2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumoh my--Bernie is walking back his comments about
Last edited Fri Jan 22, 2016, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)
PP and Human rights campaign on Maddow just now. Well kinda. Listen to him
tishaLA
(14,176 posts)he said that PP and HRC aren't establishment and that he respects their work and always had.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)kcjohn1
(751 posts)She is trying to drive wedge among liberal voters. If you really care about Planned Parenthood, HRC, and other important liberal issues, why make these groups political? Like making liberals choose sides.
Its politics at its worst. Her strategy if it does work, basically makes Planned Parenthood, HRC toxic to certain liberal voters (basically Bernie wing). Its win at all costs strategy that turns off people off politics and politicians like Clinton.
msongs
(67,462 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Human Rights Campaign. If you are on the other side of their efforts, then there is a wedge between you and liberals but it is not of her making. Bernie does not stand for your position.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Renew Deal
(81,883 posts)He walked back his gun control stance after losing an election. He walked back his comments on BLM. He walked back his apology to Hillary. He walked back his defense of Hillary on Benghazi email. On and on.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)to be above it all.
You can't rebut what was said so you change the topic.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)There would be nothing to walk back.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)At least he realized it wasn't a smart thing to say.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Bernie simply pointed out
1) his 100% rating by groups that endorsed Hillary,
2) how it's confusing to many observers when -- despite his 100% ratings -- Hillary gets
the endorsement instead of him, and
3) the contrast between the "grassroots" of these groups (which mostly support him) and the
groups' leadership which tend to have a cozy relationship with Hillary.
Lastly, he stated flatly "NO! I'm NOT calling PP, NARAL, et. al. "the Establishment"
What's so difficult to understand about his clarification?
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)riversedge
(70,350 posts)I found it for you. He had the chance to clarify yesterday--yet his spokesperson doubled down. Guess better later than never. It was a rude unprofessional thing to say.
Sanders walks back Planned Parenthood, Clinton establishment comments
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-walks-back-planned-parenthood-clinton-establishment-comments
01/21/16 09:57 PM
By Kasie Hunt
HOOKSETT, New Hampshire Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign and other progressive groups that have endorsed Hillary Clinton are not part of the political establishment, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday, walking back comments he made earlier this week on MSNBC.
RELATED: Sanders dismisses major womens group as establishment
The clarification comes after Sanders responded to a question from MSNBCs 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.
Were taking on not only Wall Street and economic establishment, were 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 dont 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.
questionseverything
(9,663 posts)she makes over half million bucks a year as pp's ceo
she over rode a 100 years of tradition by endorsing in the primary and she did not ask any supporters what they thought
seems a little tone deaf but i thought bernie was very gentlemanly towards her
for me personally i was amazed pp had so much money they could have a 20 million dollar superpac
any org that has that much money to throw around is not a start up or something
riversedge
(70,350 posts)seaglass
(8,173 posts)Both are good but Hillary is better. If people are confused it's because they are more interested in wasting their time making up elaborate conspiracy theories than investigating the facts.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections-politics/blog/how-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-compare-womens-health/
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)However, he is still talking about the Human Rights Fund.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)did not endorse Hillary the top dogs of those groups who's wages are enormous endorsed Hillary. They don't want to lose their big bucks for their own pockets.
riversedge
(70,350 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)TN
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)That's why she's slipping in the polls.
Voters don't trust her.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Oh, my. "gotcha" doesn't work anymore.
Oh. my.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Obviously, Hillary cannot run on the issues.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I know it doesn't trump polls on Drudge, the supporting of Paul's "Audit the Fed" Tea Party legislation, or economic equality to some. That doesn't mean it isn't an issue. It doesn't roll back the horrifying green light he gave to his supporters to relentlessly attack one of our greatest women's health organizations.
riversedge
(70,350 posts)attacks on PP Facebook--they made no bones that they were Sanders supporters. I read a few but had to quit. Too vile and mny blood pressure was raising
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)True story.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)This isnt about anyone "attacking" PP, and it sure isnt about protecting reproductive rights.
This is another lame attempt to play "gotcha" with a completely non-incendiary statement, namely, Sanders answering a question as to why these orgs endorsed Hillary and not him with the word "establishment".
Which is not an attack. And bernie supporters on twitter making fun of a hashtag started by Clinton people to try and smear Sanders over this nonsense- and of course, the clinton people getting all huffy and freaked out because heavens, why are there so many of them?!? (yeah, check the polls) ... That is not a "relentless attack", either.
Making a fairly obvious observation as to why he didnt get an endorsement is not the same thing as attacking the organiation, its work or its mandate. If he was attacking the org, it wouldnt make any sense for him to want the endorsement, would it?
But again, like I said, anoither in an endless series of lame attempts to spin up drama and outrage around nothing.
Why? You know why, don'tcha?
Because obviously, Hillary cannot run on the issues.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)He gave his supporters the green light to attack them. The people in my circle thought he was simply a nice guy two weeks ago. They now view him as an extension of Paul.
He simply can't walk that one back. Spread the word.
riversedge
(70,350 posts)some wisdom in so many of your posts (don't always agree with a few but always they are thought out so I say--ummm.) Anyway, you are right. Sanders campaign did damage to his credibility on this one. PP has been an advocate of health care for women for so long (and yes men also. I once worked at a clinic --so many men --many students at the time-came in for screening exams and tests). For Sanders to diss PP and the Human Rights Campaign is beyond the pale.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)This is what happens when social issues become "not important". Yes, it's far too late to try to walk this shit back. The curtain has been pulled back for all to see.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)I am a Clinton supporter and I knew what he meant. PP and HRC are indeed part of the Democratic Party establishment.
oasis
(49,429 posts)grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)General election, sure, absolutely, but not primaries. And I'd feel that way even if they had endorsed Bernie.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)He isn't close to being up to dealing with them.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,917 posts)Yes, his 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 "flip flop" here 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.
We disagree obviously on Sander's ability. As he has often said, backed up by history, opponents always underestimate him.
riversedge
(70,350 posts)comments. then have Weaver basically say the same?? Two days is a long time to have it floating in the wind.
stonecutter357
(12,698 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)to know that you are "listening him," and encouraging others to do so as well.
"Listening him" is always a positive, in my book.
riversedge
(70,350 posts)bigtree
(86,008 posts)...'not really' is more accurate.
R B Garr
(16,995 posts)politician is eventually forced into. Sanders has gotten a pass on all that. He gets downright flustered and hostile when challenged. Now that he's stepped in it, we see how inept he is in handling pushback. It's so much easier to sling the arrows with no return incoming. He's all applause lines and untested on the national stage.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Remember, GOP wants to DE-FUND any entity that helps people, unless said people are rich and white.
Mike Nelson
(9,973 posts)...all that stuff about what parts were "establishment" and who didn't really want to endorse Hillary was giving me a headache.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)it's not first time he's walked things back since being on the POTUS campaign trail.
I just find it hilarious that his surrogates latched onto every excuse (not for the first time - data theft, anyone?), only to have Bernie confirm he fucked up and then they remain deadly silent on the follow up.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Or her insistence that Bernie wants to leave people without health care? Has she explained why we can't put everyone in this country through college if they want to go? Has she ever clarified why she was all for a marriage between a man and woman and then suddenly changed her mind?