HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » merrily » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AM
Number of posts: 45,251

About Me

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5664118; https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5664129

Journal Archives

Not only embarrassing, but damaging. I've sat on hiring committees. Trust me, it doesn't take

much to make them skittish, especially if a high paying, high responsibility job is at stake.

Failure to hire is a much harder case to prove than discrimination on the job. It's much easier to turn away on woman on the ground that no one wants to hire a lawyer and shlep to the EEOC because someone said something, even positive, about her hair.

I hasten to add that the committees on which I served were striving for diversity. Still...they were skittish. I also know how skittish companies are when someone hired because of striving for fairness and diversity performs at less than expected levels. The whole discussion is about how to go about easing out that person uber fairly and, if fairness doesn't fix the problem, then in a way that he or she has no grounds to sue. We went through no such drills when white males under performed or were a poor fit.

All you have to do is add on top of that an even higher likelihood that a woman might play the gender card over almost anything; and it could be a real problem for women seeking work, especially high paying work. Easing someone out in an uber fair and lawsuit proof (one hopes) way gets pretty expensive at $200K a year or more, plus nice benefits.

She wasn't such a kid, then or when she was President of College Republicans.

Here's the chrono (Her birthday is October 26, shortly before election day. )

Canvassed for Nixon at 13

Goldwater Girl at 17 (I knew better by 17-18, didn't you?)

President of College Republicans at Wellesley, ages18-21--probably would have been hard to find a more liberal school in the country, then, too.

Now here is where I begin to question/doubt her version.

Went to the Republican convention at age 21 (1968) and supposedly supported Rockefeller, probably the most liberal Republican running (or imaginable). He had tried for the nom in 1960, 1964, too. but she had supported the considerably more conservative candidates those years. So I tend to question whether she supported Rockefeller in 1968, or one of the more conservative candidates, like Nixon, for whom she had canvassed at 13, or Reagan. But, o.k, let's give her Rockefeller, just for grins and giggles.

Next, she was shocked, shocked, I tell you, to hear racist comments at the Republican convention and immediately turned Democrat, supporting Eugene McCarthy (Which means she was already a Democrat and a relatively liberal one, to boot, before she met Bubba in law school--I don't buy that at all.) This means she had never heard racist comments from Republicans while working for Nixon or Jim Crow defender, er I mean, states rights defender, Goldwater. That seems so implausible to me. It also seems implausible to me that she immediately decided that Democrats must not be racist. After all, in 1968, there were plenty of racists in both parties and Johnson had certainly needed Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while those who had filibustered it were Democrats. For me, her story, while full of drama and sympathetic principles simply does not seem plausible.

The following year, she made a graduation speech. I had read that he speech dissed Republican Massachusetts Senator Brooke, the invited graduation speaker. I've read the speech. At most, it compared her generation, just starting out, with his. No dissing of him personally in any way, no dissing him over his being a Republican and no dissing of Republicans. She was,after all, the outgoing President of College Republicans at the time.

The next school year, she met Bubba in law school. IMO, that is when she became a Democrat, not when she was at the 1968 Republican National Convention. In 1985, they, together with people like Warner, Gore, Lieberman, etc. founded the DLC. She accompanied Al From to Europe, to spread the DLC gospel to European politicians. Blair was probably their biggest success.

In recent years, at various points she has said (1) her politics are rooted in the conservatism (read, Republican conservatism) in which she was raised; (2) she is a moderate; and (3) she is a progressive. However, recently, she bristled and corrected Matthews when he called her a liberal. I see that as her trying to be (almost) all things to all people. Others may find that all three of those descriptions apply truthfully to her.

The more obviously emotionally disturbed are, well, disturbing.

However, I know of no way to help them anyway.

I was once babysitting--for a psychiatrist, btw--whose mother in law was in the home with the kids. He told me she was not well, but he had given her enough medication for horse and she would be asleep soon. A saner, less gullible twenty year old would have left on the spot. Didn't even leave me an emergency number to call and I forgot to ask for one.

Yep, you guessed it. The mother in law never went to sleep. Acted out all night. The youngest of the three kids eventually fell asleep. The other two did not. I was too busy never taking my eyes off the mother in law and trying to make everything seem normal and under my control to get any of the kids bathed and in bed.

