The people in Bernie's campaign know he needs to appeal to the Obama voting bloc that went Trump and/or those that didn't show up that find Gabbard and Yang appealing. Given that there is already an emotional bifurcation between HRC haters and Bernie, and the DNCsenfranchised Bernie Bro of yesteryear 2016 now populates those camps, he needs to recover their support as a "ranked choice" game-theory rational selection. Thus, he is capitalizing on this moment when Hillary unceremoniously thrust herself back on the national stage using intentional demagoguery along well-understood lines of Cold War division, regardless of specificity [i.e. everyone from south of the border is a 'Mexican' trope]), to swing the pendulum back in his locus of control. Moreover, he is using this opportunity to pander to the disenfranchised military and public that are disillusioned with Trump and looking for honorable American states-people to trust and believe in.

If the reality TV media wants to change the channel to something interesting and relevant, they can cast Duchess Katniss Crowley over here in the real life Hunger Games as an indigenous woman fleeing the amphetamine-fueled assault rifle raids and inhuman torture, rape, and wanton murder, child in tow, in a derelict caravan hunted on all sides by human traffickers, predators, and military police. Then after the first season she could miraculously make it to the Rio Grande after as many adventures and struggles for survival as Everdeen herself, only to make it to the shores of relative safety and have her child snatched from her and trundled off to one of a million detention facilities to curb the 21-day rule, indefinitely, to fill rooms with freezing snot-nosed flesh and maximize head counts and supervised by needle-wielding skinhead molesters. That ought to make great television, brought to you by Stephen Miller and Pepperidge Farm and PTSD (AKA Spider Sense).

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/what-mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-understand-about-free-expression,

@2 That's all fine as far as it goes, but have you considered switching to decaf after 2pm?

Chase is an Amazon shill once again, Baby!

There are too many frigging streaming services. I spent a bit of time the other day exploring them all and they are legion and growing in number. There are only so many hours in the day to watch all of this shit. And subscribing to only two makes some of them as expensive as subscribing to Xfinity.

I expect the steaming service cashing and burning will begin soon, and when it's all over Xfinity and Direct TV will be occupying the catbird seat by virtue of their expensive sports packages, People love and want sports packages no matter how high the cost and who's offering them..

As for the streaming services, they all carry some pretty questionable content. After all the raving about Fleabag and Mrs. Maisel, when I finally watched them I was surprised how over-rated and tedious they both are. Ditto for The Handmaid's Tale.

All of these services seem to be hoping to find a niche to target, but there's only so many niches to go around. Meanwhile the only reliably profitable niche was and still is sports programming.

Sitka & Spruce had run its course. It had a damn good run for any restaurant anywhere in the US and now its run is over. Restaurants are low margin, high turnover businesses even at their most successful. It's infinitely more rare to see a restaurant stay in operation for decades than it is to see one close after only one or two years (or even less).

Any restaurant that can't or won't adapt its business model to changes in wholesale costs or the prevailing wage is going to fail. In fact, any business that can't adapt its model to changes in operating costs or the prevailing wage isn't long for the world either.

Time to let go of Sitka & Spruce and stop trying to use it as political fodder. Unless it's owners/operators are willing to open the books to us, they can make any claims they want about why the restaurant closed. But we don't have to believe them presenting hard evidence.

Correction to @4 "But we don't have to believe them WITHOUT THEM presenting hard evidence."

Marty Byrde could balance Netflix's books.

This Beto vs Mayor Pete vs Bernie vs Hillary vs Biden narrative is wearing thin.
Can we PLEASE have a gubment that is not as corrupt as Hell!?

@9 I'd imagine Hell would be a marvel of efficient top-down management, with little if any room for corruption.

Sanders, not content with saddling us with Trump for four years, embraces yet another conspiracy spewing Third Party candidate to hurl us into 8 years of Trump-pocalypse.

@3. Your suggestion is well-received and sustained.

@8 https://youtu.be/4uuoyKKcAwU [QEPD]

@8: While it reasonable to debate the impact of Obama-Trump voters, it is inaccurate to say that there were none of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters

I'm a Russian troll and so is my wife!

@14: What's her avatar/handle?

@15 Don't be creepin', raindrop.

Particularly don't creep on nerd movie references, that's like three strikes already.

@16: Our democracy is at stake! But yeah. Two Russian trolls in the same household though. They probably don't get out that much.

