Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton is not 'qualified' to be president
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: CNN
Washington (CNN)Bernie Sanders said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton was not "qualified" to be president, an escalation in rhetoric between the two Democratic presidential candidates.
"She has been saying lately that I am 'not qualified' to be president. Well let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is through her super PAC taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds," he told a crowd in Philadelphia.
Sanders added that Clinton was similarly unqualified because of her positions on the Iraq War and trade agreements.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-qualified/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LonePirate
(14,375 posts)modestybl
(458 posts)... so that she could be seen as tough enough to be POTUS. Many Dems displayed that kind of cowardice when we desperately needed them to have some kind of courage to stand up against the criminal W admin.
That in my mind as always disqualified her from being POTUS...
LonePirate
(14,375 posts)Or was Hillary the only Dem who was lying?
olddad56
(5,732 posts)What was Dubya's approval rating at the time? about 90%. And the BCF faked the evidence for going to war.
Ned Flanders
(233 posts)I don't claim to be as powerful as Captain Hindsight, OldDaddily, but it was clear to me, some guy with an internet connection, that we were being lied to, and that the haste with which things proceeded was a huge mistake. What resources, how many brilliant advisors, do members of Congress have access to? Can they not see the same self-evident truths as Average Joe?
Let's stream of consciousness this: Haliburton no-bid contract, faked uranium tubes, quote about next warning being a mushroom cloud, outing of Plame, Rummy: "This war will pay for itself," inspectors kicked out even though Saddam was dismantling weapons, primary source of info against Iraq received huge amounts of $$$ from our gov't, and stood to profit even more long term, talk about a "Crusade," and finally, to sum it all up, Cheney!
Sure, the propaganda machine was as good as it gets, and voting "against terrorism" was career suicide, but that is no excuse. Some people did stand up on the record. This shit is important, and should have risen above political expediency.
colorado_ufo
(6,259 posts)Ned Flanders, you are not alone.
Remember the demonstrations by thousands of people against going into this war?
beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)All over the world. The protests in Rome alone drew over a million people, for a war that hadn't even started yet. Millions of us knew bullshit when we heard it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And Code Pink women who had visited Iraq warned her not to vote for the war. She treated them arrogantly and then voted for that completely unnecessary and brutal war.
Hillary knew better. She just wanted to show how tough she could be.
Other members of Congress may have actually believed Bush, but how could Hillary, having been in the White House, having had access to top level information directly or indirectly, made such a terrible "mistake."
It was a calculation on her part, not a mistake.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)would lead America into even more wars and coups and disasters... She's like W in that respect... or Eric Cartman...
Skittles
(172,130 posts)Iraq had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)It was almost impossible to avoid the reality at the time that the sales job for the war was utter nonsense.
There were risk/reward evaluations underway - risk of opposition (What happens if the war goes well? Will I and every Democrat who votes against be thrashed as unpatriotic losers?) and rewards of going along with it (What happens if it goes poorly? I can bullshit too and say I believed the evidence, and, well, Bush is the Commander in Chief - he'll take the heat.)
There wasn't much political courage being demonstrated by Democrats at the time.
modestybl
(458 posts)...others may have had their doubts.. but HRC claimed that she and Bill had "the same intelligence" ... which turned out to be false. She was either 1) gullible to the point of stupid or 2) lying. At the time you could go to the IAEA's website and easily refute half of what Bushco. were publicly claiming.
HRC had a chance to be a real leader. We were calling her office by the thousands. Millions of us were protesting. She chose the coward's route and sided with Bushco. And so did the other Dem senators (not 40). It was arrogance and blind ambition. She is not fit to be POTUS.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)they didn't have the integrity to do what was right..
it's disgusting...
Skittles
(172,130 posts)telling us to MOVE FORWARD
I think that fucking stinks too
modestybl
(458 posts)...and it was a mistake for the Dems in Congress in the 1980s not to hold Reagan accountable for crimes during the Iran-Contra era. The country was not better off with official misconduct going unpunished.
Response to LonePirate (Reply #1)
beastie boy This message was self-deleted by its author.
rivertext
(182 posts)regarding your tagline: "Most Sanders’ supporters recognize that there is far more daylight between Clinton’s policies and Sanders’ than between Clinton and any of the Republicans."
Bernie and Hillary's positions on most issues are very similar. Some will go back years to a position Hillary had years ago, but the simple fact is that they agree NOW all over the place and similarly disagree with the Republicans on everything. Sure Hillary can point to some past issues with Bernie's positions on Gun Control and Bernie can point to her evolution on same sex marriage, her mistaken vote for the Iraq war, and so on, he can argue that his Wall Street reforms are tougher than Hillary's. The Republicans are on the opposite side on all these issues.
*** I'm asking you to remove your tag line and replace it with something that has some relationship to reality. ***
And, in regards to the topic:
Hillary did not say Bernie wasn't qualified to be president, she criticized his apparent lack of a plan to break up the big banks:
"I think he hadn't done his homework and he'd been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn't really studied or understood," Clinton said in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," just one day after losing the Wisconsin primary to Sanders, "and that does raise a lot of questions."
Bernie Sanders supporters here attack Hillary here every day in much stronger terms. Why the double standard?
I'm asking Bernie Sanders supporters here to reconsider their rhetoric.
Angrydemex
(43 posts)I've seen alot more negativity from the hillary camp. They have no tolerance for bernie supporters. When people from the Bernie Camp criticize hillary, they do it based on facts (for the most part). When hillary supporter criticize bernie, they do it because they hate the fact that he speaks his mind and they attack him because of his age. When in fact Hillary is not that much younger than he is.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Somehow bernie gets condescension.
Rilesome
(33 posts)What this party used to stand for.
HawkMode
(25 posts)1) NAFTA 1994
2) Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
3) Telecommunications Act of 1996
4) Welfare Reform 1996
5) Commodity Futures Modernization Act 2000
6) Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act(Glass-Steagall Act repeal) 2000
These are hardcore facts that came from the last Clinton. I can't in good conscience support another Clinton. I admit it's pretty sad because I'm a Democrat and haven't voted for another party but i'll vote for Jill Stein before i vote for Hillary. Clinton's administration was much more disastrous than Reagan's. It's pains me to say it but the Reagan years pushed Dem's to the right and now ALOT of us are trying to bring the party back to the FDR days.
I was also very soured on Hillary after the primary in 2008 and the smear jobs her campaign kept throwing out to the public. Expect the same smear job coming at Sanders any moment. However it may be harder to hit Sander's because he's white.
rivertext
(182 posts)re: "now ALOT of us are trying to bring the party back to the FDR days."
FDR is my hero, too. I know you don't want to push the party back to the lack of concern for civil rights of the Roosevelt years, the alliance with Southern racists, anymore than I do. I bring this up only to remind you that our hero was not an emblem of political purity, either.
We're witnessing a struggle between the politics of purity and the politics of purpose. Bernie is campaigning as an emblem of purity and Hillary is all purpose and plans. We saw in that recent NY interview how little Bernie has planned for some of the things he's been talking about.
Some people say Hillary won't effect change because of her wealth. It hasn't been the presidents from relative poverty, Bill Clinton and to a lesser extent Barack Obama that have taken on the power structure, but a president from a wealthy background, from an inner circle of privilege, FDR, that took on the rich.
The mafia helped elect Kennedy and he went after them as no president ever had. The power establishment treated Bill and Hillary like white trash who didn't belong in White House. I don't believe she has forgotten that.
I'm voting for Hillary, for the politics of purpose, for someone whose dream will be to make a difference in the fight to restore the ecological balance of this planet and the American middle class. She knows that will be her legacy or her failure.
I will campaign and vote for Bernie if he wins the nomination, I hope you will join me in voting to keep Trump or Cruz or Ryan out of the White House if Hillary wins.
Brian
Don't stick with the politics of purity and refuse to vote with the Democrats to keep Trump or Cruz out of the White House if Hillary wins the nomination
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Just when the wounds in my back have started to close up, I'm supposed to vote for another Clinton sharpening knives waiting to make deals with republicans? When Bill (and the rest of the Third Way democrats) make deals with republicans, it's the poorest, least powerful Americans that get a knife in the back.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But actually, the big banks should have been broken up during the process of negotiating the big settlements for wrongdoing like fixing the global interest rates, etc. That was the time to break up the big banks. Obama's administration missed the golden opportunity.
But knowing how crooked the banks are and to some extent that crookedness is due to their size, their unmanageable size, that opportunity to obtain commitments from the banks that they divest themselves of some of their assets will occur again. And then Bernie can downsize the banks and split them up.
These huge banks are, as some have noted, a security risk for our country.
Skittles
(172,130 posts)
riiiiiiiiiiiiight
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)have demanded that the banks divest certain of their assets.
It could have been done. It would have worked.
The alternative: dragging the banks into courtrooms.
When you see all the anger exhibited in both the Bernie and Trump and even Cruz campaigns among voters about the status quo of which the big banks are a major part, the banks would have had real problems had they been taken to court. And they know and knew that.
The banks should have been given a choice: divest and break yourselves up or face the wrath of the voters that will make up the juries in the cases against you.
The banks settled. That means they did not want to face what trials would have meant for them.
liberal from boston
(856 posts)Bernie does do his homework-- fact is he introduced the bill. The NY Times "Yes Bernie Sanders knows something about breaking up banks http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)but is an oligarchy supporting corporatist.
Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Guatemala, Honduras, Iraq
Fracking, TPP "the gold standard", NAFTA, "bring them to heel", "end welfare as we have come to know it"
153 million dollars in "speaking fees".
I'm asking Clinton supporters to reconsider their reasoning.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,709 posts)Its not even that Hillary supporters unjustifiably insult Bernie. Its that because they can find nothing to criticize the man himself, or his positions, they are reduced to insulting those who support Bernie. Its like a school yard for them. Bernie supporters only have to point out one of the ample and real worrisome positions that Hillary supports or has supported. We don't have to insult Hillary supporters themselves, school yard taunts is all they have. I almost don't blame them.
redkwamya
(17 posts)I would like to see the quote where she says that he is not qualified. The articles have titles that say that, but none of the text match the headline. She did call Bernie out for not knowing how to implement his big plans.
elmac
(4,642 posts)where Bernie flubbed some of the answers, HRC pounced on it to say Bernie isn't qualified, ready, or what ever to be president.
riversedge
(81,091 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)but in the end she did say Bernie wasn't qualified.
riversedge
(81,091 posts)went down the rabbit hole.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Actually..... he didn't. He just didn't give out sound bites.
beastie boy
(13,283 posts)but I don't hear Hillary saying anything about Bernie's qualifications
Rilesome
(33 posts)beastie boy
(13,283 posts)Sarah Palin? What are you doing on DU?
Please consider keeping your lamestream media conspiracy theories to Infowars. At least you have captive audience there.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Response to Rilesome (Reply #59)
Post removed
JoFerret
(10,710 posts)Where he couldn't even defend his own one big pet theory?
Did you actually read it - carefully?
BlueMTexpat
(15,697 posts)that he is not qualified.
Fair interpretation, perhaps, and it seems to have hit a nerve - likely because he realizes how true it is.
But for him to say outright that she is not - when she so clearly is - shows a lot of latent sexism coming to the fore, IMO.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Those would disqualify men as well. It is a shame that your sexism prevents you from confronting issues.
BlueMTexpat
(15,697 posts)he was referring?
