She isn't following anyone else just her own trail blazer route. You must be somewhat uncomfortable if you are spending lots time worrying about Hillary trying to escape Bernie.

And, as a Sanders supporter, I'm not 'worried' in the least. I do believe articles on the
primaries from major news outlets like Salon are informative for everyone, even if we don't
agree with them, so we on DU get a sense of the range of opinions and perspectives flying
around in this most unusual Primary season.

I would be worried though if Bernie was only drawing smallish tepid crowds in small venues,
and everywhere Hillary went, she was drawing five-figure crowds.

Be voting in the primary and ge for Hillary. Salon has to have headlines to draw readers, doesn't make their opinion correct as in this case.

They didn't mean Hillary is misreading the electorate...they meant she is MISLEADING them. O'Malley is on board for $15/hr minimum wage...if Hillary can't support that then she should rejoin the Republican Party.

Right now Sen. Sander is new. People are curious. It is "cool" to support him

We'll see what happens after the novelty wears off

A shot of a crowd from a national convention is easy to get. Rallies (open to the public) are different.

This one is from a rally in Ohio. est crowd: 30,000

And we know how well he did there... crowds are meaningless. Polls matter.



http://twitchy.com/2012/11/02/awesome-photos-romney-supporters-pack-rally-in-west-chester-ohio/

Not to be tedious, but the date indicates it was after he won the nomination. Wasn't there a band there as well?

Either way, Romney likely spent lots of cash on it, and it was only days away from when his people expected to win at the polls.

So, yeah, grain of salt for rally numbers, but an extravaganza for the Republican nominee isn't all that comparable to people flocking to promote the nomination of Sanders, and well over a year from the general election.

These kinds of turnouts are amazing, imo.

All I have to say to Hillary and her supporters is "please proceed" .. please keep
ignoring & dismissing that old Curmudgeon in a rumpled suit.

to win it

I just don't put much stock in crowds.

Learned my lesson when I went to a rally for Kerry. The arena was packed...the feeling was wonderful and I left sure of a victory... how could we not win, with such large and enthusiastic crowds?

(Sigh)

And now he is sitting in the WH.

combined with his charisma, his magic.

Winners can have huge crowds...so do losers.

Crowds are a poor predictor of an election outcome.

Got it. I guess you are right. A 'socialist' pulling phenomenal crowds in AZ and TX
is really no big deal.

But wait, since huge crowds are necessary, where are Hillary's again?
Did I miss something?

a candidate can draw a crowd of 30,000 and still lose...meaningless.

Now polls, that's what counts.

Bernie's running an entirely different kind of campaign, and I believe
he knows WTF he's doing. And I'm profoundly grateful that he is in
this race to win.

Oh and ON EDIT: Would you please show me a presidential candidate
who NEVER drew big crowds, but still won a Primary or General Election?
I'd like to see what you're basing your assertion that crowds are not
necessary to win a national election.

Do you?

This is what I'm talking about:

She has spent millions of dollars on staff, advertising and polling, establishing a much broader campaign at this point than any other 2016 presidential candidate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/upshot/clinton-campaign-spending-big-and-different.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

In the first three months of her presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton has assembled a massive political battleship — hiring more than 400 staff members, collecting reams of expensive polling data and tapping top-flight consultants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-burns-through-millions-as-she-assembles-a-political-battleship/2015/07/16/09794ca2-2bd6-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign spent about 40 percent of the $47 million it raised in the first quarter of this year, which translates into hundreds of hires, detailed polling statistics, and other expenses.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-millions-spent/2015/07/17/id/657697/#ixzz3gNt3Yfg9


Bernie don't need to spend no stinkin' big bucks on polling.

You do know that there's a difference between internal polling and the polls such as Gallup, Rammusen and such?

And as for your last sentence

I never said Hillary was buying-off or bribing pollsters like Gallop,
as you've tried to insinuate;what I have said, and I still saying is
Hillary is spending huge amounts of money to buy information from
polling companies, which is what conventional politicos do, always,
they keep sticking their finger in the air to see which way the wind
blows, and then tailor their messages accordingly.

This ^ is what Bernie isn't spending money on.

