HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Jarqui » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:58 PM
Number of posts: 9,192

Journal Archives

He's doing pretty well so far.

If he wins the primary, the Clintons gravy train will be over in Washington. There will be no end to the line forming in front of Bernie with their political hands out wanting to hop on board.

After all we've been through on jobs exiting the country over the last couple of decades+

since NAFTA, it stuns me that it is not a bigger issue.

The biggest issue for me is that Americans stop dying from a lack of healthcare. But jobs and closing the net income gap which this also does are benefits.

And the last piece is that the cost of American products and services go down relative to the rest of the world because their labor component is more cost effective with more sensible health care costs - so more American products sell and deliver more American jobs that way ... and the economy and P&E for Wallstreet (except health insurance companies) goes up.

It will help bring jobs home.

Single payer makes sense in so many ways - even for Wallstreet and big business.

Makes American doing jobs more competitive with world labor

because the overall taxes/costs to provide health insurance are less.

And there's not nearly as much deductible. If they go as far as Canada, the deductible is darn near nothing.

That's the part that didn't entirely jive with the Clinton campaign being dismissive

If those emails were so sensitive that the folks looking for Top Secret stuff didn't have the clearance to look at them, then why would someone be stupid enough to stick their neck out and talk about what was in them to the media or the Clinton campaign? It's very confidential stuff.

And maybe the Clinton campaign knows they can't say anything so they can tamp this down with BS. Who knows.

I cannot see this guy McCullough writing such a letter about New York times articles (as the Clinton campaign suggested). He'd have to know he'd look like a buffoon if he did.

It doesn't add up to me. The Clinton campaign has been doing too much lying lately for me to have much faith in their take. I guess time will tell.

I was looking at the primary in terms of: if this thing blew up and Hillary had to withdraw or if they wanted to take Bernie out because the "establishment" didn't want a "socialist" after New Hampshire voted, only 32% of the primary delegates would be up for grabs because primary filing/deadlines for the other 68% would have passed. In fact, the deadline has passed for 50% of the elected delegates now.
so I think in practical terms that notion is close to dead unless Hillary hangs on and then tries to turn her delegates over to someone else.

Let's get him elected and then we can worry about the revolution

Is this another endorsement where the union executive

supports Hillary but no one got around to asking their members?

It's got zero to do with sex.

Treating women equally should mean that they can be criticized equally.

Regardless of the sex of the candidate, Hillary, even by the concerns expressed in that article by folks that support her, is not running a good campaign. Her husband, regardless of his sex, who happens to have run two national campaigns and some campaigns as governor successfully, has stepped in to help. If Hillary was doing well, he would not have to.

It's got zero to do with sex and everything to do with her performance to date.

If it's demeaning, Hillary earned it by her performance. Not because of her sex or anything else.

I find such a conclusion lamely simplistic and ignoring basic facts.

The Clinton campaign is scrambling - by many, many accounts - including some in that article. They were not prepared for the states beyond the first few primaries as that article reinforces. They have not done well making their case to Iowa and New Hampshire where they spent massive ad money and resources - so that part of the campaign has fallen short. They're behind in organization in Nevada and there's simply no good excuse for that.

"Bill Clinton, according to a source with firsthand knowledge of the situation, has been phoning campaign manager Robby Mook almost daily to express concerns about the campaign’s organization..."

Why does Bill need to do that if she's doing such a bang up job? Is Bill being sexist trying to fix his wife's campaign?

I doubt Elizabeth Warren would make the same mistake twice like Hillary has. It's got nothing to do with sex and everything to do with a candidate making similar mistakes like they did in 2008.

Politico: Bill Clinton questions Hillary's Super Tuesday plan


Bill Clinton is getting nervous.
With polls showing Bernie Sanders ahead in New Hampshire and barely behind, if at all, in Iowa, the former president is urging his wife to start looking toward the delegate-rich March primaries — a shift for an organizing strategy that’s been laser-focused on the early states.

Bill Clinton, according to a source with firsthand knowledge of the situation, has been phoning campaign manager Robby Mook almost daily to express concerns about the campaign’s organization in the March voting states, which includes delegate bonanzas in Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Texas.

Many Clinton allies share the president’s desire for more organization on the ground; they see enthusiasm that’s ready to be channeled, but no channel yet in place. “Iowa matters a ton but it seems to be the campaign’s only focus," said one person close to the campaign's operations in a March state — one of nearly a dozen Clinton allies POLITICO spoke with for this article. "It’s going to be a long primary, and the campaign seems less prepared for it than they were in 2008.”

The good news for Hillary is that a real president is getting involved to straighten out a campaign she apparently couldn't manage very well.

After what happened last time with Obama, to let history happen again ...

I don't think anyone would describe a candidate who does that as shrewd and ready to be president. Have to face facts: to be in this situation a second time, she really hasn't learned from her mistakes.

The lying and deception she's jumped to the minute she's come under pressure, I'm beginning to wonder if she has some psychological issues. Maybe it's as simple as "I saw my husband do it so why can't I" but she's not as sharp as her husband nor as good a liar because she gets caught much more frequently - often on silly or needless stuff. The email mess as another example, seriously poor lying in her first press conference helped to give that scandal real legs in the media. She gets caught there and folks think there's a reason for the lying -> trying to cover something up. So the media sharks smell blood in the water and thrash around looking for what the candidate is hiding. She didn't play it smart and brought a bunch of that crap on herself.

There is an air about her. Kind of like she's a self anointed queen of American political aristocracy who was about to take her self perceived place in the coronation she felt was inevitable. What seems to be happening ... the campaign kind of falling apart ... is almost a real live Shakespearean tragedy playing out on live tv. And they're adding to it as they scurry and scramble, making pea brained management decisions to lie and deceive that everybody sees through except themselves, desperately trying to salvage their sinking ship. That to me is kind of amazing and entertaining.

When I step back from it though, I kind of see it as a blessing. Though the lying is bad, I don't think she's a completely terrible person but this woman is proving to everyone else except herself (because she can't see it) that she's not going to be a very good president. She's simply not that able. Even if she wins, she's shown again in a tight spot, she can't rise above it to calmly see the issues, develop a vision to move forward and manage the problem at a high level. All she can do is panic and mindlessly react with simplistic poor and desperate lying and deception.

When that happens, I sigh with some relief that the campaign was a good enough test to expose it and in spite of all the campaign money, I get some assurance that some parts of the democracy continue to work.

This is hard to comprehend:

“Bernie Sanders already has staff in all 11 of the Super Tuesday states. Those are the states that vote on March 1. Hillary Clinton does not,” Seitz-Wald said. “They have disproportionately put their resources in Iowa, even at the expense, a little bit, of New Hampshire.”

She had the money.

I saw Bernie had 11 offices in Nevada.
Could only find seven for Clinton as of Jan 11th

Bernie's Busy Facebook page

Sanders cracks Clinton's Nevada firewall
Hillary Clinton has been vigilant but the state that was supposed to stop Bernie Sanders' momentum might be in pla

I think that state will become very competitive. Bernie could go 3 - 0 to start
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »