Bernie Sanders has not been vetted. Not a single hard negative ad has ever been run against him.

[Yavin4]

That's why he polls so well against the Republicans. At one point in 1988, Mike Dukakis was out-polling George H.W. Bush, and then they started in on him.

Conversely, Hillary has been vetted since 1992.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Better get cracking then. nt

[HERVEPA]

131. Duzyish

[MrMickeysMom]

136. LOL!

Yes.... proceed....

[Trenzalore]

2. For all the complaints from Sanders Supporters

Hillary hasn't even touched him compared to the job she did on Obama in 2008.

[Yavin4]

3. Exactly, and there is a ton of opposition research against him.

A ton. But none of it has been used against him.

[RobertEarl]

8. She can't touch him

Not honestly. Oh, she tried to whack him but that just made her look bad.

Honestly, Bernie is the cleanest top level politician we have ever had the pleasure of voting for.

[Stallion]

20. So Were Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Dukakis and John Kerry

We've seen this act many times before which is probably why older Democrats don't feel the Bern. Can I get a witness?

[Basic LA]

21. Witness.

But it'll only poke the hornets' nest here

[RobertEarl]

23. Some of those were sell outs to establishment

Bernie is steadfast for the people and against the establishment.

[Yavin4]

24. Witness.

People should watch that CNN documentary on the 1988 presidential campaign. Mike Dukakis thought the same thing, and he got hammered in the general election.

[JDPriestly]

80. Dukakis did not have Bernie's fiighting spirit.

I don't recall that any Democratic nominee since Johnson has campaigned on single payer Medicare for all, free tuition at state schools for higher education, pald family leave, breaking up the big banks, campaign finance reform, reform of the justice system and all the wonderfull reforms that Bernie is advocating AND Has fought for all his life.


Bernie is way better than any of the candidates you mention.

Bernie has been in public service as mayor and then in Congrss since thse 1980s.

If they had something on him that isn't already out there, we would know about it by now?

[andym]

117. McGovern was the most progressive nominee since LBJ. Don't sell him short, at least equal to Bernie

Medicare for all -- yes (Kennedy Health care bill)

Free tuition at state schools-- not a big problem in 1972. That's about when many the land grant schools that were still free started to charge-- like Berkeley.

paid family leave -- yes see the "rights of women" in his platform. Supported the ERA.

breaking up big banks-- Glass Steagall and other New Deal regulations were still on the books, so the banks weren't as big.

campaign finance reform-- believed in it, but was not necessary in 1972. He put on place the Democratic nominating system that actually depends on people's votes in 1968. Here's his later opinion:
see http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/11/fmr_presidential_candidate_george_mcgovern_on

justice system reform: heck, Nixon was for more half-way houses and making sure people did not return to prison. McGovern stood to the left of Nixon on everything.

anti corporate-- wanted to ensure they were really taxed -- this is what McGovern had to say:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1972/05/04/george-mcgovern-on-taxing-redistributing-income/


see here http://www.4president.org/brochures/mcgovern1972brochure.htm

Some paraphrases of McGovern quotes:
We need a government that is strong, active, and creative to deal with our problems and plan for the future.
Our government isn’t an enemy, but a friendly partner, a tool for investing in the stability and strength of our middle class.
Government is our watchdog, guarding us against corporate predators who rig the system.
We’re America! A model of freedom and democracy for the world. We want a strong American government to build a better society and support a successful middle class. Without economic stability no individual is free.
http://www.sightline.org/2012/10/22/talking-mcgovernment/


The one difference that I see is that George McGovern was a free trader, but one that wanted to add protections to make sure workers survived.

Dukakis-- who you mentioned in your post's title doesn't hold a candle to McGovern when it comes to progressive policy initiatives.

[JDPriestly]

171. I stand corrected with regard To McGovern.

I campaigned for him. Walked precincts and registered voters for his campaign. But he had problems with his vice presidential choice, Eagleton.

As good as he was, though, Bernie is a much stronger man and candidate because he is having to speak truths that have not been heard for a long, long time. And Bernie is bucking the entire DNC to speak those Democratic truths that have so long been lost.

[andym]

172. Bernie is the "one" who is undoing the damage from 1972

I think of Bernie as George McGovern's spiritual successor, the one to begin to undo the damage that resulted from McGovern's loss and Reagan's eventual ascendancy.

Because of the horrific loss McGovern endured, I think the Democratic Party began to veer rightwards directly after the election of 1972. The party was split in 1972 with many of the unions refusing to back McGovern, and the whole "Democrats for Nixon" nonsense. I think that was the real end of FDR liberalism. Even Jimmy Carter participated in the "Stop McGovern" movement in 1972 and it was he, not Reagan, who as President set in motion the wave of the deregulation. Carter was quite a bit more moderate than McGovern and less ambitious when it came to promoting economic fairness.

The GOP began to campaign against the ghost of McGovern in all succeeding elections ("tax and spend liberal" epithet) and they used it to propel Reagan into the White House where he managed to demonize the federal government. They still use it without mentioning his name.

Bernie Sanders is the first serious candidate to take up the mantle of McGovern and promote the liberal economic initiatives of the late 60's and 70's, to reduce the undue power of the large corporations and to rehabilitate the benevolence and effectiveness of the federal government. He is sorely needed to at least begin to take back the high ground that has been abandoned for decades. I'm not sure the country is ready yet to embrace true liberalism, it takes time for the ideas that have been so demonized by right to catch fire and be reinvigorated, but Bernie's campaign is at least a hopeful beginning. If he manages to win the Presidency, the bully pulpit would be invaluable to the cause. Bernie is a brave and strong man, there is no better example that he is the first candidate since Mondale to say he will raise people's taxes to improve people's lives. But it's very important is that his ideas grow stronger and not remain buried by conservatives after this election, no matter what happens.

[JDPriestly]

175. In general, I agree with you, however, I know that Jimmy Carter's mother strongly

supported McGovern. I met her during that campaign. We registered voters together and had quite a long and interesting discussion. So I know that Jimmy Carter's mother campaigned for McGovern.

