The inanity, it burns

Two very dumb things are making the rounds today.  The first is from Tad Devine, Sander’s campaign manager:

 

This actually makes some sense if we are to assume that the Sanders campaign is fundamentally a message and viewpoint campaign. Those campaigns are a valued part of the American political process and most cycles will have a couple of single issue candidates run in order to air their ideas to a much wider audience and hopefully get their party’s front-runners to bend their positions more closely to the single issue priority. If we analyze the Sander’s campaign in this fashion, then the statement makes a lot of sense and the Sanders’ campaign has been successful.

Maximizing a message opportunity is a very different objective than maximizing the probability of winning sufficient delegates to be nominated.  Hillary Clinton is running on a delegate optimization mode as she is running to actually be nominated.  That was her theory of her campaign in the spring of 2015 (and spring of 2007).  She needs to campaign everywhere to get delegates, while Sanders needs to stay plausible enough to get a microphone so spending resources and losing minimizes the microphone opportunity.  Two very different beasts being run with very different optimization functions.

But saying this outloud while still proclaiming that Sanders is running an actual campaign to get the nomination is stupid.

And now the other piece of stupid from reactionary anti-health policy “wonk” Michael Cannon:

There is no sense in marking the ACA’s anniversary, however, because the ACA is no longer the law.

Realizing the law he signed was unconstitutional and unworkable, President Obama and the Supreme Court have since made a series of dramatic revisions that effectively replaced the ACA with something we now call “Obamacare.”

Unconstitutional does not mean what Mr. Cannon thinks it means.

Unconstitutional does not mean “I don’t like this” and “the embedding of liberterian doctrine into a document written at least three generations before the first liberterian thinkers has been obstructed”.  Unconstitutional does not mean that something is stupid or venial.

Unconstitutional means what five justices on the Supreme Court thinks that means. So far, there have been at least five justices who have said that PPACA is fundamentally allowed under our governing constraints.   Constitutionality does not in and of itself imply that an act is wise, good, desirable or prudent.  In this case, I think those descriptors are fair descriptors of the ACA, but those can be up for debate.

Constitutionality is not at this point.






167 replies
  1. 1
    LAO says:

    Unconstitutional means what five justices on the Supreme Court thinks that means.

    That was what I was taught in law school, oh so many years ago. Its refreshing to see so simple a notion reaffirmed.

  2. 2
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    ad Devine says Clinton’s lead is almost entirely from states in which Sanders did not compete: “She has emerged as a weak front runner.”

    Did he campaign in FL? I know he did in OH, a lot of people were predicting another MI-like upset, and he outspent her substantially in AZ

  3. 3
    dr. bloor says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Forget it, Jake, it’s BernieTown.

  4. 4
    Genghis says:

    The difference in delegates appears to be the super-delegates. I get it that they aren’t going away, but it makes the point just how strong Sanders’ campaign has been, and how weak a front runner HRC is. This is not a normal election, and the recent Bloomberg poll may cause some jitters for the super-delegates, virtually all of which support HRC. The super-delegate system was installed to prevent another McGovern style blowout, but it’s possible it will cause the wrong candidate to be selected in terms of general electability.

    Best…H

  5. 5
    Craigo says:

    Offhand, Sanders outspent Clinton in NC, AZ, MO, NV, MA, and OH, and came close in FL and IL.

  6. 6
    Craigo says:

    @Genghis: Appears to be if you literally do not know how to count pledged delegates.

  7. 7
    Gravenstone says:

    @Genghis: Um no, the difference in delegates is in actual pledged delegates. If you include the supers, Clinton nearly has the nomination outright as of this date.

    Richard – your second highlighted bit of idiocy is just breathtaking in its scope. I’m not sure how Mr. Cannon is allowed out without adult supervision.

  8. 8
    Genghis says:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....count.html

    1243 (HRC) to 975 (Sanders) with 2382 needed to win is damn close imo. (That’s the count without super-delegates included according to the link above.)

    Best…H

  9. 9
    pamelabrown53 says:

    Tad Devine is this cycle’s Mark Penn.

    What an odd choice for a “revolutionary”.

  10. 10
    Marmot says:

    Who is Sander?
    ;)

  11. 11
    david10 says:

    Conversely, with the exception of MI. Sanders has only done well where Clinton chose not to compete.
    He spent more than 3 million in Washington as against a few hundred thousand for HRC. He enormously outspent her in Alaska and Hawaii. My question would be whether he can afford to spend 15 to 20 dollars a vote in the upcoming primary states
    Does Sanders believe Tad, does he know how much his campaign spent in Fla., Oh. and Az.? I get the impression more and more that Bernie does believe Messiah has come.

  12. 12
    Fourten says:

    This tactic works at the track too, go up to a window and tell the guy that the winning horse was trying too hard to win and you’ll get paid out no matter how your horse finished

  13. 13
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Genghis: 1) what Bloomberg poll? I’m unaware of which recently picked cherry proves that Bernie cannot fail, he can only be cheated out of the nomination.

    2) since we’re rewriting the rules, should we give more weight to primaries than caucuses?

    3) Your helpful RPC link shows that Clinton has a big ass lead in the actual vote count– what’s a noble populist soul to do with that?

  14. 14
    chopper says:

    Tad Devine says Clinton’s lead is almost entirely from states in which Sanders did not compete

    really gives off a ‘bernie’s a fighter’ vibe, dunnit?

  15. 15
    burnspbesq says:

    It amazes me that people pay attention to Cannon. Adler and Barnett are dead wrong on virtually everything, but at least they get credit for their views following logically from flawed premises. Cannon is just a loon.

  16. 16
    gwangung says:

    @Genghis: No. Absolutely wrong. Try again; Sanders does not need such weak sauce supporters.

  17. 17
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    @Genghis:

    You’re skating perilously close to the thin ice that swallowed up the Romney campaign (and Karl Rove) in 2012. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, Bernie’s behind by over a couple of hundred pledged (not super) delegates. That’s not an easily-made-up deficit. Sure, it’s possible he could start winning more pledged delegates in the remaining races, but it will be a very tall order.

    If the goal of Bernie’s campaign was to raise awareness about certain issues and force Hillary to tack left, then he’s succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, and everyone should be ecstatic with what he’s accomplished. If the goal of Bernie’s campaign is to actually win the Democratic nomination for President, then he’s fallen well short and is unlikely to win at this point.

