Friday Reads: It’s up to you New York! New York!!

NewYorkCityTimesSqaure1940svintagephotorainGood Morning!

Well, I’ve just about had it with the 2016 primary season.  I’m thankful that the most no nonsense city in the country and the diversity it represents is voting next.  It’s possible that both Democratic and Republican Primaries will be settled by the City that Never Sleeps and the rest of the Empire State.  Bernie will continue to be hopelessly behind. Trump will inch closer to the magic number.  The Atlantic seaboard will not be Cruz-friendly.

I’m going to start up with  part time New Yorker Paul Krugman’s column  today which adds a lot more to what BostonBoomer blogged about yesterday.  He argues that Bernie Sanders has gone “over the edge” and I agree.  Count me among the policy wonks in need of a neck brace after reading and listening to what passes as policy initiatives from the Sanders Campaign.  The Bernie Manifesto is nothing more than a misinformed, mislabeled and supremely dated ideological rant.  He’d probably fit in well with Angela Merkel’s party–if you really would like to pigeonhole him– which is Germany’s right of center party.

Also, count me as a yuggggge donor to whatever authentic Democrat primaries his damn ass for his Senate seat next time up. I’ve had it with him. His misinformed cult needs to quit defending him when he’s being indefensible.

From the beginning, many and probably most liberal policy wonks were skeptical about Bernie Sanders. On many major issues — including the signature issues of his campaign, especially financial reform — he seemed to go for easy slogans over hard thinking. And his political theory of change, his waving away of limits, seemed utterly unrealistic.

Some Sanders supporters responded angrily when these concerns were raised, immediately accusing anyone expressing doubts about their hero of being corrupt if not actually criminal. But intolerance and cultishness from some of a candidate’s supporters are one thing; what about the candidate himself?

Unfortunately, in the past few days the answer has become all too clear: Mr. Sanders is starting to sound like his worst followers. Bernie is becoming a Bernie Bro.

Let me illustrate the point about issues by talking about bank reform.

The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?

Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point.

Yet going on about big banks is pretty much all Mr. Sanders has done. On the rare occasions on which he was asked for more detail, he didn’t seem to have anything more to offer. And this absence of substance beyond the slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board.

You could argue that policy details are unimportant as long as a politician has the right values and character. As it happens, I don’t agree. For one thing, a politician’s policy specifics are often a very important clue to his or her true character — I warned about George W. Bush’s mendacity back when most journalists were still portraying him as a bluff, honest fellow, because I actually looked at his tax proposals. For another, I consider a commitment to facing hard choices as opposed to taking the easy way out an important value in itself.

But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues.

Serious character issues is right. I’ve listen to just about enough if his moralizing, creating one set of rules for himself and one set of rules for vintage-historic-new-york-city-black-white-in-1927-24every one else, and his total disconnect from truthiness.   Evidently in Sanders addled mind, telling a reporter that it’s up to the voters to decide if he’s qualified for the job is akin to saying he’s not.  He doubled down on the nonsense today. He deserves the Bronx cheer that Cruz got while touring the city. Clinton has been baited by the press for two days straight to answer the question on Sanders qualifications after his disastrous NYDN interview. She’s skirted the question each time.

Sanders continued to blame Clinton for going on the attack and said he has simply been defending himself. And while he expressed regret for the tenor of the campaign over the previous 24 hours and said the acrimony will make it harder for Democrats to unite in the fall, he also said he does not regret his own statements.

“When somebody says that I am unqualified to be president and gives her reasoning,” Sanders said, “I think it is totally appropriate for me to respond as to why I think she may not be qualified as well. And that has to do with her views and her actions on a number of the major issues facing this country, and the way she’s run this campaign in terms of how she’s raised her money.”

Clinton had raised questions in a television interview about whether Sanders was prepared to be president, but she repeatedly stopped short of saying he was unqualified.

Some Democrats are worried about potentially longer-term fallout of an increasingly personal conflict between Sanders and Clinton. Most of those Democrats are Clinton supporters who view her eventual nomination as inevitable despite the drawn-out nomination battle with Sanders. And most blame him for the ugliness.

