Sanders says Clinton not “qualified” to be Prez, says she said same. She didn’t.

You’ve just had a disastrous meeting with a major newspaper’s editorial board.

They posted the entire transcript online. Media types and politicos (including AmericaBlog’s founder, Aravosis) are saying the interview is proof that you’re not qualified to be the next President of the United States. How do you respond?

Well, if you’re Senator Sanders you respond by calling the most experienced candidate running not qualified. From POLITICO:

“Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds,” he said. “I don’t think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.”

Sanders then pivoted to her record on foreign policy, saying, “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’ve supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which 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, as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries.”

Bernie Sanders. Joseph Sohm /

Bernie Sanders. Joseph Sohm /

The thing is, Bernie Sanders made the comments because he thinks, incorrectly, that Hillary Clinton said “he’s” not qualified to be president. In fact, she said no such thing. Lots of journalists weighed in on this mistake last night, including independent fact-checker Politifact. What happened was that the Washington Post, taking the lead, followed by CNN, claimed that Hillary had said Bernie wasn’t qualified — but then when you looked at the quotes, she said no such thing.

In fact, Sanders today seemed to recognize his mistake. At a press conference this morning, Sanders blamed the snafu on the Washington Post’s misleading headline.

Hillary, today, responded to the Sanders criticism by saying she’d support him in the general if he’s the candidate. That’s presidential.

by default 2016-04-07 at 11.00.49 AM

Sanders needs to apologize. ASAP. He also needs a reality check. As does anyone who thinks this line of attack will be helpful to him. There are ways to attack Clinton on her weak points. Questioning her qualifications is not the way.

What’s more, if he doesn’t walk back this line of attack, it makes it tougher for him to endorse her later when he is inevitably (yes, inevitably) forced to concede.

And finally, none of this makes Sanders look any more qualified. It does, however, make him seem out of touch with reality.

Melissa Ryan is a political consultant. She’s spent a decade leading digital campaigns for nonprofits and political races, including EMILY’s List, Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, the New Organizing Institute, and Senator Russ Feingold’s campaign. Visit her website at or follow her on Twitter @MelissaRyan.

Share This Post

181 Responses to “Sanders says Clinton not “qualified” to be Prez, says she said same. She didn’t.”

  1. Cynthia Williams says:

    Not according to his voting record.

  2. Cynthia Williams says:

    Actually, no she didn’t start that, in case that also escaped your notice.,

  3. Amwatching2c says:

    List the untruthfulness if you’ve got anything other the spin?

  4. Amwatching2c says:

    The Bern’s just changed attack line.

  5. Amwatching2c says:

    The Bern’s just changed attack line.

  6. Amwatching2c says:

    Got the Bern for Trump yet ? Bernie’s already lost, just making GOP commercials now. His advisors even sound like Trump segregates on the smear campaign.

  7. BoBelinski says:

    So, um, it’s 4 days later – any interest in maybe updating this story? Jeez.

  8. Phil in FLL says:

    People who disagree with you are being paid to do so. People who agree with you do so on principle and never receive financial compensation. This meme is getting old, wouldn’t you say?

  9. Juanitasjoseph says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr.”….!oa552utwo days ago new Silver McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512 Dollars,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k Dollars Last month .,3-5 h/r of work a day ..with. extra open doors &. weekly. paychecks… it’s realy the simplest. work. I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. 87 Dollars, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oa552➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMediaGetPaidHourly98$…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!oa552u……

  10. Juanitasjoseph says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr.”….!oa552utwo days ago new Silver McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512 Dollars,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k Dollars Last month .,3-5 h/r of work a day ..with. extra open doors &. weekly. paychecks… it’s realy the simplest. work. I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. 87 Dollars, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oa552➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMediaGetPaidHourly98$…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!oa552u…….

  11. Max_1 says:

    And she didn’t start that confab about birth certificates, either…
    … That Trump thanks her for, dearly.

  12. emjayay says:


  13. kladinvt says:

    So along with Aravosis, which HillaryInc Super Pac is this Melissa Ryan and how much is she being paid?

  14. Idarreed says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr.”….!oa159utwo days ago new Silver McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512 Dollars,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k Dollars Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with. extra open doors &. weekly. paychecks… it’s realy the simplest. work. I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. 87 Dollars, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oa159➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsBossGetPaidHourly98$…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!oa159u……

  15. Idarreed says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr.”….!oa159utwo days ago new Silver McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512 Dollars,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k Dollars Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with. extra open doors &. weekly. paychecks… it’s realy the simplest. work. I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. 87 Dollars, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oa159➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsBossGetPaidHourly98$…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!oa159u…….

