Hillary's main campaign strategy is tone policing
Instead of debating the merits of what was said, the Clintons make every argument about HOW it was said.
Take Qualifiedgate as an example.
Bernie said, "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. 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 supported the Panama free trade agreement."
"Qualified" was a poor word for Bernie to use, but in the context of what he said, he was making an excellent point.
Perhaps a better way to put it should have been, "Let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton, she should be DISQUALIFIED if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds."
But instead of looking at what was said about super PACs, the war in Iraq, and the Panama free trade agreement, the Clintons have made it about alleged sexist disrespect.
The argument becomes about HOW it was said, and not what was said.
This happened in 2008, with Likeableenoughgate. Obama said something in a dismissive tone! How terrible! Sexist disrespect!
Bernie Sanders pointed his finger at Hillary! Sexist disrespect!
Someone from Greenpeace asked Hillary a question! Sexist disrespect!
A black girl asked Hillary a question! Sexist disrespect!
I can't think of a single other candidate for office EVER whose main campaign strategy was tone policing.
When you're in the Oval Office, you can't whine about how someone else said something, you have to deal with the issues like an adult.
= new reply since forum marked as read
There is no way to justify the Clinton worldview when it's viewed from a set of values and ethics.
Even the most twisted sociopath or psychopath (not a reference to the Clintons) has a set of values and ethics. It's fundamental to how our minds work.
