Type to search

Endorse This: Al Franken Gets Funny Again — For Hillary

Campaign 2016 Endorse This Politics Top News

Endorse This: Al Franken Gets Funny Again — For Hillary



Okay, we don’t usually select a campaign video from one of the Democratic presidential candidates for our daily video feature — it would seem too much like shilling. But this video is so good and original, it gets a worthy exception: Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) making a return of sorts to comedy, on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

In this new video, the former Saturday Night Live writer borrows a recurring sketch from Jimmy Kimmel Live!, “Mean Tweets,” in which a special guest reads mean things said about themselves on the popular social media platform. In this case, the junior senator from Minnesota responds to the online supporters of a certain other candidate, who objected to his endorsement of Hillary.

But as both a comedian and a political leader who is widely admired by progressives, Franken turned this into an educational exercise when he read one tweet that claimed: “*sigh* Hillary doesn’t seem to stand for almost anything you stand for.”

“Okay, well,” Franken replied, “sign, actually she does.”

“We both stand for making college affordable, for lowering student debt, getting universal pre-K,” he explained, as well as a multitude of other issues such as: raising the minimum wage, rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, combating climate change, protecting women’s rights, and improving health care.

“Hillary stands for a lot of what I stand for,” he concluded, “and I bet she probably stands for a lot of what you stand for, too.”

But possibly the best reply Franken gave was to one person’s tweet: “mad tv sucked.”

“Okay, um, I’m gonna say that’s a joke,” Franken said. “I wasn’t on Mad TV — I was pretty well known for being on SNL. Good joke.”

Yes, a good joke indeed.

But on a serious note, here’s a recommendation: If indeed Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, Sen. Franken would be the perfect choice to be Hillary’s partner in her debate preparations — that is, with the former absurdist comedy actor Franken playing the role of The Donald.

Video via Hillary For America.

Get More to Endorse Delivered to Your Inbox



  1. Susan McGraw Keber February 25, 2016

    Hillary stands for what Bernie Sanders has always stood for. That she is now copying Bernie Sanders is testament to Senator Sanders winning proposals and principles. I am thoroughly disappointed in Al Franken. I would have believed him to be a Bernie Sanders supporter.

    1. drdroad February 25, 2016

      Franken has been in a position to judge both of them and made his informed decision. Sounds smart to me.

    2. ray February 25, 2016

      If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination please go vote for Hillary. I would hate for T-rump be come Pres.

    3. Cloudherder February 25, 2016

      Hillary has always stood for those things. She is not copying Bernie. I have read several books about her through the years and she has always supported what Al Franken listed.

  2. Otto Greif February 25, 2016

    Two lies in that sentence.

  3. dtgraham February 25, 2016

    Yes, yes, we know. Brought to you by the National — don’t vote for Bernie Sanders — Memo.

    1. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

      Where did it say that? Why is any non-negative article about Hillary an attack on Sanders?

      1. dtgraham February 26, 2016

        Love that phrasing. “Non-negative article about Hillary.”

        Most of these anti-Bernie or combination anti-Bernie/ Hillary-is-great pieces are more in your face about it than this one admittedly. This is just a cutesy little one. “Oh, aren’t those Bernie supporters dumb and ill informed.” “You see how wrong that Bernie supporter was?” “We all love Al and he supports Hillary, and their policy proposals are the same.” “See?”

        It might as well have read like that. A return to comedy by Al Franken, says the National — don’t vote for Bernie Sanders — Memo. How in the hell was this funny?

        1. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

          Again, what exactly in this article is “anti-Bernie”?

          1. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            Oh come on man! You don’t get the insinuations and the overtone here? You can’t read between the lines just a little bit? They even want you to assume that Hillary is the nominee in the story (read the last paragraph). It’s a pattern of behaviour from this website.

            Had this been the first story of their anti-Bernie onslaught, I might not have thought too much of it, but the pattern is pretty clear now. They’re mostly upfront about it, but sometimes they want to be more coy and cryptic. The meaning is the same.

          2. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            The article does not mention Sanders at all.

          3. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            “In this case, the junior senator from Minnesota responds to the online supporters of a certain other candidate, who objected to his endorsement of Hillary.”

