I realize the difference between "journalist' and "commentator," but, Jaysus, there has to be some line between "commentator" and "campaign shill."

Hasn't viewed the video before now. All great points. Hits home state of our media and journalism as well.

at the time. I used to like chris until his media bias was blaring in my face. Disgusting!

A staunch corporate shill.

I watched the interview live and agreed with every word Susan Sarandon said. There were even some Bernie supporters on DU saying well maybe she misspoke a bit. I don't think they saw the interview.

As offensive as the questions of Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow often are, their body language is as bad or worse. The incredulous looks, the head cocks, the big stupid grins, all designed to communicate "Are you insane? Do you hear what you are saying? Don't you want to take that back?"

When it comes to punchable faces, Chris Hayes ranks right behind Ted Cruz for me.

And tRump will thank you for your support.

Vomit sandwich or excrement sandwich aren't much for choices.

primaries because they knew it would depress turn out, so those votes numbers don't mean much. And he is catching up in delegates quickly.

Even if the caucus states had been voting states ... Sanders would still be close to 2 million votes behind. And if the caucus states had been voting states, Secretary Clinton probably would have been in a closer race in many of the states.

So if a state is smaller, then it doesn't matter huh? Does that mean we should just give up our right to vote all together then? My vote in WA helped get Bernie 74 delegates. I wouldn't call that small.

You stated that Secretary Clinton being 2+ million votes ahead didn't matter because of caucus states. It's just math that those smaller states, no matter how much more Sanders won them by, would NEVER make up that difference, by the FACT that they are smaller states. I believe Washington state is the ONLY exception to my generalization. And that one would not even close to make up the difference.

Math and facts are hard for Sanders supporters, aren't they?

votes. I have better things to do than waste my time on you. You are going on my ignore list. Good bye.

You Sanders supporters are so childish and predictable.

The only thing that matters is delegate counts. She could be ahead by 300 million votes. If he has more delegates...delegates are the coin of the realm

Just like in the GE the popular votes means nothing. The candidate with 273 or more electors wins

That this basic material is not understood is distressing. And yes,HRC should (likely does) know better when she makes that wrongheaded claim on the stump.

but, what elicited that response was that poster's statement that Secretary Clinton was a "weak" candidate. And by that metric, popular vote matters significantly. If Secretary Clinton is a "weak" candidate, what is Sanders with his 2+ million fewer votes?

And I am far from the only one on record on that.

But when you make an argument from popular votes prepare to be called on it. The fact that she is making that argument, which is fallacious in US politics, is evidence to her weakness the media not calling her on it is part of the problem

Sanders is a weaker candidate than Secretary Clinton. No matter how much you continue to spew right wing talking points ... it won't change that fact.

She is considered weak in elite US media. She is also considered weak in foreign press where there is quite a bit of disquiet about her foreign press are also raising other issues that CNN (for the record CNN-I is going there) is not raising.

Americans are taking this mostly as a miss universe kind of a show. Abroad people have pointed her weaknesses. Of course Trump is part of a global trend, but that is another conversation.

For the record, since I deal with facts, not partisanship, I consider Sanders just slightly less weak. And I mean the slightly part. You suppose you are going to attack me for being in the tank for Sanders or something for considering him just slightly better. And it has all to do with the current dynamics. Which I suspect you have no understanding to be honest. Partisans rarely do.

The only saving grace is that the strong man backed down this week that will cost him, greatly. His fans are not quite impressed by the strongman starting to act as one more politician. And I should add, I was brutally honest surprised.

but you haven't given any examples of who and why they're calling Secretary Clinton that ... typical. It's reminiscent of Faux "News" and "some people are saying" ....

And I see you have to try and dismiss me as "partisan" without any facts to back that up. The only partisan that I am is that I will vote for the Democrat that gets nominated, either one. That's a lot better than many of the Sanders cheerleaders around here, the Bernie or Bust crowd ... I have no respect for them at all.

For someone that claims to have facts on their side, your post is incredibly fact free.

CNN-I, excelsior Mexico, El universal, Mexico, the U.K. Independent, Milenio TV, Foreign Affairs, the Economist. The list is actually quite long. Most is not national, though add Foreign Policy to the list.

I suppose since US elections affect others in very definite ways US elections are not a fucking game. Then you have the UN special envoy calling her on her inaccurate Syria statements. That is indirectly calling her well weak.

Of course Trump is now a matter of concern to the Office of the Presidency in Mexico, again, that is another whole conversation.

And it would behoove you to understand why she is weak this election. CNN-I went extensively into it. Something about being the ultimate insider in a change election. Why the fucking hell is CNN not interviewing Analystst that explain this to domestic audiences? (Rethotical before you go there )

Add to your list Aristegui in Mexico talking on CNN Mexico air with both a republican and Democratic Party strategists. Again an interview that will never be played on domestic tv.

Since I do not take this as a beauty show, I tend to agree. An establishment insider is a weak candidate in a change election.

Secretary Clinton has dealt with them for 20+ years ... she is by far the better candidate to deal with their slime.

Either GOP or HRC is 1% and corporatist win no matter what.

Which brings us back to the lack of enthusiasm and reasoning why people don't feel urgency or loyalty to back HRC. She is part of the problem with our corrupt government.

Secretary Clinton is up by 2+ million voters and 200+ delegates.

I'll take that "lack of enthusiasm" any day of the week.

He's on the TYTnetwork, right?
What time is he on?

I want to start watching him more often. Tia!

Thank you.