Some Things Can’t Be Unsaid
And this is one of them:
“She has been saying lately that she thinks I am quote unquote unqualified to be president. Well 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 million 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 that has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama Free Trade Agreement, something I very strongly opposed and which all of you know has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries.”
I spent last night and this morning trying to find where Hillary Clinton said Bernie Sanders wasn’t qualified to be President. I came up empty, but if anyone can show me where she actually said this…
I’m really not sure what to say about Bernie’s statement. I’m disappointed and concerned. There’s no doubt Bernie had his first bad week on the campaign. It was also the first week he was actually treated like a serious candidate whose issues and words come under scrutiny. That’s the way it works. Yeah, this outburst does have me questioning how he’d handle the general election. Sorry, but it does.
I’m also worried. Is #FeeltheBern turning into #BernitDown?
“I’m really not sure what to say about Bernie’s statement. ”
Did you keep reading after the “quote unquote” part?
I get why you tilt at this windmill, Pandora, but if the past few weeks on this blog have proven anything, it’s that honest introspection about one’s chosen candidate doesn’t seem to apply to either side, including Bernie and those who “follow” him.
“Speak ill of the savior and ye shall be crucified”
I’m also worried. Is #FeeltheBern turning into #BernitDown?
Turning in to? I think it always has been to a degree. Sooner or later establishment Democrats are going to have to realize that they are seen only slightly better by large chunks of their base than republicans are seen by theirs. I dont wanna open this can of worms again, but economic issues are AS important (not saying more) to many people as cultural issues. And while democrats have done a very good job on social issues, economic ones are being ignored. For example, it is possible to be a happily married newlywed gay couple… with crippling student loan debt, few good job prospects, and to be pissed off about what is happening to our planet (and to atually want to see something done about it, rather than more empty lip service) The D party will have to eventually make those people who feel let down by them, or address the issues they have been dropping the ball on, or else they will see the same fracture that is coming for the Republicans.
… of course, it is entirely likely, given the presumptive nominee and the folks, like Carper, who are in charge, that WHEN the GOP breaks up, the DNC makes a play for all the socially-liberal, yet fiscally conservative republicans and punches all those hippies again…. given how they (DNC, Carperbots, the rest) have conducted themselves as long as I have been paying attention, That is where my money is.
Anyway, I’ll never shut up about that, if for no other reason than to say I told ya so in a few years…. then realize I wanted to be wrong.
All that aside, this is the beginning of the final end for Sanders campaign, because no rational person thinks Clinton is UNQUALIFIED to be president. Undeserving, maybe… wrong person for the time, I happen to think so… Unqualified? No. She is no more unqualified than Sanders was absent from the 1993 health care battle, as she put it.
Of course, here comes everyone in the KOS, Salon, Beast world calling for him to retire from public life forever over his first, truly dumb, remark of the campaign. Nancy Reagan cured AIDS? fine. The previously mentioned 93 lie? Never even saw that really reported on. It’s like they’ve been waiting for almost a year with their long knives out and he finally gave them their opening. The MSM is going in for the kill.
It’s like they’ve been waiting for almost a year with their long knives out and he finally gave them their opening. The MSM is going in for the kill.
Huh. I could have sworn I just read that a) this wouldn’t happen to Bernie (it was a figment of the pretend campaign managers imaginations) and b) that he’d handle whatever comes his way.
Clinton hasn’t outright said it, no. She provides a multitude of leading statements worded specifically to guide the reader to drawing that exact conclusion though, just like every single politician does. “I didn’t say that” of course not. You conveniently stopped just short of saying it. EDIT: And yes, “everyone does it” is not an excuse. But we *are* dealing with career politicians here.
“Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon responded quickly to Sanders’ comment, writing on Twitter: “Hillary Clinton did not say Bernie Sanders was ‘not qualified.’ But he has now — absurdly — said it about her. This is a new low.”” A new low? Is this guy serious? One candidate calling another unqualified is a new low? I’m now more terrified than ever of a Hillary vs. Donald matchup if Camp Clinton honestly believes that.
While we’re on the topic of things that cannot be unsaid though:
Let’s give it a day and see if someone doesn’t come up with a Hillary quote saying Sanders is unqualified. There is such a thing as a whisper campaign you know. That’s what surrogates are for – to give the candidate plausible deniability.
@cassandra, he’ll handle what comes his way, whether he melts down or counterpunches, he’ll handle it. No matter what comes of the convention, the messages Sanders is hammering on are resonating and they will have to be addressed especially as ‘the millennials’ become the population group to be reckoned with.
Student loan debt, income inequality, health care cost and access, wage growth, voter suppression, all of that will have to be attended to no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office next year or it’s only going to come back around in the next election cycle and the one after that.