Because he already knows which way the wind is blowing, and
he knows where he's going & what he's doing already. Bernie
won't be swayed by either big-money or tepid focus groups,
and such.

I mention this because Bernie supporters love to draw a comparison to the '08 campaign, and put Bernie in Obama's place.

Bernie supporters love to talk about the "Clinton Machine". Guess what? Back then we also had the "Obama machine".

And it took him to victory

Given how awesomely Sanders is doing at this point in time,
his campaign must be doing few things right.

This Wall St. Journal article explains it pretty well. Bernie's got
way more going for him than huge crowds:
In This Money Race, Bernie Sanders Wins
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/17/in-this-money-race-bernie-sanders-wins/

Yeah... like in the last Dem primary.

Just one example: Obama had internal polling, Bernie "doesn't need it".

So that's why he won!

Seriously, it's still quite early. As Chaos Theory proves, one cannot predict the outcome of complicated events.


We may ALL find comfort in the fact that the Repug car is STILL a clown car.

I've been saying it over and over again, the size of the crowd is immaterial, especially early in a campaign. I'd guess many of those going to rallies 6-10 months before a primary are curiosity seekers, "let's see this guy from Vermont".

our country is in a major collapse and you think that people support Bernie because it is cool? I find that insulting and juvenile.

Bernie hit pieces such time as he actually gets to the point of being a certifiable presumptive candidate and Salon takes its orders to start putting out hit pieces on him ...

If Bernie is for real, this worm is going to turn.

The post I was responding to said this: "You must be somewhat uncomfortable if you are spending lots time
worrying about Hillary trying to escape Bernie."

As if I personally wrote the headline and was sitting around "worrying about Hillry" or some such nonsense. Generally articles I post I agree with, or agree with some parts of it, and I'll stand by that; but I'll give no credence to this kind of trivial insinuation.

even if it has taken here a long time to get there.

She's got a lot of money.

the real struggles the common person copes with day in and day out. She can identify problems but can't put out a non-corporate solution. That was very evident when Prez Clinton put her in charge of coming up with a national health care plan. When it failed they not only walked but ran away from the issue instead of going back and tackling it from a different angle.

facts:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/giving-hillary-credit-for-schip/

A bubble of no information, misinformation, fear, and deceit.

Her corporate masters will it to be so. That way, they can keep control.

If Bernie is the nominee, he will win, and the Corporations and Banksters will lose.

Bernie needs a lot of friends, in high places and low, to help implement the retaking of our government, our economy, and peace on earth.

Person. When starting out as an attorney clientele has to be established before money rolls in, she knows the struggles and is very compassionate to the needs of others. Yes, the Clinton assets has grown lots and mostly after Bill was president. As governor of Arkansas the pay was not large for sure.

once they had someone to do their dishes and babysit their children. As First Lady of Arkansas, she had staff if not a big income.

Migrant children getting an education that she went to seek them and find ways to get them in school. She hasn't forgotten the lower income workers, she has plans to help them get better salaries and opportunities. This is a talking point without factual backing.

The very idea of that poor woman having to babysit or wash dishes.

I had no idea of the struggles she endured.

what the hell is missing with some people?

Please see my reply to Thinkingabout below.

going to college and that often involved washing dishes. But I'm middle class and like Hillary I knew I wouldn't be doing it forever.

Brackets, so yes just like I did, she wasn't getting paid lots. I dont know about you but the work was hard also, made me a better person having experienced hard work and low pay.

minimum wage. Since Hillary is close to my age, I'm sure she made the same.

Have you ever cleaned the toilets of "fat ass rich white folks"? Better yet have you ever cleaned the asses of fat ass rich white folks?

Washing dishes? I'm stunned.

Thinkingabout, you really should do some "thinking" about.

But before giving you chapter and verse that she never struggled to start a practice, please, please, please share with us all where she worked "babysitting and washing dishes"? Nearly all of us women of her age did a little babysitting when we were in high school - that does not qualify as the "struggles of common person.", i.e., we spent our 50 cents an hour income on makeup or 45 rpm records. HRC grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood with a business-owning father, a stay at home Mom, and was very active in high school - I don't think she was washing dishes anywhere but in her own kitchen. But you must have had some source for your statement, so what was it?

