lying for political gain, Democrat or otherwise. Peace to you,brother.

Are you trying to be civil? Your all caps "BROTHER" I interpreted it as uncivil and disrespectful. I hope I am wrong. Hence my question. I have no beef with you personally and I cannot remember ever being disrespectful to you. Please don't get my thread locked. My posted opinion comes from the heart. I have tried to be civil in referring to Annie Oakley and Carcetti previously, but they took the gloves off at the debate and I will not sit by while sleazy lies are told about a man who has served the people all his life.

Now to your point as I understand it. Hillary is not electable in my view. Too many ethical problems, too much baggage. She will energize the GOP base. In contrast, Bernie will take votes from the Republicans. All kinds of GOP veterans, populists and people who admire integrity will cross the aisle and vote for Bernie. In addition, Bernie will get a much higher turnout to the polls than Annie Oakley. Nobody but Democrats will turn out to vote for her.

that IF Hillary is the candidate, IF, that we must ALL work for her and vote for her because of the tremendous horror show that would be visited upon us if anyone from the other side won.

I am a Bernie supporter, but the instant he is out of the picture, if he is, you wont be able to stop me from protecting Women, Gay people, Black voters, the environment, workplace safety, air, water, common sense, etc., all certain victims of a teaparty agenda.

I think I have some appreciation for your anger. If I understand your worldview, it is different from mine.

I take it that you believe there is hope for the planet (i.e. that it will be habitable in 100 years) if Hillary is elected. I don't believe that. Even if she is elected (I think her chances of winning the GE are not very good, certainly not as good as Bernie's), her record is one of trepidatious, incremental change. If she follows that pattern, the planet will die.

Surely you believe that these times are geologically unprecedented and desperate? That is what the scientists are telling us.

Bernie's record is one of bold action, particularly as an executive (mayor of Burlington). He has that transformative quality we desperately need. It may already be too late, no scientist knows for sure. But my worldview impels me to do everything I can to change the world so that I can have great-grandchildren who will die of natural causes rather than ecological holocaust. That starts with electing Bernie and declaring a war on atmospheric carbon.

First I am old enough to appreciate that I can be wrong. I just hope to goddess that the scientists are wrong as well. Where there is life, there is hope. That is my mantra.

Whether I pull the lever for Annie Oakley is irrelevant. The GOP has won the presidential election since 1964 in my state. I am currently working to get Bernie Sanders candidates in every Congressional district in my state, so that Bernie will have an energized Congress to pass his platform. In the nightmare scenario (in my world view) in which Bernie is not in the White House, I honestly don't know what I'll do. I am consumed by helping to make it happen and don't think about alternatives.

Finally, it is my turn to take umbrage. I have marched and fought for a woman's right to choose. I live in a state where one abortion provider has already been murdered by a white terrorist. All other providers in my state are under death threat as far as I know. So I find your imputation offensive. But I understand that you are passionate, as am I. So I am willing to let it go. Peace to you, brother.

Thankfully, I'm invested 65% in non dollar sovereign and corporate bond mutual funds. I did this rhe day after we invaded Iraq. So if Bernie or a Tea Partier wins the election, I'll be covered.

That's how long it's been since a Democrat won a presidential election here, too. It's why I felt safe voting for Nader (gasp!) in 2000. From what I've heard from my Democratic friends here this time around, most of them are Bernie supporters, with a few exceptions. I think he would do much better in Alaska than Hillary would, but we're only three electoral votes, so I'm sure no one cares how we vote here.

She won't help us. She'll maintain the status quo, dutifully feed the coffers of her big contributors, and throw empty rhetorical marshmallows at the hoi polloi -- that's you and me.

We need fundamental change. We need to put the people's legitimate interests at the forefront again. We need to reverse Reaganomics -- break up the big banks, the near-monopoly corporations -- including media companies -- return to pre-Reagan tax rates, revise NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc. to reward domestic manufacturing, reinstitute Glass-Steagall...

and I'm sure you could finish my sentence as, so far, I respect your intelligence.

On Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:21 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I will always bash sleazebags
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=684998

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling any of our Democratic Candidates "sleazebags" goes over the top.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:35 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seriously? Oh how I yearn for the day when I get called to serve on a jury and the alert isn't some thin-skinned horse shit. Stop abusing the jury system!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Neither personal, nor hurtful, nor over-the-top. "Sleazebag" is commonplace when discussing politics in America.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Maybe should have alerted on the OP. THIS post is fine.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an opinion. Feel free to disagree with it. Not to mention that I don't think this alert would have been made had the comment been directed at Chafee or Webb, since I have seen several similar comments about them recently.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

But I have been outraged from the moment I heard that pander lie. I leaped out of my chair yelling at the TV. I was ready to whup Carcetti's ass. OK, I'm old and fat... but I would have had a puncher's chance in the first round!

