It's against the law.
Bernie says they're taking $200k fees for speeches while voting down min wage increases.

Wendy, you might want to listen to check this out for yourself. It is a COMPLETE LIE meant to deceive...well, you. It also gives aid to the GOP, which will for sure find some good ways to use it against us.

I give people running for office a lot of loose rope, but this filthy insulting smear, painting Bernie's own Democratic colleagues as corrupt and negligent in the worst way, is way, way over my line.

Do you have one?

politician.I see Bernie as the only real,compassionate,FDR type politician,I have ever voted for.

I thought I had before,I was wrong.

So,yea,another Clinton? Been there,done that.

So actually seeing a genuine candidate of the people, like Sanders,there is no going back,to the same old same old.

from Hillary that even compares to this for both dishonesty and stupidity. Sanders is going back to Congress to sit among people he lied about being completely corrupt. I've made a lot of excuses for a man running for president, but he deserves to be shunned.

Btw, just a reminder: Hundreds of colleagues endorsed Hillary, almost none Bernie. Gee, I wonder why.

speeches and was paid a ton of money,and the people she gave the speeches to will want something in return.

And I can't point to a single nasty smear from H? This entire campaign has shown the world,

how powerful and far reaching the clinton tentacles reach.She has the media,the dnc,wall street,politicians.

Bernie has done remarkably well against all of that.And as far as the hundreds of colleagues backing H,well

that shows their loyalty to money also. And corrupt politicians should be called out,he wasn't lying.

the clintons should be the ones being shunned,bad stuff has surrounded them forever.

She's not the one who flew to Rome with all those $27 donations.

all of his colleagues, honest and not.

Such inexcusable dishonesty is especially remarkable because it is so unnecessary. Surely he could have found some real corruption to make a commercial about? Why this giant whopper anyone who reads can uncover in 2 minutes?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary_clinton_keeps_smearing_bernie_sanders_as_a_sexist_now_she_is_reaching.html

n Oct. 23, Hillary Clinton opened a new front against Sen. Bernie Sanders: She framed him as a sexist. Clinton took a phrase Sanders had routinely used in talking about gun violence—that “shouting” wouldn’t solve the problem—and suggested that he had aimed it at her because “when women talk, some people think we’re shouting.”


Several journalists called out Clinton for this smear. But she refuses to withdraw it. Instead, her campaign officials and supporters have escalated the attack.

The next day, Clinton sat down for an interview in New Hampshire. Josh McElveen of WMUR asked her about Sanders: “Do you believe that he’s attacking you based solely on your gender?” Clinton replied: “When I heard him say that people should stop shouting about guns, I didn’t think I was shouting. I thought I was making a very strong case. … And I’m not going to be silenced.” McElveen followed up: “But as far as the implication that Bernie Sanders is sexist—you wouldn’t go that far?” Clinton shrugged, smiled, and sidestepped the question. “I said what I had to say about it,” she concluded.

there is more

protected from "thin skinned" Bernie supporters who have debunked Hillary's and her surrogates smear campaigns from his civil rights record to his trip to the Vatican and his tax returns?

Bernie asked for her Wall Street transcripts. She says, like the "true leader" she is " show me yours first". He did. He have none. Then she says "let the republicans show theirs first too!" And then she goes on about how transparent she is, and puts up white noise machines in one of her fundraisers and demands Bernie for then to release his tax returns.

Bernie has danced after Hillary's childish games of moving the gold post, and puts on a pouty face whenever her own dark past as a Wall Street cheer leader comes up again.
And this is the person you want to be Commander in chief! Someone whose base cries "sexism" whenever she gets criticism.
These are the people who threw John Lewis and his entire legacy under the bus in a sleazy campaign to marginalize Bernie Sander's civl rights record and eleveat Hillary's (does she actually have a civil rights record? Has she ever been on the front line against the police, risking being beaten and arrested in a struggle to ensure equal rights for everybody?
I have never seen any picture of her marhing anywhere with anyone. I have heard some claims, but none to be confirmed

The Hillary smear machine have been working constant overtime to make anything and everything Bernie say or do into a controversy, linking anything any of his supporters directly to him whjile denying that DNCs own Karl Rove is a super PAC operate ive paid to do what he do. Lie like a bastard and let the lie fly around the world even before anyone reacts and debunks his inane strawmen and ad hominems. They make it seem as if David Brock is a completely independent entity who has nothing to do with Hillarys campaign whatsoever.

