HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » otohara » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »

otohara

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 24,135

About Me

Banned for life from DU -

Journal Archives

Sanders Trails Clinton for Different Reasons Than He Claims

The Democratic candidate cites "conservative" Southern states that vote early as the reason he's trailing.

Bernie Sanders has a problem with the Democratic primary process.

On Comedy Central's "Nightly Show," the Democratic presidential candidate complained that southern states vote early in the calendar, suggesting it as a reason he trails Hillary Clinton in the primary.

"People say, 'Why does Iowa go first, why does New Hampshire go first,' but I think that having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality as well," Sanders told Larry Wilmore after he was asked Wednesday if the primary system is rigged. "We started off this campaign having to run in the Deep South," he said. "We didn't do all that well—it's a conservative part of our country. But since we've been out of the South, we're doing pretty well."

It has become a recurring talking point for Sanders. After winning Utah in late March, Sanders told supporters, "We knew from day one that we were going to have, politically, a hard time in the Deep South. That is a conservative part of our country. But we knew things were going to improve as we headed west."

Large victories—first in South Carolina on Feb. 27, then in Texas, Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia on March 1—have helped propel Clinton to a lead of about 250 pledged delegates, according to an Associated Press count.
But does Sanders' argument hold up?

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-14/sanders-trails-clinton-for-different-reasons-than-he-claims

Why Obama Will Go Down as One of the Greatest Presidents of All Time (Barack Obama Group)

Already missing our soon-to-be-former POTUS.

something is dawning on us—it’s almost too soon for us to admit, but it’s there, a half-considered thought only now blooming in our brains. Maybe we dismiss it with one of those quick cognitive fly swats. Nah, too early to say or I hate that guy. But the truth is coming, and it sounds like this: Barack Obama will be inducted into the league of Great Presidents.

Wait. One of the Greatest? you ask, your thumb emoticon poised to turn up or down on me. The guy haters love to hate with their very best hate game? Like 20-Dollar Bill great? Like Mount Rushmore great?

Yep. (We just won’t build Mount Rushmores anymore.) In so many ways, Obama was better than we imagined, better than the body politic deserved, and far, far better than his enemies will ever concede, but the great thing about being great is that the verdict of enemies doesn’t matter.

In fact, and I say this as a Bill Clinton fan, I now feel certain that, in the coming decades, Obama’s star will rise higher than Clinton’s, and he’ll replace Bill in the public mind as the Greatest Democrat since FDR.

This has to do with the nature of Obama’s leadership, which is to play to legacy (and Clinton’s impulse, which is to play to the room). Bill Clinton will long be revered because he’s charismatic, presided over an economic revival, and changed and elevated the view of the Democratic Party. Barack Obama will long be revered because he’s charismatic, presided over an economic revival, and changed and elevated the view of the presidency. He’s simply bigger than Bill.

More to the point, Obama’s legacy is the sort that gets canonized. Because the first rule of Hall of Fame-dom: The times have to suck for the president not to. Civil wars, World Wars, depressions and recessions. You got to have ’em if you wanna be great. That’s why we rate the Washingtons, Lincolns, and Roosevelts over That Fat Guy with the Walrus Mustache. Like Obama, these Great Men were dealt sucky hands, won big, and left the country better off than it was before.http://www.gq.com/story/obama-greatest-president-legacy

In Release of Journalists, Both Clintons Had Key Roles NYT's - Laura Ling


WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton left North Korea on Wednesday morning after a dramatic 20-hour visit, in which he won the freedom of two American journalists, opened a diplomatic channel to North Korea’s reclusive government and dined with the North’s ailing leader, Kim Jong-il.

Mr. Clinton departed from Pyongyang, the capital, around 8:30 a.m. local time, along with the journalists, Laura Ling, 32, and Euna Lee, 36, on a private jet bound for Los Angeles, according to a statement from the former president’s office.

The North Korean government, which in June sentenced the women to 12 years of hard labor for illegally entering North Korean territory, announced hours earlier that it had pardoned the women after Mr. Clinton apologized to Mr. Kim for their actions, according to the North Korean state media.

President Obama contacted the families of the women on Tuesday evening, according to administration officials, but the White House said it would withhold public comment until the former president landed on American soil.

Mr. Clinton’s mission to Pyongyang was the most visible by an American in nearly a decade. It came at a time when the United States’ relationship with North Korea had become especially chilled, after North Korea’s test of its second nuclear device in May and a series of missile launchings.