            Yeah, we don’t know who that certain other candidate is. The fact that his supporter appears to be very progressive and is bemoaning that Hillary is not as progressive as he/she imagines Al Franken is, is not enough of a give away huh. It’s a mystery I tells ya.

          4. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            So, again, we’re back to asking why an article that isn’t negative about Hillary constitutes an attack on Sanders?

          5. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            What??? It’s another build-up type isn’t-Hillary-great-and progressive article. It’s also an insinuation that Bernie’s supporters aren’t all that bright for thinking that she may not be so great and progressive.

            Those things that Sanders’ supporters suspect Hillary is not? Well, she is. All that and a bag of chips too.

            You ever see Bernie Sanders praise articles here? I haven’t.

            Again, and for the last time, while this wasn’t blatant, I can clearly see what they’re doing and the pattern here.

          6. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            This is literally an article about Franken. In it, he mentions that certain people (and yes he means Sanders supporters) don’t think it is permissible to support Hillary Clinton. You are demonstrating that hysteria right now.

            More people support Clinton than Sanders. Get over it.

          7. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            I can play your word games too. Where “in the article” does it say anything about that Bernie supporter not thinking that it’s permissible to support Hillary Clinton?

            The supporter only objected to Franken supporting Hillary. Like anyone would object to another person supporting a candidate that they didn’t support. Especially when it’s within your own party. Where does it say that the Bernie supporter thinks that it’s not “permissible” to vote for Hillary?

          8. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            It’s not a goddam word game. This article is reporting news that involves a major personality on the left, and quotes his cited reasons for supporting the candidate that he has. That is the entire article. The fact that you are incapable of accepting his decision – of even ALLOWING him to make a decision other than the one you have made – is diagnostic of your own issues, not of his, and certainly not of any systemic bias. You are not a victim of persecution, and your preferred candidate is not being “attacked” in any manner whatsoever in this relatively dry and factual account.

          9. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            None of this is what I’m getting at. It’s ritualistic behaviour of this website to tell us all how great Hillary is and to take shots at Bernie, sometimes thinly-veiled (like this article) but mostly not. There’s a bald faced history of it here. I’m not going to let you change the subject.

          10. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            So why not make your comments on an article that mentions how great Hillary is and is taking shots at Bernie? This is not such an article, no matter how mad you get.

          11. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            I’ve outlined how this article does exactly that, albeit in a more subtle manner than most of their hit pieces. Re-read my replies on that. Again, it’s also a pattern that you can see over time at this website.

            You’re not so thick that you don’t get this. You’re just playing games here.

          12. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            It’s not subtle, it’s NON-EXISTENT.

          13. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            Oh gee, those Bernie supporters are so dumb when they think that Hillary isn’t as progressive as they’d like. Why, they don’t even know what TV show Franken was on.

            Let’s have Al Franken explain to those Bernie supporters how Hillary is really, really, progressive, while mocking their knowledge at the same.

            Look man, I can see what they’re doing. I’ve been following this.

          14. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            And … strawman.

          15. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            No, just basic human perception. You know…like awareness. The ability to have recognition of what’s going on without necessarily being hit over the head by it.

          16. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            I said literally none of the things you seem to be talking about. Hence, strawman.

          17. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            That’s because you want to go off topic and play word games.

          18. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            It’s not “word games” to ask that you argue in good faith, and stop making up things I haven’t said.

          19. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            I’ve done nothing of the kind. You’re just throwing that out to cast aspersions in the same way that the NM does with Bernie Sanders.

          20. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            So, in a non-existent way then?

          21. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            Exactly. Me, making up things that you didn’t say, and the National Memo being unbiased in this Clinton/Sanders primary fight. Both of those two things are non-existent.

          22. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            I’m glad you agree.

          23. dtgraham February 28, 2016

            “I’m glad you agree?”

            Didn’t it occur to you that I only agreed to the phrase non-existent, in the way that I chose to define it? Not in your screwed up definition. You actually believe that my prior post was some type of affirmation of your previous BS? I’ve redefined your name several times here in our discussion. Let’s do it again. How about Mr. low IQ?

          24. Mr Corrections February 28, 2016

            I’m glad you’ve accepted that I am always right and also more handsome than you.

