It sounded like heresay.


my two cents on it.

that debates can be very challenging to control.

and they say this? God almighty.

why should she be grateful to him?

I don't hate Hillary. I'll vote for her in the general if she gets the nomination, though many of her policies don't thrill me.
I am sick of the mindless Bernie-bashing.

Man, there are some severely thin skins around here.

skills of Clinton turned the whole thing around.

Debate skills are actually a thing.

But since Sanders had said that "this might not be good politics" or something like that just before his comment about the damn emails, it seems clear he meant what he said as a critique of the media....which he then followed up on.

Context is another thing the mass media and cable news consider unnecessary.

up thread.

So, I don't understand your comment about thin skins. There are lots of people here lacking dermal fortitude.

If proven true it may be kind of funny.

But heresay like that is the kind of disingenuous crap that turns off so many people to politics.

Bernie repeatedly called out the media for obsessing over her emails but the op won't let facts get in the way of a good smear.

Pathetic but predictable.

BS doesn't need to obsess on the emails; his minions here on DU do that.

According to HC supporters on DU Bernie is Israel's #1 shill, a racist, gun nut, scheming little sneak, tool for the NRA, Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies and thinks that orgasms prevent cancer.


You guys are always finding new ways to lower the bar.

The feeling is mutual!

watching "The Great British Baking Show" and your wonderful post was as great as some of the baking!

Almost as savory as watching HC supporters rec this thread without realizing who started the rumour.

that IT security was being treated. That fact that something bad could have really happened using a system that was off the government reservation. Remember they would not allow the president to have his Blackberry and iPads because of security. But the SoS could do it behind everyones back. That has been the complaint. There would not have been anything said (by the geeks here) if she had the same system properly encrypted and secured behind the proper infrastructure.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hackers stole Social Security numbers, health histories and other highly sensitive data from more than 21 million people, the Obama administration said Thursday, acknowledging that the breach of U.S. government computer systems was far more severe than previously disclosed.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/09/more-than-21-million-affected-by-government-hacking

are both digital systems. Silly me.

How exactly is one insecure system different from another insecure system?

placed herself responsible for any mishap that may occur. Strange tactic for someone paranoid about a vast right wing conspiracy. She is getting what she asked for.

Here, let me offer up the offending paragraph for your perusal:

see above

shooting his mouth off and trying to muddy the Democratic primary waters.

It's obvious that neither candidate was trying to zing the other in that exchange. That was total "cooperation," not competition.

I am questioning the source.

attacked both Clinton and Obama in the past. He has made MONEY trash-talking Democrats.

Please point out where it said Hillary's supporters.

So they seem to support this line of attack.

It could be Bernie supporters trying to showcase the media bias. How do you know it wasn't RW trolls trying to stir the pot between Bernie and Hillary supporters? Just asking. Seems we're trying to create as much animosity as possible between the 2 campaigns and no one gains from that except the Rethugs.

You can easily see that the majority all are Hillary supporters. And possibly all. None seem to be Bernie supporters. I doubt the majority are RW trolls.

He has been hyping the email scandal so now he had to pretend Bernie loves the email scandal.
By the way, clever way to hide the source in the title. Scarborough sounds like a thread killer, unlike the name of the channel. Makes it sound less right wingy.

Wish I could remember who it was. It was on Morning Joe, though. I saw it and laughed. It was more like they WANTED to believe that Bernie wouldn't say that. They actually said it was a gaffe, that he said it wrong. And I am a Hillary supporter and I knew that was just wishful thinking on their part, lol.

out. Here's the part you should have read:

That's supposed to be better?

occasional broadcast appearances at the turn of the century.

The point is, it is no one's "supporters" who is doing this. It's two MEDIA assholes from the right, appearing on a right leaning CABLE NEWS show (not all of MSNBC leans left) expressing a right leaning opinion.

much the GOP hates her. And I am kinda tired of the victim card being played with this. Poor Hillary, the GOP is picking on her! NOT a reason to support her, more a reason to think how well would the GOP work with her? Not very well, except for things like war and Third Way attacks on safety nets and more goodies for Wall Street. Which frightens me.

I confess that i instantly took Bernie's remark as criticism of Hillary, because yeah, I am sick of reading about the emails, and it seems that her supporters are fixated on it.

say Americans had heard enough of the damn emails....take the hint!

Personally, Benghazi means zip to me, except as an indicator of how the GOP would not work with Hillary.
Same for the emails. Have not seen any disappointment expressed.

Yeah, thanks for doing to Sanders supporters what that weasily bastard did to Bernie on morning joe.

For the record the ridculous overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters post about economic concerns. Almost none of them mention Benghazi. I imagine somehwere at some time you might be able to find one or two people that claim to be Sanders supporters posting about it but to select that out is an act of extraordinary deceptiveness.