[andym]

187. It must have been a real privilege to work with Lillian Carter on the McGovern Campaign

From seeing on TV, she seemed like an amazing person, and very independent of Jimmy. I remember reading a story where Jimmy said that when he told his mother that he was running for President, Lillian Carter asked "president of what?"

[JDPriestly]

190. It was. She was just delightful. Just a real human being. I was very young, but I

did not know then how young I was. We talked about our families. She was just so warm and loving and personable. Jimmy Carter is so much the son of his wonderful mother.

One thing about her, she was very intelligent and good at handling practical matters. That I learned in that one session of registering voters. We registered them in a public library.

[Surya Gayatri]

126. Fighting spirit? More like short-fused garrulousness.

Why would he fight so fiercely for something he doesn't really want?

Obviously, the Bern isn't too hot on winning the world's top leadership position--or so he said...

"Number One, I'm not big into being a leader..."

~ Bernie Sanders, during live interview with Cenk Uygur (TYT)

This is a very GOOD thing, because he will not be leading the nation any time soon.

[MADem]

89. "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!" SNL--the Dukakis/Bush debate.

Best work that putz Lovitz ever did!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4117

[andym]

148. Transcript of SNL Bush/Dukakis debate

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/88/88adebate.phtml
snippet:

Sam Donaldson: Vice-President Bush, there are millions of homeless in this country - children who go hungry, and lacking in other basic necessities. How would the Bush administration achieve your stated goal of making this a kinder, gentler nation?

George Bush: Well, that is a big problem, Sam, and unfortunately the format of these debates makes it hard to give you a complete answer. If I had more time, I could spell out the program in greater detail, but I'm afraid, in a short answer like this, all I can say is we're on track - we can do more - but we're getting the job done, so let's stay on course, a thousand points of light. Well, unfortunately, I guess my time is up.

Diane Sawyer: Mr. Vice-President, you still have a minute-twenty.

George Bush: What? That can't be right. I must have spoken for at least two minutes.

Diane Sawyer: No, just forty seconds, Mr. Vice-President.

George Bush: Really? Well, if I didn't use the time then, I must have just used the time now, talking about it.

Diane Sawyer: No, no, Mr. Vice-President, it's not being counted against you.

George Bush: Well, I just don't want it to count against Governor Dukakis' time.

Diane Sawyer: It won't. It will come out of the post-debate commentary.

George Bush: Do you think that's a good idea?

Diane Sawyer: You still have a minute-twenty, Mr. Vice-President.

George Bush: Well, more has to be done, sure. But the programs we have in place are doing the job, so let's keep on track and stay the course.

Diane Sawyer: You have fifty seconds left, Mr. Vice-President.

George Bush: Let me sum up. On track, stay the course. Thousand points of light.

Diane Sawyer: Governor Dukakis. Rebuttal?

Michael Dukakis: I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!

[wisteria]

38. Yes.

I was crushed when they smeared John Kerry and it stuck, even though it was lies. My habanero voted for MCGovern, and we know he wn one state in the gereral election. Dukakis lost because of his position on the death penalty. Running for the Presidency is tough, you either have to have no record, or you have to be well vetted.

[R B Garr]

86. +1000

[kristopher]

114. Speak for yourself about oldsters not Getting the Bern.

It's a bit rude for you attempt to speak for me.

Thanks.

[Ken Burch]

133. The lesson of those losses were that those candidates didn't win. Period.

NOT that we must never nominate anyone people actually feel enthusiasm for.

There was no less-progressive alternative to any of them who'd have polled better.

[Cobalt Violet]

142. Not a witness.

[highprincipleswork]

179. I'm "older". 47 years Dem. Feeling it for Bernie always!

He's the best candidate the Democratic Party has had in a long time.

And it's about time somebody told the truth about the shitty system we've been drifting towards in this country since the days of Reagan. And all with the help of establishment Democrats like the Clintons.

Good day for Bernie!

Let's redouble our efforts!

[uponit7771]

180. This is false on its face

[Trenzalore]

10. The calculation was they can win the primary without it

They are hoping not to alienate his supporters. Sanders has to keep them alienated to continue to fund his quixotic quest though.

[dchill]

28. Gag me with a spoon! They (and you) have thrown...

everything they (and you) could find, true or not, and it's just enough to make them (and you) seem flustered and ineffectual.

[Art_from_Ark]

59. Yup, they've tried to throw all sorts of shit at Bernie

and his wife

Photogate!!!!
Logogate!!!!
Pingate!!!!
Buttongate!
Arpaiogate!!!!

[dchill]

64. !

Geezergate!!!!
Angrygate!!!!
Inexperiencedgate!!!!
Ijustdon'tlikehimgate!!!!

And my FAVORITE!!!!

RACISTGATE!!!!

[840high]

115. +1 Bernie is too honest.

[strategery blunder]

178. Oh and don't forget,

Notademocratgate!

[Trenzalore]

138. I think you are over sensitive

Compared to 08 the kid gloves have been on.

[anotherproletariat]

100. Remember, what you read on here is not what this race looks like out in the 'real world'.

When talking to my mom or other Dems who don't read DU, they think that there has been very little negative campaigning from either Hillary or Bernie. The only thing she mentions (granted she's a Hillary supporter), is that Bernie blames her for things she had nothing to do with, but at least they are regarding issues pertinent to being president (as opposed to genitalia size!).

[dchill]

101. Do "issues pertinent to being president..."

Include lying, cheating and voter suppression?

[dchill]

27. Is that a metric ton, or Imperial?

Let's get the basics straight. Otherwise, accusations of hyperbole may ensue.

You're just frustrated because Sanders' negatives are so much less egregious and fewer in number than those of The One.

You know in your heart that Podesta, Brock et al have done their best and come up with zilch, don't you?

[cantbeserious]

104. Bring It On

eom

[pantsonfire]

130. They tried to call him pro-rape....remember that?

[Ken Burch]

134. Bullshit. We've already heard everything.

The short story from '71 was the worst of it. Anything else would just be something your side made up.

[Armstead]

185. I suspect David Brock has it and woiuld use anything really damaging

Whatever restraint Clinton herself might use, her henchman has no shame.

So if there were really damaging things -- besides the usual crap the GOp flings against all Democratic candidates -- I'm sure Brock would have trotted it out by now.

[nc4bo]

9. Hehe, she didn't touch him, she ABSORBED him.

Specifically she began singing a **different tune when she realized Sanders' message resonated so well with most voters.


(**stole many of Sanders' most populist policy positions)

[senz]

36. lol, like ...

[wisteria]

44. Clinton stands by the Democrat platform

If some of this platform is similar to Sander's ideas, it doesn't mean she stole them.

[Old and In the Way]

57. Bigtime witness...

I was a George McGovern democrat who saw a bunch of idiots vote for a psuedo-warrior (Nixon) over a real dedicicated WW2 bomber pilot. They hated Carter, a real sub nuclear engineer who risked his own life in a nuke accident, and they took down a real hero in 2004 who was a true hero in Vietnam. There are no heros on the Right....just tough talking pussies.

[ljm2002]

164. I agreed with what you said here...

...100% agreed, in fact, right up to that last word.

We need to find a better word to make the point. I am not, BTW, accusing you of being sexist; it is very commonly used, it does convey a particular meaning with great economy of expression, and I believe that most people who use it are not thinking about its sexist aspect. I just hope we can think of a better word to substitute as this one makes me, and I am sure many other women, uncomfortable.

[Bread and Circus]

74. Exactly and she went full on racist dog whistle in 2008.

Could you imagine if she went anti-Semitic this time?

[LWolf]

4. You have a very strange concept

of how to "vet" someone for a job.



The polls are what they are. Trying to negate those that don't favor an agenda, and pump up those that do, is disingenuous at best.

[wisteria]

46. That is he way it works.

[LWolf]

145. That there are negative ads in a campaign?

Negative ads are expected.

That's not "vetting." That's attacking. Attacks that are often false, designed to obscure rather than illuminate. Business as usual in a corrupt system.

To "vet" means to "to appraise, verify, or check for accuracy, authenticity, validity, etc."

That's not what political ads do.

[napi21]

5. MAYBE because ther are very little negatives against him?

IF he's the nominee, and I know it's still a big IF, the Pubbies will call him a commie, a socialist, and any other name they think they might get to stick, but for REAL NEGS....I guess we'll see.

[Yavin4]

25. B.S. There are real negatives against him.

Big ones.

[senz]

69. Yah! He was the Gun Runner for her SOS weapons deals w/Kuwait.

[grasswire]

70. Big talk there. nt

[cantbeserious]

105. Bring It On

eom

[Ken Burch]

135. If there were, you'd have told us.

Bernie's only flaw is caring about the people.

He hasn't been unfaithful to his wife.

He hasn't lied about anything.

He has never had a single corrupt moment.

If he really had lethal negatives, Bernie would never have run.

[MADem]

26. He has huge, unsurmountable negatives. They just haven't been publicized.

They're dealbreakers for farty types.

Now, some may not think those farty types matter, but farty types tend to vote.


If you go to google and type "vetting Bernie Sanders" you will find all sorts of things, some of it valid, some of it partisan mudslinging--but it's out there and it will probably get more play now than it did earlier in the campaign.

Here's just one example (this sone is from the far left mind you--not a right wing source).


http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/

[malletgirl02]

174. It is interesting that you use Counterpunch

as a source. It is even more anti Hillary than Bernie

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/11/the-warmongering-record-of-hillary-clinton/

[MADem]

176. Yes, but it's a source that the Bernie enthusiasts normally point to as "reliable."

THAT's why I use it. It's right in that Independent or Socialist Democratic wheelhouse.

[kstewart33]

30. Maybe the Repubs will run the first paragraph of a column he wrote in a Vermont newspaper.

Wherein he describes a sexual fantasy where a woman is raped simultaneously by three men.

That should be interesting.

[KingFlorez]

40. There is that essay

Something like that would dramatically increase any candidate's negatives, especially with women.

[Ed Suspicious]

154. Vs Trump? Uhhah.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

158. Depends what you mean by "negatives". There are massive things that will turn voters off him.

Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist and atheist.

If by "negatives" you mean "moral failings" then arguably those don't qualify, at least given a definition of "socialist" as broad as Sanders'.

But if you mean "things that will discourage people from voting for him if they're highlighted" then either would be a massive, all-consuming weakness, and together they'd be catastrophic.

[Loudestlib]

6. Do you have a link to the hard negative ads against Hillary?

[senz]

39. ^^^ Thread Winner ^^^

[redstateblues]

65. A link? Are you kidding?

She has been hammered for 20 years by Republicans. Bernie has gone negative as well after saying he wouldn't

[Loudestlib]

94. You didn't answer my question so I looked for my self and found one.

I also found a republican attack ad against Bernie. You guys keep talking about how Hillary has been attacked and she's vetted. One of the things Hillary supporters seem to miss is the fact that most people see Hillary as untrustworthy. Most people not only trust Bernie but they like him as well. Bernie is in a great positions to defend himself against attacks. The republicans can and will just make stuff up about Hillary and people will believe it because they won't trust what she says.

Honestly I can't understand why you guys support her. The republicans are set to nominate the biggest asshole they ever have (and that's saying something) and you guys want to put a candidate that people don't trust up against him? He is going to eat her alive.

Here are the ads:

[link:

|link:

|

[KingFlorez]

7. This is the point that is constantly overlooked

[Segami]

11. Bull!!....Back in 2008, republicans were 'locked n loaded'

ready for a full-frontal assault against Hillary.......only one tiny problem,...his name was Barack Obama!

All that juicy oppo-research had to be put away because Obama became the Dems nominee......so Hillary has NEVER faced an ugly, full-frontal attack by republicans and boy, are they eager to catch up on lost time!!

