Dear Bernie one way to make yourself insignificant is lumping in

[boston bean]

Last edited Sun May 3, 2015, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

the Clinton Foundation with the Koch brothers.

Ridiculous, untrue, and truly makes you look sad and desperate.

Updated with the transcript that inspired this OP:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And let me ask you also, you sold -- you told my colleague, Jon Karl, this week you have some concerns about the money raised by The Clinton Foundation.

What are those concerns exactly?

SANDERS: Well, it's not just The Clinton Foundation. Here are my concerns, George, and it should be the concern of every American.

And this is, in a sense, what my campaign is about -- can somebody who is not a billionaire who stands for working families actually win an election in which billionaires are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the election?

It's not just Hillary. It is the Koch Brothers. It is Sheldon Adelson.

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- with them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-fallout-baltimore/story?id=30757510&page=10

[okaawhatever]

1. K & R nt

[Agschmid]

2. It's unlikely he did that.

[boston bean]

4. I just watched it. He did. nt

[Agschmid]

6. Hmm I watched it as well and certainly didn't hear that.

Guess we will have to wait for the transcript/video.

[boston bean]

12. Yes we will. And George even said to him you are lumping them in together

and Bernie veers off that it's not just about the Clinton Foundation.

It was pretty clear.

If he thinks a philanthropic organization, is anything even close to what the Koch brothers do, he is out of depth.

[Gothmog]

86. I will keep my eye out for a transcript or youtube link

[Agschmid]

97. I posted part of it below, Mediaite has some of it up.

[boston bean]

99. Does that link include what is referenced in the OP? nt

[Agschmid]

100. No.

As I said Mediaite has some of it up.

But we already discussed this down thread...

[boston bean]

101. ok, just want to be sure we are clear that the video you reference

is not related to what is stated in the OP.

[Agschmid]

104. Yup.

[Gothmog]

103. Thanks

[orpupilofnature57]

107. George Selloutaphinus isn't a judge of anything he's

Mianthropic Sycophant Monster .

[Scuba]

115. He didn't equate the Kochs to the Clinton foundation. He equated the politicans ...

... who take money from the Kochs to the politicians who take money from other billionaires.


At least that's the way I heard it.

[cali]

10. He sure the fuck did not. disgusting to make stuff up

he's been very delicate about that big stinking mess Bill and Hillary have created- it's going to blow up because of their carelessness.

[boston bean]

15. He needs to stop his wobbling.. and state clearly it is not the same as the Koch Bros.

He leaves it hanging there and most assuredly does compare them as one in the same.

[jwirr]

51. I did not see what you are talking about but I do know that he has been changing the subject

whenever a reporter asks him to comment on Hillary. I just ignores the question and goes on to talk issues. Why would he suddenly change that approach on an issue he does not even care about?

[Agschmid]

81. This.

[boston bean]

82. "It's not just Hillary Clinton, it's the Koch bros and Adelson"

In response to Bernies criticism (which is RW pablum) about the Clinton Foundation.

[AgingAmerican]

147. It's a stupid thing to freak out about

You are grasping at straws

[boston bean]

151. Who is freaking out? not me..

I made a valid and accurate post.

You call that freaking out... well, we have different definitions of freaking out.

[seabeyond]

153. seems ot be the knee jerk response the men like to give you BB. wonder why? nt

[seabeyond]

156. wow. stupid and emotional. wow. nt

[AgingAmerican]

163. You are freaking out about something that isn't there

You are misinterpreting what was said, either intentionally or unintentionally, then freaking out about it. It's pretty sad when crap like this is all you have. It's going to be a looong primary....for you.

[boston bean]

165. I'm glad you know me better than I do.

[Enthusiast]

179. Stop freaking out!

[Enthusiast]

177. I agree with you. Grasping at straws. It doesn't look good either.

[emulatorloo]

126. Exactly. Reporters try to goad him, and he brings it back to the issues

[boston bean]

160. The issue was his criticism of the Clinton Foundation. If he says it he needs to respond

expect questions about it.

He is after all, running against Hillary Clinton for the democratic nomination. When one attacks, expect to be questioned on it.

[Jackpine Radical]

137. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that anyone here is deliberately making things up.

However, factors like priming and high sensitivity to potential attacks can sometimes cause people to misinterpret or even mis-hear things.

It pays to be gentle. We're gonna need all of us when this shakes out.

[orpupilofnature57]

155. + 1000 !!!

[Enthusiast]

175. He sure the fuck did not!

[orpupilofnature57]

152. How biased is your vision ?

[boston bean]

154. How biased is your vision?

I support a different candidate and may have a different outlook than you, but that doesn't make this OP biased. It is based in fact.

[SusanCalvin]

188. Technically I guess he did.

I don't think he meant they are equivalent in every respect. I think he was trying to shift the conversation to the right-wingers and point out that money has too much power. Which it does.

[pangaia]

3. I do not feel that is exactly what he did.

If he is going after the 1%, SOS Clinton can not be left out.

But I understand your concern.
It is a fine line to walk.

[demmiblue]

5. Do you have a link for this? n/t

[Agschmid]

8. No.

Because it wasn't what he said.

[demmiblue]

13. Lately, I feel like I am totally out of the loop.

I have no idea what this poster is referring to.

[Agschmid]

17. Bernie was on This Week.

[demmiblue]

29. Thank you!

I will watch when it gets posted online (no cable here).

[RufusTFirefly]

16. I smell desperate, despicable smear tactic.

If I am mistaken, I will gladly apologize.

[pipoman]

7. It is a special interest group that shouldn't affect US politics...

but alas, millions of dollars always has strings attached...

[hrmjustin]

9. Thanks for posting this.

[Agschmid]

11. Did you watch it?

[hrmjustin]

18. I did and it looked like it to me. i could be wrong but it looked like he did.

[Agschmid]

21. IMO it wasn't a comparison.

But I'll wait and see, my whole family was yelling about it so I'll have to read it.

[hrmjustin]

23. Oh my! Can't escape politics can you.

[Agschmid]

24. Not in my family.

[hrmjustin]

25. That is the way it is in my family.

[cali]

14. why not wait and read the transcript before buying into it?

oh never mind.

[hrmjustin]

19. I watched it.

[cali]

26. so you know he BACKED away from a gotcha question and praised her

[Agschmid]

27. He did.

[boston bean]

31. He praised her??? Please tell me exactly what words of praise were used.

[cali]

40. I don't know that I recall his exact words, but he said he'd known

her for 25 years and liked her and some other nice stuff and moved it on.

[seabeyond]

47. would that be the "bless your heart" type of compliment?

[Bonobo]

57. Amazing how a self-declared Sanders supporter pretty much is constantly attacking him.

Anyone else find that strange?

[sufrommich]

59. I find your obsession with Seabeyond strange. nt

[seabeyond]

66. i do not find it strange at all. men, that have a strong need for status quo. nt

[HERVEPA]

80. Ludicrous generalization

[seabeyond]

85. ah, and another

[seabeyond]

62. you and the men that have attacked womens issues for three years are now consistently attacking me

about this primary. it has been educational.

i also addressed the "fool" thread and saw you and your pals, nowhere around.

i have been consistent in my condemnation. how about you?

they are both democratic candidates. i am thrilled with both of our candidates and excited for both. you have an issue with me supporting our democratic candidates?

[Bonobo]

70. Still doesn't explain why you don't seem to be supporting a candidate you say you support.

That's what we're talking about. Casting aspersions about having a trickle down agenda that ignores social issues? It's like an bizarro world and the only thing I can figure is that you you harbor some really negative feelings about him for reasons I cannot fathom.

[seabeyond]

71. when you ignore like a zillion posts i have made supporting and encouraging his campaign,

i am not surprised you can create your own story.

[Bonobo]

72. I simply could not wade through that "fool" post so didn't see anyone's post there. nt

[seabeyond]

75. they are all over the board, well before he declared. but wtf bonobo, find any post to pounce on

and pat you and your guy pals on the back

[Bonobo]

79. Your OPs re Sanders have been uniformly critical of him.

Guy friends patting backs has nothing to do with anything.

[seabeyond]

87. no. again, fabrications ot create your story, for your battle. critical of SUPPORTERS

not the same thing at all. but wtf, when one can continually making up his own story, regardless

now done playing your game

[JTFrog]

91. Still doesn't explain your obsession that's for sure.

[AgingAmerican]

168. This 'obsession'

seems to be a two way street, IMHO.

[seabeyond]

169. and another one.

[AgingAmerican]

171. lol

Anyone who says anything you disagree with on pretty much any subject is 'one'.

lol

[cali]

113. not strange but embarrassingly obvious and

passive aggressive.

[seabeyond]

118. bless your heart...

[cyberswede]

74. He said he respects her and likes her. What's wrong with that?

It's possible to honestly like someone and disagree with their political philosophy.

[seabeyond]

122. people often times will make their political point and then come back with liking the person.

i called it out. asking if that is what happened.

from transcripts it APPEARS what happened. nothing is wrong with that. and no since making it something it isnt, or acknowledging a truth.

it sounded like, hence me ask....

[cyberswede]

134. That's ok. I respect and like you anyway.

[seabeyond]

138. lol.

back at you, probably tenfold.

crazy what something like this does with us, with people we have chatted with a decade.

[AgingAmerican]

170. Sub thread win!!

nt

[TheNutcracker]

116. Here is the VIDEO in HIS own words...

review is here, and the vid is short.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026595115

[hrmjustin]

32. Yes he did praise her.

[boston bean]

36. How did he praise her?

[hrmjustin]

39. I forgot the sarcasm button.

[cyberswede]

95. It pisses me off that Stephanopolous immediately turned the discussion to Hillary.

He asks Bernie why he's running, Bernie answers, and Stephanopolous immediately turns the conversation to Hillary. Where were the follow-up questions to the reasons Bernie actually gave? Where were the follow up questions about the wealth disparities between the 1% and the rest of Americans?

The media wants a dog fight.

[boston bean]

96. Is Bernie running against Hillary for the nomination?

I would assume that questions about how his views are different than Hillary's would be expected.

[Agschmid]

98. Same.

[cyberswede]

105. Yes, questions about how his views differ from hers are necessary

But that's not what Stephanopolous asked.

"Is Hillary a member of the billionaire class?" is not a question about how their views differ.