  18. 18
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Genghis: 2016 Democratic Popular Vote
    State Date Clinton Sanders Spread
    RCP Total – 8,924,920 6,398,420 Clinton +2,526,500

    I guess we’re just gonna throw out the votes of the voters who don’t know what’s good for them?

  19. 19
    patroclus says:

    Sanders clearly campaigned here in Illinois. Lots of commercials; several rallies. And although it’s a big state, virtually all of it is not in the South. He did well here, but not as well as the strong front-runner.

    There was a good article on politico about who should be Hillary’s V-P nominee – it’s Al Franken. Oy oy oy. Unfortunately, the Al Franken decade was in the 1980’s, so I’m betting on one of the Castros. Or maybe Sanders.

    Although it was the wrong rationale, even the Republican John Roberts confirmed the constitutionality of the ACA. Perhaps someone should read his opinion.

  20. 20
    Marmot says:

    So … What does crazy Cannon say the ACA was replaced with? I mean, I don’t recall any sort of big changes.

  21. 21
    Amir Khalid says:

    @chopper:
    A sloppy crew means a sloppy captain.

  22. 22
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I guess we’re just gonna throw out the votes of the voters who don’t know what’s good for them?

    And also throw out the votes of all red state voters–we should have no say in who is the Democratic candidate, I’ve been told many times

  23. 23
    Peale says:

    Meh. It’s two weak candidates is what we got, especially Hillary and her win-at-all costs mentality. The problem with the Sanders campaign is that its just too humble, which is why its ignored by the mainstream media, which prefers its men to blow their dicks loudly, like vuvuzelas. But as for Hillary, I’ve never seen such a selfish campaigner. Always with the “I will do this” and “I will do that”. Always the I and nothing about her policies.

    I wish Feingold were running. Or if not him, maybe if Les Aspin were still alive. Who knows.

  24. 24
    Peale says:

    @Steve in the ATL: Except for those in Idaho.

  25. 25
    Brachiator says:

    @Genghis:

    The super-delegate system was installed to prevent another McGovern style blowout, but it’s possible it will cause the wrong candidate to be selected in terms of general electability.

    This is really funny. Clinton and Sanders are not trying to win delegates, but are in a beauty contest to flaunt their “electability.”

  26. 26
    Dan says:

    @Genghis:

    well, no, a lead of several hundred delegates at this point in the game is pretty hard to surmount because Dem primaries and caucuses never go winner-take-all. Bernie would have to start *winning* the black vote and the registered Democrats. (Currently he’s won independents but not registered Democrats in most states with open primaries.)

  27. 27
    Calouste says:

    My problem with the Sanders campaign (and with some of his supporters as ably demonstrated on this very thread), is that it seems to have only a tenuous connection to reality. Not completely dissimilar to the tenuous connection to reality that al the GOP candidate’s campaigns have, either suspended or still ongoing. Similarities which could lead one to believe that the Sanders campaign is nothing more than a Karl Rove ratfvck.

  28. 28
    agorabum says:

    That is incredibly stupid to say that President Obama ‘realized it was unconstitutional’ and worked with the Courts to fix it. More that the court upheld the law in general but allowed Republican governors to spite the poor in their states and block medicad expansion, and in response Obama has…not been able to do anything to fix this ruling because of the Republican obstructionists who always live in fear that some poor person somewhere may be bettering their lot at the expense of the obscenely wealthy.

  29. 29
    Peale says:

    @Calouste: Yep that blaring headline “No, you don’t have to support Hillary! if she wins!”. A few hundred thousand to the right “thought leaders” and you can herd them anywhere you want them to go.

  30. 30
    Brachiator says:

    @Peale:

    The problem with the Sanders campaign is that its just too humble, which is why its ignored by the mainstream media, which prefers its men to blow their dicks loudly, like vuvuzelas.

    I’m not getting that Sanders is humble. I keep trying to like him, but he keeps sounding like a crank who has a single minded fixation on Wall Street and corporate cash. And oh yeah, promises for free college. Wheeeeeeee!

  31. 31
    AnotherBruce says:

    @Marmot: I read it, he claims it was replaced by “Obamacare”. Yes his entire argument is drowning in shallow water. What a maroon.

  32. 32
    patroclus says:

    @Peale: I’ve noticed that too with Hillary. Obama’s rhetoric was always about “you;” Hillary’s is mostly “I.” But the proto-Fascist is even more about “I” than she is, so in the general election, she’ll be stronger (by that measure). But rhetoric is less important than actual policy positions and experience, in my view.

  33. 33
    mdblanche says:

    @david10:

    Does Sanders believe Tad

    I’m not sure Tad believes Tad, but he has to say something to justify his existence.

  34. 34
    D58826 says:

    OH MY –

    This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest

    Jill Abramson
    I’ve investigated Hillary and know she likes a ‘zone of privacy’ around her. This lack of transparency, rather than rather than any actual corruption, is her greatest flaw

    Interesting article
    http://www.theguardian.com/com.....l-abramson

  35. 35
    El Caganer says:

    @Marmot: The deity of the Sanderia religion, of course.

  36. 36
    dr. bloor says:

    @patroclus:

    Al Franken decade was in the 1980’s

    Yeah, if you’re talking about his career as a comedian.

    He’s a United States Senator now. Takes his job very seriously, is a strong voice for the Democratic party, and is often one of the smartest guys in the room. IMHO, a much stronger running mate than Sanders.

    Castros really aren’t on the national map yet, and I’d be surprised to see HRC put one of them on it with a nomination during a high stakes election like this one.

  37. 37
    dr. bloor says:

    @Peale: LOL. Remember the wingnuts counting up the “I’s” in Obama’s speeches in 08? No, you don’t.

    Good times.

  38. 38
    daves910 says:

    Sanders, no matter what Devine spins, is, barring a miracle, f****d. He has very considerably outspent HRC per vote, but there is a limit to what even he can raise and spend. So does he throw all his money into Wis to try to tie or come close and keep the “momentum”? Or does he concentrate on NY and Pa. despite the almost certainty of bad losses?
    If, pace Devine, he “chooses” not to compete, then this really is over.

