Why do Hillary supporters believe Hillary hasn't seriously tried to dig up dirt about Bernie?

[JudyM]

People keep saying here that he hasn't been vetted, and just wait till he is, they'll find out awful things and he won't be able to withstand the scrutiny.

Hillary has had many months and plenty of staff and collaborators to dig up something on him that would give her an advantage. She surely wants this to be over. Her various pac/super pac colleagues would have sure been able to find something if there was anything. Have they been asleep on the job? Or are you just assuming that rethugs are more competent at digging up dirt?

Do you believe she hasn't made every effort to do just that? Or that she has some dirt and is holding off for some future date to expose it? If she believes she has this wrapped up, it wouldn't hurt the party if she exposed it, since she doesn't think he's going to be the nominee anyway.

Please enlighten us about your information and reasoning, without snark if you are able.

[msongs]

1. they probably have and are choosing not to use it. no need to. trump will not be so kind nt

[JudyM]

2. That doesn't make sense to me. Why do you assume they have something that they are not using?

[Peace Patriot]

29. msongs never explains anything. He or she is an autobot hit 'n' run machine.

Msongs often says things that make no sense whatsoever. It needs some new programming.

It's absurd to aver that, a) David Brock hasn't been on this since last summer, digging, digging, digging, and b) that, if Clinton had anything--anything!--she wouldn't have used it long ago.

Brock's the one who smeared Anita Hill. He's now Clinton's Karl Rove. He's an evil dude and we can be sure he's dug deep. The laugh (for me) is that he hasn't found anything but positives and has had to try to turn those around into negatives, but he's not as skillful as Rove. For instance, the dirty trick of mislabeling a Chicago civil rights photo to say it's not Sanders in the pic, then peddling that to Time magazine and trying to get other media, only resulted in the photographer coming forward, ID-ing Sanders in the photo, and producing many more photos of Sanders' civil rights activism in Chicago--even a vid of Sanders getting arrested in a segregation protest, and a photo of Sanders chained to a young black women with Chicago cops hovering over them. Time magazine had to print a retraction!

The idea was to make Sanders out as some kind of faker. This was combined with Rep. John Lewis (wittingly or unwittingly) seeming to confirm the faker lie by saying he'd never met Sanders during the civil rights movement. Bad, bad, bad, nasty dirty trick, quite worthy of Rove if it had worked.

In short, Brock could find nothing. NOTHING! Sanders great record on civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, all human rights, health care, education, war and "free trade for the rich" is solid and unassailable, and very, very much better than Clinton's. Sanders has all positives, and he is furthermore clean as a whistle, having lived a modest, middle class life for his entire career, after having survived poverty in his youth. Criminy, you can tell that looking at him, but it is also factually true.

So all Brock can do is to attack those Sanders' positives, which he has done. Tried to make Sanders out a sexist, via the creation of "Bernie Bros." There couldn't be a better feminist--nor a more comprehensive one; he includes economic feminism--than Sanders. (And on our right to control our own bodies, he is better than Clinton! She's willing to compromise with nutball rightwingers on 3rd trimester abortions!) So that's what Brock attacks.

We have seen the Brock "talking points" here at DU. They show up regularly in flocks of attempted smears of Sanders, all sounding alike, then vanishing and another flock comes in. We've seen a quite serious campaign to turn Sanders into a "racist." (Gawd! Sanders, a racist!) Do you see how this dovetails with the failure to find any negatives to smear him with? There are no negatives. If there were, we can be sure we would have heard about it by now. This has been a WAR, on Clinton's part, not just a campaign. She has wanted him OUT, with ferocious intent, since his mid-primary victories.

[JudyM]

38. What do you think about post#25 by anotherproletariat?

[Peace Patriot]

136. I can't find post#25. Point me to it.

I find DU's numbering of comments bewildering. So maybe it's me. But I can't find it. What does anotherproletariat say?

[Hortensis]

146. Msong's post is simple truth. Both candidates early

on did not use most of the stuff they could have turned into ammunition. Later, Hillary was winning and did not need to risk offending people by going dirty. But Bernie wasn't winning and so needed the boost that going dirty would give. Even then, though, he has tried to keep it fairly clean.

PP, I don't know where all these Democrats who claim Hillary hasn't tried to "dig up dirt" are supposed to be. Of course she did. She's a pro and that is SOP for all political campaigns, even the very nicest. After they know everything they can find out about an opponent, they then decide what can and should be employed in their strategy to win.

As said, Hillary has used very, very little of what she knows about Bernie. Just for instance, how often has she hit Sierra Blanca? Not once. And we can be sure his quarter-century congressional record contains other useful stuff that no one's used against him. Because he's running against a Democrat, not the Republicans and the Kochtopus.

[Arneoker]

164. Of course

And Hillary has to worry about offending voters she wants to appeal to later. Why would Trumpo worry about that?

And btw, Trumpo would not really need to talk about "dirt", if you mean things that are not already in the public record. He can talk about stuff that just hasn't been emphasized much yet.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

[JudyM]

147. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1903044

[blackspade]

157. Absurd

The "his strengths are weaknesses" argument

[brush]

57. Of course they have something. It's not that hard to find.

His Marxist leanings all the back to the 80s are easily googled.

Hillary didn't want to use it against another Dem and needlessly alienate his supporters who don't seem to know.

Turns out she didn't need to use the info though as she's got it won.

Trump won't hold back and the stuff is pretty damaging.

[Live and Learn]

63. Damn kids today don't scare so easily. nt

[brush]

64. Who's talking about millennials? They hardly vote. It's the boomers and GenXers who vote . . .

and they were raised during the cold war.

I doubt they are would be that favorable to a candidate with a Marxist background if they knew about it.

http://guardianlv.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-history-with-communism/

[Live and Learn]

73. Oh, they are voting now and they are quite intelligent. nt

[Arneoker]

165. "They" are not all the same

Plenty of people would wonder about a guy who seems to have had a penchant for saying nice things about anti-American, Communist and leftist dictators and wannabe dictators. Then just say, "Bernie wants to raise your taxes," and you've lost a lot of people for good, just as McGovern lost a good segment of usually reliable Democrats 44 years ago.

Yeah I know there are comebacks. I would still vote for Bernie. But me and people like me wouldn't be enough.

[blackspade]

158. Marxist 'leanings?'

Joseph? Is that you?

[Gothmog]

82. You got to be kidding

Sanders has been treated with kid gloves and has not been attacked. There is a ton of material that could be used from his honeymoon in Russia and the hundreds of hours of tape of his course where he praised Castro and every other communist leader. Clinton has not gone after Sanders because there was no reason to do so and she wants Sanders supporters to have any easier time to support her in the general.

