Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
MrWendel
MrWendel's Journal
MrWendel's Journal
April 3, 2016
By Dem 4 Ever
I just joined after months and months of Bernie this and Bernie that on this site. I felt compelled to sign up to add my voice to Hillary supporters.
Some good news from WI today..
Wisconsin is by no means over folks. Remember how cocky Bernie was before OH because NAFTA was going to be the winning issue for him and then proceeded to getting thumped by Hillary.
I am not ready to give up Wisconsin and will be making calls up to Tuesday. Keep working to extend Hillary’s 220+ pledged delegate lead. Bernie is raising a lot of dough but does not have the lead in pledged delegates or popular vote!! What irony!!
Loras College WI Poll - Hillary 47%, Bernie 41%
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/2/1509603/-Loras-College-WI-Poll-Hillary-47-Bernie-41By Dem 4 Ever
I just joined after months and months of Bernie this and Bernie that on this site. I felt compelled to sign up to add my voice to Hillary supporters.
Some good news from WI today..
New poll shows Clinton leading Sanders & Cruz ahead of Trump in Wisconsin
Posted: Apr 02, 2016 10:27 AM CDT
Dubuque, IA (WQOW) -
A new poll, released Saturday by Loras College in Dubuque, IA seems to confirm other polls that show Texas Sen. Ted Cruz comfortably ahead of Donald Trump in Wisconsin. But the same poll contradicts previous polls on the Democratic race.
The Loras poll is based on interviews with 1,000 registered Wisconsin voters, including 832 who said they will likely vote in the Tuesday primary. That number was split evenly between Republicans and Democrats (416 each).
Among Democrats, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the choice of 47 per cent, while 41 per cent said they plan to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders.
www.wqow.com/...
Wisconsin is by no means over folks. Remember how cocky Bernie was before OH because NAFTA was going to be the winning issue for him and then proceeded to getting thumped by Hillary.
I am not ready to give up Wisconsin and will be making calls up to Tuesday. Keep working to extend Hillary’s 220+ pledged delegate lead. Bernie is raising a lot of dough but does not have the lead in pledged delegates or popular vote!! What irony!!
April 3, 2016
By educatordcm
Interesting analysis from the Rachel Maddow Show in an article titled “Money From Big Oil Isn’t Always What It Appears To Be”. The information presented ran VERY CONTRARY to the information Bernie, his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters are perpetuating. I find this source very credible, as Steve Benen is an Emmy Nominated political writer for The Rachel Maddow Show and an extremely respected political journalist. Some of the highlights:
www.msnbc.com/...
For its part, the Sanders campaign highlighted the encounter and insisted that Clinton “has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal industry.” This morning, the senator himself repeated the charge, arguing, “The fact of the matter is Secretary Clinton has taken significant money from the fossil fuel industry.”
The point of the criticisms is hardly subtle: Sanders and his supporters want Democrats to see Clinton as someone who may not follow through on her energy and environmental commitments because of the money she’s received from Big Oil.
So, is that fair? Let’s unwrap this a bit.
The Washington Post published a report today, relying on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which drew an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle: technically, both Clinton and Sanders have received money from “the oil and gas industry.”
(More in link)
Rachel Maddow Show Analyzes Bernie's Claim That HILLARY Is In The Pocket Of Big Oil... It's FALSE!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/2/1509392/-Rachel-Maddow-Show-Analyzes-Bernie-s-Claim-That-HILLARY-Is-In-The-Pocket-Of-Big-Oil-It-s-FALSEBy educatordcm
Interesting analysis from the Rachel Maddow Show in an article titled “Money From Big Oil Isn’t Always What It Appears To Be”. The information presented ran VERY CONTRARY to the information Bernie, his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters are perpetuating. I find this source very credible, as Steve Benen is an Emmy Nominated political writer for The Rachel Maddow Show and an extremely respected political journalist. Some of the highlights:
www.msnbc.com/...
For its part, the Sanders campaign highlighted the encounter and insisted that Clinton “has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal industry.” This morning, the senator himself repeated the charge, arguing, “The fact of the matter is Secretary Clinton has taken significant money from the fossil fuel industry.”
The point of the criticisms is hardly subtle: Sanders and his supporters want Democrats to see Clinton as someone who may not follow through on her energy and environmental commitments because of the money she’s received from Big Oil.
So, is that fair? Let’s unwrap this a bit.
