to an “oopsies!” with the Glass-Stengel repeal thang, but other than that, what bright new shiny object is he bringing to the policy table?
amk
@blueskies: Is bill running again? With the risk of sounding assholish again, stop living in the past.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@jl: This.
I like Bernie as a Senator. At this point in time, he would get less done than Obama as President.
Unless he somehow gets 65+ Democrats in the Senate along with him. Picking up 21 seats out of 24 seats held by Teabaggers (including those retiring) seems, er, rather unlikely.
Progress is incremental. We should be working to make as strong a total team for the next administration as possible. That means, I think, keeping Bernie in the Senate (along with Elizabeth Warren), and working to make sure Hillary has long and broad coat-tails. Bernie and Elizabeth can and should (and I expect them to) campaign long and hard for the ticket. Then making a big push for 2020 in preparation for the Census. 2020 is the big prize if we want to flip the House and to continue the work of flipping the state governments…
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who remembers how well WJC not campaigning for AAG, jr., worked out… Sheesh.)
RaflW
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Somebody on Twitter must have done a word search: Dowd has written 103 columns that include the name Lewinsky.
There is something stalkerish in her obsession with Bill and his assignations.*
*Yes, I get it, Bill Clinton abused his power. Not a savory moral character. But Dowd can’t let the past be the past, nor let it be about Bill — she has to make it about Hillary, whom Dowd seems to viscerally and thoroughly hate.
sparrow
I don’t think either Hillary or Bernie would take the VP slot for the other. But in “let’s play alternate reality”, it probably WOULD be a good ticket as far as winning is concerned. I don’t think Bernie would be as effective as VP as he would be as a senator, but more importantly I don’t think Hillary would give him role at all in reigning in wall street or making college free, etc. Bernie may have the chops to work compromises or pull things in his direction (lack of ego is good for that), but in any case I seriously doubt he will get the offer.
I am a total Bernie fan, but I expect to be disappointed in the primaries. I also expect to be disappointed by Clinton’s VP pick (she’s gonna go for someone even more right-wing than she is, it’s her MO), and then fully disappointed by her term as president. I expect some disaster of a foreign war (er, “intervention” since we don’t do war anymore) will get her ousted after four years, and we will have another ugly Bush clone in after that. It’s depressing to contemplate. I hope I’m wrong.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@blueskies: She was 22-ish. That’s young-ish, but not very, very young.
At the time, I thought it was stupid of him to get in that situation, and stupid of him to take advantage of someone who was obviously infatuated with him. I also thought that it could put him in a situation where he could be blackmailed. It was stupid on so many levels.
But, as was pointed out above, he wasn’t blackmailed over it. He still acted responsibly in vetoing legislation.
People are complicated. They’re not machines. They can do things we disagree with while also doing things we agree with.
The GOP was trying to find something, anything, to use to defeat Clinton. Once he won, they tried to find something, anything, to throw him out of office. Clinton behaved like a cad and was stupid. But he didn’t deserve the unrelenting attacks, and certainly didn’t deserve to risk being thrown out of office for it. The will of the people in electing him, twice, even with all the “scandals” in the news, should mean something.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
The Other Chuck
@efgoldman:
And had Gore not picked that sanctimonious fuckwit Lieberman, the election might not have been close enough to steal.
henqiguai
@efgoldman (#81): Bet by now someone has already clarified this misconception, but as usual I’m late to the party.
The constitution Framers had an interesting and, to us modern readers, often confusing sentence structure. Re-read that phrase; it’s saying that the Electors can’t vote for both a Presidential candidate and a Vice Presidential candidate both from the same state as the Electors. If, for example, both Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are from CA, the CA Electors must pick someone else for one of the two positions; maybe that also-ran from MD, for instance, for VP.
Matt McIrvin
@Adam L Silverman:
I’m not 100% sure that people won’t roll over and pee on their bellies, because 9/11. That’s exactly what everyone did then, and for a while, Bush and Cheney could rule effectively by decree. They were using the process, but the process always let them through, often with crushing supermajorities. I suppose it was partly because George W. Bush came across in the immediate aftermath as, if not a mental giant, at least someone who wasn’t completely unhinged and did have the country’s best interest in mind.
But I think all it would really take would be a sufficiently terrifying terrorist crisis, some Reichstag-fire or 9/11 equivalent. And the ability to rule by decree would be temporary, as it was then. But someone actually bent on putting a dictatorship in place could use it to build the machine. These processes are things people follow because they figure it’s the normal thing to do.
Matt McIrvin
@IANAL, but I play one on the ‘net:
Even under the most sympathetic interpretation of the law, if something actually happened to the President and the VP became President, such a person would clearly be prohibited from running for reelection after serving the partial term. That seems like a major disadvantage in itself.
Thoughtful Today
Hillary supporters need to realize this applies to _any_ Presidential candidate:
Hillary Clinton WON’T bring a Congressional Democratic majority with her in 2016. Worse, Hillary’s Corporate policies as President will likely systematically alienate many Americans and hand 2018 to even _more_ Congressional Republicans.
