Jarqui
Jarqui's JournalFor many, it won't matter where the candidate is from
- they'll go with the candidate they can trust.
Hillary may well be trying to be the most untrustworthy candidate ever elected president. And that's starting to look like it's going to be a really tough sell ....
A 1-2 win leaves the media on this race nothing to talk about except
how Hillary fell short and why folks are voting for Bernie for the first 20 days of the primary voting - when many start to tune in. It's major free advertising that is almost nothing but good for Bernie and almost nothing but bad for Hillary.
As a result, the downstream primary polls will tighten and at the very least, a competitive primary race is on.
Lose Iowa and it's much tougher for Bernie to make a race of it.
One other thing to keep in mind: Obama was decently ahead in NH and Hillary won in 2008. I think Blackbox.org documented some funny stuff happening with ballots. Whatever. Statement of the obvious as a reminder: leading in the polls doesn't count like an actual vote.
Bernie has to win both. He's now definitely in striking distance. No question about that.
Strongly recommended should Bernie pull it off
Go Bernie!! 
Shhh
Democrats are not supposed to point out when Hillary is not being honest again!! ...
I've been surprised the Obama admin hasn't done more on this case
I've read a bunch of stuff on the case but I'm no expert so I'm not convinced he's innocent because of that. He may well be innocent. I just haven't got to the bottom of it.
But I have been left with a bad odor - something smells about this case. I just don't know it well enough to be sure what exactly that smell is.
If there is a car accident and someone dies, does that mean to you
that someone must die in every car accident? Because the facts are that although some people die in car accidents, a lot of people do not die in car accidents and people do not die in every car accident. Outcomes between life and death vary in car accidents.
Accident investigations often determine reasons based upon science as to why someone might die in a car accident and why someone else might not in a different car accident - usually because the circumstances were different in some way. Occasionally, it might just be luck ... "an inch more that way and they'd be dead!" So it goes with structural buildings when engineers look at what went wrong.
Not all buildings suffer structural failure due to fire. Some because they don't have faulty fire retardant like the WTC. Some because the jet fuel fire at the WTC burned hotter. Some because they didn't suffer the structural damage the WTC did when the jets slammed into it. Some because most structural steel towers are designed structurally differently than the WTC was for economical reasons to reach it's lofty height - where the walls were oriented more to bearing some/more of the load. Some because of the size of the WTC relative to other buildings.
Etc, etc, etc.
All these things and more determine whether a building will stand or fall in a fire. And the engineers don't rely on conspiracy theorists to arrive at their scientific conclusions!!
Since there is no way to know all those things yet for this Dubai hotel, then no one can provide a credible answer for some time to come - though one might make some good guesses as they get more info collected.
You have to look at ALL the factors as to why a building stands or falls much like the engineers did when they examined the cause of failure of the WTCs on 9/11. Nearly every situation is different. My father and I, both with structural engineering backgrounds, reviewed the thousand page plus report and thought it made perfect sense and was pretty well done. I'm well aware of wackos on the internet who saw it differently and there were scientific explanations for the exploding joints video but I did not see the conspiracy theorists present anything remotely credible.
I think O'Malley needs to focus on getting the required number of real
signatures for him to get on state ballots and leave the BSing to Trump.
The Sanders campaign has stated repeatedly they'd like to debate Hillary.
Just because O'Malley is too stupid to realize or too dishonest to reveal that debating Sanders without Hillary would allow Hillary off the hook for any further debates, doesn't mean the rest of us should fall for such nonsense.
The feel of the article doesn't add up
It spins one thing:
These people described Mr. Sanders’ team as decidedly less emphatic in private discussions about having more primary debates than they have been in public, realizing that debates are not his strength.
No quote from "these people" to back that assertion up.
Then :
Mr. Briggs denied that claim. .... Mr. Briggs said the team would “welcome more debates” that included Mrs. Clinton as well.
O'Malley whined but ignored the consequences of debating without Hilary = no more debates with Hillary.
Of course the Sanders campaign would like more debates with Hillary as most second place candidates would. It's a chance to get their message out and a chance for Hillary to make a mistake. The rest is pure nonsense in comparison.
I'm sure, like many, she is aware of Bernie. I do not know her personally.
Nor have I followed her closely. I also know she's getting on - Hillary's boss in early 1970s
I do not know how well she knew Bernie and what he's about when she supposedly (I still haven't seen it) "endorsed" Hillary. I've always liked Bernie but I didn't know nearly as much about him before his campaign started as I do now.
Knowing how committed or uncommitted they are to what they stand for, I don't have much doubt after her remarks above, that Edelman would prefer Bernie's commitment to the causes most important to her. Unlike her experience with Hillary, she would know Bernie is much less likely to use welfare for women and children as a pawn in a political chess game with Newt Gingrich.
The Tragic End of the Woman Bill Clinton Exploited As Poster Child for Gutting Welfare
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/tragic-end-woman-bill-clinton-exploited-poster-child-gutting-welfare
In 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton defended and strongly endorsed her husband's welfare reform while on the campaign trail. “Welfare should have been a temporary waystation for people who needed immediate assistance,” she said. “It should not be considered an anti-poverty program. It simply did not work.”