          25. dtgraham February 28, 2016

            So you have nothing left and this is the smoking ruins huh.

          26. Mr Corrections February 28, 2016

            I think we can all agree that I am better than you in every regard.

          27. dtgraham February 28, 2016

            I’ll redefine your posting name again, Mr. Trump.

          28. Mr Corrections February 28, 2016

            Of course you will; how else can you win other than personal insults?

          29. dtgraham February 28, 2016

            “I’m glad you’ve accepted that I am always right and also more handsome than you.”

            “I think we can all agree that I am better than you in every regard.”

            Spoken by Mr Cognitive Dissonance.

            How many other redefinitions of your posting name will you earn?

          30. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful. Hate me because I have a giant laser and I’m threatening to blow up the moon.

          31. dtgraham February 29, 2016

            Yeah you might be more beautiful but since all we have to go on are avatars, it’s kind of a subjective thing. Personally I give the nod to Bill the Cat, but Mr Tomato has his appeal.

          32. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            PS: here’s a quick list of things you’re arguing against that I didn’t say or imply:

            1. Bernie supporters are stupid
            2. Hillary is really, really progressive
            3. Bernie supporters are ignorant
            4. You haven’t been following the Secret Clinton Conspiracy to make Sanders Look Bad™

            That’s every. single. thing. you mentioned in that post. I said literally none of it. Hence, a goddam strawman.

          33. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            Off topic again. The National Memo has run a series of stories that denigrate Bernie, his policies, his past actions, and even his supporters. There have been none the other way doing that to Hillary. That’s all I’ve said. I’ve no idea what number 4 is on your list. I don’t even know what that means.

            You did make a remark about the negative behaviour of Bernie’s supporters in one of your posts, and then tried to imply that I demonstrate that same behaviour. Oddly, you never said what this behaviour was. You didn’t literally say numbers 1 and 3, and you haven’t touched on number 2. I never said that you did. The article inferred that. You’re off in the weeds again.

            You do seem to be concerned though that the opinions of these two Bernie’s supporters represent all Bernie supporters and, furthermore, you’ve imagined that all Bernie supporters find the support of Hillary impermissible. Where did that come from?

          34. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            How is it off-topic to ask that you stop making up things I didn’t say in reply to my posts?

          35. dtgraham February 28, 2016

            It is off-topic when I’ve never made up anything that you didn’t say and tried to directly attribute it to you. Stick to the topic of the National Memo being biased. Try to disprove it. Good luck.

          36. Mr Corrections February 28, 2016

            OK so you’re just going to start arguing about the Imaginary Thoughtcrimes of National Memo whenever I prove you wrong about an individual point. Sounds productive, good luck with your professional victimhood.

          37. dtgraham February 28, 2016

            How have you ever proved me wrong about even one point Mr. low IQ, or is it Mr. Trump?

          38. Mr Corrections February 28, 2016

            Oh sorry, I assumed you could read.

          39. dtgraham February 29, 2016

            Better than you from what I can see so far in this debate, and in more than one language.

          40. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            Yes, all those things I’ve misread, such as … well, nothing, actually.

            I am glad you’re bilingual. Good for you! That is great, but scarcely relevant.

          41. dtgraham February 29, 2016

            Prove me wrong about the thought crimes of the National Memo. Don’t prove me wrong about nitpicky, unimportant, irrelevancies that don’t even make sense.

            That’s always been the point. Stick to the topic. If you want to prove the topic wrong, fine. Then do so, but stick to the topic. Don’t meander off into stupidity.

          42. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            “thought crimes”

          43. dtgraham February 29, 2016

            “senseless answer.”

          44. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            OK sorry your baseless smears made no sense, better luck next time.

          45. dtgraham February 26, 2016


            Vetting Bernie: He Never Voted For Intervention In Iraq — Except Twice

            By Joe Conason

            This is the center piece, chief editor’s story that catches everyone’s attention on this website whenever you dial it up. It’s front and center. How long has this story been there? A long, long, time. I’ve forgotten when it first went up.

            Joe wants everyone to see it whenever viewing the National — don’t vote for Bernie Sanders — Memo. If you can remember any negative Hillary stories here, please let me know. I can’t.

