Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumCNN: "Bernie not yet vetted"
So, last night on AC 360, John King mentioned as an aside while going over the latest Wisconsin poll that Sanders hasn't been properly vetted yet, and Anderson Cooper basically blurted out, "Yeah."
(Sorry for paraphrasing, I can't get a link.)
I was like, "Gee guys, do you job much?" WTF??
I'm just wondering if it's a case of them really thinking that Sanders is not viable and therefore not worth the effort. I would have thought that after the Michigan upset or after the recent spate of wins that there would indeed be a bit more scrutiny.
(PS. I wanted to post this on the Sanders group to get their thoughts (I also like Sanders), but I just saw that some nutjob banned me from the group for no justifiable reason and even though I've never posted there. )
pandr32
(11,578 posts)But he has made sure his mug is on every show he can get on, so people are getting to know who he is, but not much about his background except for his own version of how wonderful he is. With exposure should come more digging--especially if the press would actually do their jobs. Unfortunately, for many of them, their job is to attack Hillary Clinton.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)mariawr
(348 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)posting in the HRC Group? We actually LIKE and SUPPORT Hillary. We do not like snide remarks or inferences about her here, especially when they are found so liberally elsewhere on DU.
Do you also realize that both Dem candidates committed to no negative campaigning?
It is not the campaigns that should do the vetting, but the press. Or why do we have a "free press" at ali?
johnp3907
(3,730 posts)The bern-brains don't care.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)perhaps just wandered in by mistake. I gave the benefit of the doubt.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)I thought (I checked again).
You are likely correct.
johnp3907
(3,730 posts)Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)1. Ummmm. No. He hasn't. Sanders basically comes on these shows and just gives his stump speech. Kasich has also not been vetted. Trump, Cruz, and Clinton, however, have been eviscerated and ridiculed ad nauseam (it's how these types of shows do their "vetting" . Kasich seriously needs to be vetted, but he has no chance, so why bother? Sanders might have a chance, though, so they should bother.
2. I'll give you that Clinton has on occasion tried to get Sanders on some issues, but it was pretty much with kid's gloves. She also didn't hit Obama that badly back in '08 (in my opinion). My sense is that she's actually uncomfortable beating up on democrats, but really enjoys going after the repugnants.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Like his propaganda trip to support brutal Latin American leftists. Or praising Iran for their glorious revolution at the time they were holding US hostages. Or this little tome Bernard wrote:
Meanwhile, Bernard was happy to parrot the GOP attacks against Hillary, especially their "she's a bought liar" meme and blaming her for every foreign policy mess of the Bush administration.
Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)Publishing in the 70s.... I'm sorry I read that; I'm definitely worse off as a human being. Never want to hear that conversation on sex that he's been saying we all need to have :cringe:
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Can't blame it on youthful indiscretion. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)They'll probably get around to it instead of, you know, DOING THEIR JOBS.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)you dummies!!! argh!!!
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Ugh, the media is awful. Ever heard of JOURNALISM? Why don't you vet him? Hmmm?
Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)I think that profession died out with the invention of social media, unfortunately.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Corporate media combined with 24 hour news cycle led to the crap we have now.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)the group even though you never posted there?
It sounds as if at least some SBS moderators decided to ban wholesale anyone who posts an OP in the HRC Group.
That says a lot right there.
Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)I have a real life and work like a dog these days, so don't have time to post on DU too often, though I've been an avid lurker since '07. Imagine my surprise when I tried to post something in the Sanders group last night
I'm very pro-Clinton (ever since she told America she was too damned busy doing real stuff than to get into a cookie recipe battle with Barbara Bush back in the 90s ), but I also like quite a lot of the stuff Sanders stands for.
Anyhow, my folks grew up under dictatorship, so this silencing of voices is a little scary to me, but then I'm ain't scared of no overzealous keyboard warrior.
Cha
(297,137 posts)posted there at one time and didn't realize it, because it is impossible to Block someone who hasn't posted in that group.
We can't block anyone here unless there is a post to use "super powers". I hear the same thing from BS supporters who say that were blocked here but never posted in this group.. can't be done.
And, groups are just for those members of said group.. it's not really silencing voices.. we have other parts of the board to make our opinions known.
Welcome to Hillary's Group
Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)Seems I DID post something utterly innocuous one time only in the Sanders forum. Definitely didn't deserve being banned, especially since I LIKE Sanders! Didn't even see that bus coming at all!
Anyways, thanks for the hearty welcome!!
Cha
(297,137 posts)SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Cha
(297,137 posts)Cha
(297,137 posts)if you haven't posted there. You have to have the post to work off of .. It's a little thing called "super powers" and the hosts are able to see and use if they need to block.
Just thought you'd like to know. I can see how someone might not realize they posted in a group instead of one of the forums.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)I'm glad that you are a host in the HRC Group, Cha! You are a better person than I.
Cha
(297,137 posts)MSMITH33156
(879 posts)I'm just wondering if it's a case of them really thinking that Sanders is not viable and therefore not worth the effort.
It's not worth anyone's time vetting a general election candidate that has no chance of getting to the general election.
Same goes for Kasich, FWIW. He hasn't been vetted at all.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)over, just because Sanders does this does not mean Hillary has to do the same. Let sleeping dogs lie.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)and, IMO, people are in some cases, voting for Sander's thinking he is simply an equal alternative to Clinton. I know she is ahead, but I am in the camp of the more wins, the better.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)you have not paid attention.
As far as determining how he would pay for all of it, I don't think anyone has really put those numbers down for all his promises.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)How in the world was that not an astonished headline?
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)That should be a known fact.
As far as the media, I just don't think they thought he would be in it this long. For that matter, I don't think BS thought he would either.
The fact that he is still running is because the GOP and their media machine is reaping what they have sewn just as with Trump. They have spent so much time demonizing groups of people and so much time demonizing Hillary that both sides have created monsters, on the right you have Trump and Cruz and on the left you have BS
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)we do know what BS stands for.
The Republicans are just begging for us to let them do the vetting in the general election!
Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)It'll be real ugly if it happens....