2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWell well Bernie just walked back his LIE--just said Hillary was qualified to be POTUS...
yup.
on msnbc just now
LexVegas
(6,088 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)keystone?
TPP?
want me to continue?
he did not lie - he just does not want to damage her more than she does herself
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)...and that he lied about that, quote/unquote?
riversedge
(70,273 posts)distracted--he was asked against. Short response. Should be in print soon.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)which is interesting in itself. It's nice to know so many people know Hillary is qualified that his lie sounded as stupid and dishonest as it was.
But let's not forget, the lie was never meant to make people believe Hillary was not qualified. It was a mass media technique intended to mislead and confuse voters by spreading the lack of "qualifications" issue biting him to his opponent.
"Oh, I'm so confused. I guess I'll vote for Sanders. He speaks with such conviction, and in short sentences."
All in it together
(275 posts)What Hillary did was a lie or "artful smear" about Bernie's knowledge of breaking up the banks. He said the same thing that Hillary said that Dodd Frank could be used to break up the banks.
Glass -Stegall is about separating commercial banks from investment (gambling) banks.
The President could do it and no one knows if the Fed can do it.
So good try but no cigar.
riversedge
(70,273 posts)The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)she has made. That is what Bernie actually said. On those points she is not qualified. Read and listen closely. Bernie is not perfect, but I have not heard him bludgeon Her with anything that is not an important truth.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)stated simply, and with great restraint.
Pretending that commenting gently on Bernie's display of gross ignorance was a smear is just dishonest.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Ethical I have my doubts about.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seattleite
(79 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And is all things to all people
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And is the least trusted
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Response to seabeyond (Reply #73)
Vilis Veritas This message was self-deleted by its author.
Desert805
(392 posts)#sniperfire
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Her campaign has degenerated into pure trolling. Issues and governing do not exist in the world of the Clinton campaign.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Worst ever
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)This is a lie. He isn't meeting the Pope and knows he is not meeting the Pope.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Clinton gets caught in a string of lies, her partisans react with mindless finger pointing...
Anything to avoid real issues
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I mean, really: What did you mean to type just then?
Whatever it was,
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)always has an imminent interview with the head of the FBI for routing all of her State Department email on a private, unsecured email server. A server that even the President didn't know about.
That there is a special, special kind of honesty.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)You don't have any comment about the President knowing about her unsecured email server?
Blew me away when I read that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)you have no comment about Hillary Clinton's impending FBI interrogation, that will most likely happen this month. A very serious investigation that could not only bring Hillary Clinton down, but affect our entire party and this race.
Yet, you respond with some flakey comment about something something Bernie did--that no one but you thinks is relevant.
Are you a serious person?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Clinton.
Bengahzi
I guess I feel it is disingenuous that you are outraged over this while totally ignoring Sanders laws he is being investigated on.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)One of the most corrupt congressmen
riversedge
(70,273 posts)in Congress. NILCH.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)He would say whatever i wanted up to and including putting his cellphone in a pair of pantyhose swinging it over his head and clucking like a chicken
He is almost as ethically challenged as hillary.
LiberalFighter
(51,020 posts)Sanders would rather pontificate than have a quiet conversation.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)beedle
(1,235 posts)This is the same Rangel that was censured by congress for ethics violations stemming from tax fraud, right?
Then chalk up a point for Sanders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rangel#2008.E2.80.932010:_Ethics_issues_and_censure
So where does this ethically challenged tax cheat, using the poor judgement he is famously know for, throw his support? Oh right.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Along with the rest of the Clinton surrogacy.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)morally qualified and capable of making sound decisions is another. his position on this is clear and he did not lie. A for effort, though
MineralMan
(146,324 posts)He also said he'd support Hillary if she became the nominee. He said it clearly and without equivocation.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Anyone who can't see that they've both called off the dogs, isn't paying attention.
Clinton said that she'd take Bernie Sanders over Cruz or Trump any day. Bernie said last night on Seth Myers that, "Even on her best day, Hillary Clinton is better than Trump or Cruz.
This would signal that both agreed to a truce...for now.
MineralMan
(146,324 posts)that'd be great.
In the zeal over one or another Democratic candidate, many seem to have forgotten where the real conflict is taking place. I think it's a damned shame.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)There's something about Internet political discussion, that is a special breed of crazy. It's not like the real world--and both camps have fomented this.
At dinner last night, I was explaining to my husband what happened with the whole Hillary/Bernie spat. As I explained the steps, he said, "No one in the real world gives a rat's ass about all of that. They'll hear a soundbite or two, but that means nothing."
Wooooahhhhh, there fella!!! To the people on the Internet (I including myself in this analysis) ducking this out, it means EVERYTHING!!!!!!
I will say this. I think both candidates handled this poorly. I see now winners here. But both candidates have issued their statements that lets the air out of the balloon, so to speak.
