Sunday Funnies

"I am not afraid"

If you don't know what Grindr is, Mom... don't Google it.

"L'Horreur"

French President Francois Hollande vowed a “merciless” response to the deadliest attacks on the country’s soil since World War II as ISIS claimed responsibility Saturday for a coordinated assault on Paris.

A state of emergency was declared and France deployed 1,500 troops after a near-simultaneous series of explosions and shootings brought the city to a horrified standstill overnight. The death (toll was at least 120)...

French police were hunting possible accomplices of eight assailants, who attacked concert-goers, cafe diners and soccer fans in a coordinated assault targeting at least six locations in the French capital. Authorities said that seven attackers blew themselves up, while the eighth was shot by police.

Just Parisians and tourists enjoying a night out.

Islamic State claimed responsibility on Saturday for attacks that killed 127 people in Paris, saying it sent militants strapped with suicide bombing belts and carrying machine guns to various locations in the heart of the capital.

The attacks, described by France's president as an act of war, were designed to show the country would remain in danger as long as it continued its current policies, Islamic State said in a statement.

The French have been at the tip of this spear before, when the offices of cartoon satirists Charlie Hebdo were attacked in similar fashion.  Could this be swift retaliation from the drone assassination of "Jihadi John", aka Mohammed Emwazi, just a day or two ago?

There have been remarkably inappropriate responses from American politicians already.  First, Ted Cruz, who believes that the appropriate response is to kill civilians in the vicinity of IS.

We must immediately recognize that our enemy is not ‘violent extremism.’ It is the radical Islamism that has declared jihad against the west. It will not be appeased by outreach or declarations of tolerance. It will not be deterred by targeted airstrikes with zero tolerance for civilian casualties, when the terrorists have such utter disregard for innocent life.

Cruz did not specify where these airstrikes should take place or what they should be targeting.

Cruz also called for “a halt to any plans to bring refugees that may have been infiltrated by ISIS” to the United States. Previously, Cruz has misquoted U.S. intelligence officials to make the case against taking in Syrian refugees.

There is no evidence yet that any refugees were involved in the attacks. 

Then there's Republican Congressman Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.  There won't be no ferriners in his district, he's tellin' ya raght now.

If you have looked at your Twitter feed this morning, you'll see the following trending topics: #ParisAttacks, Islamic State, and ISIS, along with Stop The War, #MuslimsAreNotTerrorist, and #MakePeaceIn5Words.  Earlier, #WW3 was also trending.

I don't know what the appropriate response is so soon after this horror, but I don't think Ted Cruz or Jeff Duncan or any other Republican are ever going to have the proper one.  It seems that IS at the very least has managed to export its very radical definition of terrorism well outside the borders of Syria and Iraq, and the West's response is -- sort of like Israel's to the Palestinians -- hit 'em back harder.  We've had a few hundred years, it seems, to learn that this is probably not the best path forward.

The Democratic debate tonight will have some fresh questions.

“American leadership is put to the test,” (CBS' Steve) Capus said. “The entire world is looking to the White House. These people are vying to take over this office.”

 

“This is exactly what the president is going to have to face,” he added.

Mr. Capus said the news team had planned a different debate, but “there is no question that the emphasis changes dramatically.”

“It is the right time to ask all the related questions that come to mind,” he added. “We think we have a game plan to address a lot of the substantive and important topics.”

It will be revealing to me to see where Mr. Capus drives the bus tonight.  My prediction is that we're going to watch as Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley put on their most hawkish facade and talk tough, to avoid being called doves by the thuggish GOP (which will happen, even if Hillary Clinton threatens to turn the western Syrian desert into glass, trust me). 

There's a larger national conversation that it feels like we ought to be having.

Do we bomb or do we talk?  If we talk, do we talk about what influenced and radicalized, from the beginning, the people who carried out the bombings and beheadings and killings?  Or are they just too crazy to talk to and we keep on droning them until they're all dead.  (Except they won't be; there's always a fresh generation provoked by the martyring who wants to 'get some payback', too.)

