Sanders walks back Planned Parenthood, Clinton ‘establishment’ comments

[seabeyond]

The clarification comes after Sanders responded to a question from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow earlier this week about why so many progressive groups – including Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the Human Rights Campaign – were backing Clinton over him.

“We’re taking on not only Wall Street and economic establishment, we’re taking on the political establishment,” Sanders said. “So, I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund and Planned Parenthood. But, you know what? Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time. Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment.”

Clinton has been criticizing Sanders’ comments in recent days, pointing out that the identified groups are focused on fighting for rights of women and the LGBT community.

“I don’t really understand what he means by that. These are two of the really great human rights, progressive organizations in our country,” Clinton told CNN on Thursday afternoon.

She also tried to pin the “establishment” label on Sanders. ”I just don’t understand what that means. He’s been in Congress, he’s been elected to office a lot longer than I have,” she said.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-walks-back-planned-parenthood-clinton-establishment-comments

Sanders backpedals, and all that were trying to make excuses for Sanders attack on PP and HRC was wrong.

[Thinkingabout]

1. It was an overreach for sure, good to see the walkback against two

Groups who are more concerned about others.

[NCTraveler]

2. He can't walk them back.

It simply isn't possible. The relentless attacks on an organization I am extremely proud to support has happened and is continuing. Sanders personally gave his supporters the green light. That is one hundred percent on him. As he tries to walk it back, I'm informing people of the truth of his actions.

[seabeyond]

3. No, he can't. His instinct was to attack PP. That tells us everything. Nt.

[NCTraveler]

4. And you just hit the head of the nail.

It was his natural instinct.

[Armstead]

26. Never explain, never own up to misstatments

Sanders talks like an actual human being. I guess you don't like candidates who actually will retract overstatements. Instead you prefer pre-programmed soundbites and pretensions of infallibility.

[seabeyond]

29. Overstatements? So, it is ok attacking the President of PP. That is not an "overstatement"?

[synergie]

66. To be fair, that's the pre-programmed soundbytes and delusions of infallibility

of his supporters who can't admit they're wrong, no matter how one set of spin runs counter to the next.

Remember how "that's not what he said" turned into, but he's sooooo right, and how the numerous threads crowed gleefully about how their petulant 'backlash' was hurting PP?

[MoonRiver]

59. Agree.

Bernie is a total politician. Support him or under the bus you go.

[baldguy]

5. The accusation was absurd & unsustainable.

The idea that these groups (which the RW makes subject to 2nd-class citizen status, along with violence & death threats) are part of "the establishment" - and that being "the establishment" is somehow a bad thing - is delusional.

Just as the idea that a guy that's been in Washington for 25 yrs and in politics for 40 yrs isn't part of "the establishment" is delusional.


In reality, an establishment progressive like Sanders should be continually working his tail off to make HRC and PP part of the establishment, too. The fact that they didn't endorse him speaks volumes.

[seabeyond]

7. Sanders dropped the ball, again, for PP. Excellent post. Especially this:

In reality, an establishment progressive like Sanders should be continually working his tail off to make HRC and PP part of the establishment, too. The fact that they didn't endorse him speaks volumes.

It is that simple.

[Orsino]

19. No, the attack was justified. Clinton is definitely the establishment candidate.

But Sanders goofed by calling out the whole organization. He isn't quite an outsider, either.

[seabeyond]

22. 25 years in congress makes him establishment also. I have no issue with it, but to use it as an

attack against our Dems and progressive orgs is a pretty damn silly.

There was nothing right in what he did attacking PP. There was nothing that excuses could nullfiy that "goof".

[Orsino]

28. Yep. Call out the leadership's actions...

...but leave room for kissing and making up later. Tarring the entire organization isn't so very different from desperate, bullying Republican tactics.

[hobbit709]

6. That makes number 3 so far today.

[seabeyond]

8. How many OPs were making excuses for Sanders? We should have at least 2x's more clarifying

Sanders backpedaled, in defense/protection of our progressive organizations.

[hobbit709]

10. Funny how all the ones from the HRC camp use identical wording.

3 today, 1 last night.

The problem here is that the organizations are not criticized, it's the so-called leadership.

