At Democratic town hall
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/opinions/cnn-democratic-town-hall-ohio-reyes/

"Sanders generally came across as prepared and amiable (yes, he faced that same old question about how he would pay for his free public college programs). Yet to a certain extent he skated by: he did not receive one question about foreign policy, an area outside his comfort zone.

For better or worse (depending on your view of him), Sanders is slowly evolving into a more traditional candidate. We saw this in the way he dodged a few specific questions entirely. When asked about how his plans for more government programs would affect middle class people, he pivoted to his familiar talking points about the need for Wall Street to pay its fair share. He's right, but the question was about the burden that would fall on regular folks.

Similarly, Misty Jordan from Radio One asked a terrific question about how a President Sanders might move his progressive agenda forward without a change in congressional power. In response, Sanders emphasized that he was attracting large numbers of new voters and that people needed to tell Congress to represent all Americans, not just the rich. Both of these statements are correct -- but Sanders did not answer the actual question."


Finally media pinpointing what we've been noticing for a while now!!???

From a Bernie Supporter:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/21/1473138/-Progressive-Praise-for-Hillary-Clinton-From-a-Bernie-Supporter

"... But I want to talk about what the Clinton campaign has done at the state and local level that deserves some progressive praise. In numerous districts around the nation, we simply have no one running or no one of merit running. How do you fix that? How do you change the landscape of the federal and state legislature?

Here’s what I can tell you: beginning last summer through today, the Hillary Clinton campaign has reached out, fairly agressively, to almost every state party near us. They have done so with resources and people who were willing to help. Those individuals weren’t just there to help Hillary, they often acted as facilitators for individuals who looked to run for US House, helping to connect potential candidates to resources, provide them connections with people in DC; and when state parties asked, the Clinton campaign was more than willing to go on the record and back them — whether they were a state she would win or not. These efforts seem small, but for state and county organizations, her campaign’s efforts to reach out and provide them human resources and infrastructure was desperately needed, and in some cases, her support of these issues in states helped decide whether or not the state would push for them.

For those who have criticized Hillary Clinton on many issues, I’d point out that it was her campaign that made real entreaties to state parties and encouraged them to become more progressive in their platform and legislative approach. Items like the Missouri Non-Discrimination Act push in Missouri? While numerous Missouri Democrats favored, pushes by partners and support through elements like the Clinton campaign showed many that they would have support, all the way up the ladder. When people knock her on LGBT issues because of something more than a decade ago, I point out that local groups will tell you her campaign had no problem reaching out to tell state legislators they believed in it and would stand for LGBT rights in the fall, which helped influence people to do the right thing.. not a decade ago, but in the last two months.

This is something that many in these areas haven’t seen in a while. Democrats have been too used to campaigns that said “don’t talk about this there, let’s not inject national into your state, etc.” and yet, when asked, at every turn, the Clinton campaign said yes. Repeatedly. To raise money for local candidates, to provide support for federal candidates, to help recruit federal candidates.

No matter who you endorse, this groundwork benefits all democrats, everywhere, including Bernie Sanders." ...

Anyone watched Bill Maher last night



Sounds like he will be voting for HRC in the General.

I'm Gay. Hillary Clinton Misspoke While Being Nice to a Dead Woman. Get Over It.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/11/hillary-clinton-misspoke-get-over-it-nancy-reagan-hiv


"I forgive Hillary Clinton, and as a gay man of color, I am not going to stand for having this one gaffe wipe out a lifetime of advocacy, fights and achievements of a strong woman. I am not going to stand for the bludgeoning of a woman who declared on the world stage that "Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights."

"First of all, while in the context of praise, Hillary Clinton was wrong to give credit to Nancy Reagan for being an advocate for HIV/AIDS causes, she was technically accurate that at one point in time - granted, when it was already too late - Nancy Reagan had some influence on this issue within the Reagan White House.

“What does seem to be true is that when the Reagan administration eventually did decide to respond to the AIDS crisis, Nancy Reagan was among the influential administration figures pushing for that decision.

”I think that she deserves credit for opening up the AIDS money,” historian Allida Black told PBS in 2011, saying that along with Koop the first lady pressed the president and the secretary of health and human services to allocate research funding to HIV/AIDS issues.

”But,” Black continued, “I could never say that without saying they never would have waited this long” if not for the perception that the disease was a problem for gay men.

In the same PBS segment, Nancy’s son, Ron Reagan, likewise portrays his mother as an important progressive force on AIDS issues inside the Reagan administration.”
— Vox.com

Did Nancy Reagan deserve praise for this late hour influence? Absolutely not, and that's where Hillary Clinton was wrong. But it's important to note that she wasn't just making it up."