I've been wanting to post that for over a day, but too busy with campaign work.

Seriously though, I appreciate the heads up. I am not intimidated. If they backing those two candidates can't handle the truth, then maybe they should shop for a candidate with integrity. I've got mine.

... that when Hillary wins the nomination, the Republicans will have established a direct pipeline to Democratic Underground. Fresh ideas and all that.💩

.... and looks like Democratic Underground very well could be a direct source for it. Thanks.

Pretty good. I believe you only had to reach about 40 miles for that.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, is Bernie Sanders tough enough on guns?

CLINTON: No, not at all. I think that we have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence. This has gone on too long and it's time the entire country stood up against the NRA. The majority of our country...

(APPLAUSE)

... supports background checks, and even the majority of gun owners do.

Senator Sanders did vote five times against the Brady bill. Since it was passed, more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented. He also did vote, as he said, for this immunity provision. I voted against it. I was in the Senate at the same time. It wasn't that complicated to me. It was pretty straightforward to me that he was going to give immunity to the only industry in America. Everybody else has to be accountable, but not the gun manufacturers. And we need to stand up and say: Enough of that. We're not going to let it continue....

O'MALLEY: And we did it by leading with principle, not by pandering to the NRA and backing down to the NRA.

...(APPLAUSE) Nothing wrong with what she said. It's a debate. Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen. You seem to lack a confidence in your candidate's ability to defend himself against what you(not Bernie) perceive as a scurrilous attack. Your over the top commentary comes off as more angry desperation as opposed to even handed opinion. You're angry, and you hate Hillary Clinton. We get it. Nuff said.

Nothing wrong with Clintonian innuendo. Nothing wrong with implying Bernie panders to the NRA when they loathe him.

I have every confidence in my candidate. I suspect he will be more forceful in decrying their sleazy tactics in the next debate. I hope he calls them out on the innuendo, lies and exploiting gun violence victims for political gain. The irony here is that Annie Oakley has never shot straight.

Oh, I'm angry all right. The debate and spin cycle demonstrated how hard it will be to overthrow the Clinton-Bush Establishment duopoly. But the people will get it done! I don't hate Annie Oakley, but I hate her chameleon-style politics and her puppet masters.

And we're going to kick their sorry asses out of the kitchen!

... we have a right to debate the merits of the candidates on a political forum. And that no one should try to prevent others from exercising that right.

...your definition of "debate" is quite different than mine.

Bernie was cowering.....he didn't know what hit him.

His response about urban/rural made no sense.

Didn't we just have a mass shooting in rural Oregon?

to his knowing lie about pandering to the NRA? Shame on Carcetti!

Carcetti is a liar and sleazy and ethically way beneath Bernie.

Btw, do you know why Bernie voted against Brady?

He looks down at his notes on occasion. Why be befuddled when your opponent is lying through his teeth?

Does that mean you'll have no objection to similar substitutions, such as Annie Oakley and Camp Weathervane?

I've never used any of those terms to refer to Secretary Clinton. Perhaps, though, a descent to that level would be justified if I find myself responding to a post of yours.

Of course, another alternative is that we could all express differences of opinion, even heated ones, while maintaining some minimal standard of civil discourse.

Or just me?

He did it multiple times.

He's made his decision that he'll disparage O'Malley and Clinton this way. I know where he stands, and I disagree.

You've made your decision that the tactic is OK as to O'Malley. Because you are (IIRC) a Clinton supporter, that raises the obvious question of how you feel about the "Annie Oakley" tag. If you say that it's unacceptable to talk about a former Secretary of State (your candidate) that way, but you're perfectly OK with talking about a former Governor (not your candidate) that way, then that answers my question.

engage in kindergarten tactics, when he dubbed HRC "Annie Oakley?" Yes or no?

I realize that, on DU (especially during primary season), nuance usually goes nowhere, but let me try.

Citing Clinton's remarks about her own history with guns and deriding that particular story with a one-time metaphor of calling her "Annie Oakley" -- no, that's not a kindergarten tactic.

Substituting the phrase for a candidate's name in all contexts -- yes, that is a kindergarten tactic.