Interestingly, Barack Obama also had SuperPACs. Does this mean that Obama was unqualified? LOL And Bernie's campaign is actually benefiting from KKKarl Rove's SuperPAC. KKKarl is hoping against hope that Bernie will beat Hillary in the primaries. (He won't.)
According to the gender poll that was circulating yesterday, I have no strong gender predilection for a leader. In this case, ONLY ONE candidate is qualified by any objective measure and that candidate is NOT Bernie.
This is Bernie's deflection for his own failure to answer the questions at the NY Daily News interview,.
Issues? Bernie talks the talk but does not have a clue how to walk the walk. He proved that in the interview.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)qualified to be president? Maybe she can cut a deal where if she drops out of the race she won't be prosecuted for using an unsecured server for secret communication. Tell me on which issues (I know, just a passing thought to her supporters, but humor me)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Hillary isn't qualified. She's got a list of government positions, sure. But she also has a trail of fiascoes and corruption. She's on the wrong side of all the big issues until she isn't. Then she has evolved or is "sorry".
joealexander
(14 posts)However, let's remember that Obama didn't vote to authorize the Iraq War. A point he reminded the American public over and over when he was losing the primary against Clinton. This was the "litmus test" for presidential judgment that ultimately lost her the last primary.
As a gen-Xer, I am always stunned by the ideology of the boomers. The generation that believed in peace and love--then traded it all in for yuppie lifestyles, coke-fueled hedge fund, anti-union, privatizing money worship.
Some people call it pragmatism, realism or experience. The boomers need to think back. What would their 20 or 30 year-old self call it? I'm certain it wouldn't be pragmatism, but selling out.
I would like to hear what your 20-30 year old self would say if they knew their future self was supporting a former Goldwater girl who was currently a personal friend (and admittedly modeled after) Kissinger?
What would you have said?
beastie boy
(13,283 posts)Anyone else left for Bernie to alienate in the Democratic Party?
riversedge
(81,091 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You do realize he wasn't referring to legal qualifications, right? He was offering an opinion on her suitability for the office.
And he's right...
Gore1FL
(22,962 posts)It's almost as if his entire candidacy is under fire, like in Tuzla, Bosnia.
JoFerret
(10,710 posts)Although he clearly is.
brer cat
(27,618 posts)I don't know if it is fatigue from the long campaign or the realization that it will soon be over and he lost, but he is slipping badly. The interview was terrible and now comments like this will just come back to haunt him.
BlueMTexpat
(15,697 posts)JoFerret
(10,710 posts)receptors for sexism or racism.
This last set of comments from him and the campaign are stunning examples of sexism, arrogance and male privilege.
Its astoundingly cloth-eared and foot-in-mouth of them.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Translation: "I have no way to argue that."
Buh-bye!
Rilesome
(33 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Guffaw!
No. Likely because it's a lie he "stumbled" or "doesn't know" what he's going to do. He clearly answered the questions sans sound bites. This whole "he's doesn't know what he's gonna do to break up the banks" meme hinges on you not knowing anything about Dodd-Frank or what the Fed is.
But "he doesn't know what he's doing" will be the lie Hillary shills will be bleating.
liberal from boston
(856 posts)I provided a link in my comment above to NY Times article defending Bernie interview NY Daily News---"Yes Bernie Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks". CNN gets owned Bernie Sanders break up banks: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017350819
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)She may not have said in so many words, but she did insinuate it.
redkwamya
(17 posts)Bernie is doing tremendous damage to the Democratic Party at this point. I would like to revoke his right to free ride any more. Go back to being Independent.
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)I do believe that the next two weeks may result in a new party being formed.
I say bring on the hate.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Still wish he hadn't said it, much as I dislike her.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Who is bringing in young people, and people who have not cared to vote into the Party?
It sure as shootin' is NOT Clinton.
