Sanders, Carson rising in Iowa polls

The latest Des Moines Register poll is out today and it gives a boost to the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Dr. Ben Carson.

Sanders inched closer to Hillary Clinton 37-30 while Ben Carson drew nearer to Donald Trump 23-18. A significant result in the poll shows Carson and Trump tied when you factor in voters' first and second choices combined.

The poll result on the Democratic side will add a couple of levels of anxiety for Democrats over the sinking Hillary Clinton campaign, which now appers close to being in free fall.

Poll results include Vice President Joe Biden as a choice, although he has not yet decided whether to join the race. Biden captures 14 percent, five months from the first-in-the-nation vote Feb. 1. Even without Biden in the mix, Clinton falls below a majority, at 43 percent. 

"This feels like 2008 all over again," said J. Ann Selzer, pollster for the Iowa Poll. 

In that race, Clinton led John Edwards by 6 percentage points and Barack Obama by 7 points in an early October Iowa Poll. But Obama, buoyed by younger voters and first-time caucusgoers, surged ahead by late November. 

In this cycle, Sanders is attracting more first-time caucusgoers than Clinton. He claims 43 percent of their vote compared to 31 percent for Clinton. He also leads by 23 percentage points with the under-45 crowd and by 21 points among independent voters. 

Sanders, a Vermont U.S. senator, has become a liberal Pied Piper in Iowa not as a vote against Clinton, but because caucusgoers genuinely like him, the poll shows. An overwhelming 96 percent of his backers say they support him and his ideas. Just 2 percent say they're motivated by opposition to Clinton. 

Back in January, half of likely Democratic caucusgoers were unfamiliar with Sanders, who has been elected to Congress for 25 years as an independent. He has jumped from 5 percent support in January to 30 percent. Clinton, a famous public figure for decades, has dropped in that period from 56 percent to 37 percent. 

"These numbers would suggest that she can be beaten," said Steve McMahon, a Virginia-based Democratic strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns dating to 1980.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading......

[AUDIO] Democratic challengers launch attacks against Clinton, party leadership

MINNEAPOLIS — Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to cement her standing as the rightful leader of the Democratic Party here Friday, but two of her challengers launched a fierce counterattack against her and a party establishment they see as trying to hand her the 2016 presidential nomination.

What began as a routine forum of candidate speeches evolved into a surprisingly dramatic day at the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley issued thinly veiled attacks on Clinton and the party leadership.

Speaking from the dais, with DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sitting a few feet away, O’Malley blasted the party’s limited number of sanctioned debates as a process “rigged” in favor of the front-runner. The DNC is holding six debates, only four before February’s first caucuses in Iowa, which O’Malley argued is a disadvantage for all the candidates and a disservice to Democrats generally.

“This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before,” said O’Malley, who has struggled to gain traction in the polls. He added: “We are the Democratic Party, not the undemocratic party.”

Sanders — who later told reporters he agreed with O’Malley — lamented low Democratic turnout in last year’s midterm elections and said the party must grow beyond “politics as usual” if it hopes to produce the level of voter enthusiasm required to retain the White House in 2016.

Democratic presidential candidate and senator Bernie Sanders on Friday called for taking on “the economic and political establishment.” (Craig Lassig/Reuters)

“We need a movement which takes on the economic and political establishment, not one which is part of that establishment,” said Sanders, who is an independent but caucuses with Democrats in the Senate.

Asked later whether he was speaking specifically about Clinton, he told reporters, “I’ll let you use your imagination on that.”

The barbs from Sanders and O’Malley came as Clinton and her campaign flexed their organizational muscle here. The front-

runner and her top aides worked aggressively behind the scenes this week to secure commitments from party leaders pledging to be delegates for her in next summer’s nominating convention in Philadelphia.

Clinton’s organizational push sent a clear signal to Vice President Biden, who has been weighing a late entry into the 2016 campaign, that he would begin far behind her.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading......

[EDITORIAL] Trump, Sanders and a murky horizon

There’s something happening here. What it isain’t exactly clear.

