Let the vetting begin ... honeymoon is over

[cosmicone]

The following issues need to be thoroughly investigated

1. How Jane Sanders was appointed to two commissions by Shumlin after Bernie campaigned for him
2. Why Jane's charity is in the Caribbean and not in the US -- is it to escape the scrutiny of IRS and treasury?
3. Jane's appointment at Burlington College - how it came about since her PhD was less than stellar.
4. Jane's overstated pledges and the harm they caused to Burlington College
5. How Jane got a golden parachute after poor performance
6. Channeling of campaign money to family members
7. Data theft from DNC servers
8. Logo misappropriation and misrepresentation - what did Sanders know and when did he know it? Who made the decision to pilfer well-known logos and use them deceptively as campaign material.
9. Which taxes Sanders proposes to raise and by how much. Let people know what it will cost their pocketbook. Pin Sanders down on numbers and not generalities.
10. How many jobs will be lost when Sanders "dismantles" banks, insurance companies etc. and what will those people do? The banking/insurance workers can't suddenly start working on infrastructure building bridges or work in mines.
11. What will happen to the US tech sector after Sanders' draconian trade wars. How will we replace those profits and the people who are employed by the tech sector and other export sectors.

Let's go media !!!

[Warren Stupidity]

1. What a steaming pile of bitter horseshit.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. This poster lost what credibility it had with yesterday's "who pays the bills" bullshit. nt

[Hiraeth]

50. I typically trash OPs by this poster. Much better for my BP.

[farleftlib]

2. Logogate! oh noes!

Really?

[UglyGreed]

62. Logos

[daleanime]

3. Wow, straight from the 'cold shoulder'....

to 'Honeymoon' over. It's enough to make someone think we're unwanted.

[morningfog]

4. Yaaaaawn. Go for it.

[enid602]

5. agree

I think it was actually Burlington College. But otherwise, I'm in total agreement with you.

[TCJ70]

6. 5 out of 8 are about his wife...

...6 has already been looked at
...7 he stood up to and suddenly it's nowhere to be found. Curious, right?
...8 is probably the only one that even has the tiniest of legs
...9...hello? 9...you there?
...10 is information that's been out there for a long time at his website in the issues section.

Edited To Add: At the time I posted this, there was no 9 and 10 had to do with taxes.

[XemaSab]

9. I wonder when Bill Clinton is going to be vetted

Or is he not running for president?

[bettyellen]

57. half the Clinton posts here are about his presidency. fair is fair.

[mmonk]

7. Honeymoon? On what planet do you live?

[BillZBubb]

8. This kind of crap is beneath contempt.

Are you so desperate to pull your favorite candidate ahead that you stoop to republican smear tactics?

[farleftlib]

10. I don't think they'd bother with half the crap

in the OP. They would be embarrassed.

[Indepatriot]

11. I don't think you want to get spouses involved....

Bubba's Bimbo Parade would surely make Jane's "faults" pale in comparison.

BTW, if Clinton is the nominee, you can expect a steady parade of women to come forward claiming to have had "sexual relations" with Bill. Most of them will be lying. It will not matter, he will be judged guilty due to his past lying and indiscretions.
Bank on it.

[cosmicone]

15. Bill's pecadillos were not "illegal"

Making false statements on a loan application is a felony.

[SheenaR]

17. Was lying to Congress about them illegal? n/t

[marble falls]

45. It was an impeachable offense and he did lose his law license for perjury during one of the trials.

[cosmicone]

22. So your answer to vetting Sanders is to throw mud at Bill Clinton? n/t

[Arazi]

31. Aren't you trying to throw mud at Jane Sanders?

[TheBlackAdder]

44. This seems to be a click bait OP to get people flagged. Just look above! nt

[asuhornets]

12. I agree with you...

Hillary needs to speak more on Bernie wanting to raise taxes and the effect it will have on the General Election.