  39. 39
    Eric U. says:

    I was thinking about voting for Sanders just because I don’t think it would matter, but if it will convince the Bernistas to stfu, I’m voting for Hitlery. Of course, by the time we vote in PA, it will all be over

  40. 40
    Chyron HR says:

    @Genghis:

    Whereas if Sanders was leading Clinton by nearly 300 pledged delegates you’d be calling on her to withdraw from the race, if not commit sudoku outright.

  41. 41
    Brachiator says:

    @D58826:

    Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest

    Rebuttal to be found here.

  42. 42
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @dr. bloor: I sincerely believe Sanders would be a disaster on a national ticket, in either spot. Also I have a problem with the idea that a Veep is more effective than a Senator in actually implementing policy– Joe Biden was supposed to bring Obama clout in the Senate, where he is I believe sincerely beloved even by a lot of R’s, and they told him to go pound sand.

    The Castros do seem awfully young, and more importantly light in experience. I’ve seen people say Tom Perez would thread the needle between a long career advocating for labor and middle class issues and the Hispanic community. I don’t know much about him other than that a lot of people I trust were very happy when he joined BO’s cabinet. His profile is low and his resume unusual for the one-heartbeat-away thing, but I think the electoral pros outweigh the cons

  43. 43
    goblue72 says:

    @Brachiator: Fuck you. Seriously. I am sick and tired of so-called Democrats and their mealy-mouthed “free college is so stupid” crap. You wanna go trash the idea that maybe, just maybe, government should be spending more money – a LOT more money – on the social welfare safety net – which includes making college free or near fine? Fine. There’s a party for that and its called the Republican Party.

  44. 44
    Genghis says:

    @ gwangung, maybe you could try for a more detailed and helpful response?

    Yes, Sanders is unlikely to get the nomination. Duh. It’s also not over yet. There are enough super-delegates that in an election like this (with a less than dominant front runner) they could be the ones who ultimately choose the candidate. At the moment, that candidate is HRC. I have zero desire for or expectation of an FBI indictment, but it is a possibility, however small. The impact if it happens is unknowable.

    I don’t require Sanders to be the nominee, but the issues he’s raised will not be going away soon. I can see that HRC might do a better job of implementing some of Sanders’ agenda. No, I won’t be staying home or voting for Trump, but this is no time for Sanders to fold his tent.

    The poll (which I can’t find now) showed Sanders doing as well as HRC vs all Rep. candidates in the general, except in the unlikely event of Kasich being the Rep. nominee. In that scenario, HRC loses and Bernie does not. Is it accurate? I don’t know; it’s a poll.

    Best…H

  45. 45
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @dr. bloor: They never counted, they just made it up.

  46. 46

    @dr. bloor:
    Patroclus is talking about a comedy sketch Franken gave New Years Eve 1979, declaring that the 80s would be ‘the Al Franken decade.’ There were lines like ‘Ladies, you should think about what you can wear – or not wear – to please me, Al Franken.’ It was a joke about the meme ‘the Me decade.’

  47. 47
    dmsilev says:

    @Chyron HR:

    if not commit sudoku outright.

    I don’t know, I think Clinton might have trouble filling the grid.

  48. 48
    D58826 says:

    @Grumpy Code Monkey: I saw an article today that said Bernie was planning on upping the anti-Clinton rhetoric in the NY primary. Now its true he has earned the right to stay in the race as long as he wants but the more he amps up the criticism of the democratic party in general and Hillary in particular, then the harder it is going to be to unite the two campaigns for the general. There was a lot of political rhetoric thrown around in 2008 between Hillary and Obama but in the end each wanted to lead a united party into November. I’m not sure that is Bernie’s aim. I think he will be quite happy to blow up the party in order to get his revolution started. Remember he himself said the only reason he became a democrat was to make it easier to run for the presidency. He has no long standing loyalty to the democratic party or the folks who make it up.

  49. 49
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    Tad has been paid a fuckton of money in the last two months – over $1M – so these are the stories we’re going to hear until the gravy train runs out of gravy – he’s selling delusions to the delusional. The thing is, I would do it for a lot less money, and sound less lame.

    ETA: Robby Mook is drawing $7K per mo. to manage Clinton’s campaign. That’s what I call “value”.

  50. 50
    Elie says:

    @Chyron HR:

    “if not commit sudoku outright”

    Great play on words — gotta get those numbers right! (seppuku is the actual term for honor suicide in Japan)

  51. 51
    liberal says:

    @Peale:

    Or if not him, maybe if Les Aspin were still alive.

    LOL. That guy was a real POS if there ever was one.

  52. 52

    Whoever the D VP candidate is, I’d like them to be someone who looks to the future. That is, I’d like them to be younger than the candidate at the very least.

  53. 53
    Eric U. says:

    @Chyron HR: is committing sudoku followed by a ritual crossword puzzle?

  54. 54
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    @D58826:

    I haven’t trusted him to help Hillary get elected for one second. He’s a total fucking carpetbagging fraud at this point.

  55. 55
    goblue72 says:

    @Steve in the ATL: Citation for people telling you that red state votes should all be thrown out? Or just more stuff out of the ass?

  56. 56
    Genghis says:

    @Dan:

    I agree – a Sanders candidacy is unlikely. Thanks for the thoughtful and informative approach, not always found here.

    Best…H

  57. 57
    Amir Khalid says:

    @dmsilev:
    I had thought up a very clever riposte to Chyron HR, and you went and beat me to it. Pout.

  58. 58
    Gin & Tonic says:

    How many Sanders vs. Clinton posts with the same commenters saying the same things over and over can we have in one day?

  59. 59
    Elie says:

    @D58826:

    This is my main concern about Bernie. That and his temperament and thinking. The guy is pretty hot headed. If he wins the nomination, they will be pulling his chain day and night. He will be looking old and crochety and it will not be a selling point. I still think he is a long shot, but I am continually surprised by how many smart people don’t see his weaknesses as a presidential candidate.

  60. 60
    Chyron HR says:

    @goblue72:

    so-called Democrats

    Well there you go, Sanders is really winning because (by definition) anyone who votes for Hillary isn’t even a real Democrat. I’m sure the superdelegates are flip-flopping as we speak.

  61. 61
    D58826 says:

    @Brachiator: Ah but nothing on that list is a crime. Stupid maybe, overly secretive but not a crime. I wonder what we would find out if Mittens or Cruz or Rubio or Newt or the Bush family were subjected to the level of press and legal scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to

  62. 62
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    How many Sanders vs. Clinton posts with the same commenters saying the same things over and over can we have in one day?