The words of Buffalo Springfield in the ‘60s anthem “For What It’s Worth” evoked social unrest in a turbulent time, even if they were penned more in response to Los Angeles street riots than Vietnam.

But the lyrics have resonated for decades in part because they can apply to so many social trends difficult to comprehend as they evolve. The 2016 presidential campaign to date may be revealing one of those trends, spiced with a genuine touch of revolutionary spirit.

We all keep laughing at Donald Trump’s chutzpah, the apparent silliness of his entire pseudo-campaign. Yet he keeps growing stronger in the polls. His supporters say Trump gives loud voice to the concerns of many Americans tired of half-hearted, diplomatic solutions.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders’ unabashedly ultra-liberal style has his poll numbers surging against the long-presumed nominee, Hillary Clinton. People laugh at Sanders’ absent-minded professor mien in dismissing his candidacy as little more than a chance to raise the public profile of a few pet issues. But his supporters see in him someone who truly understands the dangers of the nation’s escalating wealth gap.

There’s a long way to go. The “anyone-but-Clinton” movement has picked up serious steam and may draw other Democrats like Vice President Joe Biden into the race, dampening the Sanders’ spark. The Republican field will inevitably be winnowed down even before we reach 2016, and the coalescing of voters around some of the survivors figures to reel in Trump.

So this may not last. But why is it happening even now?

We like what Sanders brings to the campaign table, beating the drums on issues that need to be voiced. We can’t be as enthusiastic about Trump, but a lot of people like what he’s selling. Still, a nation ruled by their extremes and eccentricities on either side of the aisle would serve the interests of precious few. The two-party system is designed to encompass large cross-sections of values and philosophies and to avoid control by extreme ideologies. Sanders and Trump in their own ways represent those dangerous extremes. If we’re headed toward that kind of choice, we’re in trouble, regardless of the winner.

But Sanders and Trump also reflect a nation sick to death of the bitter partisanship, the relentless deceptions and obsequious deference to money and power that poisons modern politics. It all feels like one enveloping lie, a game we’re forced to play over and over again. From that mud pile Sanders and Trump come across as candidates who are simply saying what they think and believe, and letting the chips fall where they may. There’s something refreshing about that, and voters who don’t have to make areal choice for president this early in the process are embracing that.

If somehow this could herald a more forthright era in politics, America would be a better place. But where this is headed just ain’t clear.

Via: myNewJersey.com

Continue Reading.....

What If Martin O'Malley or Bernie Sanders Disobeys the DNC on Debates?

When the Democratic National Committee first announced in May it would sanction six primary debates in 2016 and punish candidates who went to unsanctioned events, the party said the schedule was “consistent with the precedent set by the DNC during the 2004 and 2008 cycles.”

In both of those cycles, the DNC also only sanctioned six debates. But those elections were filled with dozens of unsanctioned debates, too, that started at least six months earlier than the DNC plans to kick off its debate season this year, on Oct. 13.

That frenzy is what the committee is trying to prevent from happening this year, and it's what lower-ranking candidates, who would benefit from more chances to appear in nationally televised debates on the same stage as front-runner Hillary Clinton, are rebelling against. Senator Bernie Sanders said he’s “disappointed” with the schedule, while former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley called it “unprecedented” and “outrageous.”

“The DNC may threaten to keep somebody out of a future debate, but it isn’t their invitation.”

Alan Schroeder, a journalism professor at Northeastern University

Maybe the solution for lower-polling candidates isn’t to push the DNC to sanction more debates, says Kathleen Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania professor of communications who has studied and written about presidential debates and political rhetoric. “O’Malley’s attacking the wrong villain,” Jamieson said. “If anyone wants to stand up and sponsor a debate and the candidates want to go to it, you’ll have a debate that the DNC hasn’t sanctioned.”

For example, if a Spanish-language television network said it was going to host two debates, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, Jamieson says it is likely the candidates would ignore the rules set by their committees. “They would accept and go, regardless of whether the RNC and DNC said yes or no, because they want to reach the Hispanic vote,” she said. 

