Yes. She has been vetted for some of her past.That is why Hillary is considered dishonest. Get it!

[Rilgin]

I find it so humerous that the Hillary supporters can not underatand that she is universally considered dishionest, is the devil to republicans is not supported by independents and has at best ambivalent support by a lot of of democrats and is opposed by many others.. Her support is found in one section of the democratic establishment. Some of these supporters were against her as recently as 2008.

They say she has been vetted and never give the results of the vetting. Her partial vetting has indeed shown her to be inauthentic and dishonest and part of th monied corporate establishment. So keep talking about vetting and we will keep talking about the results of that vetting.

[SheenaR]

1. She has been vetted they are correct

It is also why nobody trusts her and most of America will never vote for her.

[Punkingal]

2. I get it! I do, I do!

[RiverLover]

3. English isn't your first language?

I agree with your OP. I'm pretty sure.

[Rilgin]

4. Was on a mobile with bad thumbs. Corrected it when I realized the mistakes.

[RiverLover]

10. LOL

Thanks for clarifying

[Rilgin]

13. I am horrible without a keyboard. Has taken 4 attempts to correct. Probably still mistakes.(nt)

[plus5mace]

5. Hillary is the perfect candidate for us.

She is so unpopular it is actually possible for the grass roots to derail her for the second time. And even if she does get to the general she will put the stake through the heart of the lie that center-right politics wins elections. We may be left with less than 40 senators and about a third of the House seats after the destruction is complete.

Then in 2020 the Party leadership might grow a brain cell or two and actually try to activate their base rather than suppress it. (Just kidding, they would never do that.)

[RiverLover]

12. "the Party leadership might....actually try to activate their base rather than suppress it"

We can only hope. For that, or for a left wing party, to oppose the 2 corrupt purchased RW parties.

[jeff47]

6. To them, vetting is a checkbox like experience.

The result of that vetting or experience doesn't matter. All that matters is the box is checked.

[merrily]

7. She's never been vetted as a Presidential nominee.

For example, "vetting" her as First Lady for holding out on a subpoena for two years, then miraculously finding the papers in the WH family dining room is not the same as vetting her for the position of the Chief Execute whose job it is to faithfully execute laws. Coincidentially, I believe it also took her two years to almost comply with an FOIA request to State for her emails.

A subpoena obliges me to turn over papers, so I first go through them for two years, then turn over what I declare to be everything. What do you think a court would do to me?

[RiverLover]

15. Toast. You would be toast.

Hillary, on the other hand, has some toast with a light spread of caviar while her lawyers and friends in high places handle the courts.

[merrily]

16. Maybe jailed, like Susan McDougal, when she refused to answer 3 questions about Bill Clinton?

[gyroscope]

8. Not according to the FBI

she is still currently under investigation.

Are vetted people normally under investigation by the FBI?
How anyone can say she has been vetted with a straight face is beyond me.

[Rilgin]

9. Yes. Agrees. I used vetted to address what we know so far.

The Hillary supporters claim she has been vetted without discussing what that has shown. They talk about vetting as though Hillary is viewed favorably. My post is about the illogic of that claim because if vetted she is viewed unfavorably.

I agree totally that their are many more attacks and vetting to come. Her emails alone have not been fully aired and will provide additional ammunition. Some of the problems in the links between corporations speechs money the foundation and arm sales have surfaced here but have not been fully aired to the general public or used by the Republican machine yet. And it is over if she ends up indicted because of the FBI.

[merrily]

17. The FBI thing could be real or could be kabuki.

[gyroscope]

19. Regardless

unless one is a psychic, one cannot say she has been vetted until the results of such investigation has been presented (and cleared her of wrongdoing).

[bigtree]

11. no, he hasn't been vetted

...that's why he's seen by some as infallible.

[Rilgin]

18. Yet she has high unfavorable now before the Republican s attack in the GE.

Sure the will attack Bernie and I would guess his favorables will fall some. That is the purpose of attacks. They are not tovraise your own favorables but to create unfavorables in your opponents. However Bernie has the advantage of being historically liked and respected by all u til the recent attempts to slime himand he is starting with high favorables.

You want to start with a candidate who is already seen unfavorably. And you don't even get why its a bad thing. Why give the Republican party the advantage of a candidate they do not even have to attack. Then you ignore the fact that they have additional ammo to fire at Hillary with the same money they have for Bernie. They will attack both. Just with Hillary she is already known and viewed negatively.

[JRLeft]

14. She's lies regularly

[Lorien]

20. They'll never get it. It's sports team politics to them. The issues and character don't matter

She's the officially endorsed team member, and they cheer for the team. It doesn't matter what the team stands for, it just matters that they WIN! Go Blue! Beat Red! This is why they can't articulate what they like about her, other than to talk endlessly about her sex and (absolutely horrible and relatively inconsequential) "experience". There's no "there" there. It's Bush all over again; they just like her, even though most of us find her transparent and repellent.