It ended a harrowing ordeal for the two women, who were stopped on March 17 by soldiers near North Korea’s border with China while researching a report about women and human trafficking. They faced years of imprisonment in the gulaglike confines of a North Korean prison camp.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/world/asia/05korea.html?_r=0

Super Delegate Bob Mulholland writes a blistering open letter to Bernie Sanders

Senator Sanders - Stop the Harassing Phone Calls


April 6, 2016


Dear Senator Bernie Sanders


I have heard many complaints from other unbound Delegates to our National Convention in Philadelphia (my hometown), about getting harassing emails, Facebook postings and phone calls, even to one woman at 10:30 at night, from some of your supporters demanding that we support you. We would expect this type of bullying tactics from Trump supporters. Roger Stone threatened on April 5th- he will send angry Trump supporters to the hotel rooms (Cleveland) of any delegates who betrays Donald. Do you have a similar Plan?


I have seen you on TV stating (demanding to many of your supporters) that Superdelegates should vote for the candidate that won their state. Really? Where is that in the National Delegate Plan that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean must vote for you? Congressman Raul Grijalva, a supporter of yours, who represents the 3rd district in Arizona, a state that voted 58% for Clinton and Grijalva's own district voted 61.7% for Clinton has not switched. Where is your letter to Congressman Grijalva, instructing him to shift his support to Clinton? Look in the mirror- you'll see a political hypocrite! From what I hear, Congressman Grijalva, when asked if he is shifting his support to Clinton, his response- drop dead. That is his right- he is a Congressman, thus a delegate.


Society has been trying to deal with High School bullies and the same Rule should apply to your campaign and your supporters. Us active Democrats enjoy healthy discussions and debates at meetings, Caucuses and Conventions but it is unacceptable for us to get harassing communications from bullies. As a Clinton supporter, I have not received harassing phone calls but it does appear women DNC Members are getting the brunt of the threats. Professionally, campaign staff and representatives should be the ones calling delegates. A 12 year old child answering the phone at home should not be hearing threats. https://word-view.officeapps.live.com/wv/mWord.aspx?Fi=SDD4A32C37577B181F%21335&H=emul&C=5_810_BAY-SKY-WAC-WSHI&ui=en-US&rs=en-US&wdo=2&wde=docx&wdp=7&su=-3124605100262483937&ad=en-US&sc=host%3D&cy=canary&ak=t%3D0%26s%3D0%26v%3D%21AIETS4qnv3c9IhA%26aid%3D0a47350e-ab31-4930-8402-7c7e5272f70e%26m%3Den-us&wdMobileHost=2


https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=D4A32C37577B181F!335&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AIETS4qnv3c9IhA

Thom Hartmann Can't Understand Backlash

Blames HRC supporters and links to HRC forum.

Now I know where all the twitter attacks are coming from...
http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=8459

https://twitter.com/Thom_Hartmann

BS supporters follow up with the usual comments.

Sorry I don't know how to post pics and he deleted this tweet too.


From the Guys Who Brought You George W. Bush

If the cast of celebrities and surrogates supporting Bernie Sanders looks familiar, it’s because many of them were steadfast cheerleaders for another insurgent candidate: Ralph Nader.

The team that brought you the George W. Bush administration in 2000 has gathered behind a new candidate: Bernie Sanders.
A host of prominent Ralph Nader backers has joined team Sanders in 2016, excited by his message discipline and aggressive fight against the establishment powers that be.

In the Democratic socialist from Vermont, they see a flag-bearer for the same issues while the Democratic establishment views him as a persistent pest who is raking in money by the fistful without a clear and obvious path to the nomination.

And the same way that Nader’s staunchest supporters had no kind words for the eventual nominee then-Vice President Al Gore, some of Sanders’s surrogates are spending their time bashing Hillary Clinton, making it even more difficult for the party faithful to rally around him.

Throughout Nader’s consecutive failed presidential bids, he picked up a cadre of high-profile endorsers ranging from actress Susan Sarandon to academic Cornel West. The rest of the roster backing both men includes actor Danny Glover, former National Nurses United Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro, musician Ani DiFranco, country singer Willie Nelson, and Ben Cohen, one of the founders of Ben & Jerry’s, just to name a few


“There are some pretty obvious parallels,” Oliver Hall, Nader’s lawyer and long-time friend said in an interview with The Daily Beast.