[senz]

47. This is a very good point.

[GreatGazoo]

12. Sanders: 34 years of elected office Hillary: 8

Sanders: 11 elections Hillary: 2 elections

SuperPAC money Sanders: $0
SuperPAC money Hillary: $200,000,000

[Thinkingabout]

15. I would have thought she would have more but maybe I over estimated.

What happened to his nurses union super pac?

[MADem]

31. Sanders 11 elections happened in a tiny, low population state with relatively few voters.

It's like running for mayor in a small city.

Who's going to "vet" him in those tiny little elections?

And as for Super Pac money, he's not raking it in (YET) to the extent of other candidates, but it's not accurate to say he has none:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/sanderss-claim-that-he-does-not-have-a-super-pac/

http://time.com/4231656/bernie-sanders-super-pac-superdelegate-progressive-kick/

[GreatGazoo]

144. It costs almost nothing to vet someone. Get a PI and go for it if you don't think

it has been done in the first 34 years and 11 elections. Start a GoFundMe if you think you've got something. Here is what you will find btw: a nuclear dump in Texas that never opened. Good luck with that.

When some say "vet" I get the impression that they mean smear, and THAT too has been done and not very artfully.

[MADem]

167. Sanders HAS been vetted--it's just that Dems are too polite to bring

a lot of that stuff up.

Vetting isn't smearing--it's looking into a candidate's past and determining if there's anything there that might serve as a distraction, a question about the candidate's fitness, dedication, or thought process, and bringing it forward.

VT Digger and Seven Days, both respected VT outlets, have done much of the heavy lifting--but they're not the only ones. You can find their stuff online with a quick google; I'm not going to help you, though--there's no need.

The Republicans wouldn't have such scruples, though--they'd dig down and fling, full bore. And if you think otherwise, ask John "Swift Boat" Kerry, or John "Black Baby" McCain. Thing is, with Sanders, they won't have to shade or lie (for a change). It's all there. Pictures, too. And it's enough that a lot of those undecided/middle-of-the-road voters would find reason to question his fitness for the job.

End of the day, though? It doesn't matter. Why get down in the mud when he's not going to be the nominee?

[Thinkingabout]

13. Since the Republicans wants to run against Sanders in the GE rather than

Hillary why in the hell would they want to vet Sanders and blow up any chance to have Sanders in the GE. There will be plenty of subjects coming up and BTW he will not have twenty five years to prove his innocence.

[dogman]

14. You are correct, Hillary's negatives are terrible and deep seated.

We should try someone new.

[woolldog]

16. Bernie is fool's gold.

He will crumble under real scrutiny.

[senz]

41. He's been winning elections since the 1980s.

He knows his way around.

[woolldog]

84. In Vermont!

A liberal haven. He's led a completely insular political existence. Clinton has been forged in fire.

The stakes are too high to put up a rookie against the GOP in November. Sorry.

[senz]

91. Clinton won two elections in her life, both in liberal New York

riding on her famous name as the recent First Lady. She was handed her SOS position as part of a deal and wasn't a good SOS either.

She's had very little experience, none of it obtained on her own.

Bernie has been a U.S. congressional representative and senator for a quarter of a century, working in D.C., not Vermont -- and he is totally self-made. He has taken stands on serious issues the entire time, given impassioned speeches, grilled famous, powerful rightwingers in congressional hearings. There's nothing "insular" about his experience.

You can learn more about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

And about his lifelong advocacy for civil rights here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511324268

Your laughing smilie demonstrates great ignorance.

[redstateblues]

66. Glass jaw

[Surya Gayatri]

128. And, his crotchety, curmudgeonly character will be on full display.

He's managed to hide it fairly well so far, but when the crap gets waist deep, his lack of professionalism will show.

[KitSileya]

141. One thing they'll throw at him is is hypocrisy as a boss.

They'll pick up the article from Seven Days Vermont and hammer him on that.


Anger Management: Sanders Fights for Employees, Except His Own
By PAUL HEINTZ

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/anger-management-sanders-fights-for-employees-except-his-own/Content?oid=2834657

"When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced three months ago that he'd seek the Democratic presidential nomination, the New York Times described him as a "grumpy grandfather-type."
...
According to some who have worked closely with Sanders over the years, "grumpy grandpa" doesn't even begin to describe it. They characterize the senator as rude, short-tempered and, occasionally, downright hostile. Though Sanders has spent much of his life fighting for working Vermonters, they say he mistreats the people working for him.

"As a supervisor, he was unbelievably abusive," says one former campaign staffer, who claims to have endured frequent verbal assaults. The double standard was clear: "He did things that, if he found out that another supervisor was doing in a workplace, he would go after them. You can't treat employees that way."
...
"He yelled in meetings all the time," says one of Sanders' former Senate staffers. "He'd yell, 'I don't want to hear excuses! I want to get it done!'"

They'd portray him as dragon boss who doesn't care about his workers, even though the article also contains quotes by people who don't have such a negative view of him. When has that ever mattered to the GOP?

[hellofromreddit]

17. That's easily shown to be false

Rich Tarrant.

Here's an article from that election.

[Bleacher Creature]

18. I've seriously never heard a single Republican go hard after him.

I've seen plenty of snarky, offhanded insults, but never the sustained attacks that they've perfected against Clinton.

I think part of it is that they're not going to waste their time and resources on a longshot, but I also have no doubt that they're holding their tongues just in case he does actually wind up to be the nominee. And it won't be pretty.

[AZ Progressive]

19. The only thing they can do is call him a Communist

And I've already seen attempts at that, if you look on google you can find it.

Of course, they already did that to Obama, did it work?

[kstewart33]

33. Bernie has never been vetted.

Certainly not the mainstream media. Hillary certainly hasn't aired any of his dirty laundry.

But the Repubs? They are gleeful at running against Bernie. Maybe that's why not one Republican has said a negative word about Bernie. They keeping their powder dry.

[senz]

48. They call all noble people "Communist."

They haven't called Hill a Communist.

Wonder why?

[creeksneakers2]

78. How about

commercials showing people having heart attacks being told they'll have to wait 9 months for an appointment? They'll be all over single payer health care. See what they did to Obamacare? That's nothing compared to single payer.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. Could it be because he has not a single hard negative?

[senz]

55. He has soft negatives that can be exaggerated and easily refuted.

Like socialist, pacifist, child out of wedlock, 40+ year-old essay critical of 1970s sexual confusion.

Piddly stuff.

He doesn't do bad things. Maybe they could run a hit piece on how boring he is?

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. LOL. Yup. nt

[frylock]

29. So what's prevented Mrs. Clinton from delivering the death blow?

She holding back out of the kindness of her heart?

[MADem]

35. She doesn't want to destroy him. She wants to co-opt him.

If she wanted to destroy him, he'd be done by now. There's more than enough out there.

She's holding back because .... "math." No need to be shirty or mean. The math will do him in. It might take longer, but it will happen eventually.

Also, there's an advantage to keeping this race going--so long as there's a contest, there's no reason for the GOP to focus inordinately upon Clinton and beat her up. So, while a prolonged race may be frustrating to her fans, on the surface, in actual fact it's a good thing, because it prevents the GOP from starting in with their attacks early.

FWIW, Clinton is coming on KIMMEL in a few minutes.

[frylock]

45. Ah. Multi-dimensional chess.

[MADem]

49. If that's chess to you, you're playing with very few pieces.

That's politics 101. You keep friends close...

[KingFlorez]

43. Clinton doesn't need to do that

So far she has run up a huge delegate lead without delivering a knockout punch.

[frylock]

149. She can't close the deal on an unknown Senator from a small state.

You're fooling yourself if you think that she hasn't tried to dispatch Bernie. She can't manage to do it.

[KingFlorez]

152. A delegate lead of more than 300 says otherwise

In reality, this race is over save for the formalities.

[frylock]

157. can't close the deal, and her supporters are all wadded because of that.

[SheilaT]

32. I have a hard time understanding exactly what you mean by "vetted".

To Hillary supporters, they use that word with her to mean, so far as I can tell, that just because a lot of shit has been thrown at her, none of it can be thrown again. Unfortunately, a lot of that "shit" is actually accurate stuff. Things like she lied over and over about being under fire in Bosnia. Her support of big banks. The incestuous relationship between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation. The ongoing problem with an illegal email server. Her completely opposite remembering of the Reagans during the early AIDS years. Her support of the TPP. I think she might be against it now, but who knows? Then there's how she adopts Bernie's positions when she sees how much people like them.

Yep, she's been vetted all right, and a lot of us don't like what it shows.

Bernie has been incredibly consistent over the years, and that consistency continues in this campaign.

Here's something else: If Trump (god forbid) really is the Republican nominee, he is such a vile awful misogynist asshole, his treatment of Hillary, if she's the Democratic nominee, will be so awful, that her supporters will sincerely wish she weren't running against him. I wouldn't wish a woman I totally despised. As unfond of Hillary as I am, I don't despise her, and if I were a supporter I'd be totally dreading what he'd do to her. With Bernie he simply won't be able to pull that garbage. And the truly sad thing is that so many of the Donald's supporters think his opinions, language, and behavior are perfectly acceptable. Which is actually a whole different thread.

[MADem]

37. Hillary will wipe the floor with his bleached, whispy extensions.

The more vulgar he gets, the more he will turn off even ardent "GOP women."

They'll tell people they voted for the Donald, but they'll vote for HRC. Even GOP men will vote for her, and tell themselves they "get it back" in four years. He's hated.

[SheilaT]

53. I simply disagree with you here.

And we'll leave it at that.

[MADem]

54. Time--as it always does--will tell. nt

[MADem]

77. Time will tell. I'm not voting out of fear that "some Republicans" might not like my candidate.

I think anyone who listens will grow to love her.

[MADem]

110. When we're down to 2 candidates, and one is Trump, and the other is Clinton,

that statement is not fear based.

It's MATH based.

The one with the most votes wins. If you don't vote for Clinton, that's as good as voting for Trump.

Your choice, of course, but I wouldn't want that on my head!

I think she's pretty doggone neat:

[MADem]

124. Do what you want--if you think anyone is trying to scare you, that's on YOU.

Those are your feelings, not my projections.

Vote however you want--you're not going to be convinced so I won't try. I was simply expressing MY view, what I would not want. That should have been clear that I was talking about myself -- the word "I" is a clue.

[Fumesucker]

85. And those who don't love her will be brought to heel

[MADem]

87. Oh, let's try to avoid bitterness, now.

Time has a way of making things seem brighter.

No need to be so snarky and mean; it's natural to be disappointed, but churlishness only helps the Republicans.

[Fumesucker]

88. I was just repeating a phrase I heard somewhere

Probably some Republican, it sounds like the sort of thing they would say.

[senz]

92. I'm sure it went right over her head.

[MADem]

107. I knew where it came from. I said what I needed to say, but how adorable that you felt

the need--as you so often do--to put your two pence in!

[MADem]

98. Ah, doubling down? It won't change anything, nor, in the long run, will it make you feel any

better.

I see that you are angry, and lashing out, so your barbs miss their mark in that regard, too. You want to hurt because you are hurt, but you can't hurt anyone who has already heard it all, much of it right here at DU, where people really should know better. After a while, that tough exterior Clinton enjoys transfers to her supporters, and the meanspirited stuff just bounces off.

And then, of course, there's .....

Math. It's a helluva thing.

[Fumesucker]

106. Since you are winning then what is your motivation for wanting to hurt?

You are an outstanding spokesbeing for your candidate.

[MADem]

109. I'm hoping for unity, but I can wait. I'm not calling for any particular candidate

to "wrap it up." And I'm not digging deep into your favorite's past, looking for comments that he's disavowed, and tossing them in your face in order to try and snark at you. I don't need to make cheap shots like that.

Send your candidate another donation if you'd like. Or two. Or ten. Live to fight another day, if that's what you feel. Soldier on!