Are you one of the new, third-way, neo-liberal capitalists, who think that the big corporations should have more of a voice than WE THE PEOPLE? If so, YOU and your candidate are the ones who damage the long standing values of the Party. Your people want to put Social Security on the table for cutbacks. You and your people endorse fracking. You and your people support bailouts for big banks, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies.
No, Bernie is not doing damage. Bernie wants to break up this corporatization of the Commons, and wants to do things that it is high time we did in the US.
Perhaps you would be better suited to the Republican Party, where they want a total corporate takeover of the country.
OH, and by the way, your insidious post has caused me to donate another fifty bucks to Bernie's campaign.
Omaha Steve
(109,476 posts)Nothing new here.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2016-213560
By PAUL STARR January 25, 2016
Snip: But as appealing as Sanders may be, he is not credible as president. Elizabeth Warren would have been a credible candidate, but Sanders isn’t. The campaign he has been waging is a symbolic one. For example, the proposals he has made for free college tuition and free, single-payer health care suggest what might be done if the United States underwent radical change. Those ideas would be excellent grist for a seminar. But they are not the proposals of a candidate who is serious about getting things done as president—or one who is serious about getting elected in the country we actually live in.
elmac
(4,642 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Obama, a Senator, didn't get a lot done he said he wanted to do when he was running.
riversedge
(81,091 posts)qualified (going over his interview). She only said--"Let me say this (went thru some comments Bernie had said in nydaily interview----then she said--Iwill leave it up to the voters. msnbc played the tape tonight.
Bernie lied on his stump speech tonight in Philly --and the crowd cheered
Andy823
(11,555 posts)From the Bernie camp. I am sure their will be an email going out asking for more money to help the victim, Bernie of course, fight all the "negative" things the other side is saying about him, even when the other side said no such thing. I think Bernie has finally gone over to the dark side, with the vast majority of his so called "supporters", the ones who can only post negative things about Clinton and not positive things about Bernie.
I really think his screw ups in the interview the other day has gotten him rattled.
riversedge
(81,091 posts)JoFerret
(10,710 posts)But i don't think Bernie ever makes a mistake so that probably won't happen.
elmac
(4,642 posts)as I don't agree with HRC saying the same about him. Politics is an ugly process and we are in for a lot more.
scottie55
(1,400 posts)Why not Hillary?
In fact Bush and Hillary were both wrong on lots, and lots of the same stuff.
Hate to say it....
Hydra
(14,459 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)She most certainly did not.
BellaLuna
(291 posts)it gets in the way of the insanity
NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)In the general election if he is the nominee. However, he's not going to win the nomination in my opinion.
elmac
(4,642 posts)his campaign manager today claims that HRC won't either and both will end up at the convention fighting for the supers.
Gothmog
(180,616 posts)
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)No...More...Clintons...in or near the White House....ever again.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
JoFerret
(10,710 posts)Women are getting above themselves. They are not qualified whatever they accomplish. We boys know what's best. Hillary is ambitious and that's not nice in a woman. And she is unqualified because she has done so much in the world. While I- Bernie Sanders - have done very little. But i am good at wagging my finger and I never make a mistake.
Response to elmac (Original post)
Post removed
elmac
(4,642 posts)but the voters will tell a different story.
beastie boy
(13,283 posts)I just read this on DU.
And the voters have not been telling a different story. We have yet to see how the voters will respond to this outrage.
Gothmog
(180,616 posts)This is going to get nasty.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Without a lot of research, it appears that either she implied it or some "journalist" said she implied or said it. Whether it was baiting or not from her campaign I do not know, although I wouldn't be surprised. But I wish he hadn't put it that way.
elmac
(4,642 posts)I understand his frustration with HRC, DNC talking points but he could have made his point in a different way.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)But I feel "not qualified" is a phrase that should not be used in a primary. Unless *she* actually said it, which I don't think she did, quite.....
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)I don't think she's qualified... experience alone doesn't qualify you... if you show bad judgement over and over and over, and huge chunks of your own party see you as dishonest and say they'd never ever vote for you, that should be disqualifying... it is to me.
86derps
(44 posts)Hillary is only qualified to represent the 1%. She lies about representing the American people but she isn't qualified too. She hasn't in her career. Its only lip service.
Bernie has been representing progressives and the people for 40 freaking years.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)No she isn't and you just don't go there. And, he was either misinformed orbits out and out lying about what Clinton said about him. He should show some integrity and apologize.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)He will never have it now.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)people
(845 posts)Bernie apparently was responding to a Washington Post article from today titled "Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president." Here's the link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/
I agree, though, he definitely shouldn't have said that. It won't help him and won't help her that he said that. There's no plus for him to go there, no matter how defensive he may feel after the NY Daily News article and her tweet about Sandy Hook. I've seen her really angry when asked questions but him saying that about her sounds very defensive. He's got to resist going there.
roamer65
(37,965 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)its all over the news networks. Are we to bury our heads in the sand this early in the race?
riversedge
(81,091 posts)of How he would implement them. Plus he has taken millions and millions from his donors. Now what does he do?? He starts a lie. Not good.
elmac
(4,642 posts)for their own reasons. HRC will use his statement to her advantage, with the help of corporate media, so don't feel too bad about it.
Response to riversedge (Reply #57)
Name removed Message auto-removed
texasleo
(11,298 posts)
SunSeeker
(58,333 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)this crappy rhetoric is beneath the future POTUS.
When the campaigns started, I said the Democrats were the only adults in the room.
That is still true. The DEMOCRATS are the only adults in the room.
elmac
(4,642 posts)of being spoon fed by the corporate elites.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)and any DEMOCRAT would know that.
This has NOTHING to do with Sanders platform. This is a direct insult.
I hope a DEMOCRAT runs against his INDEPENDENT ass in Vermont, so I can donate money to the DEMOCRAT.
jane123
(34 posts)"Hillary Clinton says Bernie Sanders in not qualified to be President"
riversedge
(81,091 posts)innuendoes by that that reporter
Atticus
(15,124 posts)For years, we've piously maintained that we were the "fact-based" party. Republicans simply made shit up, called the shit "facts", and shamelessly shoveled these "facts" out to anyone who questioned them.
When they needed a reason to start a war, they made up "WMDs".
When they wanted to pay off their corporate donors with lower pollution standards, they passed the "Clean Air Act".
We used to criticize this bullshit, but that will be difficult now.
When a bitter in-over-his-head old man--- who claims to be a Democrat---feels the need to desperately lash out at the party's front-runner, many of us apparently think it is OK if he "justifies" it with a lie.
Hillary Clinton not only did not say that Bernie Sanders is "unqualified to be president", she refused to be baited into saying it when Joe Scarborough tried three times to put those words in her mouth. Bernie's statement that she "quote/unquote" said that is pure unadulterated BULLSHIT, people! It was a childish attempt to justify repeatedly calling her "unqualified" on national TV. I am sure the Roves and Kochs of this world are lifting a glass to him this evening.
And, since this Trump-esque attack has met with so much approval on this board, let's just drop this whole "Democratic" Underground crap and see if we can merge with that site which shall not be named.
elmac
(4,642 posts)That can be said for the Bush wars as well as political wars.
riversedge
(81,091 posts)was not qualified. But in all instance she did not. Joe has the responsibility to say this on his show today but I will not hold my breath.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Finally!
fbc
(1,668 posts)Pauldg47
(644 posts).....to much trouble w ....
. Iraq
. Putin concerning Poland and missiles
. Libya
. Iran
. Central America
. Now Panama
. And on and on
She's a disaster!!!
Beartracks
(14,620 posts)"Today on the campaign trail, a Presidential candidate claimed that they would be a better choice than their rival. Supporters cry foul at this wholly unexpected turn of events. Film at 11!"
