how much work has joe biden had done?

did you see him?

okay, 1st, back during anita hill/clarence thomas - he was already more bald than he is now.

doubt me?

Image result for joe biden hill thomas

Image result for joe biden hill thomas

see that?  no hair.

now here he is from today.

Image result for joe biden debate

how many plugs has he had put in.  the photo from today is 2019.  the two before are from the late 80s.

and look at the make up on him.

he's donald trump with the ghost bags under his eyes.  they're the only parts not covered in make up.

his teeth have been improved on - including bleached - unless those are dentures.

joe is so fake.  and, clearly, so vain.

every time he spoke during the debate i heard some 1 scream 'shut up!' at the tv.  woops, that was me.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, June 27, 2019.  Democrats debate and the media wrongly hails Julian Castro who flopped in the debate and flops this morning on CNN. [The section that starts with "******" and ends with "****" was added this afternoon to this morning's snapshot.)

One debate down, one to go.  25 candidates are seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.  20 of them qualified to take part in the two debates.  Tonight's debate -- broadcast on NBC, MSNBC and TELEMUNDO -- will feature Senator Bernie Sanders, Marianne Williamson, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Kamala Harris, US House Rep Eric Swalwell, Andrew Yang, Senator Michael Bennet and South Ben Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

That will be tonight.  Last night  US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard, former US House Rep Beto O'Rourke, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Cory Booker, US House Rep Tim Ryan, former US House Rep John Delaney, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, Governor Jay Inslee and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro took the stage.

The big losers?

Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow suffered a technical glitch.  They moderated the second hour of last night's debate which included a technical glitch that caused them to go to commercial.  News anchors Jose Diaz-Balart and Lester Holt and talk show host Savannah Guthrie had handled the first hour with little problems; however talk show hosts Chuck and Rachel were not so fortunate.  As Chuck attempted to ask a question, audio from elsewhere (Chuck thought from the control room) was preventing everyone from hearing Chuck's question.

"What is happening?" a confused and nervous Rachel Maddow asked.  By contrast, Senator Amy Klobuchar was laughing at the glitch.  Chuck and Rachel rushed to commercial while NBC attempted to fix the issue.

After that?

Julian Castro came off the worst.

"If you did your homework," he snarled at Beto O'Rourke at one point.  But itwas Castro who hadn't done the homework.  I'm not referring to his position, I'm referring to his inability to express his position.  Most people did not know what the hell he was talking about.

You cannot go to an issue like immigration and start in the weeds.  This is not an issue that we speak of honestly or fully.  Regardless of your position on the subject (mine is similar to Julian's), you have to walk people through.  Julian didn't.  Many viewers were likely unsure what he was advocating for but were clear that he attacked Beto and, worse, he attacked some viewers.

If you were watching and had not invested heavily in immigration, you could not decipher the position he was indicating, his remarks to Beto also applied to you, "I think you should do your homework on this issue. If you did your homework on this issue you would know that we should repeal this section."

That was a huge mistake.  Julian failed to express his position in clear language and then he offered that insult to Beto which did not go over well with viewers because any confusion they had, per the candidate, was because they hadn't done the work required.

And backing up my point, CNN brought on Julian for a victory lap that quickly turned into an embarrassment as he was unable to calmly and clearly convey his position.  He fumbled repeatedly and gave a completely false response -- call it a lie.  This did not begin with Donald Trump, the current response to immigration.  Barack Obama was called the deporter in chief.  These are facts but Julian doesn't want to address them.  He can't explain his position clearly in a debate and even when given the opportunity to do so with a friendly interviewer, he falters.  He was so sure that he looked impressive but many may not shared that opinion.

In the debate, Julian also came close to tears and did that help anyone?  Julian's already the shortest man on the stage and it appeared Elizabeth Warren was at least as tall as Julian and maybe taller.  So the visual there deserves exploring.  Cory Booker also teared up -- while discussing shootings -- but he was tall and towering and he connected it to the personal.

CNN had Julian on this morning because he was the number one searched candidate after the debate.  That doesn't mean support for him.  However, assuming that it did, their chart showed that the second most searched was Tulsi Gabbard and the third was Beto O'Rourke.

If Julian scored so well and the searches were a result of that, it's difficult to grasp how Beto would be number three since they had the exchange.

