Wednesday, are we there yet? Reads

(The following was written last night…before the results came in…that Hillary won all five states! I am keeping it here for a reason…bet you can guess that reason.)

il_fullxfull.846919117_ojgc (2)

Oh hell. I am not sure if I will make it through this post today. My last attempt was a pathetic open thread with a less than meager promise to return later in the day with a real substantial post….how fortunate to have found Dak published another live blog for the debate or town hall.  I don’t remember which side was “on” that night, I’m unable to keep up with them anymore.

Hillary is some kind of super woman to put up with all this campaign, shit, and that is not including the sexist bullshit she must deal with that not one of the other candidates experience.

So, with all that whining out of the way, let’s start this mutthafukka and see how far I can go before crying “Uncle!!!”


First up, before we hit the ground with POTUS nominee for SCOTUS….primarily because it answers the title of the blog post, “Wednesday, are we there yet? Reads” : Not There … Yet! Stay the Course with Hillary! | Still4Hill

Hillary Clinton’s sweep of yesterday’s primaries was breathtaking. Many of us were up until the wee hours waiting for the last projections … and celebrating, judiciously, this lovely scene.


Just as many awakened to this morning’s social media filled with assurances that Hillary has already won the nomination and demands that Bernie Sanders withdraw now.  Time for a reality check.   There are 25 primaries still ahead.  In 2008 Hillary stayed into June.  We are not there yet!

I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, it is just my clinical depression mixed with the traditional Sicilian negativism/skepticism that naturally occurs within my blood.

Some may remember that in celebration of International Women’s Day 2015, along with Melinda Gates, Hillary and Chelsea released  the No Ceilings Full Participation Report and launched  The tag for the day was NOT THERE.

We are in this for the long haul – to break that glass ceiling andbe there! Hillary has always told us that this would be a lengthy, difficult process.  We knew she would and should be primaried. The path so far has been intense, every delegate hard-won.  We are on track for victory, but we are not there yet.

So pipe down, buckle down, and let’s keep working.  If it was easy, everyone would do it!

With that said…Let us look at Obama’s Supreme Court Justice Nomination!

Let’s Meet Obama’s Sexxxy Silver Fox SCOTUS Nominee, Merrick Garland! | Wonkette


Hooray, the president of America, Barack the Great, has made a nominee to replace Dead Antonin Scalia’s rotting flesh ‘n’ bones on the Supreme Court! Don’t you want to know everything about him? No? Well SUCKS TO BE YOU because we’re gonna learn you anyway.


Merrick Brian Garland.


Guys, this isn’t Grindr, don’t pull that A/S/L crap with us. But he is 63, which would make him the oldest Oldey McOlderton nominated to the court since 1971. His gender is “boy,” and he is a Chicago person, just like Barack Obama. But he’s been hanging around DC for a long time, because he works there, just like Barack Obama! He serves as chief judge on the U.S. Court Of Appeals for the District Of Columbia.

So what makes him some big shot who’s more qualified to be on the Supreme Court than Gee Dubya Bush appointee Harriet Miers?

Lots of things!


And you can go to the link to see what they are… but this little nugget was too good to pass up:

Gosh, Sen. Orrin Hatch is on record saying what a mensch this dude is? Is Barry The Bamz just trolling Republicans with this nomination?

Well, we don’t think he’s JUST trolling. Barack Obama is a professional, after all. We think we can safely assume Obama actually wants Garland to be on the court and isn’t playing some sort of long game where his REAL pick is Saul Alinsky 69-ing William Ayers For All Eternity. But he’s definitely also trolling Hatch, who told the wingnuts at Newsmax LAST WEEK that Obama “could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man” for the court.

In Obama’s announcement Wednesday morning, he decided to have some more giggles at Hatch’s expense:

Merrick was nominated to what’s often called the second-highest court in the land, the DC circuit court, During that confirmation process he earned bipartisan praise from Senators and legal experts alike. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, who was then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported his nomination. Back then, he said, ‘In all honesty, I would like to see one person come to this floor and say one reason why Merrick Garland does not deserve this position.’ He actually accused fellow Senate Republicans trying to obstruct Merrick’s confirmation of playing politics with judges and has since said that Judge Garland would be a consensus nominee for the Supreme Court. He would be very well supported by all sides, and there would be no question that Merrick would be confirmed with bipartisan support.