[seabeyond]

12. Ya, cause the leadership, President of PP has not been fielding shit attacks from RW

for years. She is ALL about the "establishment". The reality is, that attack does not fly either in the defense of organizations that are fighting to save women's lives.

Talk about using particular words. Now we are suppose to get on board attacking the President of PP. Not gonna happen. Not one iota of anything but defense and protection for all this woman does, for all us women.

Funny that, right?

[hobbit709]

13. same old rinse and repeat from you.

[seabeyond]

17. Yes, defending women and their lives. I get it is tiring for some of our Democrats on DU.

And still, when someone attacks women, especially a Democratic candidate running in our primary, I will consistently defend women and our lives.

[bigtree]

21. several

...each one making excuses for this outrageous assault on these progressive organizations.

You won't see any backpedaling from supporters, because they see no harm done as long as it elevates their candidate's political position. Disgusting that it's progressive institutions that are the first victims of his revolution. He has no idea at all how to divide his rhetoric between the HRC and Planned Parenthood he opposes, and the HRC and Planned Parenthood he says are his 'friends'. He's taken a meat cleaver to them and now wants to separate out parts he claims to support.

Pathetic politics, all over his pique at not having been chosen.

[seabeyond]

24. Now they got the OK to attack the President of PP from Sanders. Isn't that special. How is that

any better? That woman has had RW attacks and now our Democratic candidates are allowed to attack her? No! That simple. Attacking her is not O.K.

[seaglass]

33. That really was it. He acted liked a spoiled brat because these orgs did not bow down to his

greatness.

PP was very clear that both Bernie and Hillary were good on their issues but Hillary was better because she was a leader while Bernie was a supporter. Seems like an easy choice to me.

[mcar]

9. K&R

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Since this basic OP topic is being reposted repeatedly

I will repost (with minor changes) what I wrote in another of these copy cat threads:

It was a spot on clarification

Yes, Sander's spontaneous reply to a question left him vulnerable to an attack by Hillary, and to a lesser extent from some supporters of the organizations in question. I have no problem with use of the term "walk back" here (any claim of a Sanders "flip flop" though is plain stupid). The ability to "walk back" an imperfectly stated comment is an important political skill. In the course of a year long campaign in today's 24/7 media environment every candidate sometimes needs another swing at the pitch.

Sanders did an excellent job of clean up here. He managed to pivot the bulk of attention to his own voting record on the issues, while making a clear strong statement in support of the work these organizations do. He gently reinforced his actual intended message also - that many members of these organizations do not understand why they should oppose someone in a primary who has a 100% voting record in favor of them - with that decision made by a handful of leaders only. He improved upon his initial statement and was able to drive the narrative where he always intended it to go.

I think this underscore's Sander's ability to not get thrown off of his message. As he has often said, backed up by history, opponents always underestimate him.

[seabeyond]

14. Since Sanders supporters repeatedly complain about repost, I will restate this OP needs to be

repeated at least 2x's more than the OPs that defended Sanders statement attacking PP and HRC.

[JTFrog]

15. Too late. Especially after seeing his "supporters" trash PP and threaten to withhold donations.

Pathetic.

[Iliyah]

16. Didn't you know, only BS' supporters are entilted to post

unlimited threads on the same topic.

[seabeyond]

18. It seems to be the center issue, along with me constantly defending the lives of our women. My bad,

from what I am told.

[bigtree]

20. that's pretty mealy-mouthed

...he needs to just stop. The damage is already done, and this doesn't do a thing to repair it. I don't really think he's capable of caring beyond his political positioning.

He's already alienated many people from these worthy, progressive organizations. This is just twisting the knife. He has no business piling on these organizations just because he didn't get their endorsement. Here he's making shit up with no specifics and proof at all of what he's saying - basically inviting demagogues to join in.

What does he think all of this bashing will result in? It's reckless rhetoric, counterproductive to the issues he says he cares about. NOTHING positive will result from this epic pout of his.

[seabeyond]

25. basically inviting demagogues to join in.

Exactly. Take a look at this thread as they now direct their aim at one woman running the org instead of all woman. Doesn't make it better.