          46. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            “in this article”

          47. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            It’s one of many examples, Mr Gameplayer. Re-read my other replies to you about, “in this article.”

          48. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            It’s not an example of your premise at all.

          49. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            How isn’t it? Be specific.

          50. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            It specifically doesn’t constitute any kind of example of anti-Sanders bias. How is that hard for you to understand?

          51. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            Not necessarily by itself, although the length of time that it has been there is pretty peculiar. Particularly when combined with all of their other anti-Bernie pro-Hillary pieces. It’s the latter that reveals the former and gives it more meaning. Get it now?

          52. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            Not AT ALL by itself.

          53. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            I was being generous. The premise of the article was that Bernie is a hypocrite when he criticizes Hillary on Iraq. Funny thing that, since he didn’t vote to authorize the war in Iraq. That’s bias right there, although I’d overlook it if it were a one-off. It’s a long way from that. They’re all in the tank for Hillary here.

          54. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            No, THIS article. The one we are talking about. The one that is no form of attack on Sanders.

          55. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            Except for the mocking of Bernie’s supporters and the effusive praise of Hillary, which seems to contradict the criticism of Hillary from the Sanders campaign. Other than that……..

          56. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            Yes, the non-existent mocking and the direct quotes of Franken praising Hillary, which is the story. Other than that…

            AND AGAIN, even if the article itself was praising Hillary, why and how is that an attack on Sanders?

          57. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            It isn’t an attack directly Mr. Unobservant. It’s a totally unjustified refutation of his supporters’ beliefs about Hillary’s differences with Bernie. All while doing so in a mocking manner of Bernie’s supporters.

          58. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            How is it “refuting” ANYTHING AT ALL? This article is – once more! – just quoting the words of somebody. You might not LIKE those words, but that’s your problem, not the website’s fault.

          59. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            Wrong. When the website is constantly writing about, and quoting people who say, how wonderful Hillary is and how she’s not like Bernie’s supporters say she is, that’s a website problem. It’s institutional bias.

          60. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            Again, you seem to have a list of petty grievances saved up for the whole website. Good for you, that seems definitely not strange. However, this article does not have any of the attributes you seem to think it does.

          61. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            This is now at least the third NM article (that I’m aware of) which has questioned the behaviour of Bernie supporters. None has ever questioned any behaviour of Clinton supporters. We have had Hillary supporters here at the NM make some pretty brutal anti-Semitic remarks about Bernie. I remember their posting names. Crickets from the National — don’t vote for Bernie Sanders — Memo. No mention at all.

            The progressive Hillary supporting media has chimed in with this put down of the so-called behaviour of Bernie’s supporters.

            Do you honestly believe that Hillary’s supporters have all been perfect ladies and gentlemen?

          62. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            Except that this article does not question the behaviour of Bernie supporters. Franken does, and – given the bizarre way you’re acting – I gotta say he has a point.

          63. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            Oh I see. The article and Al Franken are mutually exclusive are they? More word games from Mr Diversion. So, you think that the people behind the article have nothing to do with what appears in the article. Really? They could choose not to run it or, in the interests of being balanced, could run some Bernie supporting lawmaker correcting and lampooning tweets from poor dumb Hillary supporters. Hint: that won’t happen.

            If only I would give up my “bizarre” behaviour of pointing out how the National Memo is in the tank for Hillary, and just be a “normal” Hillary supporter. Why can’t I just do that right?

          64. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            The article and Al Franken are two different things, yes.

          65. dtgraham February 28, 2016

            Spatially yes, but in this case Al Franken is the focal point of a published article that we were discussing. So here, they’re the same thing for all intent and purposes.

            I’m not letting you away with any of this word game BS.

          66. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            Yes insisting that an article quoting someone and the person that is quoting are somehow separate is word games. Naturally.

          67. dtgraham February 29, 2016

            You’re deep into the weeds playing semantic games again. The argument here is whether this article, taken as a whole, is a subtle pro-Hillary piece (with a mocking tone towards Sander’s supporters) that also fits a much broader pattern of more non-subtle pro-Hillary/anti-Bernie articles from the National Memo.

            That’s the topic, period. Whether Al and the NM are two separate entities is just a weird, irrelevant, mind game.