O’Malley appears to be hinting he would do just that. In a memo released Tuesday, O’Malley legal counsel Joe Sandler challenged the DNC's exclusion rule, which says that if a candidate attends an unsanctioned debate, they will be barred from future DNC primary debates. The rule is “legally unenforceable,” Sandler said, and if candidates attended an unsanctioned debate, “it is highly unlikely that any of those sponsors of the sanctioned debates would ultimately be willing to enforce that ‘exclusivity’ requirement.” 

Alan Schroeder, a journalism professor at Northeastern University and the author of Presidential Debates: 50 Years of High-Risk TV, agrees, noting that on the Republican side, it has been the debate hosts, not the Republican National Committee, that set the rules for the debates. “The DNC may threaten to keep somebody out of a future debate, but it isn’t their invitation,” he said.

Via: Bloomberg Politics

Continue Reading....

Hillary Clinton: The Democratic Party's ticking time bomb

 Bernie Sanders is leading in New Hampshire. That cheers me — though not because he's my ideal candidate, and certainly not because I think he could win in the general election. I'm convinced he would almost certainly lose against all but the loopiest or scariest Republican opponent.

Then why am I — someone almost certain to vote for a Democrat, and hoping to vote for a woman, in 2016 — so pleased by Sanders' ascent? Because it helps to puncture the aura of inevitability around Hillary Clinton. Yes, she continues to lead in every national poll by a large margin, which is why few formidable opponents have shown an interest in challenging her for the Democratic nomination. That has always been foolish, given the mountain of baggage she and her husband carry around with them everywhere they go. But now it's become downright irresponsible.

The Democrats desperately need more serious, viable candidates in the race, or at least poised to jump in at a moment's notice. (And it sure would be great if they were more appealing than Al Gore.) The point wouldn't be to catch up to her in a mad dash. The point would be to serve as a strong back-up for when the nearly inevitable happens.

What's the nearly inevitable? The scandal that, sooner or later, is bound to sink Hillary Clinton's campaign.

This isn't paranoia, right-wing spin, or baseless panic. It's a sober assessment of the situation.

At the moment, the ongoing email imbroglio is the time bomb that seems to pose the greatest risk to the campaign. It's hard to know which is most alarming: the way the candidate and her team have handled the scandal since it broke in March; the latest swirl of half-truths, denials, reversals, and revelations; or what new explosive information might come to light a month, six months, or a year from now

For the past five months, those of us old enough to have lived through the 1990s have been enduring a deeply unpleasant bout of déjà vu-inspired dread. First the news breaks, inspiring the unavoidable thought, "How could [insert member of the Clinton family here] possibly have failed to realize that this would be a problem?" Then the barrage of counter-attacks from the Clinton machine against the story, poking holes, impugning motives, kicking up just enough dust to convince fair-minded observers that maybe, just maybe, there's less to the story than it originally seemed. And finally, because journalists make mistakes and actually care about being able to stand behind the truth of what they publish, even those who ran the original story begin to backtrack, express uncertainties, and airself-doubts.

And then: Ka-Blam! The story is back and bigger than ever. Oh, that server we wouldn't give to you? You can have it now, cleaned up all nice and tidy. There certainly weren't any classified documents on there. Oh, there were? Oops, well, only those two — oh, I mean four — and don't worry about how that's just a "limited sample" of 40 emails out of tens of thousands; the inspector general of the Justice Department just got lucky. And hey, we deleted them, so who cares? (Freedom of information is for suckers.) Yes, of course, my "shadow" had access to that server and those classified emails, too. Why is that a problem? What, are you a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

Tick, tick, boom.

Via: The Week

Continue Reading....

Hillary's Poll Numbers Continue Slide

Hillary Clinton’s free-falling public image poll numbers have impelled the often rigid and robotic presumed Democratic nominee to adopt a more aggressive tack, according to The Washington Post. 

The former secretary of state’s new posture, according to the Post, has included "almost daily attacks on the better-known contenders among the wide Republican field," the "surprise release of her health and tax information late last month on the same day as a very public airing — in the home state of [former Florida Gov. Jeb] Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — of her policy reversal on U.S. relations with Cuba," and "a preemptive spin campaign" ahead of the first GOP debate. 