If he were actually interested in their views, he could have asked "is Hillary a member of the billionaire class, and if so, how might that affect how she addresses economic issues vs how you how address them?"

As it was, Stephanopolous was clearly asking a gotcha question.

[boston bean]

106. His position is that he isn't part of that class, so it follows that one would ask if

you thought ones opponent was a part of that class.

[cyberswede]

110. Ok, George.

[boston bean]

111. Well, that was low...

[Fred Sanders]

20. The media is carefully avoiding the topic of money in general corrupting politics, which means

they have to beaten on the head with a stick to get them talking.

If this shakey parallel of thermonuclear armed fascist Koch's versus Kalishnikov armed pacifist Clinton Foundation is what it takes, so be it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

124. Because the media is a huge beneficiary of all that money in politics.

The election campaign industry never stops anymore, and there's no end to the money.

[SusanCalvin]

204. You betcha.

Make them give free ads for their free FCC licenses. They do nothing to earn them these days.

[HERVEPA]

22. He did not do that.

You are being ridiculous, untruthful, and truly making yourself look sad and desperate.

[boston bean]

28. Yes he did, he lumped her in with the Kochs and Adelson

This is exactly what he said:

"It's not just Hillary it's the Koch Bros and Sheldon Adelson."

In a response to something he said to Georges peer about the Clinton Foundation.

[hrmjustin]

33. Thank you.

[RoccoR5955]

63. He was talking about the large amounts of money in elections

and yes, the Clinton Foundation, Koch Brothers, AIPAC, Adelson, and others are guilty, so this what you call "lumping in" may not seem so bad to the general public who sees no difference between them.

It's not as if I saw him lumping them in together. I saw the point as being one of money in politics.

[uponit7771]

88. Irrelevant, to lump Hillary with givers of these large amounts who want to right sling this country

... into stupidity is needlessly slinging mud.

Adelson and The Kock brothers represent only the 1% for the 1% and hate the "others"...

Those who lump Hillary in that lose credibility right off the bat... no use in wasting time on that stupid crap

[AgingAmerican]

174. If 'lumping' is all you got

Then you got nothing.

"He vaguely lumped! He vaguely lumped! eeeevviilll!! Auuuurrrrggggghhhhhaaaayyyyy!!"

It will be a loooong primary...for you.

[uponit7771]

206. Ad homs are an indicator of a weak position, we'll see if there are more slung her way

[AgingAmerican]

208. Got lump?

[RoccoR5955]

207. You just don't get it.

Bernie is one of a very few who do not take big corporate money.
To put the organizations who donate this money in a group is perfectly feasible.
So you are saying that Hillary does not take large amounts of money from corporate donors?
I don't think so.

[uponit7771]

83. +1, so Sanders is the first to fling mud rather than policy... sigh.. this shit is old already

[Marr]

133. Actually, he broadened the topic to talk about big money's control of politics

rather than just pushing the Clinton narrative and ignoring the bigger picture.

I'd think you'd be happy about that.

[NorthCarolina]

172. LOL

good luck trying to sell that meme. Best go back to conference and look for something tangible...if you can actually find it.

[PeaceNikki]

30. Some DUers have done this. I'll wait to see if Bernie did, there are some differences of opinion.

[boston bean]

34. In a response to a question from George

regarding Bernies recent concerns about "money made by the Clinton Foundation"

Bernie said, "It's not just Hillary, it is the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson."

If that aint lumping the Clinton foundation in with the Koch's......

[PeaceNikki]

37. Sigh.

That's disappointing.

[still_one]

46. No it is not. He is referring to obscene amount of money going into campaigns, mostly because of

Citizens United. He is not attacking the Clinton Foundation, he is attacking big money in politics

[boston bean]

48. It was in response to Bernies most recent criticism of the Clinton Foundation.

And yes, he lumps it in with the Koch's.

It is not the even close and he needs to stop with using right wing smear tactics.

Hillary has called for a constitutional amendment against Citizens United. In fact, the decision was regarding a smear movie made about her in which she was on the side against MONEY in POLITICS.

So he is making a huge mistake here, and sounds utterly ridiculous.

[Agschmid]

50. .

It is not the even close and he needs to stop with using right wing smear tactics.

Whoosh...

That was your credibility going out the window.

[boston bean]

52. My credibility is in tact. You didn't even see it and are waiting.

What makes you think you know anything about my credibility taking that into consideration.

Even your family members, as you state above, heard the same thing.

So, please stop...

[Agschmid]

65. I did see it.

[Fla Dem]

69. 2 Bostonians fighting. Meet up at the GraneryTavern on Milk st and hash it out.

[Agschmid]

84. Haha we probably should.

Go Boston!

[Enthusiast]

184. Your credibility is in tatters.

[RoccoR5955]

56. Right wing smear tactics?!?!?!

I think you need to re-evaluate that statement, or tell me what statements Bernie has made, using what right wing smear tactics?

Otherwise, I will take it as hyperbole.

[still_one]

60. I hear your you, and you may have a point if he meant that linkage. First of all there is

absolutely no evidence that the Clinton Foundation is involved in financing any political campaigns, and that is straight out of the republican play book.