Update: If you want to better understand this dilemma straight from the horses' mouths -- i.e., every living CIA director -- then start there with the second page of the report on drone assassinations, and then back up and read how Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. got it wrong in 2001.  (The documentary will air at the end of this month on Showtime.  Here's the trailer.)

And when does America get hit?  Sooner, or later?  Does the guy/gal sitting in the Oval Office catch the blame if it happens on their watch?  Do we invade some country that had nothing to do with the attack because they're close by?  How about more troops on the ground, which means more flag-draped caskets, more solemn, longer Veterans Day parades, and eventually -- a couple of decades from now -- a granite monument to the fallen in DC, and other towns across the country?  How about some more torture and wiretapping of American citizens?  More VA atrocities, more homeless vets, more suicides of vets?

I've seen this movie before.  Can we rewrite the script?

Texas abortion law heads to SCOTUS

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a challenge to a Texas law that would leave the state with about 10 abortion clinics, down from more than 40. The court has not heard a major abortion case since 2007, and the new case has the potential to affect millions of women and to revise the constitutional principles governing abortion rights.

[...]

The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, No. 15-274, could provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which said states may not place undue burdens on the constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability. The court said undue burdens included “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.”

Texas legislators said that the contested provisions were needed to protect women’s health. Abortion providers responded that the regulations were expensive, unnecessary and a ruse intended to put many of them out of business.

The history:

Casey was a huge victory for abortion-rights advocates because it ended up reaffirming the constitutional right to an abortion that the court established in Roe v. Wade in 1973.

In 2007, a divided court upheld a federal law that bans an abortion procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion and opened the door to new limits on abortion.

There should be a decision handed down next spring or summer... just in time to become an issue in the presidential election.

If the Roberts Court rules against abortion providers and their patients, it could leave Texas with only ten clinics, forcing more than 75 percent of the clinics in the state to close. Mississippi will lose its only clinic, and anti-abortion lawmakers in states that have not yet passed similar requirements will no doubt be emboldened to push for them.

Abortion access nationwide quite literally hangs in the balance.

Update: The early line.

The outcome in this case is likely to come down to the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Though Kennedy typically votes with opponents of abortion, he voted to grant a temporary stay preventing Texas’s anti-abortion law from going into effect. So this case might be one of the rare cases where Kennedy determines that an abortion restriction goes too far.

More from Reuters (and many others popping into your timeline and feeds).

"How stupid are the people of Iowa?"

I'll only go so far as to say that they really don't have any business hitting leadoff in our presidential election process and leave it at that (the last two Iowa GOP caucus winners, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, debated at the little table last Tuesday).  Trump, what do you think?

"How stupid are the people of Iowa?" declared Trump during a rally at Iowa Central Community College. "How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?" For more than an hour and a half Thursday night, the billionaire real estate mogul harshly criticized not only Carson, but many of his other competitors in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.

In his free-wheeling appearance, Trump also said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is rising in the polls, was "weak like a baby, like a baby" and "not a good poker player because every time he's under pressure he starts to just profusely sweat." And he said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush didn't deserve his attention because his campaign is doing so poorly.

This is a full-blown rant.  A wall-eyed, snot-nosed hissy fit, as Juanita Jean likes to say.  Spit flying, white specks at the corner of his mouth, blood pressure humping and pumping.  Strokelandia.

 Let's make him do it again.

Trump accused Democratic front-runner Hilary Rodham Clinton, who is campaigning to be the first female president, of "playing the woman's card, big league."

But his strongest words, by far, were aimed at Carson, whose powerful life story and soft-spoken demeanor have captured the attention of many voters. Trump, once the undisputed poll leader, is now running neck-and-neck with Carson in many opinion surveys.

Trump previewed his attack line in an interview with CNN Thursday in which the businessman pointed to Carson's own descriptions of his "pathological temper" as a young man.

"That's a big problem because you don't cure that," Trump said. "That's like, you know, I could say, they say you don't cure — as an example, child molester. You don't cure these people. You don't cure the child molester." Trump also said that "pathological is a very serious disease."

Ladies and gentlemen, your front-runners for the Republican nomination to be President of the United States.  To be fair and balanced, Trump is just using Carson's own words against him.