  16. emjayay says:

    I tried to explain it later with my long lap swimmer related comment above.

    Maybe I just should have said “Butthurt”.

  17. emjayay says:

    I bet they are really good at video games though.

  18. emjayay says:

    Details, please.

  19. confusion says:

    Even though Sec Clinton is the biggest untruthful Democratic candidate I have ever witnessed she is also the worst Democratic candidate ever..

  20. emjayay says:

    Hey, just quoting a Canadian.

  21. emjayay says:

    Well, not compared to Trump and Cruz, of course.

  22. emjayay says:

    See my lap swimming related comment above.

  23. S. Parilla says:

    That’s anecdotal but it also (seemingly) assumes that Sanders doesn’t have real weaknesses for the media to focus on. He does, but so does she. She’s been tested against her weaknesses for quite a long time. Sanders has not had to face the same level of scrutiny until recently, and the intensity of that will likely only increase.

    I’ve seen quite a few negative (and otherwise) articles about both of them (not just the odd one, but really quite a few). Whether someone feels the media has covered them fairly probably depends
    on the media (and/or the echo chambers) they pay attention to.

    I ultimately do not think it is possible to feel satisfied with the equity of
    coverage the media gives the candidates, as ‘the media’ is a vast, inconsistent, many-pronged entity with as many motivations and biases as there are people who work within it.

    My assumption based on, again, anecdotes, is that most people would say the coverage hasn’t been fair regardless of who they support.

  24. TiberiusB says:

    The number of negative articles and the general tone over the past few weeks have been decidedly anti-Sanders. You can hold up the odd negative article about Hillary, or you can ask yourself, “why the mad rush to push out so many anti-Sanders articles in such a short time?” You also might also ask yourself if one negative article equals another. I can say you’re not very good at making pancakes and you can say I’m a drunk whose a menace on the road and threatens the lives of school children and puppies. Both are negative. They are not equal.

  25. TiberiusB says:

    Reading comprehension. It’s a thing. I didn’t say anything like that. At all. Try again. If you want to argue that he should have taken a minute to make sure he was responding to an opponent and not a headline, that I can get behind.

  26. penpal says:

    Oh, how quickly we forget that Clinton said McCain (and his incoherent and totally unqualified VP pick) were more qualified than Obama for the presidency. She’s said and done incredibly stupid things throughout her career. Her “mistakes” include voting for the Iraq war and getting hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered, knowing full well that Iraq was not a threat to the US. To this day, she can’t admit she did it for political purposes. That is not the kind of politician we need in the White House and frankly, I’m getting sick of the anti-Bernie Sanders stream on this site.

  27. TiberiusB says:

    Ah, the credibility killing Nader argument. Nader didn’t throw the election to Bush. You really have to work to sidestep all the other factors, biased media, a poor campaign, failure to fight for the recount, a corrupt Supreme Court, massive voter disenfranchisement, etc to pin a few hundred votes on Nader as the big spoiler in the 2000 election. You also have to be a time traveler, because you have no way of knowing how the election would have played out without Nader. Why aren’t you railing against the something like 200,000 democrats that voted for Bush.

  28. TiberiusB says:

    “Here’s a snarky comment that has nothing to do with your question but is meant to suggest your comment is ridiculous and stupid.”

  29. Bookbinder says:

    The plethora of anti-Sanders diatribes here aren’t really wearing well with me. I’ve stopped reading this blog daily for some time now and am on the verge of deleting it from my favorites list. Perhaps you weren’t around when the Clintons threw us under the bus, not once, but twice. They will do the same when it suites them again and there will be absolutely no further progress on gay rights with Clinton in office because she is timid and we are too risky.

  30. Butch1 says:

    You wording is much too direct and HRC would never be that direct in her working either; she always insinuates or suggests something or infers and lets you connect the dots and that is what apparently everyone has been doing.

  31. joe ho says:

    lol. Bernie rolled over. Lashing out at Hillary for things cable news reporters and headline writers said and wrote for spin and click-bait. NOt what she said. He’s unpresidential.

  32. AKRNC says:

    Please link to where HRC said that BS was responsible for the Sandy Hook murders. She said he should apologize for his VOTE because he voted not to hold the mfr’s of guns responsible. She NEVER said or even implied he was responsible for the Sandy Hook murders, just like she never said he wasn’t qualified. Sanders is WRONG and his supporters refuse to admit it, even once.

