So about that third recent attack on Bernie...the League of Conservation Voters
telling his campaign they can't use the LCV logo in their mailers. It looks to me like it was an honest mistake, as the mailer did not say they were endorsing him (they are endorsing Hillary).
The League of Conservation Voters, however, has contacted Sanders’s staff, objecting to their logo being used on another mailer, shared with Newsweek, which portrays the senator as an environmental champion. The pamphlet, which is being sent out in Iowa, notes that Sanders “has a lifetime score of 95 percent from the League of Conservation Voters” and displays the group’s logo beside it.
http://www.newsweek.com/sanders-complaints-iowa-nevada-420806
His campaign was trying to show they support him, (even if they don't endorse him in this race). Although they should not have included their logo, it's fair to show that they do support his policies.
The Hillary camp has been on a roll lately, digging for dirt, and they aren't coming up with anything but dust. And this newsweek story is a hit piece on Sanders, but they accidentally told the truth (the whole story instead of just the part they wanted to use) a few times in it...more than most of the recent hit pieces have done.
All the recent hit pieces being floated here are only telling the part of the story that makes it look deliberate and dishonest, when in fact by not telling the full story, the hit pieces are dishonest.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Come on, you can tell the truth. 
is acting like a petulant child? Got it! 
I'm still not clear on how he used it this time, as I haven't seen the mailier in question and now that Fawk em posted about them taking down the image of their logo next to Bernie's rating on their site, I can't even see that.
I just prefer to see a whole story, and attacks usually don't include the whole story, as in the last three cases of smearing Bernie today.
We don't know who is driving the story and we don't know the whole story on any of them, but boy are the Hillary supporters on fire to push them as evidence of Bernie's dishonesty.
someone is finally standing up for the logos!!!!
... it "was a stupid mistaken by someone" - because it is always "someone" who is at fault, and never Bernie himself.
When his campaign staffers illegally accessed HRC's computer data, it was "someone else's fault"; i.e. the computer company's, the DNC's, the person who recommended that staffer for the job. When that staffer was described as a "low level employee", it was someone else's fault that he'd been described as such, when he was actually the high-level director of data.
When Bernie doesn't fare well in debates, it's the fault of the debates being scheduled on the wrong day, at the wrong hour. It's the fault of the unfair moderators, the unfair questions asked - even the unfair order in which candidates are presented or questioned.
When Bernie doesn't make any inroads with AAs and minorities, it's their fault for not "getting" his message.
When Bernie doesn't move ahead in the polls, it's the polling companies' fault for not calling the right people and asking the right questions.
When Bernie's regurgitation of the same talking points, over and over, doesn't garner any MSM attention, it's the media's fault for not giving his same old/same old speech the attention it deserves.
Exactly when does someone who thinks he can lead a nation take responsibility for something - anything? When does he stop doing this 
, and act like he's in charge of what goes on in his own campaign?
I find it pretty frightening to think of a president Sanders who constantly explains to the country that the economy is tanking, the deficit has tripled, and we're on the verge of WWIII due to "someone" in his administration making a "stupid mistake" - so don't blame him.
I guess the term "the buck stops here" doesn't mean anything to Bernie - and apparently never will.
Everyone is piling on...so eager to smear. Is this the best you can do to smear Sanders?
Now, pointing out that it isn't nice to STEAL things that do not belong to you (again, that happened before, didn't it--and three people got sacked, remember?) is not "smearing" -- unless you have a weird definition of the term.
And "pointing out a glaring, honking, stinking-obvious discrepancy" isn't "piling on," either.
The Sanders campaign did wrong, again. Hands were caught in cookie jars, again. It's a habit, it would appear.
they've taken down the page.
might be really busy tonight i guess
how does the league of conservation voters support a candidate that supports fracking?
the whole thing with aarp and lcv seems so odd...both websites have bernie's pic on them and big write ups about him
i can understand why some staffer might of assumed they could use what the organization said about bernie for bernie....to me that would seem fair but i don't make the rules...lol