Obama did the first. You're doing the second.

ETA: Having written the above, I now see your recent post clarifying your position on gun control and admitting error with regard to the history. Although I still believe that your disparagements of Clinton and O'Malley are inappropriate, I am impressed that, when it came to a matter of substance, you showed notable integrity in responding to the information another member provided. Thank you for that contribution to the dialog here.

We'll just have to disagree about the grade level of my use of monikers. They both crossed the line with a lie and innuendo about the NRA. They are both acting at an ethical level far below Bernie's, imo.

"Annie Oakley" is a reference to HRC's chronic shifting of positions for political advantage. She was for gun control, then she was against it, now she's for it again, all out of political convenience. She is a chameleon.

"Carcetti" is a reference to a liberal opportunist. His lie about Bernie in the first debate and his obscene failed attempt to exploit gun victims as political theatre, demonstrate a significant character problem and his desperation to obtain political oxygen.

They both crossed the line ethically. In the abstract, applying such appellations could indeed be considered sophomoric. In the context of a primary campaign where anything goes, ethically, they have invited derision. I am attempting to add to that derision by reminding others on this board of their low ethical standards. Derisive monikers in American politics have a history longer than the republic itself. That is my nuance in light of your "kindergarten" assertion.

which was for a mythical instant backround check. BTW thanks to the NRA insisting that guns be given to people whose backround checks are still not resolved after 3 days the Charleston shooter got his guns.

First don't give me that bullshit about the NRA. They hate Bernie and they always have and if you don't know that, you need to educate yourself. It's a Clintonian smear. Lies repeated a thousand times are still lies. They won't do to Bernie what they did to Gore, Kerry, Dean and tried to do to Obama (Annie Oakley included in some of those smears!). Repeating the big lie won't work this time.

Bernie is in favor of whatever time is needed for background checks.

The reason he voted against Brady is because it permits shop owners, without doing anything wrong, to be sued and he's against that. So am I. I wholeheartedly support an amendment to immunize shop owners who do nothing wrong.

Your post is utterly false. First, the NRA encourage its members to vote for Bernie in the first race for Congress that he won. Second, the Brady Bill had nothing, not a god damned thing, to do with suing gun stores or manufacturers. It was a back round check and waiting period. And no, Bernie most certainly wasn't in favor of whatever time was needed for back round checks. He voted against the bill because in his words the back round check should be instantaneous. And finally here is the NRA position on instant back round checks in the 1990's. http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/NRA-s-evolving-position-on-background-checks-4284397.php

I conflated a different bill on immunity with the Brady bill. You were right.

As to whether Bernie has since changed his position on a waiting period, I retract that because I can't find a source to corroborate that claim.

I charged that your post was absolutely false and I was wrong. I mistreated you and for that, I apologize.

Having said that, I stand by the OP completely. Bernie has never pandered to the NRA and they hate him. They tried to use him in 1990, thinking they could discard him in 1992.

I also stand by the first paragraph of post 67. The NRA hates Bernie. Hence his D- rating. The association of Bernie with the NRA is a Clintonian smear by Carcetti and AO. They are transparently attempting to use the suffering of gun victims for political gain. Annie Oakley has made a career of exploiting people for political gain. Connecting Bernie to the NRA is bullshit, pure and simple.

Bernie was representing a very pro-gun state. He adopted a position on Brady favored by his constituency, not because it was the NRA position. The NRA was trying to get rid of him.

I am so glad you put Chafee in the "has character" category. Everyone has been bashing his performance at the debate, and he does look like a little bit of a sweet friendly dunce, but I will always respect him for voting against the iraq war especially because he did it as a Republican. And of course now wolf over at CNN is trying to talk him into quitting the race as is senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island. The writings on the wall, he's talking about the antiwar message and everybody wants him to shut the hell up. I'm so glad he's not gonna do it.

Webb had a great moment when he decided not to smack Bernie over conscientious objector. Chafee had great moments for calling out corruption and bad judgement.

You're dead on about the pandering and demagoguery from Clinton and O'Malley.

Do you remember Will Twain?

Nope I've never been banned.

Some people have a hard time admitting when their candidate is wrong on an issue. That blind loyalty stuff can be a real problem.

Is Carcetti a liar or not?

To the exact wording "O'Malley" used? I know there was a discussion on gun control, and I know Bernie did not do a good job on it, and I also know there have been posts about the NRA helping him win an election, no sure exactly what was posted on that, but I really need a link to what was said. I don't remember him saying "you pander to the NRA", but I could be wrong.

I heard it with my own ears. Feel free to disprove it if you can.

If you do research it and find out I'm right, will you post that in reply right here?

I just don't recall the "pandering to the NRA" part. As for proof, well if I make a claim in a post about someone saying something, then "I" would provide a link to prove what I say is factual. I think we should all do that when we post. I won't waste my time trying to prove you wrong, but you really should have proof when you post. Just my opinion.

O'MALLEY: Senator, it is not about rural -- Senator, it was not about rural and urban.

SANDERS: It's exactly about rural.

O'MALLEY: Have you ever been to the Eastern Shore? Have you ever been to Western Maryland? We were able to pass this and still respect the hunting traditions of people who live in our rural areas.

SANDERS: Governor...

O'MALLEY: And we did it by leading with principle, not by pandering to the NRA and backing down to the NRA.

SANDERS: Well, as somebody who has a D-minus voting record...

(CROSSTALK)

O'MALLEY: And I have an F from the NRA, Senator.

SANDERS: I don't think I am pandering. But you have not been in the United States Congress.

And I am truly sorry it has come to this, Ellen. My admiration for you is real. And he is still my second choice. I think if he were to win, humanity still might have a chance for survival. I can't say that about any other candidate than Bernie.

But primary politics is a contact sport and he hit below the belt, imo. Even though everything is heating up now, I truly hope we can maintain, or at the very least, eventually repair our online friendship.

and I see Martin O'Malley in no way having hit anyone below the belt.

Admiral, I have no intention to disrupt our online friendship! NO WAY! Neither will I 'hold my tongue.'

I truly value you. And I encourage you to keep calling it as you see it. Having said that, let's battle away for our sincerely chosen candidates!

The basis for my "below the belt" remark is based on his attack accusing Bernie of pandering to the NRA (see OP). Bernie has never pandered to the NRA. As far as I know he has never accepted a contribution from the NRA. Has O'Malley ever accepted money from the NRA? (Out of fondness for you alone, I refrain from using the new moniker.) Rebuttal?

they received NRA money; not for himself.

Like others here, I don't recall MO'M using 'pandering.'

Sorry, I think I win this one. Please see post # 64.

a family who had been unable to sue a gun manufacturer for injuries resulting from gun violence. They were sitting in the audience, and O'Malley attempted to showcase them during the debate, but Anderson Cooper moved on and didn't let it happen.

This was a calculated stunt intended to shame Bernie in front of a national Democratic audience. It would seem that O'Malley really wanted to deliver a body blow to the Bernie campaign with this. Bernie looked quite somber after the debate, and I wonder if it was partly due to the knife in his back. He and O'Malley had worked together to get more debates from the DNC/DWS.

I like ellen tremendously and really want to keep liking O'Malley, but this makes it more difficult. I will say that, imho, he can't possibly be as bad as Hillary. So there's that. Given the slim pickings, he's probably still my second choice.

Both said they wanted more debates, but when the O'Malley campaign approached the Sanders campaign, they would not schedule any without DNC permission. Nothing but talk.

The family was there to highlight the need for some common sense gun policy. That has been an issue for O'Malley long before Sanders had an aspirations to run for the Presidency. He passes some good legislation in Maryland. It was not an attack on Sanders. Everything in Democratic politics isn't about Sanders.

At least according to this:

Nope, Sanders campaign backed out. They didn't want to upset DWS and the DNC.

that any candidates participating in unofficial debates could not participate in the official debates. For Bernie, that would mean he wouldn't get a chance to debate Hillary.

It had nothing to do with "not wanting to upset" anyone.

I don't see this as a knife in the back. The main purpose of the debate is to explore legitimate policy differences among the Democrats. One of those is gun control. O'Malley and Sanders both want more debates, but that alliance doesn't debar either of them from disagreeing with the other.

Sanders surely knew, in doing his debate prep, that he would be criticized over gun control. I join in the common feeling that he should have handled it better. Regardless of whether you agree with that assessment, though, it's certainly legitimate for other candidates to try to hit him on that issue.

Debate without sleazy lies. Or exploiting victims for political gain.

Try to act a little bit like Bernie.

where is Bernie wrong on gun control? I have yet to hear a cogent argument in that regard. Please make one. It's off topic, but I will never run from a fact based discussion of the issues.