[karynnj]

92. It was not a honeymoon

It was a sister city visit and included about a dozen Burlington businessmen and even a teen representing her peers.

It, by the way, is not Burlington's only sister city. Both Bethlehem on the West Bank and an Israeli city are too.

[Gothmog]

106. Trump and Karl Rove would not care about your explanation

The attack ad would be easy to run on this issue and you combine it with Sanders' comments on Meet the Press. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015

And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.

Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.

Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:

Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.

...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the Kochs from running $200 milion to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.

[Jitter65]

96. Because even i found stuff that would be negative and it didn't take much. BS supporters refuse

look at the info because it is not about Hillary. The same information about Hillary would have been smeared all over the this board and on twitter. Hillary camp has no need to do this as she is leading without it. But should Sanders be the nominee, Trump and the GOP would be all over it. Just as Trump is using Bernie's statements against Hillary and the Democrats all over the media...and without any refutation. Bernie's is causing great harm to not only the Democrats but to the nation as he helps elect Trump to the presidency.

[rhett o rick]

14. Problems is that Sanders is an honest politician and Hillary has a ton ob baggage.

How will she respond with the Republicons ask her why she jumped Parties to side with Bush/Cheney to invade Iraq? They will ask if she thinks the Republicons were correct on their decision to invade. She did help them with her lies about WMD.

[metroins]

100. Sanders has a TON of baggage

It's just not being touted because it doesn't need to be. Sanders lost back in March, there's no reason to demoralize him.

Baby gloves were used this primary by Hillary.

[rhett o rick]

148. You can't have it both ways. You love Clinton because she is tough, Margaret Thatcher tough.

But you want us to believe she hasn't been tough with Sanders when she is faced with winning the presidency. Bullcrap.

Sanders has no baggage but the crap that Karl Rove invented. Clinton on the other hand, betrayed Democrats, our troops, the American people when she switched parties to help Bush kill a million innocent Iraqi's. That's baggage. Trump will ask, "Why did you switch parties when the chips were down?" "Do you trust Republicons more than your own party?"

[metroins]

150. Hillary is smart

She gains nothing by bringing all of Sanders baggage out. He has his following and they don't want to hear about it, she can win without bringing it to light.

It's called strategy.

If she needed to crush Sanders to win, it would be a different campaign. However, Sanders incompetent staff lost the election early on by ignoring the southern large delegate states.

[JudyM]

151. The answer here, over and over, is that she is being nice to avoid hurting the party and maintain

the ability to appeal to his supporters in the general without as much resistance.

And that she hasn't needed to pull out the big skeletons.

Like you, I don't buy it. She's twisted things to make him look bad, so why not put the real bad stuff out there, if it exists? Seems like a lot of implied phantoms aren't being let out.

[rhett o rick]

153. She attacked him about "fee stuff" and then turned around and offered "free stuff". nm

[asuhornets]

141. Honest and politician does not belong in the same sentence ever.n/t

[rhett o rick]

149. Yes as a Clinton Follower, I can see how you'd come to think that. But millions have swarmed

out to vote against the corrupt culture of big money ala Goldman-Sachs and Koch Bros that are running our government.

[LuvLoogie]

3. Because she doesn't need to. She was always the front runner. She's a good person

She's running her campaign.

[Armstead]

5. David Brock is not a good person

and he has been trying

[Gothmog]

85. Brock has been focused on Trump

There is so much fun stuff to use on Trump that it will be fun. Jeb! and Carnival Cruz were lightweights and never touched the good stuff on Trump http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/david-brock-donald-trump-221823#ixzz47iJqGxQV

David Brock, in a Monday night speech to some of the biggest liberal donors in the country, boasted that his researchers had assembled a trove of opposition research on Donald Trump that Democrats could use to “knock Trump Tower down to the sub-basement.”

Speaking at a reception on the sidelines of the annual spring meeting of the Democracy Alliance liberal donor club at Santa Monica’s tony Fairmont Hotel, Brock said that Trump “was not properly vetted by his rivals — or by the press” during the Republican presidential primary.

But Brock, who is a leading supporter of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, said that his non-profit opposition research outfit American Bridge started researching Trump last July, and has unearthed some damning stuff.

“We sat on it all so as not to help the candidates who might have been stronger general election candidates,” Brock said, according to his prepared remarks, which American Bridge released to POLITICO.

The group, which provides research to Democratic campaigns and party committees, is supported by some Democracy Alliance donors. And sources at the Democracy Alliance meeting said several influential donors attended his reception, including health care tech entrepreneur Paul Egerman, who is close to Elizabeth Warren, as well as Taco Bell heir Rob McKay and New York investor Donald Sussman.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/david-brock-donald-trump-221823#ixzz47jSsohSi
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Brock has not been wasting time on Sanders because Sanders has no chance of being the nominee

[SheenaR]

7. Few things

She's not a good person

See 2008. Frontrunner then who ran attack after personal attack against Obama.

[LuvLoogie]

11. Some opinions matter more to some people than others.

?itok=WaP8CGAW

[HubertHeaver]

51. Photo-shopped?

[sheshe2]

145. No!

Obama, Clinton Receive The Bodies Of Americans Killed In Libya




President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton return to their seats after speaking during the transfer of remains of the four Americans killed in an attack this week in Benghazi, Libya.

Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/09/14/161161312/president-obama-secretary-clinton-receive-bodies-americans-killed-in-libya

[frylock]

133. Is this a shot of her stabbing Obama in the back by consulting with Blumenthal?

[sheshe2]

20. ...

I was always an Obama Girl. Always. I love how they came together for the betterment of this Country.

Two adults settled their differences.

This is class.

She's not a good person

SheenaR

7. Few things

See 2008. Frontrunner then who ran attack after personal attack against Obama.

Think about what you just said. Bernie is doing just that to Hillary. I guess you are okay with that.

[virtualobserver]

90. Bernie isn't doing personal attacks....His differences are policy based.

[thesquanderer]

8. If she had real dirt on Bernie, she wouldn't have had to to use such lame attacks.

She and her campaign had to resort to ginning up a bunch of phony or at least severely misleading stuff (accusations of sexism, questions about whether he was in a photo, the "foreward" to a book, the auto bailout, derivative deregulation, siding with the Koch brothers, vigilanteism, taking away people's medicare...)

[JudyM]

10. That's what I've been thinking, exactly. That's why the "unvetted" arg. doesn't make sense to me.

[brush]

58. She choose not to use his Marxist background

It's not hard to find. I googled this in 20 seconds.

http://guardianlv.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-history-with-communism/

Trump wouldn't hold back with this stuff.