Hillary supporters demand that Bernie apologize for the fake "Berniebros" but cries victimhood when one of Hillary's surrogates throws mud in the face of Bernie Sanders like John Lewis did.
If anything, it's the Hillary campaign who have smeared John Lewis' legacy by using him against Bernie Sanders.
And dehumanising Bernie supporters have been the modus operndi since their smear attacks on Bernie didn't get the response they wanted. The same people who ignores Hillary's insinuations on being qualified (claiming that someone haven't done their homework, is an indication that the target of accusation is not qualfied for the job, where WaPo ran a headline that was in line with Hillary's hidden intent - spreading doubt on whether Bernie knows anything about what he is talking about (mixing the Feds with another dept is on the cape of the "journalists" who did the hatchet job), making him respond directly, for that way whine about how mean Bernie is accusing Hillary for not being qualified, indicating sexism (as usual) as the real motive for his response and not all the words he said in context to that "ugly, sexist word", "unqualified".

And here goes the circus where insults and speculations are flying around like beer bottles in a bar fight outside of Kansas City.

It keeps me entertained. Even if it means that Hillary supporters don't think that these voices count and should be avoided as lepars until the general election unless they manage to pruge those voters too.

&list=WL&index=18

which they can't, and don't do. In one word, it is a LIE.

Other politicians do take big money in other ways.

And the ad doesn't talk about "other ways". It is very specific. And dishonest

re:

It said "washington politicians" -- it did not say "people in congress" -- and I think it is fair to consider her a washington politician. Even if she doesn't currently hold a position literally in Washington DC. Similarly, not all entities that we are talking about when using the phrase "Wall Street" are literally headquartered on Wall Street. These terms have meanings beyond the literal ones.

re:

Yes it does. It says "campaign contributions and speaking fees." Not just speaking fees.

Obviously, it is largely talking about Hillary without specifically mentioning her. But it is also making the bigger point that these companies give big money to lots of people in Washington, though various mechanisms, and that money corrupts the process.

In a 30 second commercial, there is little time for detailed explanation. I'd say the gist of the ad is right.

Last edited Thu Apr 21, 2016, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)

"And while Washington politicians are paid over 200,000 an hour for speeches, they oppose raising the living wage to $15 an hour".

Who can change the law? Only politicians currently serving in congress.

Come on, stop twisting everything. The ad is quite simple and straightforward...and it is also a LIE.

re:

But what you added there goes beyond what was said in the ad. My interpretation is different:

Although he didn't mention her by name, the particular Washington politician who comes to mind who is paid over $200k an hour for speeches and opposes raising the min wage to $15 happens to be Hillary Clinton, who, as we've both said, is not serving in congress. The idea that particular sentence must refer to people currently serving in congress is your own extrapolation, and not anything that was stated in the ad. Although the ad starts off talking about how special interests find ways to funnel big money to politicians to make the system work for them, that later section is clearly aimed at Hillary.

Ah, you say, but he used plural! Well, I'll give you two ways to justify it. First one could chalk it up to a small amount of political rhetorical license... he's trying to not go so negative as to call Hillary out by name, and so this generic "they" makes the point more gently.

But wait, if you don't want to cut any slack there, I can even give you an answer that doesn't require granting any such license. For the plural to be fully legitimate without excuse, the question would then be whether there is another washington politician (it does not have to be someone currently serving) who gets paid over $200k for speeches, and who opposes raising the min wage to $15. Well actually, yeah, I can name two. I believe that both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush would fall into that category. So if are really so concerned with making sure it is literally true, grammar and all, well there you are. Either way, I think the ad is conceptually true, but if you are looking for literal truth in the detail and the phrasing, you can have that too.

You are the one twisting it into pretzels and adding what it isn't there.

However, your line "Who can change the law? Only politicians currently serving in congress" is not in the ad. It simply doesn't say that. That's your extrapolation "proving" the lie. My take on it, as I explained, is different. (BTW, I don't think it's a great ad.)

How few years since 1992 has she been out of the belt-way? Between gigs, she raises tons of money through quid pro quo.

As usual, you nitpick the implied message that all of us get even those that know they will hold their noses and vote for, but y'all would go fucking nuts if he came out with a direct message.