=======================
Whimsey
(236 posts)My take is that Bernie is the Democratic Trump. No one took him seriously, he promised to not go negative, and so his record was not vetted. Oh, and the democrats were worried about not alienating his supporters.
My conclusion is that Bernie is like every other politician - says what works for him personally and does what works for him personally. He could care less about the democratic party. Oh, did I mention he is a socialist first? Look up the difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist.
Thank you DU for providing him and his followers with a "safe haven" so they could denigrate Hillary with impunity. The one policy wonk we have in the whole election and this site has allowed her to be savaged.
As a middle aged, democratic woman, I will vote for Hillary before I vote for Sanders and I will vote for Trump before I vote for Sanders or Cruz (they are the same on opposite ends of the spectrum in my mind). At least I know Trump is a moderate. I have three best friends from college, all democratic and all of us who worked our way through school in the seventies when the economy was tanking, taking out loans along the way, got post-graduate degrees which we paid for, who worked hard and saved, and who are really tired of being characterized as being rich by Bernie Sanders - who made his big incomes in government no less! - and as the enemy. (And yes, we went to state schools and all of our husbands whom we met in our state school are similar except more conservative and we have all been married over 30 years).
As Bernie supporters vet his elect-ability, do not just vet him among white males - we know who they will vote for, but among my generation. He will lose as long as the republicans nominate a moderate, and perhaps even if they nominate Cruz. I know I will write in Hillary in that event. But then, Bernie supporters do not care about the democratic party anymore than Bernie does!
I hope the everyone on this site looks back at the history of the democratic party over the past seventy years when it nominated an extreme leftist. And god knows I lived through some of it and was sorely disappointed with the outcomes. But I know I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, and the latter includes having the funds to pay for your policies. And you have to have the Congress to do that. How many socialists do we have in Congress?
For my 60th birthday, a friend gave me a book on Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Notorious RBG. As an attorney who graduated in 1981, I appreciated her struggles of the 50-60s as I do Hillary's of the 60-70's. My struggles were nothing compared to theirs! Every year things are my equitable, but not equal. It is too bad young women still equate their sexuality with their intellect. (And if you are under forty you will understand that when you are fifty).
Right now, I am just a disillusioned democrat who knows that the democratic party will give anything to a man before they give it to a woman and that will not change in my lifetime. Might as well just vote my economic interest like everyone else does - that would be republican.
mac56
(17,824 posts)Well. You just go and do that.
Looks like you are already planning on it, with those compliments about Drumpf.
ThinkCritically
(241 posts)....as well as her communications director.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democrats-unity/index.html
riversedge
(81,091 posts)Sanders and Hillary surrogates. Neither of them spoke of qualifications. I listened to the full video
In the article you source--it was the reporter who used that word:
Yes, Reynolds questioned Sanders policies or lack of them --and/or his lack of a plan to get them done if elected--but she did not use those words--I was the author of the article who in inserted that word.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democrats-unity/index.html
"By Jeff Zeleny, Senior Washington Correspondent
Updated 3:19 PM ET, Wed April 6, 2016
.............The campaign's deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, argued that Sanders is unqualified, sending a full transcript of a New York Daily News editorial board interview of Sanders.
"We've said for a long time that this primary is about who's really going to be able to get things done. And from reading this interview, you get the impression Senator Sanders hasn't thought very much about that," Reynolds wrote. "In fact, even on his signature issue of breaking up the banks, he's unable to answer basic questions about how he'd go about doing it, and even seems uncertain whether a president does or doesn't already have that authority under existing law."
JoFerret
(10,710 posts)First he lies that Hillary said he was unqualified. (She didn't even when baited by the press.)
And now he says this.
Preposterous.
JustAnotherGen
(38,074 posts)Have the right to disagree with Senator Sanders.
Omaha Steve
(109,476 posts)Please repost in GD-P.
Statement of Purpose
Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.