Sanders, Clinton trade blows as New Hampshire battle intensifies

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders turned up the heat in New Hampshire on Wednesday, trading jabs on a number of issues including who is the more progressive Democratic presidential candidate.

Trailing in the polls by an average of 18 points, a fiery Clinton maintained that she "would never quit" New Hampshire and will be campaigning hard despite her campaign's contention that Sanders, a senator from neighboring Vermont, has a built-in advantage.

Team Sanders fought that narrative, saying it was an "insult" to the people of the Granite State who "are serious about their role in the nominating process."

"You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you can't be both a moderate and a progressive," he said on Twitter.

While both candidates have much at stake in New Hampshire, heavy pressure is on Clinton, the favorite to win the nomination but an underdog in the state's Feb. 9 primary.

A Sanders rout in New Hampshire would feed negative media narratives about her campaign on the heels of a narrow Iowa win. It would then be 11 days before Clinton could answer with what she hopes will be a victory in Nevada's caucuses.

Clinton allies say there has been some consternation inside their universe about the campaign's results in Iowa, where the former secretary of State won by just two-tenths of a percentage point.

Some inside the Clinton orbit wanted a more decisive win to end Sanders's run early in the primary.

"I think that was what we were all hoping for despite the narrative that it was going to be close," one ally said.

Now, Clinton allies expect her to turn up the heat on Sanders to avoid a double-digit loss in New Hampshire.

The first step for both candidates is Thursday, when they meet for their first one-on-one debate. Former Maryland Gov. Martin Oâ€™Malley dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination the night of the caucuses. Clinton in the last few days pushed for the debate, where some predict she may take a forceful, scrappier tone against Sanders.

"She'll be the hungry candidate caught up in a tough fight and making a populist case," said Mo Elleithee, who served on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign and is now the executive director at the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service. "I think she does it by loosening up, getting out there more and projecting a forceful message."

"It's being feisty, and I don't mean negative feisty," Elleithee said. "You may see her make a clear contrast with Sanders and there's nothing wrong with that. That's totally legit."

At a campaign event on Wednesday, Clinton may have provided a preview of sorts of her tenor on Thursday night and beyond, taking aim at Sanders during an event saying she hopes his campaign focuses "on the issues, because if it is about our records, hey, I am going to win by a landslide on Tuesday."

The two sides agreed on Wednesday to four new debates, including Thursday's. The other three will take place in California, Pennsylvania and Flint, Mich., which is enduring a water crisis garnering national attention.

The Sanders campaign said it sees the debates as a time to win more recognition for its candidate, who is less nationally known than the former senator, first lady and secretary of State.

"It's a great opportunity for us to communicate, not just with voters here in [New Hampshire], but all over of the country," said Sanders adviser Tad Devine. "We are still involved in introducing Bernie Sanders to people all over the country, particularly in those states that occur later in the process. We are looking forward to taking advantage of that.

The question for Sanders is how to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters, who will be big constituencies in South Carolina, Nevada and other states.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a Sanders supporter, said the debate helps make the Independent senator seem like a legitimate option to voters.

"He has credibility as a contender, which provides for all voters, particularly voters of color, a second look," he said.

Both sides are playing an expectations game when it comes to New Hampshire, with Clinton aides talking down her chances of winning the state and Sanders emphasizing her victory there in the 2008 cycle.

Clinton said Wednesday that the pundit class has urged to focus her sights on states where she's up in the polls.

"Their argument is - and it has got some strength to it - look, you are behind here, you are in your opponent's backyard," she said at one event in Derry, N.H.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3316464/Trump-says-Carsons-pathological-temper-cured.html

....”Trump first made the claim in an interview with CNN, then continued the strong criticism during a 95-minute rant at an Iowa rally.

‘If you’re a child molester - a sick puppy - you’re a child molester, there’s no cure for that,’ Trump proclaimed, other than what he called the ‘ultimate cure’ - and death.

He said he didn’t believe Carson’s story about his religious awakening in his bathroom, either, and questioned the retired neurosurgeon’s tale about nearly stabbing a friend.

Trump imitated the incident, moving his belt up and down to demonstrate how difficult it would be to strike the buckle instead of flesh, and bellowed moments later, ‘How stupid are the people of Iowa?’

‘How stupid are the people of this country to believe this crap?’ Trump said during the campaign event at Iowa Central Community College.”....

“issues including who is the more progressive Democratic presidential candidate”

Hard to believe that they are trying to show who is the
biggest socialist to win nomination to run for president
of the United States.
It’s even harder to believe that the biggest socialist will
win the nomination. But the most unbelievable thing of all
is that “socialists” are even being considered at all.
We fought world wars and many Americans died to prevent
what is openly happening today.

And!

On the other side it’s right the opposite. They try to
hide who’s the biggest socialist. They lie about being
conservative and constitutional bound and then attack and
attempt to destroy the people in their own party that actually
are.

What this is is a Coup d’etat. The difference is we’re armed.
They have bureaucracy, education and media. Everything is
a lie. For example Obama, there really isn’t much you can
prove about him. He lies all the time, his personal history
is sealed by his own dictate and what documentation that is
available seems to be false. In a fascist state I could see
this happening but here in America.

The only conclusion I can see is that this country has already
fallen and we either don’t know it or we know it but are
to afraid to admit it, even to ourselves.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24376

David Horowitz - June 2000,

“......The intoxicating vision of a social redemption achieved by Them - this is what creates the left, and makes the believers so self-righteous.

And it did so long before Karl Marx. It is the vision of this redemption that continues to inspire and animate them despite the still-fresh ruins of their Communist dreams.

It is this same idea that is found in the Social Gospel which impressed the youthful Hillary Clinton at the United Methodist Church in Park Ridge, Illinois. She later encountered the same idea in the New Left at Yale and in the Venceremos Brigade in Communist Cuba, and in the writings of the New Leftist who introduced her to the “politics of meaning” even after she had become America’s First Lady. It is the idea that drives her comrades in the Children’s Defense Fund, the National Organization for Women, the Al Sharpton House of Justice and the other progressive causes which for that reason still look to her as a political leader.

For these self-appointed social redeemers, the goal-”social justice”-is not about rectifying particular injustices, which would be practical and modest, and therefore conservative. Their crusade is about rectifying injustice in the very order of things. “Social Justice” for them is about a world reborn, a world in which prejudice and violence are absent, in which everyone is equal and equally advantaged and without fundamentally conflicting desires. It is a world that could only come into being through a re-structuring of human nature and of society itself.

Even though they are too prudent and self-protective to name this future anymore, the post-Communist left still passionately believes it possible. But it is a world that has never existed and never will. Moreover, as the gulags and graveyards of the last century attest, to attempt the impossible is to invite the catastrophic in the world we know.

But the fall of Communism taught the progressives who were its supporters very little. Above all, it failed to teach them the connection between their utopian ideals and the destructive consequences that flowed from them. The fall of Communism has had a cautionary impact only on the overt agendas of the political left. The arrogance that drives them has hardly diminished. The left is like a millenarian sect that erroneously predicted the end of the world, and now must regroup to revitalize its faith.

No matter how opportunistically the left’s agendas have been modified, however, no matter how circumspectly its goals have been set, no matter how generous its concessions to political reality, the faithful have not given up their self-justifying belief that they can bring about a social redemption. In other words, a world in which human consciousness is changed, human relations refashioned, social institutions transformed, and in which “social justice” prevails.

Because the transformation progressives seek is ultimately total, the power they seek must be total as well. In the end, the redemption they envision cannot be achieved as a political compromise, even though compromises may be struck along the way. Their brave new world can ultimately be secured only by the complete surrender of the resisting force. In short, the transformation of the world requires the permanent entrenchment of the saints in power. Therefore, everything is justified that serves to achieve the continuance of Them........

“.............And that is why they hate conservatives. They hate you because you are killers of their dream. Because you are defenders of a Constitution that thwarts their cause. They hate you because your “reactionary” commitment to individual rights, to a single standard and to a neutral and limited state obstructs their progressive designs. They hate you because you are believers in property and its rights as the cornerstones of prosperity and human freedom; because you do not see the market economy as a mere instrument for acquiring personal wealth and political war chests, to be overcome in the end by bureaucratic schemes.

Conservatives who think progressives are misinformed idealists will forever be blind-sided by the malice of the left - by the cynicism of those who pride themselves on principle, by the viciousness of those who champion sensitivity, by the intolerance of those who call themselves liberal, and by the ruthless disregard for the well-being of the downtrodden by those who preen themselves as social saints.”

Not likely. I think Sanders was initially set up as a sparring partner for Hillary Clinton, to make her appear moderate. He is the leftist equivalent of Ron Paul, an ideologue with non-centrist views. What the Democrats did not factor in is the same voter discontent that has plagued the GOP-e. He may well have won the Iowa caucuses, but for her operatives' dirty tricks. As the Senator from neighboring Vermont, he should be expected to win in New Hampshire. Iowa and New Hampshire were also Ron Paul's strongest performances.

However, Sanders has almost no appeal to the black voting bloc, which will be strong in South Carolina and in the "SEC" states, with Texas having a strong Hispanic influence as well. Hillary Clinton will likely have the support of the Mexican-American politicians in the Lone Star State. The South is her firewall, and by early March, she should be well on her way to the Democrat nomination, provided her health holds up or her numerous scandals lead to her indictment. As far as the latter, nothing has happened so far, and I doubt anything will with Obama in office.

Sanders would be prevented from running as a Green Party type candidate by "sore loser" laws in several states. This is the same barrier that prevented Ron Paul from going with the Libertarians after his failed 2008 and 2012 GOP primary campaigns.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.