Member since: Thu Mar 16, 2006, 03:07 PM
Number of posts: 9,484
Number of posts: 9,484
- 2016 (76)
- 2015 (77)
- 2014 (87)
- 2013 (145)
- 2012 (211)
- 2011 (14)
- December (14)
- Older Archives
I'm sorry, Bernie.
By Cato come back
Sunday Mar 20, 2016 · 6:54 AM EST
I couldn’t get to the rally in Phoenix today, and I feel really bad. I wanted to be one of those 8,255 people cheering you on — letting you know that there are still so many of us pushing for you. But, I was exhausted.
I just moved again this week. It just keeps getting harder and harder to do this at my age (I’m past 60 and that’s as much as I will admit). I had to “borrow” money (which I will never be able to pay back) from my kids again to come up with the deposit for my new rental. I work hard, but it is always juggling low paying jobs and I’m never quite able to get ahead. Since Arizona is a right-to-work state, there are few unions to push for a minimum wage of $15/hour. And with the ACA employer mandate, the company where I work won’t give part time people more than 30 hours/week — sometimes my weekly hours are down at 8. It is difficult to schedule my second job (I do housekeeping) because the first job changes hours all of the time. And I’m tired.
I managed to drag myself to my son-in-law’s birthday party this evening. I didn’t want to disappoint him. I thought, “I’ll just go for an hour and then go home to bed.” But, surprisingly, I stayed until 2 AM.
Why did I have the energy to keep going?
Because among the guests at the party, there were millennials who were Berners — passionate young people who have heard the call.
They knew more about what was REALLY going on in politics than most of the people I know who are my age. Every one of them had stories about their fears of climate change. One young man was almost in tears with a story of watching the glaciers melt when he was in Alaska. Another spoke solemnly of how there just aren’t enough progressive people to actually force progress, and, he was hoping that it wasn’t too late to save the planet. A tiny young woman stood up and raised her fists when talking about how much we have to fight for the changes — and she could recite ‘chapter and verse’ on how badly the country needs Bernie Sanders.
The conversation went in all directions with 15 participants speaking rationally about two-party systems, democratic socialism, constitutional amendments, and the issues facing our country today — what is wrong and what is right. I was exhilarated! I was back in the 1960’s with deja vu all over again. Only this time, this young generation has so much more to offer. They have the world at their fingertips with social media and they don’t seem to rely on any ONE source for their news — they have a very broad view of the ‘real’ world (and the WHOLE world, not just their piece of it). And all 15 of these millennials were Berners!
So, I got to go to a Bernie rally, after all. Maybe Bernie couldn’t hear me screaming my support, but, I hope that he hears me telling him: there is more screaming of support than you would have heard at the coliseum in Phoenix today.
And now I’m going to sleep, satisfied that there is a whole generation gearing up for a political revolution!
Posted by FourScore | Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:48 AM (7 replies)
A Look at the Patterns of the Democratic Primary and Why They Support a Sanders Comeback
Saturday Mar 19, 2016 · 6:25 AM EST
Let me be terse in my introduction so I can get straight to the juicy bits (and because it’s 5:00 AM here and I’m about ready to pass out). Anyway, I’ve skimmed articles on this website before but never gotten into its internal politics. I know there has been a lot of flak thrown between both the Clinton and Sanders camps and I want no part in it. I come here to simply set the record straight as a person who has near-obsessively observed the interesting, twisting patterns of the presidential race.
This article is not meant to be an attack on Hillary supporters or Hillary Clinton herself, nor is it meant to discourage them. That being said, if you are a Hillary supporter, since this article may do so, it would probably be wise to stop reading now. This article is meant to encourage Sanders supporters, as I fear many may be demoralized at the moment, not do the opposite to you.
Now, let’s get down to business. To begin, let me lay down some obvious and some not-so-obvious points.
1. Bernie Sanders has won every state with an African American demographic below 8% with the exception of Iowa, a virtual tie. This is not meant to be a racist statement: African Americans simply tend to go for Hillary instead of Bernie, and that’s greatly affected the race.
2. Bernie has either won or come within a 5% margin of victory or outright won in every state except Virginia with an above average (of the national average) amount of internet users , or put another way, above average high-speed internet infrastructure. — Page 11 gives the clearest view.