This is typical Bernie.  He never absorbs new information that I can tell.  Once he’s mind is made up on something–correct or incorrect–he 1309440-bigthumbnailappears to shut down. How on earth can anyone think that some one with that much of a closed, nonadaptive mind can be in an executive position where quick thinking on new information means life or death for large swaths of people at many points in time?

He’s totally uniformed about Banking and about Trade and those are his two signature issues. They’re his only freaking talking points and he sees no daylight between reality and the dark penances that reside only in his brain. Break up all big banks! Shutdown all trade agreements!

Now there’s this story. Sanders will leave New York to travel to–of all places--the Vatican where the world will be treated to a typical Bernie Rant/Lecture on “the moral economy”.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has been invited to the Vatican on how to create “a moral economy,” he announced Friday morning.

“I was moved by the invitation, which was just made public today,” Sanders said during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I’m a big, big fan of the Pope. Obviously there are areas where we disagree on—women’s rights or gay rights—but he has played an unbelievable role, an unbelievable role of injecting a moral consequence into the economy.”

The Washington Post reported Sanders will head to Rome after his debate against Hillary Clinton on April 14. He is scheduled to speak at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.

If you think Sanders is radical, read Pope Francis on poverty, Sanders said.

“He’s trying to inject a sense of morality into how we do economics,” he said.

So, how many times have you ever heard of the Vatican or a Pope doing that kind of invitation to a gadfly Senator running for President while attacking the most likely future President?  Yea, I didn’t think so.  So, get this from the Vatican:  “Sanders Accused of ‘Discourtesy’ in Seeking Vatican Invitation.”

A senior Vatican official accused Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders of showing a “monumental discourtesy” in his lobbying for an invitation to a church-sponsored conference on economic and environmental issues for political purposes.

Sanders, whose foreign policy experience is under attack by rival Hillary Clinton, on Friday said he was “very excited” about being invited to the meeting hosted by a pontifical academy. It will put him at the seat of the Roman Catholic Church just four days before the New York primary.

The head of the academy said Friday that Sanders sought the invitation and that put an inappropriate political cast on the gathering.

“Sanders made the first move, for the obvious reasons,” Margaret Archer, president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, which is hosting the conference Sanders will attend, said in a telephone interview. “I think in a sense he may be going for the Catholic vote but this is not the Catholic vote and he should remember that and act accordingly — not that he will.”

Sanders’s travel to the Vatican following a debate with Clinton and just before the primary potentially injects into the Democratic nominating contest the agenda of Pope Francis, one of the most popular world leaders whose papacy is especially admired by the political progressives who play an outsized role in Democratic primaries. Archer’s response plays into criticism by Clinton of Sanders’s inexperience in diplomacy and dealing with foreign institutions, a central role of the U.S. president.

01093-2So, Bernie is now going to be an unwanted house guest who horned himself into an invitation.  Not only will he be an unwanted house guest, he’ll be one that demanded a chance to finger wag at the world. Basically, the #‎Vatican‬ now says ‪#‎Bernie‬ invited himself while Sanders says he was invited. They also characterized him as rude.

“Sanders cast a political shadow over a nonpolitical event by being pushy in requesting an invitation”

Only a huge ego with an overwhelming amount of  gall can explain this kind of rude, ill-mannered and inconsiderate behavior. Who said that Trump was the only egomaniac in the race.

The only weirder event of the day was Bill Clinton’s exchange with BLM protesters in Philadelphia which came off directly opposed to Hillary’s position and will take tremendous ‘splaining.  It seems his need to protect his legacy overwhelmed his concern for anything else including coming off as insensitive, racist and contrary to Hillary’s interests.

In a prolonged exchange Thursday afternoon, former President Bill Clinton forcefully defended his 1994 crime bill to Black Lives Matter protesters in the crowd at a Hillary Clinton campaign event.

He said the bill lowered the country’s crime rate, which benefited African-Americans, achieved bipartisan support, and diversified the police force. He then addressed a protester’s sign, saying:

“I don’t know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack and sent them out onto the street to murder other African-American children,” Clinton said, addressing a protester who appeared to interrupt him repeatedly. “Maybe you thought they were good citizens …. You are defending the people who kill the lives you say matter. Tell the truth. You are defending the people who cause young people to go out and take guns.”