Getting to your fictional "struggle to build up clientele" as a new attorney claim, the facts are that she got her law degree in 1973, worked for a year, sat bar exams in Arkansas and Washington, D.C., and worked for a year with Marian Wright Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/barexam.asp#21XoSHBWzfSeojGU.99 Arkansas and Washington, D.C., and worked for a year with Marian Wright Edelman's newly

As journalist Carl Bernstein chronicled in his Hillary Clinton biography A Woman in Charge, much to Hillary's disappointment she received the news later that year (1973)that although she had passed the Arkansas bar exam, she had failed the one in Washington — a piece of information that wasn't publicly revealed until thirty years later:

On November 3, 1973, the District of Columbia Bar Association notified Hillary that she had failed the bar exam. For the first time in her life, she had flamed out — spectacularly, given the expectations of others for her, and even more so on her own. Of 817 applicants, 551 of her peers had passed, most from law schools less prestigious than Yale. She kept this news hidden for the next thirty years. She never took the exam again, despite many opportunities. Her closest friends and associates were flabbergasted when she made the revelation in a single throwaway line in Living History.

As Bernstein noted, although the D.C. bar examination was "hardly one of the toughest in the nation," it was "far more difficult than the Arkansas exam."

The following year Hillary Rodham moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, where she took a position as a faculty member with the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law, and in 1977 (having married Bill Clinton in the interregnum) she joined the Rose Law Firm, where she was quickly made partner - It's good to be the wife of the state's attorney general and soon - to-be-governor!
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/barexam.asp#21XoSHBWzfSeojGU.99

"When starting out as an attorney clientele has to be established before money rolls in." Trust me on this. I'm an attorney (female) of HRC's generation. When she was hired by Edelman, the University of Arkansas law school and the Rose law firm, she was paid for her services from day one. Ya know - law students pay tuition up front; law firms keep scrupulous records for billable hours. Maybe she had to wait a week for her first paycheck - OMG! what a struggle!

I thought everyone understood the difference between starting one's own private practice and going to work for an organization/law faculty/law firm. It's not like she went to work for some cheapskate political candidate who demanded interns work for free!

I answered your question. Now you answer mine about ANY details of her working as a babysitter and/or dishwasher!

Her services. In the time before she went to work was she getting paid?

After she got her law degree [Hillary] had accepted an exciting job opportunity in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at the organization Marian Wright Edelman had recently founded, the Children's Defense Fund.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/barexam.asp#21XoSHBWzfSeojGU.99

She was never in private practice. Period! Got it? I can't believe I have to spell this out for anyone. She finished law school, she took a job which did not require admission to the bar, and after taking that job/while working for Edelman, she took a few days off and sat for 2 bar exams, failed the D.C. bar but passed the Arkansas bar. Where's the struggle you attributed to her?

[b]Now about your claims she struggled with dish washing and babysitting? Where did you get that information? Any details?

Then she started working. You are jumping to conclusions, read the post again about baby sitting and washing dishes, she baby sat as a teenager, she washed dishes before going to law school. I am surprised at the tail you think I posted, she has worked small jobs. Problem I too many people assume she and Bill have been in the 1% and do not know how the rest live, they have been there, done that and I think this is why she has compassion for others. Please do not rewrite my post.

It's quite amazing and telling that you - such a dogged HRC supporter, actually believe you can spin the reality of what you posted. I mean what you wrote is out there for the world to read, in black and white. You were mistaken/wrong and you simply cannot admit it. As I have patiently tried to explain to you, the fact is that: The only time an attorney has to "establish clientele before money rolls in" is if said attorney is a solo practitioner. That is what is called having a "private practice." What next? Do you believe a physician who receives an M.D. and signs up for a residency at a hospital has to go out and drum up clients/patients before he/she gets paid?

And you post, "I am surprised at the tail you think I posted" - heaven only knows what that is supposed to mean.