Bernie had a bad week, and he didn’t handle the aftermath of NY Daily News interview well. I expected him to hit back against that interview with specifics – you know, clarify his plans and show how they’d work. Not sure why he let that interview stand without addressing the criticism.
But here’s the deal with that interview. How did Bernie handle the first really tough criticism he got? Answer: Not well. And that should concern people when looking toward the general, because the NY Daily News article will be mild compared to what he’d face as the nominee. So yeah, temperament is now an issue for me. So much for being able to “handle” anything coming his way.
And I get politics ain’t beanbag. I’m fine with tough policy attacks. I even said yesterday, on Jason’s post, that calling her out for the Iraq war vote was fair game. But there’s a difference between implying and flat out saying something. For months he’s been implying Hillary takes donations for future favors. There’s not a shred of evidence that’s true, but, I get it, that’s politics. All candidates are asked if their opponents are qualified. All dance around the issue.
There’s a bigger question here: Given the primary MATH, what is Bernie’s role going forward? I’d say his role is to keep pulling her left, promoting his policies and attacking Republicans. His role is not to arm the GOP in the general. And given his comments last night it seems like he’s saying, “If I don’t get the nomination then the Ds won’t get the White House.” It’s irresponsible.
Up until last night I have defended Bernie by saying, “He will do everything he can to unite the party after the primary.” I’m not so sure about that anymore, and that makes me sad.
he’ll handle what comes his way, whether he melts down or counterpunches, he’ll handle it. No matter what comes of the convention, the messages Sanders is hammering on are resonating and they will have to be addressed especially as ‘the millennials’ become the population group to be reckoned with.
First, “melts down” is not an acceptable way to handle things.
Second, he just went off his message big time. Good luck hearing what he has to say after last night’s stunt.
Third, he just rewrote his campaign strategy. Maybe it will pay off. Who knows? I wouldn’t be surprised if his favorability ratings took a hit. I also think it was an extremely stupid political move given the closed primaries coming up.
Given the primary MATH, what is Bernie’s role going forward?
He says it over and over again – ” political revolution.” Winning a revolution doesn’t require math. It doesn’t even require winning the nomination. Bernie is winning the revolution, and she knows it.
When is Hillary going to reach out to the revolutionaries? You know, the people who identify with the second part of Bernie’s statement?
So a couple weeks ago, Clinton tries to get out of anymore debates because of Sanders’ “tone’…. now, we’re shredding Sanders on his inability to deal with campaigns when they get tough. got it.
we’re shredding Sanders on his inability to deal with campaigns when they get tough
Which Pandora predicted — over and over — and was dismissed by all of you. Props are due.
And I have no idea why Clinton would even want to “unsay” that Sandy Hook parents thing.
Yeah, I was worried about this which is why I kept CALLING FOR A VETTING.
(sorry for the all caps, but… sheesh.)
Hillary is totally unprepared for a vetting by the left, and she isn’t handling it very well.
Don’t you have a political revolution to get people to show up for? 😉
ah, more mockery. Keep not taking the disenfranchised left seriously… see how well that plays out once the social wars are good and truly won.
Oh, lighten up. It’s not my side threatening not to vote for the Dem.
See that’s just it though. I know this is a party fight and party rules and all that…. I feel like this like arguing over a hit in football, when the very idea of the sport itself should be what we’re talking about…. not specific rules. The problems are bigger than that. Trump is doing so well because he is capitalizing on the broken promises made by the GOP. The promises they made are awful, and the people who vote for them because of the bigotry are awful…. but they have been lied to and are angry about it. If you think that doesn’t exist in the democratic party, you are sleeping.
What Ben says just above. The promises have been broken. Hillary’s just the one standing in the blast zone.
I’m not even mad at Hillary. I think she is used to fighting hard and used to getting dirty, and that is needed sometimes. She’s only made a couple low blows… not that any of them got anywhere close to this much media attention…. but again, not her fault. CNN and the other networks also have quite a lot to answer for.
Its people like her ardent supporters who are ready to rip the throats out of anyone who DARES get in her way… the NERVE…… Sanders’ people want to know their ideas are heard and their cares are respected… and NOT WRITTEN OFF AS THE COMPLAINTS OF ENTITLED CHILDREN…. Which is exactly how many of us feel.
“we’re shredding Sanders on his inability to deal with campaigns when they get tough”
He should be shredded on the fact that there is no there there. If he doesn’t have a clue about his signature issue, what about the rest of his platform?
Naiveté knows no bounds. Exponential Hope and Change (with focus on the hope obviously).
I’m sure that Clinton will weather this without much ado. After all, it’s a pot and kettle thing.
If Clinton is unqualified, what in God’s name does that make Sanders? Select your favorite answer below:
A. I don’t know the answer to that.
B. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don’t.