In his book "Gifted Hands," Carson described the uncontrollable anger he felt at times while growing up in inner-city Detroit. He wrote that on one occasion he nearly punched his mother and on another he attempted to stab a friend with a knife.

"I had what I only can label a pathological temper — a disease — and this sickness controlled me, making me totally irrational," Carson said, in describing the incident with his mother. He referred to "pathological anger" again in telling about lunging at his friend, a knife blade breaking off when it hit the boy's belt buckle.

Carson's ability to overcome his anger as well as an impoverished childhood to become a world-renowned neurosurgeon has been a central chapter in his personal story. A spokesman for Carson declined to comment on Trump's remarks.

We have simply got to goad Carson into commenting, liberal media. 

During the rally Thursday night in Fort Dodge, Iowa, Trump said that Carson is "an enigma to me."

He went on to repeat the molestation analogy with his comments about pathological temper, and he questioned aspects of Carson's biography. At one point, Trump acted out the scene of Carson trying to stab his friend, lurching forward dramatically. "He lunged that knife into the stomach of his friend, but, lo and behold, it hit the belt!" Trump declared.

"Give me a break."

In "Gifted Hands," Carson describes racing to the bathroom in his house after the near-stabbing incident — and in time beginning to pray for God's help in dealing with his temper.

"During those hours alone in the bathroom, something happened to me," he wrote. "God heard my deep cries of anguish. A feeling of lightness flowed over me, and I knew a change of heart had taken place. I felt different. I was different."

In questioning Carson's religious awakening, Trump said in Fort Dodge that Carson went into the bathroom and came out, "and now he's religious."

"And the people of Iowa believe him. Give me a break. Give me a break. It doesn't happen that way," Trump said. "Don't be fools."

Despite what I have said repeatedly about polls, I'm anxious to see what they reveal about a week or two from now.  This feels like a turning point for a couple of candidates.   The conservative Borg has been completely unpredictable to this point, but a settling-out of the real lunacy of Trump and Carson to the regular loons of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio is somewhat overdue.

Watching, and waiting.

Update:

Will Donald Trump’s epic meltdown in Iowa — which has been widely ridiculed by the political classes today — have any impact on his long-term chances?

There is a great deal of chatter about how Trump may have fatally damaged himself by calling the voters of Iowa “stupid” for believing Ben Carson’s redemption tales. But as David Kurtz and Brian Beutler point out, this is just more of the same from Trump, who has built his entire candidacy on calling out mass stupidity and vowing to roll over it to get things done. Voters may just acquiesce to this as another part of the show, the way audiences submit to, and even laugh along with, a stand-up comic who is brutally ridiculing them.

But this meltdown represents something much greater than merely a cringeworthy spectacle. In a way Trump’s rambling monologue amounts to an indictment of the fundamental stupidity and arbitrariness of American politics in general. And as such, we may look back at this moment and see it in a different light, as crossing from sheer buffoonery into a semi-poignant glimpse into the foibles of human vanity. That’s because the stupidity and arbitrariness that Trump rages at here are the reasons why Trump himself has held the lead for so long, perhaps persuading him that he has an actual shot at being president. And so, whether he knows this or not, Trump is railing at the same forces that elevated him — and, he seems to sense, may be deserting him. They may not end up deserting him — perhaps Trump will be the nominee, though I highly doubt it — but he seems to sense that they just might.

Stop saying 'Vote for Hillary because of the Supreme Court'

H.A. Goodman is back on the point, this time slaying blinders-wearing Clintonites for their shitty rationales.  And he's taking a lot of incoming.  Because it is pissing them off so much -- and you should know by now how much I'm enjoying that -- I'm going to pile on.

He begins with my biggest beefs against her: inevitability polls and perpetual war.

First and foremost, the latest unscientific poll out of Western Illinois University has Bernie Sanders winning the presidency. Therefore, if polls are gospel, we’ll have a Democrat in the White House who plans on fixing the structural issues plaguing Wall Street and the U.S. economy. With Sanders, we’ll have an honest attempt at breaking up “Too Big to Fail” banks, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and tackling wealth inequality. Perhaps one reason WIU predicts Sanders winning the presidency is that Vermont’s senator has more than 1 million online donors who’ve funded his campaign. No need for prison lobbyists, like his challenger Hillary Clinton, and no need for a super PAC.

