link

TJS: So, why are you throwing your support behind Sen. Bernie Sanders?

NJ: I’ve been supporting him from the very beginning. I like the fact that he is anti-establishment and pro-economic justice. My initial support of him was around his refrain that “We have to take money out of politics.” Then he came out for us when he hired Symone Sanders [as his national press secretary]. It really reinforced that I made the right decision. After the Black Lives Matter protests in Seattle, a lot of people were upset that they interrupted Bernie Sanders. But I thought that he did what a president should do: Instead of taking the criticism as an insult, he saw it as an opportunity to improve his campaign and that’s what we want our leaders to do.
...
TJS: If you were on national television and had 30 seconds to pitch Bernie to America, what would you say?

Jackson: One of the things that people get wrong is that he is the idealist or the dreamer. But what we’ve been sold by all of these politicians so far are dreams and ideas; Bernie actually has a solid plan that says, “Listen: True American democracy is the empowerment of the average working class person; not corporate business interests or the privileged top 1% (which the majority of Black America has never been a part of). College should be free for students, universal health care should be available to everyone, corporate money shouldn’t rule governmental action, and government should focus on things that will help everyone not the few.” I don’t think he’s the dreamer. We’ve been sold status quo dreams all of these years and some of us can’t recognize the real from the dream anymore. Bernie Sanders is real, and he’s discussing the things that we need. Especially black people.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/173695/20160127/dnc-chair-attempts-block-unsanctioned-new-hampshire-democratic-debate.htm

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Tuesday that an additional debate in New Hampshire ahead of the early voting state's primary is unlikely to happen, dealing a blow to co-hosts MSNBC and the New Hampshire Union Leader.

"We have no plans to sanction any further debates before the upcoming First in the Nation caucuses and primary, but will reconvene with our campaigns after those two contests to review our schedule," Wasserman Schultz said in a statement, referring to early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. "Our three major candidates are already scheduled to appear on the same stage next week for the New Hampshire Democratic Party dinner on February 5th."

...

Here's her statement
http://www.democrats.org/Post/dnc-statement-on-demdebate-schedule

DNC STATEMENT ON #DEMDEBATE SCHEDULE JANUARY 26, 2016
WASHINGTON – DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz issued the following statement on the primary debate schedule:

“Here are the facts. Democratic debates this cycle have far exceeded the viewership of debates in past competitive primaries. Our October debate in Nevada set a Democratic primary record with 15.8 million viewers, the sixth-biggest non-sport cable broadcast in U.S. history, while our most recent debate on NBC was the third highest-rated debate in Democratic primary history with 12.5 million viewers including broadcast and online streaming. Our next DNC-sanctioned debate featuring our major candidates will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin hosted by PBS on February 11th, with another already scheduled for March 9th with Univision and the Washington Post. We have consistently worked with our campaigns to ensure a schedule that is robust and that allows them to engage with voters in a variety of ways, whether through debates, forums, town halls, but also leaving them the flexibility to attend county fairs and living room conversations in states like Iowa and New Hampshire where direct voter contact matters so much. We have no plans to sanction any further debates before the upcoming First in the Nation caucuses and primary, but will reconvene with our campaigns after those two contests to review our schedule. Our three major candidates are already scheduled to appear on the same stage next week for the New Hampshire Democratic Party dinner on February 5th.”

Bernie Sanders campaign has stated it will not participate in an unsanctioned debate

to the right, with no guarantee she'll retain the White House - particularly if her scandals catch up to her.

Bernie represents change though some could argue accurately that he represents what liberal democrats used to stand for.

Hopefully, we realize and do what we didn't do for six Obama years: follow through and get the House & Senate for him. That's what it will take to get meaningful change.

imagining a cabinet post, help in their re-election campaign, cashing in on lobbying, etc - something like that. Many of them strike me as pigs at the Washington trough looking for some more slop - not looking out for what is truly best for the people they represent.