3. In every state (save for Iowa) with a combination of these two factors, Bernie has won by 15%+ margins.
4. Bernie has had a youth turnout in recent states at near President Obama levels. In Illinois, a state that has a large African American population and one that Bernie *lost* while Obama won, nearly 547,600 of people between the ages of 18-35 compared to Obama’s 633,000 turned out to vote for the respective candidates. It can be reasoned that Bernie will do better in states where the average age of the population is below the national median. (Note: Minor factor)
5. Contrary to what one may expect, Bernie has either won or come close in every state except Virginia that has an above average household income above the United States average. . (Note: Minor factor)
Note: Hillary has done well with Hispanics in Texas and Florida yet not in Nevada. It is not yet known where they will go in the Southwest. This is going to be a real wildcard in the race, though it won’t be as big of a factor working against Bernie as the African American vote given what we know so far. If they turn out en masse for Hillary, it’ll decrease Sanders’ chances in New Mexico, Peurto Rico, and Arizona, and decrease his victory gain in California.
Because of all this, one can make a semi-accurate prediction of where the rest of the race will go. Obviously, this is only an estimation, and how much he loses or wins in the remaining states will determine if he wins or not, but let me give you a picture on what will likely happen and list the factors that work for Bernie. The only thing that could possibly change this is if Hillary’s campaign does really well or bombs in some regard and likewise with Bernie.
Arizona: Bernie will either win or lose by a 5% margin.
Idaho: Bernie will win by a 15%+ margin.
Utah: Bernie will win by a 15%+ margin.
Alaska: Bernie will win by a 15%+ margin.
Hawaii: Bernie will win by a 15%+ margin.
Washington: Bernie will win by a 15%+ margin.
Wisconsin: Bernie will win by a 15%+ margin.
Wyoming: Bernie will win by a 15%+ margin.
New York: Bernie will either win or lose between 5% him or 10% Clinton.
Connecticut: Bernie will win or lose within a 5% margin.
Delaware: Bernie will lose by around a 15%+ margin.
Maryland: Bernie will win or lose by around a 5% margin.
Pennsylvania: Bernie will win or lose within a 5% margin.
Rhode Island: Bernie will win by a 15%+ margin.
Indiana: Bernie will lose by around 10-15%
Guam: Bernie will lose by around a 10%+ margin.
West Virginia: Bernie will win or tie within a margin of 5%.
Kentucky: Bernie will win or lose within a factor of 5%.
Oregon: Bernie will win by a margin of 15%+
Virgin Islands: Bernie will lose by a 10%+ margin.
Puerto Rico: Bernie will win or lose within a 5% margin.
California: Bernie will win by a margin of 20%+
Montana: Bernie will win by a margin of 10%+
New Jersey: Bernie will win or lose within a margin of 5%.
New Mexico: Bernie will win or lose within a margin of 5%.
North Dakota: Bernie will win by a margin of 15%+
South Dakota: Bernie will win by a margin of 15%+
District of Columbia: Bernie will lose by around 10%+
There you have it, folks. On the lower end of optimistic projections, Bernie wins by a tight 30 delegates. However, it’s very likely that, taking states that he has the potential to win big in similar to Kansas, he could score higher. Scoring high in small states and losing by, say, 5% in New York/Pennsylvania would still earn him a win. There’s also the scenario in which he knocks Clinton out of the water in Washington and Oregon, which is something that any Clinton fan still reading this should probably be worried about given how progressive those two states are.
In conclusion, You can say he’s doomed all you want, but the patterns of the race give Sanders a fair chance as long as his supporters keep pushing. To any Bernie fans still dazed by the hit on the 15th, time to put some pep in your step soldiers! You’ve got phone banking to do!
Important Note: I made an error when I was tallying up delegates. Bernie will need to win either Washington or Oregon by 25% to break away from Hillary. Preferably, he’ll need to win one of those two states by either larger margins or a number of the smaller states by larger margins in order to negate potential losses in New York/Pennsylvania.
Bonus Section: Comment Section Myth Busting.
Myth #1: Bernie does terrible among Democrats! He’s only good in states where Independents can save his butt!