[KingCharlemagne]

14. 12. Washing the blood of 1,000,000+ innocent human beings off Hillary's hands. - nt

[cosmicone]

16. Hyperbole much? n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

18. Physician, heal thyself - nt

[cali]

19. You know jack about Vermont.

Good to see you adore big bAnking so much though

[JonLeibowitz]

63. CALI!!!!!

[Nonhlanhla]

23. A lot of this is nonsense

But a lot of what is said about Hillary (and Bill) is nonsense too, and yet we have to hear a lot of that nonsense repeated here day after day by Bernie's supporters.

Fact is that the main reason why Bernie appears so squeaky clean next to Hillary is because, unlike her, he has not had to weather 25 years of constant smearing. They both have skeletons; the main difference is that hers are out of the closet, and quite a few of hers are artificially manufactured by the right wing.

I will defend Bernie against lies and nonsense if they should occur. But I will continue to defend Hillary against it too, and I will continue to support her as the most qualified candidate for the job, and as someone who despite some flaws does NOT deserve all the smears and distortions constantly being thrown at her.

[treestar]

24. Hahahahaha

Not St. Bernie! Not allowed!

[bullwinkle428]

25. How about Bernie's relationship with America-hating "Rabbi Wright"?

[kath]

33. Ha!

Lol

[Iliyah]

26. What? The dishonest oops, I mean honest human on the planet earth?

What say you - LOL

Vetting - yes!

[cali]

47. He's represented me for over 25 years.

He's pretty damned honest. There are certainly quite a few areas where he's vulnerable to real criticism, but that's really not one of them. I know exactly what the Clinton campaign should hit him on- not that I'm telling.

[Kalidurga]

27. Why do you hate Jane Sanders?

[Iggy Knorr]

28. "Let's go media !!!"

C'mon Media, Don't you want that juicy juicy super-pac money?

"Let's go media !!!"

These piles of unregulated political bribery need to be spent somewhere!

[pangaia]

29. You should be runnng Hillary's campaign.

Vetting?
Honeymoon?



Opps.. sounds like you already are.

[underpants]

30. I think the real vetting will be in his writings from years ago

The press has been as lazy as we would expect. The initial lack of coverage of Bernie is a legitimate complaint by his supporters. Now that he is a strong a candidate as was also expected the vetting of his writings will begin (it probably has already inside campaigns and think tanks).

ON EDIT- his campaign will now be vetted too. Can they cover all the states on Super Tuesday? Will the grass root movement take care of some of that without traditional offices and staffs? Are they already in these states (Hillary got caught flat footed by Axelrod's operation in 2008)?

[kath]

32. well. OP is now on ANOTHER vacation.

[nc4bo]

38. Gee...umm I wonder why?

[ScreamingMeemie]

46. I say this as not being over-enthusiastic about either candidate,

it appears this poster was a victim of alert-stalking. Two of his last three posts would not have been votes to hide by me, and they were hidden 4-3. There were no personal attacks, and Bernie is not the nominee yet. I do the same for supporters of either candidate when they alert on ridiculous stuff. I wish people would hide when it's deserved.

[Smarmie Doofus]

34. 12. All the money he took from that slum landlord, Rezko.

Oooppps. That was Clinton on Obama in 2008.

But right at the same point in the .... well, I guess you would call it .... fizzling-out process.

Long may she fizzle.

[B Calm]

35. Unbelievable. Both sides need to stop these attacks!

On Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:55 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Let the vetting begin ... honeymoon is over
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511190631

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Candidates' families should be off limits, Sen Sanders' wife is not in politics, these smears don't belong on a Democratic website.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 10, 2016, 10:00 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Right wing propaganda designed to split the democratic party. I would vote to hide if it was against Hillary too.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: His wife is a public figure and was so when she was President of the College.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Embarrassing post by a supposed Democrat about a Democratic candidate
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am going to vote to hide, but if this post is hidden, as I think it should be, then we better see the same kind of enforcement of anti Hillary posts of a similar ilk.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Typing "Candidates' families should be off limit" after seeing the dozens of Bill and Chelsea Clinton posts is hysterical. I'm sure the alerter is gasping, "but that's different." Take a deep breath, alerter, it will be ok....

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Iliyah]

36. Yes, enbarrassing post only when its against BS, now I get it

All the nasty vile things constantly spew about HRC. uh huh.

