Online readers SCORTCH unbelievably biased New York Times headline, article

[Babel_17]

5. My 2 cents (if it gets posted)

It's taking all the investment banking money, and all the party leadership, to prop Secretary Clinton up. On an even playing field with Senator Sanders she'd be toast. She's popular with the leadership because she pays back her friends, with power, influence, and money. For those leaving the game, there are jobs in the private sector. For her enemies there is payback. And like Bush the press is dealt with in a like manner. The Clintons have a list of those who cross them, and they limit their all important access. Those that gush on them are rewarded. People are seeing the flaws, and in states not under the thumb of leaders looking for favors, the voters are rising up for Sanders. That wave is spreading and it will engulf the later states. Clinton's legal problems, and the public spectacle of her ethical lapses, are becoming more serious, and much more well known. She holds Obama's legacy hostage, but that will only carry her so far with the DOJ against an FBI that has built a heck of a case against her subordinates for an incompetence that rises to a criminal level. And where does the buck stop with that? Can you run for President while claiming to be dazed and confused as to how security procedures work? The bottom line is that there is no appetite for a Secretary Clinton who has grown worse than the Senator Clinton of 2008. Especially so now that we have the Sanders campaign. She didn't kill that campaign in its cradle; now it's growing, and it won't be faced down.

Lol, had to trim the last paragraph own, I was running into the character limit. Could have used some grammatical editing but I felt an urgent desire to just post it. Lol, you know how that can be.