Fact #1: Not true. Bernie has won in Nebraska, Maine, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Kansas. These are all either closed caucuses or closed primaries. Only Democrats can vote in them.
Myth #2: Bernie underperformed in the most recent primaries and he’ll do it again!
Fact #2: Nope. In Illinois and Missouri, he overperformed aggregate polling by a small amount. In North Carolina he overperformed by a large amount. Only in Florida and Ohio did he underperform, but only by a small amount.
Myth #3: Bernie’s gonna lose Arizona cus he’s down in the polls! He’s also going to lose California!
Fact #3: He’s down in the poll. One poll. In Arizona. And we all know how much singular polls can predict this primary season. And yes, Sanders is down in the polls in California… the last one taken at the beginning of January.
Posted by FourScore | Sat Mar 19, 2016, 08:04 PM (7 replies)
When the private server issue first hit the scene, I - like Bernie Sanders said - didn't care about her damn emails. I listened to the drip, drip, drip with very little interest. Then, suddenly, something caught my attention: Hillary's response to the fact that Sydney Blumenthal had access to above top secret information without a clearance. Her explanation that "the emails were not classified at the time" really caught my attention. I immediately thought, "Hillary's just not that dumb. She's hiding something." She may be able to fool a lot of people with that act, but anyone, and I mean ANYONE who has worked with classified government documents knows that the "none of the emails were classified at the time" stint is beyond bogus. (Full disclosure - I worked at the American Headquarters and Consulate in West Berlin during the Cold War. I handled sensitive material and held a clearance. I am well aware of protocol.) Without rehashing what many have already stated on this site and others about the hows and whys, I can assure you - Hillary fucked up. Badly. But the thing is, she knew she was breaking protocol at the time, and she either didn't care or she truly believed that the rules didn't apply to her. There's no way around this. It is fact, which left me wondering, could she really be so cavalier? Really?? That's when I began to take a closer look at what was going on. In this process, I have learned some very disturbing facts, facts which leave me gravely concerned.
Let me preface by saying, I do believe that Hillary, like Patraeus, won't get much more than a slap on the wrist for the classified email "scandal". Her closest aides and advisors, however, are about to experience a living hell. My prediction: Huma Adedin, Cheryl Mills and Sydney Blumenthal will be thrown under the bus, along with 6-7 other aides. At minimum: they will be paying enormous legal bills in their near future. Worst case: they will go to jail. Particularly Blumenthal. News articles are already stating that Hillary has now distanced herself from her former confidant.
Other than right wing media sources (which cannot be trusted), there has been very little investigative journalism on this. Just as I was about to give up entirely on my quest, I discovered a series of online articles by John R Schindler, whose bio states that he "is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he's also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He's published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee." Upon further investigation, I learned that he is unapologetically pro-NSA and vehemently anti-Snowden. In general, he is someone with whom I would probably never be friends. However, his articles contain the most in-depth analysis on the internet of what transpired between Hillary, the NSA, classified information, her Blackberry, Sydney Blumenthal and the emails. The story he reveals is very troubling.
...the biggest problem may be in a just-released email that has gotten little attention here, but plenty on the other side of the world. An email to Ms. Clinton from a close Clinton confidant late on June 8, 2011 about Sudan turns out to have explosive material in it. This message includes a detailed intelligence report from Sid Blumenthal, Hillary’s close friend, confidant and factotum, who regularly supplied her with information from his private intelligence service...."
The email was released online:
The rest of the email can be found at here. The NSA official breaks it down:
...Is this an NSA assessment? If so, it would have to be classified at least Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information, a handling caveat that applies to most SIGINT, and quite possibly Top Secret/SCI, the highest normal classification we have. In that case, it was about as far from Unclassified as it’s possible for an email to be.
No surprise, NSA is aflutter this weekend over this strange matter. One Agency official expressed to me “at least 90 percent confidence” that Mr. Blumenthal’s June 8 report was derived from NSA reports, and the Agency ought to be investigating the matter right now.
