Oh boy, another status quo democrat who caters to feelings instead of policy proposals.


Oh God, it's the circular firing squad!
Ready, aim, .......
It was a nice democracy while it lasted.


Has Merriam Webster added ship as it's properly used nowadays?


Dotard's tweeted reply... "Welcome to the race sleepy Joe."

"Sleepy!?" Is that really gonna be his pejorative #hashtagable nickname!?! Fuckin' lame. Was really expecting him to go with "Handsy" or some other (sort of, actually) funny play on the VP's creeper reputation. Sure, he'd be throwing rocks from the most egregiously fragile of glass houses imaginable, but when has that ever stopped him before? He doesn't suffer consequences for being a hypocritical ass on a daily basis, why would it start now? What a fuckup.


@2 There is nothing circular about pointing out that Biden is part of the problem as shown by his voting record.


@4 It shows exactly what sort of idiot the Dotard is. Had he gone with something that riffed off of the accusations against Biden regarding his issues in the past with boundaries, he would have had a theme that any number of Democrats would have gladly played along with, as it would serve Democrats who oppose Biden as well. But no, the Dotard always has to work in some fake claim to machismo, so instead of the effective nickname, he goes with one he thinks flatters his ego, and makes him look more manly, when the opposite is true. Dan's right, ITMFA!


@5: Politicians, just like the citizens who elect them, have the prerogative to change their minds.


@7 Politicians, like most of us, are also opportunistic liars (with different consequences) so he is going to have to be extra specific to convince enough people to get elected given his record is worse than Clinton's (though he isn't a women, that ought to have an effect)



Duterte, wants to declare war on a Commonwealth Country?

Leopoldo Galtieri Is calling from the great beyond with an urgent message.


@1 Policies like what, convincing middle class Americans to be taxed like Europeans so they can hand it over to wasteful colleges so snooty kids can learn the "science" behind 56 genders?

Good luck with that.


Have a closer look at that circular logo.

Is he running for president or asking for a handjob?


Biden's not my first primary choice but he's ahead of most of the field. Would be happy to support him in the general.


@10 Tax the rich


@8 - A degree of cynicism can be warranted, but there's little progress without forward thinking.


@10 Tax the rich

You haven't lived in Europe have you? Once the rich are removed through high taxes, who do you think pays for all that free stuff the government rations out to the public?

Why do you think Britain, with 80% tax rates on the wealthy, and the middle class paying 50% in just income tax (plus VAT and local taxes), ran out of money in 1976 and went to the IMF "cap in hand"?



You know, I’m not anti-Joe. I just think his logo is kinda funny, because it’s hard to see the lines forming the ‘E’, and the big blue JO looks kinda like an ad for Steamworks.

Look, I’m a Bernie guy. If not Bernie, then Warren. Or Warren/Sanders. I don’t hate on Biden, I just prefer more progressive policies positions, that’s all. I’d love to get drunk with Biden. As POTUS, though? That’s totally different than liking somebody. If you want to sit in the Big Chair, I kinda want you to be solidly on the Left


Vulfpeck is killer. Thanks for sharing!


Short of the ghost of Andrew Jackson, I’d support any Democrat next year against Trump.


@14 "forward thinking" doesn't exactly come to mind when discussing an anti-Trump pro status quo candidate even if he is leading in the polls


@20: I was talking generically. I'm not for any of the candidates yet.


@21 really? I have already eliminated all the charlatans ignoring the environmental crises or just paying lip service to them.


@20 and anyone else: Unless you're nuts, we all want trump out of office ASAP. I'm curious, what in America's history makes you think that a left-leaning(not left-center, but left) presidential candidate can win in this country? This country is center right, mostly, with occasional shifts to center-left. We're talking 250+ years of history.


@22: So you're the supreme arbiter of what the most important issue is and which candidate we should support?



Even the US can't win over sewage, the Philippines think they can stop Canada's dirty diapers?

Get in line.

pro tip: Send it to Alberta labeled "tar sands infill material" postage due.



"I'm curious, what in America's history makes you think that a left-leaning(not left-center, but left) presidential candidate can win in this country?"

How about the guy who, governing from The Left, so Popular (elected to Prez FOUR fucking TIMES) that terrified RepubliCons made it ILLEGAL for ANY Prez to serve more than two terms?

The guy who most likely saved Capitalism from it's rapacious and bottomeless greed --
saved it from ITSELF.

Is that a decent enough Example?


I like all of the candidates but I don't love any of the candidates.
The good, strong candidates (Warren, Sanders, Biden) are just too damn old.


@26 Roosevelt was center/center left. And the last two times he was elected had more to do with continuity of the war effort. Term limits amendment was bipartisan because it's a constitutional amendment, the change was not republican dominated. Ike was so center it isn't even funny.

So no, it isn't a decent enough example. Even Jimmy Carter was center-left too.


@27 There was a report out that the majority, over 65% if I remember, of the democratic voting base is over the age of 60. I imagine the people over the age of 60 don't mind if their candidate is around their age. They probably prefer it.

When young people turn out to vote in as a consistently high % as older voters, then they can make assertions about a candidate being this or that. In the meantime, we'll go with who can beat trump.