  63. 63
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @D58826: most of those things are things nobody actually gives a fuck about. Sid Blumenthal?

  64. 64
    El Caganer says:

    @Gin & Tonic: @Jim, Foolish Literalist: You already know the answer: “All of them, Katie.”

  65. 65
    liberal says:

    @the Conster, la Citoyenne:

    He’s a total fucking carpetbagging fraud at this point.

    Yeah…it would be so much better if he ran as an independent instead.

  66. 66
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: There an echo in here?

  67. 67
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    @liberal:

    He’s using the Dem party to mount a third party run and poison the well against the party for his followers anyway – what’s the fucking difference?

  68. 68
    daves910 says:

    I imagine the HRC campaign has a few ads in reserve in case Sanders decides to go negative. Probably something along the lines of George and Martha asking each other; Sanders wants to raise our taxes how much? Neither side has used the nuclear option and II hope they won’t, but Sanders has more to lose.

  69. 69
    Bill says:

    @Gin & Tonic: In one day? It’s been months of this now.

    I used to really enjoy the interesting and insightful comments here. But this place is devolving in to a shit show.

  70. 70
    WarMunchkin says:

    @Gin & Tonic: All of them? I mean even if the topic of the post were something else, the comments are usually inevitably dragged back. And we’ll do this after the election too, in the form of whatever the Sanders and Clinton people become. The eternal war.

    But I think this is just the new and old normal in politics.

  71. 71
    chopper says:

    @Grumpy Code Monkey:

    if any of the dem primary was winner take all then it might make some sense. winning a decent state in a WTA primary can totally shift the game by margins like that.

    but yeah, not this primary. a couple hundo behind isn’t going to be a gap he can cross.

  72. 72
    liberal says:

    @Calouste:

    …is that it seems to have only a tenuous connection to reality.

    LOL. As opposed to all the idiots who comment here who believe, despite widely acknowledged evidence, that if the US/UK/France hadn’t bombed Qaddafi, that he would have “genocided Bengazi”?

  73. 73
    msdc says:

    Hillary Clinton is running on a delegate optimization mode as she is running to actually be nominated. That was her theory of her campaign in the spring of 2015 (and spring of 2007).

    If delegate optimization had been the theory of her campaign in the spring of 2007, she would be closing out her second term as POTUS.

    But she has done a pretty damn good job of learning from past mistakes, I’ll give her that.

  74. 74
    liberal says:

    @the Conster, la Citoyenne: If you’re so stupid to think that there wouldn’t be a difference in the impact on the actual general election, I can’t help you.

    And in what sense is it a “third party run”?

  75. 75
    Origuy says:

    Calling Southern Beale: The shooter at the Capitol has been identified as a Tennessee man, Larry Dawson of Antioch.

    In October, Dawson was caught yelling he was a “prophet of God” from the balcony of the House of Representatives. Dawson reportedly was charged with with unlawful misconduct and assault on a police officer.

  76. 76
    Brachiator says:

    @patroclus:

    I’ve noticed that too with Hillary. Obama’s rhetoric was always about “you;” Hillary’s is mostly “I.”

    I agree, but I don’t see this as selfish.

    HRC often talks about how hard she is going to work for the American people, and how much work she has done on a specific policy issue. It’s an almost passive, indirect leadership style.

  77. 77
    goblue72 says:

    @Chyron HR: I’m sorry, in what reading comprehension moronic universe do you live? Nowhere in what I wrote did I say anything – not a single thing – that voting for Clinton means you aren’t a real Democrat. Nowhere. But please persist in your inability to see anything except black and white caricature.

    What I criticized – in the actual words I typed on the screen and which you apparently do not know how to read – was the pot shots at Sanders repeatedly from so-called Democrats on the JB comment threads over “free college” and the like. As if expanding the social welfare safety net is some kind of pie in the sky fantasy – as opposed to, I don’t know, the thing Democrats are supposed to strongly advocate for to distinguish themselves from, I don’t know, the Republicans.

    Attending the University of California before Reagan and his merry band of anti-tax Neanderthals showed up, was pretty much close to free. (Tuition for CA residents was actually free pre-Reagan, with the university charging some very very modest student fees.) Its not some crazy scheme. Its what should be demanded.

  78. 78
    Technocrat says:

    I’ve always thought the phrase “weak frontrunner” was kind of an oxymoron. It reminds me of Rubio’s strong third-place wins.

  79. 79
    Miss Bianca says:

    Completely off-topic, but am I the only one who finds the verbage on this ad from the NRA (on another site) somewhere between funny and bat-shit?

    “Join NRA! FREE POCKET KNIFE”

  80. 80
    redshirt says:

    @WarMunchkin: There’s only a few hard core Sandernistas but like with trolls, it just takes a few to shift the entire conversation. I’m not accusing the Sandernistas of being trolls, however, as I do think they’re sincere in their comments. Just the same effect.

  81. 81
    liberal says:

    @msdc:

    But she has done a pretty damn good job of learning from past mistakes, I’ll give her that.

    Look, I completely agree that HRC is almost certainly going to win the primary, and also that sitting out the vote in November is moronic, and that she’s infinitely better than any monster the Republicans end up running.

    But frankly, how can you say that someone who voted for the Iraq AUMF and then decides that overthrowing Qaddafi is a great idea is capable of learning anything? Oh, that’s right—I forgot—we prevented a genocide!!1!

  82. 82
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Gin & Tonic: All of them, Katie.

  83. 83
    Chyron HR says:

    @goblue72:

    WAAH STOP TROLLING ME I’M SUPPOSED TO BE THE ONE THAT TROLLS YOU!

    Tough shit, sunshine.

  84. 84
    joel hanes says:

    @goblue72:

    Fuck you. Seriously. I am sick and tired of so-called Democrats

    Making more friends and influencing more people, I see .

  85. 85
    goblue72 says:

    @the Conster, la Citoyenne: Your a fucking moron if you think after the dust settles, and if Clinton is the nominee, that Sanders is going to go “poison the well” and his voters won’t vote Clinton.

    Jesus fucking Christ. The same exact thing happened with the PUMA thing in 2008 and it was big fat nothingburger. And the PUMAs were completely crazy – since they didn’t even have actual public policy differences between the two candidates driving their position.

  86. 86
    chopper says:

    @joel hanes:

    that’s it, yer on the list, buddy.

  87. 87
    Chyron HR says:

    @goblue72:

    You forgot to add “#BernieorBust”. Gotta keep those hashtags trending, man.

  88. 88
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @goblue72: People on my FB page saying that specifically to me, but not going to name names on here, as well as pseudonymous internet commenters on various sites, whose statements may or may not be genuine.

    And, for the record, I love Bernie and I support hi s”free” college idea. It’s not really free, it’s just a better allocation of our tax dollars, to things that help us rather than things that blow up brown people or transfer even more wealth to the 0.1%.

  89. 89
    WarMunchkin says:

    @redshirt: I made no comment about which camp, and I’ve seen a lot of things from either side that viscerally bothered me.

    The attitude to have is “what am I doing to contribute and make things better?”. It’s just too easy to whip either yourself or other parties into a froth on the internet. Small snide remarks snowball into mild exaggerations which end up as full-blown conspiracy masquerading as fact. But that’s just post-reality humanity, and it predated the internet anyway, I guess.

  90. 90
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @goblue72: Your vast and I’m sure very successful experience as an activist and community organizer– which I totally believe is real!– really shines through. It’s amazing Bernie’s losing with you in his corner.

  91. 91
    goblue72 says:

    @Chyron HR: Look I get it. You don’t have the ability to parse things beyond black and white. And that your ability to articulate why your support for Candidate X is anything more than cheering the laundry. I get it. You were held back in the 5th grade and just never got over it. Its a tough life and you deserve a cookie.

  92. 92
    redshirt says:

    @goblue72: Sincere question: Are you trying to actually persuade anyone here of anything? If so, do you think the constant insults help your efforts, somehow?

  93. 93
    gwangung says:

    @Genghis: Dunno about you, but if you start with “the difference seems to be with the superdelegates”, I really can’t help you. Having more pledged delegates and more actual votes are factors you can’t ignore.

    And, goblue72….y’all got a lot of nerve for someone who doesn’t know what the rest of us do in real life.

  94. 94
    Brachiator says:

    @D58826:

    Ah but nothing on that list is a crime. Stupid maybe, overly secretive but not a crime.

    I agree. I posted it without comment for those who might be interested.

    I wonder what we would find out if Mittens or Cruz or Rubio or Newt or the Bush family were subjected to the level of press and legal scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to

    I think that the Clintons have had a lot of enemies who keep shit stirred up, but the other people you mention have had a good deal of press scrutiny.

  95. 95
    chopper says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    you must be one of those goddamn baby boomers.

  96. 96
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Brachiator: at least with Willard, the scandal was what was legal. Just the carefully creative accounting that laundered the Mittlets’ trust fund should have caused the Revolution Bernie thinks he’s leading. I still can’t quite grok that more people weren’t interested. Gingrich’s dirty laundry has been hung out, too, but his constituency is mostly the Village, so there the willful blindness is less surprising.

  97. 97
    patroclus says:

    @Frankensteinbeck: Indeed, but in current Franken lingo, it wasn’t a “comedy” sketch – it was a “satirical” sketch. He wasn’t a “comedian;” he was a “satirist.” Apparently, that distinction is key in our current interpretation of libel and slander laws.

    The reason I want Franken is because he’d be a riot on the campaign trail as a V-P nominee. Everyone knows him – we’d see a lot of old “satirical” re-runs, and he’s also quite sharp and pointed and could play the attacker role quite well (with subtle humor along the way).

  98. 98
    CONGRATULATIONS! says:

    He’s using the Dem party to mount a third party run and poison the well against the party for his followers anyway – what’s the fucking difference

    @the Conster, la Citoyenne: I went into this cycle thinking that I’d vote Sanders in the primary and then it was likely going to end up being Hillary winning the primary and I’d vote for her.

    Ain’t voting for Sanders now. I think your summary is pretty accurate. If I wanted to vote for someone who thinks “government is the problem” I’d vote for fucking Rafael “Ted” Cruz.

  99. 99
    Chyron HR says:

    @goblue72:

    And that your ability to articulate why your support for Candidate X

    Because of course anybody who says you’re an asshole must actually be supporting Clinton. It couldn’t be that you’re just, you know, an asshole.

  100. 100
    smith says:

    @patroclus: I’d REALLY prefer that no Dem senator run for VP — we need those seats!

    Also, disappointed to see that the Secret Service has nixed any guns (but theirs) at the RNC. The petition was up to 45K signatures, not all of them left-wing trolls.

  101. 101
    gwangung says:

    @patroclus:

    The reason I want Franken is because he’d be a riot on the campaign trail as a V-P nominee. Everyone knows him – we’d see a lot of old “satirical” re-runs, and he’s also quite sharp and pointed and could play the attacker role quite well (with subtle humor along the way).

    Yes, he’d be underestimated by the Republicans and the public at large….and he’s slice the jugular quite neatly.

    (And he’d REALLY handle a Trump pretty well…..hmm….)

  102. 102
    Brachiator says:

    @liberal:

    But frankly, how can you say that someone who voted for the Iraq AUMF and then decides that overthrowing Qaddafi is a great idea is capable of learning anything?

    Yeah, as a matter of fact. And this is not simply a defense of Clinton.

    Also, Clinton could only advise about Qaddafi. She did not make the decision. Nor was she the only advisor who had the president’s ear on this. I totally understand why people judge Clinton on this, but it makes no sense to pretend that she was the architect of the Iraq War or the decision to oust Qaddafi.

    I also do not think it a principled position to leave dictators and tyrants in place, and pretend that this avoids war or terrible problems down the road.

  103. 103
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @goblue72:

    Your a fucking moron …

    Still providing us with your particular brand of BernieBro outreach,I see. Keep up the good work, HRC is almost home.

  104. 104
    msdc says:

    @liberal: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt you by posting a comment that wasn’t about Benghazi. Thank you for dragging it back to the only issue that matters, to the exclusion of all others.

  105. 105
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @A Ghost To Most: Don’t ya just feel the Bern?

    If so, I believe they make a, eh, Preparation for that.

  106. 106
    Gindy51 says:

    @Brachiator: That free college is going to cost a fuck of a lot of money in taxes. http://americablog.com/2016/03.....g+News+%29

  107. 107
    Cacti says:

    @Peale:

    The problem with the Sanders campaign is that its just too humble

    Ummm, yeah.

