ChrisWeigant.com

PUMA BOBs?

[ Posted Monday, May 23rd, 2016 – 16:55 UTC ]

There's a question on the minds of many Democratic Party leaders right now, which might be phrased: Will there be PUMAs? Or, to update it a bit: Will there be BOBs? Or maybe even PUMA BOBs? Perhaps you'll hear, at the convention: "I'm Bob Puma, glad to meet you"?

Cheap acronymic humor aside, the question is an important one. PUMAs, for those who have forgotten the 2008 Democratic primary race, were the supposedly-numerous Hillary Clinton supporters who refused to back Barack Obama (due to slights perceived during the hard-fought primary, as well as ideological differences), and were instead going to defect en masse and vote for John McCain. The name stood for "Party Unity My Ass!" which was also their rallying cry. This year, they may be replaced by the "Bernie Or Bust!" crowd, or (to coin a neologism) the BOBs.

But before we got to the BOBs, a quick historical review of the PUMAs is necessary. The entire "Party Unity My Ass!" movement (if it can even be called that, in retrospect) was the result of two things which turned out to not actually be representational of how the party's base was feeling. The first was the viciousness of the online flamewar between supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Exactly eight years ago, reading the comments section on any article or blog post about the state of the Democratic race was like watching a to-the-death gladiator battle. No holds were barred, no scathing insult deemed too extreme. From both sides, I hasten to mention (lest I be called biased). The personalities of Barack and Hillary were being savaged online, on a daily basis. This might sound familiar to anyone watching the Bernie-versus-Hillary flamewars online today. But while it's hard to accurately measure such things, it certainly seemed a lot more personal and vicious back then (at least, to me -- I certainly don't read every article's comments section, though).

So you had loud voices screaming at each other online. Due to the loudness and nastiness, some in the media started a narrative that the Democratic Party was split beyond repair. The convention, they all confidently predicted, would be contentious and possibly even violent. The spectre of 1968 was trotted out. For weeks before the convention, the media fanned these flames vigorously. I reached a different conclusion, however:

But personally, I think the entire PUMA ("Party Unity My Ass") effect is going to be about as effective as the Yippies were in nominating Pigasus (an actual pig) to the 1968 Democratic ticket. Which is to say, not very. And I think the demonstrations outside [the convention] are going to be similarly ineffective.

By the time the convention got underway, the narrative had reached ridiculous proportions in the media coverage. This led me to write a little parody of their "reporting," which I prefaced with: "You have to read this with an Australian accent, of course," but which I really should have led into with: "Imagine Eric Cartman saying this in his atrocious 'Crocodile Hunter' Australian accent."

"Crikey! We're on the hunt for the elusive PUMA, here on the streets of Den-vah. The PUMA is a wily beast and has so far evaded every attempt we've had to corner her. We asked hundreds and hundreds of women delegates inside the convention hall, and absolutely none of them would rant and rave in full PUMA fashion before our cameras. By crikey, we've heard stories that say the PUMA is a mythological animal, and even though we haven't found one yet, we're still out here looking..."

The only one to ever actually find any of the elusive PUMAs seemed to be Chris Matthews, who apparently got the "scoop" interview with some ranting Hillary supporters. That was pretty much it, for actual PUMAs (versus the perceived power of the PUMAs by the media). After Clinton gave a truly rousing speech at the convention in support of Obama, I noticed that someone in the media had gotten it right (but, sadly for historical review reasons, I failed to note exactly who it was):

For the first two days, the media kept beating the "Hillary people are going to show a divided party" drum, and it never happened. What was the overwhelming image out of the convention so far? Party unity.... I had to give credit to one talking head (I forget who it was, it may have been Bob Schieffer on CBS) who, obviously speaking without a script, said immediately after Hillary's speech something along the lines of: "Well, we've all be telling the story of how divided the Democrats are, but we were wrong. They are united." I didn't write down the exact words, but to me it was a stunning admission of journalistic failure -- for almost everyone in the media. They really, really wanted a fight. They didn't get one. Too bad. One would like to hope that now their media narrative will pivot on a dime into "It's astonishing how united the Democratic Party has become," but (as always when expecting things from the media) I'm not going to hold my breath or anything.

PUMAs, for all their online ranting, failed to materialize at the convention. I point this out as a cautionary tale for the mainstream media at large, because I think they'll all be tempted to try another crack at this storyline this year. Of course, that doesn't mean that the BOBs might not become a whole lot more real than the PUMAs ever were. Which brings us back to the present.

Losing candidates in a very close race always have a certain degree of fervency among some of their followers. That much is pretty conventional. But Bernie Sanders has run anything but a conventional campaign, and his supporters are not exactly a conventional slice of the Democratic base.

Bernie, in his own words, is trying to lead a "political revolution." So far, he has succeeded in revolutionizing Democratic Party politics. Others have tried to yank the party back to where it was under F.D.R., but none have had anywhere near the success that Bernie's seen. Democrats tacked heavily towards the center in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton remade the party with a very different ideology than had been traditional for Democrats. It would become a more business-friendly and law-and-order party than it had been in the previous few decades. Hillary Clinton has been caught in a bind during the 2016 campaign, because she originally wanted to run on not just continuing (and improving on) Obama's agenda, but also doing the same for her husband's agenda. Nostalgic talk of how things were pretty darn good under President Bill were supposed to be a strong point on the campaign trail.

Bernie forced a major reconsideration of this strategy, of course. Bernie talks about "The People" in just about every sentence, and stands for fighting for Main Street concerns like income inequality and criminal justice reform. By championing such issues as fighting trade agreements and raising the minimum wage (to $15 an hour) and tuition-free public college for all, Bernie forced Hillary to, essentially, reject some of her and her husband's political legacies. By doing so, Bernie drove a lot of the primary agenda in the Democratic race. He showed leadership within the party, and millions of people reacted very favorably to the agenda Bernie laid out. Hillary famously put "17 million cracks in the glass ceiling" for women, but Bernie has likewise put millions of cracks in the old Democratic Leadership Council's version of what the Democratic Party's agenda should be.