While the players on the bench supporting these candidates are remarkably similar, so far Sanders hasn’t drawn the collective ire of the Democratic Party quite nearly as much as Nader did. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Beast.

After all, many personally blamed Nader for pulling Democratic votes away from Gore in 2000—ushering in Bush.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/05/bernie-sanders-from-the-guys-who-brought-you-george-w-bush.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

Democrats’ caucuses aren’t very democratic

Maybe the state Democratic Party should change its name. Because it isn’t at all democratic how they’re choosing a presidential nominee.

The caucuses held here last weekend were described in media reports as “packed” and “bursting at the seams.” Lines around the block were reported, as well as crowds in overflow rooms. It gave the feeling of massive civic engagement.

But in reality, only 5.8 percent of the state’s registered voters showed up. That means 94 percent of voters didn’t. Even the most moribund municipal election for, say, water commissioner, gets turnout rates five times that amount.

This also means that Bernie Sanders’ landslide win was earned with the backing of just 4 percent of our 4 million registered voters.

Can you call something a peoples’ revolution with that few people?

The problem isn’t with the candidates or their caucusing supporters. It also isn’t just public apathy.

It’s the hidebound political party that simply refuses to let the people fully into its nominating process.

We could have voted in a primary election this year, using mail-in ballots, but the state Democratic Party flatly rejected that. They stuck with a caucus system that, quaint as it may be, dramatically suppresses the vote.

The party likes it because people have to give their email addresses and phone numbers. This contributes to “party-building,” meaning the recruitment of volunteers and the creation of fundraising lists. What it does not contribute to is equity, access or the enfranchisement of the people, especially for marginalized populations — all things the Democratic Party says it cares deeply about.http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/democrats-caucuses-arent-very-democratic/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_title_1.1

I wrote to my State Senator about this and they are considering changing back to primary for presidential elections. Working on a petition.

Hillary About to Speak - live feed

unless MSNBC decides to pull her because Trump farts

http://www.livenewschat.eu/politics/

Bernie Delegate Gets In The Face Of

a lifelong Democrat, Vietnam Veteran, Hispanic, owner and operator of residential patient facilities for paroled adults and teens by providing vocational research, treatment, shelter etc. today at the Denver Democratic County Convention/Assembly about his super-delegate vote for Hillary.

The gentleman is and has been a DNC super-delegate for a while, he was for Hillary in 08 also and did not switch to Obama.

My son was there and filmed this BS supporter berate this man yelling at him, calling him one of the elite and he should switch his vote to Sanders because he personally registered thousands of new Democrats which resulted in millions of votes for Sanders in Colorado. (only 120,000 Democrats participated in this years caucus) He wouldn't let the man speak or leave until he was finished splaning in a very loud and condescending manner. Sadly Sanders supporters think Hispanics and African-American Democrats are low-information-voters and need to be told how wrong they are.

My son will upload it and I will post it when he emails it to me - pretty disgusting stuff.





Hillary Clinton Secretly Pushed Cuba Deal for Years

By Josh Rogin
Although President Barack Obama is taking the credit for Wednesday’s historic deal to reverse decades of U.S. policy toward Cuba, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she was the main architect of the new policy and pushed far harder for a deal than the Obama White House.

From 2009 until her departure in early 2013, Clinton and her top aides took the lead on the sometimes public, often private interactions with the Cuban government. According to current and former White House and State Department officials and several Cuba policy experts who were involved in the discussions, Clinton was also the top advocate inside the government for ending travel and trade restrictions on Cuba and reversing 50 years of U.S. policy to isolate the Communist island nation. Repeatedly, she pressed the White House to move faster and faced opposition from cautious high-ranking White House officials.

After Obama announced the deal Wednesday, which included the release of aid contractor Alan Gross, Clinton issued a supportive statement distributed by the National Security Council press team. “As Secretary of State, I pushed for his release, stayed in touch with Alan’s wife Judy and their daughters, and called for a new direction in Cuba," she said. "Despite good intentions, our decades-long policy of isolation has only strengthened the Castro regime's grip on power.”

Yet Clinton played down her own role in the issue, which will surely become important if she decides to run for president. Top prospective Republican candidates, including Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have all come out against the president’s policy shift.http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-18/hillary-clinton-secretly-pushed-cuba-deal-for-years
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »