MSNBC in full frontal attack of Sanders

this is what we knew was coming. clinton is imploding, along comes the m$m to tell us what to think.

not gonna work this time, losers.

as you said, it was time they put him under the same microscope Hillary has been under.

Lord, knows we are not allowed to do it on DU!!

so upset that Bernie's actions are actually being covered, that you don't like what is being said is beside the point, since the negativity doesn't actually bother you.

Just exactly what lies do you think have been counted as "coverage"?


Negativity does not bother me so much as dishonesty does. If you can make an honest point that sounds negative, I am okay with it.

How much?

Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow have been on the Bernie Express for months!

I do agree, though, that the press is starting to question ol Bernie - and rightfully so. He's gotten a free pass for far too long. Let him wilt a while under the spotlight!

I'm somewhat astonished people are acting as if this is something new or just figuring it out.

They have damn near completely left him alone for months, in their attempt to make it a race, now that it is somewhat close they are starting to give him attention. Those are the options for democrats and the media.

Welcome aboard.

The media will always turn on Democratic Party members and treat them worse than Republicans.

If O'Malley, Sanders, or Clinton said anything like Trump does - the media would rip them to shreds.

If there were naked pictures of Sanders or O'Malley's wife on the web - they would rip her to shreds.

Clinton has been picked on for her pantsuits over the years - when does the media - the pundits - pick apart Donald's hair?


I'm probably coming across petty and I'm a little tired today - but although it might not be fair - it's part of being a Democratic politician.

There are two different rules for Republicans and Democratics in this country as far as the media is concerned. It's been that way for 20 years.

Thing is? We remember at General Election time.

I truly have no idea how they are just figuring it out. And it's a lot more important than some think. It's so much more than opposing democrats. The media is without a doubt one of the front lines blurring privilege and oppression in this country. Blurring the extreme differences of opinion. There is a reason they go after dems. It's a lot deeper than party affiliation.

Thanks for the reply.

pundits have been doing and still is doing to her.

Fresh off the regulatory defeat of the $45 billion merger between Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) and Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC), Comcast regulatory affairs chief David L. Cohen is set to host a $2,700-a-plate fundraiser for 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The event will take place on June 26 at the home of Cohen and his wife, Rhonda. Those who donate $50,000 or more will have access to a private reception with the candidate.

-snip-

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/comcasts-cohen-hold-fundraiser-hillary-clinton/2015-06-15

They are all owned by the same billionaires.

and get Bush elected to a 2nd term.

He has such a revisionist history of his own doing.

I remember when he hated the Clintons and particularly Hillary.

That anyone watches him is stunning to me.

Andrea Mitchell Greenspan has always been a hack. And I'm quite sure she has never forgiven Bernie for his superb taking down of Alan. Back in 2003 - Bernie was fantastic - just listen to what he was saying then.



And as far back as 1999 - there was this exchangeduring a House Banking Committee hearing.

REP. SANDERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ironically, I was going to ask a similar question to what Mr. Castle asked over on the minimum wage.

Some of us see the positive signs in the current economy in that real wages for low income workers have finally gone up after many years of stagnation and decline. And I'm surprised, therefore, about your response to Mr. Castle, because one of the positive things -- Some people would argue that one of the reasons that wages for low income workers have gone up is an increase in the minimum wage. And you and others argued two years ago when we fought to raise the minimum wage from four and a quarter to five-fifteen there'd be massive, large-scale unemployment among workers. Unemployment is now at a record low. So my question is, do I gather -- do you still oppose raising -- the president would like to raise the minimum wage by a buck over a two-year period. Many of us would like to go even higher. Are you still opposed to raising the minimum wage?

MR. GREENSPAN: Well, I still think it's a bad idea, because as I said to Mr. Castle, you don't see the effects when you have a huge demand for labor. The real crucial way to test whether it is a desirable thing to have is when the economy is slack. And as far as I can judge, and the data that we tend to find quite compelling, is that teenage unemployment does go up with the minimum wage. And if that is, in fact, the case, I think it's a disservice to the younger people.

Turn off Tweety. Turn off Mrs. Greenspan. Drink a nice cup of tea and let the corporate & Beltway media talk to themselves in their own little bubble!

When they fire him (and they will) I won't shed any tears.