C. I’m not running JP Morgan Chase or Citibank.
D. I don’t quite think I’m qualified to make decisions.
E. It’s something I have not studied, honestly.
F. Look, why don’t I support a million things in the world?
G. You’re asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer.
H. Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot.
“If he doesn’t have a clue about his signature issue, what about the rest of his platform?”
Well, what about it, indeed? Or was that just a rhetorical question?
Three days after the Daily News interview, Bernie’s plan to break up the big banks is STILL better than Hillary’s plan to break up the big banks.
As John Manifold has pointed out, just “breaking up the big banks” isn’t the solution; the banks’ size isn’t even the main problem. The only reason their size matters is that they have too much political power at the size they are now.
Let’s be clear on something: In a presidential race, detailed plans laid out now are mainly for show. Politicians gain support by articulating goals, not by detailing the process for achieving those goals. That said, in the wake of the Daily News interview, it’s fair to ask Bernie if he has ANY concrete plan for achieving them, because he made it sound as if he doesn’t. He opened this door himself.
What plan, puck? What does that plan consist of?
^ why does that matter? He wont be the nominee, he’s done, he’s washed up. I think it’s the nominee’s plans we should be focusing on isnt it?
To be fair, Hillary has a statement about supporting potential legislation to enhance Dodd Frank to allow regulators to require banks to break up under certain conditions, none of which amount to “too big.” With lots of room for lawyers to crawl through, and not likely to ever break up a single bank. And she certainly doesn’t talk about it much. In fact, if elected it would be fair for her to say “I never campaigned on breaking up the big banks.”
It will be one more non-accomplishment she can brag about. One more thing the DNC can use to pretend they are the party of the people.
“Well, what about it, indeed? Or was that just a rhetorical question?”
For me it was not rhetorical and I have previously answered that question for myself to my satisfaction. For you? I don’t know. It depends on your level of investment in Team Bernie.
But your statement “Bernie’s plan to break up the big banks is STILL better than Hillary’s plan to break up the big banks” does provide a clue to your attitudes and because you fail to ask some questions for yourself that requires critical thinking. Such as: What does “breaking up the big banks” mean? What would a non-big bank financial sector look like? What financial services should these non-big banks be allowed to engage in? How would you break up these big banks anyway? Would you pass legislation that would restrict their activities? How would you get that kind of plan through Congress?
Still “breaking up big banks” looks good on paper. I prefer Charmin Ultra Strong because honestly, I think it’s a better paper.
But really I’m just bustin chops. I really really love visionaries. They are so…ethereal. I just don’t want them touching any buttons though – for their sake and ours.
“Did Sanders just Lazio himself?”
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2016/04/did-sanders-just-lazio-himself.html
Although I’m a Hillary backer, I’ll give Bernie a break if he will count to 10 and get back to doing what he does best. The same goes for me and the rest of us partisans. This is just the sem-eye finals, as Brent Musburger would pronounce it. Eyes on the prize.
Sorry, John. I won’t be celebrating Hillary’s victories. The lesser of two evils is still evil. The lesser corporate-humping hack is still a corporate-humping hack. The lesser of two Clintons is still a Clinton.
‘”Evil.”
More level-headed perspective from the fella who mansplained to us that Hillary “married for opportunity.”
“The lesser of two evils” is an expression. I’m sure you’ve heard it before. Quick, act shocked. You can be such as ass. I can, too, but I know it. You ought to try self-awareness sometime yourself.
That wasn’t mansplaining. It’s what’s called “obvious.” Lots of women have gotten where they are on their own. Not her.
And you’re not a HIllary “backer,” you’re a starstruck fanboy. She’s you to a tee — talk the progressive talk, but keep taking that sweet, sweet corporate cash.
I can’t believe I once campaigned for you.
With lots of room for lawyers to crawl through, and not likely to ever break up a single bank.
Her plan is more focused on restricting shadow banking activities across the board. Re-implementing Glass-Steagal or even using Dodd-Frank authority to break up a bank mainly moves those shadow activities around. Intellectually, I get that restricting shadow banking activities is the smarter deal, but breaking up banks breaks the newly acquired DNA that banks will be bailed out by taxpayers for their risky behavior.
Has Clinton SAID she will fight to bring back Glass-Steagal? I will eat a big old plate of my own words if you can show me she has….. still wont be ok with DNC-loyalst-hacks who care more about landing political punches than embracing good ideas…. but it will help get me down off this ledge.
“As John Manifold has pointed out, just “breaking up the big banks” isn’t the solution; the banks’ size isn’t even the main problem. The only reason their size matters is that they have too much political power at the size they are now.”
The banks’ size isn’t the main problem. Their size gives them too much political power.
In other words, their size is a main problem.
