When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Yes. When speaking to Bill, he will be addressed as Mr. President.

You call him Mr. President, just like you do now. For what we do when another woman gets elected President whose husband is not a former President, we'll have to wait until that happens.

Thanks, I was wondering after reading the headline of link I left earlier.

CNN actually has a better piece about the Wasserman Schultz thing. Wasserman Schultz resigning as party leader

Apparently, she was getting pressure from democratic leaders to resign.

Wonder how many heads will roll. I think the anti-Semites and religious persecution proponents should go next.

From where do you get that protocol, since we don't have a precedent?

And, surprise surprise, it will be NWS.

If anyone doesn't believe Hillary was aware of the DNC shenanigans, please come to my home for a game of poker.

Probably because if he had won the nomination, it would have meant a fair process, but be that as it may, your argument seems to be:

Sure the process was rigged, but if it was rigged in their favor they wouldn't be complaining.

Pretty cynical, don't you think?

At least you're not trying to argue it wasn't rigged. (Or are you?)

Hillary was certainly complicit in everything, but you know Clintons leave a trail of bodies in their wake.

Headline crawling across the CNN screen now: DNC IN TURMOIL ON THE EVE OF THE CONVENTION.

Wasserman Schultz demands to speak still---the building will fall on her.

No chance. DWS (who I have erroneously referred to as NWS) was the sacrifice. HRC will deny, deny, deny that she knew anything about the dirty tricks, and her drones will either believe her or not care. Should HRC win, look for DWS to get a plum position. She didn't go willingly into the dark night with a promise that insured she keeps here mouth shut.

Geez...you think?

And I guess you also believe that these same party leaders had no idea what-so-ever as to what was going on.

I don't doubt that is the plan, but Assange is not finished. Hopefully there are smoking guns on several fronts that may drastically affect the outcome of the election. Assange says he has proof of the truth about the so-called Clinton foundation.

It ain't over.

We can only hope.

Interesting comparison:

The GOP convention allowed Ted Cruz his time on the stage, knowing what he was going to say, and yet Dems and their media lapdogs saw this as incompetence.

There isn't a chance in hell that they will allow DWS speak and if she's still pushing it then being Ambassador to Bolivia didn't satisfy her.

I never thought I would say "Bravo Wikileaks"

Hacking political e-mails that only threaten political careers not lives, is a good thing though.

Hey Assange! Go after Trumps too!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/democratic-national-convention-protests-philadelphia

Protesters converge on the city where our experiment in democracy was forged to fix what has been broken.

I predict that the Dem Convention with have a hell of a lot more trouble in the streets than did the GOP convention.

Now, I suppose die-hard liberals could argue that Cleveland was a police state for that week, but they should be prepared to offer evidence.

However, the Democrats' deal to quell violence in the streets in Cleveland so it wouldn't help Trump had to involve a quid pro quo for free reign on protests in Philadelphia.

If the protests in Philly remain non-violent and contained it will be a testament to these groups and the Dems. A very good trade.

But I doubt this will be the case. In 100 degree weather there are already more demonstrators than there were in Cleveland.

They are about to reap what they have sowed.

you've got plenty of precedent of what to call former presidents - that's unlikely to change

could be interesting if there is a former and current President Clinton to introduce at an event

Hillary Clinton prefers to exacerbate tensions with Russia rather than be held accountable for her DNC staff.

What a great president she'd be. She'll throw the country's security under the bus for her own edification.

Oh, silly me. She's already done that more than once. Of course she'll do it again.

I'm touched by the civic concern being displayed here. There's not a nobler, higher motivation than when a citizen is concerned that their electoral processes are above board. I'm humbled that you deigned to take the time to ask me my opinion. Humbled, I tell you. I'm verklempt.



I think if there was malfeasance in the nomination process, there should be repercussions that fit the crimes. It appears there was high-level, biased gossip going on about how to thwart Bernie. Wasserman-Schultz should have been forced to step down, and she was. I don't think I saw anything that rises to high crimes or espionage worthy of prosecution.

Having said all that, I don't think anything that happened affected the bottom line of the voting tally. The implication seems to be "Bernie could have won if Hillary hadn't cheated". Even the most generously one-sided analysis of the nomination race - taking into consideration oddities concerning superdelegates, caucuses vs primaries, and every facet of the thing - still would have Hillary win the nomination. And that's the thing that you conservatives without a cause (or a credible candidate) and you Hillary haters seem to fail to acknowledge - Hillary won the nomination by getting the most votes - full stop.

Obviously. But none of what to call the spouse of the first female CIC - a designation that is arguably just as, or even more significant as "former president".

I get your point. But it seems like you're dismissing the "first time ever" aspects of this particular situation.