And give the 'implied' campaign that Clinton has run, not a single one of you supporters have a shred of integrity or standing on calling this out. You have accepted smears from Brock, minority counting at rallies, only white states vote for Sanders, and even Lewis implying he never saw Sanders so he wasn't a part of the civil rights movement.

You have no standing. No. It is pure hypocrisy. It is pure projection. You don't get to scream about a 'negatively implied' ad now. You lost that moral standing almost a year ago. There will be no unity.

Gettit?

Any one paying attention knows this. That is why the SD turns to Obama in 2008 because they saw her negatives then just like we see them again now. They saw his fire and enthusiasm generating crowds even if he was running an ad campaign and not an honest one.

I still believe that is that possibility with Sanders. If he can continue to fight hard, keep getting delegates, and keep her from that magic number (without the SD's added in!), then at the convention he can make his case. If and when the FBI case comes to fruition and yet another Clinton rat-fuckery back-fires as they always do, then he can do so easily.

I know Clinton supporters say this impossible. They believe it is in the bag. I am oldest enough and wise enough to know that shit changes all the time for the good and the bad. No one can predict fate.

nm

I doubt Bernie was paying close attention to every word of every ad or detail and were he to have had a long think about the way it was worded, knowing him the way I do I am pretty sure he would have said to change it to reflect the reality.

The ad could have actually been more effective showing a revolving door, for instance, where you could make the point that while in congress they cant do it, but the moment they get out PAYDAY!

In order to speak truth to power, you have to be speaking the truth. Sanders should start dialing all of this back for his own sake. It's coming to the point where he won't be able to salvage his reputation for integrity.

I think Sanders has unwittingly fallen into the hands of unethical campaign personnel who want to keep milking the cash cow for as long as they can. He is being ill-served by his advisors.

The Capitol represents the seat of the government and does not necessarily suggest the politicians inside are doing the same type of fundraising mechanisms Hillary does. She made those huge numbers for speeches when she left the government after her single term as Secretary of State ended and as someone who joined in working for The Clinton Foundation.

So I don't see where Matthews has a leg to stand on with this argument, not that that has every stopped him before.

There is no lie, at least not by the Sanders ad ....

Sam

are earning money for speeches.

It says, and I quote, word for word "Washington Politicians are paid over 200,000. an hour for speeches".

That is a lie. Did you even watch the ad? How can you say Matthews doesn't have a leg to stand on, what what he says is true?

Chris Matthews suggested the ad said that.

Elected officials get the campaign finance fees; Washington politicians get the huge speaking fees.

Obviously, if Sanders meant to slam all elected officials in politics for getting huge speaking fees, that would include him.

The ad, released last week, brings up Hillary Clinton receiving $200,000 an hour for speeches and applies that mark to “Washington politicians” who take in that much money but can’t be bothered raising the minimum wage.

The ad hammers home the point with an image of the Capitol when the $200,000 number pops up on screen.

The problem, as Matthews pointed out tonight, is that “members of Congress… are not permitted to accept speaking fees” in that amount in the first place.

“Why on God’s earth,” he asked, “did Senator Sanders paint all of Washington with that brush? I think what he’s doing here is attacking all other politicians with the broad brush of corruption while crowning himself as the one honest person in national politics.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-calls-out-sanders-campaign-for-misleading-ad/

So the term Matthews used was Sanders painted all of Washington with "the broad brush" but that is just his distorted version of what the ad actually said. The ad did not say elected officials receive huge speaking fees.

Words matter; inferences do not.

Sam

snip

Moments later, Hillary stated to CNN’s national audience that “I’m proud to have 90 percent of my donations from small donors.” According to the Center for Responsive Politics, just 18 percent of Hillary’s campaign money comes from small donors. That figure was also 18 percent at the time she made her statement to Anderson Cooper. During that same exchange, Hillary attempted to play down the money coming from Wall Street. We pulled back the dark curtain on her campaign’s tricky maneuver with hedge funds in this article on April 5.

More, including video (starting at 1:33)
New York Does Elections Like It Does Wall Street: With Its Finger on the Scale
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/04/new-york-does-elections-like-it-does-wall-street-with-its-finger-on-the-scale/

Nobody takes Matthews seriously. He had a boy-crush on Bush Jr. He's a good historian and writer but a terrible pundit. And a rich ivy league boy who reflects establishment more than anybody else. It sounds to me as if you only watch MSNBC. Broaden your horizons.

