Whew: Hillary’s convention speech (probably) drew a smaller TV audience than Trump’s

Thank God. I think Trump can handle losing the election, but losing a ratings battle to a dial tone like Hillary Clinton might have broken the guy. He’ll be okay now.

The downside: He’ll be mentioning his ratings win not just every day until Election Day but likely every day for the rest of his life.

Clinton’s Thursday night acceptance speech at the DNC averaged 28 million viewers across the six biggest cable and broadcast channels.

Trump’s speech at the RNC one week earlier averaged 30 million viewers across the same channels…

CNN was by far the highest-rated channel on Thursday, averaging 7.5 million viewers during Clinton’s speech. MSNBC was #2 with 5.3 million viewers. NBC was #3 with 4.5 million.

These are the early numbers. The final figures later today will be slightly better, but probably not enough to erase Trump’s advantage. All three previous nights of the Democratic convention outdrew their Republican counterparts, by the way, and Hillary outdrew Trump last night on CNN and MSNBC. Trump’s margin of ratings victory comes entirely from Fox News, which blew the roof off last Thursday for his speech with 9.3 million viewers but clocked just three million yesterday for Clinton. Did Fox get a big jump for Trump because right-wingers who were already voting for him decided to tune into their favorite network to watch his speech? Or was it a more politically mixed audience that gravitated to Fox last week on the assumption that the Republican news channel is naturally the place to watch the Republican nominee speak? The answer to that question would give us a clue about Trump’s crossover appeal in November.

Obama’s 2012 speech outdrew both Trump and Clinton, but if you missed last week’s postabout convention ratings over time, read that for all of the caveats about shrinking ratings in an age with multifarious media options. Given Trump’s celebrity and the curiosity factor surrounding him, it’s arguably no surprise that he’d draw more of an audience than a ho-hum Democratic nominee. But Hillary’s no ordinary nominee: She’s the first woman major-party nominee in history. The fact that she couldn’t bring out enough viewers to top him despite having a historic storyline to help boost interest is a comment on how “meh” she is to the public. Apart from her husband she’s the biggest known quantity in American politics, the ultimate rerun. And like I said in last night’s convention thread, who wants to watch a rerun when there’s so much else on TV — even when that rerun is a Very Special Episode?

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading.....

HIGH-PROFILE MSNBC ANCHORS OPPOSE NETWORK’S HARD NEWS PIVOT

MSNBC has announced a plan to turn away from left-wing opinionating and towards hard, objective news coverage. The network has been cratering in the ratings for years but just now figured out that left-wing talk radio-with-pictures hosted by male and female Rachel Maddow clones isn’t a ratings-grabber.  The Wrap reports that three unnamed MSNBC anchors resent the change:

Network insiders told TheWrap at least three of the network’s anchors — two of them higher-profile — are not on board with network chairman Andrew Lack and president Phil Griffin’s daytime overhaul from progressive firebrand to traditional news format.

“Hard news is a mistake,” one insider told TheWrap of direct conversations with one anchor.

Another anchor has said in public that Lack and Griffin have a fundamental misunderstanding of MSNBC’s audience.

“Older people aren’t eager to get their news from people like Ronan Farrow or Chris Hayes,” the anchor told TheWrap’s insider.

The Wrap adds that part of the internal frustration is over the fact that MSNBC does not appear ready to change it’s left-wing primetime line-up with Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews. Only daytime will move to a hard news format.

Full story here.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] MSNBC’s Scarborough: Hillary’s Republican/ISIS Comparison Is ‘Gutter Politics At Its Worst’

Joe Scarborough and Mark Halperin criticized the double standard for Republicans and Democrats, saying that if a Republican said something like what Hillary Clinton argued in comparing pro-life Americans to ISIS the “world would come to a halt.”

On Friday’s “Morning Joe” Scarborough insisted Hillary’s comments “to be so hyperbolic and insulting, and quite frankly, it’s gutter politics at its worst to compare people to radical terrorists that cut off people’s head and blow up grandmoms.”

Mika Brzezinski: All right, the RNC was quick to respond to the comments but I’ll let you do it first.

Joe Scarborough: It was disgusting, it was absolutely disgusting. Hillary Clinton saying—

Brzezinski: I was trying to be careful.

Scarborough: No, I mean, just let’s tell the truth. She wanted us to talk about this. She wanted to throw a bright shiny object out there.