When he and his wife got home from their party at around 4:30 am, I was as exhausted and wrung out as any 20 year old can be. However, he took me to the ER with him and her to get her admitted, so I could describe the mother in law's behavior to the admitting doc. He told me that it was a miracle that I, too, was not in a psychotic break because that is what happens to people, even professionals, who spend many hours with someone who is in a psychotic break. That came as close to telling me that "crazy is contagious" as anyone has ever come--and he being the admitting doc for people in the midst psychotic breaks. And insulating oneself from potentially contagious craziness may be the best reason to use ignore.

Now that I look back on it, I don't think I even got paid for that night! Fsck that pyschiatrist and his wife twice. The mother in law (who never did try to hurt herself or any of us, just behaved bizarrely) was apparently the best adult in that family.

NOT limited to DU: On ANY message board, why would you put someone on ignore?

I have gone from priding myself on not putting anyone on ignore, to putting one incredibly annoying and persistent poster on ignore, to, most recently enjoying just the simplyu act of hitting the ignore button. So, I got curious. On any message board, what prompts you (no pun intended) to use ignore as to a poster?

Sample answers

Often inaccurate, intentionally or not
Posts tediously predictably
Trolls almost every thread with some one line, dumb ass post, often an ad hom
Rarely posts anything useful.

Post serious replies and/or just have fun with it--your choice.

This is not a poll because I want the responses to be anything you feel, believe, want to fabricate, want to laugh at, etc.

Besides, internet polls don't count. http://www.democraticunderground.com/128083341

Will supporters of Bernie vote for Hillary as PUMAs voted for Obama?

WARNING: Please do not reply to this OP with anything that might get you a hide or a ban. If you post in this group often, odds are, I like you and do not want to see you banished, unless that is what you consciously want. You can always reply as to what you think people in general will do, not as to your own intentions, as you now see them.

Politicians and pundits tend to draw from past elections whatever lessons they wish to teach the hoi polloi (us). However, as I suspect they discuss among themselves, each election is really a one off. "They" are telling us now that supporters of Bernie will vote for Hillary, if she is the nominee, much as PUMAs voted for Obama in 2008. Whether courtesy of DNA or Sesame Street, I tend to see differences between and among superficially similar things. And, I see that 2016 is not like 2008 and supporters of Bernie are not like PUMAs.

In 2007, I chose "my" primary candidate based upon my assessment of the best chance to win the general, full stop. In May 2105, however, I chose my primary candidate based on historic policies, principles and trustworthiness. I don't imagine many looked at Hillary and Bernie in May 2015 and thought, as between these two, Bernie is the shoo in." Once he began drawing tens of thousands to his rallies, perhaps many people saw that, but I doubt many did in May 2015.

In 2008, Obama and Hillary were both establishment candidates. In 2016, Hillary is; Bernie was never establishment. Bernie always said that he ran as an independent because he did not want to be beholden to the big donors of the Democratic Party (and their legislative wishes). Many of Bernie's supporters are disillusioned current or former Democrats or never were Democrats. I don't see that group of his supporters voting for Hillary, if she is the nominee, simply because Bernie endorses her, no matter how much they admire him. (If endorsements swayed them, they would probably be supporting Hillary now.)

In 2008, many of Hillary's supporters were angry about the way in which the Party and the media treated Hillary, something I saw and admitted, even as a strong Obama supporter. Those things were indeed enough to turn some of Hillary's supporters to voting for McCain or staying home. However, party loyalty and the full-throated support of the Clintons for Obama won back many of them. The perception of PUMAs of Party and media discrimination against Hillary in 2008 is nothing compared with the perception of those things by supporters of Bernie.

In 2008, Hillary still had her eyes on the Oval Office, probably also on Secretary of State or Vice President, and therefore had a personal interest in having the PUMAs vote for Obama and remain loyal Democrats. I doubt Bernie has his eyes on another run for the Oval Office if he is not the 2016 nominee. (If Bernie runs in 8 years, I am not even sure I would would support him!)

In 2008, many voters were convinced that simply voting Democratic would suffice to get them a President with the principles and policies they associated with Democrats like FDR and LBJ (sans, of course, the wars, internment, etc.) My sense--and it's only my sense--is that fewer voters believe that now. Whether they will vote for Hillary anyway on the lesser of two evils theory, if she the nominee, I have no idea. Despite polling to the contrary, if any, I doubt anyone does know.