It's also difficult to grasp how CNN and others work so hard to ignore Tulsi.  Tulsi Gabbard definitely made a strong impression in the debate.  This despite Chuck Todd's little snit-fit.

One of the most significant moments in the two hour debate was prompted by Rachel's questioning.

MADDOW: I’m going to pick up — I want to pick up this point, and I want to put this to Congressman Ryan. Today the Taliban claimed responsibility for killing two American servicemembers in Afghanistan. Leaders as disparate as President Obama and President Trump have both said that they want to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, but it isn’t over for America. Why isn’t it over? Why can’t presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?

RYAN: I appreciate that question. So I’ve been in Congress 17 years. And 12 of those years I’ve sat on the Armed Services Committee, the Defense Appropriations Committee or the Armed Services Committee.
And the lesson that I’ve learned over the years is that you have to stay engaged in these situations. Nobody likes it. It’s long. It’s tedious. But right now, we have — so I would say we must be engaged in this. We must have our State Department engaged. We must have our military engaged to the extent they need to be.
But the reality of it is, this president doesn’t even have people appointed in the State Department to deal with these things, whether we’re talking about Central America, whether we’re talking about Iran, whether we’re talking about Afghanistan. We’ve got to be completely engaged.
And here’s why, because these flare-ups distract us from the real problems in the country. If we’re getting drones shot down for $130 million, because the president is distracted, that’s $130 million that we could be spending in places like Youngstown, Ohio, or Flint, Michigan, or rebuilding — or rebuilding…

MADDOW: Congresswoman Gabbard, I’m going to give you 30 seconds, actually, to jump off what he said. He described engagement as the problem.

GABBARD: Is that what you will tell — is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you, that answer is unacceptable.
We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. We are in a place in Afghanistan where we have lost so many lives. We’ve spent so much money. Money that’s coming out of every one of our pockets, money that should be going into communities here at home, meeting the needs of the people here at home.
We are no better off in Afghanistan today than we were when this war began. This is why it’s so important to have a president and commander-in-chief who knows the cost of war and who’s ready to do the job on day one. I am ready to do that job when I walk into the Oval Office.

TODD: Listen, I’m going to go down the line — I’m going to go down — I’m going to go down — I’m going to go down the line here. You know what, you felt — you felt like she was rebutting you. Get 30 seconds, go.

RYAN: Thank you. You’re a very good man. I appreciate that.

TODD: Fair enough. I hear what you’re saying. She invoked your name.

RYAN: I would just say, I don’t want to be engaged. I wish we were spending this money in places that I’ve represented that have been completely forgotten and we were rebuilding. But the reality of it is, if the United States isn’t engaged, the Taliban will grow. And they will have bigger, bolder terrorist acts. We have got to have some presence there…

GABBARD: The Taliban was there long before we came in. They’re going to be there long before we leave.

RYAN: And they were — yeah, exactly. Well, we were.

GABBARD: We cannot keep U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan thinking that we’re going to somehow squash this Taliban that’s been there, that every other country that’s tried has failed.

RYAN: I didn’t say — I didn’t say squash them. I didn’t say squash them. When we weren’t in there, they started flying planes into our buildings. So I’m just saying right now … we have an obligation…

GABBARD: The Taliban didn’t attack us on 9/11. Al Qaida did.

RYAN: Well, I — I understand…

GABBARD: Al Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That’s why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after Al Qaida, not the Taliban.

RYAN: I understand that. The Taliban…

TODD: Go ahead, Congressman. Finish up, 10 seconds.

RYAN: The Taliban was protecting those people who were plotting against us. All I’m saying is, if we want to go into elections, and we want to say that we’ve got to withdraw from the world, that’s what President Trump is saying. We can’t. I would love for us to.

GABBARD: You know who’s protecting Al Qaida right now? It’s Saudi Arabia.

Rebecca Morin (USA TODAY) picks some winners and includes US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
Gabbard was arguably an afterthought going into Wednesday's debate.
But the Hawaii representative exceeded expectations. Her answers were clear, concise and she had palpable stage presence.
She did not shy away from addressing her past stance opposing same-sex marriage.
“There is no one in our government at any level who has the right to tell any American who they should be allowed to love or who they should be allowed to marry," she said, pointing to how some Americans could also "relate to the fact that I grew up in a socially conservative home" and "held views when I was very young that I no longer hold today."
Gabbard also had a moment when talking about foreign policy, a topic that has been controversial for the congresswoman given her views on Syrian leader Bashar al Assad.
During a heated exchanged with Ryan, Gabbard pointed out that the Taliban did not attack the World Trade Center on 9/11.
"That's why I and other people joined the military," she continued, "to go after Al Qaeda. Not the Taliban."

Tulsi scored.  And by CNN's 'metric' -- Google searches after the debate -- she really scored.  Is there a reason so many in the press refuse to give her credit for her accomplishment?

CNN noted that she mentioned her service in the military five times during the two hour debate -- and noted that with a smirk.

She's an Iraq War veteran, why shouldn't she mention it and why is CNN smirking about a woman being a veteran?

Another winner would be Amy Klobuchar who came off as someone who thought on her feet, as someone you could relate to and as someone who could make a one liner work.  Julian could learn a thing or two from her.  Senator Elizabeth Warren was largely lost in the second hour of the debate -- lost by the moderators.  She did better in the first hour where she was more of a focus.  In all, she probably did everything she needed to in order to establish her credentials.

For the most part, the candidates and the moderators zoomed in on issues that really mattered so they can all get an earned round of applause for that.

All set off between the two "***" were added at 1:30 pm same day.  We had to speak to a group first thing (8:00 AM EST) so the snapshot was rushed.  A few are asking about Elizabeth Warren in e-mails.

Warren came out strongly for Medicare For All.  That is the most popular position on one of the biggest domestic issues.  Only Mike deBlasio also came out strongly for Medicare For All.  Elizabeth talked about real solutions and talked about the country's future.  She came off forward looking and, on stage, was a leader.  The second hour focused less on her but that's fine, she'd already made a strong impression in the first hour.

Amy, a few e-mails asked about.  Since Bully Boy Bush ran in 2000, we've heard 'the one you'd most like to have a beer with.'  Did it exist before Bully Boy Bush?  It may have.  I might have missed it.  For the record, I wouldn't have had a drink with BBB (nor would I have done a line of blow with him).  But if that's a metric -- and the press has insisted it is -- Amy won that.  Near the end, she declared:

Three things to know about me. First, I listen to people and that’s how I get things done. That is my focus. I have a track record of passing over 100 bills where I’m the lead Democrat. And that is because I listened and I acted. And I think that’s important in a president. Everything else just melts away.
Secondly, I’m someone that can win and beat Donald trump. I have won every place, every race, and every time. I have won in the reddest of districts, ones that Donald Trump won by over 20 points. I can win in states like Wisconsin and Iowa and in Michigan.
And finally, yeah, I am not the establishment party candidate. I’ve got respect, but I’m not that person. I am the one that doesn’t have a political machine, that doesn’t come from money. And I don’t make all the promises that everyone up here makes.

But I can promise you this. I am going to govern with integrity. I’m going to (OFF-MIKE) I’m going to govern for you.

She was completely believable.  She was personable, she was real, she was often hard hitting and frequently funny while hitting hard.  Considering some of the press she has received, her performance may have been the biggest surprise of the night.

Tulsi?  I thought Tulsi did an excellent job.  Throughout, she did an excellent job.  Look at her first exchange, for example:

HOLT: All right, thank you. I want to put the same question to Congresswoman Gabbard. Your thoughts on equal pay?

GABBARD: First of all, let’s recognize the situation we’re in, that the American people deserve a president who will put your interests ahead of the rich and powerful. That’s not what we have right now.
I enlisted in the Army National Guard after the Al Qaida terror attacks on 9/11 so I could go after those who had attacked us on that day. I still serve as a major. I served over 16 years, deployed twice to the Middle East, and in Congress served on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Affairs for over six years.
I know the importance of our national security, as well as the terribly high cost of war. And for too long, our leaders have failed us, taking us from one regime change war to the next, leading us into a new cold war and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars and countless lives.

This insanity must end. As president, I will take your hard-earned taxpayer dollars and instead invest those dollars into serving your needs, things like health care, a green economy, good-paying jobs, protecting our environment, and so much more.

I applaud that.  I'm for equal pay.  She really didn't talk equal pay, you can argue.  But you're not going to have equal anything when all of your money goes overseas to support never-ending wars.  I thought her answer was accurate and needed.  I think the debate focused on real issues -- and I will give Savannah, Lester, Jose, Chuck and Rachel credit for that -- as noted earlier, Rachel sparked one of the best exchanges of the night with her question.  But I'd argue that Tulsi and Elizabeth both deserve credit for focusing on issues and on the really big ones.

I'd argue that Tulsi, Elizabeth and Amy all came off presidential.  I don't think the same can be said of all the men on stage.  The women did their job very well.  I might not have agreed on every position but they advocated for where they stood and did so clearly and they looked like leaders.

Of the men?

It was a very unimpressive group.

I thought Cory (whose politics I don't care for -- he's to the right of me) was surprisingly effective.  I've seen him speak but this was my first exposure to him in a debate.  I was surprised by how well he presented himself and his positions.

After him?  I'd argue Beto did well.  I thought that when I watched the debate, I thought so as we spoke to four different groups (people who will be voting in November -- will be, not likely) this morning.

The media is in love with Julian.  I'm not seeing that with the people.  We're speaking in New Hampshire.  In New Hampshire, women and men (that we spoke with) felt that Julian was rude and trying to stage conflict.

Julian doesn't have a national presence, he's short, balding, has glassy eyes and either feral teeth or baby teeth (I thought baby teeth but a number of people referred to them as feral).  Those are a lot of gaps to overcome.

Wally says I have to include something.  This is from 2005, from Ava and my "TV: Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey Reporting for Two Hours of Self-Love:"

Jessica Simpson, we can't figure out. There have been plenty of big boobed starlets over the years. But they usually didn't suffer from short legs, knobby knees, eyes set too close together and a nonexistant ass. Or at least not all four. If you're wondering why we're appraising her physical appearance, it's because what else is there? She's not a singer in the sense that she moves people with her voice and she's not racked up a lot of hit singles unless you use the term "hit single" very, very loosely. She wants to be an actress and, with her voice, pursuing other avenues is strongly advised.

One person told us she was Ann-Margaret. That's simply not true. Margaret had (and has) talent. She also had an endearing personality that wasn't village idiot of the entertainment world. Another person told us she was the new Raquel Welch. While it took time for Welch to warm up and demonstrate that there was a brain and soul inside, there's no arguing that, from the start, she was beautiful. Unless the camera catches her at exactly the most flattering angle (3/4 face, shot from above), Simpson doesn't even qualify for pretty.

We feel she's a newly discovered species, the non-star star famous because a magazine cover tells you that she is. The ultimate sign of how non-reality based our nation has gotten. A possible argument for some new creationist "theory" of non-intelligent design.

Maybe the talk about the disappointment of Dukes of Hazzard is premature? But we're told she's laughable (not in the good way and supposedly her nose didn't film well), that females complained about the hairdos on Sean Williams Scott and Johnny Knoxville (they do look like dorks). People are saying the film will be lucky to do as well at the box office as the film version of Beverly Hillbillies.

We're sort of hoping the talk is wrong. Someone willing to do a "special" for the troops that highlights themselves and equates their "service" to a "Tour of Duty" knows no bounds. If Dukes of Hazzard flops, we're frightened to imagine what Simpson has planned next. She's like Pia Zadora with more desperation and stamina. The only thing worse than picturing what new harm she can inflict upon the nation is realizing that there's a good chance Nick Lachey will be at her side to assist.

Wally says Julian Castro is the Jessica Simpson of politics.

Again, not one group we spoke to contained a single person impressed with him.  Each group contained many people who were bothered by his 'antics' on stage.

I have not seen any debate coverage either then what CNN offered as this was being posted this morning.  Frank Bruni was on CNN gushing over Julian.  But I'm told online at his paper, he's praising Elizabeth Warren.  That's Frank, he's the bi-polar commentator.

The press wants Julian to do well.  (Julian is a Clintonista centrist.  He is not left.  You can argue he's left on immigration.  But since that's the only issue he's left on, I'm not sure how much that will help.)

The people we spoke to did not feel "Shorty" did very well at all.

There was a politician in Texas who was a joke for carrying a step stool around with him -- not Beto, this is far before Beto and Beto is actually tall.  But this politician would put down the step stool before any camera shooting could take place, he'd put it down and stand on it.  He was a joke.  During one election cycle, he ran as a family man -- despite the fact that his wife had already filed for divorce.  That detail the press was willing to ignore (yes, he was a Republican).