Just before the "happy hour" debate kicked off at 5 p.m. Thursday, Clinton blasted a needling message on Twitter, one that embodied the tone of her new demeanor.

Wrote Clinton in a Twitter message typical of her recent postings:

 

Hillary ClintonVerified account‏@HillaryClinton

“Republicans are systematically...trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting. What part of democracy are they afraid of?”—HRC

• RETWEETS700
• FAVORITES1,171
• 

1:41 PM - 6 Aug 2015

The "elbows-out approach" by the "no-false-moves" candidate is designed to counter critics within her party that "despite posturing as a fighter, she has rarely taken the gloves off," the Post reports.

She’s also been forced to take more risks as a result of the unforeseen popularity of progressive Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and rumblings that Vice President Joe Biden may get into the race.

A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that Clinton’s favorability rating dropped to 37 percent, from 44 percent, between June and July, according to the Post, while other surveys saw Clinton’s lead over Sanders' diminishing.

A June piece by the Post reported on the results of a Post-ABC poll that found Clinton’s favorability ratings had fallen to their lowest since April 2008, when she first ran for president.

The poll found that 52 percent of Americans said Clinton is not trustworthy, "a 22-point swing in the past year," according to the Post, which noted that Clinton support from both independents and Democrats had diminished. 

In July, The Hill reported on a Quinnipiac University survey of voters in Colorado, Iowa and Virginia. The results were staggering.

When tested against leading Republican contenders — Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — Clinton lost every state to every opponent.

"President [Barack] Obama won all three states in both of his presidential election victories, but they went for former President George W. Bush almost as uniformly in 2004 and 2000," according to The Hill.

Clinton allies tell the Post that the "new injection of energy is partly an effort to counter negative coverage of her email foibles and her falling poll numbers" while her campaign maintains that a decline in polling numbers is expected as the race moves into full swing.

The campaign insists its recent launch of a $2 million advertising campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire — spots that cast Clinton as a "champion for working people and families" — had already been in the works and are in no way a reaction to the falling numbers.

"You’re going to get nicked up a bit" over a long campaign, chief strategist and pollster Joel Benenson said Wednesday. "This is a marathon, not a sprint."

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading.....

THOUGHTS ON BERNIE SANDERS BEING FORCED OFF STAGE BY BLACK LIVES MATTER AGITATORS - UPDATE

Bernie Sanders was forced to exit the stage of his own rally in Seattle by Black Lives Matter agitators.

They would also disrupted Sanders and Martin O'Malley during their appearance at the Netroots Convention in Phoenix last month and cut considerably into their speaking time.

What I find interesting is how The Left is gloating over the Republican Party row over Donald Trump. In his usual smug form, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone claims that Republicans, Fox News, talk radio and the conservative blogosphere have created a monster that's now turning on them. Could Taibbi please tell me exactly how many Republican presidential candidates have been forced off the stage of their own rallies?

Black Lives Matter is a creation of the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, Hollywood and the left-wing blogosphere. And when their creation can force Bernie Sanders off the stage and prevent him from speaking then it has surely become a monster. But don't expect the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, Hollywood and the left-wing blogosphere to ever describe Black Lives Matter in this manner. 

UPDATE: As a couple of readers have pointed out, the rally from which Sanders was unceremoniously evicted was one commemorating Social Security & Medicare and wasn't a Sanders for President event. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact he was forced off stage by outside agitators. There is a difference between that and Donald Trump having his invitation to the Red State event. While one might object to Erik Erickson's decision, I cannot imagine a scenario in which conservative activists would jump on stage uninvited and force a Republican presidential hopeful off-stage and not permit him or her speak.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading....

The Real Drama is in the Democratic Primary

Obama could never trust Hillary to be loyal to his disastrous policies and controversial legacy. But Biden? Yes, he most likely would stay loyal to Obama. This has the potential to make the Republican race seem dull.