He opposed a mandatory waiting period for handguns, saying it should be up to the states. It was how he got elected in 1990 when the NRA put out ads against his opponent saying Sanders was the better choice.

Here is a link to the story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

While he has supported bans on assault weapons, I do believe, handguns "should" have mandatory waiting periods in every state since they are used more in violent crimes that other weapons.

“The gun groups would say to me, ‘We are going to put him in office for one term and teach Peter Smith a lesson. Then we’re going to vote [Sanders] out,’ ” Shailor said. “I said, ‘You won’t get him out.’ .?.?. He’s one of the best master politicians I’ve ever come across.”

And yes he did come back with that during their heated exchange. Now I also found this on pandering in a political sense:

Pandering (politics), the expression of one's views in a manner that appeals to voters.

Was Bernie agreeing not to vote on a mandatory waiting period in a hand gun bill at the time of his election knowing that his republican opponent was going to vote "for" it because he had changed his mind on gun issues , and knowing that the NRA was willing to run attack ads against his opponent because he was willing to vote "for" mandatory waiting period actually "pandering" to the voters? I don't know, what do you think?

You yourself said "Since then, I believe Bernie has voted for mandatory waiting periods." Why did he vote against it the first time, but not later? I would also agree that the more political power he gained has allowed him to change on different issues, but at the time I really think he was trying to get elected and he was trying to get votes, and it worked.

I still like like Bernie, and this would not stop me from voting for him if he were the nominee, but it might stop others. So I really don't think O'Malley was lying, but I see how you might think so. I think most politicians would have done the same thing in order to get elected.

Do you not understand what that means? Do you not know that the NRA hates him? Do you not understand that O'Malley lied through his teeth?

Was Bernie agreeing not to vote on a mandatory waiting period in a hand gun bill at the time of his election knowing that his republican opponent was going to vote "for" it because he had changed his mind on gun issues , and knowing that the NRA was willing to run attack ads against his opponent because he was willing to vote "for" mandatory waiting period actually "pandering" to the voters? I don't know, what do you think?

Was if he had not taken the stance against a mandatory handgun waiting period, the NRA would NOT have gone after the republican who did say he would vote on the mandatory period bill. If he did not want the NRA in his corner, he could have said he would have voted for the waiting period bill. I understand your point of view, but you don't want to see where I am coming from. He knew the NRA would attack the other guy if he took a stand against the waiting period. You think it was the smart thing to do, and I have agreed that in order to win it was smart. If it had been Hillary, or O'Malley who had done this would you still think it was OK?

I don't want to argue, you see things one way, I see them another. Like I said it would not stop me from voting for him, but it will for others, and you can bet that if he does win the nomination, the republicans will hit him hard with this.

So I carefully re-read your post and perhaps we agree on more than you realize. Is Bernie's record on gun control a wart? Yes I believe it is. Smart and necessary to get elected? Quite possibly. In view of his steady move to the left since, a possibly redeemed wart. It is the only wart on his record, so far as I know.

I probably haven't read the article in question as you have. I will try to do that. I would like to understand the dynamic there.

As to Carcetti or AO, if they had done that, I would consider it a little wart. Context: Carcetti has no other warts of which I'm aware, with the possible exception of Stop and Frisk. But that policy was at least partially condoned by the next Baltimore mayoral election. My only beef with him is ethical. He is still the only other nominee whom I could strongly endorse, unless Chafee has a charisma transplant.

Annie Oakley is another story. Her warts are innumerable and many are extremely serious. She is in serious need of major redemption for her constant shifting of positions and the consequences of various policies resulting in innocent death and human tragedy.

Now as to your assertion that the GOP would attack his 1990 gun control stance very hard, I couldn't disagree more. It's a basic violation of contemporary GE politics. I have never heard of a GOP candidate attacking a Dem on gun control *from the left*!

If that occurs, I will admit I know nothing about presidential politics!!

Sorry, but Chafee and Webb may have shown some character, but they didn't do much for their hopes of staying in the race. Now I like Bernie, and he is my second choice after O'Malley, but the gun issue is going to be their to haunt him at every debate. He did a good job in the debate, I admit that, but not on the gun issue thing. O'Malley had a right to make that comment, and Bernie really needs to find a better way to answer than coming up with the "two different" americas when it comes to guns.

I live in a rural area, and lived in larger cities when I was younger. I come from a family that hunted, as I did from the time I was old enough to get a license. I want tougher gun controls as do many people who hunt. While there is certainly more mass shootings in larger populated areas, there is no need for assault weapons in the hands of the general public. There is no need for large capacity clips. Real sportsmen know that you only get a couple of shots, and 30 round magazines for hunting is just insane.