The Washington Post published a report today, relying on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which drew an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle: technically, both Clinton and Sanders have received money from “the oil and gas industry.”
The total for Clinton’s campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders’s, it’s about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer.
If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that’s counted as “oil and gas industry” money.
(More in link)
April 3, 2016
By educatordcm
Interesting analysis from the Rachel Maddow Show in an article titled “Money From Big Oil Isn’t Always What It Appears To Be”. The information presented ran VERY CONTRARY to the information Bernie, his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters are perpetuating. I find this source very credible, as Steve Benen is an Emmy Nominated political writer for The Rachel Maddow Show and an extremely respected political journalist. Some of the highlights:
www.msnbc.com/...
For its part, the Sanders campaign highlighted the encounter and insisted that Clinton “has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal industry.” This morning, the senator himself repeated the charge, arguing, “The fact of the matter is Secretary Clinton has taken significant money from the fossil fuel industry.”
The point of the criticisms is hardly subtle: Sanders and his supporters want Democrats to see Clinton as someone who may not follow through on her energy and environmental commitments because of the money she’s received from Big Oil.
So, is that fair? Let’s unwrap this a bit.
The Washington Post published a report today, relying on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which drew an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle: technically, both Clinton and Sanders have received money from “the oil and gas industry.”
(More in link)
Rachel Maddow Show Analyzes Bernie's Claim That HILLARY Is In The Pocket Of Big Oil... It's FALSE!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/2/1509392/-Rachel-Maddow-Show-Analyzes-Bernie-s-Claim-That-HILLARY-Is-In-The-Pocket-Of-Big-Oil-It-s-FALSEBy educatordcm
Interesting analysis from the Rachel Maddow Show in an article titled “Money From Big Oil Isn’t Always What It Appears To Be”. The information presented ran VERY CONTRARY to the information Bernie, his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters are perpetuating. I find this source very credible, as Steve Benen is an Emmy Nominated political writer for The Rachel Maddow Show and an extremely respected political journalist. Some of the highlights:
www.msnbc.com/...
For its part, the Sanders campaign highlighted the encounter and insisted that Clinton “has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal industry.” This morning, the senator himself repeated the charge, arguing, “The fact of the matter is Secretary Clinton has taken significant money from the fossil fuel industry.”
The point of the criticisms is hardly subtle: Sanders and his supporters want Democrats to see Clinton as someone who may not follow through on her energy and environmental commitments because of the money she’s received from Big Oil.
So, is that fair? Let’s unwrap this a bit.
The Washington Post published a report today, relying on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which drew an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle: technically, both Clinton and Sanders have received money from “the oil and gas industry.”
The total for Clinton’s campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders’s, it’s about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer.
If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that’s counted as “oil and gas industry” money.
(More in link)
April 1, 2016
by Alex Griswold
A new April Fools’ Day ad from Esurance offers the fictitious “election insurance,” promising to watch and protect your home as you flee to Canada.
The commercial claims that Esurance is the brand to go with whether your settling down or uprooting your family to move to Canada. “Because now more than ever, it’s important to have a smart policy that protects you home in the event that you decide to abandon it for the next four years,” narrates That Guy Who Played Jim Halpert.
The ad features a series of humorous vignettes from a stereotypical snob, hippie, and redneck explaining why they’re moving to Canada. “I believe it is my patriotic duty to leave this country and only return when we are back on top,” the redneck says.
“If you choose to leave the country, Esurance is not responsible for any walls erected after your departure, and assumes no legal or financial responsibility if your assets are redistributed for the greater good in your absence,” a disclaimer at the end reads.
Watch above, via YouTube.
Esurance Rolls Out ‘Election Insurance’ on April Fools’ Day to Move You to Canada
http://www.mediaite.com/online/esurance-rolls-out-election-insurance-on-april-fools-day-to-move-you-to-canada/by Alex Griswold
A new April Fools’ Day ad from Esurance offers the fictitious “election insurance,” promising to watch and protect your home as you flee to Canada.
The commercial claims that Esurance is the brand to go with whether your settling down or uprooting your family to move to Canada. “Because now more than ever, it’s important to have a smart policy that protects you home in the event that you decide to abandon it for the next four years,” narrates That Guy Who Played Jim Halpert.
The ad features a series of humorous vignettes from a stereotypical snob, hippie, and redneck explaining why they’re moving to Canada. “I believe it is my patriotic duty to leave this country and only return when we are back on top,” the redneck says.
