MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 12 months 1 day ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Obama Again the Adult in the Room
By CVille Dem on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 8:11am |The President once again proves his leadership qualities by reminding us all what's at stake.
“The thing Democrats have to guard against is going in the direction that the Republicans are much further along on, and that is this sense 'we are just going to get our way, and if we don’t, then we’ll cannibalize our own, kick them out and try again,' ” he said at a town-hall meeting with law students in Chicago.
It's worth a read; he addresses and defends incrementalism in the context of Single Payer.
The danger, whether for Democrats or Republicans, is in a closed-loop system where everybody is just listening to the people who agree with them,” he said.
“And that anybody who suggests there is another point of view ... well, then you must be a sellout or you must be corrupted or you must be on the take or what have you," he added. "That is not, I think, useful.”
Good for him, and hopefully we'll all see a little of ourselves in this, and tone it down a bit.
URL:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/275546-obama-warns-dems-against-tea-party-mentality
- Add new comment
- 24262 reads
Comments
Damn! A Typo in the title!!!! That should read, Obama; again the adult in the room.
by CVille Dem on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 8:13am
Kinda reminds me of LeadBelly's song
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbjyuDYtAtk
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 10:09am
Fixed it. Though; I hate semicolons so I made it more headliney.
by Michael Maiello on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 7:34pm
Interesting that you hate semi-colons...I have a real distaste for adverbs, although mostly in fiction writing I think semicolons work well when properly used. I'd like to hear your take on them. But none of my thoughts take away from my gratitude for fixing my headline!
by CVille Dem on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 8:07pm
I do try to avoid the use of adjectives and adverbs and believe, as it is said, that they are the enemies of nouns and verbs, but it isn't always possible, I am not always a good enough writer and if you cut them out completely, reads like you're aping Hemingway but failing, and he was good because he used both, just judiciously.
On the semicolon, I defer to Vonnegut:
by Michael Maiello on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 10:45pm
While it seems pretty clear that Obama is a Clinton supporter (though he hasn't said so) it also seems pretty clear that he is a Bernie-liker. When he says they differ on means rather than ends, though, he's reminding us that she's a darned liberal candidate and he's also reminding us that he is a darned liberal guy who would have given us single payer or something like it, had he not walked into a system stacked to reject it. I like that he's also inherently pointing out that Sanders is not the equivalent of a Trump by any means. While he warns against the Tea Partyization of the Democratic Party, properly identifies both of our current candidates as respectable choices.
It's too bad the tone that Hillary vs. Bernie is taking at this point because, between the candidates, they're having a pretty interesting debate given how little space is between them on the big issues.
by Michael Maiello on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 7:32pm
Good points all (and thanks for fixing the typo!)
i also really liked the tone of Obama's message. Wow, I am so going to miss him!!!!!
by CVille Dem on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 7:59pm
Me too.
by Michael Maiello on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 10:46pm
Me, three. I'd vote for him again in a heart beat. In fact, if he just wanted to take over until further notice, I'd be good with that.
by stillidealistic on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 7:56am
I'm going to try again. Can you identify a few examples from the past 16 years where Clinton has demonstrated that she's "darned liberal"?
by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 8:10pm
How about this?
Hillary majored in Political Science at Wellesley College and graduated from Yale Law School; worked with the House Committee during the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon; was a professor at the University of Arkansas teaching criminal law; worked at the Rose Law Firm working pro bono in child advocacy; founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families; was the first women to be appointed as chief on the board of directors of Legal Service (by President Jimmy Carter ) where she tripled funding from $90 million to $300 million; was First Lady of Arkansas where she was chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee providing medical facilities in the poorest zones; lead the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee to improve the educational standard for teachers, curriculum and classroom size; chaired the commanding position in the New World Foundation; served on the board of directors of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession that fought against gender bias; was the first ‘First Lady of the United States’ to hold a postgraduate degree and have an office in the West Wing, in addition to having the First Lady office in the East Wing, where she was often called co-president for playing such an active role in public policies; created the Children’s Health Insurance Program promoting immunizations and mammograms for breast cancer screenings, and funded research on prostate cancer and childhood asthma; commenced the initiation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act; created an Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice; as FLOTUS, she visited 79 countries to amend their relations with the United States; was the first woman & FLOTUS to be elected as U.S. Senate from New York and was re-elected; appointed Secretary of State under the Obama administration where she continued to raise her voice for women’s rights and human rights; awarded the Living Legacy Award in 1994, a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album in 1997, the Lifetime Achievement Award in 1999, the Mother Teresa Award for her humanitarian efforts in 2009, the Margaret Sanger Award for outstanding contributions to reproductive health and rights movement in 2009, the Salute to Greatness Award in 2009, the George McGovern Leadership Award for her commitment and visionary approach to ending global hunger in 2010, the Champions for Change Award for Leadership in 2012, and the Lifetime Achievement Award for Peace and Reconciliation in 2012...