Hillary provoked this. And she knows it. She's a dirty dog. Their camp declared that their new New York campaign mode against Bernie would be, "Disqualify, defeat and then unify." Then, the next day, her campaign took to the media to do just that. Clinton was asked three times if Bernie was qualified. She refused to answer, while suggesting that Bernie didn't know what he was doing and and that his plans and policies were unworkable. I mean...SERIOUSLY! She walked right up to that line. She knows what she did. And with an assist from the Washington Post in an article titled, "Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president" the assertions are out there in the ether.
Bernie responded to all of that, including the title of the article. I'm a huge Bernie supporter, but I don't think he handled this well. He needs to treat her attacks in the way that Obama did. You don't lose your cool. You don't react to her. You respond in control--after you've had some time to strategize a bit. You chuckle about her. You don't fall into the traps. He should have NEVER said that she was "unqualified." That was a mistake. He could have taken this as an opportunity to distinguish between a great resume and great judgment--then launched into a controlled discussion about her Iraq War vote and her Wall Street donations.
Bernie did not react well. But PLEASE, Clinton is not some innocent doe. She set this up. However, Sanders walked right into the trap.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/
riversedge
(70,273 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)that both are calling a truce.
Both said nice things about each other on the same day. Sanders took to the Seth Myers show to explain his side of it--and the final note was to say the nice line about Clinton. Obviously, all of those questions were determined way before the interview began--as were the answers.
Similar to Clinton's nice comments about Bernie.
"Copying"...what are you 12?
Have you checked out today's coverage of this "spat"? NPR did a story this morning. It was balanced on both sides. Both sides were given equal blame. Clinton for cajoling Bernie into a reaction, and Sanders for running off the rails with his response. The reporting on this ended with the "nice" lines from both camps.
The Wall Street Journal's article followed the same script. Obviously, this post-duel media coverage is part of the agreement as well. Both are positioned as sharing the blame, both issue a pseudo-supportive quote.
....and scene.
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
The question is: Does HRC feel that SBS or any in the GOP field are qualified for POTUS?
If the GOP are unqualified, then SBS stands somewhere between HRC and unqualified GOP people.
SBS could either be qualified or not.
If some of the GOP are qualified, then that not only validates the GOPers but then says that SBS is qualified.
Unless this is clarified, that entire statement is complete bullshit!
====
She never answers the qualification point, just dances around it, leaving it open for personal interpretation.
In a couple of my English and Poli-Sci courses, we had to decipher rhetoric--the art of persuasion and doublespeak!
We were graded on this and it now pops out whenever I see it being deployed.
Those who fail to grasp its use are the targets of it.
.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)She disparaged Bernie on Morning Joe, and asserted that this major ideas and policies were unworkable and that he really didn't know what he was doing. Then, after slicing and dicing Bernie, Joe asked her THREE times if Bernie was qualified and each time she refused to answer.
I think anyone with a functioning hippocampus understands EXACTLY what she was doing.
Her non-answer and her refusal to say that he IS qualified, suggests that he is not.
Of course, her digital response team spins this into a dreary treatise on Bernie Sanders and how he's such a horrendous liar. LOL! She knows exactly what she was doing.
It's game playing. In my opinion, Bernie didn't handle this optimally. He was being played and he should have responded to her in a much different way. He could have annihilated her, the way Obama used to do. Clinton would attack Obama and he would remain so calm and so cool, and then pull out a one liner that completely made her look like an idiot.
It's like dealing with a toddler who is on the floor and screaming because they can't have the candy bar. You don't get on the floor and roll around with them while you scream your reasons for not giving them the candy bar. You'll never win.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)WaPo probably emailed their own "Clinton questions Sanders qualifications" article to him.
This has been a long, grueling campaign. The fact that this is his worst faux pas so far is itself encouraging.
In retrospect, this was the kind of trick that Clinton and her surrogates are most skilled at. He'll know better next time.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)With friends like WaPo who needs enemies? Of course Sanders the deity is perfect and could never make a mistake.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Arkansas Granny
(31,524 posts)What kind of spin will his fans put on this reversal?
riversedge
(70,273 posts)was a tape from somewhere outside was showed on msnbc). He was outside with a coat on--so now a sit down interview. We will see shortly
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Oh wait, you don't mean those transcripts, do you?
Dem2
(8,168 posts)And I am shocked that it took this long.
riversedge
(70,273 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)It's not a quality that I admire obstinance, stubbornness whatever you want to call it.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Sanders explained why he said what he said. He pointed to the headline in the Washington Post, "Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president."
Clinton had been out talking smack about Bernie Sanders all day Wednesday. After declaring that the Clinton camp's new New York tack against Bernie would be, "Disqualify, defeat and unify the party later."
They told us, via CNN surrogates exactly what they were going to do. And they did it.
Bernie responded to the headline with accusations of Clinton also being unqualified, due to her Iraq War vote and her campaign being fueled on a great deal of Wall Street money.
This isn't the bloody disaster that so many Hillary supporters claim.
Now, you're shouting, "It's a lie!!! He's walking back a lie!!!" OMG...they've both put down their swords.