Brzezinski: Look at the bird, is what I said when you were sitting right here.

Scarborough: So they don’t talk about the email scandal. And so she has to be so hyperbolic and insulting, and quite frankly, it’s gutter politics at its worst to compare people to radical terrorists that cut off people’s head and blow up grandmoms.

Brzezinski: Alright.

Scarborough: No, it’s not all right and we have seen by reporting what these terrorists do to young girls. The sexual slavery is absolutely appalling, and what Hillary Clinton did is compare somebody who is pro-life, which is close to 50% of Americans, to radical terrorists. This is like Barack Obama. I mean, is this the radicalism? We have been talking ability the craziness of the Republican Party. But is this the sick radicalism that is now infecting the Democratic Party, that if you’re Barack Obama, you compare Chuck Schumer to people shouting “death to America” in Iran? if you’re Hillary Clinton, you compare pro-life Democrats and Republicans to ISIS? What Happened here yesterday? This is so over the top.

Mark Halperin: If a Republican did this, the world would come to a halt.

Scarborough: The world would come to a halt.

Halperin: It should be condemned in strong terms. And I’m hoping and I’m suspecting she’ll may take it back today.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Scarborough Thanks MSNBC Boss for Booting Liberal Hosts

The morning after Al Sharpton was booted to the Sunday morning desert from his evening show, and not long after Ed Schultz and Alex Wagner were relieved of their hosting duties, Joe Scarborough has profusely thanked NBC News honcho Andrew Lack for making those changes. 

On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough was discussing stunning poll results in which the first word that came to voters' minds about Hillary was "liar."  Asked what was the worst thing said about him in such polling, Scarborough said "he works for MSNBC was always the worst." But Joe then added, his hands steepled in a gesture of gratefulness: "not any more though, cause things have changed. Thank you, Andy. Thank you very much." 

MARK HALPERIN: They asked an open question: what's the first word you think of when you're asked the name of a presidential candidate? The leading answer for Hillary Clinton was "liar." The leading answer for Trump was "arrogant." And the leading word for Jeb Bush, Bush. 

JOE SCARBOROUGH: That may be a problem. 

NICOLLE WALLACE: It may be, it may not be. I mean, Bush is also the last name of one of our most popular former presidents, Bush 41, his father. I think the Republican primary voters are well aware of that. I would rather be known as Bush than a liar. 

OE: Or arrogant. These are unprompted by the way. These questions, though, what happens is they ask in these polls, what. It's the part of these polls that always scared me the most because they were the most instructive. They're called verbates. 

WALLACE: Like a focus group.

JOE: What's the first thing you think of when you think of Joe Scarborough. And then you have to sit there and read the sentences, and you go oh, my God!

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: How did you do? What were some of the worst? 

JOE: He works for MSNBC. That was always the worst. Not any more, though, because things have changed. Thank you, Andy. That was the past, this is the now. Thank you, very much.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading.....

Fiorina Hits Todd for Using Climate Change to Talk California Drought

During an appearance on Meet the Press, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina hit back at moderator Chuck Todd for pushing the issue of climate change during a discussion on the ongoing California drought. Todd proclaimed “[i]n your home state of California, drought, the wildfires. More evidence is coming out from the scientific community that says climate change has made this worse. Not to say that the drought is directly caused but it’s made it worse. 

For her part, Fiorina refused to accept Todd’s claim and instated blamed “liberal politicians” for causing the massive drought: 

You know what’s also made it worse? Politicians, liberal politicians who stood up for 40 years as the population of California doubled and saying, you cannot build a new reservoir and you cannot build a water conveyance system. And so, for 40 years 70% of the rainfall has washed out to sea. That's pretty dumb when you know you’re going to have droughts every single year, or every three years let’s say. 

The Meet the Press moderator continued to play up how climate change made the California drought worse and how he “asked Governor Jerry Brown to respond to that exact criticism you made. I said, do you blame liberal environmentalists in California, specifically on dams and reservoirs, and this is how he responded.” 

After Brown called Fiorina’s argument “such utter ignorance” and how “these people if they want to run for president, better do kind of eighth grade science before they make any more utterances” the Republican presidential candidate pushed back once again: 

That's a lot of insults but of course it makes no sense what he just said. It would be helpful if you were fighting fires to have more water. Firefighters in California have difficulty getting enough water now, so they're using other means. 