"this might be bad politics, but.. " which I took obviously to mean "this is actually going to help you hillary but I'm saying it anyway".

Which is what made the whole thing they were spouting on Morning Joe so ridiculous.

this idiot "reporter" has anything to do with "the Hillary camp?"

Demonstrate a connection, please.

If Sanders was trying to attack Clinton, he wouldn't have added that part.

Morning Joe exists to tear down the Dems. Joe and his brainless sidekick are relentless about the emails, and don't appreciate Bernie letting her off the hook in that way.

If Bernie intended it as a criticism, Hillary was pretty quick to deflect and Bernie rolled with it because he's not an asshole.

the entire debate seemed much more serious and issue-focused, and the whole panel benefited, IMHO. What a contrast to the Rethugs.

the esteemed Kathleen Parker also does not bother to name even while reporting his reporting as part of what she calls her 'professional work'.
But since you link to Kathleen, I will too, here is her glowing piece about Jeb and the glorious dynasty Bush, she loves them every one, yes she does. So I'm sure she can be trusted....

What I learned from covering the Bushes for more than 30 years
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/30-years-of-bushes/2015/06/16/2555adce-1463-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html

Good fine, Blue!

Some people are so desperate for dirt on Bernie they don't care what they drag back here.

He would have looked real silly if he tried to correct himself after the audience had immediately cheered.

before making the remark about people being fed up with Clinton's damn emails. The natural interpretation of that preface was that he was about to do something that might help his opponent. Criticisms don't help one's opponent. So the natural conclusion is that his remarks were not intended as criticism.

comes out and tells us one way or another.

even though there is no evidence that they did.

And the fact he prefaced his remarks by saying this is probably politically incorrect leads me to believe we interpreted his remarks as he meant them to be understood.

piece of the OP. BTW.

She was gleefully reporting on the words of a broadcast media commentator who doesn't have a kind word for Clinton OR Obama.

But keep fanning the flames, considering what he thinks about Hillary this is hillaryous.

cited from Kathleen Parker's opinion piece. No news about it till this article came out (or if it did it did not make a splash). that is hardily fanning the flames. And it did not come from the Hillary camp. Read some of Parker's articles.

But if you guys want to keep flogging this non-story I'll just sit back and enjoy the show.

Sure he can be a jerk but he's a perfectly good reporter.

I had watched morning joe the day after the debate. I am no fan of Halperin.

What it is says basically is that Clinton kept Sanders on the defensive and that was already clear.

it showed the classy and generous guy he is, and showed the gop that the email issue is not going to be the focus of the democrats.

so it worked out no matter what morning jerk has to say about it.

It's pretty slimy that some Clinton supporters can't even acknowledge what Bernie said was purposeful and gentlemanly, even though he prefaced it by saying it probably wasn't good politics to say. Some of you are always trying to find a way to twist truth and reality to make her come out on top. Really truly lame. Oh, and on Bernie's behalf, you're welcome.

I support HRC one reason is I had my doubts about Bernie being able to handle a debate. I thought he did great. If he is the nominee hell need Hillary and her supporters on board.

Bernie is the most honest, straightforward politician since Paul Wellstone.

The narrative is that he's cranky. I thought in that exchange he was kinda charming without sounding phoney. I also think he is an adept politician, as much as he's running as an outsider, he isn't. He's won campaigns before. I did want to see how he'd do in a national level debate. He did well.

You guys managed to restrain yourselves for 5 whole days. I'm sure it took a herculean amount of restraint but I knew it would come. It was just a matter of time. Bernie Sanders' showed an enormous amount of class and dignity and I knew somehow you guys would find a way to shit on it. Congratulations. You've outdone yourselves.

Now the most notable thing he did that distinguishes his integrity from that of the other candidates was really the exact opposite of what everyone saw it to be.


Just another dishonest post by a Clinton supporter. Why am I not shocked?

They just attack attack attack.

One Hillary supporter actually tried to claim at the same time that Sanders didn't respond well to address BLM's concerns and he was weak in not standing up to them.

He started it off by saying "this may not be good politics". It's good politics to pile on an opponent's weakness... which he most definitely didn't do. He meant it exactly the way he said it and came out looking like the rare politician with ethics and integrity.

Video at link:
https://grabien.com/file.php?id=61277

Thanks for bringing that sleaze to our attention.

Which has nothing to do with Hillary or Bernie. I think these type comments are made by people who have nothing to say but have to say something to get paid.

Which HC supporters are rec'ing for some reason.

If I was pnwmom I'd delete but it's not my credibility that's on the line here.

Seriously people are going to post stuff. I wouldn't delete it if I was the op. Goodness it's not like its Alex Jones. Either way if it was planned that way or not, both of them were quite good in the debate.

I just think it's funny is all, the op should remember when digging for shit on candidates it's always best to make sure it doesn't get on yours.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

I think he knew by making that statement it would help to diffuse the controversy.