While the attention of the world was on the first Republican presidential debates in Cleveland on Thursday night, the drama in the Democratic Party may soon overshadow anything the GOP has to offer. Look at what’s happening on the way to Hillary Clinton’s coronation in 2016. All of a sudden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-identified “democratic socialist,” is within striking distance in some of the key early primary states. But the real action is with Vice President Joe Biden. Will he or won’t he challenge Mrs. Clinton? That is the question.

If we take our cues from The New York Times, Hillary should be worried. First came the story about two inspectors general seeking a criminal referral involving Mrs. Clinton’s use of her email server while she was secretary of state, and the potential mishandling of classified material. Then, after pushback from the Clinton camp, the Times pulled back, to some extent. No, it wasn’t a criminal referral, they determined on second thought. Yet now the FBI has opened an investigation, and they only get involved when crimes are alleged, or there is the possibility that national secrets may have been compromised.

Are we witnessing a situation like 1968, when Eugene McCarthy entered the Democratic primary race against then-President Lyndon Johnson, and when McCarthy did well in New Hampshire, then-New York Senator Bobby Kennedy decided to jump into the race. Will Biden be Bobby Kennedy to Sanders’ Gene McCarthy, in terms of challenging the presumed Democratic Party standard bearer, once it has become clear that the standard bearer is vulnerable? Have the media and their allies in the Democratic Party decided that Hillary is too badly damaged, and ethically challenged to win the election?

The news media are star-struck by The New York Times, which, allegedly, provides “all the news that’s fit to print.” As Accuracy in Media has repeatedly demonstrated, the news that the Times editors actually see fit to print is often full of bias, inaccuracies, and complete spin. And, sometimes, the Times transparently involves itself in promoting or destroying candidates.

Maureen Dowd’s recent Times column, “Joe Biden in 2016: What Would Beau Do?,” begins by comparing scandal-plagued Hillary Clinton with Tom Brady, and then proceeds to promote Vice President Biden’s chances by recounting the emotional words that sons Beau and Hunter apparently used to encourage their father to run for president while Beau laid on his death bed, dying from brain cancer.

“When Beau realized he was not going to make it, he asked his father if he had a minute to sit down and talk,” writes Dowd. “Of course, honey,” said his father, she recounts.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

DNC Announces Six Debates; O’Malley Camp Slams Slim Schedule as ‘Faciliating a Coronation’

There are only six DNC-sanctioned debates, with the only Iowa debate two months before the caucus and only one debate scheduled in New Hampshire.

The schedule is:

• October 13 – CNN – Nevada
• November 14 – CBS/KCCI/Des Moines Register – Des Moines, IA
• December 19 – ABC/WMUR – Manchester, NH
• January 17 – NBC/Congressional Black Caucus Institute – Charleston, SC
• February or March – Univision/Washington Post – Miami, FL
• February or March – PBS – Wisconsin

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in a statement that the debates “will not only give caucus goers and primary voters ample opportunity to hear from our candidates about their vision for our country’s future, they will highlight the clear contrast between the values of the Democratic Party which is focused on strengthening the middle class versus Republicans who want to pursue out of touch and out of date policies.”

Wasserman Schultz said all five Democratic presidential candidates “have been briefed on the debate schedule and agreed to participate in the DNC sanctioned debate process.”

“If any additional Democratic candidates decide to enter the race, they will need to meet the same criteria for participation as the existing candidates: receiving at least 1% in three national polls, conducted by credible news organizations and polling organizations, in the six weeks prior to the debate,” she said.

That could drop former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee from the field, as he currently has a polling average of 0.9 percent. And that would make Wasserman Schultz happy, as Chafee has gone after Hillary Clinton’s ethics and got rebuked by the DNC chairwoman for doing so.

“Our debate schedule reflects the diversity of the Democratic Party, and in particular, we are proud to announce today the first ever party-sanctioned Univision debate,” she added.

O’Malley senior strategist Bill Hyers fired off an email to supporters beginning with the sentence: “I can’t believe this just happened.”

“The DNC just released their debate schedule, and it is one of the slimmest that I have ever seen. Literally. What they’re proposing does not give you, the voters, ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for president,” he said.