The Clintons have faced criticism from BLM activists and younger black voters for months now over that bill, which they say put an unfairly images (9)high number of black Americans in prison for nonviolent offenses.

After a protester interrupted him repeatedly, Bill Clinton began to take on that critique directly, making the claim that his crime bill was being given a bad rap.

“Here’s what happened,” Clinton said. “Let’s just tell the whole story.”

“I had an assault weapons ban in it [the crime bill]. I had money for inner-city kids, for out of school activities. We had 110,000 police officers so we could keep people on the street, not in these military vehicles, and the police would look like the people they were policing. We did all that. And [Joe] Biden [then senator and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee] said, you can’t pass this bill, the Republicans will kill it, if you don’t put more sentencing in it.”

“I talked to a lot of African-American groups,” Clinton continued. “They thought black lives matter. They said take this bill, because our kids are being shot in the street by gangs. We have 13-year-old kids planning their own funerals.”

Throughout the spirited defense of his policy, Clinton continued to be interrupted, and he repeatedly seemed to single out one protester.

“She doesn’t wanna hear any of that,” Clinton said to the protester. “You know what else she doesn’t want to hear? Because of that bill, we have a 25-year low in crime, a 33-year low in murder rate. And because of that and the background check law, we had a 46-year low in the deaths of people by gun violence, and who do you think those lives were? That mattered? Whose lives were saved that mattered?”

For several minutes, the discussion of the crime bill, Clinton’s exchange with the protester and the crowd’s attempts to yell and chant over her were missing one thing: any mention of Hillary Clinton, the one Clinton running for president this election cycle.

Bill Clinton did finally address her. “Hillary didn’t vote for that bill, because she wasn’t in the Senate,” Clinton said. “She was spending her time trying to get health care for poor kids [referencing her advocacy for the Children’s Health Insurance Program]. Who were they? And their lives mattered. And her opponent [Bernie Sanders] did vote for it. But I don’t blame him either … There were enough Republicans in the Senate to kill this bill, and nobody wanted it to die. That’s what happened.”

“But she [Hillary Clinton] was the first candidate, the first one to say let’s get these people who did nonviolent offenses out of prison,” Clinton continued. “And guess what? A lot of Republicans agreed. They know they made a mistake.”

Still, Clinton continued for some time defending his own administration.   Twitter blew up over the situation and it will undoubtedly be a topic of conversation for a few days.

3844943266_9b5b6cc978_bDid I mention I really want New York City to put this entire thing to bed?  We’ll be live blogging the New York City debate. 

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on Monday agreed to face off in a prime-time debate in Brooklyn, New York, on April 14, five days before the state’s crucial primary.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer will host the presidential forum, scheduled for 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern time at the Duggal Greenhouse in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The event will be CNN’s seventh time hosting a Republican or Democratic debate during this election cycle. The agreement put to rest days of public and private back-and-forth between the two campaigns about if and when a debate would take place before New Yorkers head to the polls April 19.

I promise I will have a huge Bronx Cheer for Bernie.  I’m looking forward to him being hit on his undying love for gun manufacturers and his lack of knowledge on the actual workings of Dodd-Frank.  Please New York!  Send this man back to the most obscure part of Vermont possible. Join us!!!

One of the most interesting conspiracy theories I’m hearing discussed on TV is that the Republican establishment is getting behind Cruz because he can stop Donald from getting the magic number.  They will then dump him unceremoniously by the second vote at the convention and turn to some one like Paul Ryan or possibly Mitt Romney.  What are your thoughts on that?

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

Here’s a soundtrack for your afternoon coffee!!

 

 

Quick update: there’s an re in the letter which means this invite was in response to a letter sent by BS.
image

Advertisements

68 Comments on “Friday Reads: It’s up to you New York! New York!!”

  1. dakinikat says:

    Dem Strategist: Clinton’s Lead Is Insurmountable

    http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/275391-dem-strategist-clintons-lead-is-insurmountable

    The Hill reports:

    “I think he has a path to winning a couple more states here and there, but Secretary Clinton has a significant and really insurmountable delegate lead,” Winnie Stachelberg of the Center for American Progress Action Fund tells The Hill’s Molly K. Hooper in an interview.

