I'm willing to bet that people don't vote for someone they don't trust

or like. Not in the numbers you need to win a national election.

And Hillary's trust deficit cannot be fixed. It's hard as hell to regain trust. I know Clinton supporter like to cite how she's the most admired woman in the country, and it's true she got the highest percentage-13%.

Vermont U.S. Representative Peter Welch endorses Bernie

Bernie Sanders is probably starving children this very moment

File under can they go lower.

$16 million of the $73 million the candidate raised in 2015 came from individual donors who said they were without jobs, according to the report.
I must say, that is the most impressive, albeit disturbing, figure I've seen in all my years observing politics.

I hope there are not children going without their meals or people going without medicine this evening because their parents or caregivers have pinned their hopes on Sanders.


<snip>
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/19/1487755/-Sanders-raised-16-million-from-the-unemployed-Wow


Of course that unemployed group includes retirees, students, people on disability and those with independent incomes. But how disgusting is it to suggest that unempoyed people would make their children go hungry and deny them medication? The contempt and dishonesty is stunning.

Filth, filthy smear

The MSM is now more focused on how "dangerous" Bernie is.

Why listening to them, you'd be forgiven for believing that Bernie is a greater danger to this country than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or John Kasich or Mario Rubio.

Now about that bridge.....

The Democratic Party isn't some sacred totem.

It isn't beyond reproach. Membership in and of itself doesn't denote honor or decency or good policy. It doesn't prevent corruption.

Wearing that label isn't nearly as important as standing up for working people and poor people. Bernie has done that all his adult life.

Hillary, the proud democrat, has not.

Racial bias in Hillary Clinton's backyard: She's been silent on Westchester's housing segregation

problem.



Hillary Clinton’s call for Americans to face up to “the reality of systemic racism” is the latest in a series of stirring calls to idealism and action on civil rights. Directly after her loss to Sen. Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire, she had told her audience that, “When people anywhere in America are held back by injustice, that demands action.” She did not triangulate. “Human rights across the board for every single American,” she exclaimed.

This is not a new theme for her. Clinton’s recent remarks reminded me of those she delivered after the racist shooting of African-American churchgoers in Charleston last year. Then she had said, “We can’t hide from any of these hard truths about race and justice in America,” adding, “We have to name them and then own them and then change them.”

Expose injustice, then act to end it: an inspiring formula. Alas, I know from personal experience that what Clinton actually means is something far more pedestrian: “Speak out and act to end injustice . . . as long as it’s not too close to home or politically inconvenient.”

<snip>

So where has Hillary Clinton been all this time? Not a word from her demanding compliance from Westchester; not a word demanding that the U.S. attorney ask the court to sanction Westchester for turning a blind eye to the extensive fair housing barriers that continue to exist.

It is true that Clinton has plenty of company: No one in New York’s (Democratic-heavy) political establishment has been interested in seeing this civil rights court order enforced. But if Clinton means what she says about naming hard truths and demanding action, it is time for her to shine a spotlight on entrenched segregation close to home and demand action against those who wish to maintain a racist status quo in violation of a lawful federal court order.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/craig-gurian-racial-bias-hillary-clinton-backyard-article-1.2535333

Hillary Clinton faces one problem she didn't expect: Money

ry Clinton’s campaign had planned for any number of troubles on her path toward the Democratic nomination; money was never supposed to be among them.

Now, at a critical point in the race, Clinton finds herself under financial stress. The Bernie Sanders money machine keeps churning, sweeping up millions of dollars more than the Clinton campaign has been able to find of late, positioning the democratic socialist from Vermont to compete in states where he was never expected to be a threat.

As Clinton’s network of fundraisers in cash-rich regions like Los Angeles and the Bay Area struggle to fill events where tickets typically cost $2,700 -- the maximum a donor can give in the primary -- Sanders is not holding any. His money comes almost entirely online, and keeps coming and coming, far faster and more steadily than small donations do on Clinton’s website.

Clinton’s rainmakers have grown anxious. She began the year with $10 million more in the bank than Sanders, but that cushion is disappearing fast.

<snip>
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-money-20160218-story.html

More and more this primary has distilled down to one thing for me:

Character. By Character I mean, ethics, principles, honesty- among other attributes. Bernie has Character. He has fought for working people, for the marginalized and downtrodden for most of his life. His interest in power has been and is, what he could do with it for others. His judgment is informed by his character.

He's represented me for 25 years. I've been to town hall with him, relaxed pot luck affairs. When I advocated on behalf of those with disabilities, I met with him in D.C. He is who he has always been.

He's a person of outstanding character.

Bernie's 1981 letter to Maggie Thatcher