In 2008, Obama attempted to woo Republican voters who were more sane, more pro-choice, etc. than Republicans in general. The Obama campaign highlighted Julie Eisenhower's saying she would vote for Obama, but I did not hear much about "Obamacans" after that. This time, it looks as though both Hillary and Bernie would get some Republican votes, especially if Trump is the nominee. Kasich, however, would skew that issue very differently from Trump or Cruz. I don't know how this issue will play out in November, no matter who is the Democratic nominee.

Perhaps most importantly in my mind: In 2008, both candidates were indeed similar in policy, if not in temperament, gender, race or religion: Hillary is Methodist and I don't think Rev. Wright's church is Methodist. Health care was the policy difference that stands out most in my mind from 2008: Obama campaigned on a strong public option and no individual mandate. She did not. (We all know what happened.) The 2016 candidates are very different from each other in policy and perceived trustworthiness.

In 2016, Hillary's surrogates and supporters and others have, on occasion claimed that Bernie and Hillary are very similar in policy, having voted the same X% of the time, but that is very misleading. (For my explanation, please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511547074#post14 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/128037156 ) Although Hillary has changed her stump speech considerably from 2008, polls show people do not necessarily believe that she really espouses these changes or trust her to pursue them wholeheartedly should she become President. This is especially true of those supporters of Bernie who are most familiar with her history and his.

Lastly, THE SUPREME COURT, ever the ultimate argument of Democrats and now of both Democrats and Republicans. That, too, has changed from 2008. This year, Obama supposedly considered nominating a Republican (or maybe that was publicized so that the actual nominee would come as a relief to Democrats, who knows?). http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4975-Obama-Considers-Nominating-a-Republican-to-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States Obama did nominate a law and order moderate--and, even at that, Republicans may not bring his confirmation to the floor, let alone confirm him. Compare that with Democrat's having confirmed Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. If Democrats refuse to block another extreme right-wing, anti-choice nomination to the SCOTUS, shame on Democratic Senators. Professional Democrats, from DNC heads to politicians to pundits and strategists, would do themselves and the Party a solid, IMO, to stop blaming Republican politicians and those who vote Democratic for every single thing that goes wrong in this country: Take responsibility and Democrat up!

Bottom line: Assumptions that Bernie's supporters of 2016 will behave the way that Hillary's supporters did in 2008 are not taking in the differences in the candidates, the election-year climates, or the voting populations. If Hillary is the nominee, I assume and expect that a majority of Democratic supporters of Bernie will vote for her or not vote at all. However, I firmly believe that many will vote Green, write in Bernie or not vote the top of the ticket, assuming that they show up at that polls at all. I hope they do: If nothing else, down ticket races are at least as important as the Presidential and many "Sanders Democrats" are running down ticket, including Tim Canova, who is making Debbie Wasserman Schultz face her first primary ever, and many great state and local candidates.



DU link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforbernie

JPR link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jackpineradicals4bernie

Tim Canova

DU link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/du4timcanova

JPR link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jpr4timcanova

David Sparks (DUer: votesparks; AFAIK, no DU link for a DUer!) https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jpr4sparks

Edited version posted at http://jackpineradicals.org/content.php

For informational purposes only: Another interesting alert. Correct result, though, IMO.

But the thread got locked as OT anyway. Maybe the alerter alerted forum hosts and the jury at the same time? Not illegal, but an abuse of the jury alert system, IMO. Whoever started a jury process, thanks for wasting the time of seven DUers.

On Tue Mar 22, 2016, 11:27 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

This is the link to the post on Wikileaks/Hillarys emails that was alerted on and hidden by Jury.


This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.


Reposting hidden links.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 22, 2016, 11:35 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It was just hidden once. At best this is meta, at worst it's disruptive. Either way I vote to hide
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Right-wing conspiracy nonsense.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an acceptable source and not a significant story. The constant harping on e-mails isn't helping Sanders at all, but on his supporters head be it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: First, the poster posted a link to a hidden post, not to a hidden link. Second, what the poster did is done ALL the time all over the board, as I have a feeling you know. Stop alerting on everything you disagree with in hopes of getting a partisan jury.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Juror 1 either does not know or pretends not to know that forum or group hosts decide on when to hide for disruptive meta, not jurors. Juror 3 pretends a link to a post linking to Hillary's actual emails is a right wing conspiracy.


This is an informational post, so we all grok where we now are, alertwise and hidewise.

(Yes, I did watch The Apartment recently. Why do you ask?)

On Sun Mar 20, 2016, 10:52 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

More about why BS refused to answer questions about the Amber Alert bill.