Once again: I don't place much faith in year-away polling, and the WIU poll is more than little screwy.  Take a look at their electoral map (click it to big it).  Note that the GOPer Sanders is defeating is named Bush, a tenuous proposition as we read and write today.

Would that it could be so: South Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and both Dakotas are all blue.  Stranger still, Illinois, Maryland, and Hawaii are red.  This makes Ted look reasonable by comparison.

Now that the crack pipe has been hidden away...

Also, one great thing about a Sanders presidency is that Americans will be able to trust a person who never had to evolve toward progressive stances on war, foreign policy, Wall Street and environmental issues like Keystone XL. While critics haven’t let me evolve from one article on Rand Paul (written from a purely progressive outlook on ending perpetual war, please read the actual article), supporters of the former secretary of state are very comfortable with her evolution on a number of topics. Naturally, Clinton supporters aren’t concerned with perpetual wars.

According to one conservative historian in the New York Times, Clinton’s foreign policy can easily be deemed “neocon”:

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

When a conservative historian known for neoconservative views says Clinton’s foreign policy is “something that might have been called neocon,” it’s safe to say her foreign policy will be hawkish. In addition, another New York Times article states that neocons are “aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.”

Yes, Clinton will have something close to a neoconservative foreign policy, and if you don’t believe me, trust the neocons who approve of her views on war and international relations. Or, you can just read Hillary Clinton’s book review of Henry Kissinger’s “World Order.”

This is all dead solid perfect.  Perpetual war was the topic of my Blog Action Day post, if you recall, and Shadowproof follows up today with "Introducing the Next Cold War".  Hint: Same as the last one, except more expensive.  I don't believe it's going to be all that cold.  The latest headlines, in fact, demonstrate it's pretty hot already.

But the macro-meme is, as you might have guessed, Clinton's trust issues.  Add them up.

With Clinton, poor judgment is referred to as a regrettable mistake. Owning a personal server was a “mistake,” voting for the Iraq War was a “mistake,” she “wasn’t raised” to envision gay marriage, and now opposes the TPP based upon “What I know about it, as of today.”

Generally, poor decision-making is addressed as an honest error, then acknowledged wholeheartedly, while supporters find every way to justify the flip-flop. Accountability is a foreign concept to the Clinton campaign and any reasoned critique is met with“You sound like a Republican!” Even accepting $100,000 from Donald Trump is simply part of Washington politics.

Hillary Clinton has evolved on war, gay marriage, Keystone XL, the TPP, in addition to marijuana legislation, and her supporters believe this is a good thing. All human beings evolve, therefore politicians who do the same must be doing so for altruistic reasons. For the rest of America, 57 percent of voters nationwide find Clinton to be “not honest and trustworthy.”

Finally there's the whole money thing.

Luckily, Clinton has made up for this deficit in trustworthiness by stating she’ll no longer accept money from prison lobbyists.

This is a relief since four of her top five donors since 1999 are investment banks and there are questions about foreign donors to her foundation. Nonetheless, in the eyes of supporters, a Democrat is always better than a Republican, even if Politico labels Clinton to be Wall St. Republicans’ dark secret.

We dare not vote based upon principle, since only the political power Hillary Clinton is said to possess protects us from Trump, if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination. Granted, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton, but we can’t rock the boat for fear of a Trump presidency if Clinton is the nominee.

Republicans are the enemy, says the thought process bolstering the Clinton campaign, therefore accepting money from prison lobbyists and Wall Street is part of the game.

There’s a reason Hillary Clinton waited almost three weeks to address the death of Michael Brown and the Ferguson protests. Sadly, part of this reason could be prison lobbyists.

Goodman's got a lot more, including taking down the tiresome 'SCOTUS' argument.  This one has been easy since November of 2000 -- remember, Gore didn't drop his challenge until December --and was brought to us by none other than Jim Hightower.

Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader. 