Then you give us "she babysat as a teenager, she washed dishes before going to law school."
You have no source for either of those claims. Apparently those are your very own assumptions & guesses & surmises. If she babysat while she was in high school, it would have been in her own posh, upper class neighborhood for an occasional weekend evening - in a neighbor's high end house - not exactly talking the Nanny Diaries here. And your ultimate reach - "she washed dishes before going to law school". For the umpteenth time, I ask you, where and when did she work as a dishwasher? Is your assumption based on some expectation that she had to load the dishwasher in her own home?

Face it. The world is not divided into one percenters and the rest of us. She's in the 1/10th of one percent now, but she was always in at least the top 10 percent. And that is a very privileged bubble for its inhabitants. She grew up in an extremely privileged environment - upper middle class neighborhood, Seven Sisters private college, Yale Law, went to work for Edelman, failed the DC bar, fled to Arkansas and got handed jobs as a law professor and partner at a top law firm, for which she had no experience or qualifications, other than being Bill Clinton's wife. Other than failing the D.C. bar, which fact she managed to keep hidden from even her closest friends for decades, she's led a very privileged and charmed life - there's no struggle there. Granted she suffered private pain and public humiliation due to her husband's highly publicized extra-marital activities - but that was her decision to "stand by her man". That was not struggling to survive financially. Her life in no way, shape or form equates with (from your original post 32) "she knows the struggles and is very compassionate to the needs of others."

Perhaps you don't get this because you don't know what it is to grow up in a family which is constantly struggling financially, or to struggle financially yourself as a young adult or young parent. For example, just plain regular folks struggle to get by on tight budgets and do things like rely on coupons to stretch their grocery dollars; buy second hand clothing for their kids; tailor their families' menus to what foods they find on sale; take second part-time jobs; are crushed by their student loan debts; have to tell their kids, sorry I don't have the money for you to buy a yearbook/class ring/go to the prom/go to soccer camp; spend family vacations visiting Grandma, not Disney World; run out of money at the end of a pay period and frantically search the sofa cushions for spare change for the kids' lunch money. It is frequently said of HRC that she lives in a bubble. Your undocumented musings that she once babysat or washed dishes do nothing to counter that criticism. If you want to support your candidate, stick to verifiable, believable claims in her behalf.

Oh, and I haven't even touched on your post 32 claim: "As governor of Arkansas the pay was not large for sure." How rich are you!?!?! Comparing the income of a state governor to regular folk? In addition to his pay as governor, the Clintons had free housing, free food, free transportation, as job perks. HRC had to approve the weekly menus and supervise the household staff, not shop for food or scrub her own toilet! Even with that level of income, HRC didn't choose to be Chelsea's full-time Mom/full-time first lady of Arkansas. Nope. She was a partner at a prestigious, major law firm. She & Bill have both joked that she out earned him when he was Governor. Haven't you read any of HRC's books?

I am not spinning this issue. I am not not ever been in the 1% and I know struggles. I still struggle and currently am working on a minimum wage job also of which I am not ashamed. I shop in thrift stores, struggle at the grocery store like many others. I will never be rich in assets but I do not dwell on assets or having lots of money.


Again my point is Hillary had to start out on the bottom and worked to obtain the position she has now.

Why in the world would you put down on someone in the struggle like so many others? I am not ashamed of where I am and refuse to be shamed by others.

but how can you kid yourself she started on the bottom. It's like that old joke about the rich kid born on third base and thought he hit a triple. She was born into the upper middle class with all the built in advantages that offers. I do not intend to put down anyone, including you, who has struggled financially. HRC has NEVER struggled financially. I mean, this is a woman who has always been financially secure to the point that she described herself & Bill as being "dead broke" when she had just received a $4 million dollar advance on her next book.

News reports and the biography “For Love of Politics,” by Sally Bedell Smith, provide the biggest blast at Clinton's flat broke claim by revealing that she had signed an $8 million book contract with Simon & Schuster, and won a staggering $4 million advance check upon signing the contract in December 2000. Bill Clinton also had a book deal worth $15 million.

Still, as the Clinton presidency ended, the couple bought a $2.85 million home in Washington and a $1.7 million spread in Chappaqua. And Hillary landed an $8 million advance for her book, “Living History.”