Point being I laugh whenever I think about his obsession with appearances but people are obsessed with appearances.  He was right.  And Julian might need to factor that in.

Or, to steal from the Jessica Simpson critique of 2005, some politicians are problematic in appearance.  But they usually don't suffer from being short, balding, glassy eyed and feral teeth -- or at least not all four.

Julian can take comfort in the fact that Tim Ryan was the loser.  The exchange we highlighted above?  It was cited throughout every group we spoke to.  Multiple people brought that up.  The feeling was it's over for Tim Ryan and we heard "he should drop out" repeatedly in each group.


Tonight, the eyes will be on Joe Biden to see whether or not he fumbles.  Margaret Kimberley (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) notes:

For now the dim bulb former vice president is hidden. He makes few appearances and doesn’t talk to the press. That is because he is as they say “gaffe prone.” He isn’t just a cynical opportunist, he is also stupid and can’t be trusted to be unscripted with the media. No wonder Democrats miss Obama, who is very smart and could convince everyone that he was on their side. They are now left with the dregs, an old school party hack who can’t hide his mediocrity.
The 2020 election will end in disaster for black people no matter who becomes the next president. Dumping the democrats is the only solution to what ails us. They don’t want to change and they aren’t even likely to win. If Biden crashes and burns another puppet will be presented as the savior. Black misleaders will prop up that person too and their constituents will be the losers.

The following sites updated:


rooting for tulsi

turning on the dem debate.  i'll be rooting for tulsi.

  •  Pinned Tweet
    The first is an hour! Become a debate donor, and lets get to the 3rd debates! Link -->
  • Morning of first , behind the scenes in Miami
  • Aloha! Looking forward to tonight's debate at 9 PM EST on 📺 Are you ready?
  • Congress should focus on instituting paper ballot backups, per my Securing America's Elections Act. We need to work together immediately to ensure that US voting machines are no longer vulnerable to hackers—which they unfortunately are now. Add your name:
  • These aren’t just “troops.” They are PEOPLE—friends, separated from loved ones.
  • 81,455 donations so far! Chip in and share with friends - help us reach 130,000 and qualify for the next round of debates:

  • let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

    Wednesday, June 26, 2019.  Ten candidates prepare to take the stage tonight for a debate.  Will the moderators do the job the country needs or will they clown like corporate whores?

    It’s Debate Eve! I’m excited to hit the stage tomorrow, June 26 at 9 p.m. ET. I can’t wait to share with you my vision for a more just and fair nation.

    Tonight, the first of two Democratic Party presidential debates kicks off.  One debate tonight, one tomorrow.  There are 25 candidates running for the party's nomination.  20 have qualified for the first debates -- meeting the arbitrary criteria.  Ten will debate tonight and ten will debate tomorrow night.

    The debate kicks off at 9:00 pm EST and will air live on NBC, on MSNBC and on TELEMUNDO.

    Debating tonight will be: US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard, former US House Rep Beto O'Rourke, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Cory Booker, US House Rep Tim Ryan, former US House Rep John Delaney, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, Governor Jay Inslee and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro.

    Moderating -- or just showing off -- will be NBC NIGHTLY NEWS anchor Lester Holt, NBC NIGHTLY NEWS and TELEMUNDO anchor Jose Diaz-Balart, TODAY SHOW host Savannah Guthrie, MEET THE PRESS host Chuck Todd and talk show host Rachel Maddow.

    As important issues could be determined by this election -- never-ending wars, the health of our earth, unemployment, the consolidation of money and power, healthcare, etc -- eyes will be not just on the candidates but on the moderators as well.  Are they asking questions that address the issues the country is facing?  Are they conducting themselves in an appropriate manner or are they, yet again, just clowning?

    There are real issues that need to be addressed and, tonight, five members of the media have the power to do that.

    The ten on stage are running to become president.  That means the questions should rise to that level.  What would they do?  How would they do it?

    There's no need to pretend this is THE VIEW or an MSNBC talk show -- meaning, no 'hot topics.'  Stick with the realities that Americans are living with and how these ten candidates plan to address these issues.