by CVille Dem on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 8:41pm
So sorry, Hal, that you have to try so hard, but as you so often say; it was easy to find.
by CVille Dem on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 8:50pm
Bernie is goin to due more and the Republcans won't know how to stop him.
by NCD on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 11:44pm
Are you saying that Bernie is smarter than Obama? Seriously?
by CVille Dem on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 7:21am
You provided not one example of an action by Clinton in the 21st century which is what I requested. Oh I'm sorry, as Secretary of State, "she continued to raise her voice" in support of women's and children's rights. Yeah there is that. In attempting to respond to the question, didn't it become obvious to you that Clinton is very far from a liberal? How could it not have?
by HSG on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 9:57am
Well, I missed that specific part of the assignment, professor. How about this?
https://www.clintonfoundation.org
by CVille Dem on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:02am
You defend Clinton with a cite from clintonfoundation.org. What's the matter - davidbrock.com down. You couldn't find anything on BlueNationReview that was on point? www.GoldmanSachs.org slow to load. C'mon C'Ville Dem can't you do any better?
by HSG on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:07am
You asked for an example of something that shows she is a liberal in the past 16 years. The Clinton Foundation is a philanthropic organization that does great good for people in need. That is consistent with what I understand to be liberal. If you have your own sites that you prefer, have at them. You gave me an assignment, which I fulfilled. Problem is, you give everyone except yourself D- or F because they don't support your narrative.
I have decided to drop your class, Professor.
by CVille Dem on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:28am
Most criminal lawyers recognize that the accused's uncorroborated claim that he was in Pittsburgh on the night of the murder in Scranton isn't a very strong defense.
by HSG on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:42am
I see you cut me off at 2000 because, if you didn't, I could easily cite her work on the healthcare plan that should have been in the 1990s and go home.
But, hey, I have wikipedia too so... she did a bunch of liberal things in the Senate such as supporting federal funding for rebuilding downtown NY after 9/11, investigating government incompetence over the Katrina hurricane, and twice voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have blocked the Supreme Court from allowing same sex marriage, had it passed.
Oh my, this Wikipedia page also tells me that she has supported the foundation of liberal think tanks, which is yuge.
by Michael Maiello on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 10:53pm
I think since she stopped being FLOTUS was a fair cut-of. Thanks Mike. Thin gruel but gruel nevertheless. Still I'd hardly call your list an example of a powerful liberal record. Would you?
by HSG on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 9:52am
Does your google not work? Every time you ask for examples, I wonder why you don't just look for them yourself. Why do you always, and I mean ALWAYS, want someone to do your homework for you? Couldn't you just look them up yourself and do a post tearing them all apart? Or is that your attempt at making your posts interactive?
by stillidealistic on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 8:03am
I had no idea what Mike was talking about when he made the bald conclusory statement that Clinton is a liberal. Just like I still have no idea what you were talking about when you stated that the far left made unfair attacks on Obama. Just what were you talking about?
Oh and here's another question for you. Why do you find it so upsetting when somebody asks for evidence to support a particular statement?
by HSG on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:46am
Please provide proof that I was upset. I certainly did not say I was upset. Who is somebody? Did you have any one person in mind, or am I being accused of being upset at more than one person?
Please provide proof that Mike made a bald conclusory statement? What is the difference between a conclusory statement and a bald conclusory statement?
