When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

I think you are reading things into my post that aren't there. "Savior" has several meanings and the one you chose was your own doing, not mine.

In any event I do find some very good things in religion (along with the inevitable other stuff) so I don't mind your characterization at all.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/07/09/chelsea-clinton-paid-speeches/

This is going to stop.

Planned Parenthood's daughter is a figurehead at the Iwoa DNC. We'll see if that's not a conflict of interest.

You feel like you need a shower after reading about the Clintons and their dirty little empire.

Planned Parenthood's daughter? Have you got a beef with Planned Parenthood?

I have a beef with the cronyism between the DNC and one of the Dem candidates, in effect freezing out my candidate.

They are positioned to swap a lot of money and votes.

Which has what to do with Planned Parenthood?

By the way, "your candidate" was an independent for all of his career until he decided to run against Clinton. I'm not enamored of Clinton, but i'm not surprised that the DNC has little regard for Sanders, who is acting opportunistically. American political parties are not as rigidly structured as political parties elsewhere in the world, so of course Sanders has the right to run as a Democrat. The DNC also has a right not to support him or to cooperate with him.

I find it suspicious, by the way, that an apparent life-long conservative has suddenly decided to support the most left-leaning candidate in American history since William Jennings Bryan. That wouldn't be because you want to see Clinton's campaign injured in the hope that a conservative Republican has a shot at beating here, would it?

It is just that. And it was, as I've said, entirely predictable. Character smears are the mode of operation and have been for a long time. It's a key characteristic of what political writers have termed, in describing the modern GOP, as "post-policy". The 62 votes to overturn Obamacare being an exemplary case in point, particularly given years of promises to lay out an alternate scheme which never appears and meanwhile, the rightwing voices make ubiquitous and false claims about the failures/destructiveness of the program. Romney's completely disingenuous statements (given his program, Romneycare) are exemplary. And so we get to Trump who, when asked what he'll do about Obamacare, responded, "I'll just get rid of it and replace it with something terrific".

In this particular case, the smear is clearly targeted at woman voters, and perhaps at young women voters most acutely. Cast doubt on Hillary's bona fides as a true representative of women's dignity. It's the standard attempt to weaken a candidate's unique or particular strength (ie Obama is recognized as a great orator worth listening to so they push the "He just reads from a teleprompter").

It is a desperate strategy but we don't know how well it will work for them. I suspect not well. I suspect it will backfire in the manner of the failed impeachment and Bill's popularity through and after that. I've just started watching the TV series Transparent (it is excellent) and couldn't help reflecting on how the sophistication of Americans in their twenties and thirties, particularly females, isn't like to be a good match for what the rightwing twits are up to.

This is something of a curiosity, isn't it.

I'm An Independent who supports Bernie Sanders.

This is a fair explanation of why I, and others, are pissed.

http://samuel-warde.com/2016/01/massive-online-backlash-after-planned-parenthood-endorses-hillary-clinton/

The DNC welcomed his candidacy. They've certainly welcomed his votes, political support, and leadership throughout the past decades They show their true colors, using him initially as a prop for Hillary to deflect accusations of coronation when it suited them, and now PP breaks historical precedent to cheat him out of a fair fight.

This is a great example of why Sanders is so popular. Cronyism has energized the dissent that's driving politics in America right now.

And PP miscalculated. Angry Americans are talking with their money to Sanders AND Planned Parenthood.

Good god, they'd have to rent out the Four Seasons for that soirée.

Just reduce the number by a couple hundred and only invite the ones he raped or assaulted.

I guess that kind of says a lot about the supporters of Bernie. A bill is passed to defund Planned Parenthood and Bernie supporters stop their donations to Planned Parenthood. Meanwhile, those the really DO care about women's rights have increased their donations.

Yes it is, and i think it is suspicious that she now claims to be an independent. I remember very well when she first arrived here having a conversation with Sofia (before she became Lash Goth, which was before she became Lash), in which she described herself as a conservative. Even an "independent conservative" would not be supporting Bernie Sanders, who might in fact be described as more left-leaning than William Jennings Bryan. That would make him the most left leaning candidate in American history--to have a shot at a major party nomination. (I don't want to hear about Eugene Debs.)