From Welfare Shift in ’96, a Reminder for Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/us/politics/11welfare.html?_r=0
Many welfare advocates dispute Mrs. Clinton’s characterization. Since entering the Senate, they say, she has shown a predilection for compromise at the expense of the poor.
When the overhaul bill came up for reauthorization, Sandra Chapin, a former welfare recipient affiliated with a coalition called Welfare Made a Difference, lobbied Congress to allow more women to attend college while they received aid. Mrs. Clinton “wouldn’t have anything to do with it,” Ms. Chapin said.
Ms. Chapin, now program director of the Consumer Federation of California, posted an e-mail message to a discussion board in February accusing Mrs. Clinton of having “had a hand in devaluing motherwork in this country, and no doubt sending thousands of children and their families deeper into poverty.”…
As the saying goes, "a tiger cannot change it's stripes". Bernie has his principles. Hillary has her politics. If you've followed both some, that's not too hard to see. Like most of us, Marian Wright Edelman probably is plugged in to Bernie by now. In 1996, she had a first hand head start with what Hillary was about with welfare.
I think Marian Wright Edelman and her husband have been proven right on their position and what they feared would be the consequences. They knew that the real test of welfare legislation came when things got tough. And the Clintons helped make things considerably tougher for millions of Americans with NAFTA.
In 2008, Hillary's got caught blatantly flip-flopping on and lying about her position on NAFTA. As many would know, NAFTA sent a lot of American factory jobs to Mexico, China, etc. So these people who had developed a trade and worked all their life towards living off that trade in these factories, had no quick solution to finding another job unless they wanted to move to China and work for a dollar a day and a bowl of rice (price of Chinese labor in 1999). Americans in that position, and there were millions of them, needed more than (Hillary's words) "a temporary waystation for people who needed immediate assistance". Tragically, Bill Clinton gave away their jobs with NAFTA and they never got the help they needed from the welfare reform Clinton did. And Hillary is oblivious to it - or she'll blame it on George Bush.
And since I'm on the subject of blaming George Bush, a hunk of this collapse of the middle class that Bernie has been so concerned about and increased in poverty that the Edelmans were concerned about was brought to the United States by William Jefferson Clinton and his wife with NAFTA and their welfare reform.. It's not all the GOP's fault. A hunk of the economic collapse suffered during Bush's watch came from the house of cards economy Clinton left him. NAFTA delivered short term gain and long term pain - a gutting of the middle class - and they knew it would happen - turmoil, upheaval and job losses. Clinton enjoyed the short term gain. A bewildered Bush wasn't up to dealing with the longer term pain of NAFTA. We'll struggle with that for some time to come.
I'm not so sure.
Did she know Sanders was running when she made the endorsement (which I haven't seen)?
If she isn't acquainted with Bernie's positions, should she get acquainted, when she goes into that voting booth, I wonder who she would vote for: a man who has advocated for the things she has wanted all his life or the woman who was a long time family acquaintance, who admitted that the welfare bill the Clintons supported during Bill's years was a time when she recognized she was no longer an advocate (or a loyal friend in my opinion) ... she'd become a politician (something to that effect as I recall).
With Bernie, there is no wondering about where he stands. With Hillary, you always have to wonder about her frequently changing positions on issues because they're not firmly based on her passionate beliefs (if she has any). Like the weather vane symbol some have posted around here, her positions are based on what will serve her best at the time to get her the power she wants. That is at the central core of Hillary Clinton. She and Bill sold the Edelman's out in 1996 on welfare reform. And she'd do it again without batting an eyelash if it meant getting her more votes. I don't doubt that for a second because she's done it all her political life.
I'm sure Marian Wright Edelman knows that about Hillary. She said as much in the above quote - that's beyond debate. Naturally, if her choice is between Hillary and a GOP candidate, at least she has a chance that the political winds will blow the right way with Hillary that she won't have with the GOP candidate.
Hmmm ...
MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: ... We were for welfare reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we need health care, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare.
And yet, you know, many years after that, when many people are pronouncing welfare reform a great success, you know, we’ve got growing child poverty, we have more children in poverty and in extreme poverty over the last six years than we had earlier in the year. When an economy is down, and the real test of welfare reform is what happens to the poor when the economy is not booming. Well, the poor are suffering, the gap between rich and poor widening. We have what I consider one of—a growing national catastrophe of what we call the cradle-to-prison pipeline. A black boy today has a one-in-three chance of going to prison in his lifetime, a black girl a one-in-seventeen chance. A Latino boy who’s born in 2001 has a one-in-six chance of going to prison. We are seeing more and more children go into our child welfare systems, go dropping out of school, going into juvenile justice detention facilities. Many children are sitting up—15,000, according to a recent congressional GAO study—are sitting up in juvenile institutions solely because their parents could not get mental health and health care in their community. This is an abomination.
You know who I thought of when I read those words about what Marian wanted? Bernie. Not Hillary
Then this by the article author
"We are disillusioned, to say the least, that the Obama camp appears so deficient in being able to bring Hillary's checkered record on progressive issues out as a campaign issue. "
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 10,125