At the end of the day, everyone who's here after the convention will be on the same page. If that's hurtful, I can't help that. It is what it is.

[Fumesucker]

118. I'm barely here any more anyway

It's not like you've been seeing lots of posts from me, leaving entirely won't be heartbreaking. Lots of people I enjoyed have moved on already for one reason or another and in the end it's the people who keep us here.

All good things come to an end, some I was far more invested in than I am in DU are now but dust and memories.

[MADem]

121. Maybe you'll change your mind.

If not, fair winds, and following seas....

[ebayfool]

97. Honestly, I think you're giving Republicans too much credit here. Male and female.

They just aren't known for being that choosy about their candidates. I mean, look at the line up that was standing next to Trump. Kasich. Christie. Santorum (I got the icks typing that!). Cruz fercrissakes!

Discrimination in tastes is NOT the GOP voter's forte.

I don't want my eggs in that basket. They'll mostly vote party line, imo.

[MADem]

99. I predicted Kasich would not go gently. Why? Because he was advertising in NH

MONTHS ahead of the primary, and his ads made him sound SANE.

It's not what they are, it's how they present themselves. Cruz is a creepy weirdo, but a lot of the inattentive don't know him. Trump is the Noise Guy--but they'll fall out of love with him if he gets the nom, because then the vetting will truly begin (and some of it will come from the GOP). There are a crew in the GOP who would rather throw their Executive Branch hopes under the bus, work hard on downticket races, and wait until 2020. I think there are more of them than are admitting it right now. No one wants to be stiffed armed from the RNC fun in Cleveland--all those great parties, with all of the "entertainment," and all the lobbyists throwing money around...!

[ebayfool]

102. Ha! I just typed this in another thread.

"Kasich scares me more than Trump. He keeps his crazy masked, Trump revels in his for all to see."


I completely agree that the upper echelon of the GOP would rather throw it under the bus rather than have Trump take the ticket. But the average GOP voter is who I'm talking about. They are the nuts that'll carry him through the WH door if he gets the nomination.

Here's to the GOP backroom bosses giving us a hand!

[MADem]

119. I think there will be GOP voters who will lie to their buddies and quietly vote Dem.

They'll insist they voted for him, and can't understand how he lost, but I think they'll reject him.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll-2016-election/

[ebayfool]

120. We can only hope! n/t

[R B Garr]

82. The whole Bosnia sidebar is only important to

Bernie supporters in the most desperate way. It was decades ago, and she's been elected Senator twice since then and won the popular vote in the 2008 primary. It's so irrelevant and overblown, it only makes someone repeating it seem obsessed with nonsense. Obviously Joe and Jane Public are not concerned with the petty tripe you listed. People know Hillary has survived RW attacks like those talking points for decades.

Its hard to take you seriously if you think mindful women are going to take Trump parading his hot wife around as an excuse to cede the limelight to him. That is frankly a very odd thing for a Liberal woman to suggest.....

[SheilaT]

113. Keep in mind that both here elections were against incredibly weak candidates.

She really didn't have to run a hard race either time.

And okay, so the Bosnia thing was a while back, but it was just last week she claimed the Reagans started the dialogue on AIDS. That is every bit as false and provably false as the sniper fire in Bosnia. The Reagans never said a single thing, never did anything to try to combat AIDS, even when their friend Rock Hudson was dying from that disease.

So Hillary at best has a tenuous connection with the truth. And her negatives are absolutely incredible. The main reason a lot of people have been voting for her is they believe the nonsense that she's more electable, whereas polling from as long ago as last fall shows Bernie ahead of her in one on one match-ups.

Here's the real problem: Mindful women understand that Hillary isn't remotely progressive, has done astonishingly little for women over time. Right now she's willing to compromise on abortion. Exactly how is that supporting women? And her take on minimum wage? Or single payer? Mindful women understand very clearly that she's not really on our side.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I'm totally done with holding my nose and voting for the least despicable candidate.

[R B Garr]

165. This is just more pathetic spin that only caters to RW'ers and the irrational

anti-Hillary crowd. It's obvious that the those two groups share the same talking points.

Obviously you are wrong because she is over 2.5 Million votes ahead in the popular vote, ahead in Delegates, she's leading in the polls in New York, she won the popular vote in 2008.... But by all means, you keep beating your head against the wall with the well-worn packaged propaganda and preach to your choir. Reality, what's happening in the real world, doesn't support your flak.

And I would bet you didn't even watch the Nancy Reagan funeral and the entire funeral tapings, did you? In the context of all the flowery remembrances of that former first Lady, Hillary's comments flowed with the rest of the crowd. If you really listened, Nancy was actually President, that's how deep the bullshit was. It was a FUNERAL. Hillary didn't have to bring up AIDS, but in the context of where she was and what was being said, it was not out of place with the retro issues being discussed. That was a thing that perception equals reality, so those affected took issue with it, but not all LGBT did. If you watch the new show about Trans women, I Am Cait, they all support Hillary Clinton and they give their reasons why -- she has always backed women's rights. How ridiculous for you to spout that she hasn't done anything.

[senz]

34. "Vet" does not mean "to criticize" or "to smear."

It means "to investigate (someone) thoroughly to see if they should be approved or accepted for a job."

[brush]

50. Yep, they're using that term incorrectly

If someone is "vetted" it means no negatives of consequence have been found in a background investigation, not that they've withstood being smeared over and over by opponents.

[senz]

42. Hill won't be vetted until we see the stuff she's keeping secret.

[Vattel]

51. Team Hillary has thrown all kinds of shit at him.

[senz]

61. And they call it "taking the high road."

Wonder what the "low road" would be like?

[redstateblues]

68. They have treated him with kid gloves

[Corey_Baker08]

52. BS To Those Who Say It's Because There's Nothing Negative To Run About Bernie?

There are plenty of negative Ads that the Clinton Campaign could run against Bernie, but they are taking the high road.

Clinton could run an ad about his many votes in the Senate in favor of the NRA & Gun Lobbyist & Manufacturers

Clinton could run Ads showing Bernie's opposition to President Obama & his comments about wanting someone to challenge President Obama in the 2012 Democratic Primary.