There are many questions here. How did Mr. Blumenthal, who had no position in the U.S. government in 2011, and hasn’t since Bill Clinton left the White House 15 years ago, possibly get his hands on such highly classified NSA reporting? Why did he place it an open, non-secure email to Hillary, who after all had plenty of legitimate access, as Secretary of State, to intelligence assessments from all our spy agencies? Moreover, how did the State Department think this was Unclassified and why did it release it to the public?...
In an article titled, Why Hillary's Emailgate Matters, Schindler describes the general attitude at Hillary's State Department:
How such highly classified information from both NSA and CIA wound up in Ms. Clinton’s personal email is a messy question that the FBI is currently unravelling. Don’t expect pretty answers. That her staff at Foggy Bottom treated classification as a nuisance is already apparent, and such guidance, which was flagrantly illegal, could only have come from “the boss.”
Just what a sinkhole of secrets the Secretary of State’s office was during President Obama’s first term, when Ms. Clinton occupied that chair, is frighteningly apparent. Allegations are swirling that her staff systematically copied Top Secret Codeword information off separate, just-for-intelligence computer systems and cut-and-pasted it into “unclassified” emails. This, if true, is an unambiguous felony. There is reason to be cautious about this claim, which is unsubstantiated so far, and would indicate a complex degree of intent: moving Top Secret Codeword information into unclassified emails is not simple, rather a multi-step process, and would leave an audit trail.
Nevertheless, the casual approach of Ms. Clinton and her staff to classified information is already abundantly clear. Cheryl Mills, her chief of staff at Foggy Bottom, was using her personal Blackberry for work, including the transmission of classified email. That alone is a crime. Then, in a move worthy of a dark comedy, Ms. Mills proceeded to lose that Blackberry. This would be a career-ender, at best, for any normal U.S. Government employee. Ms. Mills, a longtime Clinton insider, naturally suffered no penalties of any kind for this astonishing security lapse.
When Hillary arrived at the State Department, she requested a Blackberry like the one the President had, so that she could receive confidential emails on her device. The device is only given to the President and her request was denied. She still tried numerous times to procure such a device. it was repeatedly explained to her that she would have to use the same type of secure government desktop computer as everyone else.
As one anonymous NSA official stated:
“What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it?” the former NSA official asked, adding, “I wonder now, and I sure wish I’d asked about it back in 2009.”
THAT is the question the authorities want answered. Like the Goldman Sachs speech transcripts she will not disclose, or the 30,000 emails spanning a 5-month time period that have vanished, what's behind the curtain?
Sources close to the investigation claim that the emails are leading the investigation to the Clinton Foundation. C-Span interviewed former US Attorney for DC Joseph diGenova. At aroung the 20:00 mark he explains that the investigation is now focusing on the Clinton Foundation and how it relates to the server, and any official acts that may have resulted in money being donated to the foundation. Hillary's close aide, Huma Abejin was also on the Foundation payroll while simultaneously working for Secretary Clinton at the State Department. Multiple websites speculate that a grand jury has been convened. Apparently, Loretta Lynch refused to confirm or deny this fact while being interviewed on television.
Rawstory recently published an article that highlights how Clinton's cronyism and political decisions were intertwined. The article actually questions Clinton's sincerity regarding the student debt crisis:
Student loan debt continues to be one of the largest economic issues plaguing the U.S., with the total amount topping $1.3 trillion. Hillary Clinton’s higher education policy touts debt-free degrees for underprivileged students. But is she being genuine in her efforts to address the issue?
While Hillary loves to rail against shady for-profit colleges on the campaign trail, she does have some financial ties to them that are likely to shape whether or not she holds them accountable for ripping students off.
It was recently revealed through Hillary’s emails that during her first year as Secretary of State she insisted that Laureate Education be included in the guest list for an education policy dinner hosted at the U.S. Department of State.
“It’s a for-profit model that should be represented,” she wrote in the August 2009 email, and as a result, a senior vice president at Laureate was added to the guest list. Several months later, former President Bill Clinton became an honorary chancellor of Laureate International Universities, which turned out to be incredibly lucrative. He was paid a cool $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 for his role with the for-profit college.
There are more shady dealings described in this article in The New Yorker.
The most fascinating part of this story is the MSM blackout. It is nearly impossible to find news clips or articles about any of this. I fear they are holding onto the information until the general election. I could be wrong and I hope I am, but the entire story is complex and filled with cronyism and entitlement. My biggest fear now is that indictments will begin during the general election.