Corporate media is all about money and profits. What do you think he's going to say? I can't believe this.

Last edited Thu Apr 21, 2016, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)

when in fact, they can't, and they don't. A LIE approved by Sanders.

And please, stop the personal attacks.

Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130819/00581624225/50-retiring-senators-now-become-lobbyists-up-3-few-decades-ago.shtml|
50% Of 'Retiring' Senators Now Become Lobbyists, Up From 3% A Few Decades Ago

https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z|
Open Secrets
Dick Armey. Tom Daschle. Tom Foley. Trent Lott. Once, these politicos ranked among Congress' most powerful members. Today, they share another distinction: They're lobbyists (or "senior advisors" performing very similar work). And they're hardly alone. Dozens of former members of Congress now receive handsome compensation from corporations and special interests as they attempt to influence the very federal government in which they used to serve. See where members of the 112th Congress and the 111th Congress have gone.


Favors for later gain. Matthews knows this. He's a tool. Stop watching MSNBC

"And while Washington politicians are paid over 200,000 an hour for speeches, they oppose raising the living wage to $15 an hour".

THIS. IS. A. LIE.

I understand loyalty blinding you to truth and reality. But it is truth and it is reality. And if you are going to parse, at least note that Washington politicians is a general term. Do you disagree that Clinton is a politician?

It is a corrupt matrix of wealth and power, and the Clintons epitomize it.

true, people in Congress cannot accept speaking fees while in office. But that's just splitting hairs.

As politicians they beg at the troth of the wealthy and powerful for campaign cash, and then tailor their messages and policies at the direction of lobbyists in their favor.

Then, after they "do their time" in public office, if they are good little servants of Wall St. and Corporate Lobbyists, they are rewarded with cushy jobs making big bucks working for the same industries they were supposed to regulate. Including the prospect of big speaking fees, among otehr perks.

In Cklinton's case her greeed was also foolish. If she had any ploans to run for office, she should have been aware of -- at the very least -- the appearance of impropriety of accepting those fees. AND it indicates a too cozy relationship that WILL influence her views if she buys, er, is elected the Presidency.

So yeah, if you want to split hairs, it is technically inaccurate...But in reality it is on the money.,

It talks about CURRENT politicians in Washington.

The point of the ad is that while the legislators earn thousands of $$$ for giving speeches, They won't approve a minimum wage increase. Former legislators have no vote in congress, and don't approve anything. The ad is aimed at the current government, and it's power, and it lies saying that these politicians get thousands of Dollars for speeches.

You are projecting a lot onto the ad, when the ad is very clear, concise, and specific. It is also dishonest

I don't think he was referring to members of congress, but politicians who are NOT in congress, like former Presidents or other former members of the admin.

How times have changed for America's former presidents.

Harry Truman, who served as commander in chief 70 years ago, wrote, "I have a very strong feeling about any man who has the honor of being an occupant of the White House in the greatest job in the history of the world, who would exploit that situation in any way, shape or form."

But ex-presidents today routinely make millions of dollars by parlaying their White House experiences into speeches, personal appearances and books. All this, taken together, diminishes their stature and lessens their influence.

Bill Clinton has been widely criticized for milking his presidency for tens of millions of dollars, and former first lady Hillary Clinton, who is running for president in 2016, has been attacked for using her time in the White House to boost her income, partly through book sales and speeches.

It turns out that former President George W. Bush has been doing much the same thing.

Interesting article.
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/19/former-presidents-cash-in-after-leaving-office

It's not just former Presidents either. Hillary probably wouldn't have been as popular on Wall Street, if she wasn't the wife of a previous POTUS, but other former members of previous admins have also given speeches for money.

It is important to remember that ex-politicians who earn money from speeches are not violating any laws – although questions of ethics and integrity may abound. In addition, post-career politicians making speeches is nothing new – what has changed is the amount of money being paid out, and their relative lack of scruples about whom they accept fees from, said Dr. Lance Strate, professor of communication and media studies and associate chair for graduate studies at Fordham University in New York, in an interview. “Many believe that stricter regulation is needed to rein in such activities, and there is no question that the potential for conflict of interest exists,” said Strate.

http://www.ibtimes.com/talk-not-cheap-why-do-ex-politicians-earn-huge-money-making-speeches-1512632

This usually happens AFTER someone is no longer in a political office.

it says -and I quote, word for word- "And while Washington politicians are paid over 200,000 an hour for speeches, they oppose raising the living wage to $15 an hour". The point of the ad is that politicians in congress get all this money while they won't raise the minimum wage. Only politicians currently in office can change the law and increase the minimum wage. The ad is a complete lie.