“If you choose to leave the country, Esurance is not responsible for any walls erected after your departure, and assumes no legal or financial responsibility if your assets are redistributed for the greater good in your absence,” a disclaimer at the end reads.
Watch above, via YouTube.
March 31, 2016
A mainstream media headline about the New York primary (“Clinton Moves Goalposts Again”) is unsupported by the facts of the article.
Last July, HillaryMen warned that insidious process stories in mainstream publications constituted a risk to Hillary’s public image:
The overarching point was that these articles are more harmful because they are less obviously negative:
Eight months later, with Hillary closing in on the Democratic nomination, we get this:
Here’s what the article says:
(More in link)
ANALYSIS: A Classic Case of Casual Anti-Hillary Media Spin ("Goalpost" article BS)
http://bluenationreview.com/classic-case-of-casual-anti-hillary-media-spin/A mainstream media headline about the New York primary (“Clinton Moves Goalposts Again”) is unsupported by the facts of the article.
Last July, HillaryMen warned that insidious process stories in mainstream publications constituted a risk to Hillary’s public image:
Process stories – and the potent anti-Hillary frames they deliver – were one of the single most effective weapons against Hillary in 2008, painting a nefarious image that she was unable to alter or escape. Although Hillary is subjected to the most vitriolic language imaginable, the majority of negative coverage she endures comes in this form: a seemingly innocuous news article, editorial or blog post that manages, paragraph after paragraph, to deliver character-destroying frames.
The overarching point was that these articles are more harmful because they are less obviously negative:
To the casual reader, it may not be entirely obvious how damaging this type of reporting is for Hillary’s candidacy. But in aggregate, articles like this that appear regularly in major media outlets paint a portrait of a scheming, unprincipled politician. That portrait is often reflected back in polls and interviews – and ultimately at the ballot box.
Eight months later, with Hillary closing in on the Democratic nomination, we get this:
Here’s what the article says:
When Hillary Clinton lost the New Hampshire primary to Bernie Sanders in February, Robby Mook, her campaign manager, took the long view and declared the nomination would “very likely be won in March, not February.” The campaign is now taking an even longer view, with April now being the month they hope to put Sanders away.
(More in link)
March 31, 2016
Now John Kasich...
Is the Republican inability to eat New York Pizza with your hands a thing?
Are you kidding me?!?!
First Trump...
Now John Kasich...
Is the Republican inability to eat New York Pizza with your hands a thing?
March 31, 2016
by Tommy Christopher
Facing a close run against Bernie Sanders in upcoming primary races, former Secretary of State and current Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is beginning to show the bare knuckles of the brawler she needs be to win. Following a campaign rally at the State University of New York Purchase campus on Thursday, Greenpeace activist Eva Resnick-Day asked Hillary if she would reject donations from fossil fuel interests, and Clinton laid into her but good:
(More with video in link)
Hillary Clinton Slams Sanders Campaign ‘Lies’ in Confrontation With Activist
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-slams-sanders-campaign-lies-in-confrontation-with-activist/by Tommy Christopher
Facing a close run against Bernie Sanders in upcoming primary races, former Secretary of State and current Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is beginning to show the bare knuckles of the brawler she needs be to win. Following a campaign rally at the State University of New York Purchase campus on Thursday, Greenpeace activist Eva Resnick-Day asked Hillary if she would reject donations from fossil fuel interests, and Clinton laid into her but good:
(More with video in link)
March 31, 2016
By teacherken
Today’s New York Times has a pointed column by Charles M. Blow written in response to the now well known recent remarks by Susan Sarandon, a highly visible surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nominee.
It is column that should be read by ALL partisans during this Democratic primary season, even as its occasion is in response to a Sanders supporter.
Blow certainly takes Sarandon directly to task with these words:
But his point is far broader than that, and is expressed succinctly in this part of his column:
(Rest in link)
Charles M. Blow: "Bernie or Bust" is Bonkers
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/31/1508408/-Charles-M-Blow-Bernie-or-Bust-is-BonkersBy teacherken
Today’s New York Times has a pointed column by Charles M. Blow written in response to the now well known recent remarks by Susan Sarandon, a highly visible surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nominee.
It is column that should be read by ALL partisans during this Democratic primary season, even as its occasion is in response to a Sanders supporter.