Posted by FourScore | Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:28 AM (182 replies)
You are pulling up old Bernie posts that showed Bernie polling well or of Hillary's campaign manager warning her of potential losses today - and you are posting responses like "She won all five states."
Do you have any idea how utterly distasteful and short-sighted that is?
Let me say this: Hillary will probably win the nomination. I'm not positive, though, that she will win the general election; mainly because the DNC, the MSM and the bulk of the democratic party have rammed their establishment candidate down our throats from the beginning. This primary was never fair. Bernie received the least amount of air time than any other candidate. From the beginning, he was subjected to questions like "Will you support Hillary when she becomes the nominee?" Or "Did you enter the race to bring Hillary further to the left?" It was all about Hillary. I guess you have no idea what that feels like, or you wouldn't gloat like you are doing.
We believe in Bernie and his revolution. We were the underdogs and knew we would probably never win this thing. We threw $27.00 a month at him, and felt our hearts soar as his crowds swelled to enormous sizes. We love our candidate.
But, let me be clear. Hillary will not win without our support. EVERYONE I KNOW WHO SUPPORTS BERNIE, just one month ago, was saying that they would support Bernie or Hillary in the general. Now, not one single Bernie supporter I know says that anymore. They all feel so betrayed by their party, by the establishment, and by the media. Do you understand what this means?
It is not necessary to pull up old posts and gloat. You were never the underdog. All you are doing, is supporting Trump, because you are ensuring that not one of us supporting Bernie will want to go vote for Hillary in the general election. You need to stop.
ON EDIT: I am very disheartened by the tone of the Hillary supporters in this thread. There is cherry-picking at my post instead of reading the whole thing in it's entirety. There is "well Bernie supporters did it too" tit-for-tat childishness. There is defensiveness. But what there really isn't is any kind of reconciliation.
Posted by FourScore | Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:59 AM (97 replies)
"Satisfied" Town Hall Former Death Row Inmate Questioner Completely Disagrees With Sec. Clinton
By Heavy Mettle
Tuesday Mar 15, 2016 · 12:12 AM EST
Former Death Row Inmate Ricky Jackson
At yesterday’s Town Hall for the democratic candidates, a man who was wrongfully convicted of murder and subsequently spent 39 years in prison, narrowly escaping execution, asked Secretary Clinton about her stance on the death penalty. She gave a long, rambling equivocal answer to which the questioner, Ricky Jackson, responded that he was “satisfied”.
Supporters of Clinton watching this exchange naturally understood his satisfaction with the answer to mean that he agreed with her. It was very painful watching him asking his question, and he had equal difficulty expressing it, having to compose himself in the middle of it. When Clinton was finished he had a look on his face that didn’t appear at all as if he agreed with her, on the contrary it appeared he wanted to get out of there, and the glare of millions on national TV, as fast as possible.
Today he has penned a moving, heartfelt editorial explaining why he believes Sec. Clinton is wrong in her stance on capital punishment. As someone who has been so badly served by his fellow humans, he is demonstrating incredible humanity by giving her a “second chance” to reconsider.
(I have edited some of the piece, for clarity he and two friends were all convicted)
(CNN)At the CNN Town Hall meeting between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, I had the privilege of asking Clinton how she could still support the death penalty in light of all the innocent people in this county in recent years who have been wrongfully convicted and sent to death row.
I said last night that I was "satisfied" with Clinton's answer, but that does not mean I agree with her. While I respect her opinion and her honesty, I completely disagree with her position on the death penalty.
The fact that we too often send innocent people to death row in this country can no longer be debated.
I ought to know. I was one of them.
I came within two months of my execution date but was saved by a lucky technicality -- the court made a mistake filling out the death penalty sentencing paperwork. Bridgeman and Ajamu later escaped death only because the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Ohio's death penalty statute as unconstitutional.
If not for pure luck and chance, none of us would have been alive to see our exoneration nearly 40 years later.
Because of an investigation by the Cleveland Scene newspaper and the Ohio Innocence Project at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, we were vindicated and gained our freedom in November 2014. By that time, I had served 39 years in prison for a murder I didn't commit -- the longest sentence by an innocent person in U.S. history.