Maybe the real Russian assets were the friends we made on the journey.

Russia is a toilet country with an economy the size of Italy, mostly because a small group of people skim any and all wealth off the top, so it would make sense that this sort of cyber stuff is the kind of warfare they would like to engage in.

And I don't understand why what Clinton said is so inexcusable, and should be dismissed out of hand. I don't care if Gabbard was in the military. Lots of people in the military are creeps, and a there's a long history of soldiers being turncoats. It's time we stop fetishizing the military. Gabbard's a creep, in uniform or in civilian clothes.

Besides, maybe Clinton was referring to Marianne Williamson, who seems about as dippy as Jill Stein.

@19: Extraordinary claims made without any shred of even circumstantial evidence should always be dismissed out of hand. Especially when the person claiming it has been hilariously calling everyone who looks at them funny a Russian sleeper agent for about three years now.

Not so much a sleeper agent as a useful idiot.

@15,

Brian

"The Democratic Party is rotten and horrible" is a peculiar foundation on which to build a campaign for the Democratic nomination for President.

What else is there to say about Tulsi Gabbard?

@20 -- Clinton said that Russians are encouraging a Democratic candidate to run as an independent. That is hardly an extraordinary claim. We know the Russians meddled in our elections before. Facebook has evidence that they did it again (they were praising Trump and attacking Biden). It seems quite reasonable that they would do something similar, and encourage a Democratic candidate to run as an independent.

Gabbard made two stupid assumptions. First, that it was her (and only her) that the Russians were helping. Second, that Clinton implied that she was in cahoots with the Russians. She never said anything like that. No one thought that. But now, since she denied something she was never accused of doing, others are jumping in.

It all could have been avoided if she had even the slightest political sense. She could have called for a full investigation. She could have reiterated her support of action designed to stop Russian meddling (all Democrats support this -- Trump does not). She could then attack Trump for being a Russian stooge. She won't work with the Russians -- she is actively trying to stop their meddling -- but Trump is their puppet. Then she should could talk about what a great soldier she is -- how her patriotism is just stronger because she wore a uniform -- and all the folks who never served could thank her for her service. Doing all that might get her a few votes.

But instead she said stupid things that reminded everyone why they never seriously considered supporting her.

@24 She is likely smart enough to know she won't win the primary AND she is being consistent in criticizing the pro-war, pro-Wall street, pro-deregulation, pro-outsourcing, pro-end of welfare as we know it, etc ad infinitum Democratic party of the Clintons, who are now enjoying their millions earned selling American workers down the river.

@19: In every circumstance, always evaluate the value of the information and how it would be received and dealt with before telling it. If it could be misinterpreted or misconstrued or causes harm to anyone, then another course of action is warranted.

Mrs. Clinton did not heed that wisdom she surely has by now.

"useful idiot"

you mean like defending Hillary Clinton, when she smears her opponent from the left as agents of Moscow?

@25 enough of the non-sequitur about Russians, we already know here will be a 3rd party candidate if Democrats run Biden/Bootygieg/Harris for president. There is nothing you can do about it, neither does Putin.

@25: You're hanging your hat on that Tulsi Gabbard was not "coy" enough to pretend that she didn't know who Hillary was talking about?

@26 So if she's not running to win, what's she up to?

People are entitled to their opinions no the Democratic Party but if you don't like the GOP, then its the only game in town. Its either the Democrats or some "heighten the contradictions" Jacobin bullshit. We make our own history, but we don't make it as we please. We do not do it under self-selected circumstances but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.

@29 - And here I thought the danger was Howard Shultz or Micheal Bloomberg running 3P if we nominated Sanders or Warren.

No matter what the Democrats do, somebody will complain.

The real threat of the troll farms is, it makes you wonder if the dude you’re talking to real, for one thing, and for another, the opposition to that is based in nationalism. There are some legitimate critiques to be made of the powers that be. Clinton did some awful shit in 2016, and it’s a sign of a healthy and functioning democracy that people criticized her for it. Many of those concerns expressed will be suspected as troll shit, even the stuff that isn’t.

Worst of all, the suspicion is based in nationalist sentiments. We don’t necessarily freak out over this because there were teams of internet geeks shitposting online in favor of one candidate over another. Any campaign worth it’s salt employs people who do that. The problem is that the shitposters were Russian as opposed to American.

