Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Hillary Clinton
In reply to the discussion: Jane Sanders on MSNBC this morning, saying that news media are NOT allowed to say [View all]BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)19. Not a word! You'd think she'd take that opportunity once Jane came out of her hiding place. But no.
She just sat there letting the woman LIE while accusing "the media" of aiding and abetting Hillary Clinton by saying that the primaries are all but over and Democrats have their Democratic nominee. And she said it with that annoying smile of hers, too.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
40 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Jane Sanders on MSNBC this morning, saying that news media are NOT allowed to say [View all]
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
OP
So, her searches of their attic and basement did not result in found tax returns.
tonyt53
Jun 2016
#1
We'll never know because Andrea Mitchell was too busy allowing the woman to pontificate and LIE
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#3
2,383 is half of the total that includes superdelegates. The obvious losing side doesn't get to
BobbyDrake
Jun 2016
#2
Math is not their strongest suit - especially when it makes them look bad or look like they're
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#5
Yep. Just checked. The 4,765 total delegates incl. pledged *and* unpledged (super) delegates.
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#8
Then the question would be, why did they allow it? Why did Andrea allow any conditions to be set
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#7
I'm asking that same question, Cha. Can you recall when it was the last time @msnbc had Bill Clinton
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#14
No, it's burnie burnie jane burnie burnie jane, burnie burnie jane, burnie jane sanders... crammed
Cha
Jun 2016
#15
Well, considering the math Jane used that's now bankrupting Burlington College, there's a case to be
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#12
Not a word! You'd think she'd take that opportunity once Jane came out of her hiding place. But no.
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#19
"nov 8 will be a great celebration for america electing our first female president"
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#18
I drove my employer into bankruptcy and all I got with this lousy 6 figure payoff
msongs
Jun 2016
#20
I know, HS! Were it Hillary rather than Jane, the M$M would be crucifying her as we speak!
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#27
I take your point but Jane's not the candidate. If Bill did it, he'd not get a pass from the press!
Rose Siding
Jun 2016
#32
That's not socialism. That's autocracy! What about that don't his followers see or understand??
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#28
"he's won a number of races by large margins. By 70,75,82,86%." You forgot to add: in smaller States
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#33
his campaign attacked Boxer, too and she also has a high approval rating. He is going for broke
DLCWIdem
Jun 2016
#40
To better expose Jane Sanders and even Andrea Mitchell it might be better to use twitter
LiberalFighter
Jun 2016
#31
Thanks for the tip, LiberalFighter. I'll keep that in mind when tweeting. I didn't know this. :-)
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2016
#34