To me, that's the core difference between the candidates: Bernie really cares and has all his life while Hillary pretends to care or is limited in how sincerely she cares while manipulateing the media to try to portray she cares as much as Bernie. Look over their careers if you doubt that. Actions speak louder than words.

I cannot comprehend and do not get the sensation that the establishment just "love" Hillary - much like I question Hillary's sincerity. Many are coldly just putting their money down on the best looking horse in the race to them at this time for their own self gain.

A number who had endorsed Hillary in 2008 switched Obama - jumped on a better horse.

I think Hillary represents the status quo - not lots will change in Washington on her watch. Washington will continue to be owned by Wall Street. No single payer. Any civil rights issues will be decided on how they affect her and their re-electability, income inequality will persist, more gridlock, a move to the neocon right on foreign affairs, etc Folks in Washington will resist change because they're the ones who need to be changed out.

Bernie might wind up with a similar result but at least he's going to try to change things as he has his entire life. Whether he does or not is up to us and whether we can get his political revolution results in the Senate and House.

Maybe I'm cynical but that's how I see it.

last few weeks, it makes a rational person wonder "Why can't Hillary win with the truth?"

When one lies, flip-flops and deceives as readily as Hillary has throughout her career and in this campaign, it's hard to enthusiastically support her. I'd never support anything resembling the present day GOP but if Hillary prevails, I'm not sure what effort I'll be able to muster knowing my heart won't be behind her and that her campaign, when it involves people like David Brock doing a hatchet job on her opponent, is closer to resembling the GOP than anything I can recall in my history with the Democrats.

Bernie on the other hand, he's straight up. He tells you plain and simple where he stands and why. And you can look back 40-50 years and see him taking similar positions throughout his life.















Bernie has been elected for decades running on the things he believes in his heart. He had a pretty good vision as a young man because he hasn't had to "evolve" on many of his basic ideas about foreign wars, income diversity, etc. He doesn't have to lie. He doesn't have to flip-flop to get votes like Hillary. He doesn't have to hire political hit men to tear down his opponent with lies and deception like Hillary. You can take to the bank what he says because that's what he's done and fought for his entire life. Hillary's political epitaph will never be able to say anything like that because she's a political chameleon who rapidly changes color to attain political power - not necessarily because it's the right thing to do.

"you are judged by the company you keep"

Super Tuesday on March 1 because no one can digest nearly 10,000 pages of emails over night and get that out into the media and to the electorate while the polls are open the next day.

This is just the end of the batch of emails Hillary produced. Someone has sued to get the batch of deleted emails the FBI recovered (that are supposed to be all personal - and I don't think they can get those)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/22/exclusive-at-least-one-clinton-email-had-most-sensitive-designation-exposing-that-it-had-human-intelligence-source-reporting.html

Hillary might have a real problem.

The difficulty is the media outlets who are making these claims

here both in sex (too many men, not enough women) and age(too much youth, not enough aged) and therefore, Clinton's lead in NV is likely significantly larger.

I expect Sanders would tighten it up but it's probably not nearly as tight as this poll suggests.

Have they discovered (ignore Giuliani allegations for the moment)
http://www.examiner.com/article/rudy-giuliana-convinced-hillary-clinton-will-be-indicted
Furthermore, as the former mayor reminded his audience, Clinton "... destroyed 34,000 emails. That's evidence of a guilty knowledge, the destruction is evidence of guilty knowledge, evidentiary principle that you can use against someone when they're in a situation where who knows what's on those 34,000 e-mails." Giuliani said that he would have argued, as a prosecutor that in itself is evidence of a guilty knowledge.

'34,000 destroyed emails' ?

That's pretty major because it would probably take more than 55,000 pages to print those. Which means, at the current pace they've been on that this will probably take them until next November or beyond to get through them all. Hillary will have to enjoy monthly releases of her emails that will stir more controversy until the election (if she lasts that long).

If this tidbit of news is true, this is a pretty major development against her chances because she can't clear herself before the election and bears some responsibility because she had them deleted.