[Armstead]

23. You mistake straight talk with "backpedaling"

I guess you're used to candidates who never actually own up to statements, and acknowledge when they said something that was not what they meant.

[seabeyond]

27. He needs to keep on owning, or backpedaling because attacking the President of PP is no better.

I stand with her.

[lunamagica]

30. Spin, spin, spin

First he says:

“We’re taking on not only Wall Street and economic establishment, we’re taking on the political establishment,” Sanders said."
Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment.”

Later it changes to:

Pressed on whether he views the groups as “establishment,” Sanders said: “No. They aren’t. They’re standing up and fighting the important fights that have to be fought.”

The backpedaling is crystal clear!

[seabeyond]

31. "we’re taking on the political establishment,” We should be hearing him call himself out, and I am

not hearing that conversation.

It is not ok to be attacking the President of PP, so even his backpedaling is not cutting it. I am not gonna allow some man to attack this woman, just like I would not if it was the RW'ers attacking her. Bullshit. She is there for us. I am going to have her back.

[lunamagica]

32. He should have just stood by his comment

after all, that's the kind of man he is supposed to be, uh?

But the backlash was too much to take.

So he responded like a career, establishment politician (which he is, and has been for decades)

[seabeyond]

34. Yes, a mere politician. Nt.

[Hiraeth]

40. a mere politician ... as is Hillary.

[seabeyond]

44. I have never argued otherwise.

[Hiraeth]

45. I never said you did but, at this juncture of this thread, it bears repeating.

[seabeyond]

48. It seems to be a given in regards to Clinton. Sanders, the "anti establishment" seems to be running

on not being a politician. So, I do not agree that it needed to be said, though saying it is not an insult as far as I am concened, either. For Sanders or Clinton. It is their profession they willingly stepped into and have been participating in for like.... Decades.

[hollysmom]

35. I don't think it was a back pedal. like no one ever issued a clarification before?

good to know we are all so perfect. Trust me I have heard far worse from other people in this election.

[seabeyond]

36. Nor was it so "perfect" leaving the attack at one individual woman, the President of PP either.

How is that any better attacking the woman that is continually attacked by the rw? How is it any better not standing up for this woman that stands in front of this org, that saves women's lives.

[hollysmom]

37. what are you talking about?

ETA
he did not name names, but talked about leadership

[seabeyond]

38. Who is the leadership but the President of PP? The buck stops with her and Sanders chose to attack

her. That is not ok with me.

[hollysmom]

39. I have great respect for Ms Richards, but she and Clinton have been friends for a long time

which is also fine, still was a vote taken inPP won who to back or was it just the support of one person? I have not yet read far enough.
granted a lot of support is due to long time friendship and we should acknowledge as much.

By the way and way off topic, nothing is funnier than looking at Sen Dole's reaction when asked if he supported Cruz., that would be the result of a long time not a friendship.

Still I contend it did not sound to me as an insult to Cecile Richards.

[seabeyond]

41. It sounded very much like an attack to a lot of us. It sounded enough like an attack,

Sanders stepped away from it an attack on the whole organization, to just the specific people that are in leadership roles.

I respect the woman, too. She has had to deal with more than enough false attacks and this is just one more. By our Democratic candidate no less. She should at the very least, be free of attack from fellow Dems. And I will be one that stands with her.

[hollysmom]

42. I disagree - mountain meet molehill.

[seabeyond]

46. I do see it as a mountain, and I am bothered that so many see an attack on PP or the President

of PP as a molehill. At the least, you see it as a molehill. Many do not see an attack on the woman as a problem at all, but a yummy campaign strategy.

[hollysmom]

54. I do not see this as an attack do not put words in someone else's (my) mouth

I find that by far a worse offense to deliberately misstate what someone, in this case me, said.

[seabeyond]

62. You said mountain out of a mole hill. So, you are one that do not even see it as a molehill.

That is not putting words into your mouth. That is reading what you are saying, and replying. Now I read you did not me to suggest there is even a molehill. And here I am acknowledging that I am reading the very words you give.

We differ on opinion. Sounds like an attack to me. Sounds like an attack to many. Hence, his backpedaling.

[hollysmom]

87. mountain would be attack -which did not happen - molehill said something people DELIBERATELY

misinterpreted - maybe the real problem is that people are desperate enough to lie about things because they can't make an argument on it;s merit.