          68. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016


          69. dtgraham February 29, 2016

            You’re childlike aren’t you?

          70. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            Yes, I have the childlike ability to distinguish between two different and utterly unrelated things.

          71. dtgraham February 29, 2016

            Only in a dimensional sense, but not different and unrelated as they pertain to this discussion.

          72. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            No, in every sense.

          73. dtgraham February 29, 2016

            Any progress on coming up with those “bizarre” attacks on Hillary that I was supposed to have made, Mr Jumped the shark?

          74. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            Are you incapable of scrolling up?

          75. dtgraham March 1, 2016

            Yes, but “Uh huh” didn’t really do it for me.

          76. Mr Corrections March 1, 2016

            I meant to your own comments, obviously. I wouldn’t have thought that needed explanation, but I guess when you’re invested in believing conspiracy theories you have to wilfully misinterpret any contrary information as hard as you possible can.

          77. dtgraham March 1, 2016

            Your brain must be in the shape of a pretzel. You still think you can roll me? I specifically asked you to point out which one of my own comments bizarrely attacked Hillary. Your answer was UH huh.

            You claim I attacked Hillary in a bizarre manner here. Want to give it another go Mr Jumped the Shark?

          78. Mr Corrections March 1, 2016

            I’m sorry that you can’t read.

            Would you like me to recommend some remedial adult learning services?

          79. dtgraham March 2, 2016

            I’m still waiting for your example, Mr Caught red handed. After I finish your remedial services, I’d like to read my comments that were bizarre attacks on Hillary. Can’t seem to find them. What were they again, Mr Caught with his pants down?

          80. Mr Corrections March 2, 2016

            I’ve told you multiple times. I’m not your secretary.

          81. dtgraham March 2, 2016

            No, just my debate punching bag, Mr Can’t keep up.

          82. Mr Corrections March 2, 2016

            “debate” is not me giggling at your outlandish conspiracy theories and inability to distinguish between a news article and the people it describes.

            I hope that helps!

          83. dtgraham March 3, 2016

            Humour me. I was being generous. Debate is not really something that a discussion with you should ever be called, Mr Attention Deficit Disorder.

            Still no luck on providing examples of my “bizarre” Hillary attacks huh. You still can’t stick to the topic either, Mr Distractibility.

          84. Mr Corrections March 3, 2016

            Yeah, sorry you’re functionally illiterate as well as a conspiracy theorist. Not my problem!

          85. dtgraham March 3, 2016

            Happening to notice the massive number of anti-Sanders or pro-Clinton articles (or both) on this website just requires eyes and a functioning brain.

            illiterate? Well help me out then. Show me the “bizarre” attacks on Hillary that I supposedly made. Just requires copy and paste if you’re lazy. No effort at all really. I can’t seem to find them. You could shut me up on this.

          86. Mr Corrections March 3, 2016

            See previous post.

          87. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            Caught red handed in a lie with no way out, Mr Trapped rat.

          88. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            Wow. You’re fucking nuts.

          89. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            OK, so give me some therapy. You said that I “bizarrely” attacked Hillary. What was this (these) attack? Can’t seem to find it or recall it.

          90. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            Sorry that you have selective amnesia, but you are literally attacking the record of John Lewis elsewhere; you got bigger issues than just Clinton. Sanders is OK, but he lost the nomination due to his own mismanagement, and will never be President. Deal with it.

          91. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            Not literally attacking anything. Just figuratively. Not Lewis’s fine past, but his present day drive by smear of Bernie. Just that.

            Now, where was this bizarre attack on Hillary again? I’m here to help you focus, Mr Trapped rat.

          92. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            Yes, the “smearing” that you cannot seem to link to. Lewis would still be worth a dozen of Sanders, even if that claim were true (and it is not).

          93. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            Lewis partially walked this back later after being called out for it by Martin Luther King Jr. It was a weak apology if I recall.


            Now what was this bizarre attack on Hillary Clinton that I was supposed to have made?

          94. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            That’s not a smear – that is a guy saying he doesn’t remember someone. Also, Lewis is – believe it or not! – fully entitled to prefer one candidate over another. It’s FUCKING INCREDIBLE that you think you have the right to call that “selling out”.