One-time advisor Dick Morris also wrote in The Hill that their (the Clintons) joint income in 2000 was $359,000. Morris said those numbers are “scarcely in the dead broke category, particularly when you consider that the Clintons had none of the normal expenses that the rest of us do, such as housing, cars, child care, insurance, electricity, landscaping, healthcare -- all covered by the taxpayers. All they had to pay for was dry cleaning, food and college tuition for Chelsea. Most people could make that work.”

he was writing. Why are you so obsessed about the Clinton's net worth and income? If you had been as successful would you feel like you deserved the fruits of your labor? I don't understand the level of jealously I see here some times. We must have lots of very unhappy people in the US. I used to think grumpy people is because they are old and grumpy and then I found there are lots of young and grumpy people who grow old and remain grumpy. I love being happy.

You're the one who brought up net worth/income/etc. I didn't. Don't project on me what is subconsciously bothering you.

I see a lot of post complaining about the 1%. Some people are able to succeed financially and I don't endeavor to "take their wealth" and give it t others.

No wonder you don't support Bernie! Are you even aware that many major corporations pay zero federal taxes. That's why they are called Corporate Welfare Queens. And the connection is that the inceased, tax free profits go right into the pockets of their one percent CEO's/Board members/major stock holders.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/corporation-tax-rate_n_4855763.html
These 26 Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax

Sanders: One out of four corporations pay no taxes

by Jon Greenberg on Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 5:58 p.m.

— Bernie Sanders on Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 in a segment of CNN's "Crossfire"
Sanders: One out of four corporations pay no taxes

The taxes paid, or not paid, by corporations is a perennial topic in Washington. There is broad agreement that the current rules should be changed but no consensus on what those changes ought to be.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., pulled out a dramatic statistic during a Sept. 24, 2013, back-and-forth with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on CNN’s Crossfire. "One out of four corporations doesn't pay a nickel in taxes," Sanders said.

The two senators were talking about federal income taxes, and we decided we should check to see if Sanders’ claim is accurate. In the context of his debate with Graham, the implication is that if it weren't for special deals in the tax code, these companies would be writing checks to the Internal Revenue Service.

Sanders' office pointed us to a Government Accountability Office study from 2008. The GAO conducts analysis for Congress. In one sense, that study found that Sanders understated the situation. For all corporations, about two-thirds, or about 1.2 million, paid no federal income taxes in 2005.

do with what I posted, gotcha, no wonder I don't support Bernie, I do not even think like this. Try rewriting someone else's post I don't need the rewrite.

Nicholas and Alexandra blithely entertaining fellow royals while the crowds gathered outside the Winter Palace didn't work out well either.

She doesn't see them as "ordinary Americans are suffering AND THAT'S A PROBLEM", she sees it as "ordinary Americans are UPSET WITH THE OLIGARCHY and that's a problem."

This colors the way one approaches the solution.

Seriously, she has lived in such a bubble her entire life - upper middle class childhood in a neighborhood described by Zillow as prestigious/country club area, private undergrad school - Wellesley, one of the Seven Sisters private colleges; Ivy law school; legal jobs courtesy of her husband's political position - believe me most law grads one year out, having passed the Arkansas bar but failed the D.C. bar exam, do not get hired as law school faculty even in Arkansas, and 2 years later are not asked to join a state's major law firm at the partner level!

by her low class relatives from the other side of the tracks.

Roger Clinton, half-brother of President Bill Clinton, was arrested in Hermosa Beach, California in February 2001 and charged with drunk driving. He avoided jail time by pleading guilty to a lesser charge. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/b-list/roger-clinton

Conviction and pardon
During his brother's presidential campaign and subsequent administration, Clinton was given the codename "Headache" by the Secret Service due to his controversial behavior.[7] In 2001, before his brother left office, Clinton was granted a presidential pardon for a 1985 cocaine possession conviction for which he had served a year in prison. The pardon allowed for the conviction to be expunged from his criminal record.[8]

THE CLINTON PARDONS: THE BROTHERS; Siblings Who Often Emerge In an Unflattering Spotlight
By TODD S. PURDUM
Published: February 23, 2001

To Hillary Clinton's White House staff, they were known wryly as ''the Brothers Rodham'': Hughie and Tony, the first lady's bearish younger siblings, the president's occasional golfing partners, frequent visitors for family celebrations and holidays.