[Live and Learn]

62. Ohh, that is so scary. Funny, nobody cared. nt

[brush]

65. We won't have to find out will we? He's lost so Trump won't have to expose it.

[Live and Learn]

74. Counting your chickens, huh? nt

[JudyM]

159. This excerpt from your own link...

"Sanders’ history of ideas and vast experiences do not mean he supports communism. Great ideas come from everywhere. It is believed that the presidential candidate has educated himself in various aspects of many political philosophies and has built his platform on the best practices. According to the Inquisitr, he is a capitalist and believes in a democratic government."

Also, it says he wants to do away with pharaceutical companies, and that's patently ridiculous (no pun intended).

[Gothmog]

86. Clinton has been treating Sanders will kid gloves and has not attacked him

There is a ton of material would be used on Sanders if he was the nominee but there has been a need to use this material. The press has not spent any time on Sanders because no one really believed that Sanders had a chance of being the nominee. There was never a need for the Clinton campaign to go negative since Sanders was not going to be a serious challenger and she wanted to make it easier for Sanders supporters to support her.

[rhett o rick]

15. A good person doesn't support the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Most of the

educated world are against it but she seems to like it. Cluster bombs that don't detonate on impact are deadly to children.

[mooseprime]

155. ^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^. nt

[BreakfastClub]

49. Exactly. She doesn't need to and it wouldn't help her b/c she's already won anyway. nt

[Live and Learn]

4. They got nothing which is why they had to resort to lies and slander. nt

[brush]

59. Here ya go

It took 20 seconds, if that, to google this.

http://guardianlv.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-history-with-communism/

[Live and Learn]

61. LOL The red scare. Didn't work at all, did it? nt

[brush]

66. You think most boomers and GenXers who grew up during the cold war would vote for a candidate . . .

Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

with a Marxist background?

I'm talking about people in the general electorate and not the Sanders supporters here on DU.

But it doesn't matter now. He's lost so Trump won't have to expose it.

[Live and Learn]

72. I know they would. McCarthyism is so yesterday. nt

[Voice for Peace]

80. Wow.. Odd question.

What is your own age & background that you'd have such a peculiar idea?

[brush]

117. You seem to have no idea how hard Trump would come at Sanders . . .

If he gets the nomination. Seems you have no idea of Sanders' close affiliation with socialist organizations and ideas back in the day.

You should try googling some of it.

The Trump opposition research group would not soft peddle it at all — think 24/7 ominous sounding ads.

Won't happen now though as Sanders has lost.

[Voice for Peace]

139. We weren't even worried about the commies back then

So not sure who you are thinking will be bothered

[brush]

142. Moderates and conservatives who don't live in the Bernie Bubble here on DU

[Matt_in_STL]

109. I am a GenXer and it doesn't matter to me in the least

Based on the numbers, it doesn't seem to bother many of us.

[brush]

118. You're a Sanders supporter. Of course it doesn't bother you.

[Matt_in_STL]

119. Well, yeah. Isn't that your point - that Marxism would keep us from supporting him?

You make no sense at all. Based on the numbers, GenX and millennials overwhelmingly support Bernie, so your red scare tactics must not really work on us/them.

[brush]

122. Ha ha. No one is talking about Sanders supporters not supporting him

It's the rest of the electorate out there that aren't aware of his marxist baggage that we're talking about.

His DU supporters will continue to support him, that's expected, but this place is just a small sliver of voters, mostly left-leaning political junkies, and hardly reflects the opinions of vast majority of voters.

But that's all moot now since Sanders won't be the nominee.

[hootinholler]

121. How about a cold war submariner?

I'm voting Bernie all the way. I rode a "41 for Freedom" SSBN

[frylock]

134. I'm a GenXer who grew up during the cold war.

Nobody gives a fucking shit about that nonsense except for Reagan Democrats and other right-wingers.

[Gothmog]

83. Are Sanders supporters prepared for what the GOP would use on Sanders?

According to this article, Sanders has been treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign to date. However the GOP will not be as kind to Sanders. This article from VOX has some good predictions as to how nasty the GOP and the Kochs will be http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders

I'm not sure I have the requisite killer instinct to fully imagine how the GOP will play a Sanders campaign. But consider just this low-hanging fruit:

Sanders would be the oldest president ever to take office — older than John McCain, who faced serious questions about this in 2008.

Sanders is a socialist. "No, no," you explain, "it's democratic socialist, like in Denmark." I'm sure GOP attack ads will take that distinction into careful consideration.

Sanders explicitly wants to raise taxes, and not only on the rich.

That's just the obvious stuff. And he has barely been hit on any of it so far.

I have no real way of knowing whether Sanders and his advisers appreciate what's coming if he wins the nomination, or whether they have a serious plan to deal with it, something beyond hoping a political revolution will drown it out.

But at least based on my experience, the Bernie legions are not prepared. They seem convinced that the white working class would rally to the flag of democratic socialism. And they are in a state of perpetual umbrage that Sanders isn't receiving the respect he's due, that he's facing even mild attacks from Clinton's camp.

If they are aware that it's been patty-cakes so far, that much, much worse and more vicious attacks are inevitable, and that no one knows how Sanders might perform with a giant political machine working to define him as an unhinged leftist, they hide it well.

In the name of diverting some small percentage of the social media bile surely headed my way, let's be clear about a few things: This is not an argument against supporting Sanders. There's nothing dumber than making political decisions based on how the other side might react. (For one thing, that would have foreclosed supporting Obama, a black urbanite with a funny name, in 2008.)

But it is an argument that Sanders has gaping vulnerabilities that have not yet been exploited at all, so his followers should not yet feel sanguine about his ability to endure conservative attacks. Also they should get a thicker skin, quick.

The GOP will have a great deal of material to work with and the Kochs will be spending $887 million, the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars and Bloomberg (who will only run if Sanders is the nominee) will spend another billion dollars. These groups will have a great deal to work with

The concept that the Sanders supporters think that the attacks by the Clinton campaign are scorched earth tactics is really amusing

[Dem2]

6. Hillary isn't Trump.

Dems have been trying not to go the slash and burn route, mostly successfully.

[Katashi_itto]

9. Corportatists are not a bright bunch.

[LuvLoogie]

18. Would you say that Hillary is brighter than Bernie? I would.

She managed to land a job after college, at least. Which isn't to say that Bernie isn't bright--but I would be willing to bet that Hillary has logged more man-hours and foot-pounds.