  33. Virginiaetesch3 says:

    “my room mate Maria Is getting paid 98$/h on the internet.”….two days ago new Silver McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512 Dollars,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k Dollars Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with. extra open doors &. weekly. paychecks… it’s realy the simplest. work. I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. 87 Dollars, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oi3334➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsBasic/GetPaidHourly98$…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::!oi3334…….

  34. Don Chandler says:

    I liked bernie in that interview. Thanks. it was a tough interview but Sanders is very strong in the interview. Charlie sounds a bit too much PC.

  35. Bill_Perdue says:

    It’s a characteristic of right centrist liberals that they have trouble differentiating between the left, which they fear, and Republicans, with whom they compete for the perks, speaking feeds, bribes and influence that accrue to those who run the country in the interests of the rich.

    It’s not really possible to smear a right wing racist like HRH HRC.

    She’s a tool of the rich.

    She’s a racist.

    Shes a rabid warmonger.

    The only question is why anyone would support a monstrous enemy of working people like HRH HRC.

  36. emjayay says:


  37. emjayay says:

    Very much par for the course for some, Addy.

  38. hiker_sf says:

    I agree except for one thing: That Clinton needs Sanders supporters. The recent ‘gaffe’ by Bill Clinton wasn’t a mistake – it was pandering for moderate Republican votes. That is their strategy.


    OMG. The smears get crazier and crazier. Every where I go seems like I have been transplanted to red state or breitbart. Disgraceful.

  40. Voodoo Chile says:

    OK, well I entirely agree with this post so let’s end it here.

  41. Phil in FLL says:

    I do not blame Sanders for Sandy Hook, and if there are Hillary supporters who do, then I think they are misguided and their misguided tactics will do Hillary more harm than good. The same goes for people who call Sanders racist because he might have sneezed or something while answering a question from a Black Lives Matter protestor. Bernie is not racist… or sexist, for that matter. And I would be delighted to vote for him if he wins the nomination. We probably agree on more things than we disagree on. I just thought it was odd—or maybe a little too early—for Bernie to be meeting with the current Pope. It’s kind of unusual for U.S. presidential candidates to do that. In fact, I think Bernie is the first one who has.

  42. Voodoo Chile says:

    Funny, I think blaming Sanders for Sandy Hook is unhinged. I think calling Sanders and the most liberal voting block in America racist and sexist is unhinged. But that’s just me.

  43. Phil in FLL says:

    In what way can the reader conclude that this was a smear? I said it was a tactical mistake, something better done later during the summer rather than before the current primaries. Your reply sounds paranoid.

  44. Voodoo Chile says:

    Vatican confirms they invited Sanders.

    I don’t even understand why you thought that would be a good smear. Dead schoolchildren, grand wizard of the Klu Kluxx Klan, against women’s suffrage – now those are all good smears. But this? 0/10. Not even any points for effort or creativity.

  45. joe ho says:

    Charlie Rose schools Bernie on his recent bad and irresponsible behavior.

  46. Phil in FLL says:

    As I’ve said before, I think both Democratic candidates would do a decent job in the White House, although they both seem prone to strategic blunders. Hillary’s worst blunder, of course, is her notion of archiving the State Department’s email on a server in her home, a mistake which may or may not prove fatal. However, today we learn of Bernie’s blunder de jour. He reached out to Vatican officials (and I really don’t think it was vice versa) in order to attend the Pope’s conference on social, economic and environmental issues on April 15. The Pope then extended Bernie an invitation. If we were playing by strictly Machiavellian rules, it would make strategic sense for Bernie to do this after he won the nomination, like in late summer. If that were the case, then Bernie could say:

    I want to be competitive with those Catholic voters who sometimes vote Republican. It really doesn’t matter if a Vatican visit pisses of gay, lesbian or bisexual voters because all that’s left is the general election, and they have nowhere else to go. I know they’re not going to vote Republican.

    However, a Vatican visit now is a strategic blunder. Does Bernie really think that there are lots of Catholics voting in the Democratic primaries on the East Coast who are so devout that they are going to swoon all over him and switch from Hillary to his side just because he visits the Vatican? Probably not too many primary voters would fit into that category. On the other hand, there are a vast amount of of gay, lesbian and bisexual voters (whether out, closeted or in between) who might see Bernie’s trip to the Vatican as somewhat off-putting. To put it another way, Bernie is pivoting to the general election a little too soon. He’s getting ahead of himself and should be concentrated on winning votes in the upcoming Democratic primaries on the East Coast and California, which both have YUUUUUGE amounts of gay, lesbian and bisexual voters. Not that Hillary hasn’t made strategic blunders of her own. I make these observations, once again, as someone who is happy to vote for either candidate in the general election.