That's what it says. You infer. Look up the word. Clinton is a politician. She was a senator. She has earned huge money for speeches. When did she lobby for a $15 minimum wage as a senator. In fact, I don't understand NY because I can't find anything on the record she did to help the average guy in NY. But I'm willing to be shown.

Money and Clinton? OMG! (courtesy of Sunlight Foundation)
https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/12/01/super-pacs-dark-money-and-the-hillary-clinton-campaign-part-1/
https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/12/03/behind-the-clinton-campaign-dark-money-allies/
https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2016/03/17/hillary-clinton-campaign-totals-13-fundraisers-in-foreign-countries/

Clinton is all about money. Unbelievable. But narrow minds will not learn. Such loyalty will destroy our democracy eventually.

For other groups, those with political or commercial agendas, or those outside of the United States, the mere presence of a well-known political leader amounts to a tacit endorsement of the organization or nation, a sign of approval, Strate added. “And while there may not be any quid pro quo, there is a certain reciprocity that may be gained when a political figure is paid a large amount of money for giving a talk,” he noted.

Another attraction of inviting former presidents to speak at major events is that the people who pay premiums, say, via sponsorship, get VIP access to the former politicians. “And that offers a range of mutually beneficial opportunities where both parties make contacts to advance their agendas,” said Jamie Chandler, a political scientist at Hunter College in New York.

http://www.ibtimes.com/talk-not-cheap-why-do-ex-politicians-earn-huge-money-making-speeches-1512632

You cannot give paid speeches while being a Senator. That ad is misleading and false

politician
1. A person who practices politics. Does Hillary practice politics? If she is not a politician, what is she? If she's not practicing politics, what is she doing? pol·i·ti·cian
ˌ
päləˈtiSHən/
noun
noun: politician; plural noun: politicians

a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office.

He shows he gets it when he asks, "why doesn't he just attack Hillary?" Actually, he did, but didn't name her. Even Matthews figured it out.

The sitting congress aside, there are lots of ways to propitiate access.

--imm

He is severnty-four, has a history of civil rights activism, cleaned up Burlington, VT, was the amendment king at one time in Congress and is working to eliminate or reduce money in government. And you complain?

--imm

get it right Bernie

and voted for blanket immunity for gun corporations and supports ongoing corporate welfare now approaching $1 trillion for Lockheed-Martin's F-35.

It's truly astounding that he's succeed in convincing his supporters that "corporatism" is limited to a single sector of the economy, while the merchants of death should receive special exemptions that no other corporate industry does. Why should profiting from killing be more acceptable than from banking?

He is no more exempt from that your slur than anyone else in congress. I find it truly astounding how little his supporters care about his record and are willingly to recite campaign propaganda as fact. But that particular insult has the added benefit of insulting women, which at least gets closer to what is at issue.

We understand very well that his reasons for immunity for manufacturers are basically the same as immunity from manufacturers of cars if personal responsibility or a lack of it causes an accident. Gun manufacturers do not control gun purchasers any more than car manufacturers control drivers. If a gun is made defectively and if a car is defective, they are liable.

I don't understand your reasoning. If your opinion is reasoned please explain.

He has voted and lobbied against assault weapons for years.

Clinton supporters seem to have to parse the truth to defend their candidate. Why?

He's been in congress for 25 years. That is as much his responsibility as anyone else's, but of course the perpetual victimization complex he promotes means he is never responsible for anything. It's always someone else's fault. He announces that "the failure to close Guantanamo is a disgrace," despite having voted against it three times. He has actively sought to prevent it's closing by voting against it, but thinks nothing of blaming everyone else for his own actions. The same thing with the crime bill. He voted for those bills, but he tells his supporters what they want to hear, which for some inexplicable reason they think is more important than his actual votes in support of the bills. It's truly astounding.

Can you say that for sure? That he's never tried to raise min. wage?

