And here is why the Clinton campaign went on the attack against Sanders including the spurious claims by Chelsea Clinton:

Bernie Sanders' lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire is on the rise, with the Vermont senator leading the former secretary of state by 27 points, 60% to 33%, a new CNN/WMUR poll has found.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/new-hampshire-cnn-wmur-poll-democrats/

Anonymous wrote:She doesn't come off any more insincere than the average male politician. But the two that she's been up against inspired a degree of idealism that it's hard for her image to stand up against. If she was just against a Kerry or a Gore or some other more standard Democratic candidate, she may have had a stronger lead.

This. Plus the sexist bro machine keeps mobilizing against her in ways they never do for men.

She doesn't come off any more insincere than the average male politician. But the two that she's been up against inspired a degree of idealism that it's hard for her image to stand up against. If she was just against a Kerry or a Gore or some other more standard Democratic candidate, she may have had a stronger lead.

Hillary backers better start worrying about indictment. Email news today is not good. TS+ in her emails.

Hillary backers should reflect on why she is having such a problem getting her message across given that her main competition is self proclaimed democratic socialist who is in his mid-seventies. She has lost her lead in Iowa and is in danger of losing that primary and is likely to lose NH as well.

She lost to Obama - again a guy who the conventional wisdom thought had no chance.

The truth is that she comes across as patently insincere - and this is in striking contrast to Sanders this go around and Obama in 2008. If she is the nominee, she will have the same problem no matter who the Republicans nominate. If she were not a woman, how many women would even consider voting for someone with her multiple flaws?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, there's a bunch of bullsh!t accusations flying around here, and I don't believe them. Links. Post evidence please.

"I believe it because it was on the internet!" said this Liberal who can't believe their candidate has snowed them.

Words words words. Post some links, or don't you have any? Anyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are all the legitimate, well rounded, published critiques, authored by nonpartisan reviewers? I've looked around and haven't found any.

As for HRC getting endorsements, rest assured these leaders are playing politics. I'm a diehard progressive, and I'm ready for action. Bernie makes sense.

I am with you!

I see the Hillary campaign is back to emphasizing electability despite polls indicating otherwise. Of course, we have had PPs' saying that head to head polls at this point mean nothing but that does not stop the Hillary campaign from claiming that she is the more electable. Not very different than what they did with Obama except that in his case they played the race card.

Bernie is emphasizing his electability based on polls. Just like Donald Trump. Hillary is emphasizing that she's been tested by the Republicans and has come through it, that she won't fold. That's her argument about electability.

If Bernie is going to be a serious candidate, he and his supporters need a thicker skin. His campaign spokesman just unleashed a really hostile attack on the Human Rights Campaign. His Berniebros have said they'll root for Planned Parenthood to be defunded. That's just ridiculous.

After all, Bernie has to get $$$$ from somewhere to pay for all his free stuff. Oh, that's right, it's free. Never mind.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, there's a bunch of bullsh!t accusations flying around here, and I don't believe them. Links. Post evidence please.

"I believe it because it was on the internet!" said this Liberal who can't believe their candidate has snowed them.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, there's a bunch of bullsh!t accusations flying around here, and I don't believe them. Links. Post evidence please.

I'm sorry, there's a bunch of bullsh!t accusations flying around here, and I don't believe them. Links. Post evidence please.

I just can't vote for someone who tells another colleague to change the title of emails and send secret/sensitive information through unsecured servers and email.

HRC is either plain-ass DUMB or sleazy and beyond dishonest.

NOT electable either way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are all the legitimate, well rounded, published critiques, authored by nonpartisan reviewers? I've looked around and haven't found any.

As for HRC getting endorsements, rest assured these leaders are playing politics. I'm a diehard progressive, and I'm ready for action. Bernie makes sense.

I am with you!

I see the Hillary campaign is back to emphasizing electability despite polls indicating otherwise. Of course, we have had PPs' saying that head to head polls at this point mean nothing but that does not stop the Hillary campaign from claiming that she is the more electable. Not very different than what they did with Obama except that in his case they played the race card.

Bernie is emphasizing his electability based on polls. Just like Donald Trump. Hillary is emphasizing that she's been tested by the Republicans and has come through it, that she won't fold. That's her argument about electability.

If Bernie is going to be a serious candidate, he and his supporters need a thicker skin. His campaign spokesman just unleashed a really hostile attack on the Human Rights Campaign. His Berniebros have said they'll root for Planned Parenthood to be defunded. That's just ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:Where are all the legitimate, well rounded, published critiques, authored by nonpartisan reviewers? I've looked around and haven't found any.

As for HRC getting endorsements, rest assured these leaders are playing politics. I'm a diehard progressive, and I'm ready for action. Bernie makes sense.

I am with you!

I see the Hillary campaign is back to emphasizing electability despite polls indicating otherwise. Of course, we have had PPs' saying that head to head polls at this point mean nothing but that does not stop the Hillary campaign from claiming that she is the more electable. Not very different than what they did with Obama except that in his case they played the race card.

Anonymous wrote:Where are all the legitimate, well rounded, published critiques, authored by nonpartisan reviewers? I've looked around and haven't found any.

As for HRC getting endorsements, rest assured these leaders are playing politics. I'm a diehard progressive, and I'm ready for action. Bernie makes sense.

Nonpartisan meaning what? The analyses I have seen are all from liberal analysts/economists/journalists.

Curious: how is Bernie going to achieve this action, in your opinion?

…………………...Socialism
……………………………………………..Socialism: A guarantee we are all equally poor and miserable with a socialistic agenda to redistribute income from those who work harder, make better decisions, and are more successful to those who are less successful, work less or not at all, and make too many bad decisions.
Equal people are not free and free people are not equal…..
.
……………………………………………“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
………………………….. Winston Churchill
.
……………….Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.
………………

………………."No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce."
……………. - Thomas Sowell