From the link:

In her quest to be the nation's 45th president, the Democratic front-runner has taken in a stunning haul from the finance industry — just shy of $27 million and counting, according to the latest filings as analyzed by OpenSecrets.org.

* snip *

One of the reasons Clinton has been able to stockpile so much Wall Street cash is that she has no competition in that regard. Her lone remaining challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has forsworn Wall Street cash and has taken no money from the finance industry.

----------------------------------------

I don't know about you, but if I payed someone $27 (not alone $27 million dollars) I'd expect something significant in return. For example, if I payed Amazon $27 for a book, I'd expect them to deliver to my house exactly what I ordered.

I wonder what the big banks expect Hillary to deliver.
I already know what they expect from Bernie: Trouble.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hillary-clinton-rolling-money-wall-175839840.html

They all voted against the Iraq War Resolution. Bernie Sanders, who was in the House at the time, also voted against the resolution.

But Senator Hillary Clinton voted FOR the resolution. I wonder why. Take your pick:

1. Senator Clinton thought that another war was just fine, a dandy idea.
2. Senator Clinton opposed starting another war, but thought that a nay vote would hurt her politically.
3. Senator Clinton bought Bush's lies. She didn't bother to think it through, like all of the nay votes did.

Note that there is no "let's move on" choice. That's because people are still dying in Iraq today because of that vote. And veterans are still suffering in VA hospitals today because of that vote.

It is not ancient history.

Suppose that after the CA primary, Hillary either has the majority of the pledged delegates, or is very close. Then, for whatever reason, Hillary drops out before the convention starts.

Who would you then find acceptable as the nominee? Multiple answers are acceptable, even preferred. For me, it would be Bernie, then Al Gore (so dreaming is allowed too).

I'm posting this now because of the latest Hillary email report. Maybe my hypothetical won't be so hypothetical soon. If that's the case, the DNC would need to be very careful about who gets the nod.

I saw this on Facebook, but the only actual article I could find about it was at the (heavily slanted) NY Post. What's going on here? From the Post:

Last week’s unanimous passage of a Senate bill making it easier for 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia and other foreign terror sponsors was widely heralded as a major victory.

It’s more of a cruel hoax.

It turns out that just before the vote, Sen. Charles Schumer and other proponents of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act stuffed an amendment into the final draft allowing the attorney general and secretary of state to stop any litigation against the Saudis in its tracks.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/24/sneaky-schumer-added-loophole-to-halt-911-saudi-suits/

I know that people who are now calling for Bernie to drop out don't mean it this way, but it's actually insulting to the voters who are yet to vote. And it's insulting to the Bernie voters who have already voted.

Hillary does not have a majority of pledged delegates, yet. She probably will have that majority, and soon, but not yet.

Suppose you are the coach of a scrappy underdog football team. Your team has worked hard, and has made it to the semi-finals. Win this game, and you're off to the state finals. It's now the 4th quarter in that semi-final game. Two minutes to go, and you are down by 14 points. Your scrappy team still has a chance, albeit a small one. And the team wants to go for it. No one is heading for the locker rooms.

The opposing coach trots over to you, and asks you to concede now, for the good of the league, or for some such reason. Would you concede?

I would hope not. And an election is far more important than any football game.

Why Hillary?

From what I can see, there are three main reasons why people support Hillary Clinton for president. And here they are.

1. "Madam President." Some people support Hillary because she is a woman, and they feel that it's long past time that we have a woman as president. I understand that. But that's not good enough. Because by that logic, Sarah Palin would also be a good candidate for president.

2. "Experience." Some people support Hillary because she was a senator, and then she was a Secretary of State. But that's not good enough. Because by that logic, Bush the Elder would also be a good candidate. Bush the Elder has much more government experience than does Hillary.

3. "Clinton." Bill Clinton was a arguably a very good president. Therefore, Hillary would also be a good president. Same last names. But that's not good enough. Such logic would be acceptable in a monarchy, but not in a republic.

Some people support Hillary because she is - uniquely - a combination of all three of the above. I understand that. But to my mind, none of those reasons are valid reasons to support Hillary. 0 + 0 + 0 = 0.

And that's why I don't support Hillary. I support Bernie. He has the ideas - and the vision - that appeals to me. Bernie Sanders 2016.

I have never seen a primary, D or R, where the differences between the two top candidates are so stark.

Bernie Sanders represents the little person, the person who has more month than money. Bernie has never accepted a speaking fee from a big bank, because he knows such fees have many strings attached. Big banks don't give away their money. They invest their money carefully, and expect a future return.

Bernie is consistent. A speech he gives before one group carries the same message as a speech given before any another group. He does not pander. He does not shift his positions to appease a particular audience. He is genuine.

But the media and the DNC had rather Bernie just go away. He does not fit their establishment mold. And so the media and the DNC shun him. And it has worked, as we have seen this past Tuesday. It is breaking my heart.

Words fail me. This is just so weird.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/7/1512350/-Clinton-team-blasts-reporters-with-noise-machine-during-Hillary-fundraising-speech

I'm sick and tired of Democratic delegate counts that lump in the superdelegates with the pledged delegates. Hillary is currently leading Bernie by 250 pledged delegates.

But my local news and the national news, they all report that Hillary is currently leading by 688 delegates. Then they comment on how "difficult" it will be for Bernie to overcome such a big lead.

That is very misleading, as superdelegates can - and often do - switch their allegiances at convention time. To pull ahead, Bernie has to overcome a 250 delegate lead, not a 688 one.

Do these news sources not understand how superdelegates work? Or are they just trying to discourage Bernie supporters, and portray Hillary as the inevitable nominee?