In fact that is what political right wing hack Schweizer has been doing, pimping his new book based on innuendoes and not facts, yet outlets like the NY Times and other shows give him free reign:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209

[boston bean]

112. Very true... you can see the transcript in the OP now....

[redstateblues]

203. If it walks like a duck...

It's amazing how Bernistas are twisting themselves into pretzels to deny he said what he said. Honestly, the Hillary trashing has been a dominant theme on DU for a good while. Bernie is not perfect- he made a mistake-it probably won't be the last. Hopefully he misspoke. And BTW, all rich people are not evil. There a plenty of wealthy people who vote Democratic.

[LondonReign2]

35. Oh good lord, when you have to resort to lying you make both you and your candidate

look stupid.

[boston bean]

38. There is no lie stated in the OP. nt

[Agschmid]

44. Clearly that's up for debate.

[boston bean]

49. Clearly, I have provided exactly what he said. You will see that in any transcript.

[AgingAmerican]

178. It's a stupid thing to freak out over

Seriously.

[boston bean]

180. Who is freaking out, seriously?

If you think I am freaking out, I will ask you to stop freaking out about my alleged freaking out.

[AgingAmerican]

181. You are

Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping!

I can't begin to imagine how you might react to an actual issue~!!

[seabeyond]

183. the guys are playing a game with you BB. now they are just jumping on that one. the giggles....

lets all go back to middle school

[still_one]

41. That is not his style. Now reports I have seen in the last couple of day regarding Bernie very

"troubling" with the "Clinton Foundation", were also intentionally misleading, no surprise from our wonderful media.

What Bernie's point was is that the big money involved in campaigns was obscene, and he was referring to ALL of it, not singling out anyone.

Now I didn't hear todays interview, but based on previous days reports, and what Bernie actually said sure doesn't sync up with what he has been saying about big money distorting our system of Democracy, verses going after the Clinton Foundation. Not sure if I buy that

[RiverLover]

42. He speaks the truth.

The way to insignificance is to pretend the truth doesn't exist.

[Evergreen Emerald]

68. No. He is lying

The Clinton foundation has made life saving changes in the world. To lump that foundation in with Koch is purposeful, dishonest, and playing the usual politics. He is no different than any lying politican.

[AgingAmerican]

185. Define 'lump'

Is mentioning them both in the same paragraph this 'lump' of which you speak?

Is 'lumping' going to be the main 'issue' the Hillary camp will use? Does any of this matter at all?

Is a mountain being made out of a sand pit?

Is it worthy of running around with hair aflame?

If this is the reaction we are to expect from this sort of vague nonsense, what will be the reaction when actual issues come up?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Evergreen Emerald]

189. Please you are turning yourself into a pretzel ...

...in an attempt to deny what Sanders has said--twice now.

He is indeed stating (not even suggesting) that they are in the same category.

I know: lets pretend that Clinton something equally suggestive and inaccurate. Lets say she used Sanders, Lieberman, Nader in the same sentence regarding liberal sell-outs. I am certain you would not be giving her the same deference that you are giving Sanders.

[AgingAmerican]

193. You are projecting

You cannot answer my questions, so you project.

Film at 11

[Evergreen Emerald]

195. I actually did answer your questions

Nice deflections however.

[AgingAmerican]

196. See film at 11

nt

[Buzz Clik]

43. When your only tool is a hammer...

[Evergreen Emerald]

45. That is twice now that he insinuated that same thing

So why would'nt he say it again?

It cracks me up that you all are attempting to recreate his meaning giving it the best possible interpretation. When Clinton says something, you turn yourselves into pretzels to give it the worst meaning possible.

He mentioned Clinton, Koch in the same sentence and then lies when asked point blank. He should at least be honest about what everyone know he is insinuating.


iPad make it easy to misspell

[Agschmid]

53. .

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stephanopoulos-to-bernie-sanders-is-hillary-part-of-the-billionaire-class/

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced this week his candidacy for the Democratic nomination, the first official opponent of Hillary Clinton and one expected to challenge her from the left. On This Week Sunday morning, host George Stephanopoulos asked whether he classed Clinton with the plutocrats he was running to dethrone.

“Is Hillary Clinton part of the billionaire class?” Stephanopoulos said. The putative Democratic frontrunner has amassed a decent fortune in speaking fees, including to such institutions as Goldman Sachs.

“It means that Hillary Clinton has been part of the political establishment for many many years,” Sanders said. “I have known Hilary for 25 years. I respect her and I like her. But I think what the American people are saying is that at a time when 99% of all new income is going to the 1%, and when the top one-tenth of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, maybe it’s time for real political shake-up, and go beyond establishment politics.”

“We need a political revolution in this country,” Sanders added.

[boston bean]

54. Oh please, provide the transcript in your posting that actually is relative to the OP.

[Agschmid]

58. Sorry that's not available yet.

But trust me I am watching.

[boston bean]

61. Ooohhh, I don't need to wait, I actually saw it.

You want to try and make this seem like I am lying... well, I guess your family would be too from your posting up thread where you state they heard it too.

[Agschmid]

64. I don't think you are lying I think you heard what you wanted to hear.

[boston bean]

73. I stated I didn't lie, and you said that was up for debate...

Then you question my credibility....

I can read and follow along in threads.

Now you are back tracking a bit... good and thank you.

[djean111]

55. Just checked - nope, Sanders still not insignificant, sad, or desperate.

So it's all good!
Interviewer are going to fold the Clinton stuff in. That's politics. And that's the down side to huge money.

[TheSarcastinator]

67. Dear Clinton Supporter one may to make yourself insignificant is to misrepresent

other Democratic candidate's positions and statements.

[rhett o rick]

76. Senator Sanders is concerned about big money dominating politics. I hope you agree.

He was asked about Clinton and he tried to change the focus to the Koch Bro and Adelson.

You appear to be trying to distract from the main issue of big money in politics. Sen Sanders and Clinton are miles apart on that issue.

[boston bean]

78. Hillary Clinton is concerned about big money in politics...

Why is he using RW smear tactics regarding the Clinton Foundation to try to make it seem as though Hillary is one in the same with the Koch Bros?

[rhett o rick]

92. He isn't. And it looks desparate to try to twist his words to make him look bad.

The Republicons don't like anything about Clinton, so if Sen Sanders doesn't see eye to eye, you will claim he is siding with the Right Wing.

If Clinton is concerned about getting big money out of politics she hasn't walked the walk. Sen Sanders refuses to take money from the billionaires. Can Clinton match that?

I am not speaking for Sen Sanders but I think the Clinton Fdn getting large contributions from foreign sources is a conflict of interest at best.

[boston bean]

102. I have not twisted his words. nt

[Marr]

135. +1, exactly.

[Deny and Shred]

182. Ding Ding

He wasn't asked about Sheldon and the Koch Bros and then decided to toss the Clinton Foundation under the bus. Other way around.

I read it as Bernie basically answering a bad question with 'if you want to talk big political donations, look at Adelson and The Koch Bros.'

The question singled out the Clinton Foundation, not Sen Sanders. He should be commended for pointing out there are also many fund-raising organizations for the GOP, but alas ...

[SusanCalvin]

198. That is exactly how I took it

And how I think he meant it.

[randome]

77. I honestly don't know what to make of DU regarding Sanders/Clinton, etc.

Far too much attacking going on in both directions, leaving a very muddled crossfire that makes it impossible to see much of anything clearly.

If Sanders ends up pulling an upset over Clinton, there will be joy from the fringe-groups that thrive on "We told you so!" Which simply points to their small-minded concerns of wanting to be right.

If Clinton beats back Sanders, we'll be treated to a different flavor of "We told you so!" but it will be just as annoying and solidify that group's status as pragmatists when actually, anything could have happened to throw the race one way or the other and it's out of anyone's control.

I think most DUers -the vast majority who don't post much- are content to wait it out and see what happens and won't take a stand when it's FAR TOO FUCKING EARLY TO TAKE A STAND!

They're the smart ones.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[DebJ]

108. +1000 n/t

[hootinholler]

89. Did you pull the short straw?

Is today your day to beat on Bernie?

Why are you making shit up? Snufleufagus lumped them together, not Bernie.

Fail.

[leftofcool]

90. Didn't Bernie just say he would not say anything negative about Hillary Clinton?

I guess that was lie number one!

[cyberswede]

93. Stephanopolous bent over backward to make whatever Bernie said be about Hillary

Stephanopolous asked Bernie why he's running for president, and Bernie gave an answer about standing up for working people, taking on the billionaire class, and leading an effort by the people to stand up and say enough is enough.

Stephanopolous immediately then asked if Hillary is a member of the billionaire class. THAT is what he got out of Bernie's reply?

There are a surely more relevant questions Staphanopolous could have asked, but he went straight for the "let's see if we can get Bernie to attack Clinton" line of question.

And during Sanders's reply, where he mentioned that Hillary is part of the political estsblishment - but went on to discuss the issue of the 1% vs the 99% - the video clip showed a Hillary photo montage through his entire response.

The media is trying to make this a contest between personalities instead of issues. We should be better than that here.

The video clip is here:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stephanopoulos-to-bernie-sanders-is-hillary-part-of-the-billionaire-class/

[boston bean]

94. Bernie has been critical of the Clinton Foundation, that is what prompted the question.

And he answered as I have stated.

What is being discussed here in this thread, is not relative to what you just posted.

[AgingAmerican]

192. "Don't post direct evidence from the interview I'm freakout out about, it doesn't fit my narrative"

“Is Hillary Clinton part of the billionaire class?” Stephanopoulos said. The putative Democratic frontrunner has amassed a decent fortune in speaking fees, including to such institutions as Goldman Sachs.

“It means that Hillary Clinton has been part of the political establishment for many many years,” Sanders said. “I have known Hilary for 25 years. I respect her and I like her. But I think what the American people are saying is that at a time when 99% of all new income is going to the 1%, and when the top one-tenth of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, maybe it’s time for real political shake-up, and go beyond establishment politics.”

“We need a political revolution in this country,” Sanders added.

[boston bean]

109. Updated with the transcript. nt

[BrotherIvan]

114. So constant outrage and hurt feelings is the way Hillary supporters will support their candidate?

Claiming that Sanders supporters are mean fools dammit! I guess it's a way for a tiny minority to attempt to stay relevant. Because the issues in this post do not make Bernie look insignificant at all.

[boston bean]

117. Whose feelings are hurt... this is a campaign... are you feelings hurt by the criticism leveled in

the OP?