If Bernie Sanders loses the nomination to Hillary Clinton (which is now almost a mathematical certainty), what will his supporters do? This is the big question everyone in the political media world is now about to contemplate, for roughly the next two months. There has been (much like in 2008) a contingent of Sanders supporters online who have quite vocally vowed never to support Clinton. They swear they'll either: (a) write in Bernie's name in November, (b) vote for Donald Trump, or (c) just stay home and grumble. The slogan this time around is "Bernie Or Bust!"

But how many of them will still feel that way in November? That is really the more important question than how many Bernie supporters feel that way now. Time is a great healer of wounds, and Donald Trump is not exactly John McCain.

Three things are really going to have to happen, if the BOB movement is to be defused. The first is that Hillary Clinton is going to have to be as magnanimous in victory as Barack Obama was, back in 2008. Back then, Clinton didn't even concede the race on the last primary day. It took four whole days and a private face-to-face meeting with Obama before Clinton would even concede she had lost the race to him. But Obama didn't hold it against her, and went on to be as inclusive as possible at the Democratic National Convention. Hillary got most of the convention concessions she wanted, and in the end she personally (from the floor of the convention) cast the New York state delegate votes that put Obama over the top in the official nomination roll call, in one of the most brilliantly staged bits of political theater I've ever witnessed. Obama showed Hillary the respect her 17 million votes demanded, and Hillary turned right back around and gave Obama the same level of respect. That level of civility must be the goal of both the Clinton and the Sanders camps this year.

The second thing that has to happen is Clinton is going to have to let Sanders make major changes to the official party platform document. Bernie's millions of votes demand that the party rethink its core partisan agenda. The party simply has to chart a new direction for the future, period. By doing so, it could become a lot more appealing to the hordes of young voters Bernie Sanders has so excited this time around. Even if Hillary Clinton becomes president and serves two terms, the Democratic Party as a whole needs to reach out in a big way to the youth vote, because they are indeed the party's own future. Sooner or later there will be another open presidential election on the Democratic side, and the party would do well to position itself for that eventuality by beginning to address some of the problems Bernie Sanders has been pointing out. Changing the party platform document has no real tangible consequences for the nominee (few people read the platform, and the nominee is not bound by it), but at the same time the platform has always served as an aspirational document for the future of the party. As such, who better to make changes than the man who has inspired so many young voters this time around?

The third and final thing that absolutely has to happen to make the BOBs just as irrelevant as the PUMAs has to come from Sanders himself. Bernie has to have the speech of his life ready to go on the night of June 7, when the final states hold their primaries (Washington D.C. Democrats will still not have voted, but it won't matter one way or the other). He has led his revolutionary forces farther than any other populist Democrat has managed in decades. They could almost taste the victory, but in the end they're going to be denied. I say this as a person who will be casting his vote for Bernie in California two weeks from now, I should mention. But even if he wins here -- even if he sweeps all six states that night, in fact -- Bernie Sanders is not going to be the Democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton will go over the top in the delegate count, no matter which final states Bernie picks up. So Bernie's got to begin the process of letting his own supporters down gently. A lot of them are going to be outright disgusted that Bernie could rally behind Hillary after such a hard-fought campaign. That disgust is going to become quite public, almost immediately. But Bernie still has to give a speech which clearly explains to his own base that denying Donald Trump the presidency is indeed reason enough to support the Democratic Party's nominee.

Sanders will have to make this case repeatedly, over a period of weeks. Once the initial acute disappointment of his supporters wears off a bit, maybe he'll be persuasive. If Clinton is seen as giving Bernie due deference at the convention, this will help ease the tensions between the two in a big way. My guess (on nothing but gut feeling, I'll freely admit) is that Bernie will be largely successful at convincing his supporters to back Clinton in November. All along, his campaign hasn't been personality-driven, it has been driven by the power of ideas. Fighting to get the Democratic Party to fully back those ideas is still a worthwhile fight, even if you believe that Hillary Clinton doesn't agree with a large part of Bernie's agenda. Turning the party sharply away from the old Democratic Leadership Council agenda and starting to refocus on the needs of working men and women and families is a change worth making. Bernie has spent much of the primary season attempting (and succeeding, in many cases) to change Hillary Clinton's position on some of these key issues. He can still be effective at doing so after she becomes the nominee -- or, at least, that's the case he'll have to make to his supporters.

I think this is going to be a convincing argument, in the end. There may be a Bernie Or Bust faction that has an influence both at the convention and in November, but at this point I think the BOB faction will be a lot smaller than expected (or hyped) by the media.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

101 Comments on “PUMA BOBs?”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't get a chance to read the entire commentary as I am just hitting the sack.. It's past my bedtime...

    I just wanted to say that the violence and vitriol we are seeing now seems way WAY beyond what we saw in 2008....

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    The media is going to help convince the BOBs to vote for Hillary by going bananas over any poll that shows Trump having a chance in November. As your article shows, the media are far more interested in 'reality show' storylines than accurate reporting, because a third rate reality show star is delivering more eyeballs for this election that ever before - can you imagine what happens when an A-list reality show star runs? "Kim Does DC" anybody?

    I expect there to be a lot of "How Donald Can Win the White House", "Hillary in Trouble", "Is Bill Going to Lose Hillary the Election?" headlines between now and late October. Then Nate Silver will sober everybody up when the weight of real polling tells us what is going to happen.

    We will then be subject to desperate "Five ISIS October Surprises for Hillary?", etc. as they flog the dead horse to the final day.

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    I expect there to be a lot of "How Donald Can Win the White House", "Hillary in Trouble", "Is Bill Going to Lose Hillary the Election?" headlines between now and late October. Then Nate Silver will sober everybody up when the weight of real polling tells us what is going to happen.

    We will then be subject to desperate "Five ISIS October Surprises for Hillary?", etc. as they flog the dead horse to the final day.

    Yep! Sigh.

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The drama queens are actually agents provocateur - Wrong Paul's herd of paranoid Youtube sockpuppets. The rEVOLution will be spammed.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    We will then be subject to desperate "Five ISIS October Surprises for Hillary?", etc. as they flog the dead horse to the final day.

    Yep! Sigh.