But all too often, the news they made was grim. ''You never wanted to hear their name come up in any context other than playing golf,'' a former senior White House official said.

The unflattering headlines included Hugh's failed campaign for the United States Senate from Florida in 1994, his awkward efforts to get involved in a class action lawsuit against tobacco companies, his and Tony's effort to distribute hazelnuts in the Republic of Georgia, which collapsed in a diplomatic bungle two years ago and Tony's failed marriage to Nicole Boxer, the daughter of Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

For half a dozen former Clinton aides interviewed yesterday, word that Hugh Rodham had taken some $400,000 in fees to lobby for a presidential pardon and commutation, may have been the latest straw, but it was not particularly surprising. Nor was the news that Mr. Clinton's own younger half-brother, Roger, had lobbied for pardons, in addition to the one Mr. Clinton granted him for his own 1980's drug-trafficking conviction. ''They're all colorful,'' said Mr. Clinton's former adviser, Rahm Emanuel. ''They're all living large.''

is rarely well received..."

ad hominem.

So? That makes the ad hominem alright? It's still not addressing the opinion.

that Hillary is going to lose.
He is the one living in the bubble.

ad hominem

She just seems flat, and happy, with just being Hillary. Problem is the country needs some zing, some zap. So far the only one delivering any of that is Bernie. The old guy has more zing than anyone.

She has been meeting with people and learning first hand of issues they are experiencing. She has been laying out policies and her plan as president to work on solving some of these policies.

She'll need more than anecdotal evidence to form good policy.

But she'll have lots of stories to keep telling on the campaign trail!

Nobody is.

Listening to other peoples experiences is now first hand knowledge.

And to think I was going to lay down and die a week ago. Glad I didn't, this is just too fuckin' good.

what else would you expect from a former Walmart director.

More from OP link:

She, Bill and Barack Obama practically invented neoliberalism and remain members in good standing until proven otherwise. If your speeches are long on weepy tales of “everyday Americans” you met on the campaign trail, but short on policy prescriptions, the credit goes to David Axelrod, not Paul Krugman. If you’d raise the minimum wage but won’t say how much, you’re Mitt Romney. If you back the Trans Pacific Trade Partnership–and despite recent evasions she’s all for it–you’re fighting for capital, not labor.

Is Divernan running for President?????

Good luck with your campaign.

It's your turn. You deserve to win!

as both an elected official and staff legislative attorney! She can just damn well wait her turn!

Too bad I only read it online instead of actually on paper. I have to change our cat box.

Newspapers are bird liners, not cat litters.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Just sayin'...

...get out and only onto the newspaper or plastic sheet.

"In a piece written before the event and based on campaign backgrounders, Yglesias claims the.."

Well, well...who would have thought, that her staffers did the talking for her and the article got written BEFORE she even gave the speech.

Gee, that's some unbiased writing...not.

of the inhabitants of the earlier primary states? Perhaps she thinks her large donor contributions can buy her the nomination instead of having to go out and earn it on her own.

is gasping for air, that's for sure.

The issue of the day is “trade.” I’m amazed when economists invoke the theories of David Ricardo as if nothing’s changed in the 200 years since his passing. Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage asserted that free trade always results in a net benefit to the trading partners since each sells goods on which it enjoys a natural advantage: climate, raw materials, labor supply, etc. But when jobs cross borders in nanoseconds the advantages everyone seeks are low wages and weak governments. Somebody must tell the neoliberals this is no longer about who has the best weather to grow bananas in. In fact, it is no longer about trade. It is about whether democracy rules commerce–or commerce rules democracy. It’s a subject Sanders knows well. Clinton appears clueless.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/19/the_trap_hillary_cant_escape_her_bernie_sanders_problem_is_she_doesnt_understand_sanders_policies_are_popular_mainstream_and_the_future/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

He's right. Clinton is incapable of objectively assessing what it's like for "Jane Sixpack". The Third Way has been the Wrong Way for the Middle Class and she hasn't yet figured that out.

Thanks to climate change it will be everything but the ultra rich and connected lackeys.

If you want to find someone who hates everyone equally, just look for the investor label.