She Could run Ads about how he & the Republicans both want to repeal & replace Obama care

She could run Ads informing ppl that Sander's Has a d- Grade from the NRA while she has an F-, if you remember the grading scale a D- is a passing grade By the NRA while we all know an F is a fàiling Grade

She could run an ad about how the NRA Has actually Endorsed Bernie Sanders in the fight for the Democratic Nomination

The point is they could attack each other, but Instead of taking the Sander's strategy & tearing Hillary Down Instead of lifting up his own campaign Hillary is focusing on staying positive, telling her story & her plans to keep America on the right track & winning the General Election!

[senz]

58. She lobbed most of those crappy falsehoods in the debates.

She didn't take the high road in 2008 and she hasn't taken it this year. I don't think she has a high road.

She may have misled some voters with her debate smears, but for some reason, Bernie remains popular.

[Corey_Baker08]

71. First Of All They Are Not 'Falsehoods' They Are FACTS

Plain And Simple

[uponit7771]

181. Nothing about what was posted was false and it was only in debates not add buys iirc

[LiberalFighter]

56. You are so right.

Just like the polling saying that Kasich would beat Clinton. Kasich has not been vetted fully either.

[grasswire]

72. BRING IT ON

Please.

[astrophuss42]

76. This

Let's have a rational discussion.

[redstateblues]

73. The last Democrat to run on raising taxes on the middle class

Was Walter Mondale. He won ONE state. His home state of MN

[senz]

93. Walter Mondale was uninspiring. Bernie drew 30,000 cheering fans last weekend.

No comparison.

[redstateblues]

155. Why isn't it translating to votes? Hillary has millions more in the popular vote

The Republicans would have a field day with Bernies tax plan- his pie in the sky proposals that even Bernie knows are unrealistic

[delrem]

75. heheh!

[riversedge]

79. You are spot on. Yet, as folks do get to know him--the last poll I saw his unfavorability

rating was up.

[senz]

95. What are you so nervous about, anyway?

Worried about Sanders, are you? Y'all keep telling us your candidate is winning -- why don't you act like you believe it?

[riversedge]

96. I made a comment. You are the one saying I am nervous. Your mistake.

[w4rma]

111. Last poll I saw, Clinton's unfavorability was second only to Trump in the history books.

She has the second highest unfavorability of any frontrunner in history, since - at least - 1985.

[jeff47]

81. So Clinton's campaign is incompetent?

'Cause if there was such wonderful juicy negative attacks to use, why would they resort to lying about pictures?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

159. Because, unlike Sanders, they're looking ahead to the general.

They're thinking about what will and won't make Sanders' supporters more likely to vote for Clinton once she's won the nomination.

By contrast, the Sanders camp is wholly focussed on the primary, and is not really bothering about the risk of alienating Clinton supporters.

[jeff47]

170. You think lying about pictures did not bother Sanders supporters?

Your claim about not wanting to offend Sanders supporters kinda falls apart when they went out of their way to offend Sanders supporters.

[jfern]

90. Richard Tarrant showed how effective wall to wall attack ads against Bernie are

[RandySF]

103. Bernie's been handled with kid gloves the whole time.

[w4rma]

112. You can't honestly handle a good and decent man any other way without a huge backlash. (nt)

[Yavin4]

166. Ask Mike Dukakis or John Kerry

See the CNN document about the 1988 presidential campaign.

[w4rma]

168. So, your argument against a good and decent man is that Clinton is "immune" to being attacked?

If that is true, then why is Hillary's unfavorability rating the second highest in history, since at least 1985, (second only to Trump)?

[Ken Burch]

137. He has no horrible reveals to fear.

Bernie really is just a straightforward decent guy. What you see actually is what you get.

Why is THAT so hard for some people to accept?

[snot]

108. And hated since 1992. And Not a Single Hard Negative, bec.

there's nothing negative to be said, other than the fact that he's a "Socialist."

[ThePhilosopher04]

116. Nothing will work. Socialist won't work. Communist won't work. There's nothing else ...

to touch him with. Everybody knows Bernie is the real deal and the only honest candidate running. Have at it if you think you can tear him down. Ain't gonna hunt.

[andym]

122. I remember Dukakis. Lee Atwater wanted to make Willie Horton his running mate and he did

Unbelievable. Was called a "Card carrying member of the ACLU." That election the GOP managed to turn "liberal" into an insult. That's one reason that people are using "progressive" to this day, since that term as old as it is, was already largely out of use in the 80's and was not attacked.

They had nothing on Dukakis-- he led an exemplary life and was very successful as a governor in Massachusetts. Didn't matter.

[Surya Gayatri]

127. Massive K & R. Thanks for posting.

[Waiting For Everyman]

129. Bullshit, Hillary threw all she had and made up some more.

The public isn't dumb enough to fall for that, and Berners certainly aren't.

Bernie is way more electable against any Repub, and it's been reliably polling that way since January. Bernie owns the electability issue, and more and more people are finding that out. Memes like this won't change that.

The Repub Hillary doesn't beat in the one-on-one matchups is the one most likely to be nominated now... Kasich. Cruz will probably be out of the race due to his new sex scandal, thanks to Donald Trump.

We'd better worry about what Trump has on Hillary too.

[uponit7771]

182. No she didn't, Cornell West is enough to sink his ass but she left that alone

Sanders is no Obama

[Waiting For Everyman]

184. Comparatively few even know who he is

or care.

I, for one, like him. He's a ton smarter than those criticizing him and doesn't kowtow to the sacred cows -- which as an American, I don't recognize anyway. He tells it like it is, no matter whose ox is gored, and that's exactly what we need a lot more of.

If Hillary wants to play the stupid "guilt by association" game, I say bring it. But I think she knows better than to try that.

[uponit7771]

186. That's the point, they'd find out quick if she hammered him on such a dickish

... Choice to stump with.