    Rachel Maddow has become the least trusted personality on MSNBC and she probably shouldn't have been included in the moderators for that reason alone.  Her chasing of ghosts and gossip has ruined her image.  But the higher ups are convinced this is the perfect opportunity for Rachel to restore her image.  For that reason alone, you should keep an eye on her -- does she rise to the occasion or simply glory hog it yet again like the buffoon she's become?

    Chuck Todd's big issue?  Can he listen?  The moderators, like the candidates, should be able to think on their feet.  That means actually listening and having follow ups that clarify what the candidate is saying.  Just showing up with a list of prepared questions will not suffice.

    Todd and Maddow are the two with the most to lose.  But no one's expecting a Candy Crowley from either -- a performance so awful and incompetent that it ends a broadcasting career.  (For those who missed it, Candy now spends her time eating, reTweeting blow job Tweets, eating, desperately seeking employment anywhere -- will moderate anything! -- and eating.  It's a glorious retirement following her glorious career.)

    Among the candidates tonight, the one with the most to lose is Senator Elizabeth Warren.  Of the ten, she is the press favorite and the press has spent the last few weeks attempting to rehab Warren and make her more 'electable' -- whatever that means.  The only one who can woo voters is Elizabeth herself.  Her image going into the debates is that of someone who can give a speech but, as demonstrated in interviews, someone who stumbles when moving away from pre-crafted statements into the area of semi-spontaneous remarks.

    It's expected that Elizabeth and Rachel will touch on the non-issue of impeachment.  (Elizabeth's second most recent Tweet was about that topic.  Second most recent on her campaign feed.)

    Impeaching Trump is not really a presidential debate issue.  It's a matter for the House of Representatives.  What the candidates on the stage need to do is to demonstrate who they are and what they would do as president.

    But impeachment is just the sort of junk issue that Rachel brings with her and why her show has tanked in the ratings.  POLITICO reported yesterday:

    Democratic campaign officials had a warning for lawmakers Tuesday: Voters think they’re too focused on impeachment and instead want to hear more about their legislative agenda.
    Likely voters in 57 battleground districts say the Democratic caucus' aggressive policy agenda hasn't broken through the noise emanating from Washington, according to polling conducted for the Democrats' campaign arm.  Rathr, voters view Democrats as preoccupied by impeachment.

    This is a presidential debate.  What would you do as president?  No one on that stage can answer that, as president, they would impeach Donald Trump because the president doesn't have that power.

    The president does have the power to bring troops home, for example.  So the ongoing wars better be part of the conversation.

    And every time Elizabeth Warren promises another give away -- You get free education! You get free healthcare! You get free prescriptions! -- she better be asked how she'll pay for it.  You can't continue these never-ending wars and also pay for what the country needs.

    In a perfect world, all five moderators would have the US government's budget in front of them and refer repeatedly to the financial costs of these ongoing wars.  This is America's VISA bill that no one wants to open.  We keep saying we'll send in a payment next month.  And the bill keeps mounting.  It's already effecting our finances and that will only be more true in the coming future.

    For the Trump obsessed among the moderators, they can talk Trump by addressing real issues, like immigration.

    As his administration refuses to follow our laws -- preventing refugees from presenting themselves for asylum at our ports of entry -- they cause families to cross between ports, ensuring greater suffering & death. At the expense of our humanity, not to the benefit of our safety.

    Trump obsessed?  This is a debate among Democrats.  It would be wonderful if for one two hour political event, the focus could be on them and what they would do as president.  I don't think anyone in America is confused as to what Donald Trump would do and has done.  (Some like it, some don't, some are indifferent.)  Cory Booker's got a vision for "a more just and fair nation" (see Tweet at the top of this snapshot).  I want to hear about that and assume many Americans would love to as well.

    It would be wonderful if the Democrats could use their time on the stage not to rehash what is but to illuminate what can be.

    Amy Klobuchar appears ready and able to do that.

    Here it is: a plan for my first 100 days as President of the United States. The urgent problems our country is facing require immediate action and bold solutions, and I plan to get to work delivering results on Day One.

    She's got a plan already for her first 100 days if elected president.  Seems like the moderators should be reviewing that and asking questions about that.

    Another issue to address?  Education.