    Nothing says humble quite like promises of a “political revolution”.

  108. 108
    patroclus says:

    Hillary just gave a really good speech in MadCity about Merrick Garland. Good reaction from the crowd!

  109. 109
    Gindy51 says:

    @patroclus: ALL candidates do that, at least the 50 odd ones I have had to listen to in the past 40 plus years of voting.

  110. 110
    SRW1 says:

    @Eric U.:

    Maybe committing sudoku is seppuku by numbers.

  111. 111
    gwangung says:

    @Brachiator:

    I also do not think it a principled position to leave dictators and tyrants in place, and pretend that this avoids war or terrible problems down the road.

    This is a more nuanced point that should be acknowledged more. The world is a complex system and I distrust positions that state, in black and white terms, that one course of action is absolutely going to be right or another is absolutely wrong. It assumes that there is an absolute perfect set of conditions that could be obtained, and I don’t think that’s ever the case.

    Things blow up in people’s faces. Things also blow up if you leave them alone. Knowing what’s the least harmful alternative is far from cut and dired.

  112. 112
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA:
    Preparation BB?

  113. 113
    smith says:

    @Brachiator:

    Also, Clinton could only advise about Qaddafi. She did not make the decision. Nor was she the only advisor who had the president’s ear on this.

    This is something I really don’t understand — repeated criticism of “her” hawkish policy as Sec State. Those were Obama’s policies. She may have advised one way or another — and really we don’t have complete knowledge about how she advised him — but she wasn’t the only voice and she wasn’t the owner of the policies. And has Obama backed off on any of the interventions he’s been up for since Kerry became Sec State?

  114. 114
    Gindy51 says:

    @goblue72: HIllary’s followers were a fuck of a lot smarter than Bernie’s followers.

  115. 115
    Meg says:

    @Brachiator: On the other hand, Bernie has no use of the word “I”. He just refers to himself in the third person.

  116. 116
    Ruckus says:

    @patroclus:
    I want Franken in the Senate. He’s good there, he will be able to continue to do good there for a number of years. He’s 64 and the next 8-20 yrs could do a lot more. We need good people in congress as much as we do in the executive branch. It’s like E. Warren. She’s 66 and can be more effective right where she is for 8-20 yrs.

  117. 117
    daves910 says:

    @gwangung: dired is the exact perfect word for most foreign policy.

  118. 118
    Miss Bianca says:

    you know, one thing I’m just not seeing in these “free college tuition f*ck yeah!” discussions – ANYWHERE – is that back in the days of ‘free to minimal tuition” most of your money was going toward actual *faculty* salaries, rather than administrative bloat. To talk about “free college tuition” without addressing the rot at the heart of the higher education system as it currently stands in this country – the fact that a professional administrative class has inserted itself into the heart of academia, and has essentially, consistently, and very successfully diverted decision-making power away from faculty – turned the focus of universities away from learning and toward corproate partnerships and coroprate models of profit-making, and enriched itself at the expense of faculty and students at these institutions – is disingenuous. (This article lays out the dynamic pretty accessibly, even if it is five years old – and the situation has only got worse since it was published.). This information is a little more current.

    In order to go back to the days of “free college tuition” you are either going to have raise taxes astronomically, or you are going to have to completely restructure the modern university system and lay off huge swathes of the professional administrative class. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing, but you’d better believe that these are people who are going to fight like badgers against any disruption to *their* New Normal status quo.

    I guess I’m just not seeing how this is supposed to happen. All I’ve seen so far from the Sanders camp is a “make it so”, and no real *how* to make it so.

    ETA: a “free to minimal” tuition plan might work much better at the community college level, since my understanding is that admin v. teaching costs are actually much lower. But I haven’t found much research on that question – yet.

  119. 119
    Elie says:

    @Brachiator:

    Also, Clinton could only advise about Qaddafi. She did not make the decision. Nor was she the only advisor who had the president’s ear on this. I totally understand why people judge Clinton on this, but it makes no sense to pretend that she was the architect of the Iraq War or the decision to oust Qaddafi.

    I also do not think it a principled position to leave dictators and tyrants in place, and pretend that this avoids war or terrible problems down the road.

    Good reply

  120. 120
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @Ruckus:
    I agree. Keep Biden as VP. You couldn’t ask for more experience for the job, and Hillary could use the comic relief.

  121. 121
    Elie says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    This:

    In order to go back to the days of “free college tuition” you are either going to have raise taxes astronomically, or you going to have to completely restructure the modern university system and lay off huge swathes of the professional administrative class. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing, but you’d better believe that these are people who are going to fight like badgers against any disruption to *their* New Normal status quo.

    Of course you haven’t heard how this will happen and the other important issues in your comment. Its those sweeping unicorn promises that just slay me with him. Yeah, we need some idealistic goal setting but somehow one needs to couch it in language that is not “everyone gets a pony”.My fear is that Bernie actually thinks he can do it that way…

  122. 122
    Ruckus says:

    @Gindy51:
    I wonder if the Sanders approach feels that if employers didn’t have to pay for an insurance benefit that money would go to wages. I don’t see very many companies/owners doing that. I don’t know if the companies now paying (even if not 100% of the cost) for health insurance would be obligated to pay that to employees as it is a benefit that lowers taxes for the company, or if they could even be required to.
    Anyway if their wages went up to compensate and it sounds from your link that the amount of tax increase would jive with the approximate cost of decent employer provided insurance or less, that would change the maths a lot.

  123. 123
    D58826 says:

    @Brachiator: I’m not sure if its been at the level of the Clintons. Plus none of them have had the pleasure of Ken Star’s 100 million dollar Grand Inquisition.

  124. 124
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Elie: what bothers me is the bait-and-switch aspect. We’re supposed to cheer that Himself is bringing in so many new voters into the Democratic Party, while telling them the only thing between them and the Great Unicorn Herd is the corrupt Democrats, especially the Witch of Wall Street and Her Secret Speeches.

  125. 125
    Brachiator says:

    @Meg:

    On the other hand, Bernie has no use of the word “I”. He just refers to himself in the third person.

    Interesting. But I’m not sure that this says much about him. I like him in a lot of ways, and his reaction to the little bird during his Seattle speech was priceless. I liked that human moment more than any “I’d like to have a beer with that guy” prattle.