FYI here is your logical error
if A-B and B=C there for A=C only works if A really does = B and in this case it does not. I don't care who people support, heck I have friends supporting the Donald - they watch FOX - surprise and we don't get into these kind of discussions. at some point you have to respect that you have a difference of opinion with someone, you are not going to change their minds. We know we disagree, and we accept that, I don't understand why you have to insist that I said something I did not say! I need to talk to you on a psychology thread about this - we obviously have different opinions on how to be friends and disagree with out fighting to the death. I was going to stop discussing this with you, obviously we will never agree, but you keep putting words into my post and I cannot allow you to say I posted something I did not post. I never said it was an attack,I will never believe it was an attack IT was not an attack no matter how many million times you post it. AAARRRGGGHHHHHHH I will not try and kick the foot ball if you hold it, Lucy!!!!

[seabeyond]

89. The insult was pretty clear. So I hardly get where you are coming from. Nt.

[stillwaiting]

43. She made a horrible decision, and there was fallout from it.

PP had never endorsed in a primary before.

Bernie has a 100% rating with PP. What she did was stupid, and I will STRONGLY defend Planned Parenthood as an organization even as I criticize her stupid political decision. She stepped in to the middle of a political battle where everyone was an ally. Like I said, Stupid.

[seabeyond]

47. They have the same right to endorse as has many orgs and individuals. Political and otherwise.

A few have voiced their support of Sanders, and we applaud. Many Clinton and she gets the applause for her endorsement. It is that simple.

I stand with PP and the President of PP regardless who she supports. I do not attack PP as RW are there to do the never ending job as a hit party with false attacks.

[stillwaiting]

49. They strayed from their tradition and there was fallout.

It should have been entirely predictable, and it probably was.

I believe a political decision was made to support Hillary, and they knew in advance how they were going to play the fallout (which considering the facts would have been known ahead of time). I have no doubt that Hillary pushed for Planned Parenthood to endorse during the Primary (something that PP had never done before), and certainly Hillary would have been smart enough to realize there would be a strong reaction since PP had never done this before. As always, Hillary seems to only care about her own ambitions. It's a damn shame that she probably instigated this in the first place.

If Bernie didn't have a 100% rating with PP there may be something to this attack against him. Almost everyone (that isn't a huge Hillary partisan) can see that Bernie is a very strong ally for Planned Parenthood. This attack is just not going to work.

[seabeyond]

50. A Democratic candidate attacking PP should not ever be predictable, especially PP

that endures attack from men and RW. They should have support without question.

[stillwaiting]

51. The problem is that very few Democrats are going to believe Bernie attacked PP.

Keep trying though! I do feel sorry for y'all. You don't have much to work with. When you attack Sanders legitimately it always feels like a Republican is attacking him. So, you go with:

1. Bernie ATTACKED PP.

Reality: Bernie has a 100% rating with Planned Parenthood and strongly supports them.

2. Bernie LOVES the NRA

Reality: Bernie has never received a penny from the NRA; his rating with the NRA: D-

Reality is going to get in the way of these lame and disingenuous attacks against Bernie. They are spin, and most of us see that. As I said, you almost have to feel sorry for Clinton supporters. There's just no good way to attack Bernie, but I'm sure y'all will keep on trying!

P.S. You really need to find new material to work with. This isn't going to help. At all.

[seabeyond]

52. I disagree with your conclusion. Nt

[stillwaiting]

53. Oh REALLY. I am truly shocked. nt

[lunamagica]

57. And why do you think he backtracked?

Because he couldn't take the heat from Democrats who were outraged for the attack on PP.

And as for your point #2 Sanders voted five times against the Brady Bill. There is a reason the mothers of Jordan Davis, Trayvon Martin,and Eric Garner endorsed Hillary.

That's reality

[stillwaiting]

60. He didn't backtrack. He clarified. No one really believes he ATTACKED Planned Parenthood.

He's always been a very strong supporter of PP.

Mr. 100% rating in fact. Your argument is weak. It is cellophane.

I do feel sorry that this is all you have to work with though.