  47. Badgerite says:

    Sorry about the long. I do tend to go on. I find it help more than yelling at the TV set.

  48. Badgerite says:

    Bingo. We are always paying for that. As Jefferson said.

  49. Voodoo Chile says:

    Maybe that’s why so many of her supporters are going super-aggro on this “unqualified” fart in the wind.

  50. Webster says:

    “Sanders’ Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You”

    I realize facts don’t mean anything over here at HillaryBlog, but…

  51. Bill_Perdue says:

    HRH HRC is responsible, along with Obama, for the mass murder of civilians in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanitan and Pakistan.

  52. Bill_Perdue says:

    WaPo is decidely right wing. They supported Obama both times.

  53. Cynthia Williams says:

    Actually, saying that someone might think someone “isn’t fluent in English” simply means exactly what it says. Why? Because I know many children born in this country who have been raised in homes where English is NOT their first language. My own mother, born in the United States, only spoke Hungarian until about age 12. Her schooling was in Hungarian until she went to public school. She understood English, she read in English, she eventually spoke fluent English but it was something she had to learn to do.

    Further, saying that someone “isn’t fluent in English” can be absolutely accurate if one considers that state of education in the U.S. I have to deal on a daily basis with “high school graduates” who cannot read above the fourth grade level, cannot spell and have difficulty comprehending the written word.

  54. Butch1 says:

    Yes, I’m noticing that as well.

  55. Butch1 says:

    I still think there are some comments that should be left unsaid and this was one of them. Sanders has never stooped that low to use the children of a massacre to try and attack him on his gun position. This was totally uncalled for and even many of her own supporters have said so.

  56. emjayay says:

    The arguments from the Sanders supporters – and Sanders – remind me of lap swimming the other day.

    A guy who routinely passes in the other direction by going well over to the other side, like when I am there, (like passing on a two lane road and ignoring oncoming traffic) etc., after waiting at the end for a few minutes started in right behind me, and a minute later hit my foot twice, throwing me off my stroke. He stopped at the other end end of the pool I said, relatively politely, that after hitting someone once you can figure they are still there. He said you do that slow backstroke! (Which I wasn’t doing then.) You should be in the slow lane! (I’m faster than anyone in the slow lane, and faster than a lot in the medium lane.) None of which of course have anything to do with not watching where you are going and hitting someone twice.

    He couldn’t admit to being wrong. He just made shit up that wasn’t relevant. Like Bernie (I know I wrote this before, but it was hours after all the other comments here on Charlie Rose twice said “The headline said….and her surrogates are always saying….” Both irrelevant. Headline writers are not the writer, and whatever the writer editorializes doesn’t change the quote and Clinton in reply to questions trying to stir something up repeatedly making a point that she wasn’t saying that.

    The Sander’s supporters are doing the same thing in various ways. Other commenters keep repeating the facts and quotes, and the supporters here go on for days with what they imagine she implied and what she said about someone else eight years ago. Then others come back with facts and quotes. Then…. Kool-Aid, anyone?

  57. Cynthia Williams says:

    You might try a bit of research. All the claims made here can be verified.

  58. Cynthia Williams says:

    In the 24 years Bernie has been in Congress he has managed to get
    exactly three (3) pieces of legislation that he sponsored through
    Congress and enacted into law. Two of the three bills he sponsored,
    which passed Congress, renamed United States’ Post Offices; the third
    was a bill relating to veterans. That is right: three bills in
    twenty-four years time. In contrast, in only 6 years Hillary Clinton got
    20 bills through Congress and was able to form bipartisan coalitions on
    several to ensure their passage.

    You sound as if you spend too much time dieting on sound bites and not nearly enough time actually doing some research before making such sweeping statements.

  59. Cynthia Williams says:

    Nice try at innuendo. Fact: Hilary Clinton NEVER called Obama’s religion into question. What she actually said.

  60. Voodoo Chile says:

    It’s amazing, in the span of 2 days, Hillary and her supporters (like those on this blog) accuse Bernie Sanders of being responsible of the murder of so many children but then go running for the feinting couch because Bernie said Hillary is unqualified to be president (just like she did to Barack Obama).