I could start a troll farm here in Seattle, where everyone employed is from the US and has no foreign connections- in other words, a social media team for a political campaign. If they weren’t Slavs, and if they weren’t funded by a foreign government, even though they do the exact same thing, would you lose your shit nearly as much?

What we need is a Canadian troll farm. Something that spreads Trudeau glamour shots online, and talks about how much sexier his ass is compared to Trump’s.

@31 I don't know what she is up to. May be she feels that her anti-regime change war message is very important (I tend to agree) considering the recent and not so recent past or may be she feels that she is being useful to Sanders by adding another progressive voice to the debates (few of the candidates are truly progressive) or it's more selfish because she feels she needs exposure. Whatever the reason, there is a myriad of them before the Russian agent scenario even comes to mind.

As long as Democrats don't shed the neoliberals policies that started with Carter and ended up with inequality levels unseen in a century, they'll fail to convince enough working people of their good intentions, and it will translate into close electoral losses. The hope-change bait and switch won't work too many times in a row.

@34 Clinton never said she was an "agent" of the Russians. Clinton said she was the Putin's favorite. And this because the very posture you describe positions her perfectly to play the role of spoiler in the 2020 elections. I'll wait till pictures of her at a banquet table with Putin and Micheal Flynn to emerge before I'll call her an agent.

Your second paragraph is fantasy. Democrats consistently win the working class vote. They lose the vote of white middle class without college degrees - a demographic the NYT inexplicably characterizes as "blue collar".

I'll add that I agree with you on goals - the party is much more timid than it should be. But grand symbolic gestures are the path to ruin. Politics is the slow boring of hard boards.

@32 That is a bigger threat, which is consistent with what I am saying. But, I am also more worried about a Biden/buttygieg/Clinton2.0 candidacy failing to energize enough voters. A billionaire candidacy would split Trump's vote as well so it's not so clear how it would shake out and the difference between Biden and a Bloomberg presidency may be not so large.

@35 Clinton said that Stein was a Russian asset and inferred that Gabbard was groomed to be one soon

My second paragraph accounts for the fact that over half of working class and low income people are disenfranchised from politics and don't vote because it'd completely delusional not to do so.

"the slow boring of hard boards''

There are unfortunately moments in history when the slow boring way is not only inadequate but is certain to drive us into the wall, which explains my electoral choices. Climate change of course cannot wait even a few years but the world order also appears to be spinning out of control as if to resolve systemic problems through another set of wars.

@33 for the Justin Uber Alles win!

Don't worry, we're already here, but we're too polite to admit it.

@35 " I'll wait till pictures of her at a banquet table with Putin and Micheal Flynn to emerge before I'll call her an agent."

if a picture of people sitting at a table during a public event was all that was needed to even suggest collusion, Hillary Clinton would be accused of the worst crimes in humanity ...

"You're hanging your hat on that Tulsi Gabbard was not "coy" enough to pretend that she didn't know who Hillary was talking about?"

Nothing of the sort, although that could have been one response. Just ignore it. She didn't mention you by name, so there is no reason to respond.

Another would have been the one I mentioned. Actually say something that would win you votes. Not that hard. Call for an investigation. Take the high road. (I'm not going to repeat my entire comment, it is right there).

Both would have been way better than what she did. She sounds like a drunk picking a fight in a bar. "I know what you saaaid. I heard you! You were talkin bout me bitch!". Hard to imagine anyone thinking that a sudden, uncalled for response -- a complete misinterpretation of the what Clinton said -- is going to help her become president. It was childish. It was unprofessional. It is reminiscent of what Trump would say. I really can't think of any president other than him saying something so stupid. Seriously -- do you really think that, say, Obama would have responded that way?

if it's necessary to actually print what Clinton said:

"they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," [...]
"That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate."

anyone claiming Clinton didn't say that Stein was ALSO a Russian asset after she suggested Gabbard was being groomed by the Russian to do the same thing either has some serious ethical problem or urgently needs to take reading lessons.

@42 Gabbard has little to lose by picking a fight with Clinton. It may actually help her with some demographics who like the proud patriot vet shtick or the former martial art instructor is going to kick you ass for dragging their good name through the mud kind of routine.

Oh, Hillary should STFU too. Doesn't mean she's wrong here.