[B Calm]

37. What part of the word "both" you didn't get?

[MJkcj]

41. Agreed. It is nasty and vile if it is against Bernard

But these site is FILLED with lots of nasty accusations about Hillary. Really people? hypocrisy much?

[Half-Century Man]

39. Knock yourself out hoss. Spread the word

Wall Street Journal
http://www.contactcustomerservicenow.com/contact-wall-street-journal-customer-service/
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/contact/directory.html
USA Today
http://marketing.usatoday.com/contact
LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/about/la-contact-us-htmlstory.html
Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/about/chi-newspaperemail-htmlstory.html
Fox News (fair warning, there doesn't seem to be a way to talk to anyone there in person, I'm guessing there's a lot of negative feedback)
http://help.foxnews.com/index.html?intcmp=hpft
MSNBC (same as talking to Fox)
http://www.msnbc.com/speak-out
CBS
http://audienceservices.cbs.com/feedback/feedback.htm

[MJkcj]

40. more vetting will follow

While I don't normally agree with all the vetting of the spouse... don't think the Republicans won't go there if Bernie were to somehow get the nomination.

And in the comments no one is touching #8. Maybe because it is indefensible that Sandes has deliberately misused logos for AARP and LCV as well as American Legion in NH and those newspaper endorsement ads when they actually endorsed his opponent. Shady business that I expect from the GOP, not from Democrats. Not to mention the theft of data by his campaign. Lack of ethics there.

There is plenty more that the Republicans will vet Bernie for - his immigration policy flip-flop, his dumping toxic waste from his state into the unprivileged low income areas of texas... yeah, it won't be pretty.

Fact is that bernie is not above reproach. he is a career politician and he has yet to be seriously vetted because, yes, the Republicans and the GOP propaganda machine WANT us to nominate him.

Okay, haters comments start in 3...2...1...

[LondonReign2]

42. 8. Logo misappropriation and misrepresentation

[AZ Progressive]

43. The African American community should know how the Clintons devastated black communities

and have been a fraud for the past 25 years, pretending to be friends of the black community.

It can get worse for Hillary. You people support someone that is as corrupt as Republicans.

[whatchamacallit]

48. Looks like the vetting began with you

Enjoy the vacay.

[Goblinmonger]

49. Wait. We get to vet spouses, too.

Fuckin' A. Everything Bill did is now on the table and should be used to see if Hillary should be elected.

I know this--Jane wasn't impeached as a President of the United States. I'm also going to guess she never had sex with her intern in the Oval Office.

You are just embarrassing yourself.

[marble falls]

51. What a truly dismal attack on someone. Wouldn't a hatchet been a little neater. Very disappointed...

this is not the quality of anything I'd expect from you.


What are we going to do about all those poor NSA intercept technicians that were laid off after the courts ruled the programs they ran were illegal? Seriously? Do you really believe there will be any fewer bankers after the banks get re-regulated? Do you really think your taxes are going to rise but not the wealthiest or the corporations' taxes?

I think the elephant in the room to investigate is what corporations think they're getting from someone who supposedly threatens them by giving them over $150,000,000 in speaking fees?

Bernie's made under $2000 in fees during the same time, which donated to charity.

[thereismore]

52. I am doing it now. Bye. nt

[seaotter]

53. The media will get to that....

as soon as they are done with e-mails, and Bill's "intern" issue, and how about those bank speech transcripts? The Hillary camp had best tread lightly, the Democrats will need all of its voters to defeat the Republican nominee .

[closeupready]

54. For number 10, have them ask NAFTA's casualties for advice.

[oasis]

55. #8 logo misrepresentation. That union imposter stunt they pulled in Nevada

will come back to bite them.

[AgingAmerican]

56. Attacks and smears aren't 'vetting'

Particularly on his spouse

[DesertRat]

58. k&r

[ram2008]

59. Attacking Jane isn't wise, especially considering Bill's adulterous ways nt

[NCTraveler]

60. The media will wait until after the primary.

That is clear.

[Blue_In_AK]

61. Desperation.