So Hal's rules are, no making statements without providing supporting evidence? Why? So then you can call it thin gruel? Or completely mock them and their answers, as you did with CVille Dem. You ask questions, then seldom are satisfied with the answer. CVille Dem dropped your class. I think I will, too.
by stillidealistic on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 6:27pm
In the past when I've asked you to provide evidentiary support for statements, you've twice called me a bully. If you felt bullied, I think it's a pretty good guess you were upset.
A conclusory statement is a conclusion. A bald statement is an isolated one. A bald conclusory statement is an isolated conclusion, i.e., one without evidentiary support. Mike stated Hillary was liberal without any support. That is a bald conclusory statement.
Mike explained his conclusion that Clinton is a "darned liberal candidate" by noting that she voted twice to allow states to legalize same sex marriage, supported an investigation into government incompetence when responding to Katrina, and supported federal funding for Manhattan after 9/11.
I stand by my "thin gruel" comment. Do you disagree? Let's go through the list, shall we? She supported a federalist (i.e., limited federal government or conservative) solution to the same-sex marriage debate. She wanted to investigate the government for incompetence in responding to Katrina. It's Republican received wisdom that the government is incompetent. While a New York Senator, she called for federal funds to help rebuild . . . New York. I'll agree that's arguably liberal. Thin gruel though right?
Regarding my C'Ville Dem comment. C'Ville said Sanders doesn't have an answer to those who say he can't enact his agenda. I responded that he sure does, he is calling for a political revolution. C'Ville responded that unlike Obama Sanders hasn't built a political revolution. This is what I called absurd. Obviously, if he doesn't win, he's not going to be in a position to enact his agenda. If he does win, he'll have won on the back of a political revolution. Isn't that right? Wouldn't you call his corporate-free small donor-funded campaign revolutionary?
One more thing - what exactly were you thinking of when you wrote the far left has told lies about Obama?
by HSG on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 7:44pm
Sorry, I didn't even notice this challenge to my uncontroversial statement that Hillary Clinton is a progressive. It's a little stunning to me to even imagine, back in 1996, that 20 years later somebody on a "blog" would take issue with the idea that Hillary Clinton is a liberal and that the person taking issue with the notion would actually self-identify as a liberal.
I think the challenge to Hillary's liberalosity is so weak that I just glanced at Wikipedia to answer it. I mean, even Bernie Sanders hasn't flat out said that Hillary is not a liberal. She's a liberal. She knows it, we know it, Bernie knows it.
Glass-Steagall is not the litmus test. Heck. it's largely irrelevant in the era of the Volcker Rule.
Voting for the Iraq war is not the litmus test. Kerry did it. Gore was VP for the sanctions years. Heck, remember that? Back then, the real liberals were Chris Hitchens and The Nation, calling the Clinton administration war criminals for enforcing the post-first Iraq War sanctions.
Hillary's attempts at health care reform in the 90s made Obama's success possible. That her plan and his fell short of single payer sucks, but tells you more about reality than it is does her or Obama (or Bill!) Any of the three of them would give us Medicare for all if they were unopposed by life.
Is Hillary a liberal? She gave us the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Is it perfect? No. But you know what was there before? Freaking nothing.
I also think, by the way, that she was a damned liberal Secretary of State who helped steer American power against butchers and tyrants without getting us into another long war.
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 9:38pm
I wish that I could believe that. I really, very much, wish that I could. Maybe if I just quit paying attention to her record.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 3:34am
"President Barack Obama, who – for all his faults – has a much deeper and subtler intellect than Hillary Clinton..." -holy shit, who writes this stuff. I quit reading halfway through after the "dangerous" engagement with Putin shit got too thick yet again, along with the overreading the tea leaves of Robert Kagan. Get it straight - Obama and Merkel defanged the Russian threat in Ukraine, giving up only Crimea which is more an anchor weight around Putin than a prize. Now we can focus on improving the corrupt government of Ukraine (Yats just resigned) and economic situation without Donbas exploding. And Russia has stopped being such an energy threat to the EU - hopefully forever. Major major diplomatic win. Panama Papers may finish Putin off, exposing the level of his corruption to the tune of billions, but I dont really care - it might be better to continue with the devil we know, even though he's using his planes to shoot up the opposition in Syria - it's still small potatoes on the world scene, and Iraq seems to have ISIS more and more under control.