Regarding other votes, he's said that he supports the president when he can and he votes against things are problematic. For instance, his explanation of the vote against closing Guantanamo:

"A number of important questions remain unanswered regarding the rather complicated issue of not just how you close down the facility, but what you do with the prisoners,” he added. “Are there some who should be released, are there others who should be returned to their home countries, are we confident that under Bush the correct determinations were made with respect to these prisoners’ status as ‘enemy combatants’? In order to answer these questions, President Obama has appointed a high-level committee of top administration officials who will be issuing a report in the coming months. I think that it is prudent to review that plan they develop before we spend $80 million in taxpayer money.” http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/05/sanders_on_the.html

I want G closed, but I don't mind demanding a plan before we spend money.

Same with gun bills: he doesn't think small gun shops should be liable for gun owners if they follow regulations. Is Subaru liable for me if I cause an accident? I wonder how much of your post is loyalty to Clinton rather than reasoned argument against Bernie?

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-introduces-bill-for-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

I'm not listening to one thing he's going to say. Likening us to Occupy, it's not happening. What the Tea Party did to the Republican party, we will end up doing to the Democratic party(in a NOT crazy, anti-GLBT, etc. way of course).

As a gossip lady in a glossy magazine or a used car salesman.

He is the Bill O'Reilly of MSNBC. An impostor who masqerades as a journalist when he is really another media shill getting his marching orders on what stance to take from day to day.

He hasn't got a single independent thought in his entire body and a tongue that slithers in and out whenever he is on the path to smear whomever stands in the way of his bosses.

Hillary is trying to paint herself as a trailblazer for union rights and raising the minimim wage to 15 dollars an hour.

I wonder why she didn't push for this sooner, before it actually became an issue and Bernie Sandrs brought it up.

Because she is like Chris Matthews. Doesn't have a single original idea in her entire mind, or any ledership guts to lead any charge or jump in the water first.

I am off course referring to the Wall Street transcripts, where she pointed to GOP candidates as if they have to ansswer to Democratic voters.
Because they don't. They think progressives and liberals are cultists who should be ignored at best, and violently silenced at worst.

[pol-i-tish-uh n]

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a person who is active in party politics.
2.
a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.
3.
a person who holds a political office.
4.
a person skilled in political government or administration; statesman or stateswoman.
5.
an expert in politics or political government.
6.
a person who seeks to gain power or advancement within an organization in ways that are generally disapproved.

merriam webster

Full Definition of politician

1a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

2a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons


Urban dictionary
politician
1. A person who practices politics. in other words, Hillary Clinton

and calling him out on his lies while he's spending tons of money calling other people liars is just a drop in the bucket to hold him accountable as a candidate.

Won't somebody think of the children!?!

Doesn't he realize they are Super Delegates?What a smart tactic, right? Smear them with lies, then ask them to give the minimization.

Or have you never wondered why you never seem to see a poor congressman, despite their financials when they come into office?

Did she make that much? Yes. Is she a Washington politician. Yes.

End of story.

Did the ad say "everybody in Congress"? No. Newsflash for Matthews (not!) lots of ex-members of Congress are lobbyists, in Washington, and can and probably do make that much for similar reasons. Chris is pretending he doesn't know this, in order to make a very lame and irrelevant point. But he doesn't have any better criticisms, and neither do the Hillary supporters here.

It's such trivial and intentionally dense nonsense, it isn't even worth a response, and doesn't need one for any objective-thinking person to see through it. So this is a rare and random exception, because 9 times out of 10 I wouldn't bother. But since I'm already here, I'll add this...

Since Matthews is so picky, why doesn't his show have a trailer posted on it at all times, disclosing that his wife is running for office with help from Hillary Clinton? Kathleen Matthews is running for my district here in Maryland (and she isn't getting my vote).

Did he overlook that while on the high horse of his oh-so-meticulous ethical outrage?

Bernie is talking about big issues, Matthews is nitpicking while ignoring blatant ethical baggage of his own -- apparently assuming that viewers are too stupid to know about it.

But MSNBC has lots of vested interests like that (Capehart's SO is a top Clinton aide, for one example), and all of the other major networks do too.

The standard is, a viewer shouldn't be able to guess who a reporter is for. Today, none of them even try to hide it, they are all brazen partisans and shove it in our faces that that is ok. Well it isn't ok, not a bit. It's a FAIL. Most of the professions in our society today are a similar FAIL.