"An Open Letter to All Democrats
Will you allow the right to divide and conquer us? http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45701_An_Open_Letter_to_All_Democrats


Why do I say that? Because this is a coordinated effort by the right to split and divide democrats. They are trying to rip us apart — so they can instill either lunatic Trump or Talibangical Theocratic Cruz. (Please, for a moment, think of either of those men having access to the nuclear football and the world’s strongest military.) Maybe, if their current crop of lunatics all immolate before the General, they will bring in — who knows — elder Mitt, or their pet oh-so-serious “economist” Paul Ryan.

Proof of this coordinated effort? Glad you asked. This is a tweet from July, 2015, provided by our own Curious Lurker:..."

Follow

CuriousLurker
‏@CuriousLurker
#Reminder: The #racist right CLEARLY stated last July that they'd be trolling to pit #liberals against liberals #p2

https://twitter.com/CuriousLurker/status/704685115172134912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

It is a conversation b/w Nate Silver and his colleagues ~start from the bottom go up:


http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/democratic-debate-miami-presidential-election-2016/

Snippet:

"CARL BIALIK 9:18 PM
Sanders is right that he has come a long way from early 2015, when he polled below 5 percent in many national surveys. But his progress has slowed since last fall; he pulled within about 20 points in national polling averages five months ago, and still trails by about 15 points now. Moreover, now that Clinton has stretched her delegate lead, Sanders will have to consistently beat Clinton, not just close the gap, in subsequent contests."

OMG I think I was right a lil (this morning) ab MI/Dems and Kasich!?


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/03/09/1498595/-Never-Piss-in-Someone-Else-s-Pool


"To any Michigan Hillary supporters who are crossing over to vote for Kasich as the anti-Trump because they assume she has it in the bag on the Dem side:

1. If enough of you do so, she *won't* have it in the bag.

2. Remember, MI is proportional, so even if she still wins, the margin of the win makes a difference as well.

3. Be careful what you wish for. Remember that Kasich would likely be much tougher in the general than Trump.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it anyway, just keep all of that in mind if you do so.

Note also that I'm not saying this as a slam on Bernie; if he wins the state and/or the nomination, that's fine with me and I'll support him 100%; I just want people to make sure to think through the ramifications before doing the "vote strategically" thing."

"daveweigelVerified account
‏@daveweigel
I just keep meeting Dems in MI who say Hillary has the primary locked, so they cast anti-Trump votes for Kasich."

Scott Adams the creator of Dilbert seems to think Trump is a genius clown and that is why he is so difficult to take down. He blogs a lot about Trump.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius
"On the surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate credentials to lead a country.

The only problem with my analysis is that there is an eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under the hood?

Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you. (Most of you know I am a trained hypnotist and this topic is a hobby of mine.)

For starters, Trump literally wrote the book on negotiating, called The Art of the Deal. So we know he is familiar with the finer points of persuasion. For our purposes today, persuasion, hypnosis, and negotiating all share a common set of tools, so I will conflate them.

Would Trump use his negotiation and persuasion skills in the campaign? Of course he would. And we expect him to do just that.

But where is the smoking gun of his persuasion? Where is his technique laid out for us to see.

Everywhere. "

here's more...
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/140631008436/the-conservative-con-master-persuader-series


http://blog.dilbert.com/post/140272615821/strategic-ambiguity-master-persuasion-series

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/6/on-wall-street-simple-facts-refuting-the-hillary-bought-and-sold-narrative

"......So our media focuses on obscure bits of information that help to reinforce negative stereotypes that people may already have of the candidates. Fortunately with Hillary Clinton, they have twenty-five years of smears to choose from to help add drama to an otherwise drama-free presidential primary. Since the vast majority of those smears have been proven false, the media has been forced to turn to conservative Glenn Greenwald and his Intercept website where in January it was reported that Clinton gave paid speeches to a variety of institutions including (gasp!) Wall Street banks. ....."

A lot of info in between:

"......Because saying Hillary Clinton is bought and sold by Wall Street has, and will continue to be, a direct assault on her character rather than her history. The media won't say that she wasn't influenced by Wall Street during her time as United States senator. The media won't say that Wall Street corporations aren't contributing to her 2016 campaign. They'll instead continue to promote the fictional narrative that Hillary Clinton can be bought and sold by big business. That fictional narrative serves to provide commentary for the talking heads on television and, more importantly, gives Bernie Sanders an opportunity to do something, anything, to try and make the Democratic primary competitive until the convention. If the networks can provide even a sliver of doubt regarding Hillary Clinton's eventual nomination then they will do whatever they can to place that seed of doubt into America's collective conscious.

Even if it requires constructing a completely false narrative to do so. "


Recommend: The comment section is also very enlightening.

https://www.google.com/ Click on video on google. One day I will....

or




http://www.internationalwomensday.com/

http://www.internationalwomensday.com/Pledge


International Women's Day and beyond,
I pledge to ...
help women and girls achieve their ambitions
challenge conscious and unconscious bias
call for gender-balanced leadership
value women and men's contributions equally
create inclusive, flexible cultures