I never see a solution from the left on all this shit either -just bitch and moan because Nuland said "fuck the EU" or upset if Hillary says "no-fly zone", while ignoring what a irredentist pain in the ass Russia has been 25 years after the wall & Soviet Union fell. Where's Russia's people power? Still imprisoned if insults the church or crosses a Putin crony. But keep repeating Hillary's a neocon and it all feelz good.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 5:34am
The facts so thoroughly debunk the idea that Clinton was a good Secretary of State that those who nevertheless insist upon it must be lacking in intellectual standards and rigor or are blinded by partisanship.
by HSG on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 12:27pm
What shit problem needs to be solved? Just a few lines before you are calling everything Clinton helped fuck up a "major diplomatic win". Why did Yats resign amid all the success you have seen in Ukraine since the fascist skinhead led coup installed him because Hillary's gal said "Yats is the guy"?
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 12:20pm
Nothing is "fucked up". It was a win. Yats was fine for 2 1/2 years. Who cares now? And enough of the bullshit fascist charge - that's so over. No, Ukraine didnt descend into a brownshirt haven, much as that would make Putin lovers happy.
But what do you think about Putin's billions in offshore accounts including the $2 billion wedding gift to his new son-in-law?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 12:57pm
Yats s so fine that the Ukraine government has a two percent favorable rating by the time he is pushed out. You're funny.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 2:53pm
Read the report on Syrian atrocities I just put up. Those are Putin's friends - jackbooted murderous torturing thugs. For all Kiev's faults, it doesn't have ripped out eyes and burned off heads and detainees dangling for days by their wrists as its legacy. Dead and tortured Syrians arent asked for a favorability rating - that's a quaint practice of still civilized countries.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 3:40pm
I know she's a liberal. I just know it. I'm going to hold my breath until you know it too.
Michael - you are obviously a very intelligent man. Your articles on complex issues have been published in prestigious international magazines! Your plays have been performed!! Man, I wish either one of those was true about me.
But your insistence that Clinton is progressive/liberal demonstrates the limits of intelligence - not yours but of human intelligence in general. You can't identify even one unabashedly liberal/progressive action that she has taken since 1993/94. Yet you persist in promoting the notion that despite her decidedly illiberal actions and positions she's a liberal.
A moment of reflection should tell you that a person who has failed to act progressively and in fact has taken and promoted regressive positions for over two decades is not liberal. But your mind - as facile as it may be - can't accept what the evidence documents beyond peradventure.
by HSG on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 8:18am
She wants to raise capital gains taxes. I've said that one a bunch of times. Liberal idea!
Assault weapons ban! Liberal idea.
Universal Pre-K! A liberal idea, the pet idea of her pal Bill de Blasio,.
Raise the federal minimum wage to $12! Liberal.
Supports abortion rights and same sex marriage. Liberal ideas!
Supports a $275 billion stimulus program! Liberal.
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 4:19pm
The info will not activate the proteins needed to store the data in permanent memory.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 4:28pm
Yeah really. It's not like this question hasn't been answered a dozen times here already. I realize the answers will never convince Hal but at least he should acknowledge and remember that we have answered. If I had more ambition and time I'd save every comment so next week when he complains that no one every addressed his complaint I could just link the dozen times that we have.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 4:55pm
I really feel for Hillary. In the 1990s she was accused of being left of Mao and about as murdery and now she's not a liberal.
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 5:42pm
Yes, as I posted a few times even Bill's team called Hillary's team in the West Wing "the bosheviks down the hall." Hillary was called "Bill's liberal conscience." Truth be told, neither of them are as liberal as I am on several issues. But no one like me would ever have a chance to get elected in America. Hillary is liberal enough for me.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 5:56pm
1) She does not support raising capital gains rates only the length of time that investors must hold onto investments in order to get long-term rates. In 2008, she opposed raising the capital gains tax above 20%. Not liberal.
