happened to progressives and took the money.

... except for the part where she tries to say that Bernie never called Hillary unqualified.

the same thing

These are Bernie's words:

"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. I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super-PAC. I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you are qualified if you have supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs. I don’t think you are qualified if you’ve supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed and, which as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy all over the world people to avoid paying their taxes to their countries."

He clearly said he doesn't think Hillary is qualified, if you understand logic.

A --> B
A
----
B

It's a simple construction. He says if these conditions are true, you aren't qualified. He says in every speech he gives that Hillary meets all those conditions. Therefore, logic proves that he did in fact say Hillary is unqualified.

everything he stated is true

and he didn't even bring up her support of the private for profit prison industry, which is despicable

on every major issue bernie is on the right side of history while hc will not even accept medical mj

treats other people like shit (check)

It's just I had seen other formulations of his speech where it seemed to be posed as more of a question by him.

"I would consider SOMEONE unqualified IF they advocated <state their position here>."

Bernie can play the indirect game even better than Hillary - and Hillary FORCED him to play it.

well done.

Can't Bernie and his supporters take responsibility for anything he says and does?

fight back against her own weasely, indirect, double messages of being unqualified.

He simply did the same back, and boy does that piss of the Queen and her subjects.

It did sound to me like he was saying HRC was unqualified to be president. I was surprised when I heard others saying no, because that's what I heard. I wasn't listening really closely, was getting dressed at the time, but still what I saw and heard was him saying she's unqualified. I think that was a mistake, but not a disqualifying one. No one, not even Bernie, is perfect. We all misspeak from time to time and that's what that sounded like to me.

There were so many other questions she could have asked Ms Sanders. Jane is an interesting person in her own right and Rachel looked rather amateurish in her interview approach.

I have been severely disappointed with Rachel lately. She seems to be a Trump commentator most of the time. When she does wonders over to the Democratic side of things, she is usually pushing the status quo.

Cracked me up. I was surprised, frankly, that she was needing to put Jane in a box. Asked her how she fit into the campaign and admitted she needed a title or place for Jane to fit. Poor prep by someone. Jane is an interesting person with life experience -- president of two different colleges. She has been a political wife sort of forever. Jane is a smart gracious lady.

Yes, trump trump trump and clinton clinton clinton. I stopped watching. Saw a clip on the interview on my computer.

i remember hc stating she was qualified, john mccain was qualified, she wasn't so sure about obama being qualified

hc's campaign ANNOUNCED their new strategy was to disqualify and defeat bernie, then when they place the artful smear into the msm and bernie responds....hc's supporters are all SURPRISED

bernie was correct...looking at hc's history, her lack of judgement does make her unqualified to serve

between 500,000 and a million people are currently losing their food stamps this month because of the clinton's "welfare reform"

horrid policy takes years sometimes to see the unintended consequences and the clintons NEVER seem to be able to see the damage they do

i get so tired of hearing bernie and hc are so similar in their goals when they are miles apart

She talked often about her and McCain having a "lifetime of experience" whereas Obama had just one speech (at the 2004 Dem Convention) ... if that doesn't say that in her opinion he (Obama) isn't qualified, I don't know what does. The differences in 2008 vs today are that her campaign spokespeople didn't make the mistake of coming out and saying that their goal was to disqualify Obama (though it actually was even in 2008), and the press didn't report her statement as saying she thought Obama was unqualified (as they did this time in 2016 re: Bernie).

The Clinton's are scheming, self-obsessed Machiavellians -- and Bernie didn't let her get away with it this time. Good on Bernie. He gets the truth out.

The shocking thing in all of this is that the Clinton's have not learned a thing from 2008 except that they needed to foster loyalty to her among black voters in the interim between then and her 2016 run -- that demographic was what Obama beat her on in 2008 and they weren't going to let that happen again.

Rachel never met a topic that she couldn't stretch out and beat to death on her way to making a point. She must think being long winded is amusing and that the audience is hanging on every word, when, in fact, it's irritating as hell.

I don't know in what though.

after awarding that degree, and then stopped awarding PhD's in her field.

And she has one job as a college Provost (not President) that she held for a year and a half, followed by a job of President at Burlington College, that she was forced to leave after she applied for millions in loans for a real estate purchase, while claiming to have security that they didn't have (she reported a million dollar future bequest as a multiple year ongoing donation.)

A Trustee at the college said that in deciding to hire her they were influenced by the fact that her husband was the Senator, which they hoped would help with fund raising. It didn't.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/jane-says-sanders-secret-weapon-or-a-political-liability/Content?oid=2670992

I was accused of being a Nazi-sympathizing
Seventh Day Adventist when I dared to cite it yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511678947#post40

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511678947#post42

others here that Rachel has been slipping more lately, less objective in her coverage, perhaps due to her clear support for the
other candidate or due to some MSNBC network constraints.

Thanks for posting.

it seems like they are normal, hard working people who GET THE ACTUAL ISSUES.

like a grapevine or a pretzel, can't decide which.

hadn't. I think that if Rachel HAD interviewed Michelle when Obama was running, then Rachel would most likely have remembered it.

Because she and her husband Barack have class.

I'm sorry, but that's the purplest piece of maudlin prose I've read in quite a while. Convince me right of the bat that I wouldn't want to watch the interview. A refreshing bouquet of sincerity? Quick, shoot me now!