Blow certainly takes Sarandon directly to task with these words:
The comments smacked of petulance and privilege
No member of an American minority group — whether ethnic, racial, queer-identified, immigrant, refugee or poor — would (or should) assume the luxury of uttering such an imbecile phrase, filled with lust for doom.
But his point is far broader than that, and is expressed succinctly in this part of his column:
Be absolutely clear: While there are meaningful differences between Clinton and Sanders, either would be a far better choice for president than any of the remaining Republican contenders, especially the demagogic real estate developer. Assisting or allowing his ascendance by electoral abstinence in order to force a “revolution” is heretical.
This position is dangerous, short-sided and self-immolating.
If Sanders wins the nomination, liberals should rally around him. If Clinton does, they should rally around her.
This is not a game. The presidency, particularly the next one, matters, and elections can be won by relatively small margins. No president has won the popular vote by more than 10 percentage points since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
(Rest in link)
March 31, 2016
By teacherken
Today’s New York Times has a pointed column by Charles M. Blow written in response to the now well known recent remarks by Susan Sarandon, a highly visible surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nominee.
It is column that should be read by ALL partisans during this Democratic primary season, even as its occasion is in response to a Sanders supporter.
Blow certainly takes Sarandon directly to task with these words:
But his point is far broader than that, and is expressed succinctly in this part of his column:
(Rest in link)
Charles M. Blow: "Bernie or Bust" is Bonkers
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/31/1508408/-Charles-M-Blow-Bernie-or-Bust-is-BonkersBy teacherken
Today’s New York Times has a pointed column by Charles M. Blow written in response to the now well known recent remarks by Susan Sarandon, a highly visible surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nominee.
It is column that should be read by ALL partisans during this Democratic primary season, even as its occasion is in response to a Sanders supporter.
Blow certainly takes Sarandon directly to task with these words:
The comments smacked of petulance and privilege
No member of an American minority group — whether ethnic, racial, queer-identified, immigrant, refugee or poor — would (or should) assume the luxury of uttering such an imbecile phrase, filled with lust for doom.
But his point is far broader than that, and is expressed succinctly in this part of his column:
Be absolutely clear: While there are meaningful differences between Clinton and Sanders, either would be a far better choice for president than any of the remaining Republican contenders, especially the demagogic real estate developer. Assisting or allowing his ascendance by electoral abstinence in order to force a “revolution” is heretical.
This position is dangerous, short-sided and self-immolating.
If Sanders wins the nomination, liberals should rally around him. If Clinton does, they should rally around her.
This is not a game. The presidency, particularly the next one, matters, and elections can be won by relatively small margins. No president has won the popular vote by more than 10 percentage points since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
(Rest in link)
March 31, 2016
by Lindsey Ellefson
The case of the “D.C. Madam” was, as Rachel Maddow reminded viewers last night, “explosive.” A woman named Deborah Palfrey was accused of operating an illegal escorting empire in the nation’s capitol, and though she insisted everything she did was legal and by the books, she couldn’t prove it because she never kept names or records of her clients. All she had was phone records and those that were released made for good news fodder but couldn’t save her from a possible prison sentence of over 50 years. She killed herself in 2008.
But there are some records that weren’t released. A court order has barred Palfrey’s former lawyer and the current custodian of the records, Montgomery Blair Sibley, from releasing those mysterious records, but Sibley has been hinting lately that he just might defy the gag order.
(More with Video in link)
D.C. Madam’s Lawyer Confirms He Has Phone Records That Could Impact Election
http://www.mediaite.com/online/d-c-madams-lawyer-confirms-to-maddow-he-has-phone-records-that-will-affect-election/by Lindsey Ellefson
The case of the “D.C. Madam” was, as Rachel Maddow reminded viewers last night, “explosive.” A woman named Deborah Palfrey was accused of operating an illegal escorting empire in the nation’s capitol, and though she insisted everything she did was legal and by the books, she couldn’t prove it because she never kept names or records of her clients. All she had was phone records and those that were released made for good news fodder but couldn’t save her from a possible prison sentence of over 50 years. She killed herself in 2008.
But there are some records that weren’t released. A court order has barred Palfrey’s former lawyer and the current custodian of the records, Montgomery Blair Sibley, from releasing those mysterious records, but Sibley has been hinting lately that he just might defy the gag order.
(More with Video in link)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jul 22, 2015, 01:19 PMNumber of posts: 1,881