2) She's good on guns. Liberal.
3) Universal pre-K. She's come around but really had no choice. Better universal pre-K than affordable college for all but best is to have both. Moderate to liberal.
4) She's against raising the federal minimum wage to $15 or more. Not liberal.
5) She took a very long time to come around on marriage equality. Yes she's pro-choice. Moderate to liberal.
6) $275 billion is not nearly enough. Meh.
Verdict. Kinda moderate/center.
Moderate to liberal on social issues. Moderate to conservative on economic/fiscal ones and foreign policy.
by HSG on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 5:20pm
She and Sanders voted the same way 93% of the time.
Pardon me if I go with 538's assessment rather than yours
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-c...
Hillary IS Liberal
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 5:36pm
Numerous studies have shown that the minimum wage should be $18 per hour Sanders is not liberal since he only supports a $15 minimum wage. As you have pointed out $3 is the difference between liberal and conservative. He's just not pure enough.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 5:50pm
1) Extending the length of time you have to hold an investment for it to be considered a long term capital gain is really a way of raising the tax. It's a clever way of doing it. Bernie seems to have an interesting plan in this regard, where he would tie lower capital gains rates to income and wealth levels, to make the system. It's appealing. Though Clinton really achieves much the same by lengthening the holding requirement because the system is already progressive -- if you sell an asset outside of the long term window, your windfall is taxed as income, which is a higher rate for wealthier people. By causing more asset sales to be taxed that way, she is very much achieving a liberal end.
2) We agree on guns.
3) Not really fair to give her half credit here as she has affordable college plans as well. She's a liberal on this issue.
4) She wants to raise the federal minimum wage by 65%. Sanders wants to more than double it. Sounds like a couple of liberals to me.
5) She did take too long to come around on marriage equality. But she's here now.
6) If well-targeted, $275 billion can do a lot of good.
Look, she's not as liberal as Sanders. I know that for you, that ends the argument because you want to vote for the most liberal candidate available. But the primary isn't a "most liberal" contest, though I know you'd like it to be. We have two candidates who I think any progressive could vote for without regret. Look, I think people are plenty unfair to Sanders when they imply he's not ready for prime time or can't win the general. I think complaints about his electability are as overstated as complaints about her bank cronyism.
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 8:16pm
Please list two references for your conclusion as to why Hillary's bank cronyism equals Bernie's electability. Then explain how "any" progressive could possibly vote for Hillary without regret. Show your work.
JUST KIDDING!!!!! LOL!
by CVille Dem on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 8:30pm
You had me going there.
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 8:43pm
Some might exaggerate Sanders electability as he is now. I'm not too worried about what we know about him now. What we don't know is what he will be after fully vetted by the republicans and right wing media. With those trips to Cuba and Nicaragua we just don't know what video might be out there. Maybe nothing, maybe something like Wright's "God damn America" videos. If those videos had come out in the general in Oct or Sept I'm not sure who would have been elected. Hillary couldn't run on them in the democratic primary and by the general the furor had passed.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 9:28pm
That may well be, ocean-kat. I clearly do not know. On the other hand, I also don't know what Clinton said in her speeches to Morgan Stanley MDs a few years back, but I don't assume that she ate a baby and pledged her soul to Cthulhu, as her detractors do.
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 9:41pm
What do you mean "Hillary couldn't run on them in the democratic primary..." ?
by kyle flynn on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 9:51pm
Get real. If you think the critiques between democrats in a primary are anything like what republicans dish out you haven't been paying attention. Hillary and Sanders critiques of each other are nothing like what they will face in the general. Hillary stuck her toe in to test the water and immediately discovered trying to campaign on the Wright videos would do more harm than good.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 04/11/2016 - 10:11pm
Not exactly, ocean. Sure, the Clinton campaign was cautious in the first days after the Wright videos surfaced, but they eventually made a run at it. Three weeks after Clinton's press conference and horrible interview with the Pittsburg Tribune she doubled down during the debate moderated by Stephanopoulos. All the while, surrogates, especially that weirdo Lanny Davis, threw all sorts of shit to the wall to see what would stick. Ultimately it failed. Backfired, really. She didn't discover it would do more harm than good, it did more harm than good. And the funniest part is that the McCain campaign hardly touched it.
