Not sure where or how to use this, so I am putting this out here for everyone to use as they see fit...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8741148/Dick-Chene...
Dick Cheney heaps praise on Hillary Clinton
I took screenshots of the HuffPo poll aggregates for the five states in play as of today, Sunday, 13 March 2016. I place them in order of descending hope 
The south, sigh, remind me to write one day about the psychology of the oppressed by the genius Algerian resistance teacher, Frantz Fanon.
Could 1968 replay in 2016? On the GOP side this time.
Update: It's happening as my article indicated: Drumpf's Kansas rally got disrupted by peace warriors protesting his racism and threat to democracy. Go Occupy Trump!
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/12/donald-trump-cancels-cinc...
Herr Drumpf has a rally scheduled for Cincinnati, OH, tomorrow, Sunday afternoon. Media speculation is swirling on the Cinci rally. Is it still on? Would it be cancelled? Would the security arrangement be complete? Or suffice? Here's the Guardian saying it is still on/off/on/off:
The big question is whether the young peace warriors of Chicago have inspire the compatriots in Cincinnatti to try the same tomorrow? Circumstances differ, of course. I have no insight into the state of play among peace warriors there, but it wouldn't surprise, eh? And then the question becomes, what thereafter? Could the following scenario unfold?
1981 - the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publish a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), describing cases of a rare lung infection, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), in five young, previously healthy, gay men in Los Angeles. All the men have other unusual infections as well, indicating that their immune systems are not working; two have already died by the time the report is published. This edition of the MMWR marks the first official reporting of what will become known as the AIDS epidemic.
We are in the midst of a moment in American politics where change is possible; as the success of outsider candidates makes clear, a sizable body of the people want real, substantive, paradigm-shifting (perhaps even radical by American standards) change. Given the tenacity and success of establishment candidates, you can see that there are is also a sizable body of people who oppose change that comes in large increments as either unproductive or potentially disruptive.
In the Democratic race, the positions and policies of Sanders and Clinton have been dissected, compared and contrasted - but the key debate is about the kind of change we are to have.
The change debate is the transcendent issue of this contest. The contested issue is whether the American people can demand and have implemented by their "representatives" in government wholesale change, or if they must settle for minor incremental changes described as pragmatic and "progressive" (for people who like to get things done) - because the representatives must ask the permission of the 1% before proceeding.
Mook was similarly defiant regarding Clinton's auto bailout attack on Sanders. In last Sunday's debate, Clinton accused Sanders of not supporting the auto industry rescue,
The reality is
How can anyone want someone they do not trust as their leader?
fugitive Dave Brown Mar 09 · 07:53:43 AM
No. No we’re not. I’m enjoying your joy. But I am aghast at the “in your face!” comments and the “in your face Markos!” diaries. It reinforces my fears that if Ms. Clinton wins that a good number of Sanders supporters will bail during the general. In fact, in the last 24 hours I’ve seen the worst kos diary I’ve ever seen in my 12 years here. And spare me the “but both sides do it” replies.
Reply 0 Flag