First, let's see the Morning Joe video of this alleged reporter's claim and vet that first.

Anyone have it?

Then we can discuss it.

Que surprise. Their desperation reeks. LOL!

A lunatic conservative - wingnut writer quotes a reporter who referred to HRC as using "McCarthyite tactics" and called our POTUS a "dick."

Not sure where you're getting "Hillary supporter" from that.

Two mean assholes made comments--how is Clinton or her supporters "responsible" for that?

Please explain. I really want to know and understand your thought process.

... but I have my own.

I don't think there are many Bernie supporters here that have bought in to the Bengazi crap that the Republicans have been pushing hard on in their investigations of these emails, which has dominated the corporate media's treatment of Hillary's problems with emails.

There is a problem that gets ignored by both the Republicans (perhaps they don't want to focus on the other problem for different reasons) and the corporate media, which would rather this look like a fight between Hillary and Republicans where they don't care who wins in the ratings war that they get from covering this part of it. That problem is that it still isn't asked or answered by Hillary as to...

WHY did she move her email to a PRIVATIZED email server outside of government oversight (which the Republicans probably want to see happen anyway, which is why they won't complain about this)? This judgement problem on her part as to why she did this in a way that she doesn't seem able to explain to the public, is the real problem that we KNOW happened that needs an answer. I can think of some justifiable reasons she could do this, but if they were there, strategically it would seem if she were an honest candidate, she'd come out and say something like:

"It was brought to my attention by my staff that the email exchanges I was engaged with weren't being properly secured by our infrastructure, and that those who want to hack and see them for political purposes, or for even other worse purposes that jeopardize our nation's security, could infiltrate them. I brought this up to our IT staff and security agencies to tell them that they need to fix this and when it gets fixed, I'd move my email traffic back to government run servers. For security reasons I couldn't provide this information to the public at the time this move of email occurred."

I would completely buy this even if she were to offer this explanation now. But since she hasn't, and continues not to, I wonder if there were other reasons at work than this one. In either case, it calls in question her judgement as a leader serving all of us.

I think Bernie by making the comment he did, sought to diffuse more the main media focal point on the Bengazi investigations, and that maybe later the attention if given to email controversies would be more on the problems of why she moved the emails rather than the Bengazi "investigation" distraction, which doesn't really serve anyone's interests except corporate interests and the Republicans.

If we can get a refocus on to other issues, or if the email controversy moves towards what it should be in questioning her judgement on where email was kept (which is the only one that I think exists as long as there is not a good explanation for what she did), then I think that would work to his and the American people's benefit.

Clinton said exactly the right thing.

If it was an off the cuff remark, Clinton and Sanders did exactly the right thing.

where he chastises the media for their sensationalism.

Her own words:

This is one of the most dishonest posts I've ever read on DU.

the article and been able to consider the actual source.

The article was written by a right winger who was quoting a broadcast reporter who has trashed Dems in the past.

Sky is blue, water is wet.


smh.

reporter who does not have any love for Clinton OR Obama. I'm sure if we dig deep enough, we'll find he has no love for Sanders, either.

This is just a rightwinger writing about a Republican mouthing off on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

I don't see how "anyone" is being done "a great service." It's more like a conservative unintentionally ripping the lid off of how stupid and ham-handed they are.

It's just a couple of assholes yammering. They aren't trying to help or hurt Sanders, they are gleefully trying to stir shit around the two frontrunners and I've no intention of obliging them.

My impression of the OP is that the whole thing is a massive LOL, something all Democrats could chuckle about, not that it's true, real, appropriate, or anything of that nature. Of course, I clicked the link and read the article before I made up my mind.

And riversedge is pushing it too. And there are others. I am glad you are using your common sense and laughing at it.

I am not sure that I believe that, if rehearsed, he meant it as a criticism of Hillary but of the press.

It does not matter what the intent was. He handled it like a true professional. And it ended up being one of the highlights of the debate.

Truth and honesty!!! That's what I'm talkin about.

Bern baby, bern!!!

They've countless people trying to anticipate every contingency.
I'm sure it was just as rehearsed as Clinton's response.

O'Live is a RW Rag and has been for years.....and no one mentions what Bernie said right Before he said that? He Knew it would help her..why else would he have said "This is probably not very good politics...but" (paraphrasing)

And "they're" saying:
"It's not clear that gift-giving was Sanders' intention. A reporter on MSNBC'S "Morning Joe" said Sanders' remark had been rehearsed as a way to indict Clinton for her distracting mishandling of the email situation. But Clinton's quick reaction sealed the deal."

HRC jumped on that because she was as surprised as anyone by Bernies spontaneity. Bernie told the truth.
Rehearsed? Bernie Rehearse? hahahahahahahaha
Perhaps they should have watched the debate?