The fear of republicans which hovers over so much of this site is embarrassing.
by kyle flynn on Tue, 04/12/2016 - 12:37am
You actually think I'm going to read through a transcript of a 2 hour debate from eight years ago to check so I can defend a throw away comment of absolutely no importance? rotflmao Jeez dude, the topics you pick to take issue with.
People see what they want to see.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 04/12/2016 - 12:53am
C'mon. It's not that hard. It took me a few seconds to find George's question. And the rest of the debate is pretty interesting, too. A little trip down memory lane. But don't read it if you don't want to. Duh.
The thing is, it's relevant to your particular electability argument in the current primary. Beyond attempting to sway voters by stoking the Wright "controversy," Clinton was using it to woo superdelegates. It didn't work, obviously, but she was also wrong. Obama proved to be quite electable. Of course, that doesn't make Sanders electable as well, but there's a crying wolf quality to the claim from Clinton supporters that he isn't. And if you imagine some secret film the red team has on ice of Sanders railing against the forces of all that is holy, forget it. If it existed, it'd be out there.
ClintonDavid Brock would have already used it.But I agree, it's not important. Clinton is surely the nominee. And I mean that sincerely.
by kyle flynn on Tue, 04/12/2016 - 2:02am
The reasons Obama was "electable" are largely why Clinton supporters can't be bothered to argue much of this. Obama's presidency wasn't transformative - it was marginally survivable - and the next one won't be except any changes in how the departments are run within existing law and to focus on electing Democrats to Congress and state positions. The rest will be banging heads and playing chicken, including Supreme Court and other judicial positions. I just spent 30 minutes in a traffic jam, and that's roughly what Congress will be like for at least 4 years. Democrats are going to have to learn to get a bit more excited and supportive of bread-and-butter issues and normal candidates. This preaching revolution each time has gotten old. Star Wars was only a movie.
I remeber when the papers were lauding Obama's best week ever, and 2 of the 3 reasons had nothing to do with him. Thats the nature of the beast. But at least the press had something happy to say.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 04/12/2016 - 3:36am
She's not a liberal because liberals don't call job-destroying trade deals the "gold standard." She's not a liberal because liberals don't support immoral intellectually indefensible wars. She's not a liberal because liberals don't oppose raising income tax and capital gains tax rates when they are as low as they are now and economic injustice is as rampant as it is now. She's not a liberal because she opposes legalizing or, at a minimum, decriminalizing marijuana. She's not a liberal because she does not support banning the death penalty. She's not a liberal because she opposes single-payer universal healthcare. She's not a liberal because she supports taking our relationship with Israel "to the next level." She's not a liberal because liberals admit their mistakes and modify their behavior to avoid making similar ones. They don't blame everyone else for them. She's not a liberal because liberals don't pit various cohorts within the 99% against each other. Instead, liberals try to bring us together. She's not a liberal because every now and then the mask drops and you can see the anger she feels and contempt she holds for those who dare question her or challenge her droit de la madame. That's enough for now.
by HSG on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 9:13am
...The Aristocrats!!!
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 8:57am
PP - I give you credit. You aren't fooling yourself about Clinton. You don't make excuses for her. Like her, you're not a liberal. So you don't care that she campaigned on the 94 Crime Bill because locking up more Americans than any other President isn't a negative for you. You've made that clear. Plus, you don't seem to have any real concern for the many millions NAFTA and the other free trade deals have displaced. Like Clinton, you're a corporadem, right? So why would my arguments sway you? They wouldn't.
by HSG on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 9:19am
Cut the bullshit, Hal - psychoanalyze her all you want, but fuck with me and.... The Aristocrats!!!
You've been warned.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 9:54am
So I now need him to fuck with you one more time, because I want to know what this means.
