I refuse to listen to the clip, but I notice you mention a coughing fit, Ms. Grin. Did I read correctly that this event was in February?

Huh. Kind of gives lie to the "pneumonia" story, huh?

soften the blow. In other words they realize that they have sucked to much out of the system and it is collapsing around them. Of course the Oligarchs are not looking to create a truely democratic socialist structure ala Scandinavia. They have hired Hillary to throw enough crumbs at the peasants to have them put down their pitchforks but at the same time make sure it is only a few crumbs.

You know, the one engineered by the Clintons' best buds at Goldman? The one that took out my small company when I had a newborn?

"Supporting families and children" my ass.

saying that she preferred to occupy the space "from the center-left to the center-right" on the political spectrum.

All the sober, responsible Republicans, the Neoliberal, Neoconservative ones who keep their racism quiet, are flocking to Hillary, joining the establishment Democrats whose views they share. I've seen this called "realignment" but I'm starting to think that we're seeing the genesis of a One-Party State.

Krugman came to the defense of Sweden when right wingers attacked it as a socialist welfare hell hole and claimed that our version of a third world country, the state of Mississippi, was better off. This was in 2002. What happened to him along the way to the 2016 primaries? Pods?

But read what Krugman wrote about what the Swedes have achieved, and what in effect Hillary claims we cannot have given her constant definition of herself as the establishment/status quo candidate. This is the "dream" which is unattainable and which younger people should give up on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/for-richer.html

A few months ago the conservative cyberpundit Glenn Reynolds made a splash when he pointed out that Sweden's G.D.P. per capita is roughly comparable with that of Mississippi -- see, those foolish believers in the welfare state have impoverished themselves! Presumably he assumed that this means that the typical Swede is as poor as the typical resident of Mississippi, and therefore much worse off than the typical American.

But life expectancy in Sweden is about three years higher than that of the U.S. Infant mortality is half the U.S. level, and less than a third the rate in Mississippi. Functional illiteracy is much less common than in the U.S.

How is this possible? One answer is that G.D.P. per capita is in some ways a misleading measure. Swedes take longer vacations than Americans, so they work fewer hours per year. That's a choice, not a failure of economic performance. Real G.D.P. per hour worked is 16 percent lower than in the United States, which makes Swedish productivity about the same as Canada's.

But the main point is that though Sweden may have lower average income than the United States, that's mainly because our rich are so much richer. The median Swedish family has a standard of living roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family: wages are if anything higher in Sweden, and a higher tax burden is offset by public provision of health care and generally better public services. And as you move further down the income distribution, Swedish living standards are way ahead of those in the U.S. Swedish families with children that are at the 10th percentile -- poorer than 90 percent of the population -- have incomes 60 percent higher than their U.S. counterparts. And very few people in Sweden experience the deep poverty that is all too common in the United States. One measure: in 1994 only 6 percent of Swedes lived on less than $11 per day, compared with 14 percent in the U.S.

Hellery why have they forsaken thee. Hahahaha.

The faux-progressive media likes to squawk about folks who think Clinton is anywhere as dishonest as Trump. It's certainly true that Trump is a pathological liar but even his supporters don't believe most of what he says: he's a list, but a bad one. Clinton, on the other hand is considerably more subtle about it and her likes are more likely to ensnare the listeners— hence some of her rabid supporters. Thus Clinton is a much more effective and dangerous liar, though not in the same league as the modern day master of the art, our current president.