    Sanders left Wisconsin “with about 10 more delegates than Secretary Clinton,” Stachelberg added.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      maybe someone rattled his cage and reminded him he may want a job when this is all over. I personally think if he can’t win the nomination his political career will careen off the tracks sooner rather than later.

      • jane says:

        I thought maybe he went into this campaign because he is of the age where if he loses, he would be content to retire completely. I think it is his swan song, so to speak. I have also been put off by his reading the headline about Hillary calling him unqualified and not reading what she actually said. Of the quotes that have been on tv, she never said that. The reporters have just inferred that from her remarks.

        • bostonboomer says:

          He has already announced he will run for reelection to the Senate. I hope the DNC finds someone to oppose him.

    • It is too late, he already provided the sound bite for the Walkers of the Republican Party.

  2. polculture says:

    Wait a moment. He’s going to do the debate AND crash the conference at the Vatican? It seems like there’s a bit of schedule conflict. I guess he expects to sleep on the plane. If so, I hope there’s turbulence the entire time during the flight to Rome.

    • Enheduanna says:

      I don’t believe for a New York minute Bernie et al didn’t initiate contact with the Vatican about the conference. From the “Sanders Accused of ‘Discourtesy’ in Seeking Vatican Invitation.” article linked above:

      “However Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the chancellor of the Academy, speaking on the phone from New York, said he extended the invitation to Sanders, though he declined to say who initiated the contacts.”

      Yet Bernie would have us believe the Vatican initiated contact. Then why won’t the Vatican state so categorically since it’s already become a flaming pile of controversy?

  3. Peter Adrastos Athas says:

    I’ve also had it with Sanders and his not ready for prime time players. I’m not sure who’s skeezier Devine or Weaver.

    • dakinikat says:

      Yea. I think Devine and Weaver are like two little demons. But they sure are padding their offshore investment accounts which they’ll need. I can’t imagine a Dem pol hiring either of them from here on out.

    • NW Luna says:

      They’re exponentially augmenting that “petulant self-righteousness” (Krugman) that’s Bernie’s trademark.

  4. William says:

    Anger has become the defining thread of this campaign; and really it has been so for years now. I think that the social media and the ratings-driven networks have accentuated much of it. Anger is somehow a virtuous approach to complex problems. Everyone is angry. The left wing is angry. The right wing is furious. OWS was fueled by anger, so is BLM. Perhaps anger gives people a sense of being important, superior to those who are more temperate or nuanced.

    There is a certain danger that anger will end up determining this campaign. Hillary’s campaign is the only one (besides maybe Kasich’s, and he just tries to slip under the radar) that is not fueled by anger. Sanders wants people to be angry at banks, wall street, trade deals that he says cost jobs, and much more. Mostly he wants people to be angry at Hillary, and then her husband. If he galvanizes enough anger, he might be able to win some of these big primaries. “Independents,” who are mostly angry libertarian right-wing types, are largely voting for him, as he always loses among Democrats.

    The media loves anger. The WAPO was the one which deliberately (you don’t think it was just accidental, or a misreading?) wrote that Hillary said that Sanders was unqualified. They got exactly what they wanted, which was more anger from him. “Campaign boils over.” That is the headline they have always wanted to write, they live for this. One must hope that enough sane and reasoning people will not fall for this. When the campaign finally stops, and all the coverage ends, and the networks go back to their usual fare, the citizens are left with the person whom they elected. That is the boring part for most, but it is often the crash which comes after the anger rush, as the reality of what they have elected sets in.

    • dakinikat says:

      That WAPO headline was a real faux pas. The paper owes both campaigns an apology but Bernie needs to read details instead of power point bullets for a change.