Clinton said yesterday, "I'll take Bernie Sanders over Trump or Cruz, any day."
http://www.kwwl.com/story/31670476/2016/04/07/clinton-ill-take-sanders-over-trump-cruz-any-day
Clinton started this stuff. Bernie responded. It's over now. Can we just go back to being slightly crazy instead of completely batshit crazy now?
riversedge
(70,273 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)is that Clinton spent most of the day speaking to the media about how inept Sanders is and how unrealistic his plans and ideas are. She was asked if Sanders was qualified by Joe S--three times. All three times she refused to say YES. Come on...
Her surrogates were busy cementing the meme that he was unqualified too, and the WaPo article, "Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president" just puts a ribbon on their entire thing.
She doesn't have to say it. She just levels the charges, and when asked if Sanders is qualified (three times) she refuses to say yes. In effect, she has cast doubts about his qualifications--with the WaPo article underscoring that denial.
So then when Bernie responds to the WaPo headline (and her smack talk), her campaign screams, "She never said that!!! Bernie is a liar!!! Liar!!!"
Seriously? LOL. I mean...come on.
riversedge
(70,273 posts)walked it back today. But the damage was done--he really can not walk that whopper back.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)are online Hillary supporters who discuss this ad nauseam.
Sorry to break the news to you, but no "damage was done" to Bernie. Clinton supporters like you are up in arms, but I guarantee you that no one defected from the Bernie camp because of this. His comments were innocuous, compared to what the Internet says about her, round the clock.
Most Sanders supporters were glad to hear him speak like that. I certainly think that her judgment on many things (including the Iraq War and her Wall Street payola) disqualifies her from leading a parade--let alone the whole country.
What he said is not that big of a deal.
As much as you want to turn this into some four-alarm political fire, it's just not. I know you're stuck on the, "But she never said that!! He's a liar!!" schtick, but no one but Hillary's online community is in that place. It's clear what she said about him the day before. Disparaging him and saying that his plans are unworkable and that he seems to not understand how the system works. Then, refusing to say that he is qualified after Joe S asks her THREE times.
Everyone gets what she did. This situation isn't exactly flattering to her. Which is why they've both said nice things to each other and are agreeing to move on.
Response to riversedge (Original post)
Post removed
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)riversedge
(70,273 posts)beedle
(1,235 posts)what Hillary will be wearing next week.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)carburyme
(146 posts)K & R
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)No more lie than the hatchet job and the lies from the Hillarybots' claim that he didn't know what he was talking about.
What you fail to see is that your source, DN would have twisted his words no matter what he said just to give the minions some weak sauced strawmen to smear Bernie with more. And when your smear backfires, you claim victimhood and sexism.
When will Hillary apologize for her dirty campaign, smears and lies since she coerced the black caucus to support her undesercingly?
The source you praise so much as "neutral" is owned by a Hillary donor. And you still repeat the same mudslinging talking points.
When will you admit that the Daily News piece was nothing but a hatchet jobs where they lied about his alleged incompetence, his "support" for arms dealers over Sandy Hook victims and the lies about his stance on Israel?
When will the Hillarybots and PUMAs apologize for their own lies about Bernie?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)She's absolutely not morally qualified for the presidency, but lucky for her the constitution doesn't specify a moral test.
Gothmog
(145,481 posts)My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)constitutionally is one thing, morally and ethically is another.
It depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Clinton is no doubt familiar with idiomatic quibbling such as that.
It depends on what the definition of "qualified" is.
JudyM
(29,263 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)The question is whether he will ever apologize for putting words in Hillary's mouth. I'm guessing he won't.
Say what you want about her, but when Hillary was wrong about Nancy Reagan, she apologized several times. I'm hoping Bernie is big enough to do the same.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)He is a train wreck when questioned. The fact he doesn't have what it takes upstairs to go off the cuff, combined with the fact the media always has a conservative bias, really underscores why he should already know to stay away from those situations.
revbones
(3,660 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Young folks weren't falling for the bullshit(*see not as naive and dumb as originally thought), Sanders let her know he's no punching bag. Shortly thereafter she changed her tune.
We know what SHE did. The media knew what THEY did. Sanders let them all know he's no fool.
Kabuki theater, establishment-style.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Every time Clinton says something by mistake, it's a LIE, all in caps. Don't forget.
rock
(13,218 posts)Of his pants being on fire?
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)mistakenly believing that his original assessment was wrong.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)he wouldn't have time to make any more lies.
All in it together
(275 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Instead he doubled down yesterday and kept the frenzy going to take the focus away from his disastrous interview with the NY Post and to further impress in the minds of his followers (they are followers, not supporters) that she had (falsely) said that he was unqualified to be President. He knew it was as lie when he continued to push it.
Today he walks it back after doing much damage to Hillary (and himself IMHO). I don't buy his sudden change to civility...he is still the mean-spirited, angry old man he has been most of his tenure in the Senate.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Saying Clinton isn't was dumb.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So technically she is qualified
Cha
(297,503 posts)that bullshit.