    I like both candidates in many ways. And the primary campaign is still going on. But right now, I am leaning toward Clinton, because I think that overall she represents more of what I am looking for in a president. But I feel better having to choose between these two candidates than considering any of the GOP goofballs.

  126. 126
    Cacti says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    I guess I’m just not seeing how this is supposed to happen. All I’ve seen so far from the Sanders camp is a “make it so”, and no real *how* to make it so

    You’ve identified the heart of the problem.

    There’s no part of Bernie’s political revolution that doesn’t rely on an unprecedented level of Green Lantern-ism.

  127. 127
    Elie says:

    @A Ghost To Most:

    Y’all talk as though there is no chance a VP could actually become President. Not wise. Biden is 73, Bernie is 74. Hillary is 68 — certainly no spring chicken. The VP should be younger — like pref in 50s maybe early early 60’s. No older. Franken is 64 — ok. This is a tough, trying job and we are living in crazy times.

  128. 128
    Technocrat says:

    @gwangung:

    Things blow up in people’s faces. Things also blow up if you leave them alone

    I am suspicious of foreign policy arguments for this very reason. people treat FP as this deterministic game where if you make the right moves, you get good outcomes. If you get bad outcomes, you made the wrong moves.

    Yet it seems that most of the results boil down to “Your foreign policy will work in theory, and fail in practice”. I can think of many unequivocal FP criticisms. I can think of very few unequivocal FP successes.

    It reminds me of hedge fund managers boasting about their skill in picking stocks.

  129. 129
    Ruckus says:

    @A Ghost To Most:
    Not a bad idea but I’d like the VP to be younger than the pres, given the age thing. Clinton and I are within a yr of each other, Warren is even closer, Franken is only 2-3 yrs younger. One of the many things I liked about President Obama was his age. This is a big country and we range in ages from 0-100+ a bit. There are differences in how different age groups see the world, always has been, always will be. They should be represented. So just for the sake of diversity I’d like to see a middle aged Latino or Asian woman or man as VP.

  130. 130
    AnotherBruce says:

    @Brachiator: Christ, what a bullshit list. Anybody that mentions the word Whitewater in connection with Clinton scandals should have their fucking tongue pulled out. The prosecutor that spent 70 million dollars to investigate it ultimately dropped the charges. The real scandal was the money that Ken Starr wasted on nothing.

  131. 131
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Gindy51:

    And you beat me to it! Part of it, anyway…

  132. 132
    smith says:

    @Elie: I’d go even younger, and look for a 40 something VP. The right person could readily be seen as the logical successor to carry on from both Obama and Clinton.

  133. 133
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @dr. bloor: this.

  134. 134
    Calouste says:

    @mdblanche:

    I’m not sure Tad believes Tad, but he has to say something to justify his existence bills.

    FTFY

  135. 135
    hitchhiker says:

    Cory Booker for VP?

  136. 136
    Calouste says:

    @AnotherBruce: Well, it’s Gawker. What else do you expect except bullshit? And needless invasions of people’s privacy in the name of clickbait?

  137. 137
    Elie says:

    @Technocrat:

    How could there be just frank successes anyway, for Pete’s sake! Like we control every aspect of the world? I know we always couch things in “we should have known” that this or that would follow — but there is also so much we don’t know that caution is in order. We have already seen that a militaristic foreign policy leads to lots of dead people (ours, theirs and bunches of innocents for years and years), monstrous debt and many more enemies than we had — and the payoff? Doesn’t mean we don’t use force, but we don’t jump in with the assumption that we are just gonna win outright. Once we intervene, we change the actual status of what was in place before and then we own it.

    Negotiated foreign policy wins are rarely clean and lopsided… most times the “wins” take years to be manifest and the whole time up until then you have to hear all the problems associated with whatever agreement — usually from the right and the left.

    I do notice that fp is one area that Bernie really keeps his mouth pretty disciplined, except blaming Hillary again for supporting the Iraq War.

  138. 138
    Elie says:

    @smith:

    Good idea… just who?

  139. 139
    AnotherBruce says:

    @liberal: Of course the flip side to that, is if we left Qadaffi alone, she would be criticized for not preventing a genocide. And as others have pointed out. It’s ultimately Obama’s decision.

  140. 140
    Ruckus says:

    @Elie:
    Do we have any idea who Sanders might chose if he wins the nom?
    We’ve heard a number of names floated if Clinton wins, and we can be pretty sure it will be someone in dem politics.

  141. 141
    smith says:

    @Elie: Well, Julian Castro, for one, born in 1974, and apparently under active consideration by Clinton.

  142. 142
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @goblue72: only possible because Cal was the primary beneficiary of MIC welfare. That’s why it was reliably Republican, too.

  143. 143
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @AnotherBruce: I can’t tell if the objection here is the use of the word “genocide”, or that the predicted mass killings wouldn’t have taken place if NATO had stayed out.

    … and I’m an Obot’s Obot who supports HRC mostly because I think she the strongest general election candidate and worries a lot about her foreign policy views, but yeah, it was Obama’s decision to take part in the Libyan actions, whatever Clinton, Powers, Biden or anyone advised.

  144. 144
    AnotherBruce says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: I think that if we’re being honest, we really don’t know what the least bad outcome would’ve been. But I think that’s the point. There are often decisions that have to be made when there is no good outcome.

  145. 145
    Technocrat says:

    @Elie:

    We have already seen that a militaristic foreign policy leads to lots of dead people (ours, theirs and bunches of innocents for years and years), monstrous debt and many more enemies than we had

    This is certainly true. But how does that calculus apply to something like Rwanda, or Bosnia? If we measure our FP solely in terms of costs (deaths, money, new enemies), the clear implication is that we should never fight.

    Negotiated foreign policy wins are rarely clean and lopsided… most times the “wins” take years to be manifest and the whole time up until then you have to hear all the problems associated with whatever agreement

    Case in point: The Iran deal. That deal will never get enough credit for the war it replaced or delayed.

  146. 146
    Brachiator says:

    @gwangung:

    @Elie:

    RE: I also do not think it a principled position to leave dictators and tyrants in place, and pretend that this avoids war or terrible problems down the road.

    Good reply.