Bernie is correctly saying that his policies are tremendously popular, he has the youth vote, his policies _excite_ many young people, and he’s quite clearly looking beyond 2016.
Bernie’s looking at exciting those young voters with policies that help their lives, not just for Presidential elections, but the off year elections as well: 2018, 2022, and the future.
The Democratic Party will be stronger if Bernie’s our President.
Applejinx
@Amir Khalid: Why should I care? I’m not that questioner. As for Bill’s disgraceful behavior, that’s just rich corporate capitalists being rich corporate capitalists and that DOES apply also to Hillary. ‘May the Force be with you’, my ass.
Amir Khalid
@Thoughtful Today:
Will Bernie? No. From what I hear, he’s not even trying.
@Applejinx:
If you don’t care about these two questions of mine
then why cite someone who brings up Bill’s infidelities as a point against Hillary? Why keep banging on the point when Bernie, your own candidate, considers them unimportant to the issues he’s running on?
RaflW
@The Other Chuck:
No shit. I’m sure they were great friends in the Senate, but Lieberman was a godawful pick. I just hope we won’t have to endure anything like that in this fall’s ticket. Ugh-o-rama.
RaflW
Jeepers. Anyone who reads the Savage Love column can understand that marriage, much less sexuality, is a very complex thing. Maybe in the prior chattel meaning of marriage, faithfulness to the marital bed mattered more (half-heirs, bastard kids, and all that stuff). But in the late 20th & early 21st century? Who the fvk cares why they stayed married. Maybe they love each other. Maybe they don’t. Maybe they have fabulous sex, maybe on or the other is as bisexual as a tandem bicycle. I just don’t care.
I have definite concerns about Hillary as a late 20th century, middle of the road, triangulating, Wall Street-cozy hawk politician. I’ll still vote for her is she’s the nominee. And I decide that on what her impact v. a GOP president’s impact would be on the nation. It has nothing to do with her marriage.
Amir Khalid
@RaflW:
I certainly don’t think these questions are important to anyone other than Hillary and Bill. Those who’ve been bringing up her supposedly “enabling” his infidelities apparently think they matter, in some way that affects her standing to lead America. If there is more to this theory than a vague put-down of the lady by her political opponents, I’d like someone to set it out so I can see if it makes sense to me.
IANAL, but I play one on the 'net
@Matt McIrvin: Yes, there are many practical reasons why dancing with the choice of a termed-out ex-president for your veep is a bad idea, but my point is just that claims that one just flat can’t (in the sense of “its prohibited by the constitution”) is not as clear-cut as some are claiming.
I know, I know, but duty calls…
sparrow
@Amir Khalid: That’s rather disengenuous, considering that Bernie has said repeatedly that it’s not about electing just him, we HAVE to elect more progressives. Which are, you know, democrats.
David Koch
@blueskies: Oh please. Spare me. Roosevelt was banging Eleanor’s very young secretary (Lucy Mercer) and his own secretary (Missy LeHand). And he’s the Messiah of online liberals.
David Koch
@sparrow:
Q.:Sanders has been in the Senate and Congress for 25 years. How many progressives has he helped get elected or raised money for?
A.: Zero.
David Koch
@Socraticsilence: Benjamin Franklin is laughing at you.
sparrow
@David Koch: How do you know this? I ask genuinely. It doesn’t seem like the kind of thing you can find out to high accuracy with a quick google search. Anyway, raising money to help other people get elected seems like something “superstars” like Elizabeth Warren do. Has Bernie always had that kind of name recognition? Doesn’t seem like it. Can we now cast out all the dems who haven’t helped get other dems elected through direct campaigning? It just seems like a weird standard. I don’t dislike Hillary because she didn’t campaign to get Bernie elected, I dislike her for, you know, actual policy positions she holds. Some of you guys are so far down the DNC black hole, you don’t realize how out out touch you really are.
J R in WV
@goblue72:
You are living in the 1990s yourself. Would you really rather see Cruz, Trump or Rubio in the White House? Really? Not me!
@BubbaDave:
Your comment is right on the money. Ms Clinton is at this point a self-made successful politician at the national level, and deserves the respect she has learned. The fact that her husband, ex-President Clinton, will be willing to tell the nation how he feels about the 2016 election and who he feels is best qualified to lead the nation, just as he did after the nominating convention back in 2008, is a good thing.
wuzzat
@David Koch: One would like to think that the social acceptability of sexual predation has experienced at least the same level of decline that, say, cousin marriage has over the past few centuries, but apparently not.
David Koch
@sparrow: you knucklehead, I’m the worst Clinton critic this blog has ever seen. (Scroll down) I swear Sanders’s supporters are out to lunch.
David Koch
@wuzzat: Some feminist you are. Adult women have free will and autonomy and their choices shouldn’t be judged by sexist paternalism. If 23 year old Jennifer Lawrence want to have a relationship with a director 20+ years older than her, who is anyone characterize her as a victim of predation.