100% PP.
D- NRA

Bernie is for STRONG reforms pertaining to gun control in this country. But, you know that. I agree fully with what Bernie proposes on gun reform, and more importantly I TRUST HIM to do what he says.

You don't have much to work with unfortunately. Even if you keep looking you're not going to find much. I do feel sorry for you. Bernie is a very strong candidate.

[lunamagica]

61. Don't feel sorry for me! Hillary will win the primaries and the GE!

I feel pretty confident about that

[Matariki]

79. Exactly. Cecile Richards should have said that Cecile Richards endorses Clinton

NOT used her position to make an organization-wide endorsement.

Clearly she has a conflict of interests in this. Had she made the endorsement on her own behalf it would have meant something - without any of the backlash.

[seabeyond]

82. I disagree adn this is now sounding like it is all about simply dismissing PP. Not good enough.

[Matariki]

85. How in the world do you think that it's dismissing PP?

I think you are seeing through agenda colored glasses Seabeyond.

Cecile Richards CLEARLY has a conflict of interests. For that reason alone she should not have endorsed either candidate in Planned Parenthood's name.

The tremendous backlash against her action, coming from Planned Parenthood supporters, speaks volumes to that.

[seabeyond]

90. Clearly? What about the rose color? Do tell how PP came up with their endorsement, and who

participated. It is a whole lot of nothing because a Democratic org did not give it to Sanders. Every single endorsement of Clinton's (and there have been many to give us plenty of examples) have been thrown under the bus. This is simply one more. It is pathetic.

[Matariki]

98. It's pathetic for sure.

[Matariki]

78. You mean Cecile Richards - whose daughter works for Clinton?

Did Planned Parenthood ask their members and supporters who to endorse? Do they normally make endorsements? Especially when BOTH candidates are essentially the same on issues supporting Planned Parenthood and women's reproductive health.

The answer is NO on both accounts. So this was just a cozy little bit of nepotism. Or is the word cronyism?

[stevil]

55. He tried to boost his street cred at the expense of PP.

That is totally fucking unacceptable. Especially when they are are about to begin the fight for the life of the organization.

[synergie]

68. His supporters don't much care, liberal and Democratic causes don't much

matter to many of them, as they keep telling us.

[seabeyond]

72. This. That a single man is worth more than all of our progressive organizations saving lives. Nt.

[Matariki]

81. Even if it were true - how does the word 'establishment' hurt them?

Cecile Richards should have made the endorsement for her friend, and employer of her daughter, in her own name. Which is clearly what Sanders was referring to. But even still, how in the world is the word 'establishment' harmful to Planned Parenthood.

I'd love to hear your explanation of how that word would possibly hurt them.

[seabeyond]

91. You, being Sanders supporters know exactly how it is suppose to hurt. Why the game?

[stevil]

94. Oh I don't know....

Maybe being attacked on social media, people withholding donations, supposed allies vowing to never support them again, all in the name of the Bernie Sanders Campaign protecting its own brand. It wasn't so much the word, it was the graceless handling of Bernie not getting the nomination. Otherizing PP caused a backlash against them. Quite a few of them happened to be popular posters on progressive websites/blogs/message boards.

Hope you loved it.

[Matariki]

97. People were rightfully angry that Cecile Richards put her PERSONAL politics before her organization

People were mad and lashing out. Planned Parenthood is a good organization and they will survive.

[stevil]

100. Oh, people were mad that Bernie didn't get the endorsement....

I guess that it made it ok to trash PP. It was an unpresidential response by a campaign that is supposed to be bigger than that. Simple. PP's response to the campaigns tantrum was the classy one.

[Matariki]

102. I'm sure his supporters would have been happy to get an endorsement from them

but it would have been inappropriate in my opinion. All three candidates are strong on reproductive rights and women's health.

I understand that Clinton supporters aren't going to admit to a conflict of interests for Cecile Richards, but that's what it was pure and simple.

I'm sure it seems like a great thing to jump on and try and smear Sanders but it's phony as all get out and *will* backfire.

[stevil]

103. We'll agree to disagree

.

[William769]

56. When a campaign is stuck in a rut like the Sanders campaign.

He did what he thought he had to do. Well it blew up in his face hence the backpedalling. Says a lot about what this man will do to win, not do what's right.