  61. emjayay says:

    Well, it seems like Sanders did when he doubled down twice last night on Charlie Rose, hours after the comments here were mostly written.

  62. emjayay says:

    Great posts. And long. Spacing for paragraphs would maybe be a good idea. I go back and Edit to add paragraphing spaces myself. And of course fix all my many typos and awkward phrasings etc. as I can find.

    Oh, you know what the US also has that those other countries don’t have? As a Canadian said to me years ago as a capsule explanation for just about everything, “A South.”.

  63. emjayay says:

    I don’t understand what you think is amusing about your third grade level insult.

  64. emjayay says:

    Maybe you can vote for Nader again.

  65. emjayay says:

    Reminds me of another old guy who ran for president. Except that old guy has changed his positions on many things as the decades rolled by and situations changed and more and different ideas and information were available.

  66. emjayay says:

    Again on Charlie Rose, after you and others wrote these comments, Bernie’s defense, TWICE, was that that was what the headline said.

  67. emjayay says:

    It does raise a lot of questions, and has been widely discussed by pundits and commenters for that reason. And see my comment above also.

  68. emjayay says:

    Yeah, he’s been absent for a year, lying around somewhere. Obviously on Clinton’s payroll or something. Then came back just to trash Bernie. One imaginary thing plus another imaginary thing = payoff. Got it.

    It’s disappointing when a serious informative gay/liberal blog with a long history of interesting and engaging comments gets simple minded comments from conspiracy theorists and/or true believers.

  69. emjayay says:

    Which she did not in any way do. The headline said she did. She didn’t. Bernie didn’t get past reading the headline. On Charlie Rose last night Rose asked him about this and later asked him again, and both times Sanders said that’s what the headline said, then said that’s what her surrogates have said. No names of or quotes from surrogates though.

    Besides, in his speech he didn’t say “Clinton’s surrogates are saying…” He said Clinton said. He was wrong, and no shifting the blame can change it. Wrong.

  70. dudely meister says:

    This is exactly what the lying-ass media wants to happen. WaPo seems schizophrenic based on their headlines: “Clinton calls Sanders unqualified!” “Sanders calls Clinton unqualified for apparently no reason! How uncalled for!”

    So convenient that whenever something like this happens, the same people who fanned the flames and lied, also end up with the most clicks

  71. Bill_Perdue says:

    I’m always happy to expose Democrat candidates as racists and right wingers. As for the shower, it won’t help supporters of the DP and RP.

  72. Butch1 says:

    I see this is going to be a “splitting-hairs” with words contest. Unless she actually says it in those exact words, it can be claimed that she didn’t say it. ::::sigh::::

  73. Butch1 says:

    Perhaps she should apologize for her Sandyhook comment as well. That was a bit below the belt using the deaths of children to attack your opponent.

  74. kladinvt says:

    Considering that Aravosis, who has been absent from this blog for a year, and reappears only to attack Bernie for HillaryInc. So 1+1 = payoff.

  75. doug dash says:

    So, I guess we are going down that road to find out whose hands are bigger, Sanders or Clintons? A pox on both of their campaigns.

