Shadow Hawk

Really?  Let's review since you apparently haven't been paying attention.
 
1. He has repeatedly stated that he wants to ban Muslims from immigrating.  Including refugees...especially refugees.  He has painted an entire religion as evil and a problem.
 
2. He has stated that Muslim communities in the US should be faced with increased policing. 
 
3. He has stated (through Christie) that one of his first actions in office will be to root out government employees and posts that were appointed by Obama and replace them with those friendly to him.
 
4. He has based his entire campaign on an appeal to anger, hatred, and bigotry.
 
5. He has stated his approval of the Japanese internment camps in WWII.
 
...the list goes on.
 
The parallels with Hitler's rise have been remarked on by VASTLY more intelligent and knowledgeable folks than myself.  Do a little research.
 
Relying on government opposition to prevent the formation of internment camps or other atrocities is a blindness to any form of moral obligation that I can't even fathom.

You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to endorse him?  You remember a candidate making racist, bigoted, and mysogynist comments and statements multiple times and doubling down on them when challenged?  
 
What I remember is growing up in a Jewish household and learning about the Holocaust...and repeating each time "never again."  That didn't mean or insinuate that we should look for Hitler himself to arise again and oppose him -- it meant that we should learn from the past and recognize the signs of a demagogue and a tyrant.  The signs of fascism, bigotry and hatred.  And oppose them. 

Let me explain: "America" is the most awesomest scripted drama television show ever created for the Canadian market. (The producers also export it to Europe, Africa and Asia, where it does amazingly well, considering the language barriers.)
 
To support this show, entrepeneurs have built "Americaland" theme parks with duty free shopping at all major Canadian border crossings,further monetising this entertainment experience, which soon spread to newspapers, magazines, comic books, and even the mass book market. 
 
However, the initial "slice of life" broadcasting, such as Leave it to Beaver, The Nightly News, televised high school football (What? I mean, seriously?) and Cal Worthington used car commercials began to pall in, I want to say, the 1960s, and the producers moved on to an "event" format, with "Presidential elections" the fall after the Olympics --I think? Every four years, anyway. 
 
"Presidential elections" featured life-and-death struggles between larger-than-life characters running for "President of the United States," or, possibly, "King of the World." (The writers often blurred the distinction.) As with the Olympics, their popularity soon overwhelmed the original, occasional-event format, and events were spread into the previous year. An alternative, rival concept, the "Off year election," was also successful, because while the stakes were smaller, the personalities were even more outrageous. For example, the comic geniusses who invented "Tip O'Neill" and "Newt Gingrich" got the Nobel Prize for Literature, for example. I think? I don't pay much attention to that stuff. Anyway, they should have. 
 
Eventually, however, the producers got greedy, and began to try the madcap, cast-of-thousands format of "Off year elections" with the high stakes and larger-than-life personalities of "Presidential elections." The critics are, understandably, divided about this. Some see it as the culmination of two generations of first-class entertainment, and look forward to a sequel, perhaps a remake of The Day AFter, or Terminator. Others think that increasing inputs will just lead to declining returns, and that America will soon be cancelled. 
 
We'll see! One thing is for sure, and that is that it'll make for some fun television. (Of course, for the poor, delusional crackpots who think that it is real, it's a world-historical tragedy unfolding in real time, but that's why they should be taking their meds!)

PPP poll just released has Clinton 50, Trump 45. Clinton's favorables rose by 9, Trump's by 1. Their previous poll had Trump up by 2 over Clinton. Looks like there has been a significant bounce for Clinton, coming out of the convention.

Mostly they didn't know him that well, and knew the Clintons very well. Sanders had some missteps in his minority outreach early, and he should have worked aggressively on it from the start of the campaign, rather than belatedly. Clinton had built up a relationship and good will going back decades.