[BrotherIvan]

123. And playing coy too?

Aw jeez.

[seabeyond]

125. are you kidding? cause i brought up my issue, within sanders camp, as a supporter, you and others

threw quite a hissy, letting me know for sure, that was not relevant to the campaign.

right

coy.

where did you get that

[BrotherIvan]

130. LOL

[seabeyond]

132. ya. that. brau

[redstateblues]

205. Just stop saying mean things about Bernie!!

[jeff47]

127. Yep. (nt)

[hrmjustin]

119. Thank you for this post and the transcript.

You are a great poster.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. So, aside from her gender, what it it about Hillary's policy goals that recommend her over Sanders?

Sanders didn't lump them together, he redirected Stephanopoulos and the viewers toward the real sources of oligarchy.

[Agschmid]

121. Yup.

[seabeyond]

128. how insignificant, right jack, being an advocate for women. i get, was drilled, educated that sander

supporters do not feel that is significant.

you all showed me well.

so.... i think if clinton were smart, she would grab on to that one.

while i was only allowing sanders campaign to be more inclusive, too many supporters said no, and shut the fuck up. without asking, thinking, conversing, otherwise.

so you coming in this thread, to let all us know, that it is merely, women supporting women, silly women, surely puts us in our place. as women. not a supporter to a group.

[lumberjack_jeff]

142. Are you avoiding the question out of principle?

Why should those of us who don't hold "women supporting women" as a prime directive, support Clinton instead of Sanders?

[seabeyond]

144. i avoided nothing, but called out the petty, consistent dismissal of women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

145. There are plenty of women who find Sanders candor and policy goals worthy of support.

What is it, other than your stated belief in the importance of women supporting women, that recommends Clinton?

[seabeyond]

146. there are plenty of fundamentalist women that vote repug. your point? peoples priorities. right?

[JTFrog]

139. "So, aside from her gender"

Did you pull the "aside from the color of his skin" shit during the last primary? This is just as insulting and rude as hell.

[lumberjack_jeff]

143. It seemed like a simple question to answer. I'm still waiting. n/t

[JTFrog]

149. I just threw up a little.

You stand by that shitty post?

You are long overdue for my ignore list. No one should be subjected to such hatred here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

159. When the nausea passes, it might be useful to answer.

Why should someone support Clinton instead of Sanders?

The answers I've heard
1) money
2) "electable"
3) grooming
5) "women supporting women"

Are there others?

At risk of understatement, I find only answer #1 to be even the tiniest bit compelling... albeit cynical.

[seabeyond]

161. us women arent interested in your question and not our job to accommodate you.

if you cannot even acknowledge the significance of a need for a woman advocate, why would any of us bother with your demand.

you immediately dismiss women with your first comment then demand they accommodate you and play your game.

[boston bean]

164. I'm like what does he see so wrong with supporting Hillary because of her stance

on social issues?

Because that is the implication. ie, what I hear when I see that question is.... Why would those issues matter to you and you are stupid if that has any bearing on your vote.

[seabeyond]

167. abso fuckin' lutely. we will watch this angle continue to play. the obvious tell is the same players

we have had the displeasure of doing this dance with for the last 3 yrs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

173. This is your thread. Your criticism of Sanders is that he's too hard on the Clinton foundation...

... in his generalized observation that money has damaged our democracy.

If your real gripe is a difference in social policy, what policies do you (and Clinton) disagree with?

[jeff47]

129. So Sanders tries to steer the media moron back from a faux personality battle

and to supporting the people instead of the wealthy.

And you think this is Sanders attacking Clinton.

Good job dragging the debate down to where the lazy media wants it.

[boston bean]

157. Sanders needs to clarify his remarks regarding the Clinton Foundation.

Otherwise he is spouting rw pablum.

The Clinton Foundation is not the Kochs or Adelsons.

[jeff47]

162. Keep shoving that narrative up.

We won't get vapid personality coverage all by itself!!

Now, who would you prefer to have a beer with? That's clearly far more important to discuss.

The Clinton Foundation is not the Kochs or Adelsons.

Golly, if only it was clear he was not saying they were the same in his response. Say, by making it pretty obvious he was changing the subject towards the wealthy.

Now, is it OK for us to talk about Sander's hair? Or is that only horribly wrong when talking about Clinton?

[lumberjack_jeff]

166. His remarks were clear to everyone listening.

There are huge problems of wealth in our democracy and the media shouldn't hyper-focus on the Clinton foundation.

[Doctor_J]

131. He said big money has ruined our once proud democracy. That is true. The Foundation is part of tha

That is also true. So please stop lying. The Girl is going to win the nomination and the WH and the corporate juggernaut will continue to roll over the citizenry. So cheer up.

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. I think ...

And this is, in a sense, what my campaign is about -- can somebody who is not a billionaire who stands for working families actually win an election in which billionaires are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the election?

We all know the answer to that question ... We may not like the answer; but, we do know it.

[boston bean]

140. Is Hillary a billionaire?

He is conflating her and the foundation for maximum effect.

None of it is true.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

150. Seems Bernie could have handled this slightly differently and I bet money he will clarify

this later.

If he is lumping Clinton Foundation with the scum, then that is wrong and I dont think he did.