Tougher rules are what we need, for the entire country, no matter where you live. Bernie is only hurting himself with his current defense of two Americas.

I agree that from a political point of view, Bernie needs to improve. His record on gun control is good. He has voted in favor of all the things you mention in your second paragraph.

The only issue in contention is the Brady bill. Bernie doesn't give a damn about gun manufacturers, but he does object to a mom and pop gunstore getting sued out of existence, when they did nothing wrong.

Now a question for you. Do you believe the accusation that Bernie panders to the NRA was a baldfaced lie?

One candidate hung his head in shame as Martin O'Malley made it clear that hard line pro gun policies are at fault for number of guns in society.

Bernie never hangs his head in shame. He has real character, which is lacking in Carcetti and Annie Oakley.

And, being an exceptionally good human being, he knows he can't take his off. In other words, I think he was stung by O'Malley's brazen attempt to derail his candidacy.

I have always liked O'Malley. He should have considered that for some Bernie supporters, he would have been the 2nd choice.

But I now regret sending him money last winter.

I considered the alternatives.

eom

eom

as Hillary gets going on her new gun control shtick.

So thank you, Admiral.

He didn't pander for votes, he stated his beliefs and I appreciated that honesty.

Lincoln Chafee, very honest and principled. His vote to deregulate the Banks, definitely a negative. But same goes for a majority of Dems back then.

Every politician casts a few votes they regret. But when they do it repeatedly, that's a different story.

Overall I like Chafee.

Would love to him in Bernie's Administration in some capacity.

We need HONEST people now running our government.

I like O'Malley. I watched The Wire--some of the best writing & acting. Loved that damn show.

The Wire's creator David Simon said the Carcetti character is a composite based on many political figures he observed while working as a reporter for The Baltimore Sun, I'm sure there was a little of O'Malley in there.

Tommy Carcetti, was more than just a politician, he was also a cheater. He screwed around on his wife all the time. Martin O'Malley has a nice family, you might wanna take that into consideration when you slap a label on him.

We're supposed to be adults here; doesn't seem very grown up to go around calling half our candidates names. Puts me to mind of Obummer.

I'll quit using that moniker.

Was it grown up of President Obama to dub HRC "Annie Oakley." Given her "devolution" on gun control in 2008, I thought it was effective political theatre based on the fact that Annie moved to the right on gun control in 2008.

What do you think about what President Obama did. Was it not grown up?

politicians. You have no idea what part of O'Malley's career was used for the character or how much of his career and yet you used this description:

There is no connection between O'Malley and Carcetti.

Except that David Simon said Carcetti was partially based on O'Malley. And Carcetti was a white ethnic who was elected mayor of Baltimore. And implemented a get-tough-on-crime platform in Baltimore to run for governor in Maryland. Otherwise there is no connection to O'Malley whatsoever.

Annie Oakley was not a despicable person, as far as I know. She sure loved the Second Amendment, just like HRC in 2008 when she got in touch with her inner gun nut.

I was being sarcastic. Peace to you.

It's all good!

Have a great day and a better weekend!

I never intended to be taken literally, that you had asserted no connection. Perhaps I was inartful.

Anyway, it is indeed Friday and I hope you have a great one!

But if you are referring to me, I have never embraced PUMA. I have always gotten in line after the nomination, with the exception of an institutional-racism protest vote for Nader in 1996 in California when Clinton didn't need my vote.

As a lifelong Democrat, I have swallowed hard and pulled the lever more than once.

But there is one caveat: if Bernie wins a majority of primary delegates and does not get the same treatment as President Obama in 2008, i.e. the Superdelegates must switch from Annie Oakley to Bernie, then that is a declaration of civil war and all bets are off. But I think not even DWS would have the chutzpah to try that. I don't think the Party would allow such a travesty to happen. Very unlikely.

There were so many good vibes on DU right after the debate. Hillary supporters, Sanders supporter, even O'Malley supporters were gushing over the quality of discourse compared to the Republicans. I thought we turned a corner.....until the rest of the Sanders people showed up. *sigh*

if a candidate lied straight up about AO during the debate, you would have been OK with that?

Even thought they are quite different from each other.

Goes to show people can disagree without being disagreeable.

That stuff comes out in one's actions, not one's words. Even with Chaffee's calm humble demeanor it didn't sound so great.