Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.

[Pergamos]

I always assumed Bill was just the pretty face of the Clinton Administration.  Hillary strikes me as far more competent when it comes to actually running things and Bill seems like he knows that so I assume she made most of the important decisions.  I really do not at all want a repeat of the Clinton administration.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I always assumed Bill was just the pretty face of the Clinton Administration.  Hillary strikes me as far more competent when it comes to actually running things and Bill seems like he knows that so I assume she made most of the important decisions.  I really do not at all want a repeat of the Clinton administration.

Of course, that's totally how it works. Sort of like how I'm a massage therapist and Alty is a neurobiologist. It's not like spouses are separate people who do their own jobs and have separate minds.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Barbara Bush is exactly the same person as George Sr., with all the same opinions.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Relevant: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/my_gen_x_hillary_problem_i_know_why_we_dont_like_clinton/

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Worth a read: https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/trump-supporters-aren-t-stupid-3d38f70f2a2f#.a8qam8qnu

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Worth a read: https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/trump-supporters-aren-t-stupid-3d38f70f2a2f#.a8qam8qnu

That was a really interesting read. It reminded me of Howard Zinn's writings on the deliberate creation of post-emancipation racism.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

One can assume that his model of a "compromising" politician is Hillary Clinton, who took $675,000 to give three speeches to [Goldman Sachs]. "Look, I make speeches to lots of groups," Hillary explained. "I told them what I thought."

Asked by Anderson Cooper if she needed to take $675,000 to tell Goldman what she "thought," Hillary shrugged. "I don't know," she said. "That's what they were offering."

Even more significant than the $675,000 Hillary took from Goldman, or the $30 million in speaking income she and her husband received combined in the last 16 months, is the account of what Hillary apparently told Goldman she "thought" during those speeches.

According to Politico, who spoke to several attendees, Hillary used the opportunity to tell the bankers in attendance that the "banker-bashing so popular within both parties was unproductive and indeed foolish."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-vampire-squid-tells-us-how-to-vote-20160205?page=2

Seeing how there is literally no new legislation to prevent bankers from wrecking the economy again, at least we will know that when the rich elite inevitably pull an even bigger stunt and ask for a bailout, it will be no surprise when Hillary has their back.

[Brother Mythos]

Relevant: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/my_gen_x_hillary_problem_i_know_why_we_dont_like_clinton/

That's an interesting article.

I'm neither female, nor Generation X, but I also have a hard time liking HRC. I say that in spite of admiring her efforts on the Clinton Health Security Act of 1993, and the job she did as Secretary of State. (When compared to her predecessor, political hack Condolezza Rice, HRC's job performance was stellar!) 

I'm not happy about her vote, as a US Senator, in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. But, I was among the minority of US citizens that opposed the war at the time Dubbya, Cheney, and the rest of the neocons and chickenhawks were busy selling their bill of goods. (Unfortunately, few people cared to listen to, let alone believe, what Hans Blix, the head of the UN's Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, had to say about WMDs.) Here, for what it's worth, is a recent article where the author speculates on the reason for HRC's senate vote:

"The Meeting That Never Was: One UN Weapons Inspector's Effort to Educate Hillary Before Her Iraq Vote"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-ritter/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote_b_9350340.html

Nevertheless, the GOP's "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!" attacks never impressed me in the least bit. I don't give a damn about her e-mail server, and I know from personal experience that the government's "classified information" process is flawed. (For instance, I've come across manuals for an obsolete military computer system that were classified "Secret". The flaw in the classification process is/was that anyone in the world with a checking account could have openly purchased that particular computer system, or just the system's manuals, directly from the OEM at the time the system was brand new and on the market.) I don't care how much money HRC has made, since leaving office, giving speeches, and I don't particularly care what she said to the Wall Street cabal behind closed doors. 

I expect to be voting for HRC in the fall, and I don't doubt she'll do a respectable job as POTUS. Still, at this point in time, she's one of those people I'd have to meet in person before finally deciding whether I like her or not.

[Pergamos]

I am frustrated with the way the FBI is handling the e-mails thing.  If they are going to indict her I wish they would go ahead and do it, before she has the nomination locked down.  Constant noise about a possible indictment just makes me paranoid that they will hit her with it after she is the nominee, and then we end up with president Trump.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I am frustrated with the way the FBI is handling the e-mails thing.  If they are going to indict her I wish they would go ahead and do it, before she has the nomination locked down.  Constant noise about a possible indictment just makes me paranoid that they will hit her with it after she is the nominee, and then we end up with president Trump.

The FBI and the DoJ have said - repeatedly - that there is no investigation and no promise of one.

The person saying there is, is the same person responsible for the creative editing of what Sanders said yesterday.

That man is Karl Rove, and millions of democrats on both sides of the primary are doing his work for him.

[minuspace]

Relevant: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/my_gen_x_hillary_problem_i_know_why_we_dont_like_clinton/

That's an interesting article.

I'm neither female, nor Generation X, but I also have a hard time liking HRC. I say that in spit of admiring her efforts on the Clinton Health Security Act of 1993, and the job she did as Secretary of State. (When compared to her predecessor, political hack Condolezza Rice, HRC's job performance was stellar!) 

I'm not happy about her vote, as a US Senator, in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. But, I was among the minority of US citizens that opposed the war at the time Dubbya, Cheney, and the rest of the neocons and chickenhawks were busy selling their bill of goods. (Unfortunately, few people cared to listen to, let alone believe, what Hans Blix, the head of the UN's Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, had to say about WMDs.) Here, for what it's worth, is a recent article where the author speculates on the reason for HRC's senate vote:

"The Meeting That Never Was: One UN Weapons Inspector's Effort to Educate Hillary Before Her Iraq Vote"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-ritter/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote_b_9350340.html

Nevertheless, the GOP's "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!" attacks never impressed me in the least bit. I don't give a damn about her e-mail server, and I know from personal experience that the government's "classified information" process is flawed. (For instance, I've come across manuals for an obsolete military computer system that were classified "Secret". The flaw in the classification process is/was that anyone in the world with a checking account could have openly purchased that particular computer system, or just the system's manuals, directly from the OEM at the time the system was brand new and on the market.) I don't care how much money HRC has made, since leaving office, giving speeches, and I don't particularly care what she said to the Wall Street cabal behind closed doors. 

I expect to be voting for HRC in the fall, and I don't doubt she'll do a respectable job as POTUS. Still, at this point in time, she's one of those people I'd have to meet in person before finally deciding whether I like her or not.

I'm becoming more inclined to give her a fair shake.  Apart from the 2002 debacle, which is quite significantly determining, it's unclear to me exactly what detracts me from her.  This would usually indicate an uninformed/ignorant bias in my thinking.  In particular, I do not believe that I need to personally like the candidate, nor would I respect one simply seeking my approval.  What I think momentarily turned me off to her was my glib observation of how desperate she seemed to win.  Again, I would not want to give credence to such superficial assessments, however I think they may have played a role informing disposition toward her, initially.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Things are looking good for Clinton.  Sanders is winning in many states, but not by enough to make the delegate split mean anything.  Clinton's had 3 wins in which she took home all the bacon.  It's still a race, but it's becoming obvious who is poised to win.  No surprise, Sanders IS the underdog candidate, and outside of bad Disney movies, the underdog is gonna lose.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Thread is no longer about the tendency for dems to steal defeat.  Thread is now about the SGitR.

Carry on.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'd like a thread split, please.  Say, post 326.

[Pergamos]

Pundits seem to feel Sanders may have  chance after all, after the tie in Michigan