    And in November when somebody says "BOB" you will be asked "Bob who?".

    As CW didn't, but should have said: "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    ;)

  7. [7] 
    Paula wrote:

    The more things change...

    Yep.

    The main difference between PUMAs and BOBs are that Hillary was invested in the Dem Party and Bernie isn't. I don't think they share the same motivations. Hopefully, and most likely, that won't matter. We'll soon see.

  8. [8] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Wow. Kos slams Bernie and his supporters hard for their "primary was stolen" meme.

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/23/1529938/-11-reasons-why-Bernie-Sanders-lost-this-thing-fair-and-square

    Great read, though, and really well done.

  9. [9] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Another scathing commentary about Sanders from a great writer. I've always been a fan of Jamelle Bouie's writing (even if I have no idea how to pronounce his last name).

    He writes
    A cynical observer might say that Sanders isn’t angry with the lack of democracy as much as he’s angry at losing. In any case, it’s more than a bad look for his effort—it’s ugly.

    The full article is worth reading.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_scorched_earth_run_against_hillary_clinton_is_a_mistake.html

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Truth be told, since Trump has become the presumptive Republican nominee for president, both Democratic campaigns have decidedly taken turns for the worse.

    And, neither candidate, nor their supporters, seem able to understand what that means. There should be a sense of urgency here to get both trains on track toward their ultimate destinations and avoid a national disaster. But, alas, Hillary and Bernie can't see the forest for the trees.

    Still, a national disaster could yet be avoided but it may require an inordinate amount of heavy lifting by all Democrats and progressives in the post-convention period. And, who knows, maybe Team Democrat will be all the stronger for it, in the long run.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    The media is going to help convince the BOBs to vote for Hillary by going bananas over any poll that shows Trump having a chance in November.

    But that's what you don't get..

    The BOBs will WANT Trump in the White House...

    ANYONE but Hillary is their mantra...

    If Hillary could find it in her to be a little more gracious, she MIGHT be able to pull the BOBs to her side..

    But Hillary being gracious is like Bubba keeping his hands off the women.

    Just ain't gonna happen..

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump is going to win: This is why Hillary Clinton can’t defeat what Trump represents
    People are rising up against neoliberal globalization. Trump represents capital, but also understands this reality

    http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/donald_trump_is_going_to_win_this_is_why_hillary_clinton_cant_defeat_what_trump_represents/

    Salon gets it...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    A cynical observer might say that Sanders isn’t angry with the lack of democracy as much as he’s angry at losing. In any case, it’s more than a bad look for his effort—it’s ugly.

    yes.. A cynical and in-the-bag-for-Hillary observer might say that..

    But would it be factually accurate??

    It's funny...

    Bernie was the cat's meow around here. He was the savior of the Democrat Party..

    RIGHT up to the point that he was actually doing damage to Hillary..

    Now he is worse than Trump.....

    Ya just gotta laugh at the blatantness of it all.. :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in November when somebody says "BOB" you will be asked "Bob who?".

    As CW didn't, but should have said: "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

    Sounds like wishful thinking more than anything else.. :D

    Can't wait to see what's gonna happen when Comey's recommendation to indict is thrown into the mix.. :D

    It's going to be EPIC...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal
    https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/

    Once again, this begs the question..

    Why Hillary over Bernie???

    Why is everyone voting with their vaginas?? Even those who don't HAVE them???

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is what I don't get..

    Ya'all are on record as stating that Bernie policies are more closely aligned with ya'all's beliefs...

    All the polls show that Bernie can beat Trump, whereas Hillary is losing in more and more of the polls...

    So, WHY support Hillary over Bernie??

    The ONLY possibility that makes any kind of sense is that ya'all feel it's "her turn"....

    Pardon me for saying so, but that seems to be a piss poor reason to vote for a POTUS...

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    MESSY
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_SANDERS_INTERVIEW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-23-19-05-51

    Hillary better reach way deep down inside her to find some grace or Philly will Bern....

    "Listen, will you just take a minute and dig deep for a bigger set of balls, 'cause you're gonna need 'em before we're through!"
    "Wow.. I know that tone, it's just weird hearing it from someone with.... hair"

    -LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD

    :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    From both sides, I hasten to mention (lest I be called biased). Th

    Perish the thought.. :D

    The convention, they all confidently predicted, would be contentious and possibly even violent. The spectre of 1968 was trotted out.

    See, I don't remember that. And I DO read a lot of the comments sections, as ya might imagine..

    I honestly don't remember anyone of any import (certainly not a Senior California Senator) invoking 1968...

    Things are way worse now then back then.. Even the racism accusations of 2008 are comparable to the sexist accusations in the here and now...

    But how many of them will still feel that way in November? That is really the more important question than how many Bernie supporters feel that way now. Time is a great healer of wounds, and Donald Trump is not exactly John McCain.

    Yea... Trump is actually EXCITING... Trump is the TRUEST definition of a Maverick....

    Three things are really going to have to happen, if the BOB movement is to be defused. The first is that Hillary Clinton is going to have to be as magnanimous in victory as Barack Obama was, back in 2008.

    Exactly!!!! EXACT-A-MUNDO!!!!

    GRACIOUSNESS....

    Hillary needs to reach deep down inside and find something that she has NEVER displayed before..

    Grace...

    Not this Kick-Em-In-The-Balls-While-Their-Down-And-Take-No-Prisoners attitude she has had to date...

    I say this as a person who will be casting his vote for Bernie in California two weeks from now, I should mention.

    Color me surprised.. And impressed.. Not that you are feeling the Bern but that you actually went on record..

    Not to put too fine a point on it, I do believe this is a first, CW.. :D

    If Clinton is seen as giving Bernie due deference at the convention,

    And THAT is a big 'IF'.. A YUUGE Alaska-sized IF...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think this is going to be a convincing argument, in the end. There may be a Bernie Or Bust faction that has an influence both at the convention and in November, but at this point I think the BOB faction will be a lot smaller than expected (or hyped) by the media.

    That entire premise is based on one thing and one thing alone..

    Hillary being a gracious winner..