And as you've been reminded several times, that was only the third best reason Gore lost.  Why did so many declared Democrats ignore Barbra Streisand's plea and vote Republican (not Green, mind you)?  Can we call them stupid, or is the argument simply too complex for low information and infrequently-voting, semi-sorta Dems to comprehend?  Whatever it is, it's a problem Democrats alone need to solve.

So please finish Goodman's latest, and either nod your head ruefully as the scales fall from your eyes, or grind your teeth and curse the people who fit the definition of the word 'progressive' as your enemy.  Goodman's fail, however and again, is suggesting a write-in for Sanders.  Those votes don't count in Texas unless you're a "qualified write-in candidate", according to the Texas Election Code.

You will have the best progressive option on the Texas ballot listed on the Green line, and by voting for Jill Stein you also send a message that Democrats don't hold the title to your vote.  Getting them to understand that is Job One for this cycle.

Time not well spent

The wife really wanted to watch the debate (she doesn't follow things as closely as I do and still gets a good laugh out of the batshit crazy things they say) so I endured an overload of Republican smegma last night, and am feeling slightly hung over today as a result.  (No drinking games; I just don't tolerate stupid as well as I used to).

The high point of the evening for me was Ted Cruz doing his best Rick Perry imitation.

Four years ago, Texas Gov. Rick Perry famously blew up his presidential campaign when he was unable during a Republican presidential debate to name the three federal departments he wanted to eliminate. In Tuesday’s Republican debate, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz set a slightly higher bar for himself, promising to eliminate five federal agencies. He only managed to name four of them.

In answer to a question about his economic plan, Cruz mentioned “five major agencies that I would eliminate: the IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce and HUD.” 

Obviously, Cruz doesn’t like the Department of Commerce, but it hardly seems fair to count it twice. Still, what might have been an epic “Oops” moment passed largely unnoticed. 

Not on Twitter it didn't.

Why can't Texas Republicans count?  Is it because of what they've done for years to our textbooks, with the right-wing freaks elected to the State Board of Education?  The consensus seems to be that this didn't ding him; in fact the chatter again is that he and Marco Rubio helped themselves once more, while Jeb did not.  Trump and Carson, the co-leaders didn't hurt themselves; Carly Fiorina managed to be both victim to Trump's misogyny and Cruella DeVille again, John Kasich got mixed reviews, and Rand Paul was all but invisible again.  Kid's table for him next time, I'm predicting.  The little table was also stiflingly boring, even with Piyush Jundal going for everybody's throat.  The largest target of his rants was Christie, naturally.

It was nice to see that the mods' first question acknowledged the protests outside the Milwaukee venue, about raising the minimum wage.  Nobody on the stage said that it should be, of course, and their reasons for not doing so failed the fact-checking tests.  Trump actually said "wages are too high".

To use the bad-haired bloviator's word against him, I'm tired of these losers constantly preening, pandering, prattling and prevaricating.  (Yes, I know; avoid alliteration always.  Sometimes I just can't help myself.)

Update: Ana Marie Cox's review is best.

It's Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein. Period. *Update*

Describes me to a T.

According to CBS News, an alarming percentage of Democrats either won't vote for Hillary Clinton or would only support her nomination to prevent a Republican from winning.

The poll cited there is a month old, which means it was taken before the first Dem debate, and while Joe Biden was still considered a quasi-candidate.  So it's a little salty.

When under half of Democrats would "enthusiastically support" Clinton and 27% would only do so "because she is the nominee," even Democrats planning to vote for the former Secretary of State hold reservations.

Then there are 14% who will not support her in a general election; this figure could easily increase. Also, not only will a sizable percentage of Democrats refuse to vote for Clinton, but 57% of Americans find Clinton "not honest and trustworthy."

In addition, Clinton's negative favorability ratings in 9 out of 10 national polls make her unelectable as a candidate in a general election.

I'm not Ted, who graphs and posts a different poll every single day to reinforce his support of Clinton.  I don't trust the polls generally -- neither should you -- and I certainly don't trust early 'horse race' polling.  It feeds into an inevitability meme, and we saw how Bob Stein of UH essentially spun the momentum that helped Bill King into the Houston mayoral runoff.