[SheenaR]

63. With all the respect possible

Says a lot about what this man will do to win

I get supporting a candidate. And we are all paying attention to what does on.... Do you really believe this statement? Considering the attacks coming from the HRC camp over the last week. Attacks that many pundits have come out and said were baseless? Both campaigns are hitting below the belt. But come on. Especially when HRC will literally do and say (and has in 2008 and 2016) anything possible in the moment for votes.

[William769]

64. Attacks from the Sanders suppoters have been much much worse.

Seems like they can dish it out but they can't take it. Guess what? That's not my problem.

[SheenaR]

67. No it isn't your problem

But your comment was NOT about supporters! It was about the candidate. And that is what I addressed and I'm sorry if I didn't make that clearer

[bkkyosemite]

58. He didn't walk back anything. When the top dogs of those orgs. endorse

they are but a few that represent the whole org and endorse Hillary. But when the members of the orgs vote the endorsement goes to Bernie. Simple and that is what he meant and that is really what he said.

[SheenaR]

65. When I saw the original headlines

I thought he said something catastrophic about PP. I don't think he walked back today either. I think he clarified because it was needed. It scored points to make it seem like he was attacking what PP stands for, but I thought it was pretty clear from Day 1 he was addressing the heads of such organizations who benefit from donations that could be seen as "establishment". Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I'm open to reason.

[bkkyosemite]

69. You are reading it right.

[Sheepshank]

70. of course he walks it back

just like he walked back so many other comments he gets called on. BLM, PP, Immunity for firearms mfg, and the continued walk back on his behalf of all off his surragates his hatred for the Dem party, his attempt to dismantle healthcare, his "concern" for womens' health issues, his assumption of women's gang rape fantasies.

He has one fiscal issue on that he focuses on, and assumed that it takes care of everything else...oh, and BTW that has been walked back too.

[hobbit709]

71. See what happens when you spin too fast.

[seabeyond]

73. "See what happens when you spin too fast." You backpedal. Sanders just showed us how.

[hobbit709]

74. I hear the whining noise of hot bearings.

[Fearless]

75. Simply false. He did nothing of the sort.

Unless you call refocusing the media's focus on ISSUES "backpedaling".

[Thinkingabout]

76. Which statement is true?

[Matariki]

77. I thought it was pretty clear what he meant in the first place

given that Planned Parenthood's President's daughter works for the Clinton campaign.

I took what he said to refer to management of those organizations, rather than the members or organization themselves.

I know Clinton supporters are going to keep throwing proverbial spaghetti and hope something sticks. I doubt you're going to have much luck with 'backpedaling'.

[seabeyond]

83. He also dissed HRC with the same accusation. I get we want to now dismiss PP, but HRC

had the same insult.

[Matariki]

80. Nitpicking over shit like this just reeks of desperation

we should be discussing ISSUES. Things that will actually impact our lives and the world. Climate change. Perpetual war. Banking regulations. Universal Healthcare.

Fighting over the word 'establishment' is desperate, doesn't serve the voters, and is just pathetic.

[seabeyond]

84. Ya, see. We women and PP saving women's lives is actually an "issue".

[Matariki]

86. I'M A WOMAN, as you well know. And this is bullshit.

This is NOT about Planned Parenthood or their ability to save women's lives and you know that.

This is a very petty political ploy.

[seabeyond]

92. It is exactly about PP and HRC. Maybe you do not want it to be. It is EXACTLY about PP and HRC.

[wildeyed]

96. A candidate who os running for leader of the free world

as a progressive freely attacking interest groups who represent women's choice and LGBT rights as "establishment" is an issue to me. It speaks to his leadership skills and ability to construct and manage coalitions.

[aikoaiko]

88. Bernie is awesome. Thank you for sharing.

Friends of Hill are friends of Hill, but Planned Parenthood is a long time good thing for women and men.

[seabeyond]

93. Yes, they are.

[Gothmog]

95. What was Sanders thinking when he made the original comment?

[wildeyed]

99. Ego.

He forgot that the entire world does not consist of his political dilettantes and their echo chamber.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. Another one!

Obviously, Hillary cannot run on the issues.