@23 Well, first of all, the mother of all environmental crisis doesn't care about 250 yrs of history. Or perhaps it does in terms of how little time it took us to spew millions of years of earth carbon storage into the atmosphere and the oceans. Just something to keep in mind.

Otherwise, I disagree about the US being center right. Today, from taxation to just about anything, the public overwhelmingly supports left wing ideas. 80% of the public declare that politicians are in it for themselves and the wealthy. There is a widespread institutional crisis that has been affecting public trust in congress, the press, the president, the courts for years just as inequality has reached historical levels; clearly times are changing and likely favorable to motivating some of the 45% disenfranchised non voters into action (mostly poor people) like Obama started to do in 2008.

In 2016, Democrats ran a "moderate" who took large sums of money from Wall Street in the wake of the 2008 financial market collapse. Turnout was low enough to allow Trump to sneak through as usual helped by cheating in critical places. What makes you think that running Clinton 2.0 (but male) is not a greater risk than running a populist progressive candidate with whom most everybody agrees on policy at a time when conditions are screaming for change?

It's also not true to state that the left has never been an electoral threat. The left was electorally viable until the 20's. The New Deal largely resulted from left wing ideas. The second part of the 20th century started with the cold war and McCarthysim which effectively purged the left from public politics in the US. Younger generations don't have the same relationship to these events. Bernie's 2016 campaign was the first obvious sign that It's a new ball game.



The very first federal election I voted for was for Bill Clinton's first term in office in the general election. I did so because he was billed as the young candidate, and to be fair, Perot and Bush both appeared a bit senile. However, his policies were very Right wing- DOMA, DADT, TANFF, the Crime Bill. He even interrupted his campaign to fly back to Little Rock to supervise the execution of a prisoner so mentally ill that, when offered his last meal, set the desert aside for later. The prisoner has the IQ of a house plant, but Clinton had to kill him. Monica Lewinsky was a young, inexperienced lady whom he sexually harassed in the Oval Office and then abused his power relationship with her to induce sex. She wasn't really in a position to say no, and today, we would be accusing Clinton of rape. At the time, however, Lewinsky was portrayed as a she-devil, a seductress, a bimbo, and worse. For decades after the affair came to light, she struggled to find work. Bill Clinton, however, was portrayed as the innocent victim of her 'feminine wiles'.

The point of all this is, voting for someone just because they're young our charismatic or even attractive alone is foolish. Its their policies that matter. You should ask yourself, after their term is over, will I be pleased with how they ran things, or disgusted?


@28 I think that it's fair to say that Roosevelt governed from the Left, especially during his first two terms. Your larger point is still accurate. Roosevelt is the only example of a President Lefty - and that's debatable and almost a century ago.


@28 Roosevelt implemented a left wing program. His rightwing political opponents called him a class traitor. The right wing and the wealthy have worked for 70 years to dismantle his programs.

Jimmy Carter was a neoliberal who implemented austerity and deregulation. He largely developed his center felt profile after his presidency.


@30 We all get it. What you're articulating is an argument of what should be. You're using logic and reasoned arguments to make your point. That's great and something to work towards. My point is this country is conservative at it's core, and always has been, and may always be. So electing anyone who isn't middle of the road is always going to be an uphill battle in this country. It's why there is so much social unrest right now, because the country and it's politics have shifted too far in one direction. We were built on compromise, and that is the only way we'll move forward, whether you think that is good or bad, it's just reality.


@24 only a fool who doesn't listen to scientists would think the environment isn't the most critical issue today


@33 "The right wing and the wealthy have worked for 70 years to dismantle his programs"
This is indisputable.
FDR was a Democrat who at different times during his life would have been bashed by members of the Democratic Party as not one of them. Politics then and now is never so clear as textbook history.


@34 The frontier and the low population density was the safety valve for much socio-economic strife until the early 20th century. The physical frontier and the safety valve it represneted is no more. After WW2, peace at home was enabled by great internal growth thanks to access to cheap natural resources here and dominance abroad. Cheap oil is now gone and since capital has no borders, good jobs and the US middle class have been vanishing. Things are very different now, which will produce very different results.



At the time, however, Lewinsky was portrayed; by Hillary, 'Champion of All Women!"; as a she-devil, a seductress, a bimbo, and worse.


Our civilization will implode from social collapse long before the climate comes to get you...


@29- I may be an outlier but I am close in age to the senior candidates and I think it is a liability.
Like it or not, the mass introduction of computers and cell phone technology which really took hold in the '90's fundamentally re-shaped our world.
Those of us who came of age in a prior era will always be struggling to adapt, it will always be a second language to us.
This is so across a broad range of issues from economics to education, trade,family life, social life, culture.
To illustrate I would contrast the nimbleness with which Obama adapted and communicated his policies to those advanced by the three candidates in question. They seem more rigid in their thinking, but maybe that's me.
The 20th Century is a hard place to leave.


Biden: a bit bland and shopworn, but certainly better than Trump. No need to especially praise Biden, but it's unfair to attack and snidely dismiss him. He did a credible job as vice-president, and his televised debates against his Republican counterparts in 2008 and 2012 helped Obama. Too much knee-jerk negativity in Seattle; yes, Biden is far from ideal, but give him a chance. I'd take him any day over Trump.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.