I’ll be back when Ben learns how to read. Or gets more familiarity with his own candidate’s positions re: banks.
cassandra.. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-01-05/sanders-says-clinton-is-wrong-on-glass-steagall there is Sanders saying he will reinstate it. Where does Hillary say she will? I asked to be shown where I am wrong… all you can do is insult me. Please show me where I am wrong
The DOJ would have an idea on the forms needed to pour concrete plans to go on a Teddy-Style Trust-Busting Rampage. Sanders is not running for Attorney General. Though it might be nice to see him identify an AG type person to spell out some ideas. FWIW, gigantor-banks aren’t the only problem. The telecom corporations are problems too. Insurance Companies that also double as banks are problems. Insurance conglomerates on their own are problems. The list goes on.
I guess I’m really frigging baffled why we’re up in arms over a bad interview and political candidates taking shots directly at one another. Wait, sorry. One candidate is taking direct shots. The other stops short of doing so to maintain plausible deniability.
I never said that one candidate can’t take the heat. I’ll leave that to the voters to decide.
Are we expecting our candidates to be on-point 100% of the time? That’s not realistic. Are we expecting them to pillow fight one another? That’s not realistic either. I don’t get it. The slapfight over Glass-Steagall is interesting though. At least it’s rooted in policy and not “OMG HE SAID WHAT!”
“In other words, their size is a main problem.”
No, their ability to pull down the world financial system is their main problem, and that is the case mainly because of their connections, by necessity, to the shadow banking system. Smaller banks would be in thrall to the same forces.
What you cite is rule by oligarchy, which is the status quo. Take banks out of the plutocracy and others will step into their place. I’d rather the banks run the government than Monsanto and Exxon; the banks cause far less environmental damage.
So Sanders has said he would reinstate Glass Steagall. I even proved a link. Cassandra provided an insult to my intelligence and no link to back up her claim that Clinton would reinstate it as well.
“Take banks out of the plutocracy and others will step into their place. I’d rather the banks run the government than Monsanto and Exxon; the banks cause far less environmental damage.”
You realize they are not mutually exclusive, right? Who finances the oil companies and Monsanto? Who finances the politicians that ‘run’ the government?
Given the comments on this blog we seem to demand one candidate be on point all the time. The reason the Daily News article and Bernie’s statement resonated is because it confirmed what people were concerned about. See Rubio, Marco
(Not saying Sanders is like Rubio, just that he confirmed criticisms that already exited about him.)
Ben, just so it’s out there: I want Glass-Steagall back, updated to 21st century legislation though. An 80 year old law regulating banks today won’t cut it.
Yes, I realize that. Are you under the impression that those companies will fold if the banks get smaller? Big corporations have other ways of raising the money they need — issuing stock and/or bonds being the most obvious. Those corporations were operating long before banks started dominating the landscape.
No I’m not under that impression. Those mega corps should be in the crosshairs for busting up too. They feed off one another though. It isn’t just “bust the banks” and quit. There are plenty of other organizations that need broken up.
no link to back up her claim that Clinton would reinstate it as well.
🙄
I’ll come back when Ben can read and understands his own candidate’s position on the banks.
Brian, of course. It needs to meet the needs of the current world, but Clinton’s donors have to be reigned in again. I’m sure her campaign contributions will drop accordingly.
Take note, Pandora…. it’s dismissive bullies like Cassandra that create people like me. IM ASKING FOR INFORMATION … and she responds with insults.
So back to the strongest bully in the school yard…..
“Her plan is more focused on restricting shadow banking activities across the board. Re-implementing Glass-Steagal or even using Dodd-Frank authority to break up a bank mainly moves those shadow activities around.”
To my VERY LIMITED knowledge… moron that I am.. illiterate that I am (did i miss anything cassandra?.. Im kinda chubby too, wanna insult that as well?) To my EXTREMELY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE, I dont know what Clinton has to say about Glass-Steagall…. I DO know that I have vowed to eat my own words if someone can explain to me how she plans on bringing it back. I’m also apparently bad at Google, because all i can find is how she should come out in favor of reinstatement.
Ben, reread Cassandra’s sentences. They aren’t saying what you think they’re saying. Read the second sentence without the first. See?
OK, thank you pandora…. sincerely.
Cassandra was (possibly) suggesting that Clinton COULD reinstate Glass-Steagall as a method of fighting the big banks…. I think, although I’m apparently so stupid maybe I got that wrong too. Dont want to make assumptions. I do wish she had just clarified, rather lobbed insults…. It kind of read like an explanation of Clinton’s policies. but I guess you cant blame a shark for biting.
What’s our opinion on President Clinton’s former labor secretary’s opinions?
Agreed. It was nice to see that Pharma merger fall through. I would love to vote for “late second term” Obama this time around.
Reich doesn’t seem to like Clinton. Wonder why