Talking about what Sanders has done over the last decade is disingenuous. He was not a "Democrat" until 2015. Furthermore, a conservative bashing Planned Parenthood is no surprise, no matter what flimsy excuse is used. Conservatives and Republicans have always hated Planned Parenthood. Hell, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., arguably the most popular Republican president in history, called Margaret Sanger a race traitor for advocating birth control. (You need lots of little white babies to take up the White Man's Burden.)

I'm not convinced by Lash, and i don't think she's being honest here.

Many people had upped donations until the unprecedented pre-primary endorsement.

They're playing politics. They are absorbing the result. They need to retract the endorsement until after the primary to re-open the flow of $.

Not an uncommon gambit, as you of course know. The PUMA/Clintons4McCain was mostly a GOP dirty tricks endeavor (Clintons4Mcain domain name was registered by the GOP - which a smart Wired reporter discovered). Lots of sites and myspace pages were inter-linked and there were few better places to find racist imagery (Obama as African primitive with bone through his hair or nose).

And we've all read a thousand posts around the internet beginning "I was life-long Democrat until...".

Another worthwhile column from Dan Balz on the internecine battle going on in the GOP presently. Here's a sentence fragment I find quite lovely...
http://wapo.st/1nbawnU
Edit: the bad news in this piece arrives at the end...

I'll speak to this once again in case you're sincere, and not just attempting to discredit opinions you don't like.

I was always more socially liberal than most people I know, so that part of me is the same.

A statement was posed, I think here, that caused me a great deal of re-evaluation. It centered on the moral emptiness or self-deception of being socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Ultimately, I had to agree. That one realization cleared a distinctly new path that I'm still exploring.

Btw I never hid my screen names. One change was simply because I forgot my password. If records about these things are kept, I asked mgmt if I could have my Sofia moniker back. I immediately informed the membership when I got back in. The other name change was due to me showing my ass to Robert and making a dramatic exit...and sheepishly trying to sneak back in through a window.

So, if you're actually interested in the truth, that's it. I'm an active Sanders supporter. If you're pretending to doubt my veracity to somehow score points against what I say, it might feel good for you and those here who can't bear divergent opinions, but it makes no matter to me.

I didn't claim that you were tyying to hide your identity. I'm also not trying to "score points" with anyone here. You must have been asleep over the last 12 years if you think i've ever done that. As it appears that you've taken offense, and are now trying to strike back at me, i won't waste any more time responding to you. I continue to doubt your honesty in this matter--one can support Sanders without lashing out at the Clintons.

Well, I tried to speak carefully as not to seem personally pissed, but you basically accused me of lying about supporting Bernie.

I apologize for the "scoring points" remark, but I have no other ideas as to why you'd point to iterations of my screen name.

Anyway, I hope my apology matters to you. It is sincere.

I don't want to get into a fight. Thank you for your apology. I'll quote a phrase my grandmother often used: "You think your way, and i'll think mine."

I've been a student of Bill Kristol for quite a few years now. He's commonly defined and dismissed as the dude who gets everything wrong in his predictions. Lots of valid reasons to define him that way. But I think that's only peripherally interesting. He gets so much wrong because he doesn't really care about predicting outcomes accurately. His game (aside from the neocon "Israel can do no wrong" support) is to create/foster a story or narrative which he trusts might steer things in a direction he favors. He is a propagandist and that role has little interest in being right or accurate.

His goal, always, is forwarding the electoral hopes of Republicans. And one hat he wears to this end is cheerleader. When things are looking bad for the GOP or when some big negative emerges, Bill is there to cheer his side up. This is a pattern I've seen over and over again. Here's a rather perfect example presently up on the Weekly Standard...
http://tws.io/1nbeb5f

But if you watch him closely as I do, you'll see periods where things look so undeniably crappy for the GOP and his goals, that Bill gets very evidently depressed. In those cases, he disappears for a time. No columns, no appearances. He just doesn't want to be seen in public in such a state.

And that's one of the reasons I attend to the guy. He's my mine canary.