Yes. Wall Street ties are an issue for Hillary.

This is to me the heart of good - faith worries about the Clintons, stretching back to Bill's administration.

The financial firms and banks want things. Things they should not have. Things like continuing freedom to create speculative bubbles that enrich a few at the expense of many. Things like our Social Security program.

The Clintons -- and they ARE the same in this area -- have long believed Wall Street has our best interests at heart, and that we all gain by deregulating and letting them run wild. I do not think this is evil on their part, but delusion. Delusion that comes with buckets of helpful cash and support.

It is wrong-headed thinking that at bottom is no different or better than "trickle down economics," and I see no signs Hillary has moved away from it.

His god sounds terrible.

This is a critical issue for Hillary Clinton

I realize this is not a "primaries" thread, but the implicit premise in this spate of "Repealing Glass-Steagall was fine totally fine" appears to be an attempt to shield Hillary on her position that she would not reinstate it.

This is, to me, a huge, real issue for her. I voted for Bill Clinton as enthusiastically as everyone else, but to me a real failing of his approach was a belief -- which I'm sure was in good faith -- that helping Wall Street helps everyone, because everyone can invest in the stock market. The convenient corollary to this conceit is that Wall Street will rain money on you for thinking this way.

That was a mistake, and one I'd like to see Hillary recognize and correct. De-regulating the financial industry in hopes of spreading the wealth to everyone turned out to be a high-tech version of "trickle down" economics. Turns out that the rich run Wall Street in order to enrich Wall Street. The money comes, oddly enough, from the rest of us.

This is a big deal, and it encapsulates an important distinction between Clinton and other Democrats. It's not going to go away with this conceit that Bill Clinton's de-regulation binge really didn't hurt anything. It did. And we can't afford more of the same.

The backlash is already in motion.

Politifact lies continually. They are known for this.

Are people not aware of the fact "Politifact" is on a mission to lie about Democrats and liberals?

It's been this way for a while now.

MLK supported Planned Parenthood and Socialism.

RWers always seem to skip over those parts, too.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/01/20/3177871/martin-luther-king-radicalism/

Anyone and everyone doing that should STOP.

All the Democratic candidates have been affirmatively pro-civil rights, as Dems tend to be, from the start, and have also shown themselves open to hearing and meeting and working with activists. I would say Sanders has been the best, but then I give weight to his decades of civil rights activism, which no one else is under any obligation to agree with.

Not all activists are going to like all Dems. That's fine. No one is entitled to anyone's support. There may be yelling. Also fine.

But if we allow conservatives of any stripe to gin up racial strife among Democrats, based on "reactions on the Internet," and the underlying bullshit notion that liberals are the "real problem" somehow, we are all idiots.

And we're not. I think.

We'll see.

Well said. We cannot afford Clinton's "mind conservative" approach.

I think Hillary was fine as Secretary of State. I see her as a smart, sharp-elbowed lawyer, but one who fundamentally thinks the status quo is either desirable or inevitable. A conservative Dem to the core.

I was struck in recent days by very odd proposition that Sanders is a sheltered, white-culture-only Vermonter who never thought about civil rights until recently, rather than the Brooklyn-born, Chicago-educated, die-hard civil rights advocate he has been all his life. Hillary is, respectfully, not fit to carry his protest sign.

Right about the time Sanders was being arrested for protesting college housing segregation, Hillary Clinton was literally president of the College Republicans at Wellesley College, not yet having even decided whether she supported the Civil Rights Movement at all:

I have several thoughts on why Trump is still here.

I disagree with the general idea out there he's just the most outrageous, or the most right-wing.

His main attitude is contempt, largely aimed at the Republican establishment. Look at the way he's attacked Graham, McCain, and Rick Perry.

He seems to be playing on the continuing crisis within the Republican Party, where they take their support from ludicrous propositions, then get into office and focus on distributing funds to their friends (and, for some reason, trying to destroy women's right to equal pay and reproductive care).

Has he gone after any Dem that hard?

And Trump's immigration bombshell yesterday is potentially a big mess for them. He "went there" and argued for eliminating birthright citizenship -- the provision in the 14th Amendment that being born on American soil grants citizenship.

Think about that. Rightwing nativists are all het up about "anchor babies," furious that people here without proper documentation can give birth to a child who will have the full rights and privileges of an American.

Actually changing the 14th Amendment, though, is huge loser of a position. It would tear families apart. "Deport babies," as the media is characterizing it. Anyone seriously pushing it will be destroyed in a general election.

But that leaves no room to the right on immigration. Scott Walker is already dodging the issue -- he doesn't want to disagree with Trump, but he's afraid to agree.

On immigration, Trump is bringing base-pandering RW rhetoric to life in a way Republicans

a) Can't disclaim, for fear of alienating their base, but
b) Can't embrace because these ideas are insane, would destroy the economy, and ensure Republican defeat at the polls.

Something is up with this guy. I do not think he is a "plant" or anything so explicit as that. But he IS functioning to disrupt the Republican primaries, without any discernible harm to Dems.

Look at Trump's "misogyny" problem. He has said rude, crude, disrespectful things about individual women. But then he defends Planned Parenthood, points out that abortion is a sliver of what it actually does, and refuses to play ball while Huckabee and Rubio and Walker are talking about giving fetuses (but not pregnant women) full Constitutional "rights." By doing that, he is de-legitimizing the entire Republican crusade to destroy abortion rights. He doesn't subscribe to it, and he's in front.

However, whyever, for however long, Trump is PLAYING THEM.

It would a very bad idea for Donald Trump to ever be President of the United States. But I don't think that's likely in any event, and for now, I don't mind that Trump is driving the GOP bus. He's got it up on two wheels, headed for a cliff, and the rest of the party appears to be strapped to the roof rack.

Good.

It is a gold mine of hypocrisy

Remember this?

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… end of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21 . In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1 . The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.

Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,