How are we in the general public able to know the difference.
Especially now with the Russian influence and the GOP having lost any pretense of playing fair and embracing outright lies and smears as normal campaign procedures.

We all want the best most scandal free nominee we can find.
So examining voting records and prior statements is usually important normal vetting.
But none of us want to see our candidates skewered with falsehoods or half truths whether the source be opposing Democratic campaigns or Republican campaigns.

I no longer can discern the difference.
And who has time to try to track down the truth when negative stories come out.
And even if you did have time, what sources of information do you trust.
Are there any that are bias free.
I tend to trust the Times and the Post the most but even they have been fooled before.
I try to find the “originating” source of such stories when I can and ask who has the most to gain by exposing or leaking this story to a media outlet.
But that still won’t tell me if the story is true and if there is there any missed nuance or mitigating circumstances. Politicians and office holders make many decisions every day that have their pros and cons. We all hope they do so with the highest of intentions. Of course, not all do.

One of the reasons that I may remain undecided during the primary season until we get a nominee is that I don’t want to fall in love with one of our candidates only to see them railroaded out of the race for legitimate or illegitimate reasons.
The Trump years have just worn me down too much.
I just wish I could turn the clock ahead one year to next years DNC Convention where I can give my full support to what I hope is a ticket that has strong broad appeal amongst all of our constituencies and hasn’t been too banged up by opposing Dems, crooked Republicans, or interfering foreign entities.

This is not a slam or an accusation.
I greatly respect our former Veep and would actively support him as our nominee.
But since he announced, Ive watched a lot of his speeches, interviews, and the debate.
And I have noticed that he doesn’t speak as smoothly and as fluidly as he did when he was Veep.
It’s not a huge difference but maybe about a 10% difference.
He stumbles over his words a little more and occasionally drops word endings especially when he speaks too rapidly.
Now, maybe this is just me and I’m being way too critical.
Has anybody else that supports him noticed any difference in his delivery?

Besides, at times, my sanity, Trump has taken several good relationships from me.
BT, the land of time Before Trump, I could generally tease and jab about politics with close friends who just happened to be Republican.
But, what Trumpism has done to these people (and that they have allowed to happen to them) has either ended or severely diminished several personal friendships, both family and friends.

It’s just a whole new kind of hatred and cult worship that I can barely tolerate.

The one in July will be on CNN.
I hope they learned that 5 moderators is too much.
I would only go with two.
Either John King/Dana Bash (formerly married) because of their political experience or Don Lemon/Erin Burnett because neither takes shit from people who won’t STFU.
They wouldn’t be afraid to turn mics off when everyone starts talking over each other.
* Please CNN, no Wolf and no Anderson. They are too weak to control a two year old.

I want to see Montana Governor Steve Bullock and Rep Seth Moulton on stage.
Those that I’m already over and hope don’t show up: Swalwell, both Colorado guys, DeBlasio, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Ryan.
Marianne can hang around one more time for comic relief, read astrological charts, & spread love.

I would like to see it stated off the top that the two hours would be divided into specific topic segments such as climate change, immigration, etc. Mods should state that when candidates go off topic to change the subject, read talking points, or attack someone that their mics could be cut off.

This definitely won’t happen, but I wish they’d do it without an audience.
The bursts of applause takes up precious time and encourages the candidates to go for planned applause lines or gotcha moments.

Looking forward to the July debates.
Go Dems! Even our worst candidate is incredibly smarter and better in every way than DT.

**Oh, and one more thing. In the post debate analysis, I would love to see a focus group of undecideds give their reactions especially people in the 4 early caucus/primary states.

As you all know, I promised to come off of my undecided stance after the debates.
I know you’ve all been waiting for my announcement.
Well, I kinda sorta am.
Here’s my current Top Five:

1. Warren
1a. Harris
3. Buttigieg
4. Castro
5. Biden
(Honorable Mention: Williamson. I want her to read my aura and rub sage in my house).

Talk amongst yourself and return to your regular programming.

Did anyone else see it that way?
Swalwell couched the age question by saying its time to “pass the torch”.
It reminded me of telling a relative that they could no longer drive.
In other words, it was very awkward.

Yes, both Bernie and Biden would turn 80 during their first term.
Is that too old?
Well, it depends on the 80 year old.
Some still have a lot of energy and good cognitive skills.
Some do not.
Trump is 3-4 years younger than Bernie and Biden.
But when do you remember Trump being asked if he’s too old.

I don’t know where the line is between ageism and a legitimate question on age.
But, to me, Swalwells approach seemed a little mean and not the best way to approach it.

CNN reporting that she texted him that he did a good job in debate.
A Warren/Castro ticket sure would check a lot of boxes.
Hmmmm...

tonight and tomorrow night.
May they all perform well and represent our party strongly for the nation.