“The DNC has no place determining how many times voters in early states can hear from presidential candidates, and what’s ironic is that their schedule has made this process much LESS democratic. They’ve tried this before and failed—but this year, they’re threatening to ban candidates who participate in ‘unsanctioned’ debates from participating in any other debates.”

Hyers encouraged supporters to tweet disapproval at the DNC. O’Malley campaign leaders in Iowa and New Hampshire were also holding press briefings today to call for more debates.

“For decades, the tradition and importance of robust debates has defined and enriched our election process–especially in early states,” Hyers continued.”In the 2004 presidential election cycle, there were 15 primary debates. In 2008, there were 25. This year, the DNC’s schedule proposes just four debates before the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, and their arbitrary rules of exclusion are not only contrary to our democracy, they are clearly geared toward limiting a debate on the issues and instead facilitating a coronation.”

“It’s ridiculous. The campaign for presidency should be about giving voters an opportunity to hear from every candidate and decide on the issues, not stacking the deck in favor of a chosen candidate.”

Republican National Committee press secretary Allison Moore said that “rather than follow the RNC’s lead of having an inclusive and neutral process, the DNC is clearly putting its thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton.”

“It’s clearer than ever the Democrat Party wants nothing more than a coronation for Hillary Clinton,” Moore said

Via: PJ Media

Continue Reading....

This has been the biggest surprise for the Democratic Party

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser.

Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

Frankly, not even Bernie Sanders thought this—Berniemania—would happen. “No, no, we didn’t,” he tells me, as I sit facing him in his Washington office, which is decorated with bottles of maple syrup. A plaque features Eugene Debs, five-time Socialist Party candidate for president. The notorious Sanders hair, to be honest, has been greatly exaggerated; it lies placidly, almost respectably across his ruddy scalp. And truthfully, the socialism rap has been blown out of proportion as well: Sanders accepts “democratic socialist” as an accurate descriptor of his philosophy, but he never sought it as an identity.

“The campaign is moving so fast the infrastructure can’t keep up,” Sanders confesses. “It sometimes reminds me of a military campaign, where the front line of the army is moving faster than the supply chain.” Since Berniemania began this summer, he and a small band of aides have been scrambling to turn it to their advantage.

You don’t often hear politicians admit that they didn’t expect to catch on. But Sanders and his team have a bracing habit of saying things politicians and their aides are not supposed to say—a minor violation of norms that reminds you how accustomed we are to being lied to in politics.

Another basic tenet of campaign spin is that consultants must never admit their candidate isn’t totally perfect, but Sanders’s people apparently missed that lesson as well.

Via: Business Insider

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Wow! DNC Chair FREEZES-CAN'T ANSWER: 'What's The Difference Between Democrat Party And Socialist'?’

Things got very awkward today when Chris Matthews asked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz what the difference was between the modern Democratic Party and Socialism.

Because we all know there is no difference between today’s Democrat Party and the radical Socialists in Venezuela or Argentina.

THIS MAY BE THE MOST REVEALING VIDEO YOU WATCH THIS YEAR—

Chris Matthews: Will Sanders speak at the Democrat convention, win or lose? Do you want to have him up there as a Socialist representing the Democratic Party?… You want him up there? You want him on the floor of the convention?

Debbie Wasserman Schulz: Bernie Sanders has been a good Democrat. He caucuses with the Democrats.

Matthews: Should he speak? Speak at prime-time?

Wasserman Schultz: Of course he should speak.

Matthews: In prime-time with everybody watching? (laughing)

Wasserman Schultz: Of course Bernie Sanders should speak…

Matthews: What’s the difference between the Democratic Party and Socialist?

Wasserman Schultz: (Speechless) (Laugh)

Matthews: I used to think there’s a big difference. What do you think it is?

Wasserman Schultz: Wuh… The difference between…

Matthews: Like Democrat Hillary Clinton and Socialist Bernie Sanders?… Well what’s the big difference between the Democrat Party and Socialist. You’re chairman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a Socialist?…

Wasserman Schultz: (She won’t answer) The relevant debate we will be having over the course of this campaign is what’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

Wow!
Even the DNC Chair knows there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Democratic Party and Socialism.

Via The Gateway Pundit

Continue Reading.....