First post-Dem Convention poll. RABA Research, a new outfit, has Clinton 46, Trump 31, Johnson 7, Stein 2. Their poll post-Republican convention had Trump 39, Clinton 34. That's a 20(!) point swing. Again, it's only one poll, but it does suggest the Dems got a bigger bounce out of their convention than the Reps got out of theirs. And Trump has shot himself in the foot wrt the Khan family, so it's likely to get worse for him.

Red + Blue = Purple. 

STOP THE MADNESS
FOXBAT 2016

http://www.chron.com/opinion/recommendations/article/For-Hillary-Clinton-8650345.php
 
Houston Chronicle endorses Clinton, only the 2nd Democrat they've endorsed in 50 years.

This is great example of how contentious the relationship is between the DNC and the Sanders' campaign but a total nonexample of the DNC leaning on the media.
 
Go into the letter that Bernie Sanders sent to Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  You will see that is dated May 6th just like email that MirandaL is sending to Laura Meckler over at the WSJ.  So the DNC is sending letter the very same day that they received, but you can tell by context that Laura Meckler had already been asking for a copy of the letter.  So, yes, the Sanders' campaign contacted the WSJ about the letter of complaint to the DNC before they even sent it.
 
The Sanders' campaign has put the  DNC in the situation of being questioned by the media about about a complaint that they haven't even gotten a chance to read much less consider or respond to.  Now in the absence of context I would consider this a rather d***ish move on the part of Sanders campaign, except at this this point it is May 6th, 2016 and there is tons of context and history by this point in the game.  Given the history between the groups, I am not going assume that the Sanders' camp aggressive, call the media first and then lodge your complaint was necessarily an unwarranted action.
 
Still unwarranted or not, the move was a bit of a stunt, and my impression is that MirandaL, whoever she is, was annoyed by the move.  So she made an off the record comment to the WSJ reporter to maybe let her know this and also to explain why it had taken so to get her a copy of the letter.  
 
Sorry, unless it is a bribe or a threat, making an off the record comment to a reporter is no more collusion with the media or leaning on the media than writing a letter to editor.  Also, seeing as Sanders' campaign has enlisted the media (in this case the WSJ) to pressure the DNC, the DNC has a right to make there own case to the media and defend their own actions.  
 
This is just some tiff-taffing between the Sanders camp and the DNC and has nothing to do with HRC.  If you want to prove that the DNC was working with the media to lop-side the playingfield in the Democratic primary, you need to find emails which show the DNC pushing negative stories about Senator Sander or killing positive stories about him, or emails that show the DNC promoting positive stories about Secretary Clinton and failing to do the same for Bernie Sanders.
 
Those are the sorts of emails that need to be found to make your case.  There are 20 thousand emails; if there is a smoking gun it is probably in there somewhere ... and if there isn't a gun then there probably wasn't a shooting.  Really, does it make sense that the DNC could pressure/bribe all the media bodies you say they did and have none of them turn around make a story out of it?  "Hey, Debbie Wasserman Schultz just offered me a bunch of stuff if I would ignore Sanders and focus on Clinton!  I'm totally not going to make front page article about the meeting we just had!"  Does that sound like the world you live it?

I think she needs to stay away from making fun of him.  In the debates, she needs to go 3 routes.  1.  Hit him on his 'so-called business success' and emasculate him as someone who can 'fix' the economy.  2.  Most importantly, hit him on his knowledge base.  He has proven repeatedly that his world socio-economic and political knowledge is woefully inadequate.  Even on things that are easily accessible current events (like his Brexit Scotland gaff).  3.  Finally, press him on HOW he's going to fix things.  Make him talk specific policy issues and stop letting him get by with his 'slick used car salesman' handwaving statements, "I'll just sit down with people and make deals."  He doesn't want details and minutiae, heck I don't even think he wants to really govern 24-7 like a President has to do.
 
These things will draw independents and undecideds to her side.  Perhaps they won't agree with all her policies, but it will show that Trump is completely unfit to be a small-town mayor let alone POTUS.