    I just can't see that happening...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I will be voting for Bernie in the Primary on June 7th and if (when) it's Trump-Clinton I will vote for Stein in the general election. Was leaving that option out of the article an oversight?
    Bernie or Busters will be easier to find this time around. Clinton and Obama were similar enough for their supporters to accept either.
    What will be hard to find is Bernie or Busters that will stay home. That has no basis in reality and is nothing more than a fictional way to try to denigrate citizens that will not vote for Hillary in the general election.
    But hopefully there will be more Bernie or Betters than the BOBs in the article. I hope, CW, that you will join me in the primaries on June 7th and vote for an anti-establishment congressional candidate in the primaries or write in your own name as a vote against the establishment congressional candidate (and Senate, if you have one) and encourage other citizens to do the same.
    This, as explained in previous posts, will make the Congress better and keep Hillary more to the left if she is actually elected (unlikely) or help minimize the damage if (when) we end up with Trump because the Democrats nominated Hillary ( It will be their fault for nominating Hillary- Not the fault of any version of BOBs that do not vote for Hillary in the general election.)
    And let's not repeat the mistake of 2000 that Gore supporters made in states that Gore could not possibly win. They could have voted for Nader without affecting the outcome between Bush and Gore. This would have established third party competition and stopped the race to the bottom that has led us to the Trump-Clinton debacle.
    When Hillary secures the nomination, please make sure that if you encourage Bernie supporters in close states to vote for Hillary that you also encourage Hillary supporters in states she can't win to vote for Stein or be any kind of BOB so that we can have better choices in future elections.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    That's an excellent point..

    In 2008, Obama was ideologically acceptable to Clinton supports.. Besides, if Clinton supporters can't WOW their friends with the fact that they voted for a WOMAN, they can WOW their friends with the fact that they voted for a black guy....

    In the here and now, Clinton is not ideologically acceptable to Bernie supporters.. Trump is closer to Bernie than Clinton can ever hope to be..

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bernie is closer to Clinton in some ways and Trump in others, but it is basically a wash. Bernie supporters that will vote for lesser of two evils in the general election will mostly vote for Clinton.
    It remains to be seen how many will take the other options and what other options, but it will be a much greater percentage than the PUMAs of 2008.
    And hopefully enough to prevent us from looking back in future elections wistfully remembering the good old days when it was only as bad as Trump-Clinton.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie is closer to Clinton in some ways and Trump in others,

    Bernie is closer to Trump in the only way that matters in the 2016 Presidential Election..

    Clinton represents the status quo... The Establishment.. The same ol same ol way of doing things..

    Bernie and Trump are the Anti-Status Quo.. The Anti-Establishment.. The Anti-Same Ol Same Ol

    That is going to appeal to a LARGE percentage of Bernie supporters...

    If they can't have The Bernster, they will go with the Trumpster...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    If they can't have The Bernster, they will go with the Trumpster...

    And Trumpster rhymes with Dumpster :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Bernie and Trump are the Anti-Status Quo.. The Anti-Establishment.. The Anti-Same Ol Same Ol

    None of the CST trio are Anti-Establishment they simply are being backed by different corporate interest blocks. When it comes to anti status quo I think Saunders is the clear winner there.

    While trump has done a good job of marketing himself as anti status quo the reality is vastly different. The advisers he has named so far are GOP standard bearers for that interest block, the beginning of his big money fundraising parties and don't forget about the endorsements from some of the mega donor camp should all be giving cause for one to think about what they will be getting with trump.

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Some Bernie supporters may support Trump, but the majority that will not vote for Hillary will not because they know that Trump is anti-Republican establishment but still part of the overall establishment like Hillary. And the Republican establishment is coming around so the anti-establishment facade that Trump has created will not last through the general election- at least not for most Bernie supporters and other independents.
    Trump is only anti-establishment to people that don't understand what anti-establishment really is.
    If Bernie supporters can't have Bernie the majority will vote for Hillary. More will vote for Hillary than will vote for Stein. More will vote for Stein than write in Bernie. More will write in Bernie than vote for Trump.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    But what does the public find more shameful? Is it the businessman who looks after his own interests, using government to smooth his real-estate business and casino interests? Or the government official, who prostitutes the public offices she uses, not only for personal gain, but sometimes in ways that work to legitimize human-rights abusers in Africa, or enrich shady Middle Eastern business concerns, or give Russian companies greater access to weapons material? We're going to find out.
    http://tinyurl.com/h8bpp85

    Yea... Hillary is a winner.... NOT...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    None of the CST trio are Anti-Establishment they simply are being backed by different corporate interest blocks.

    Yea?? Which corporate interest block is backing Trump?? Or Sanders for that matter??

    While trump has done a good job of marketing himself as anti status quo the reality is vastly different. The advisers he has named so far are GOP standard bearers for that interest block, the beginning of his big money fundraising parties and don't forget about the endorsements from some of the mega donor camp should all be giving cause for one to think about what they will be getting with trump.

    The difference being is that NONE of those corporate interests backed Trump until very recently..

    Trump got to where he is NOT BEHOLDEN to those interests..

    Clinton can't say the same thing..

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Bernie supporters can't have Bernie the majority will vote for Hillary. More will vote for Hillary than will vote for Stein. More will vote for Stein than write in Bernie. More will write in Bernie than vote for Trump.

    Assumes facts not in evidence... :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://tinyurl.com/h8bpp85

    But what does the public find more shameful? Is it the businessman who looks after his own interests, using government to smooth his real-estate business and casino interests? Or the government official, who prostitutes the public offices she uses, not only for personal gain, but sometimes in ways that work to legitimize human-rights abusers in Africa, or enrich shady Middle Eastern business concerns, or give Russian companies greater access to weapons material?

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:
  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think that Don raised the best point of all...

    There wasn't much ideological difference between Clinton and Obama so, for Clinton supporters once they got over the initial hatred, there was a "fit"....

    There is not going to be that "fit" between Clinton and Bernie supporters....

    The ONLY way Bernie supporters are going to go Clinton is if Clinton charms them...

    And we saw how "charming" Clinton was in Nevada and elsewhere...

    Clinton is going to have to kiss some MAJOR ass to swing Bern'ers over to her side..