  5. Prolix says:

    Here’s a simple-minded take on this whole imbroglio: No pun intended, but Bernie’s burn rate is enormous. Money is at a premium and NY media is ravenous. They were fundraising off this little brouhaha within minutes. You don’t just chew paper and crap emails. And Bernie didn’t just run down to the kiosk and buy the WaPo. This was orchestrated by the skeevoids Devine and Weaver to pad their Panamanian passbook accounts.

    At no point does this excuse the crusty old egomaniac maple tree humping turd Bernie. If anything this episode heightens my disgust level. This wasn’t pride or ego or even principle, it was nothing more than good old fashioned money-grubbing greed to have people who are having a hard time making ends meet to send another $27 so a self-righteous old turd can have another turn on the catwalk.

    And not a one of them cares a whit if they are providing the fodder for Karl Rove and the Brothers Koch’s $900 Million behemoth of slime ads come this fall. Disgusting.

  6. dakinikat says:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/

    Bernie Sanders Is Even Less Competitive Than He Appears

    To date, Sanders has captured 46 percent of Democrats’ pledged delegates but just 42 percent of raw votes. So even if Sanders were to draw even in pledged delegates by June — which is extremely unlikely — Clinton could be able to persuade superdelegates to stick with her by pointing to her popular vote lead.

  7. dakinikat says:

    good for a laugh!!!
    Rangel: ‘Who the hell is Bernie Sanders to say somebody is not qualified to run for president of the United States?’

    https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/charles-rangel-on-the-importance-of-new-york-for-151357606.html

    Rangel told Golodryga that in all of his years in Congress, he’s “never had a conversation with Sen. Sanders.” He said, “He’s the type of person that is so proud that he’s not a Republican and he’s not a Democrat that he feels compelled not to converse with you, but to give a lecture to you so that you would know how much he knows about whatever he’s talking about.” He continued, “I don’t know any bill that I associate with him.”

    He also compares being on Cruz’s hit list as being on Nixon’s hit list.
    He did note that Sanders’ presidential campaign was underestimated — “until he announced for president and some of us were unfortunately naïve enough to laugh and say, ‘Bernie’s running for president? So what?’”

    Rangel said he is confident that Clinton will win his home state’s primary “by a landslide.”

  8. jackyt says:

    I wish Hillary would answer the media baiters thusly on the question of Bernie’s qualifications to be president:

    “The Constitution gives three eligibility requirements to be president: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen,” a term not defined in the Constitution.

    Many millions of Americans ‘qualify’ to run for the office. It’s a pretty low bar. What I want to talk about is what I want to achieve as president, and how I plan to accomplish those goals. I expect my opponent to do the same on his priorities.”

    And when the baiter doubles down on the question, laugh and say, “since Sanders is older, technically, he ‘qualified’ first.

    • Earlynerd says:

      Your excellent hypothetical reply is miles away from the bending-over-backwards deference the media demands of Hillary. The media hyenas would -still- be shrieking about THAT WOMAN dissin’ their man.

      WaPo’s SorryNotSorry non-apology for their lying headline is a case in point.

  9. Fredster says:

    I used this over at Uppity Woman’s place.
    Jeff Weaver and Ted Deviant behind the scenes.

  10. Nothing can be done, Kat. The fix is in. I’m not yet sure how they will manage it, but the powers that be will insure that Sanders is the nominee in 2016, just as they fixed the election of 2008.

    Black voters have been Hillary’s firewall. So they are now attacking her strength. I think that this attack will succeed, and that Hillary’s black support will start to crumble in New York, and will fully crater by California.

    You know damned well that what I am predicting will happen is at a 180 degree remove from what I WANT to happen. But damn it, I’m too old to pretend that the situation is something other than what it is.

    How many times have we seen this, Kat? How many times have we seen massive propaganda campaigns designed to convince Americans that x=y, even though the facts prove that x does NOT equal y?

    I’ve been watching these campaigns play out since the 1970s — from “liberal” newsman Eric Sevaried assuring the public that the CIA did not stage a coup in Chile, to the “liberal” NYT printing the lies of Judy Miller. The propagandists almost always win.

    Now we are being told that Bill Clinton was a racist because he signed off on the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill which was pushed forward BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS. And yet we are told that Bernie Sanders was NOT a racist, even though he voted for that very bill!