This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.


This is a right wing smear, accuses Sen Sanders of not caring about children's lives and quotes a Republican who ran against him in 2006 who accused him of supporting pedophilia. Skinner said last week that the rhetoric against both candidates needs to be toned down, enough with the vilification of Democrats. Either one is better than Trump.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:09 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is indeed a typical right wing smear. I hope that Sander's online supporters will take the high road as I just did, this kind of garbage does not benefit our party, our common goals, not Democratic Underground. Can we please stop the insanity against BOTH of our candidates!
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Alerter is correct.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There's way more vilification against Hillary than this. This is hardly "vilification" and it's in a private group. I suggest you trash group if it bothers you.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is in a protected group. It posts an article from a Democratic website. It's simply the posting of an article. Just because one doesn't like the contents doesn't mean it should be alerted on -- especially since it's IN A PROTECTED GROUP.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.


On Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:37 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

IMHO - A Vote For HRC In The Primary Is A Vote For Trump In The General - Trump Can Easily Win


This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.


This post belongs in GD-P, as the poster knows. He's trying to derail the OP with his own agenda.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:43 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Worst alert ever--and that is going some. As YOU no doubt know, rules about where post's belong are for OP's, not replies. Christ! Stop alert stalking.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's just an opinion. A wrong one, but an opinion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post is not disruptive
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: bad alert.

Dr. Dean was always a rich, privileged center right guy.

I've been reading that he has sold out. He was always a rich center right guy, except on the issue of medicare for all. That is the issue he sold out on. AFAIK, it's the only issue he's sold out on because he was already wrong on so many. While Bernie gets condemned because the NRA rates him F to D minus, the NRA rated Dean A and even endorsed him a few times. Even when he had to choose between unequal marriage, civil unions"and equal marriage, he took the civil union road, rather than equal marriage. Supposedly, it was the hardest decision he ever made. Equal marriage should be a no brainer.

As sang no one, ever, "We're going to the chapel and we're going to get civil unioned."

If you want more info:

Bite me Manny's open letter to Dr. Dean http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?6238-Dear-Dr-Dean-I-m-very-sorry&p=34479#post34479

My biographical post about Dr. Dean http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?6246-Dean-Before-the-Scream-and-Now&p=34545#post34545

Please heed.

The owner of this board has posted about certain short-term changes. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=5098

These short-term changes include people who have been on enforced vacations or suspensions returning to post. The changes also include allowing unlimited hides without suspension. From everything I've read, contested Democratic primaries have been rough. Allowing unlimited hides without enforced vacations is not going to make it less rough and may make it more rough.

As far as I know, however, banning of posters will continue and so will reviewing a poster's account, which review may be brief or may last indefinitely, perhaps eternally. So, no one has carte blanche to post anything that he, she, it or they feel like posting.

Some believe that the left gets off easier than the right and some believe that the right gets off easier than the left. Whether any of that is so or not is beside the point. Whatever it is, it is what it is and probably won't change.

If you don't want to risk being PPR'd or reviewed indefinitely, be careful, no matter what provocation you get. If you don't care about hides or banning, you're an adult (or over 13, anyway) and I am not going to try to tell you what to do.


It's my sad duty to inform the Bernie Group that Senator Sanders--wait for it--

with a rally on his schedule, actually ended an interview with a reporter.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141382809 (sadly, this but one of MANY links to the story on DU EVEN AS I TYPE!)

Sorry, former fellow supporters of Senator Sanders. Most of you know me: I have stayed faithful through the many sins some on DU have managed to identify in this man who has been nothing but a man of decency his entire adult life (probably his childhood, too, but, of course, I'm certainly not going to take his own brother's word for it).

For example, I put up with his leading from the front, like some kind of egomaniac, instead of from a very respectful distance to the rear, decades after it really mattered. I even put up with his resistance to the Iraq War, while pragmatic liberals like Marshall, founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, signed the PNAC letter, urging Bush to invade Iraq, as any President of Sense should have.

However, we all have to draw a line somewhere and, very regretfully, ENDING an interview is the end of that line for me.

From this day forward, I, too, am, at long last, thanks to all that is good in the world, a Person of Sense™, like so many faithful DUers.

FORWARD, my sensible friends, FORWARD. Who else is with me?

™Third Way Manny http://jackpineradicals.org/content.php?168-Can-we-ADULTS-discuss-the-Massachusetts-primary

Go to Page: 1 2 Next »