Also,
You and others are doing a pretty good job here, but I have to wonder PP if it is worth it? I don't know, this time I do have confidence in everyone involved, sure there are over-the-top BS on both sides (okay not me??!!LOL), but last time we did all do what we had to do, we kept the Republican out of office. So maybe we should just let Hal keep venting, because in the end Hal isn't going to let Trump/Cruz win either. He is going to vote for our nominee even if he hates her x100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
or whatever it is.
/shrugs shoulder
/have a good day everyone.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:52am
No fair! We now have another adult in the room!!!!!!!
by CVille Dem on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:02am
LOL, I have my days.. other days.. well you know.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:31pm
So time for a l'il adult humor.
The Aristocrats!!! (ps - I didnt much like the film, but it seems to fit here)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:44am
I'm dense. I get it! Thanks PP.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:30pm
Party pooper
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 6:52pm
Tetchy techy, aren't we? Cutting too close to the bone?
by HSG on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:54am
You are following a 74-year old guy who did nothing in Congress and never, ever reached out to the black community until he needed their votes. He had to be forced to address injustice in the criminal system.His surrogates include Cornel West who talks a good game but has done nothinng constructive.His supporters dismiss the CBC as whiners and other Democrats as Conservadems. There is no support system that matters behind Sanders. This is pathetic
The white-haired geezer talks about revolution. His supporters talk revolution. The first people to run and complain when the going gets rough will be the keyboard revolutionaries.The CBC and the "Conservadems" will be left to fight the long, hard battle.
Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover, Rosario Dawson, etc. will be on the first planes out of Dodge. John Lewis, John Conyers, Cory Booker, Eric Holder, etc will be still on the ground fighting.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:39am
Sanders is building no Congressional structure. This is just failure on a national scale for a structureless movement. Let's call it Occupy Wall Street 2.0
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:50am
Instead of pivoting to dubious attacks on Sanders and his supporters, why don't you ever try to defend Clinton's record?
by HSG on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 10:54am
We all have, Hal. But here is a concise summary of what President Hillary Clinton will do:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171
by CVille Dem on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:41am
Hal I will disarm when you disarm. You repeatedly post criticisms of Clinton. I respond with criticisms of Sanders. Your problem is that when I ask for things that Sanders has done, they are few and far between. When it is pointed out that Sanders voted for the same crime bill as Hillary, you make excuses.
Sanders voted to increase penalties for cocaine. He voted against demilitarizing police. He voted against a bil that would have demilitarized police departments. In 2006, Sanders was boasting of his strong stance against crime. Hillary began considering criminal justice reform long before Sanders.
1) https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-now-a-reformer-once-boasted-of-being-...
2) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/12/when-bernie-sanders-con...
When you stop ducking questions about Sanders support for weapons systems like the F-35, I will disarm
When you finally realize that both Hillary and Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill and stop blaming Hillary alone, I will disarm. By the way Bobby Rush apologized for his vote for the crime bill, and he trusts Hillary to act on reversing its impact. Rush endorses Hillary likely because Sanders never had the time to speak to Rush.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bobby-rush-crime-bill-apology_us_570...
Cory Booker notes that Hillary has been involved in the black community, unlike a certain Senator from Vermont who comes by only to get votes.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/cory-booker-bernie-sanders-vermo...
Tell me how Sanders is going to accomplish his goals when he can't explain how himself. No wonder you try to avoid talking about Sanders. Sanders hasn't done anything. It's is easy to make promises.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:44am
1) I posted here that Sanders is wrong on guns.
2) I explained why Sanders voted for the '94 Crime Bill and why I believe the vote wasn't nearly as bad as Hillary Clinton's campaigning based on her husband's taking on "superpredators". I have addressed this issue on a number of occasions. I have certainly not ducked it. Ultimately, we disagree.
3) You often dismiss Sanders' black supporters. I do not dismiss her support from the African American establishment but certainly her supporter Cory Booker exemplifies the technocratic/highly educated Democratic establishment politician with close ties to Wall Street.
4) I haven't spent any time analyzing Sanders' support for some advanced weapons systems but I agree he's not perfect. But he's clearly better than she is on foreign policy. Just look at her involvement in the dismantling of democracy in Honduras for example.
5) I've often pointed out that Sanders says he can only enact his agenda if voters elect a truly progressive Congress.
