Good, positive local news coverage from 3 main Seattle papers, the Seattle Times, the Puget Sound Business Journal and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/presidential-candidate-sanders-expected-to-draw-crowds-in-seattle-visit/

Is Seattle Bernie Sanders’ kind of town? The Democratic presidential candidate brings his fiery, anti-corporate rhetoric to Seattle on Saturday for two rallies that could attract thousands.(subheadline)



http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/presidential-candidate-sanders-expected-to-draw-crowds-in-seattle-visit/

Bernie Sanders expects avid Seattle crowds Saturday (headline)

The Bernie Sanders phenomenon comes to Seattle Saturday with an address at Seattle's Westlake Park, a University of Washington rally and a $200-a-person fundraiser at the Comet Tavern.

It will be the first Northwest campaign appearances for the Vermont senator, who's been Hillary Clinton's most vigorous challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination.

His first event is at Westlake Park for a 1 p.m. "celebration" of Social Security and Medicare. Sanders, a 73-year-old independent who is challenging Clinton from the left, has called for a national single-payer health care program.

At 6 p.m., Sanders holds a rally at the University of Washington's Alaska Airlines Arena at Hec Edmundson Pavilion.

Sanders' campaign says his July 29 nationwide series of "meet-ups" drew 105,000 participants, and that Washington state had the third-highest concentration of these meetings in the nation with 120, after California and New York.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/08/04/bernie-sanders-is-raising-money-at-the-comet-tavern-on-saturday-no-medina-mansion-for-him/

Bernie Sanders is raising money at the Comet Tavern on Saturday: No Medina mansion for him(headline)

Sen. Bernie Sanders is carrying his campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination to the historic Comet Tavern on Capitol Hill Saturday, eschewing the usual presidential path to Medina, Hunts Point, Laurelhurst and waterfront mansions.

Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, he’s not. The Sanders campaign will charge for the event, $1,000 to host and $200 to get in the door at the “Meet and Greet,” with doors open at 4 p.m. and the event at 5 p.m.

But it’s a far cry from the $50,000 to sit at the head table at last year’s Clinton Foundation fundraiser, or the candidate’s $2,700-a-head June event in Madison Park. A penthouse “Roundtable” with Bush in June carried a $12,500 price tag. Brunch with President Obama on a recent Hunts Point foray set guests back $17,200.

Sanders is speaking at an early afternoon Social Security rally in Westlake Park, sharing the stage with leather-lunged voices of the Seattle left (and folk singer Jim Page). He has an early evening rally at Hec Ed Pavilion at the University of Washington. A similar rally, three weeks ago in Phoenix, drew 11,000 supporters.

That stress level you experience is not healthy. Concrete facts, such as numbers attending, venues, amounts charged to attend, etc., are just that - facts, not smears. If you were really comfortable with HRC's campaign style, you wouldn't get so upset, and you would be able to calmly, and without repeated use of the word "fucking" explain why you believe her campaign style is preferable to Bernie's. In fact, you would welcome the opportunity to do so.

You ask, further up thread, post 7, what the difference is between seeing Bernie "live" and seeing him on Youtube. Obviously, to many thousands of people, who go to his events with no expectation of actually talking with him, that difference is worth the effort for them to attend in person. Over the decades, I have gone to considerable effort to attend live performances/presentations/speeches of people who are politically/historically significant and/or whom I admire for their talents and accomplishments. I've been privileged to watch & hear, live & not recorded, Sam Rayburn, JFK, Bob Dole, Geraldine Ferarro, Bill Clinton, Walter Mondale, George W. Bush, Al Gore, Bob Casey, Tony Bennet, Luciano Pavorotti, Raul Julia, Bernadette Peters, Maggie Smith, Paul McCartney, James Galway, Liam Neeson, Yo-Yo Ma, Harry Belafonte, Barbra Streisand, Kenneth Branagh, Daniel Radcliffe, Juliette Moore, Bill Nighy, Antonio Banderas, Aidan Quinn, Brian Dennehy, David Strathairn, to name some.

