The posts from Clinton supporters are different than the posts I saw yesterday. Going into Super Tuesday, it was all over for Bernie Sanders. Nothing left to do but not get hurt by the flying champagne corks at Clinton victory parties. There are still some proclamations of a huge victory, of course, and Sanders obituaries, but the tone is a little more muted around here. There is some reaching, the best of which I thought was a demand that Elizabeth Warren endorse Clinton because her state was a Clinton win. Is that a new rule? If your state votes for a candidate in the primary, do you have to endorse that candidate? It's nice that Clinton supporters are realizing Sanders is a credible opponent. It will be interesting to see how the Clinton campaign responds to not getting the Final Blow they expected.

Trump is trying to claim he doesn't know who David Duke is, or what he represents but Canadian news makes it very clear he is lying, although they are not coming right out and saying that. The angle is that Trump and Clinton are locking up their respective nominations, and this is disturbing the Republicans enormously because Trump is a loose cannon. Canadian TV emphasizes the circus atmosphere among the GOP candidates. Sometimes the TV news anchors laugh out loud when covering Trump. I'm happy we can provide our neighbors with a few laughs.

edit: They just ran another feature, all about Trump and how he is heavily favored, his Christie endorsement, some of his more outrageous statements, etc.

(I was told this would be more appropriate to post here, rather than in GD.)


We're all familiar with the notion that Nader cost Gore the presidency because Nader pulled enough Democratic votes to cover the margin of victory in Florida. That's true, but about ten times as many registered Democrats voted for George Dubya as voted for Nader. There is a possibility this situation could come up again in 2016, so let's resolve right now to not blame Bernie Sanders if Clinton loses, and the margin is covered by the write-in votes for Bernie. This is ours to lose, no matter which candidate we choose. If we can't beat Trump or any of the rest of them, we all share the responsibility. I don't want to see a bunch of finger pointing, stomping sour grapes, or whatever cliche' seems to describe a bunch of angry Democrats trying to blame others for their loss. OK, yeah, I know some will do it anyway. Anything to avoid facing up to the truth. Let's hope it doesn't happen.

We're all familiar with the notion that Nader cost Gore the presidency because Nader pulled enough Democratic votes to cover the margin of victory in Florida. That's true, but about ten times as many registered Democrats voted for George Dubya as voted for Nader. There is a possibility this situation could come up again in 2016, so let's resolve right now to not blame Bernie Sanders if Clinton loses, and the margin is covered by the write-in votes for Bernie. This is ours to lose, no matter which candidate we choose. If we can't beat Trump or any of the rest of them, we all share the responsibility. I don't want to see a bunch of finger pointing, stomping sour grapes, or whatever cliche' seems to describe a bunch of angry Democrats trying to blame others for their loss. OK, yeah, I know some will do it anyway. Anything to avoid facing up to the truth. Let's hope it doesn't happen.

No more politics as usual. Let's stop calling candidates, supporters, allies and contributors names. Evil, dishonest, scheming, corrupt, unethical, lying, etc. are seen quite frequently here. Let's criticize the action, not the person. It's perfectly fine to say, "Senator Smith lied," assuming there is some evidence for such a statement. It's quite something else to say, "Senator Smith is a liar." Not to mention throwing in all the adjectives to name Senator Smith as a notorious liar, outrageous liar, contemptible liar, and so on.

He sponsored legislation that would have allowed radioactive waste to be deposited in a facility near a small town in Texas. As is the case with most towns, the residents didn't want radioactive waste sent to their area. I saw a documentary on the subject a couple years ago. As I recall, the 500 or so people there are entirely Latino, and they're all poor, and most speak only Spanish. The political powers in Texas made sure the facility was approved over local objections.

I don't remember how the federal government was involved, but a nuclear waste repository would require federal approval, if only at the administrative level. I don't know why Congress had to get involved, since the agreement was between the states of Texas, Maine and Vermont. The deal fell through because it was a typical case of environmental racism, the practice of placing unpleasant or unsafe facilities in places where the residents are poor and largely minorities without much political power.

Anyway, this evidently proves Sanders is a hypocrite, unfit to be president. It is inconsistent with his stated positions on the environment and economic justice. It's also about the only example of such hypocrisy his opponents have been able to find. And you can bet they're looking. Well, good luck. If this is all you have, it's pretty feeble. Even with the assistance of the Clinton-friendly Politifact, it's not going far.

There was this Italian guy named Armada Avacado, who lived on the Isle of Sardines, and he invented this tree that bore really delicious guacamole. He also invented this huge number for counting large groups of things.

I am told it is 6.02 times ten to the 23rd power. I don't know what that means, but it has the word "power," so it must be pretty big. Scientists use it to count the number of molecules in a mole. I'm not sure why anyone would want to know how many molecules a mole has. I just hope the mole doesn't die when they do this.

Anyway, I thought Avacado's Number would be useful during the primaries to help us count our chickens before they're hatched. From what I read here on DU, it seems we need a really, really big number to do that, and Avacado might offer some relief. My candidate won this poll. My candidate won on the interwebs. My candidate is heavily favored among this group or that group. And all that means my candidate will win Avacado's Number of votes.

He was an import... His influence in... He played a significant role in the relea... Sorry, I got nothin'.

In the presidential campaign of 1980, Eugene McCarthy campaigned for Ronald Reagan. When he came to my college, I went to his little circus act and asked him a question. His reason for supporting Reagan, he said, was because Jimmy Carter had "personalized" the presidency, as exemplified by forcing US athletes to skip the Moscow Olympics. I asked him the obvious question, if he could provide other reasons we should vote for Reagan, and he could not, or would not. He stuck to his talking point, which was all he had, or all he would admit.

Of course, a prominent Democrat does not campaign for a Republican on the basis of "personalizing the presidency." That's ridiculous on it's face. We all knew there was something else going on, some deep and passionate hatred McCarthy harbored for Carter. But McCarthy would admit to nothing, although some of the media people pressed him for the real reason. It was almost surreal.

OK, flash forward 36 years. How much hatred will some Democrats have for Bernie Sanders, and will it cause them to campaign against him? Whatever Carter did to McCarthy has to be minor in comparison to what Sanders is doing to the party regulars. They had it all planned out, and it was supposed to be all over by now, with Clinton assured a clear path to the White House against a motley collection of disorganized Republicans. It was going to be a glorious victory, until Sanders threw a wrench in the machinery. There are a bunch of cheesed off Democrats, and I bet they are way more pissed than McCarthy was. So how does this play out when Sanders is the nominee?

As the candidates and their supporters battle back and forth, I see many posts claiming somebody has been thrown "under the bus." This expression appears to be used correctly about half the time. When you throw somebody under the bus, it means you do something to a friend or ally that causes them to take the blame for something you did, suffer damage to their reputation because you wanted to save yourself, something like that. It does not apply when you have a disagreement with somebody who was not in your cam in the first place. So Hillary cannot throw Bernie under the bus, and Bernie cannot throw Hillary under the bus. Please do not consider this a rant. I just thought everyone would like to know.