He will clarify

I am still not sure what Clinton Foundation and campaign donations have to do with each other, is the allegation that she is getting donations to her campaign from the people who already donated to the foundation?

Bernie also is aware of how ugly the money deal is in DC, and as he is not part of it so he can and should sit outside of it and criticize

Hillary is in the middle of it and CANT Win the election without the big money, without it the ASSHOLE RACISTS win...

[AgingAmerican]

141. I do not see whatever it is you are talking about

What do you mean by 'lumping'?

[pa28]

148. You'll have to try harder. Bernie is steering the conversation away from Clinton.

[seabeyond]

158. It's not just Hillary. It is the Koch Brothers. It is Sheldon Adelson.

by inclusion? lol

[ucrdem]

176. Probably just a slip of the tongue

but the last time he made that mistake he roped in $1.5 million in 24 hours.

Senator Bernie Sanders Calls Hillary Clinton Foundation Money ‘A Very Serious Problem’
Apr 30, 2015, 7:18 AM ET

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

[JDPriestly]

186. Bernie is talking about oligarch's money that buys elections.

One of the things you have to watch out for especially in local elections is the rich person who has a foundation, gives a donation to a very needy charity and then receives an endorsement from the director of the charity. A lot of people will vote for the rich person because they see that the director of the charity endorsed him, not knowing that there was a sort of tacit, silent understanding that the donation would be followed by the endorsement.

Not all gifts to charities are selfless or disinterested.

And Bernie is talking about having elections that are not dominated by the rich oligarchs. Nothing wrong with rich oligarchs, but you don't have a democracy or even a democratic republic when very rich people have so much influence over the news feed and the decision about what topics are discussed and what topics are not discussed.

Bernie is the only candidate who is not groveling to the rich for donations. He is the only candidate who will spend very little buying TV time. He will be making no deals with the networks to buy ad time and then get coverage.

Hillary has lots of money to buy all the ads and employees she wants. Her foundation is just a proof of the Clinton's ability to raise a lot of money from very rich people. Nothing wrong with what the foundation does. But why are the rich people giving to it? We cannot know. They donors probably have a variety of motivations.

[TerrapinFlyer]

187. Big mistake from Bernie. I support Bernie, but he needs to watch what he says.

And for anyone here on DU that thinks Bernie's statement was not a mistake, then they are blinded from the facts. The statement he made was very clear. He compared Hillary to the Koch Brothers.

If you defend that statement, you need to leave DU.

[BlueJazz]

190. I don't like to nit-pick what people say. It's so easy for someone to insert or leave out an....

...important phrase/word when you're in the national spotlight.
A COMBINATION of many statements can seal the mindset of the person speaking...not just a very few.

or "One action does not constitute a Universe"

[william cail]

191. He's Done

Is it too soon for Bernie to change his mind and endorse Hilary for 2016? He won't get pass Iowa or New Hampshire. Bernie should just stick to being a good senator from Vermont. He'll be more useful there.

[peacebird]

202. LOL!

[OnyxCollie]

194. For your edification, some information on foundations:

Perhaps the most important modern institution in the field of group power-and it contrasts dramatically with Maitland's picture of clubs, religious associations, and charities preferring the hedge of the trust and the anonymity of unincorporated status- is the "foundation" which flourishes in contemporary America.

The foundation is largely an American creation. No doubt the accumulation of vast wealth was one reason for its rise; another-at least in the days when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others perpetuated their names through their now world famous bequests-was unquestionably a desire of wealthy and successful men to purge their consciences before God and man and to justify the acquisitive society which had enabled them to accumulate enormous riches by leaving a vast proportion of their wealth for the benefit of mankind.6 But in recent years these reasons for the earlier foundations have become less important, and the incorporated foundation or trust has become predominantly a business device, a paramount instrument in the struggle between the demands of the modern Welfare State and the wish of the individual entrepreneur to perpetuate his fortune and his name. The greatest and most influential of the foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) are the creations of individuals or families, but the large foundations of the future will increasingly be the creations of corporations. The desires to give and to perpetuate the name of the individual or corporate donor are undoubtedly still important motivations, but the immense growth in the number and size of foundations in recent years7 suggests that business considerations play an increasing role. By either bequeathing or giving during his lifetime a proportion of his estate to a permanent institution established for officially recognized charitable purposes, the donor, usually the controller of an industrial or business empire,8 achieves a number of purposes.9 In the United States gifts to such organizations are exempt from gift taxes, and bequests to them are deductible for estate tax purposes. The organizations themselves are normally exempt from income tax, property tax, and other taxes. A charitable gift intervivos is an allowable deduction from the taxable income of the donor.10 The absence of the latter privilege in English law may be one reason why incorporated charities are not so widespread in Britain (apart, of course, from the vastly greater capital wealth of United States business). Otherwise, motivations for the establishment of charitable companies are very similar." The arithmetics of these benefits vary from year to year and are, of course, subject to legislative changes. Unless, however, there were to be a fundamental change in legislation in regard to charitable gifts,12 the advantages of transferring both capital and annual income away from the personal estate of a taxpayer in the high income brackets or away from a corporation are very considerable.13 But in the age of the managerial revolution and the Welfare State, a motive at least equal to that of providing a suitable mechanism for philanthropy and a tax free reservoir for an otherwise highly taxable income is the power which the foundation gives to the controller of a business or industry to perpetuate his control.14

Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.