    "Beto O'Rourke met with local educators in North Miami. One of the biggest things he talked about when it came to education was equality in education and focussing more on public schools and their educators. He also talked about a plan where teachers' student loans are forgiven."

    0:13 / 1:41


    War in the wide range shot and in the close up.

    These aren’t just “troops.” They are PEOPLE—friends, separated from loved ones.

    0:06 / 4:17

    Jay Inslee says he has a plan.

    My plan: ✅Ends coal production and fracking ✅Bans oil drilling on public lands and offshore ✅Puts an end to fossil fuel subsidies ✅Fully commits to clean energy ✅Holds polluters accountable

    That issue alone would effect our climate, our economy, our ongoing wars and much more.  Seems like it should be a major topic in the debate tonight.

    I don't know what -- if anything -- of value Bill de Blasio brings.  His Twitter's filled with boasts about what he's done with NYC -- boasts most Dems in NYC would disagree with and then nonsense.

    Lucky to have the talented, debater Dante de Blasio helping me get ready for Wednesday!


    Are you running to replace Stephen Colbert as the host of a late night talk show or are you running to try to become president?  It's really hard to tell with that sort of nonsense combined with your already questionable 'achievements.'

    It's true there are a lot of Democratic candidates running for president. But I'm the only candidate leading a movement to change our food quality and improve the health of our nation.

    It's not 'sexy' but it is a real issue.  (And for the record, Marianne Williamson is running for the nomination as well and she's addressed this topic repeatedly.  Tim's wrong when he claims he's the only one.)

    Another important issue?

    Last weekend, I visited a mobile home park in Iowa where residents are fighting a steep rent hike and, like so many folks across the country, are struggling. This is one of the reasons I put forward a plan to address housing challenges head-on.


    That issue could really spark a discussion.  Along with Julian, Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard have discussed this issue.  Tulsi met, for example, with first responders in California who aren't able to live in some of the areas that they were protecting from the fires due to the fact that the rent and the homes are so costly.  Some have argued tiny home communities might be one answer.  Rent control is also an option to consider.  There are many options and it would be great for America to hear what Julian, Elizabeth, Tulsi and the rest are supporting and what they envision.

    Rising sea levels hit Miami, floods wipe out towns in the Midwest and fires devastate California. What's the common cause? Climate change. We have to act now.

    Really, John?  So you'll put aside tawdry gossip and address an actual issue?  Well I guess we'll see tonight.

    When antitrust regulators let giant corporations put profits over workers & consumers, this is what happens. Disney is on track to make $9 BILLION at the box office in 2019. CEO Bob Iger took home $65.7M last year. And workers are facing layoffs.

    That's not from Elizabeth's campaign feed, it's from her feed as a US Senator.  Going through all of her campaign Tweets this morning was depressing as hell.

    Does no one advise her on her staff?

    First bit of advice should be, stop finger pointing!

    She's not overseeing TARP here.  (Or, to be frank, overseeing it badly.)  She's supposed to be showing leadership.

    That requires going beyond finger pointing.

    I believe we all know the mess we're in.  How are you going to get us out of that mess?

    Every time she speaks, every time she (or her campaign) Tweets, that should be the message.  That it's not been the message is part of the reason she's struggled so long and so hard.

    In some Democratic circles, there is a feeling among some women that we have to consolidate around Elizabeth because she's the one with the best chance.

    I haven't decided who I am supporting.  But it will be someone who proposes real solutions and demonstrates real leadership.  I'm not interested in whomever we think right now might be electable in a year.  It's bad enough that we're told to hold our nose in the general election but to be told that in the primary as well?

    And it wouldn't necessarily require holding my nose to vote for Elizabeth.  All it would require would be for her to stop telling the world who did the wrong and start emphasizing how we can fix things.  That's what a leader does -- brings the country together and addresses the issues that need addressing.

    That's the only reason Joe Biden's held on to his lead thus far.  He's offering nothing in his remarks other than, I can work with everyone, I can return us to a day when we got along, I can hold hands with anyone, blah blah blah.

    Elizabeth doesn't have to go as far as Joe does -- no one should -- but she should be able to explain how a problem gets fixed and make the solution the message.

    A serious debate will help all the candidates on stage tonight.  It will help elevate the reputations and images of the moderators.  And it's what the country needs.

    We'll have to wait and see if that's what gets delivered tonight.

    The following sites updated: