http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280182729

The definition of privilege.

anti Syrian refugees bill.

Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Democratic caucuses on Saturday. She did so thanks largely to her strength in Clark County — the home of Las Vegas, and the most heavily Latino part of the state.

That's important to note, because entrance polls showed Bernie Sanders winning among Latino voters — by a shockingly wide margin.

An early wave of entrance polling showed Sanders beating Clinton by 11 points with Latinos. A later wave showed him winning by 8.

What really happened? We might not ever know for sure. But if you look at the possible scenarios — and at the entrance and exit polls' record with Latinos — the most plausible conclusion is that the entrance polls didn't correctly predict Nevada's Latino vote.

Clinton won the most heavily Latino parts of the state

Continued at link:
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/20/11079660/latinos-nevada-sanders

Anabella De Leon of Guatemala pointed to Hillary Clinton, who was sitting right in the front row, and said, “I met her and my life changed.” And all weekend long, women from all over the world said the same thing:

"I’m alive because she came to my village, put her arm around me, and had a photograph taken together."

"I’m alive because she went on our local TV and talked about my work, and now they’re afraid to kill me."

"I’m alive because she came to my country and she talked to our leaders, because I heard her speak, because I read about her."

I’m here today because of that, because of those stores. I didn’t know about this. I never knew any of it. And I think everybody should know. This hidden history Hillary has, the story of her parallel agenda, the shadow diplomacy unheralded, uncelebrated — careful, constant work on behalf of women and girls that she has always conducted alongside everything else a First Lady, a Senator, and now Secretary of State is obliged to do.

And it deserves to be amplified. This willingness to take it, to lead a revolution – and revelation, beginning in Beijing in 1995, when she first raised her voice to say the words you’ve heard many times throughout this conference: “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights.”

When Hillary Clinton stood up in Beijing to speak that truth, her hosts were not the only ones who didn’t necessarily want to hear it. Some of her husband’s advisors also were nervous about the speech, fearful of upsetting relations with China. But she faced down the opposition at home and abroad, and her words continue to hearten women around the world and have reverberated down the decades.

...

She’s just been busy working, doing it, making those words “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” into something every leader in every country now knows is a linchpin of American policy. It’s just so much more than a rhetorical triumph. We’re talking about what happened in the real world, the institutional change that was a result of that stand she took.

When Vera Stremkovskaya, a lawyer and human rights activist from Belarus met Hillary Clinton a few years ago, they took a photograph together. And she said to one of the Secretary’s colleagues, “I want that picture.” And the colleague said, “I will get you that picture as soon as possible.” And Stremkovskaya said, “I need that picture.” And the colleague said, “I promise you.” And Stremkovskaya said, “You don’t understand. That picture will be my bullet-proof vest.”

Never give up. Never, never, never, never, never give up. That is what Hillary Clinton embodies.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/18/1248523/-You-won-t-see-Hillary-Clinton-in-the-same-light-ever-again?detail=emailclassic

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10923304/bernie-sanders-general-election

It's such an insightful and worrisome article (for those of us who want to retain the White House) that I haven't bothered to cherry pick the best parts. It's all good and eye-opening. Please take the time to read it and share it with those you know who are on the fence.

Normally I would post this in GDP but it would just fall on deaf ears. It's an interesting read that could help explain why Democratic party officials are worried about Sanders as the nominee and why Democratic voters should be too. The Bernie Bunch have openly attacked the Democratic party and some have even admitted to not voting for President Obama in 2012. Hell, right now there's a thread in GDP entitled "Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem." These people are rooting against the President, the Democratic party and the front-runner Hillary Clinton. They may be loud, very active on social media and claim to be more progressive, but we cannot let them hand victory to the Republicans in November.

For many months we've been subjected to Hack Attack Goodman's ridiculous articles, in what I can only assume was a covert operation to make us lose our minds and switch support to Bernie. And boy, did he ever call Iowa wrong:

Hillary Clinton Will Finish Third In Iowa, Behind Bernie Sanders and O'Malley. Here's Why

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/hillary-clinton-will-fini_b_8717248.html


Not to mention, we've been told by some DU Sanders supporters that basically everyone hates Hillary and that there's a huge enthusiasm gap. Judging by the rhetoric on DU, you'd assume hardly anybody would show up to caucus for her. But plenty of people did show up for Hillary AND she pulled ahead, however slightly, of the candidate with all of the "enthusiastic" voters and big crowds.

So yes, taking all of this into account, I'd say I feel pretty good about last night's outcome. But what do I know? I'm just a low-information voter.

"Mama and daddy taught us kids the golden rule. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. The bullying Sanders clan had obviously never learned that lesson. They were mean to the core."


I'm still smiling as I typed this.

I have. I'm sure most of us have. I accidentally posted a response a few months ago without realizing I was posting in their group. There's currently a discussion over there right now about how we are too sensitive and quick to ban. Have they looked in the mirror?

The facts don't match the spin and conspiracy theories put forth by Sanders supporters. I don't believe Sanders personally was involved or was aware, however it's clear some of his staffers went data fishing looking for very specific info:

***Another person familiar with the investigation also told NBC News that a total of four individuals affiliated with the Sanders campaign appear to have accessed the data, including Uretsky and Deputy National Data Director Russell Drapkin.

A series of documents outlining an audit trail maintained by the database company, obtained and reviewed by NBC News, shows that the four individuals spent a total of about 40 minutes conducting searches of the Clinton data. Those searches included terms that point to Sanders’ team gaining access to proprietary lists from more than 10 early voting states of Clinton’s likely supporters as well as lists for Sanders backers. That data was saved to personal folders.

It also appears that Drapkin “suppressed” two folders after the database company became aware of the breach.

The Clinton campaign learned of the breach on Wednesday, a source told NBC News.***

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/documents-show-sanders-staffers-breached-clinton-voter-data