The Clinton Foundation - About
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/our-work/by-initiative/clinton-foundation-in-haiti/about.html

The Clinton Foundation has been actively engaged in Haiti since 2009, focusing on economic diversification, private sector investment and job creation in order to create long-term, sustainable economic development. After the devastating earthquake in 2010, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual donors for immediate earthquake relief efforts. Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of $34 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on restoring Haiti's communities, sustainable development, education and capacity building. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation concentrated on creating sustainable economic growth in the four priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, and apparel/manufacturing, working to bring new investors, develop and support local organizations and businesses, and create access to new markets. The Clinton Foundation also continued working to support government efforts to improve Haiti’s business environment and supported programs in education and capacity building.

Washington Backed Famous Brand-Name Contractors in Fight Against Haiti’s Minimum Wage Increase
http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-47/Washington%20Backed%20Famous.asp

The U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levi’s, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.

The factory owners refused to pay 62 cents an hour, or $5 per eight-hour day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. Behind the scenes, the factory owners had the vigorous backing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Embassy, show secret U.S. Embassy cables provided to Haïti Liberté by the transparency-advocacy group WikiLeaks.

The minimum daily wage had been 70 gourdes or $1.75 a day.

The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour – 100 gourdes daily – to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.

Report: State Department-Backed Garment Complex in Haiti Stealing Workers’ Wages
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/17/headlines#10179

A new report by the Worker Rights Consortium has found the majority of workers in Haiti’s garment industry are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally owed due to widespread wage theft. The new evidence builds on an earlier report that found every single one of Haiti’s export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohl’s, Levi’s and Wal-Mart. The report highlighted abuses at the Caracol Industrial Park, a new factory complex heavily subsidized by the U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Clinton Foundation and touted as a key part of Haiti’s post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haiti’s minimum wage for garment workers is between 60 and 90 cents an hour. More than three-quarters of workers interviewed for the report said they could not afford three meals a day.

Clintons' Pet Project for Privatized 'Aid' to Haiti Stealing Workers' Wages: Report
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-4

Haiti's Caracol Industrial Park—the U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation pet project to deliver aid and reconstruction to earthquake-ravaged Haiti in the form of private investment—is systematically stealing its garment workers' wages, paying them 34 percent less than minimum wage set by federal law, a breaking report from the Worker Rights Consortium reveals.

Critics charge that poverty wages illustrate the deep flaws with corporate models of so-called aid. "The failure of the Caracol Industrial Park to comply with minimum wage laws is a stain on the U.S.'s post-earthquake investments in Haiti and calls into question the sustainability and effectiveness of relying on the garment industry to lead Haiti's reconstruction," said Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in an interview with Common Dreams.

Caracol is just one of five garment factories profiled in this damning report, released publicly on Wednesday, which finds that "the majority of Haitian garment workers are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally due as a result of the factories’ theft of their income." This is due to systematic employer cheating on piece-work and overtime, as well as failure to pay employees for hours worked.
...
Financers included the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. State Department, and the Clinton Foundation, who invested a total of $224 million with promises to uphold high labor standards. Its anchor tenant is the Korean S&H Global factory, which sells garments to Walmart, Target, Kohl's, and Old Navy, according to the report.

The Clinton-Bush Fund has closed up shop in Haiti: Here are the fruits of neoliberal "charity"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415607

[Raine1967]

197. The entire interview is posted:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-fallout-baltimore/story?id=30757510&page=10

The video is as well: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/03/bernie-sanders-unloads-kochs-refusing-play-medias-smear-hillary-game.html

[chervilant]

199. I think Bernie Sanders poses a credible threat to Hillary's campaign.

And, the grim reality is that Clinton is getting a lot of corporate money.

[Depaysement]

200. Boston Bean is right

Bernie should not have lumped the Koch Brothers in with the Clinton Foundation. There are real differences. Of course, it seems like he wasn't trying to do that; he seemed to be trying to segue the conversation to denounce republican megadonors like odious Adelson and the Kochs.

Instead, we can just look at some of the Clinton Foundation contributors, which is a laundry list of large corporations, Wall Street firms, superrich moderates and liberals, few of whom have income inequality on their list of concerns. You know the likes of the Gates, Exxon, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Haim Saban, Coca Cola, Goldman, Morgan Stanley and on and on it goes. All folks who thrive under the current system of income inequality and return a pittance as their penance.

Nothing is for nothing, brothers and sisters.

[peacebird]

201. I don't take it the way you did. The transcript you posted sounds much like what he said Thursday

“So do I have concerns about the Clinton Foundation and that money? I do,” newly announced Clinton primary opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders told ABC on Thursday. “But I am concerned about Sheldon Adelson and his billions. I’m concerned about the Koch brothers and their billions. We’re looking at a system where our democracy is being owned by a handful of billionaires.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clintons-big-money-dilemma-117559.html#ixzz3Z6IZ0nak

[Caretha]

210. If he did "lump" her in

with the Kochs & Adelson then

GOOD

I'm sure he is much more circumspect than me, but I mean that with all my dirty fucking hippie heart.

Have a good day.