6) I have noted that I agree with those who call on Sanders to release his complete tax returns.
You are free of course to dispute my analysis but I have responded to nearly all of the concerns you have raised about Sanders. You have repeatedly ignored altogether my points about Clinton.
by HSG on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 12:09pm
See below
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 12:12pm
Well, Hal, by your very definition you are not a liberal:
You never admit your mistakes, and your behavior has never been moderated when you can easily see you are not changing any minds here, and in fact help to re-inforce a growing dislike for Bernie, whom I had initially thought of as a likeable guy.
You sure as hell don't try to bring us all together, unless you consider insulting people like PP, me, and most likely, others, including the candidate we prefer.
You support job-destroying deals like "Break up the Big Banks"
You spread untruths, such as stating that Hillary doesn't support Universal Health Care, when she is simply realistic about it, as you have seen here many time.
I also disagree with your contention that getting mad and showing anger when people are lying about you to be proof of anything except that she has a strong sense of self. It is simply a human characteristic, neither liberal nor conservative.
If showing contempt for others is not a liberal trait, then I have a real jaw-dropper for you: Bernie isn't liberal either!
by CVille Dem on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:00am
1) I have admitted mistakes here.
2) My duty (and the duty of liberals) is to modify my behavior when I'm wrong not because people don't respond to my arguments. If they don't respond to my arguments, all I can do is try to make them more convincing.
3) I certainly would hope that I could bring people together by demonstrating how Clinton is a terrible candidate for the 99%. Since so far, I have alienated you among others, can you advise how I could have done a better job bringing people together?
4) Clinton calls support for universal single-payer healthcare akin to taking away Obamacare. Funny way to show support for the concept.
5) When did I ever say that showing anger is not a human characteristic? I merely pointed out that Clinton is contemptuous of those who challenge her right to rule.
6) Sanders doesn't act as though he is entitled to be President.
7) I don't believe I have insulted you. If I have I apologize. Can you set forth one or more such insults?
by HSG on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 11:18am
Yet to hear the "Bernie or bust" folks talk, you'd think they were at opposite ends of the spectrum.
by stillidealistic on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 8:06am
Which one? Autistic spectrum disorder? :-)
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 04/12/2016 - 3:19am
Hal, we are repeating ourselves. Both Clinton and Sanders voted for the crime bill. You give Sanders an excuse. Hillary did not cast a vote to go to war. She explained her Iraq vote the same way Sanders explained his vote for the crime bill. You do not give her the same courtesy.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hill...
You are biased n favor of Sanders. I see him leading us into disaster because he is either not being truthful about what he and his supporters need to do to effect change. I see Sanders as the greater evil.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 12:17pm
Okay. I still think you are more prepared to deflect criticism of Clinton than I am of Sanders but you see it the other way. We'll just keep moving on.
by HSG on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 12:22pm
Hi RMRD, for lack of a better place, what are your thoughts on the CP Time skit, & have you noticed any reaction in the community. (Salon of course is outraged)
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 12:56pm
I am interested in your thoughts as well RMRD. Unfortunately, I'm required to turn in my liberal card because I share a sentiment with PP.
by HSG on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:16pm
Roland Martin and others were upset. On the other had, De Blasio is known for always being late. He is married to a black woman and has a black son. I haven't seen major outrage.
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/04/roland-martin-rips-hillary-and-di-blas...
The hosts of the Tom Joyner Morning Show gave him a pass, but interestingly the show's website criticized the joke.
http://blackamericaweb.com/2016/04/12/cp-time-joke-falls-short-when-it-c...
Obama told a joke about CP time to an audience of black journalists.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-barack-obama-joke-about-black-peopl...
I don't think it will have major impact for either Clinton or De Blasio.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:38pm
Thanks.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 2:04pm
I thought she was First Lady when the crime bill was passed.
by CVille Dem on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 1:16pm
Just for everyone's information, Hillary Clinton DID NOT vote for the crime bill, which was passed early on in her husband's term as President, Bernie, however, did vote for it. It solved some serious problems, but the lens of time past has been blurred.
by CVille Dem on Thu, 04/14/2016 - 5:34pm