    Thanks. There have been a number of people, ranging from Republicans to a reporter on Middle East activities who is a big supporter of Netanyahu who have criticized Obama precisely because he backed the various Arab Spring movements which sought to remove tyrants.

    They called Obama naive and went on to talk about how dictators and tyrants, for example the rulers in Egypt, maintained order and (here is the part I love) were good for the West.

    These foreign policy experts totally discounted the brutal suppression of the local people. But even some of the people here who would have left Qaddafi in place would have to acknowledge that US relations with Iran festered because we supported the Shah.

    People like the ayatollahs and bin Laden arose as figures who were immune to being co-opted by the West.

    I do not know that we can magically do nothing from here on out and pretend that the impact of the past does not linger.

  147. 147
    dogwood says:

    @Technocrat:
    You are absolutely right. And I would add that I’m suspicious of fp arguments that ignore the fact that America’s role isn’t the only pivotal role in any given situation. Other nations and players have agency in what goes in the world. What America does or doesn’t do isn’t always the central issue. American foreign policy will move toward sanity when Americans on both sides stop being so arrogant about the how important we are.

  148. 148
    Peale says:

    @gwangung: it’s not just that he’s funny. He’s also optimistic and likes serving his constituents. I think that’s really important right now. There aren’t a lot of voices who would be clearly acceptable to the left side of the party that could point to a vote for a more progressive future as something to look forward to.

  149. 149
    gwangung says:

    @Brachiator: Hm. It also just occurs to me that you can try the “naive” diplomatic choices first—you get fewer dead people of your own if you start out that way.

  150. 150
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @Brachiator: So…deposing Saddam Hussein was a good idea?

  151. 151
    different-church-lady says:

    Imagine if last year, going in to Game 5, Terry Collins said, “Kansas City’s lead is almost entirely from innings in which we didn’t try to score runs.”

  152. 152
    Elie says:

    @Brachiator:

    No. We will/should always accept our limitations with great humility and knowledge that any blow back and/or back outcomes can’t always be fully anticipated. It accepts that we will have blood on our hands — no avoiding it because it cuts many ways no matter what we decide. I always hate hearing from purity ponies who pretend we can always have perfect results. Its just where you want to accept your errors, right? You try to do the most good even as you are going to screw others…..

  153. 153
    Elie says:

    @smith:

    As someone said above, he is too light in experience, I think…

  154. 154
    Elie says:

    @Steve in the ATL:

    No. I don’t think he was trying to make a blanket statement other than foreign policy decisions are fraught and difficult with a lot of blow back… and that just because removing Saddam was a mistake, do we then set up a rule that removing anyone forever is a mistake? I personally would not want to say that….

  155. 155
    Tripod says:

    Tad needs moar money….

    It’s a nice bit of Rovian projection, but what he’s telling you is they are broke, and Hillary isn’t.

    Damn that George Clooney….

  156. 156
    Brachiator says:

    @Steve in the ATL:

    So…deposing Saddam Hussein was a good idea?

    Wow. Wanna play? OK, let’s play.

    Do you really think that continuing to support Saddam Hussein would have been tenable given the rise of bin Laden and people like him?

    Do you really think that people in the Middle East would always be quiescent and passively accept their oppression? Many Republicans do, and surrogates for Netanyahu have all but come out in favor of suppression of Arab peoples and the old authoritarian regimes in Egypt as being good for Israel.

    We installed Saddam for our benefit, not for the benefit of the people of Iraq. Do you really think that this would never have a bad outcome?

    Do you think it morally justifiable to support tyrannies in order to provide stability that Americans might enjoy?

    My shorter answer: deposing Saddam Hussein when we did and how we did it was incredibly foolish. Absolute folly.

    But do you really think that the forces that were unleashed after he was deposed only erupted because of the Iraq War and otherwise would have stayed contained, and that the US and the West would not have to worry about terrorists or other disruptions?

    ETA: Trying to oppose Assad of Syria, even gently, may be a mistake for now. Hard world. Terrible choices.

  157. 157
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @Brachiator: @Elie: I don’t think we are disagreeing here.

    My shorter answer: deposing Saddam Hussein when we did and how we did it was incredibly foolish. Absolute folly.

    Agree 100%

    But do you really think that the forces that were unleashed after he was deposed only erupted because of the Iraq War and otherwise would have stayed contained, and that the US and the West would not have to worry about terrorists or other disruptions?

    I have no idea but I sure as hell wish we had had the chance to find out!

  158. 158
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Tripod: Huh? Wha? is Sanders running out of cash? I know he was spending fast, but that fast?

  159. 159
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @Brachiator:

    Hard world. Terrible choices.

    That is the truth. Among the European governments, the CIA, W’s big boy adventures, and religion, especially KSA’s Wahhabism, shit is fucked up and there are no good answers.

  160. 160
    D58826 says:

    @Technocrat: Better case is S. Korea. A lot of very unhappy people in the 1950’s-60s that we didn’t win in the Korean war. I think most folks would mark the outcome of the war as a win for our side, even if the cold war hadn’t ended.

  161. 161
    D58826 says:

    @Steve in the ATL: Churchill referred to Iraq as an ungrateful volcano back in 1923. The middle east was/is a powder keg that in one way or another would have exploded but W just turbo charged the explosion and made the US the prime target of all that anger. Maybe the old medical saying ‘first do no harm’ should be placed on the desk of every CIA agent, DOD warrior. state dept. diplomat and especially in the oval office.

  162. 162
    jnfr says:

    Devine is an ass. It’s no good reflection on Bernie that he hired the guy.

  163. 163
    TallPete says:

    Of course Clinton is a weak front runner! You’re not making sense, Mahew. Sanders started the primary as issues campaign and now actually has a shot at the nomination. He wasn’t even a member of the Dem party in 2008. When’s the last time that’s happened?

    “Weak” is the correct term for this front runner.

  164. 164
    rikyrah says:

    @hitchhiker:
    Hell no to Booker as VP

  165. 165
    Eric says:

    @Marmot: Voluntary Medicaid expansion?

  166. 166
    Eric says:

    @Grumpy Code Monkey: This is obvious to anyone who is not deluding themselves.

    -A Sanders supporter

  167. 167
    Eric says:

    @Peale: Russ is trying to get his old Senate seat back, and leading handily. Frankly, I think the proper place for him is SCOTUS, but that opportunity has passed for the time being.

Comments are closed.