It would be helpful to agriculture and everything else to have water saved in the good years so that you could use it in the bad years. I'm not denying that California's air is dry. That's obvious. I'm not denying that there is a drought. But there is no denying that politicians have made this problem immeasurably worse. 

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Mika: Hillary’s ‘Condescending’ Email Defense Relies on ‘People Not Being Smart’

The panel of MSNBC’s Morning Joe tore into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she turned her private email sever over the government after two top secret emails were found to have been stored on her email.

“Politically, it’s a no-win situation for her,” Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin said. “If they recover the information from the emails, the 30,000 personal ones, I think it’s almost certainly the case that someone will find something that should have been turned over, and that would be a problem for her.”

“If it’s been fully deleted and permanently erased… I think people will say, ‘Wow, why did Hillary Clinton go to such length to permanently delete the e-mails?’” he continued. “And the question will linger forever, what was on there?”

Republican strategist Nicole Wallace agreed, and slammed Clinton’s “cumulative string of dishonesty” and desperate excuses. “I just think they’re down the rabbit hole of now squandering of whatever is left of the general public’s trust.”

Contributor Mike Barncile said the emails were indeed a problem, but the larger problem was the scandal “regurgitates” all the public’s worries about the Clintons. “Hillary Clinton, it’s quite obvious thus far her candidacy, too much of it has been about the past.”

The panel also ripped Clinton for framing the inquiry into her emails as a partisan issue, even though she was being investigated by Obama appointees.“I have to say, that feels condescending” host Mika Brzezinski said.

Via: Mediaite

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Donald Trump: Low Minimum Wage ‘Not a Bad Thing for This Country’

Donald Trump said during an interview with MSNBC’s Morning Joe that he believed a low minimum wage was a good thing for America, because it helped the country compete with foreigners.

“Your slogan is ‘Make America Great Again,'” host Mika Brzezinski noted. “I’m curious on the issue of wages ,which have been flat for years now… do you think the minimum wage should be raised across the board?”

“Mika, it’s such a nasty question because the answer has to be nasty,” Trump said. “We’re in a global economy now. It used to be companies would leave New York State or leave another state and go to Florida, go to Texas, go to wherever they go because or lower wages…”

But now, Trump noted, the United States is competing with much lower wages in other countries. “We can’t have a situation where our labor is so much more expensive than other countries that we can no longer compete. One of the things I’ll do if I win, I’ll make us competitive as a country.”

“I want to create jobs so you don’t have to worry about the minimum wage, they’re making much more than the minimum wage,” he said. “But I think having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country, Mika.”

Via: Mediaite

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] MSNBC ‘Frustrated’ With Clinton for Messing Up Chance to ‘Make History’

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, after a nearly 10-minute discussion on Morning Joe of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton turning over her private email server, said Thursday she was “frustrated” with Clinton’s campaign for its numerous errors and potentially derailing the historic nature of her candidacy.

Brzezinski, who said earlier in the segment she would vote for Clinton if she won her party’s nomination, vented about Clinton’s aides protecting her from the press and trying to gloss over the email story earlier this year. Clinton’s server from her tenure at the State Department is now at the forefront of her campaign, with a federal investigation into its security, the revelations that top-secret emails were on it and her earlier acknowledgement that she wiped it clean of more than 30,000 emails.

“If you’re managing a campaign, you haven’t done a very good job helping put this behind Hillary Clinton,” Brzezinski said. “You just haven’t. Now the FBI’s involved.”

“There’s a very obvious answer to why they used a private email server,” said New York Times reporter Nick Confessore. “To keep their emails private. Everyone knows that. It’s obvious, so just say that. Acknowledge it. Instead of, ‘It’s for convenience.’ Not so convenient now, by the way.”

Brzezinski wrapped up the segment by admitting Clinton’s conduct was bothersome since it could keep a woman from capturing the White House.

“I’m frustrated by this,” she said.

“It’s very frustrating,” Huffington Post’s Sam Stein said, nodding.

“She could be an incredibly strong candidate,” she said, sighing. “She’s got the experience, could make history.

”

“I think you’re speaking for a lot of people who feel the same way,” Stein said.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged Hillary Clinton, Mika Brzezinski, Morning Joe, MSNBC, Sam Stein. Bookmark the permalink.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch: Americans Are ‘Tired of Hillary Clinton’

MSNBC contributor Donny Deutsch said on Morning Joe that the greatest problem with Hillary Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign is that the American people are simply tired of her.