I know that the death penalty does not deter. That can no longer be seriously debated.
I also know that it is very expensive at a time when states are struggling financially and many are on the brink of bankruptcy. As an expensive government program with no proven track record of effectiveness, it is, indeed, the proverbial "bridge to nowhere." But I also know that it sends innocent people to death row, and sometimes kills them.
Other innocent inmates -- in fact more than 150 of them -- have been lucky enough to have been exonerated and freed before their execution.
Furthermore, I learned from my time on death row that even the guilty are worthy of salvation.
As an innocent and scared 18-year-old boy sent to death row, it was only the kindness and humanity of death row's guilty, who took me under their collective wing, that kept my sanity and maintained my faith in humanity. These inmates made horrible mistakes, and deserved to be punished, but they are not the animals our criminal justice makes them out to be.
A society should not be judged on how it treats its best, but rather on how it treats is lowest. And even the lowest are capable of incredible acts of humanity and are worthy of decency. They are worthy of God's grace, just as they bestowed grace upon me.
When I asked Clinton why she still supports the death penalty, she said she supported it only for the worst of the worst: those who committed acts of mass killing or terrorism. I cannot accept that.
In cases such as those, the societal pressure to convict is at its highest. And when an intense pressure to convict is present, that is when the risk of convicting an innocent is greatest.
The death penalty is also not a deterrent in terrorism cases. In fact, death can serve the purpose of many terrorists who wish to become "martyrs" for their cause.
During all the decades I sat in prison as an innocent man, I saw societal views gradually change. Not too many years ago, a Democratic candidate could not publicly support same-sex marriage and stand a chance of getting elected in a general election.
Now, a Democratic candidate could not be taken seriously if he or she didn't support same-sex marriage.
Likewise, no serious Democratic candidate should be able to support the death penalty. We have evolved. We have seen the evidence that the death penalty doesn't work and that it kills the innocent.
Given this evidence, it is time that no candidate -- Democrat or Republican -- should be taken seriously if he or she supports capital punishment.
The fact that Clinton continues to hang on to this antiquated relic confuses me. She touts "criminal justice reform" -- and much reform is needed -- but she misses one of the lowest hanging pieces of fruit.
I said last night that I am an "undecided" voter. I hope that Clinton reconsiders her position on capital punishment before I do what I have been waiting my entire life to do: cast my first presidential vote as a free and vindicated man.
Posted by FourScore | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:40 AM (36 replies)
Dam Breaks in LA; City of Herbert and nearby prison mandatory evac
Sunday Mar 13, 2016 · 11:41 PM EST
Writing on phone so keeping it brief:
Residents in the town of Hebert are being told to evacuate by the Caldwell Parish Sheriff.
This is a mandatory evacuation.
According to the National Weather Service, a dam in Richland Parish broke, and the water is heading straight for the Caldwell - Richland Parish line.
Posted by FourScore | Sun Mar 13, 2016, 11:58 PM (9 replies)
This may be a dupe, and I apologize if it is, because it is a few days old now. My teenage son said it's all over his facebook page right now, so I thought I'd share. HILLARIOUS!!!
Posted by FourScore | Fri Mar 11, 2016, 12:41 PM (44 replies)
I am an avid Bernie supporter, but I genuinely enjoyed reading this DK diary about Hillary. I thought I would share it with my fellow DU'ers who support her. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
I Was Aquainted With Hillary Many Years Ago
Thursday Mar 10, 2016 · 4:34 PM EST
Hillary photographed for Vogue 1989
This is not going to be a long or political diary. I just wanted to be a character witness for Secretary Clinton, whom I was lucky to be aquainted with in Arkansas in the 1980s. I used that picture above because that is how I remember her. Of course no one ever looks quite as good as when they are photographed by Vogue.
My husband and I lived in Arkansas for about 15 years during the late 70s and into the early 90s. During that time he had some minor business with the Rose law firm. He also became a supporter of the Governor and then President Clinton. We became aquainted with the Clintons and attended many events they attended. Though we were not wealthy, we donated what we could and gave of our time.