[Katashi_itto]

89. She certainly has a longer record of destabilizing countries, outright lies and bad judgements than

Bernie. That first job made such a difference.

[LuvLoogie]

99. Bernie can return to effecting perfect outcomes in stabile regimes

from his cloister in Vermont.

[Katashi_itto]

107. Yes, and Hillary can get us into more wars, TPP and get on with destroying whats left of the middle

class.

[seabeyond]

101. Communists aren't a bright bunch. Since we are just throwing out insults.

[Katashi_itto]

105. Thanks for proving my point.

[seabeyond]

110. Ya, that.

[bobbobbins01]

12. Not to mention Bernie has been treating Hillary with kid gloves.

Which he most certainly would not do in the general.

[sheshe2]

52. Really?

Bernie Sanders Says Hillary Clinton Is Not “Qualified” to Be President

Boy, that escalated quickly. Speaking at a Pennsylvania rally on Wednesday night, Bernie Sanders suggested that Hillary Clinton is not “qualified” to be president, the sharpest attack the Vermont senator has unleashed on his Democratic rival this year, and one that came hours after she refused to say whether she thought he was prepared for the job.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/07/bernie_sanders_says_hillary_clinton_is_not_qualified_to_be_president.html

[renate]

55. I love Bernie but I think he was wrong to say that

He was wrong and and that was an unforced error. She's made what I consider mistakes and errors of judgment but she certainly is more than qualified.

[sheshe2]

56. Thank you.

Thanks, renate.

[bobbobbins01]

76. Kid gloves.

Compared to what Trump will say and what she's said, that is so minor it barely registers. If you don't see that, you better hide your head under a pillow when we get to the general.

[Yurovsky]

137. +1,000,000,000 ....

The hypersensitive in the HRC camp will swallow their damn tongues and have friggin' stroke when they get a glimpse of what Trump and his BILLIONS will saturate the airwaves with if HRC is the nominee. Get ready for am unbending litany of her crimes - real and imagined - spooled 24/7 for 6 months. Hillary is just too easy a target, and she brought it all on herself via greed, corruption, and dishonesty. She wants to be a gazillionaire and is willing to take any and all shortcuts to get there.

Bernie can beat Trump, and create coattails that would certainly flip the Senate and maybe the House (if not this year, 2018). HRC is a recipe for more disastrous status quo, whether she wins or loses the GE (if she's nominated, which I hope never comes to pass).

[Joob]

84. Oh please, Hillary was suggesting he wasn't the whole election until ...guess what? He said that.

Worked didn't it?

[libdem4life]

130. Well, as the investigation moves forward

the elephant in the room may be what he was talking about. Stay in The Bubble that it a a non issue. Based on this shadow I would say she is likley not a winner, at best.

Said investigation has entered a new phase. Depositions don't do oopsies.

The GOP has tossed out their "royal family " and the Dems are not too far behind. It's the year of rejecting Oligarchy. Kind of a 100th Monkey societal event.

At worst we'll enable the First Impeached Couple . That will be noteworthy .

[seabeyond]

102. Stealing elections if he loses. Criminally stealing money. money laundering? He lacks integrity.

[pacalo]

13. She wants Bernie gone so badly, she'd smear him if she could.

[Gothmog]

87. Why? Sanders has never been a serious threat

The press has not vetted sanders because no one really believed that he was a threat. Even today, it is clear that Sanders has no chance of being the nominee. Why attack a non-threat? Clinton has held back because she had not need to attack Sanders and she wants to make it easier for Sanders supporters to support her in the general.

[pkdu]

16. Because the stuff available with the slightest bit of research hasn't even been mentioned...

Sierra Blanco
janes College failure payoff
Etc

[TM99]

19. Oh please,

Clinton ops have been trying to push these for at least six months here.

The problem is there is no there there.

And in the case of Sierra Blanco, the real scandal is the nuclear sludge from NY that ended up there not the compact that Sanders voted for and never materialized.

[pkdu]

21. Horseshit reply on one , and nothing on the other ...got it. Nt

[TM99]

27. See the typical Clintonite game.

Throw out blustery shit and then when pushed back deflect and insult.

You are a testament to your choice of candidate. Good luck, y'all are going to need it.

[brush]

60. Try this

http://guardianlv.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-history-with-communism/

[TM99]

67. Y'all fucking crack me up!

The NY fucking Post? Seriously? That is the source for this sources speculative piece about Sanders? You notice they had to add a question mark to the title to avoid a libel suit.

Here let me give you another few examples of this type of 'journalism' --

Prince Dead. Was it AIDS?

Prince Dead. Was it murder?

Prince Dead. Was it an overdose?

[brush]

69. There a whole screen worth of links on Sanders' Marxist background

You're no dummy. Why are you pretending this stuff doesn't exist?

[TM99]

71. Well you jumped into this sub thread

within this greater topic.

The issues are not that Sanders has any previous connections to Marxism/Socialism. No one including himself argues against it.

Go read the thread again, read the poster I replied to, and then try again because as you say you are no dummy either.

[AgingAmerican]

31. Flinging poop or going after the spouse isn't vetting a candidate

[TM99]

17. Of course the Brock Clinton Machine has tried

and they have perpetuated plenty of ratfuckery.

It doesn't stick because there are no hooks. Benghazi would have disappeared as just another GOP political ploy if there wasn't a damned illicit off-site email server! This is why she is such a horrible candidate. The Clintons always have hooks for the scandals and investigations that follow them from the Arkansas days to the present time.

[iandhr]

22. There is plenty of dirt.

His vote to dump his state's nuclear waste on a poor latino community in Texas for starters.

[Hiraeth]

23. If that is for starters then why did you stop there? Keep going, baby. Let it all hang out.

[iandhr]

24. Ok

There is the fact the NRA helped start his career in congress. He voted against the Brady Bill five times. Voted to protect the minutemen vigilantes.

He attacks Planned Parenthood as part of "the establishment"

He is also a major hypocrite.


He blames Hillary for mass incarceration but he voted for the same 1994 crime bill but pretends like it didn't happen.


Unlike Hillary he doesn't acknowledge when he makes a mistake and just gets testy when anyone challenges him on facts.


On the crime bill he could say something like "I voted for the crime bill. It was also supported by post of the representatives that represent inter-city populations. I wished I pushed for changes to the bill that would have allowed non-violent drug offenders to get treatment while keeping the bill focused on stiffer prison sentences for the most heinous crimes, I think people would by that.

But he can't admit he was wrong.

[Hiraeth]

26. you realize this helps him in rural areas.

[iandhr]

34. More than 80% of gun owners support background checks.

He won his first election to congress with the help of NRA paranoia.

[Hiraeth]

36. still.not.worried. nor with the religion either. and the taxes can be explained, educated and

negotiated.

the religion thing bothers me least of all and I suspect most of America, too.

Judeo-Christians .... you realize and they know Jesus was a Jew.

[iandhr]

41. I don't give a flying f*** about a candidates religion.

I am Jewish myself by the way. I used to think Bernie was a mensch. I now think he is schmuck.

[Hiraeth]

43. Hostile much.

[iandhr]

46. Yeah

I tend to get that way when someone running for my parties nomination for President is doing the best he can to destroy it.

[Hiraeth]

47. The party was already toast Bernie is just the jam

[karynnj]

93. So is Bernie - your point?

[That Guy 888]

50. Why are you in favor of violence against women?

He blames Hillary for mass incarceration but he voted for the same 1994 crime bill but pretends like it didn't happen.

The reply title is what Clinton supporters would be asking Sanders today. Sanders made speeches against the parts of the 1994 crime bill he did not like, but in part because of the Violence Against Women Act which was part of that bill, he voted for it.

Unlike Hillary he doesn't acknowledge when he makes a mistake and just gets testy when anyone challenges him on facts.

FLINT, Mich. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager on Thursday reiterated the senator’s reasoning for voting in favor of the Clinton administration’s 1994 Crime Bill despite serious reservations. The House version of the bill included a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. Sanders had supported the ban since 1988. The conference committee version included not only the assault weapons ban but also the Violence Against Women Act provisions. Sanders supported these efforts to protect women.

That seems like Sanders talking about the 1994 Crime Bill right there.

...the NRA helped start his career in congress.

...by punishing the republican incumbent who had reversed his position on the Assault Weapons Ban. Which was one of the reasons that Sanders voted for the 1994 Crime Bill.

Keep on "Brocking" those talking points though, it's the sure fire way to party unity*.




*Of course party unity isn't needed because trump.

[anotherproletariat]

25. I don't necessarily think there is dirt...but bringing up the things that will make him unelectable

is a problem in a primary because they are all things that are accepted by liberals, but quite often are a problem for the conservatives. For instance, a 60 second ad could be made about any of these things by the repubs: socialism, Non-Christian, agnostic, pro-pot legalization, planned massive tax increase, socialized medicine (which they already say would create 'third world medicine' here). There is video to reinforce every one of these charges. Heck, even his age or his wife's looks would be fodder for the repubs...not to mention that he is considered 'far left', which is a strong buzz phrase to conservatives.

As you can see, attacks on these issues would not go over well from a fellow liberal in a Democratic primary, but would be very powerful in a general election.

[Hiraeth]

28. and the same type of thing only much worse can be done with HRC

[anotherproletariat]

33. The difference is that they already have attacked Hillary on the things that are liberal about her.

Honestly, I think the biggest negative against Sanders in the religious thing. Everyone knows that Hillary was raised Methodist, and went to see Dr. King with her pastor. There is a very large part of the country that is not ready for a non-christian president - not a part that I agree with, but this is a very dedicated, loud and motivated group.

Also on the taxes...there is a 'tax calculator' going around the internet showing how much your taxes will change under each candidate's plans. Sanders taxes are much higher than anyone else. For many repubs, this is a deal breaker. Take a look:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

[Gothmog]

88. Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders

Sanders is very vulnerable in a general election. The Clinton campaign has not attacked Sanders because Sanders never had a real chance of being the nominee. If Sanders was the nominee, the GOP has a ton of material to use. 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, “People want to criticize me, okay,” and “Fine, 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.

Again, there has never been any need for Clinton to go after sanders on these issues because Sanders has never been a real threat. The GOP has a ton of material to use

[brush]

120. You are so spot on with this

Many here on DU seem to view things through their own liberal/left-leaning perspective without thinking how socialist/Marxist affiliations would come off to moderate to conservative voters out there in the real world who aren't enthralled by the "Sanders revolution".

[AgingAmerican]

30. They don't know what the word "Vetted" means

Some people believe it means 'poop-flinging'.

[The Second Stone]

32. He's against compulsory education

He writes rape fantasy literature.
He thinks children should be allowed to be naked in public.
He thinks children should be allowed to experiment with each other sexually.
He is a longtime Trotskyite. (That's a kind of socialism/capitalsim that is particularly weird, look it up.)


Slate ran an article the other day addressing just this issue. Sanders is a weird guy.

[jillan]

42. He advocates for compulsory education ffs! You want to see weird? This is weird, and sick.

google it.

[MADem]

54. He wrote an article for the VT FREEMAN telling parents that schools stunk and they should home

school their kids.

He wrote a screed that said women caused their own cancer by being frigid.

He's written a lot of weird and kinky shit that just doesn't age well at all-he comes off sounding like Humbert Humbert, even if his intention was to be some sort of New Age Free Love Guru.

Everyone who has paid attention has seen this stuff-they're just too polite to make a big thing about it.

You think the GOP would have such scruples? I've a bridge for sale.

[w4rma]

78. Hillary laughed about defending a child rapist from prison. (nt)

[MADem]

111. No she didn't. You really should stop shopping that blatant untruth-makes you look bad.

Sanders wrote these things. He put his name on them. Your example doesn't have that weight or that realilty. In fact, your example can be easily refuted. Only the Brietbart crowd believe that kind of crap. Why do you continue to carry right wing water?

Next time, check SNOPES:

WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Clinton was requested as lawyer for the defense in a rape case involving a 12-year-old girl; Clinton reluctantly took on the case, successfully challenged mismanaged evidence, and entered a plea bargain for the defendant.

WHAT'S FALSE: Clinton laughed about the unreliable nature of polygraphs, not the case's outcome; Clinton did not volunteer to be the man's lawyer; Clinton did not claim the complainant fantasized about being raped by older men; the case did not go to trial.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/


You can do better, and you should.

[That Guy 888]

91. Why not provide a link to the article then?

I see many fine Brock talking points with no explanation. Of course the fact that there isn't any details doesn't mean that there aren't any details. It just means the details most likely don't match your Zomg! delivery.

Trotskyite? Seriously? When If I get nostalgic for the Cold War I just watch Dr. Strangelove, you might want give it viewing and see if it restores your "essence".

[The Second Stone]

127. Michelle Goldberg talking points

Ya know, Google works for you too. I posted it a couple of days ago, here it is again. He is a weird dude.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html

Some of us still think that the ideas of guys like Trotsky are dangerous. Sanders is a life long socialist. A Trotskyite socialist. He is rather open about it except when he hides it behind "democratic". Some of us are aware that involves admiration of dictators like Castro.