            Sorry you can’t find the idiotic and gross smears of Clinton in your own post history; I’m not sure why you think I care enough about a conspiracy theorist’s inalterable opinion to painstakingly and fruitlessly fact check you more than once.

          95. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            Lewis had to have known about Bernie’s civil rights past. A quick internet search would have revealed it. You’re not going to say that without checking.

            If each candidate has the same racial legitimacy to your community, and you prefer the one who has the big money, Wall St, corporate ties…that’s selling out for a progressive.

            No request for anything painstaking or fruitless. Just give me the bizarre attacks on Hillary that you said I made on this thread. No addled bafflegab arguments or word playing. Keep it simple. Just give me the bizarre attacks. I can’t find them.

          96. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            While it’s astounding that you think this can ever work, it’s also kinda sad.

            Lewis is not obliged to like Sanders. He didn’t remember the guy being there. The people he does remember – the Clintons – did more than Sanders, and Lewis is allowed to prefer them.

            No amount of whitesplaining is going to retroactively make Sanders win the votes of African Americans, a demographic that he largely ignored until too late in this campaign.

            I hope that helps!

          97. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            That’s because he and Clinton were in the south you idiot. Bernie was protesting and getting arrested in the north. Federal politics has to be a lot more than just local familiarity.

            Now you goddamned liar, what was this bizarre attack(s) on Hillary that you said I made?

          98. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            I’m sorry that you cannot understand words.

          99. dtgraham March 4, 2016

            I’m sorry that you’re a goddamned liar with the internet debate maturity of a child.

            What was this bizarre attack on Hillary that you said I made again?

          100. Mr Corrections March 4, 2016

            Sorry that you’re nuts and would rather believe a secret cabal is behind Sanders’ defeat when it was clearly just his inept management.

          101. dtgraham March 5, 2016

            What??? Stick to the topic, Mr ADD.

            Now, what was this bizarre attack on Hillary that you said I made again?

          102. Mr Corrections March 5, 2016

            Mildly curious; how do you reconcile your constant ableist insults with being a liberal?

          103. dtgraham March 5, 2016

            You’re way beyond word games at this point Mr Ableist diversion.

            What was this bizarre attack on Hillary that you said I made again? What was it again, Mr goddamned liar?

          104. Mr Corrections March 5, 2016

            Ah, I see – you pretend it’s acceptable. It isn’t.

            I hope that helps!

          105. dtgraham March 6, 2016

            Mr Cognitive dissonance makes another contribution.

            “Sorry that you’re nuts” (mocking the clinically insane)

            “I’m sorry that you cannot understand words.” (mocking dyslexia and anyone else with reading problems)

            “It’s FUCKING INCREDIBLE that you think you have the right to call that selling out.” (more F bombs)

            “Wow. You’re fucking nuts.” (back to more insulting derisiveness of those having issues with their sanity)

            This is not to mention all of the other F bombs and insults that you dropped on another thread.

          106. Mr Corrections March 6, 2016

            Uh huh. Your refusal to accept reality is because I used a swear (somewhere else).

          107. dtgraham March 6, 2016

            No, right here as well. Not just somewhere else, Mr Word game player. The point is, you’ve made plenty of ableism type insults and then you want to cry that I have, Mr Cognitive dissonance.

            What was that bizarre attack on Hillary that you said I made, Mr Liar?

          108. Mr Corrections March 6, 2016

            Yes, the new conspiracy theory is that because I swore recently it retroactively made all your earlier posts crazy. That still manages to make more sense than Harry Reid manipulating coin tosses with his psychic powers, I guess.

          109. dtgraham March 7, 2016

            You’re out in orbit again. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

            IF there were only 6 coin tosses and those tosses were all won by one candidate (I’m not still saying that) as initially reported by the media, you would have to be awfully dense not to suspect something.

            Isn’t that right, Mr Dense?

          110. Mr Corrections March 7, 2016

            I’m sorry that you think there’s still anything to be discussed here. I can’t comprehend why you’d think that, but then I also can’t comprehend why you’d chose to believe in a Byzantine conspiracy, every level of which requires an ever greater conspiracy to explain away the facts.