Hahahahaha, Orrin Hatch, how would you like to eat some of YOUR OWN WORDS with your Lunchables today? Of course, Sen. Hatch is a Republican, which means he’s a craven, goalpost-moving cockweasel. So here’s what he had to say on Tweeter about the unmitigated gall of the president of the United States nominating a Supreme Court justice:



Turtle-mouthed Sen. Mitch McConnell added:



The American people HAVE a voice. That’s why they/we chose Barack Hussein “Suck It, Fools” Obama to be president until January of 2017, you sniveling fuckstumps. They will continue to have a voice after that date, when Hillary Clinton will be responsible for making Supreme Court nominations.

Are more Republicans already complaining? Haha OF COURSE THEY ARE. Yr Wonkette will be sure to gather them all up into one big sac so we can kick them all in the nuts together!


Add to that this Tweet from this Twit:

GOP Senator Wishes Merrick Garland Was Nominated by a White President | The Bob and Chez Show | News and Politics Podcast and Blog


GOP Senator Wishes Merrick Garland Was Nominated by a White President The Bob and Chez Show News and Politics Podcast and Blog

More thoughts on the Silver Fox Nominee:

SCOTUSblog has the lowdown:

Afternoon round-up: President nominates Garland to Supreme Court : SCOTUSblog

This morning President Barack Obama nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court. This blog covered the nomination live.

Early coverage comes from Nina Totenberg and Carrie Johnson of NPR, Bill Chappell and Carrie Johnson of NPR, Pete Williams, Daniel Arkin, and Erik Ortiz of NBC News, Jordan Fabian of The Hill, Kevin Liptak, Ariane de Vogue, and Manu Raju of CNN, Michael Shear and Gardiner Harris ofThe New York Times, Jeff Mason and Richard Cowan of Reuters, Richard Wolf of USA Today, Carol Lee, Kristina Peterson, and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Juliet Eilperin, Mike DeBonis, and Jerry Markon of The Washington Post, David Savage and Del Quentin Wilber of the Los Angeles Times, Michael Memoli of the Los Angeles Times, Greg Stohr, Mike Dorning, and Steven Dennis ofBloomberg, Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed, Edward-Isaac Dovere, Sarah Wheaton, and Seung Min Kim of Politico, Debra Cassens Weiss of the ABA Journal, Ed Pilkington and Dan Roberts of The Guardian, Tierney Sneed and Caitlin MacNeal of Talking Points Memo, Kathleen Hennessey and Mary Clare Jalonick of Associated Press, and Dave Boyer of The Washington Times.

Early commentary comes from Sam Baker of National Journal (registration or subscription required), Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress, Josh Israel at ThinkProgress, Cristian Farias at Huffington Post, Joel Pollak at Breitbart, Jeff Stein at Vox, Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog (with further commentary on the same blog), Leah Libresco at FiveThirtyEight, Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View, Adam Feldman at Empirical SCOTUS, Joe Palazzolo at The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog, Ben Mathis-Lilley at Slate, Laura Reston and Emma Foehringer Merchant at New Republic, Lincoln Caplan atThe New Yorker, and Yasmeen Alamiri at Rare.

No real thoughts that I could find on his stance on women’s rights…but it is early…and I am probably missing something.

Republicans Could Do A Lot Worse Than Merrick Garland Under President Clinton — Or President Trump | FiveThirtyEight

Asian-American Leaders Respond to the Supreme Court Nomination – NBC News

Merrick Garland: bridge-building judge thrust into the middle of a political war | Law | The Guardian

Obama Supreme Court nominee’s record on guns in the spotlight | TheHill

GOP senators split with leadership on SCOTUS | TheHill

Obama’s gutsy “Godfather” move: Merrick Garland nomination is as big a GOP nightmare as Donald Trump –

Fox’s Meghan McCain: Nominating Judge Garland Is Why ‘People Hate President Obama’ | Crooks and Liars

Re: Merrick Garland, it’s a bit late for the Obama administration and its supporters to appeal to constitutional norms requiring Senate consideration – The Washington Post

Tortured logic – Lawyers, Guns & Money   Read this one, it is spot on with the commentary. (At least I think so….I thought the same thing when I first read Woo’s statements on Garland’s nomination.

GOP senators up for re-election shut door on Garland nomination – AMERICAblog News

Hillary Clinton on Merrick Garland’s Nomination to SCOTUS | Still4Hill

The rest of today’s links are about different things…and they are in dump fashion…

#TwoTrumps: One Trump Saw the Ad, The Other Didn’t – Blue Nation Review  Read this.. by Melissa McEwan of Shakesville.

Trump and Kasich bail on Fox debate. Sanders should take their place. – AMERICAblog News

Fox Surrenders Unconditionally To Donald Trump. There Will Be No Survivors. | Wonkette

Trump Says There Will Be Riots if He’s Denied the Nomination | The Bob and Chez Show | News and Politics Podcast and Blog

Donald Trump: ‘There Will Be Riots’ If I Don’t Get The Nomination | Crooks and Liars

Kentucky Senate Protects Christian Cake Bakers From Dirty Cake-Obsessed Homosexuals | Wonkette

Here Is Your Recap Of That New Duggar Show. Are You Happy Now? | Wonkette


Five years of conflict in Syria – share your stories and experiences | Global Development Professionals Network | The Guardian

Kasich’s Pennsylvania ballot challenge withdrawn; clears way to primary | TribLIVE

How Kasich’s Anti-Choice Policies Are Really Impacting Women In Ohio | ThinkProgress

Sheriff says rape kits are irrelevant because most rape accusations are false / Boing Boing  This is an Idaho Sheriff…Frannie, get ready to be pissed off!!

Why This Photo Of Brazilian Protesters Is Sparking National Debate

This photo of Claudio and Carolina Maia Pracownik marching in Brazil’s recent anti-government protests, while their nanny, Maria Angélica Lima, trails behind with their children, has gone viral on social media.

Nearly 2 million Brazilians demanded  an end to Dilma Rousseff‘sscandal-filled presidency in a wave of demonstrations on Sunday. But one protest image in particular brought into focus another highly charged issue: the division of race and social classes.

A photographer from Correio Braziliense newspaper took a picture of protesters Claudio and Carolina Maia Pracownik, walking their dog through Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro. Their nanny, Maria Angélica Lima, trails behind them in a white uniform, pushing their two young daughters in a stroller.

The photo of the wealthy family and their nanny rapidly went viral and sparked a heated, national debate that highlighted the divisions and inequalities some say it portrays.


Ending this post on a high note:



It’s an open thread!

24 Comments on “Wednesday, are we there yet? Reads”

  1. Have a good evening…

  2. joanelle says:

    Boy oh boy, we’ve had lots of thunder an d it finally started raining torrent.
    You have a good evening too JJ

  3. ANonOMouse says:

    Thanks for the post JJ. Hang in there babe!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. purplefinn says:

    “No real thoughts that I could find on his stance on women’s rights…but it is early…and I am probably missing something.” I couldn’t either. It bothered me in his “talk” that he used “he” in reference to someone in the position rather than “he or she”. So I was curious. Hoping for the best.

  5. Fannie says:

    JJ, thank you…….what you’d say! Sheriff Craig Rowland, of Blackfoot, Bingham Co. Idaho said the Rape Kits Tracking bill was just a “tissue of lies” (my opinion). His logic escapes me, and when I called, I was told that he was misunderstood, and released a second statement (which I haven’t seen). He should be removed, you just don’t say something off the wall like that.

    Melissa Wintrow, Dem. Idaho has a long record (women’s center, Planned Parenthood) and of working on campus, in the community, and now in legislation, and she submitted a very good bill (HB528) for Rape Kit tracking. Well educated woman, well informed, and I look forward to supporting her. The lady who interviewed the Sheriff was from Local 8 news there, she didn’t challenge him, and didn’t ask questions. So I am waiting for her to respond to my call, I want to know why not? I mean, my God!

    Next month is Sexual Violence month, I suggested he take some classes, and I am getting pretty fed up living in Taterland………………I know you understand living in Banjoland. I am going to have buy myself one of those bopping bags, and kick the shit out it.

  6. NW Luna says:

    I listened to Democracy Now on my way back from work today. Amy Goodman interviewed Berniebro John Nichols on yesterday’s results. Oh, the unfairness of it all! The media showed video of all the candidates speaking, whether winners or losers, except — Bernie Sanders! How cruel! The media is all focused on Trump, and just when Bernie is going to really leap into prominence!

    Frankly I thought it really odd that the most newsworthy event of yesterday, that Hillary swept all 5 states, was not mentioned right off. And IIRC the media showed Sanders for part of his speech and before cutting to Trump. Anyhoo…I’ll shelve that bit of journalistic bias I heard along with that clip of Maddow’s voice breaking while discussing Hillary having the gall to Win All 5 States. Heh.

    • bostonboomer says:

      Dakinikat posted a video on Facebook of Rachel talking last night, she looked like she was fighting back tears.

      • NW Luna says:

        So sorry for you, Rachel. Healing from delusion is always tough.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        Can you post that video of Rachel here because I haven’t seen it and I’m not on facebook. I listened to Rachel last night and she didn’t even mention Hillary’s 5 State win until the very end of the show and then only mentioned it in relation to Bernie’s planned comeback. Bless her heart!!

        • Delphyne49 says:

          Hi, Mouse – I don’t know how to get the video off FB since it isn’t a YouTube video, but here’s the link – she has her setting so that everyone can see it. Hope it works!

          • Delphyne49 says:

            Looks like that didn’t work. Funny, because I saw the link in the preview….

          • ANonOMouse says:

            Thanks for trying Delph………I’ve been really anxious to see that video since I’ve been scolding Rachel via email for months for being so obviously in Bernie’s corner. I watched Rachel last night wondering if she would mention Hillary’s BIG WIN over Bernie the night before, but NOT a single solitary word was said about it until 4 minutes before the close. Even that mention wasn’t about Hillary’s BIG WIN, it was about Bernie’s plan to catch up in the delegate race and to convince Super Delegates to switch to him. She has a really bad bern,She needs to Heallary!!!! 🙂

          • NW Luna says:

            Try this:

          • ANonOMouse says:

            Thanks Luna……..She was really torn up about it, wasn’t she? Oh no, I feel an email coming on!

        • Ron4Hills says:

          That is precisely the complaint I had. At the very least report the damned news! Hilaary’s clean sweep somehow became, “Bernie has a plan!”

          Rachel kills me. I read her book about the war. It ws very good. There is so much about her to like. Very insightful. Engaging style. Even a good sense of humor. But this ugly bias of hers toward Hills is too much to tolerate.

          • ANonOMouse says:

            I’ve been so disappointed in her. I thought by now she would have at least attempted to control her emotions when she’s on the air. Apparently she isn’t capable of it.

    • quixote says:

      I heard somewhere that Maddow’s beef with Clinton is that DOMA passed by veto-proof majorities in 1996. So that would be Clinton (Bill). The veto-proof majorities part means nothing, apparently. Nor do all the actual *actions* that Clinton (Hillary) has taken on behalf of LBGT people.

      It’s just enough to be named “Clinton” to merit undying contempt. I had a parrot once who reacted that way to something I did he didn’t like. Twenty years later (parrots live a long time) he was still cross. What a birdbrain.

      • purplefinn says:

        “What a birdbrain.” : ) : )

      • ANonOMouse says:

        That’s just the excuse some gay people use for not supporting Hillary. Everyone who remembers 1996 knows that DOMA was going to pass with or without Bill’s signature. I wish he would have refused to sign it, but I understand politics well enough to know that it was a political decision.

        And Bernie’s vote against DOMA wasn’t a vote for Marriage Equality, it was a vote for the “full faith and credit clause”. Here was Bernie’s Press Secretary at the time explaining Bernie’s vote.

        “Explaining his vote in 1996, Sanders’ chief of staff told the Rutland Herald that Sanders’ vote was motivated by a concern for states’ rights, not equality. Explaining that he wasn’t “legislating values,” she noted that Sanders believed DOMA violated the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing one state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another.”

        Bernie didn’t support Gay Marriage in his own State in 2006:

        “Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told the Associated Press that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”) “

    • Ron4Hills says:

      Finally got the video. You were right. Loved it!!!