I'm against socialism because I am fully aware of what it is: a repeal of democratic principles.

[That Guy 888]

162. Google works too. So does posting the link that you're talking about in the first place.

It's just common courtesy. The only people I encountered before that wanted people to "look it up for yourself" were bush supporters.


I read the article of Michelle Goldberg, who has supported clinton since she announced she was going to run. [div Feb. 10 2016 4:51 PM Hard Choices I used to hate Hillary. Now I’m voting for her.
By Michelle Goldberg

...Perhaps most significantly, Clinton is running against a very different opponent this time around. Barack Obama is an epochal political talent who promised to expand the Democratic coalition. Bernie Sanders is a mensch whose politics are more or less my own, but I’m convinced he’d be eviscerated in a general election.

class="excerpt"]http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/02/why_one_feminist_woman_is_voting_for_hillary_clinton_over_bernie_sanders.html

Everything else that she writes about this election is justification for voting against Sanders.

Some of us still think that the ideas of guys like Trotsky are dangerous. Sanders is a life long socialist. A Trotskyite socialist. He is rather open about it except when he hides it behind "democratic". Some of us are aware that involves admiration of dictators like Castro.

I'm against socialism because I am fully aware of what it is: a repeal of democratic principles.

Tell it to Europe ronnie reagan. All of those dangerous socialist nation's in NATO.

[The Second Stone]

166. I'd already posted it in some other threads

Ms. Goldbergs leanings do not change that Mr. Sanders is a weirdo.

[That Guy 888]

167. Of course they do. If someone is desperate (as you apparently are) to find faults, they will.

If they can't find them, they will make them, as most Clinton supporters finding fault with Sanders do. Why no context? Most likely because they aren't as damning as you desperately hope they would be.

Mr. Sanders is a weirdo.

Keep up that intelligent political discourse. If you can take a break from huntin' commies that is.

[The Second Stone]

168. A weirdo obsessed with keeping children ignorant and

naked. You might want to read the article. He is in fact a commie, and has spent his life admitting it, is against compulsory schooling, and has admitted it, and wants children to run around naked and touch each other, and admitted it. He also writes about his rape fantasies. All documented. Yeah, he's a weirdo.

Clinton failed to bring these up, and frankly, any Republican would have been all over them.

You can remain in your fantasy land that Sanders is electable, but he would have ensured a Trump victory.

[That Guy 888]

169. Ha, ha, ha! man this is the best laugh I've had in a looong time.

Provide some proof in context for your very strange allegations if you can future Hillary dead-ender.

Have you checked under the bed and in the closet for commies? Well known commie hideouts, so they say.

[JudyM]

170. Wow. All you read are smear headlines, no critical thinking at all...

[MADem]

161. Mother Jones carried a lot of that stuff.

Example:






http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-freeman-sexual-freedom-fluoride

[Thinkingabout]

35. Sanders said he had never had a dirty campaign, maybe in the past but he

Has this time, this does not mean Hillary has to go the same route. Hillary understands running on the issues and not dirt.

[Hiraeth]

37. excuse me

[Thinkingabout]

40. Okay, you are excused

[Hiraeth]

44. You are too funny

That was hilarious

[iandhr]

39. In the past he said he saw no difference between Democrats and Republicans...

“It is absolutely fair to say you are dealing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee.”


Madeleine Kunin the former Democratic Governor of Vermont had this to say about.


When Sanders was my opponent he focused like a laser beam on “class analysis,” in which “women’s issues” were essentially a distraction from more important issues. He urged voters not to vote for me just because I was a woman. That would be a “sexist position,” he declared.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/04/when-bernie-sanders-ran-against-vermont/kNP6xUupbQ3Qbg9UUelvVM/story.html


He has become smarter political person but it as insult to call "women issues a discretion.


This guy has never been a Democrat so why should I trust him to lead my party.

[floppyboo]

45. BOOM! Done! thanks Judy

[Jack Bone]

48. I think the only thing they had was that grainy video from the 80s

He was sitting around talking about Cuba or Venez....they tried to use it as a "GOTCHA " in one of the early debates...failed miserably.

[nolawarlock]

53. The things he will be attacked on ...

... are not things that Hillary was going to attack him on. It's got nothing to do with dirt. It has to do with his policies and support for Communist countries like Cuba, socialism, rape thoughts, and god knows what else. Trump has plenty to go for Bernie on. The only reason he's being nice at all to him on Twitter is that he knows Bernie's not going to win the primary.

[Onlooker]

68. Are you serious? There's plenty of dirt that Hillary hasn't used ...

His vote against the Amber alert system, his past Troskyite sympathies, his attendance at an anti-American Sandinista rally, his rape fantasies, his promise of higher taxes and fuel bills, his failed oversight of the Veteran's administration, his desire to give gun manufacturers special protection, his support for the anti-immigrant vigilante Minutemen, his lack of foreign policy experience, his threat to middle class 401K retirement plans, his anti-immigration vote in 2007, his support for the 1994 crime bill, his failure to build alliances with key gay, women's, and civil rights groups and leaders; his failure to release almost any of his tax returns, his admiration of Castro, the fact that only 3/324 bills he introduced in Congress were passed (one of which named a Vermont post office), his opposition to an amendment outlawing computer-generated child pornography, his belief that sexual repression causes cancer, his vote for regime change in Iraq in 1999, the (exaggerated) claim that he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, and anything else they can throw at him.

The point is not these many of these criticisms of Sanders are fair, but let's face it, if Sanders supporters are naive enough to fall for every piece of garbage about Hillary Clinton, then it's likely that Trump supporters are naive enough to fall for every piece of garbage about Bernie Sanders.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-18/despite-polls-republicans-see-sanders-as-an-easier-opponent

“Republicans are being nice to Bernie Sanders because we like the thought of running against a socialist. But if he were to win the nomination the knives would come out for Bernie pretty quick,” said Ryan Williams, a former spokesman for 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney's campaign. “There's no mystery what the attack on him would be. Bernie Sanders is literally a card carrying socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union. There'd be hundreds of millions of dollars in Republican ads showing hammers and sickles and Soviet Union flags in front of Bernie Sanders.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html

He has never been asked to account for his relationship with the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, for which he served as a presidential elector in 1980. At the time, the party’s platform called for abolishing the U.S. military budget and proclaimed “solidarity” with revolutionary Iran. (This was in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis.) There’s been little cable news chatter about Sanders’ 1985 trip to Nicaragua, where he reportedly joined a Sandinista rally with a crowd chanting, “Here, there, everywhere/ The Yankee will die.”