    We are also being told that the 1994 bill was responsible for increased incarceration of African Americans, even though nearly all of that increase was the result of Draconian laws passed at the STATE level.

    The fix is in. History is being rewritten. We cannot win. Sanders will win the nomination, and he will lose all 50 states in the general.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      Oh Joe, I have some 1mg Lorazepam, do you want one?

      We’re all getting paranoid because we keep thinking back to 2008, but I feel a bit different about this race and the biggest reason is that i believe most of the powerful people in the Party have lined up behind her. That’s something she didn’t have in 2008. When Ted Kennedy declared his support for and endorsed Obama, it was as if the rug got pulled out from under me. I knew then the fix was in.

      Cheer up old man!!! I think we’re gonna win this and if we don’t we’ll take a 2 mg Lorazepam and sleep for a couple of news cycles.

      • Delphyne49 says:

        I agree with you, Mouse. 2008 is done – it’s a bad dream and an even worse memory, but it’s not what’s happening right now. Sanders is NOT Obama and the SDs are not going to flip for him, especially after his latest snafus. I believe that the Dems see that Hillary is the only chance we have to prevent the horror of any one of those Republicans becoming POTUS.

        With our attitude and the determination that we will push back against those who want to run over her and us, I believe that the nomination and the office of POTUS is Hillary’s and ours.

        • bostonboomer says:

          Let’s not forget that the Democrats never wanted George McGovern as nominee. That is exactly why the super delegate system was set up. And McGovern was a Democrat. Why would the DNC want Bernie as nominee? Why would they want to lose 49 states?

          • William says:

            That is a good point. McGovern meant well, but was a very weak candidate; and the whole convention made the Democrats look incapable of governing. And that led to the Nixon landslide, and then Watergate and all that went with that. And then Carter filled the vacuum left by the rout of the liberal wing, and he barely won even after the Watergate disgrace, and then was ineffectual, and the Republicans ran against him for the next four elections.

            Observably, Sanders seems to be making every effort to destroy Hillary’s credibility, and dismantle the Democratic Party. It has become a rogue campaign, run by bad people, and undoubtedly largely funded by dark right-wing billionaire money. One would hope that enough Democratic voters in what are now mostly closed primaries would see through this. If not, the superdelegates are supposed to stop this kind of thing.

          • Some Democrats wanted McGovern. I’m old enough to remember that campaign — I was rooting for him 100 percent, even though I could not yet vote.

            He was a MUCH more electable candidate in ’72 than Sanders is today (in the general, not in the primaries), for three reasons.

            First: McGovern was a true war hero. He could oppose the Vietnam war and nobody could assail his courage. Nixon called him a “pansy,” but the charge just couldn’t stick.

            Second: McGovern was NOT a socialist: He was an old fashioned New Dealer. A Keynesian — at a time when even Nixon said “We’re all Keynesians now.”

            Third: The electorate was much more liberal then than is the case today. McGovern had the youth vote all sewn up. But he could also appeal to the older generation which still revered the memory of FDR. On paper, McGovern was, in many ways, a great candidate.

            And yet McGovern lost massively.

            Obviously, Bernie can’t do better than McGovern did. The FDR voters have all died off. Sanders appeals to some young people in blue states — and that’s it. I doub tthat he will get the majority of the youth vote overall. There are a lot of Republicans under the age of 30, and it makes no sense to pretend that they don’t exist.

            It also makes no sense to pretend that the young voters are the ONLY voters, as so many BernieBots do.

            Sanders has no crossover appeal for older voters, especially in the purple states. The “Reagan Democrats” will go for Trump 100 percent.

            69% of poll respondents told Gallup that the biggest problem facing the country was “big government.” 59% told Pew that they would never vote for a Socialist. There is less prejudice against a Muslim candidate than there is against a socialist candidate.

            I’m predicting that Bernie will get the nomination and will go on to suffer a 50 state rout that will cripple the Democratic party for a generation.

            And I don’t need Lorazepam! The only pills I take come from a bottle labeled “REALISM.” It’s potent stuff. Take two and call me in the morning.