I've seen photos of Mayan pyramids in central American jungles - and they in no way compared to the thrill of climbing several myself. I've seen videos of divers exploring sunken ships, but that is NOTHING compared to the thrill of wreck diving on the sunken WWII ships of Truk Lagoon. I've seen video of glaciers calving - but wow! the actual sound and sight of that phenomena at Tracy Arm Fjord, Alaska. I was on the island of Montserrat for a week while its volcano was erupting - more than just seeing or hearing a video of it, there was the feel of the fine grit of ash covering every surface, and the acrid smell of sulphur. And living in Cocoa, Florida in the '60's, I got to watch many rocket launches, both daylight and at night from my back yard - plus one overwhelming experience watching a Saturn launch from the VIP guest section at Cape Kennedy.
And see, here's the thing (as Adrian Monk would say), once you've had one of these live, real life experiences, for the rest of your life, when you see a photo or video, or hear the recorded voice or musical performance of any one of those examples, you flash back to the excitement, the electric thrill of your actual, in person experience.

When it comes to really huge political rallies, there is a gestalt, a whole which is far more than the sum of its parts. The passion and excitement of such an evening can carry over to the rest of the campaign and beyond, and participants will treasure that.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-18/article/29503
Commentary: Hillary Clinton’s Shameful Vote on Cluster Bombs
By Paul Rockwell
Tuesday March 18, 2008

In her autobiography, Living History, Senator Hillary Clinton portrays herself as an advocate for children, a defender of women and human rights. In fact, the Clintons have a long history of sacrificing the rights, even the lives of children, for political expediency. It is time to set the record straight.
[b]I. CLUSTER BOMBS

On September 6, 2006, a Senate bill—a simple amendment to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas—presented Senator Clinton with a timely opportunity to protect the lives of children throughout the world. The cluster bomb is one of the most hated and heinous weapons in modern war, and its primary victims are children.

Senator Obama voted for the amendment to ban cluster bombs. Senator Clinton, however, voted with the Republicans to kill the humanitarian bill, an amendment in accord with the Geneva Conventions, which already prohibit the use of indiscriminate weapons in populated areas.

All senators are expected to inform themselves on the issues before they cast a vote. The evidence is overwhelming. It is hard to believe that Senator Clinton was unaware of the humanitarian crisis when she voted to continue the use of cluster bombs in cities and populated areas. A U.N. weapons commission called cluster bombs “weapons of indiscriminate effect.” For years the international press reported the horrific consequences of cluster bombs on civilians. On April 10, 2003, for example, Asia Times described the carnage in Baghdad hospitals: “The absolute majority of patients are women and children, victims of shrapnel, and most of all, fragments of cluster bombs.” Reporting from a hospital in Hillah, The Mirror, a British newspaper, became graphic: “Shrapnel peppered their bodies. Blackened the skin. Smashed heads. Tore limbs. A doctor reports that ‘all the injuries you see were caused by cluster bombs. The majority of the victims were children who died because they were outside."

I can't help but notice you've taken to posting the cryptic comment "Bookmarking" or "Bookmarking, again" on threads I've posted on which support Bernie &/or are critical of Hillary. and I am sincerely unclear why you do this or what it means. So please clear up my confusion and explain what the terse phrases "bookmarking" or "bookmarking, again" mean to you.

For example, I occasionally bookmark a thread because it contains valuable links - in other words, I like it. I might say, "Great thread. Bookmarked"; or "K&R bookmarked"; or "Bookmarked to read later" as a compliment/thank you to the OP. In the instant thread you have expressed displeasure because the topic has been posted before, but provide no substantive debate, discussion or comments on the topic itself. So what is the value to you of bookmarking the thread?

Are your bookmarks the internet equivalent of Dickens' character, Madame Defarge and her knitting in A Tale of Two Cities? Even on a literal level, Madame Defarge’s knitting constitutes a whole network of symbols. Into her needlework she stitches a registry or list of names (one might say, bookmarks), of all those condemned in the name of a new republic. I sincerely hope that is not the case. Because that would contribute nothing to the political debate and it implies some future "payback" which even in the volatile primary season is out of place on DU.