...

The Clinton campaign has also ignored Sanders’ youthful sex writings. Republicans are unlikely to be so decorous. Imagine an ad drawing from the old Sanders essay “The Revolution Is Life Versus Death.” First it might quote the candidate mocking taboos on child nudity: “Now, if children go around naked, they are liable to see each others sexual organs, and maybe even touch them. Terrible thing!” Then it would quote him celebrating girls who defy their mothers and have sex with their boyfriends: “The revolution comes … when a girl pushes aside all that her mother has ‘taught’ her and accepts her boyfriends love.” Finally, it would remind viewers that Sanders was one of 14 congressmen to vote against the law establishing the Amber Alert system and one of 15 to vote against an amendment criminalizing computer-generated child pornography.

[brooklynite]

70. Translation:

-I- think Clinton is corrupt and unscrupulous; why is 'tvshe living up to my image of her?

[Live and Learn]

75. Too much wine with your political dinner guests? nt

[brooklynite]

77. Writing on an iPhone...

...but I AM traveling Business Class to Rome...like someone else.

[Live and Learn]

79. You are so special! nt

[Gothmog]

81. The Clinton campaign and others have been treating Sanders with kids gloves compared to the GOP

The concept that the Clinton campaign has been very negative on Sanders is simply false when you look at what Sanders would be subject to if he was the Democratic nominee. VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

The attacks that would be levied against Sanders by the Kochs, the RNC candidate and others in a general election contest would make the so-called attacks against Sanders look like patty-cakes. The GOP and Kochs are not known for being nice or honest and as the article notes there are a ton of good topics available for attack. Raising taxes is never a good campaign platform (Just ask President Mondale). The GOP would also raise the socialism and age issues if Sanders was the nominee.

Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders has not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like.

[cali]

94. She has. Her opposition researchers flocked to Vermont in May of last year

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. I am sure she has files of oppo but to use the oppo on another Democrat would be suicidal.

Don't forget it was Al Gore who "discovered" Willie Horton during the 1988 Democratic primaries.

[Skinner]

97. I think you misunderstand. There is no doubt that the Clinton campaign has a fat file of stuff...

...that they "dug up" about Bernie Sanders. And there is no doubt that the GOP has a fat file of stuff that they "dug up" about Bernie Sanders. So that part of the vetting has surely happened.

What has not happened is a sustained multimillion-dollar public dump of the information from those fat files. I'm not talking about a one-off column from William Salentan. I'm talking about a massive air war that blankets the media with this crap 24/7 until it breaks through to the majority of Americans who do not pay attention to politics and don't really know much of anything about Bernie Sanders yet. Something like the massive "Dole-Gingrich" media assault during the summer of 1996 that utterly destroyed Bob Dole (a much higher-profile politician than Bernie ever was) before his general election campaign even got started.

We are all political obsessives here, so we all have a pretty good idea of what is in those fat files of opposition research, but more importantly we all know enough about Bernie to put that stuff into its proper context and it probably does not change our opinion of him very much.

But to people who are not political obsessives and do not know very much about Bernie Sanders, their first impression of him would probably be shaped by the content of those fat files. And first impressions are incredibly hard to shake off.

When we say Bernie Sanders has not been vetted, we mean we have not yet had the opportunity to find out how effective the contents of these fat files would be in tearing him down in the minds of the average voter. That part of the process has not happened, so we just don't know whether this stuff would be utterly devastating or totally irrelevant.

[seabeyond]

103. Good post. Nt

[obamanut2012]

104. Thank you for saving me writing this -- spot on post

[cali]

113. There really isn't much.

I doubt those files are all that fat. Believe me, vtdigger, considered one of the best local political websites in the country has been... digging. That's not to say that what they have wouldn't damage him, but I doubt that it's what you build it up to be in your post.

[JudyM]

116. Why would she try to with smear him with false issues (e.g., civil rights involvement and

Chelsea's comments) and yet hold back on issues that are supposedly real problems? If she wants what's best for the party, why not air some of his fat file's best hits? This is one point.

Without getting into any snark here, I also want to raise another part of the basis for my question: she released a statement on CNN live the night of his WI win that said she is going to "disqualify" him and then put the party back together. Many of us saw the statement live.

Rather than releasing any info to disqualify him, she instead made a big media play about his retort that she wasn't qualified based on her judgment - which, to sanders supporters who saw the scene unfold, seemed disingenuously dirty. Fair in politics, no doubt, but still a knowing distortion both because of denying the prelim shot/context and then miscasting his response as having gender overtones when his statement was clearly about her specifically named actions, not her gender.

Ok, so we are moving beyond that and yet, still, no material seems to be coming out of her campaign that is disqualifying! So she makes this public declaration that her campaign is changing course to get tough and disqualify him. Where is the material? What was that even about?

***please DUers, I am asking sincerely and ask that any responses do not degenerate into snark ***

[Skinner]

126. The reason the Clinton campaign never used the "best hits" from their file of opposition research...

...is because they have been winning enough primaries so that they never needed to. The Clinton campaign did not want to alienate Sanders's supporters any more than they already had, and dumping the "best hits" of anti-Sanders opposition research with a $100 million ad buy would have been BOTH unnecessary and counterproductive to their eventual goal of unifying the party for the general election.

Some Sanders supporters think the Clinton campaign is playing dirty when they suggest he was unprepared for an interview with the New York Daily News, or when they suggest his promises are pie-in-the-sky. Those attacks are nothing compared to what they have in their opposition research file.

The Clinton campaign did not use any of that stuff, and I have no doubt that they are glad that they never felt the need to. If they did use any of that stuff, they would have deeply offended a lot of Democratic primary voters (including both Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters) who would consider such attacks beyond the pale. Hillary needs Democratic primary voters to support her in the general election, and she does not want to run a slash-and-burn primary if she doesn't need to.

And to be fair, the Sanders campaign also did not use the "best hits" that they had in their opposition research file against Hillary Clinton. For the most part the two Democratic campaigns have avoided the worst-of-the-worst attacks, thankfully.

But there is no reason why Republicans would not use any of their "best hits" against Bernie Sanders (or against Hillary Clinton) in the context of a general election. When people say Bernie Sanders has not been vetted, this is what they are talking about. We do not know how any of this stuff would play to undecided voters in the context of a general election. We just don't.