“The emails are actually just a symptom of the problem of Hillary,” Deutsch said. “Americans are just tired of Hillary Clinton. There comes a point in time where she comes on the TV — Hillary Clinton is very competent and very bright, just Americans have fallen out of like with her. It’s that simple.”

“Are you tired of her?” host Joe Scarborough asked.

“Yes,” he replied. “I think Hillary at this point, regardless of her skill set, would not be an effective leader because her fault or not, the country is polarized. She cannot lead effectively, because she’ll not be able to bring this country together.”

Deutsch, who identifies as a liberal, said he was basing his observation in part on his conversations with powerful New York City establishment Democrats. “That’s Democrats,” Scarborough pointed out. “That’s not Republicans. These are around the dinner table, around the lunch table powerful Democrats saying ‘We just can’t do this.’

Via: Mediaite

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] MSNBC Tries to Blame ‘Locals,’ Not EPA, for River Pollution

On MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts Monday afternoon, environmental reporter Tony Dokoupil described the Environmental Protection Agency causing three million gallons of toxic waste to spill into a Colorado river as “good intentions leading to a bad outcome.” He explained: “This mine has been leaking sludge for a long time and EPA was on the scene in hopes of cleaning it up.” 

Moments later, Dokoupil seemed to suggest local citizens were really the ones to blame for the massive pollution:

...this is one mine, but in fact, there are dozens and maybe even hundreds of them in the area. And the EPA has been saying, “We want to make this a Superfund site.” Which means they want to dedicate a special amount of money to clean this really super toxic thing up. They haven’t had the political support to get that done because locals, believe it or not, want more mining in the area, they want more development.

Dokoupil lectured: “After this, I think they may revisit the conversation.” Roberts replied: “May be a little conflicted.”

Here is a transcript of the August 10 exchange:

2:52 PM ET

THOMAS ROBERTS: We want to show you what's happened in Colorado. A discolored sludge that is traveling down the Animas River in the mountain states of Colorado, also to New Mexico as well. And as you can see, it started in the southwestern Colorado gold mine and has now reached New Mexico. There are even fears it could spread to the Grand Canyon. About three million gallons of waste water began spilling on Wednesday, when a cleanup crew breached a dam. The crew was being supervised by the EPA. Which is amazing when you think about it.

Tony Dokoupil’s a reporter for MSNBC and the host of Greenhouse on Shift by MSNBC. So Tony, when people hear that, that this was being observed by the EPA, how could this happen?

TONY DOKOUPIL: Well, it's good intentions leading to a bad outcome. This mine has been leaking sludge for a long time and EPA was on the scene in hopes of cleaning it up. But what they inadvertently did was knock the dam loose and the whole thing came down the river. So they thought it was one million gallons, it turned out to be three million gallons. And the stuff is heavy metal, it’s arsenic, it’s lead, it’s cadmium, at 300 to 3,000 times the normal level. And they're still in a containment phase of this. They don't know what the cleanup’s going to be because they're still trying to cap it again.

    

(...)

DOKOUPIL: The big question now is, you know, how did this happen and how do we avoid having it happen again?

ROBERTS: In the future.

DOKOUPIL: Because, you know, this is one mine, but in fact, there are dozens and maybe even hundreds of them in the area. And the EPA has been saying, “We want to make this a Superfund site.” Which means they want to dedicate a special amount of money to clean this really super toxic thing up. They haven’t had the political support to get that done because locals, believe it or not, want more mining in the area, they want more development. After this, I think they may revisit the conversation.                                 

ROBERTS: May be a little conflicted.

DOKOUPIL: Yeah.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading.....

Democrats: They're All Socialists Now by LARRY ELDER

Socialism, according to Dictionary.com, is defined as: "A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, recently appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Matthews asked, "What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?"

Wasserman Schultz laughed, looked stunned, and began hemming and hawing. Matthews helpfully interjected, "I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is?" Still, Wasserman Schultz refused to give him a straight answer. "The difference between -- the real question," she said, "is what's the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican."

Matthews tried again: "Yeah, but what's the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist? You're the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist."

Still, Wasserman Schultz wouldn't answer the question .

A few days ago Chuck Todd of NBC's "Meet the Press" offered her a chance for a do-over. He replayed the exchange with Matthews, then asked: "Given that (Democratic presidential candidate) Bernie Sanders is an unabashed socialist and believes in social democratic governments -- (he) likes the ones in Europe -- what is the difference? Can you explain the difference?"