    The question is.... Is Hillary willing to kiss major ass???

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (29)
    Opinion- facts not required.
    Evidence not available until after the fact.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale (29)
    Opinion- facts not required.
    Evidence not available until after the fact.

    Touche' :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Goodtrickle made a good point that the Big Money fundraising is underway for Trump. This will not only turn off Bernie voters. It will also turn off any Trump supporters that are not so deep into the bubble that they will notice not only when he does not use his own money for the general election, he will take advantage of his ability to use those Big Money contributions to pay back his money spent in the primaries. The majority of his money was LOANED not contributed to his campaign and can be paid back to Trump up until the convention.

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    While we agree that there is no fit between Bernie supporters and Hillary, she will not kiss ass for Bernie supporters. She will give some ceremonial stuff to Bernie at the convention but that's it.
    The ass she will use in the general election is Trump. She will just keep saying President Trump and hope it scares enough Bernie supporters. The ones that are intelligent enough not to buy that are not going to buy Trump saying President Clinton either.

  38. [38] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "the Big Money fundraising is underway for Trump."
    "his money was LOANED not contributed to his campaign and can be paid back"

    Yep. Self-funded "billionaire" Sockpuppet Trump is just a puppet.

  39. [39] 
    Paula wrote:

    And this is where efforts started months ago bear fruit:
    A federal court Tuesday struck down a provision of Ohio law that scaled back the early voting period in the state.

    Judge Michael Watson, of the U.S District Court of the Southerm District of Ohio, ruled that the provision was a violation of the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.

    The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by voting rights attorney Marc Elias -- who is also the general counsel of the Hillary Clinton campaign -- on behalf of The Ohio Organizing Collaborative and individual voters in the state.

    Last year I remember reading the Clinton Campaign or folks connected to it had started working on voter suppression efforts in different states and I was thrilled to hear it. It has just paid off in Ohio.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ohio-voting-golden-week-ruling

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary, she will not kiss ass for Bernie supporters.

    And Bernie supporters will want their asses MAJORLY kissed to support Hillary...

    If Hillary won't do that, then guess what...

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ass she will use in the general election is Trump. She will just keep saying President Trump and hope it scares enough Bernie supporters.

    HOPE being the operative word there..

    We know how well Obama's HOPE worked out for Democrats...

    Do you honestly believe their are going to be fooled again???

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Paula wrote:

    I think Hillary is going to do all kinds of things to the Donald. I'm not worried -- I'm looking forward to it, actually.

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yep. Self-funded "billionaire" Sockpuppet Trump is just a puppet.

    Won't release his tax returns.

    Forbes (a very right wing rag) puts his net worth at less than half Trump boasts about.

    "Self-funded" his campaign with loans that he can claim back if he can get other money

    Lied about how much he raised for Veterans.

    Sucking up to the Rep. big money guys.

    Who would believe a word out of this guys mouth?

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think Hillary is going to do all kinds of things to the Donald.

    Except for the fact that Hillary stated that she is not going to respond to Trump at all... :D

    Won't release his tax returns.

    And Hillary won't release the speech transcripts...

    What's yer point???

    Who would believe a word out of this guys mouth?

    Apparently, 40% of Democrats..

    Ya'all are starting to sweat... I see it... :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Add to the fact that all the polls are starting to show that Hillary LOSES against Trump.... :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie is ya'all's only hope...

    And ya'all have already discarded him..

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are just 5 words that negates ANYTHING Hillary has to say...

    Bill Clinton's Sexual Assault Victims..

    That's all it takes to throw Hillary into the gutter where she belongs...

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: Yay Hillary! Love her! Can't wait for the general to get underway and the destroy Donald effort commences big time.

    And while you and the rest of the righties will try to re-litigate all the old scandals, we'll be enjoying all the new Donald scandals. On the Hillary/Bill side, there's never any there there. On the Donald side, there's plenty.

    Unleash the Krakon! Kraken?

    Madame President...I love the sound.

  49. [49] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump calls American military prisoners of war "LOSERS!" If someone deserves to be thrown in the gutter, it should be for their own actions!

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    That's all it takes to throw Hillary into the gutter where she belongs...

    Where does that kind of hatred come from?

  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    That's all it takes to throw Hillary into the gutter where she belongs...

    Where does that kind of hatred come from?

    You know where. It's from a dark place, and it's fed by the Media, by computer-aided gerrymandering, by campaign consultants, by leaders like Trump and Sanders who fail to step in and stop their own followers from acting like mobs. When 'intensity' is determined to be the difference between winning and losing, we lose, because the most intense emotions are love, fear and hate, and nobody loves anybody 'round here these days, except Bernie, who lately seems to love himself most of all...

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Careful, Balthasar ...

    Elizabeth Miller did not write that.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Besides, I was looking for a more specific answer. :)

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    That's all it takes to throw Hillary into the gutter where she belongs...

    Where does that kind of hatred come from?

    The blatant hypocrisy that allows this rhymes-with-witch to say, "All sexual assault victims should be believed.. Well, except for the victims of my husband. THOSE victims should be destroyed"

    Is that specific enough?? :D Because, if not, I have plenty more...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Madame President...I love the sound.

    Enjoy it.. Because it's the ONLY time you are going to hear it. :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump calls American military prisoners of war "LOSERS!" If someone deserves to be thrown in the gutter, it should be for their own actions!

    Actually, what Trump said is that McCain wasn't a "hero" because he was captured..

    Funny thing is, if one actually THINKS about it, rather than hysterically attacking, it's a true and factual statement...

    {{cough}} {cough} Berghdal {cough}

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can't wait for the general to get underway and the destroy Donald effort commences big time.

    Not to rain on your parade (well, not MUCH anyways :D ) But the Destroy Donald effort commenced the day that Trump announced his candidacy..

    And not only is Trump still standing, he is way WAY stronger...

    The Left's only hope was that Trump would show he wasn't POTUS material and had to fight the Right as much as the Left..

    That just ain't happening..

    Hillary is going to face a UNITED GOP being led by a guy who knows no bounds of decency towards his opponent when it comes to campaigning..

    There is NOTHING that Trump won't drudge up.. There is NOTHING that will be out of bounds...

    And Hillary has already stated for the record that she won't go there..

    Hillary doesn't stand a chance..

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where does that kind of hatred come from?

    The blatant hypocrisy that allows this rhymes-with-witch to say, "All sexual assault victims should be believed.. Well, except for the victims of my husband. THOSE victims should be destroyed"

    What *I* don't get is how ANY sane intelligent person can support someone like Hillary...

    Hillary epitomizes everything the Left Wingery is against...

    She is to the RIGHT of Trump on war mongering, fer chreest's sake!

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    John From Censornati [4] -

    (with apologies to Gil Scott-Heron, of course): The revolution will not be blogged.

    neilm [5] -

    What I should have said was: "Pull the wool over your OWN eyes." Heh. Just a shout-out for all the Sub-Geniuses™ out there....

    Speak2 [8, 9] -

    Well, I'd caution restraint. It'll all hinge on what Bernie says after he loses on 6/7.

    LizM [10] -

    In the language of your fellow Canadians: "Calme-toi." Things will work out OK. It'll all be OK in the end, at least that's what I have to believe at this point....

    Michale [19] -

    Perhaps way too late, I have now stated my intentions to vote for Bernie in our primary (which is 2 weeks away, still). So I've belatedly put my own marker down -- much as I did for John Edwards in 2008, after he had any chance of winning.

    Michale [19] -

    Oh, yeah, there were indeed comments about 1968 back in 2008. Look them up, they're there.

    And call me timid, but I did sort-of-kind-of endorse John Edwards back in 2008, in the same fashion I am sliding into a half-assed endorsement of Bernie Sanders this year. I like to keep my objectivity at maximum throughout the primary season, but at some point I have to admit in print how I am personally going to vote. That point has now arrived. I will be happily voting for Bernie, but having said that, I fully expect the Dem nominee to be Hillary Clinton. And I'll vote for her in November, although less happily, I fully admit.

    If you need confirmation, I can look up my endorsement of Edwards, 8 years ago, but I have to admit it came too late to do any good for his campaign....

    Michale [20] -

    I can picture her being a gracious winner a lot easier than I can picutre her being a gracious loser, that's for sure...

    Heh.

    Don Harris [21] -

    Leaving the Jill Stein option out of this article wasn't so much an oversight as a simplification. Didn't want to introduce the option, and got (rightfully) slammed about the lack of the option both here and over on HuffPost.

    Mea culpa. Should've mentioned it....

    Michale [24] -

    Much as I hate to admit it, you've put your finger on it: this election might turn on "something new" versus "status quo" -- one guess as to who is "status quo" in that makeup....

    Don Harris [27] -

    That may indeed be the formula which proves correct! Well done!

    :-)

    Michale [31] -

    This is actually a good point -- how far will Hillary go to court Bernie voters? That, right now, is an open question...

    Paula [46] -

    I belive it is "Krakken"... but then, what do I know?

    Heh.

    :-)

    To everyone: Hey this all is fun but I'm going to the Democratic National Convention!!! Woo hoo! Should be a guaranteed interesting time for all...

    :-)

    -CW

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Funny how you don't condemn the violence of Hillary supporters..

    Why is that??

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Paula,

    It's not clear that HilRod will have to do anything to the Orange Thing. He was unable to accuse Bill of rape without gratuitously insulting the women in question.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Well, I'd caution restraint. It'll all hinge on what Bernie says after he loses on 6/7.

    IF he loses on 6/7... :D

    If he wins, then it's all going to hinge on what Hillary says or does after HER loss...

    If you need confirmation, I can look up my endorsement of Edwards, 8 years ago, but I have to admit it came too late to do any good for his campaign....

    No need.. I only mention it because I have tried ta tie ya down on many occasions.. :D

    I can picture her being a gracious winner a lot easier than I can picutre her being a gracious loser, that's for sure...

    Word.....

    Much as I hate to admit it, you've put your finger on it: this election might turn on "something new" versus "status quo" -- one guess as to who is "status quo" in that makeup....

    I get one right now and again.. :D

    To everyone: Hey this all is fun but I'm going to the Democratic National Convention!!! Woo hoo! Should be a guaranteed interesting time for all...

    WOOT!!!!! Pics or it didn't happen...

    "Pics or it didn't happen?? If you can't score at a reproductive rights convention, you simply can't score!"
    -Charlie Bradbury, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I seriously doubt that Hillary said what you went so far as to quote her as saying.

    You're as bad as Balthasar!

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Comment #10 was, ultimately, expressing a very optimistic sentiment.

    But, I'll try to calm down, anyway. :)

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, have fun at the convention.

    Heh.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    He was unable to accuse Bill of rape without gratuitously insulting the women in question.

    For example.....?????

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    I seriously doubt that Hillary said what you went so far as to quote her as saying.

    Oh, of course she didn't SAY it..

    But she DID do it..

    And, isn't that the important part??

    How can you support someone who moved to DESTROY sexual assault victims???

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're as bad as Balthasar!

    Hay now!!! Let's not be sayin' things we can't take back!!! :D

    Seriously though.. Which Balthasar???

    The commenter or the angel??? :D

    "Honey, before we go, if you like I can remove that stick that's in your ass?? No?? OK, we'll leave it in place then.."
    -Balthasar, SUPERNATURAL, My Heart Will Go On

    :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think you are misinformed, Michale.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Much as I hate to admit it, you've put your finger on it: this election might turn on "something new" versus "status quo" -- one guess as to who is "status quo" in that makeup....

    Also keep in mind that, in 2008, the election DID turn on "something new" rather than the status quo....

    Playing Mark Pellegrino's advocate here, THAT didn't end very well, so.......

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Burger flippers demand $15 an hour???

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/building-robot-mcdonalds-staff-cheaper-8044106

    That's what the result is going to be..

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    BUSTED!!!

    “Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report states. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553#ixzz49g2k6DRI

    "Rules are for thee and not for me..."
    -Hillary Clinton

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    The report states that its findings are based on interviews with current Secretary of State John Kerry and his predecessors – Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, but that Clinton and her deputies declined the IG’s requests for interviews.

    So much for Hillary's claim that she is willing to talk to anyone to put this matter behind her..

    Of course, the obvious conclusion is that she doesn't want to get caught telling different stories... One story to the State IG and a different story to the FBI....

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    “It’s really sad. And it’s a testament to what has happened in our country. Our country is really divided.”
    -Maria Elena Salinas

    Our country is really divided, says the Univision anchor who gave a commencement speech partially in spanish, thereby dividing the crowd into spanish-speaking and non-spanish-speaking people..

    The hypocrisy is so blatant and ingrained, these morons don't even know they are doing it! :^/

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly broke government policy by using her own secret email server and top aides misled other department staff to cover for her, an inspector general concluded in a report sent to Capitol Hill Wednesday.

    Not only did her use of the secret server shield her communications from open-records laws, but she also broke department policy by failing to report several hacking attempts, the inspector general said in an 83-page investigative report that is devastating in its conclusions.

    After one of the 2011 hack attempts Mrs. Clinton’s tech staffer shut the server down for a few minutes, hoping that would solve the situation, but quickly warned top aides not to send Mrs. Clinton “anything sensitive” after the attempted breach, according to the report, which was obtained by The Washington Times.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/25/hillary-clinton-failed-report-several-hacking-atte/

    Neil, wasn't it you who told me the joke about the mechanical engineer, the electrical engineer and the software programmer all riding in a car???

    Apparently, that software engineer works for Hillary Clinton.. :D heh

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Paula wrote:

    [67] Elizabeth: I think you are misinformed, Michale.

    Root and branch. He has swallowed everything with the characteristic Michale thoroughness -- he's not merely wrong on facts he is deeply, intensely wrong. He will gleefully replay every old record from the 1990's -- the records that launched the careers of so many media whores, liars and professional haters.

    He won't be able to tell you anything real about why he hates Hillary, he will just shoot out junk slurs. Make my words.

    Until Madam President is sworn in he will peddle debunked nonsense -- only after she starts her first term will his material change -- it will be whatever new fake scandal the righties can come up with. He'll enjoy that. By then even he will be tired of the retreads.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I think you are misinformed, Michale.

    And, your evidence to support this statement is... What exactly???

    It's well documented how Hillary treated Bill's sexual assault victims...

    And, since it's Hillary herself who said that all sexual assault victims should be believed......

    well, there ya god...

    Paula,

    He won't be able to tell you anything real about why he hates Hillary, he will just shoot out junk slurs. Make my words.

    I already have posted one of the reasons why I hate Hillary...

    Until Madam President is sworn in

    Ain't gonna happen.. You mark my words...

    "Consider them marked..."
    -Leftenant Norrington, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN

    :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    When you can rationally and logically address comments #70, #71 and #73, then you might have a case...

    But don't tell me, let me guess.. I obviously don't want to have a serious conversation about this...

    Am I close?? :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Paula wrote:

    For those who weren't paying attention at the time (which I was), here's the nutshell:
    In many ways, Grover Norquist articulated the Republican strategy of obstruction in 2003 when talking about his vision of a “permanent Republican majority.” Someone asked him what would happen if a Democrat was elected president and his response was: “We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a Democrat.”

    That plan hasn’t been limited to simply grinding the gears of Congress to a complete halt. As we’ve seen with both President Clinton and Obama, it has also meant an attempt to tie the administration up in an endless array of scandal investigations. We’re witnessing some of those fevered conspiracy theories from the Clinton administration re-surface now that Hillary is running for president. But it all started during the 1992 campaign and took various turns from the moment they entered the White House with tales about travel-gate, file-gate, whitewater-gate, etc. The naming of these conspiracy theories indicates that Republicans never got over the impeachment of President Nixon that began with the break-in at Watergate. The search was to find something that could take down a president the way Nixon’s behavior led to his resignation. With Clinton, that never materialized until Republicans felt like they’d found their load star in an affair he had with a White House intern and lied about. That was the best they could do. But they put the entire country through an excruciating process that will go down as one of the ugliest moments in our history.

    Michale and his ilk will insist all the fake scandals were real, but they weren't. They were part of an extended and extremely expensive fishing operation, the big payoff of which was Monica Lewinsky. But, as Michale so constantly illustrates, when repubs do something rotten, somehow, somewhere, there must be a Dem who did something bad too, because repubs have to have the last word and can't be in the wrong. And certainly can't be responsible. If the devil didn't make them do it, some liberal did. They, themselves, are mere robots who respond to the nefariousness of others -- they never take action on their own. But they deserve to lead the world doncha know...

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_05/the_most_important_legacy_of_b060642.php

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Bernie’s Bros Might Go for Trump
    Anti-establishment liberals abandoned their party in 1968, and again in 1980. Why not 2016?

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/why-bernies-bros-might-go-for-trump-213915#ixzz49gYyi0vG

    Those who say that Bern'ers won't swing wide for Trump are just engaging in wishcasting....

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale and his ilk will insist all the fake scandals were real, but they weren't.

    Apparently, someone forgot to tell the State Department IG.. :D

    You HAVE read his report, right??? :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: I'll take your Washington Times report and raise you the report on the same subject at DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/25/1530755/-State-Department-audit-faults-Clinton-and-past-secretaries-of-state-on-email-practices

    The report was critical of all the recent SOS's -- appears the whole system/process needs to be figured out so that SOS's can reasonably comply. Because all of them (the worst being Colin Powell) breached the rules in different ways. AND: THIS IS STILL NOT YOUR HOPED-FOR SMOKING GUN!

    Got work to do. No more this afternoon from me.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Daily Kos???

    OK... I'll see your Daily KOS and raise you a Rush Limbaugh... :D

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Hillary Watch
    Trump’s Jujutsu
    A bewildered Hillary doesn’t know where the punches will come next.

    http://spectator.org/trumps-jujutsu/

    If Democrats aren't sweating, then they're in denial....

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    First [50]: My apologies Elizabeth. I'm still figuring out the tags.