RPG Net is discussing the leak and the consensus is that there is nothing there other than the usual stuff you would hear around the water cooler. Additionally they don't trust Wikileaks or the fact the Russians all of sudden sent this out in the world
CES 

Policy wise, that was the most progressive policy in an acceptance speech since McGovern. As a former Sanders supporter, I was quite pleased by it.

Solid speech. Optimistic, something completely missing from the Republican convention.

According to this "Chelsea Clinton" person, her "mother" is not an actual demon.

What is this numerous major media outlet thing?  I've only heard that some DNC staffers were dismissive of the Sanders's campaign in there emails with one another and one of the heads brought the idea of trying to use Sanders' religion or lack thereof against him.  That last one is pretty bad, but to date no proof has been put forward that that particular idea was ever acted upon.  So what is this about media outlets?

It does somewhat put a gun to the head of people who insist that they are equally bad, that one of them ups the ante on awfulness every week.

Trump just flushed the Republicans strongest criticism of Clinton, that she compromised our national security, straight down the toilet.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-hack-hillary-clinton/index.html
 
I don't think that's ever happened before, a presidential candidate calling on a foreign power publicly to conduct espionage on their opponent. Whoa.

So, back to the wikileaks release for a minute--
 
These files have been the topic of renewed discussion in some cyber forums, for obvious reasons.  In a nutshell there is virtually no question that the Russian government is behind the hack.  The emails were opened and edited on a computer set to use Cyrillic by default.  The hacker claimed to the press that he was Romanian but spoke and wrote very poor Romanian compared to his Russian.  Email communications with the "hacker" are clearly being written by several different people.  There is almost no reason for a private hacker or group to spend time on DNC communications--there's no profit model there.  And lastly it fits a now well-established pattern of the Putin regime to interfere in elections with well-timed leaks and hacks--it's just that up until now he's been picking on Eastern European countries.
 
On top of this Putin and Trump are thoroughly on record as supporting, if not admiring, each other.  It's also been pointed out that many of the 500+ companies that Trump is involved in are Russian or have Russian ties.  It's even been said that Russian money is keeping Trump's business afloat.  This last may be hyperbolic but there's definitely enough involvement to constitute a serious conflict of interest.
 
The worry is that the well-established Russian pattern doesn't involve one leak.  It involves a campaign of leaks and disinformation timed to cause maximum disruption.  As a result we can expect more such wikileaks releases, fabricated or not.  And people in the industry are now really, really worried about the security of electronic voting machines.
 
Sleep well!

She's also unambiguously and undeniably been the target of a concerted campaign to rough up and dirty her (and Bill) politically. "The Hunting of the President" by Joe Conason, and "Blinded by the Right", by David Brock, extensively document this. It's not like this adverse rep developed in a vacuum and is based solely on her record. It's also based upon a deliberate bad faith mischaracterization of her record, mixed with lies, smears and mischaracterizations. And a portion of the electorate eager to uncritically believe all of the panegyrics against her.

Dirty? Lol. Look at 2008, 1992, et AL and get back to me. Sanders wasn't roughed up all that much. Lots of stuff in his background was left untouched, stuff that Republicans would have been sure to use in the general.
 
And the Bernie bro behavior isn't hearsay. Their footprints are all over the Internet, on twitter, facebook, blog comment sections, etc.

Incidentally, Sanders voters aren't the only ones with hurt feelings. Or do you think the nominee's backers appreciated purported progressives calling their candidate corrupt, dishonest and untrustworthy for the past year? Or the truly egregious online behavior of some Bernie Bros...

You know how Dexter always tells Dee Dee not to push the button?
 
I wonder how many voters will be afflicted by Dee Dee's impulses come election day, when they're staring at that big, shiny Trump button. Will they be tempted by whispers of madness that only they can hear to push it, to see what chaos lies beyond?
 
 
 
 
*Ok, so I mixed up Lovecraftian Mythos with Dexter's Lab, but it seemed appropriate.

It was so hot here yesterday that two hobbits threw a ring into my backyard.