[Ken Burch]

132. Could be there's nothing all that bad anyone could say about him.

BTW, the whole country knows he's a democratic socialist, so that issue has already been put to rest.

Nobody who's still obsessed with anything out of the Cold War would vote for any Dem now anyway.

[Amimnoch]

139. There's been a few, but they haven't gotten any coverage... Yet.

That rape fantasy piece Sanders wrote. Other than a couple of very non-mainstream publishings, and a couple of odious posts here about it, it's been completely out of the limelight. Yes, I know it was much ado about nothing.. Hillary has not and would not use that against him, and other than a few of her supporters, I don't think many of us would either. That said, don't think for one second that Trump won't get that thing in the limelight and push it like there's no tomorrow to reduce the disdain women have for him and try to transfer it to Sanders.

Then there's the fraud with Jane. Again, I find it odious and won't use it as an attack on the Senator.. Hillary wouldn't use that kind of tactic or approach.. But think again if that isn't going to be headliners and brought up in debates when he's up against a Republican instead of Hillary.

Don't think for one second that there isn't a very active, and very well funded Republican machine working behind the scenes digging through every piece of garbage the Senator has tossed, every contact he made during his activism in Brooklyn or Chicago.

During this primary season, both camps have said some pretty horrendous shit to each other. This is just the warm up pre-show.

In my most honest assessment:
Hillary comes into it with baggage.. A LOT of baggage, and that is her downside. It is also her strong side since, with all of the focus and attention she's had on her it's unlikely the R's have anything new or unexpected to throw at her.

Bernie comes in with very little baggage. That is a very distinct advantage going into a GE, and should be both acknowledged and respected. That is both an upside and a down. The down is it leaves the unknown on what R's will dig up, twist, exaggerate, and manufacture to smear him in the GE.

[KitSileya]

143. Don't forget his support of censorship and assassination in Nicaragua

He supported censorship from the Sandinistas in Nicaragua because "they were at war" while denouncing the same during the first Gulf war for the U.S. He also admired Nora Astorga, who was the honey trap that lured General Perez-Vega of the Somoza dicatorship to his assassination.

He also claims that 13 years is at "puberty, the age at which nature set forth for child bearing" and that 13-year-olds have "sex friends" - that'll be twisted like nothing else. He's written that cervical cancer is caused by lack of orgasms - there's a lot of stuff they'll twist, twist, twist. As has been pointed out in this thread. Dukakis was sunk by Willie Horton - the GOP would be extatic if Sanders is the dem candidate against Trump. They can cover up the deficiencies of their own candidate by harping on the twisted stuff they've found in Sanders' past. Yeah, Trump has had some bad business deals, but what is that compared to how they'll portray Sanders as a pedophile?

[Bread and Circus]

140. Other than socialist name-calling (which Obama has already been subjected to for 9 years) what...

hard negative ads could be run?

I am just curious. A bulleted list would suffice. I am not saying there's nothing there, I am just wondering what opposition research would look like.

[Gothmog]

146. Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders

Sanders is doing well in match up polls because he has not been vetted https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.

[thesquanderer]

147. Not true that "Not a single hard negative ad has ever been run against him."

There's at least this one...

It's false ("he was against the auto bailout&quot and misleading on other ways, but that's besides the point.

As for Hillary having been vetted since 1992, yes, that's why her unfavorables are ridiculously high, even higher than Bernie's could possibly get even if everyone who has not yet formed a definite opinion about him decides they don't like him (see this post, for example).

As I've said numerous times before, it will be awfully hard for them to do to Bernie in a few months what it has taken them 25 years to do to Hillary. And for some reason, Hillary just seems prone to keep giving them more, new ammunition. Bernie's been handling her with kid gloves, but the Republicans will be all over the email server and Clinton foundation stuff. So don't think the vetting can't get any worse for her, either.

ETA: I think this thread is relevant, too.

[Skwmom]

150. No needs for ads, the corporate media spreads the attacks (lies) against Bernie for free.

[Skwmom]

151. As they said on Face the Nation, the vetting of Clinton will occur in the general election AND

plenty has occurred since she last ran for office.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

153. The "what would happen" has less to do with if it is Bernie or not and more to do

with which ass from the GOP is nominated.

If it was Bernie vs Trump, Bernie wins hands down because of their similarities (not many but a few important ones).

If it was Bernie vs Kasich, maybe Bernie loses because of the alleged moderate Kasich represents, HRC too for that matter.

[NorthCarolina]

156. Which one should they hit him with? The

"Where was Sanders on healthcare in 1993" one?

or maybe the "Bernie doesn't care about black people" one?

Perhaps they will attack him on not taking money from Wall Street to fund his aspirations like every "normal" politician does.

[WDIM]

160. And that is why Hillary Polls so badly

She keeps creating new scandals for them to exploit because of her failed policies and bad decision making in "complex" issues.

[SidDithers]

161. DU rec...

Bernie would be shredded by Republicans.

Sid

[Orsino]

162. Only on DU is this spun into a negative.

I think it's nice to have a candidate about whom so little bad could be said.

"The Emperor Norton has never shed blood. He has robbed no one, and despoiled no country. And that, gentlemen, is a hell of a lot more than can be said for anyone else in the king line."

[w4rma]

169. I think Yavin4's single issue is 'free' trade. He should just come out and say that.

His posts, in the past, tell me that he supports any candidate who is a 'free' traitor.

[AtomicKitten]

163. The FBI is "vetting" Clinton right now.

[Attorney in Texas]

173. I wonder if anyone in the media is ever going to call him a socialist? Hillary has been vetted and

as a result she is distrusted and disliked by just about everyone other than Democrats over 45 or in the Bible Belt.

You can't brag about being vetted unless you are still well trusted and well liked after the vetting.

[4nic8em]

177. How about we

try to remember that when DOJ & FBI finishes vetting Hillary...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

183. What the hell are you waiting for? Bring what you've got, bring it all, and bring it now.

Your locker room taunts are of no value. Get busy.

[BreakfastClub]

189. I'm surprised that everyone here doesn't know that. It's basic politics. NT