    Next: Mike, you apparently didn't read the whole KOS article before dismissing it. Nothing's going to come of this. Nuthin. Limbaugh can rant all he wants, it won't muss a hair on Hillary's head. Hillary is glad that the State IG has wagged his or her finger now rather than later, and that's about it. Colin Powell will be interviewed a few times.

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    A bewildered Hillary doesn’t know where the punches will come next.

    now that is a very strange turn of phrase. at the very least, hillary can probably tell the difference between a verbal "punch" and an actual physical assault. she's the only remaining candidate whose supporters haven't physically assaulted anyone recently. granted it's a low bar to set, but that's what we seem to be reduced to.

    JL

  87. [87] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "In the here and now, Clinton is not ideologically acceptable to Bernie supporters.. Trump is closer to Bernie than Clinton can ever hope to be.."

    Trump is more ideologically closer to that "socialist" Bernie Sanders? And if the reliable right wing voters like the Tea Party etc. who would rather have had Ted Cruz find this out, will they hold their nose and vote for Trump, stay home, or vote for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate? Perhaps in the same or even greater numbers thane the Bernie supporters who will vote for Trump. Sounds like a WASH to me at best.

    "Add to the fact that all the polls are starting to show that Hillary LOSES against Trump.... :D"

    This far out, ANY polling is pretty much meaningless when it come to who is going to win the General Election in November. Especially national polling, since everything is pretty much a state by state contest due to the Electoral College. For example, Barack Obama and John McCain were tied in national polls a year before the 2008 election. But in November, Obama went on to win by over 7 percentage points. National polling AVERAGES only begin to accurately reflect who will win the Presidential November election only 2 to 3 months before the election.

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    First [50]: My apologies Elizabeth. I'm still figuring out the tags.

    I pardon you. :)

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Next: Mike, you apparently didn't read the whole KOS article before dismissing it.

    I don't read KOS if I can help it.. Just like I don't read Limbaugh if I can help it..

    Colin Powell will be interviewed a few times.

    Assumes facts not in evidence...

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    and an actual physical assault. she's the only remaining candidate whose supporters haven't physically assaulted anyone recently

    Define "recently"... Because no matter HOW you define it, I betcha 10,000 quatloos that I can prove you wrong.. :D

    granted it's a low bar to set, but that's what we seem to be reduced to.

    Complete agreement...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is more ideologically closer to that "socialist" Bernie Sanders?

    To Bernie supporters... yes..

    This far out, ANY polling is pretty much meaningless when it come to who is going to win the General Election in November.

    I know.. That's what I was saying when ya'all crowed about Hillary KILLING Trump in polls 6-12 months ago.. :D

    But NOW it's relevant, right?? :D

    National polling AVERAGES only begin to accurately reflect who will win the Presidential November election only 2 to 3 months before the election.

    Funny how THAT is now the official word on polls... When HILLARY starts losing them... :D

    I find that knee-slappin' hysterically funny... :D

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    I am also constrained to point out that the point of the polls is not what each individual poll says but rather what the totality of polls say about the momentum of the candidates..

    8 months ago, Hillary was beating Trump 70-30... NOW the polls are mostly dead heats with some polls show Trump ahead of Hillary..

    To a political agnostic (such as myself) that indicates that Hillary is sinking fast and Trump is rising fast..

    If this momentum continues (which there are MANY reasons to expect it will) then Hillary simply can't win...

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    America has been stuck in the venereal disease clinic ever since in a desperate effort to finally get fumigated from all the Clinton sleaze. In truth, we will never get clear of all of it.

    And now, The First Lady Who Will Not Go Away is banging on the door in her ruined stockings and streaked mascara demanding to be let back into the White House because it is her turn. We owe her.

    Mustering every ounce of dignity she could borrow from the wealthy slime balls she runs with, Mrs. Clinton trotted out aides to tell reporters that she will not “follow Trump in the gutter.”

    Well, finally. That is, at least, an admission of sorts. Indeed, it was a gutter from which she and her husband emerged 25 years ago.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/24/charles-hurt-hillary-clinton-fights-to-overcome-a-/

    WOW.. Charles Hurt shouldn't beat around the bush. He should tell us how he REALLY feels about Hillary.. :D

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Colin Powell will be interviewed a few times.

    Why is it not relevant, you ask??

    I am glad you asked..

    1. Colin Powell used a private email OCCASIONALLY.. He PREDOMINANTLY used his .gov email, except when there were issues, then he used his private one. Not the best choice, but you have to remember that it was a long time ago when email was not nearly as reliable as it is today and GOVERNMENT email even less so..

    2. Colin Powell is not running for POTUS... We hold our POTUS candidates to a MUCH higher standard than we would a SecState from 20 years ago....

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Define "recently"... Because no matter HOW you define it, I betcha 10,000 quatloos that I can prove you wrong.. :D

    Let me amend that to say Because no matter HOW you reasonably define it, I betcha 10,000 quatloos that I can prove you wrong.. :D

    :D

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    2. Colin Powell is not running for POTUS... We hold our POTUS candidates to a MUCH higher standard than we would a SecState from 20 years ago....

    It's all about judgement..

    And, as is universally agreed by myself, Paula and even President Obama......

    Hillary showed bad judgement...

    If this was a one-off, then SOMETHING might be salvageable..

    But Hillary's entire career is one bad call after another..

    Russia, Libya, Benghazi, Black Lives Matter..... The list is endless...

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We hold our POTUS candidates to a MUCH higher standard than we would a SecState from 20 years ago....

    Okay, now THAT was funny ... practically fell off my chair.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay, now THAT was funny ... practically fell off my chair.

    I'll be here all year.. Be sure and tip your waitresses... :D

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's you're real purpose here, isn't it? Keeping it light. Heh.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    THAT was a little joke. Ahem.

    What I really meant to say was that's your real purpose here, isn't it? Keeping it light. Heh.

    :-)

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I really meant to say was that's your real purpose here, isn't it? Keeping it light. Heh.

    I wear several hats.. One of them being the plucky comic sidekick

    "I'm just a glorified extra, Fred."
    "Maybe you are the plucky comic sidekick??"
    "Plucky?? "

    - Galaxy Quest

    :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.