That said, and for the sake of being a contrarian to H.A. Goodman's and my own POV, fresher polling indicates Clinton strengthened her favorability ratings following the first debate.  Goodman's (the author of the HuffPo piece linked) general premise is essentially the same as mine; irrespective of what the polling suggests, I will not be supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton in any way, shape, or form in 2016.  If Bernie Sanders isn't the Democratic nominee -- and I laid out the two main reasons why he won't be last summer -- then I'll vote for Jill Stein for president.  Goodman gives ten reasons why he'll only support Sanders and never Clinton; here's a few.

4. One candidate is the Charles Darwin of politics. The other is Bernie Sanders. Clinton always evolves; usually following Bernie's lead on issues. I wouldn't sign a contract with an "evolving" clause, nor would I want a president who continually evolves based upon reasons unknown to the average voter.

5. Presidential powers. On war and foreign policy, I want a Democrat, not a Republican. I explain this viewpoint in a recent article. Sanders is the Democrat on foreign policy, while Clinton is another Republican in 2016.

6. The TPP. Sanders has always been against the TPP. Clinton supported it 45 times, but now says she's against it. As POLITIFACT states, "It's up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but we rate Clinton's reversal as a Full Flop."

[...]

8. I want a Democrat in the White House. I don't want a moderate Republican on Wall Street, or a neocon pertaining to war.

9. The DNC needs to end its fear of being too progressive. I'll only vote for Sanders because progressive politics are mainstream. This isn't 1972 and Nixon is no longer with us, unless you equate Clinton to Richard Nixon.

10. Bernie Sanders is a "once in a lifetime candidate." Clinton represents establishment politics. If you're not voting for Sanders in 2016, don't ever again complain about Wall Street, perpetual wars, or money in politics.

Americans need a choice in our democracy. 43% of American voters are independent, so allegiance towards political party is quickly becoming a thing of the past. I want an honest progressive, not a Republican...  [...]  Bernie Sanders will win the presidency in 2016 because there are millions of people like me, and I'll no longer be intimidated by the phrase, "You can't let a Republican win!" 

Goodman, with many of the best rationales detailed, overlooks voting for Stein as a protest vote when Sanders is shoved out of contention; IMHO a glaring lack of a 'what if' option and a critical error.  The threat of voting for someone other than no one in 2016 is the only threat the Democratic Party will take seriously.  If Sanders supporters who can't be sheepdogged in behind Clinton go back to sleep, then yes, the 2016 election is over already.

Movements in this century will be built not only when authority figures take protests seriously, but when the threat involves direct action.  That what "Sanders or Stein" is all about: a direct threat to the two-party system.  It needs to happen in order to shake up the system.  That's what Bernie Sanders represents to me, and that's why I sent him another contribution last week.

But I also contributed to Plan B, in the same amount, at the same time.  Because those two options work best for me, and because eventually we're only going to have one of them.  YMMV.

Update: Here's the kind of ad hominem that's being generated in response.  I actually agree with Allen Clifton that H. A. Goodman is a rather bad writer and perhaps even worse at online research, as noted at the very top of this post.  But Clinton supporters just aren't going to be able to insult their way to helping her win the White House.  They should focus on convincing the irregular D voter, independents, and the mass of unregistered to start doing their civic duty rather than drive away those of us who are more likely to help them down the ballot.

Democrats are only capable of winning state and county elections in presidential years; they typically lose them the rest of the time because their base has ebbed away for a variety of reasons, mostly presumptive.  The remaining core of conservative Dems who are trying to drag Hillary across the finish line would do better with their efforts spent elsewhere, politically speaking.  Like Al Gore in 2000, she will win or lose based on her own merits or demerits.

I still believe she can thrash any Republican she's matched against, but only if she inspires people of color and women and young people in the way that Obama did in 2008.  There's both positive and negative evidence to that strategy as we take stock today, so her campaign has lots of work to do.  It would help if they stopped trying to persuade us she's progressive or even liberal.

That's a dead horse for all but the least of critically thinking voters.