And again she either could not or would not answer, and wanted to discuss the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

On the one hand, Wasserman Schultz might have refused to answer because she did not want to put her thumb on the scale of the self-described socialist candidate Bernie Sanders or the likely nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton. No matter what Wasserman Schultz would've said, it would injure one while helping the other.

That's one explanation. But the more likely explanation is simple. There is no real distinction between today's Democrats and socialists. A few years ago Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., conducted hearings in which she grilled oil executives for alleged price fixing. She threatened to nationalize their business. Did (SET ITAL) any (END ITAL) Democrat speak out against her threat? No.

Newsweek, in 2009, ran a cover story with the headline: "We Are All Socialists Now." Jon Meacham wrote:

"The U.S. government has already -- under a conservative Republican administration -- effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not -- and many, especially Congressman (Mike) Pence and (Sean) Hannity, do not -- the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state. ...

"... If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world. ...

"... This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one."

Polls, too, show that most Democrats are quite comfortable with socialism. A recent poll found 52 percent of Democrats had a favorable opinion about socialism.

Bernie Sanders has always caucused with Democrats, and they are perfectly comfortable with him. He's still a long shot for the Democratic nomination, but he is rising in the polls. If there is a distinction between him and President Barack Obama on anything major, what is it? Both pushed "universal health care." Both oppose the Keystone pipeline. Both believe taxes should be raised on "rich" people. Both believe in the redistribution of income. Obama wants two years of "free" community college. Sanders wants to make college "free" altogether. Both attack "corporate greed" and both belong to the school of economics that says, "you didn't build that."

Andy Stern, then the head of the Democratic Party-supporting Service Employees International Union, said, "I think Western Europe, as much as we used to make fun of it, has made different trade-offs which may have ended up with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality."

That's an acceptable trade-off in today's Democratic Party.

Jack Kennedy, a tax cutter, defended his plan by arguing it would invigorate the economy. He wanted growth and said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Today's Democrat, like Wasserman Schultz, would deride Kennedy as a greedy Republican advocate of "trickle down."

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @larryelder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Via: GOPUSA

Continue Reading....

WH Anticipates 'A Difficult Transition' to 'Clean Power'

(

CNSNews.com) - President Obama will unveil the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan on Monday, imposing stricter-than-expected carbon dioxide limits on the states.

"There's no doubt that this is going to be a difficult transition," Obama's spokesman Josh Earnest told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Monday. "But it's a transition that is clearly in the best interests of our economy, it's clearly in the best interest of the health of children all across the country, and it's in the best interests of the planet."

Earnest said he thinks the EPA Clean Power Plan "is the culmination of what the president talked about in 2007 and 2008."

Even before he became president, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to wean the nation off coal.

"If somebody wants to build a coal fired plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008.

He added later in the same interview, “Under my plan -- electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Rates may skyrocket, but the White House insists customers' bills will come down -- likely because people won't be able to afford as much electricity.

"If we actually make progress in investing in this clean energy, what we're actually going to do, we're actually going to lower costs for consumers," Earnest said on Monday.

The new rules take effect in 2022, and states must meet the carbon dioxide reduction targets -- a 32 percent reduction from 2005 levels -- by 2030. Obama's proposed rule last year called for a 30 percent cut.

"We're going to take the most important, substantial step that our country's every taken to reduce the causes of climate change," Earnest said on Monday. "And what we're going to do, we're going scale back the carbon pollution that our power generators are currently allowed to spew into the atmosphere."

"For too long, we've seen Washington, D.C., putting off and delaying action, serious action, to fight the causes of climate change. And we've seen special interests mobilize to try to fight any effort to do that. And I have no doubt that special interests in Washington, D.C., are going to squeal -- as are the politicians who are in their pocket.

"But the fact of the matter is, these rules are going to do something to finally confront the causes of climate change, it's actually going to have significant benefits for public heatlth, particularly children with asthma, and it's going to accelerate the progress that we've made already in transitioining to a clean energy economy."

As the Associated Press noted, it will be up to Obama's successor to implement the EPA's Clean Energy Plan. The AP also reported that the Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030.

The actual price won't be clear until states decide how they'll reach their targets. But people in the energy industry said the stricter limits make Obama's mandate even more burdensome, costly and difficult to achieve.

Via: CNS News

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.....