[JudyM]

128. Bernie has referenced Hillary's failings and questioned her outright in debates.

As for some concern about alienating us with attacks on him, she has certainly done that, as noted above. And implying sexism at every turn. Why not put out an attack that has more substance, if she has it? Don't you see -- she *announced* that she was going to take on a tougher stance and disqualify him. So... where is that??? Was it an empty threat just to imply publicly that she had the goods on him to take the wind out of his sails that night of his big win? Seems peculiarly hollow to not follow up with anything.

On a personal note, I have been putting hundreds of hours into volunteering for Bernie. It would be helpful to know if there is actually some skeleton that would make me feel differently about him. The worst I've seen is nothing in comparison to my concerns about Hillary. His positions and his character are enormously better aligned with my values, as of what is currently out there.

The concept that she doesn't want to smear him doesn't hold water when she has been doing that with what many of us view as distortions. If she came out with a little more she could shut this down... if she cares about the party and she has the goods she should put it out there. Many of us would prefer to have the truth and deal with it now.

[Skinner]

129. The skeletons probably would not make you feel any differently about him.

You know enough about Bernie Sanders to make a judgment based on the whole candidate and his entire platform, rather than relying some cherry-picked stuff from his past that was delivered via 30-second attack ad.

The reasons this type of opposition research is effective is because there are a whole lot of voters who are NOT like you, who do not have a preferred candidate, do not really know that much about the candidate(s), aren't really interested in doing their own research, and are highly susceptible to a piece of information if it is delivered early enough to create a negative impression.

[JudyM]

131. Ok, so what was that declaration about?

Big announcemeant that the campaign was going to take a new course and disqualify him and put the party back together again later. Fighting words delivered right in the middle of Weaver discussing the implications of the WI win on CNN.

And I appreciate your trying to answer, but suggesting that she doesn't want to alienate his followers by disclosing bad stuff about him... it just doesn't fit with what she has done, since she's put them down directly! Why not give the undecideds in OUR party the benefit of these skeletons? I am being open-minded and sincere, I'm just not seeing the logic borne out.

[Skinner]

132. I can't speak for the Clinton Campaign.

But my impression is that the main piece of evidence the Clinton campaign was prepared to offer was Sanders's interview with the New York Daily News. Obviously that did not disqualify Sanders for the presidency in your eyes, but there were some people at the time who were arguing that it did.

(For the record, there was no "big announcement" from the campaign stating that they were going to disqualify Sanders. There was one anonymous campaign staffer talking to CNN.)

[JudyM]

135. FWIW, a piece of paper with the statement that it was "from the campaign" announcing

a "new strategy" in dealing with him was handed to the interviewer. It appeared to be a dramatic moment. So you are saying the campaign had access to the NY Daily News article prior to its publication, ok. If that's all there was to it, with no follow up strategy, seems odd, but ok.

Still, it seems more logical that she should grace us with more of his downside if it exists, if she wants to have a better run in the rest of the states. If she is better, she should show us how he's worse and if it's valid she would be able to start unifying the party sooner because some will relent and see that she might be the better option. Currently it is because many of us believe there is a huge gulf between their records and values that we are willing to fight so hard for what we believe is best for the country... If it evened out there'd be a lot less contention.

It is silly to think his supporters have an aversion to facts -- quite the contrary, and most of us wouldn't hold it against her. Skeletons are fair game if they are real.

Thanks for offering your thoughts, Skinner.

[Demsrule86]

98. Hillary has class unlike Bern

I am sure she knows plenty about Bernie...I have seen a few things that could destroy him if here was the nominee which he is not and never will be...the swiftboating would be merciless and effective. Of course, it won't be necessary. You don't give the Republicans an excuse to attack Democrats if you are any sort of a decent person. Hillary has said nothing bad about Bernie. He is like a broken record attacking her all the time...kind of funny when he had (he says) planned to run a campaign based on issues...now his entire losing campaign is about attacking her and the Democratic Party...with a dose of meaningless polls tossed in.

[DrDan]

108. I am sure you are correct - seems a smart thing to do in an election and

use the findings strategically - as needed.

To do otherwise would not make sense to me.

[NorthCarolina]

112. Because it was easier for them to just make shit up than to research and come up empty handed?

eom

[BernieforPres2016]

114. They clearly dug for dirt on Bernie and came up with nothing

So the best they could do was go after him on "voting for" commodities deregulation which Gary Gensler (Hillary's campaign finance manager) had buried in an omnibus spending bill to keep the government open during Bill's administration. Hillary dropped that one on Bernie in a debate and it was so obscure he didn't know what she was talking about.

[polly7]

115. If they'd had ONE single, tiny bit of dirt on him to dig up and use, it would have been done

within the first minute of her campaign.

They've used every opportunity and dirty trick in the book to attack him with nothing but lies - it's beyond naive to imagine they were holding off on anything they had that was legitimate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

123. Because they live in a totally imaginary "real world".

[BootinUp]

124. Isn't the important question whether she has slung any of it? nt

[ViseGrip]

125. "he's not been vetted yet"...makes me laugh. None have actually worked in this business.

Hillary has nothing buy money to use to have researchers look. The fact you have heard nothing, just shows the American people are so stupid to ignore a real authentic, honest candidate. They'd rather believe 'he's not been vetted yet'.

Believe me....ANYTHING to get rid of him earlier, would have been used.

[bettyellen]

138. She has been beating him without going negative. Going negative will hurt her, and the party.

[asuhornets]

140. And Sanders still has not been vetted, but what is the point in doing so now..

But I guess you believe he is soooooooooooooooooo perfect..

[nini]

143. Because he didn't need it

She's not a shithole like Bernie is I guess.

[Blue_Tires]

144. Because she hasn't needed it?

Because she's winning without it?

[dchill]

152. They believe whatever they have to believe... to keep on believing.

That's painfully obvious.

[Rockyj]

154. Because they are grasping @ straws. The more posts I read...

...for example one Hillary supporter bitched about Bernie millennials sitting on their activists asses. So I question if they really need or want our support if she wins the primary? If they truly wanted our support wouldn't they be a bit nicer instead of spewing green pea soup while their heads spin around?

[JudyM]

160. Yeah, seems like it's smoke and mirrors sometimes.

[AgingAmerican]

156. They believe it because they were engaging in it

Most likely for bonus'

[deepestblue]

163. Bernie

Bernie is as clean as the day is long. That's why people 49 and under (who aren't listening to the old fat men aka the corporate propagandists) support him overwhelmingly.

It will probably be this year, but if it isn't, it WILL be in 4 years that a liberal FOR THE PEOPLE candidate wins.

Even shutting down the internet won't stop the movement.

The cat is out of the bag.

[JudyM]

171. Hoping for truth, justice and usurping corporate legislative power.