Hillary was warm, gracious and funny. She always seemed to have a crowd of people around her laughing and if Bill were not near her, he often glanced over and smiled. The times I spoke to her she paid attention to what I said and she always remembered my name and asked about my family.
If there were children present. she played with them, joked with them and then spoke to them like adults. You could tell that she genuinely loved them and was concerned with their lives.
I don’t know if Hillary would remember me. I no longer live in Arkansas. My husband died quite a few years ago and I do not have the means to travel in those circles anymore. But I remember her. I have the greatest regard for her. I do not recognise the person that people describe when they call her a liar and a corporate shill or a murderer.
Regardless, I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic party. I just hope with every fiber of my being that the nominee is Hillary Clinton. Some day I will write a diary/blog giving more detail than “awe hell, I like her so much”.
Now I ask you to be kind and not come here with anything hateful to say about her, as I will not say anything hateful in a Bernie diary, about him.
Thank you for reading:
Posted by FourScore | Thu Mar 10, 2016, 09:09 PM (11 replies)
Someone at reddit broke it down:
(I highlighted Bernie to make it easier to scan this and see who is who.)
SPEAKING AND INTERRUPTION TOTALS (from 6:50 pm Pacific to end)
Hillary total: 1409 sec or 23:29 | interrupted 10 times (not including clarification/follow-up)
Bernie total: 1071 sec or 17:51 | interrupted 25 times (not including follow-ups)
Started timing at 6:50 pm Pacific
H - 1:40 uninterrupted
H - 1:42 uninterrupted
B - interrupted at 0:34, interrupted 0:40 (interrupted 5 times) | 1:30 total
H - interrupted at 0:30 | 1:11 total
B - interrupted at 0:15, and 0:30 seconds | 0:32 total
H - interrupted at 0:20 | 0:30 total
B - applause at 0:15, interrupted by mod at 25 seconds | 0:31 total
H - (not her turn) Interrupted at 2 seconds, 5 seconds | 0:40 total
B - (response to her response), interrupted at 10 seconds | 0:10 total
H - interrupted at 1:40 for reiteration of question and applause | 3:08 total -- ignoring applause and mod questioning time
B - (30 sec response), interrupted at 30 seconds and 35 seconds| 0:42 total
B - Career politician question | 1:24 total
H - Latino jobs, (but talked about Climate change?), interrupted at 1:33, 2:17 | 2:17 total
B - Response, interrupted at 0:30 | 1:23 total
B - ‘Free’ college (including his clarification up top), interrupted at 0:42 | 1:29 total
H - Ph.D student/loans | 1:20 total
B - Response (I said it before her) - whispers on mic on this question, interrupted at 0:42, 0:58 | 0:58 total
H - Response (quote bailout quote got money), interrupted at 0:49 | 1:02 total
B - Response, interrupted at 0:32 (by mods and Hillary) | 0:32 total
H - Response | 0:49 total
B - Response, interrupted at 0:42 | 0:45 total
B - Climate change, interrupted at 0:52 | 1:29 total
H - Climate change (bi-partisan specific), interrupted at 1:12 (by mods, Bernie told to speak) mod at 1:42 again | 2:00 total
B - Response, interrupted at 0:42 | 0:42 total (not equal to Hill’s overtime like told)
H - E. Warren question (also economy?), interrupted at 1:33 | 1:33 total
B - name mentioned response, interrupted at 0:34, 0:41, 0:47 | 0:57 total
H - Castro question | 1:39 total
B - Cuba follow-up, interrupted at 0:35 | 0:35 total
B - Castro video, interrupted at 1:19 (for follow-up question), 1:28, 2:08 | 2:08 total
H - Puerto Rico debt (also an addition to BS’s video), | 1:33 total
B - Response (overthrowing foreign gvmt/PR), int at 0:40 | 0:50 total
H - (Supreme Court) | 1:19 total
H - (Closing statement) | 1:06 total
B - (Closing statement) | 1:14 total
Posted by FourScore | Thu Mar 10, 2016, 02:19 AM (44 replies)
We are witnessing history in the making. Bernie wanted to energize voters, and he succeeded in Michigan!
Thank you, Bernie!! Thank you, Michigan!!
Posted by FourScore | Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:01 AM (13 replies)