          • dakinikat says:

            The only thing I see is that Bernie is not a real Dem and a lot of the DNC think he’s been shit talking Dems and Obama. Even Donna Brazille is weird about him since he said he ran as a Dem for the media attention.

          • ANonOMouse says:

            “And I don’t need Lorazepam! The only pills I take come from a bottle labeled “REALISM.” It’s potent stuff. Take two and call me in the morning.”

            No need to take it personally. My lorazepam suggestion was in jest. And I was old enough to vote for McGovern, so “REALISM” isn’t something I’m unfamiliar with.

            “I’m predicting that Bernie will get the nomination and will go on to suffer a 50 state rout that will cripple the Democratic party for a generation.”

            I’m predicting you are wrong and that Hillary will win the nomination!!! I’m also predicting that Hillary Clinton will be the next POTUS. You want to wager?

        • ANonOMouse says:

          Bernie’s is significantly behind her in the popular vote, almost 2.5 million and in pledged delegates by 250. The only argument he has for electability is that he does better in the one-on-one polls. The problem with that argument is that Bernie, unlike Hillary, is only now being vetted. Hillary has basically laid off of Bernie, but the GOP that has been piling on Hillary for decades, will not lay off of Bernie. There are no rocks left unturned with Hillary. Bernie, on the other hand, has a life like a gravel pit, where hardly any rock has been looked under. If I realize what risk Bernie Sander is in the GE, surely the SD know it also. So I don’t believe the electability argument is a winning argument to the SD’s. I hope she can win the nomination outright by winning NY, NJ, PA, MD, CT, CA, KY, IN, WV, RI, but if she doesn’t it’s hard to imagine the SD’s will select Bernie over her.

    • NW Luna says:

      Nah. Hillary wins in states with primaries and diverse populations. Sanders wins in caucus states by overwhelming Hilllary people with loud, aggressive, gullible, low-critical-thinking, mostly young and mostly male voters. The GE will not have caucuses.

      Sanders clearly doesn’t have enough delegates to have a chance. He’s way behind where Hillary was in 2008 with Obama. And I agree with the others who feel the superdelegates will declare for Hillary. Sanders is turning into a Dem Trump, and he’s on record as asking “What can the Democratic Party do for us[his campaign]?” and running as a Dem for the money and easier path. This time, the Party establishment haven’t fallen for the male, less qualified candidate.

      Get your mind out of the Slough of Despondency and that pit where you thought it was OK to wish certain whiney people to be raped. (Rape = torture, and torture is not to be wished on anyone except rapists.)

    • dakinikat says:

      I dunno Joe. I’ll have to see how New York goes.

    • Riverbird says:

      (Don’t forget that one reason McGovern’s loss was so huge was that he failed to vet his running mate, Tom Eagleton, who had kept secret the shock treatments he had received in the 60s and the fact that he was still on Thorazine. When the news came out, McGovern told the press he’d back Eagleton 1000%. But finally Eagleton withdrew and McGovern asked several Democrats including Ted Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey to be his VP, but they refused so he finally chose Sargent Shriver.)

  11. bostonboomer says:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  12. bostonboomer says:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  13. bostonboomer says:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  14. vger says:

    I am really curious to see what is in the tax return now. So, he is going to Rome to speak about the evils of wealth. (The Vatican might have their own views on this given that they know a little something about wealth. Just sayin’)

  15. ANonOMouse says:

    I’m preaching to the Choir I know, but what the hell.

    Hillary Clinton was a more effective lawmaker than Bernie Sanders

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/

    • NW Luna says:

      Really good to see this in the MSM though. Glad they are finally starting to vet Sanders.

  16. NW Luna says:

    Bernie Sanders had the Worst Week in Washington

    Sanders did an interview with the editorial board of the New York Daily News. In the discussion, a transcript of which was posted on Monday, Sanders came across as the proverbial dog who caught the car. He struggled to explain (or to seemingly understand) the consequences of many of his policies and looked for all the world like someone who, in the words of Clinton, had not done his homework.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/09/bernie-sanders-had-the-worst-week-in-washington/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b