          111. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            I’d also like to point out that the behaviour they are mocking (or rather, that Franken is mocking – a distinction that still seems to be escaping you) is exactly the behaviour you are exhibiting here.

          112. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            The behaviour of simply pointing out the incredible bias of this website is nothing whatsoever like the behaviour of a Bernie supporter believing that Al Franken is more progressive than Hillary.

            It’s even less connected to the behaviour of a Bernie supporter forgetting which TV show Al Franken was once on.

          113. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            What Franken is making fun of is the fact that you guys cannot seem to believe a single nice thing about Clinton, and that you cannot accept that any can legitimately support her. That’s what you’re doing right now.

            The article continues not to have any anti-Sanders bias. This is something I’ve told you at least ten times now.

          114. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            Wrong again. Hillary supporters demand that no fault ever be found with her by other Democrats, even when you’re running against her. If any of her progressive bona fides are ever questioned, that brings a charge of intolerable behaviour from the Clinton camp. If you question her, that means you’re crapping all over her by definition (Hillary definition).

          115. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            Ah, so it’s Hillary’s fault you have to constantly demonise her with falsehoods. Somehow.

          116. dtgraham February 27, 2016

            You made my point. I haven’t demonized her with any falsehoods so far, nor do I.

            Any mention of the National Memo’s anti-Bernie/pro-Hillary bias brings a charge of “constantly demonize her with falsehoods” from the Hillary people.

            You just proved the point of my prior post that you responded to.

          117. Mr Corrections February 27, 2016

            No, I responded to your bizarre attacks on Clinton. Al Franken was right, and you’re doing your level best to illustrate it. I don’t know how this message could be any plainer.

          118. dtgraham February 28, 2016

            What were my bizarre attacks on Clinton? I haven’t made any. At least so far. I’ve only pointed out the subtle anti-Bernie bias of this National — don’t vote for Bernie Sanders — Memo story.

            If you’re going to make claims of bizarre attacks on Clinton from me, then you’d better illustrate them.

          119. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            Uh huh.

          120. dtgraham February 29, 2016

            I asked for examples or illustrations of these “bizarre” attacks on Clinton that I’ve supposedly made so far in this discussion, and all I get in return is an UH huh. And you want to be taken seriously?

            You just jumped the shark my friend.

          121. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            Yes it’s me that’s jumped the shark, guy that’s spent a week shouting at clouds.

          122. dtgraham February 29, 2016

            Clouds was an ironic choice of words for you. You’re either down in the muck of minutiae arguing stupid word detail irrelevancies, or you’re off in the clouds and I don’t know where you’re coming from.

          123. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            You are, quite literally, mad that a news site is reporting the news.

          124. dtgraham February 29, 2016

            Wrong again Mr Misunderstand. Peeved that a news site takes the same slanted, biased, take on the news over and over again.

          125. Mr Corrections February 29, 2016

            Yes, directly quoting someone saying something you don’t like is bias.

  4. Steve Batchelor February 26, 2016

    Whether Hillary is going to be the nominee, which seems likely because she is actively running her campaign in all states instead of some like Bernie seems to be doing, we as Democrats need to stop with the vitriol because all it is doing is playing into the Carl Rove slander machine.

    1. dtgraham February 26, 2016

      You hate vitriol? Contact the National — don’t vote for Bernie Sanders — Memo and tell them that they should have laid off the anti-Bernie pro-Hillary slime campaign right from the start.

      1. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

        This article does not mention Bernie Sanders. Why do think it’s part of a “slime campaign”?

        1. dtgraham February 26, 2016

          Sure it doesn’t. You’re playing games here and I’m not playing any more of them with you.

          1. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            So someone – a famous US Senator – announcing they support Clinton isn’t important, and reporting it somehow “slimes” Sanders.


          2. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            None of what you just said makes any sense at all within the context of what we were talking about. It’s one of those ?????

          3. Mr Corrections February 26, 2016

            It makes perfect sense. You’re just angry that what you said was so obviously drivel.

          4. dtgraham February 26, 2016

            I was just replying to your own drivel that the name Bernie Sanders wasn’t specifically mentioned. Everyone reading that article on planet earth obviously knew who that “certain other candidate” was.


Leave a Comment dtgraham Cancel Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.