  76. Badgerite says:

    Oh please. Let’s start right off with the term “shilling”. This phrase, of course, bespeaks some kind of unethical stance right off the bat. The phrase, “shilling”, which Sanders supporters use all the time when someone simply does not agree with them or their view of how politics works, implies pulling some kind of “con”. I assure you, I “shill” for no one.
    Nor does this site. These guys take positions because they happen to believe they are the right positions to take in the long term interests of the country. “Shilling” implies some kind of self interested, fraudulent stance. And people who supported the ACA get the same crap from the right via an insinuation that somehow the ACA can be “played”. And they only support it because they plan to somehow profit from it personally. You are no different then the right in that regard. Nor is Sanders.
    I watched the video and Clinton expressly declined to call Bernie Sanders “unqualified”. What she did say is what her supporters, including me, and many other people have pointed out, including this site many times and that is that he never does say, even when asked, how he plans to get any of his proposals actually enacted into law and how to pay for them. Posts at this site have asked time and again of Sanders supporters and of Sanders, “OK, how do you plan , with a GOP controlled Congress, to get this done.?” And the response from Sanders is always the same. “Revolution”. In other words, people will demand it. And when you mention the whopping tax increases involved, his supporters tell you how you will somehow magically have extra income “because”, so the increase in taxes won’t matter to you or to anyone else.
    Sanders has always been light on the details and the NYDN interview merely put that in high relief. He says, “other countries manage to provide these benefits”. Yes they do. And they have monumentally high tax rates. And they do not have a military which provides security umbrellas throughout Europe and for country’s like Japan and South Korea. And they don’t worry about nuclear proliferation. But of course, someone in the world has to. Or the consequences could be devastating in the world. ( Nom Chomsky’s opinions not withstanding). Clinton has simply said what people who do not #Feel The Bern have said all the long and that is that yes his proposals sound good if you don’t require any details as to how in the world any of this would get done and paid for with a GOP and Tea Party controlled Congress and without wrecking the economy. He’s light on the how part. And one must come to the conclusion that the how part is what he does not have. A plan. Chez has said as much at this site time and time again. As to “bargaining” positions, Ted Cruz and his minions have the kind of leverage that no president has. Nihilists that they are, they can and have threatened to shut down the government ( see hold their breath) if they don’t get their way in terms of the budget. And worse, they have threatened default on the US debt. Since they control Congress and the power of the purse, they have a whole lot of leverage. And they have gerrymandered themselves into power for many years to come. Exactly what magic is Sanders going to do to counter that? He’ll tell them “I’m talking now”?
    What I see is Sanders and his supporters blaming Hilary Clinton for a Sanders press interview that put one of his weaknesses as a candidate in high relief. And the person responsible for that is… Bernie Sanders. He didn’t think through or prepare for that interview. Period. And then he came out and did what Hilary Clinton declined to do and that was to call someone who is clearly “qualified” to be president, unqualified. Sheesh. He and his supporters need to blame the person responsible for the screw up and that is Bernie Sanders. Not Hilary Clinton.
    Triangulation. Uh Huh. We like to call that ….politics and public perception. That means you do not close doors or burn bridges you might need later to get something vitally important to you done. Whether that is maintaining the public perception in the event of a GOP government shutdown that the GOP is to blame as opposed to unreasonableness in the Oval Office or getting public support for a veto of some heinous provision they pass or putting public pressure on them to actually bring a nominee for the executive or judicial branch up for a vote rather than bury them in committee. And that public perception matters. It can translate into power changing hands. And from what I have seen and especially from this latest run in with the press, Sanders would lose that contest or perceptions. The job of the leader of the party is to defend their positions. He couldn’t adequately defend his own in an interview and then he went out and attacked Hilary Clinton for it. Were he president, things like that could translate into international incidents. I don’t see a lot of things in Sanders that I would want in a political leaders. And one of them is temperament. And judgement.
    I will take a “triangulator” over someone who just pops off without adequate information and without considered deliberation.
    And I consider President Obama very “optimal” indeed.
    Given the challenges he faced going in, I think he is one of the best modern presidents we have had. He has accomplished things, even in his last year, that no one would have thought possible.
    One of the greatest “triangulators” we have had was Abraham Lincoln.
    How, exactly, do you think he got the 13th Amendment through Congress? By saying, “I’m talking now”? I guess it shows that I found that incident rather offensive. And still do.

  77. keirmeister says:

    Of course I can defend Hillary on this: She didn’t SAY what Bernie accused her of saying! You’re upset that her words were sneaky, but in any other context, it would be considered a diplomatic answer.

    She started it?!? What are we, 6 year olds? Hillary started this by not saying Bernie was unqualified to be President, but instead questioned the thoroughness of his signature position? Seriously?!?

    So in the end, Clinton is asked about this dust-up and says she would back Sanders over any Republican, yet Sanders doubles down on his criticism. Clinton comes off poised and presidential; Sanders sounds petty.

    You see? The second Sanders starts to play the Washington political game, he gets in trouble because that’s not who he is (and that’s a good thing). In this incident, Sanders tarnished his brand. I DON’T want that to happen!

    But if he missteps like this against such a soft comment by Clinton, how will he respond to the right wing smears that will be infinitely worse? These are serious concerns!

  78. Aqualad33 says:

    That’s an article that quotes Harold Wolfson, heimaey. Harold Wolfson said it. not Hillary.

  79. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    I think I’ve also had enough of Americablog, at least until the General.

    I leave you with these thoughts:

    Hillary DID question Sanders qualifications as President, even if she didn’t do so in as many words. If you can’t see this, you’re blind, and I suspect, willfully blind.

    Sanders did make a mistake in responding to Hillary’s words in kind. There is the smart way to do things. There is the forward looking way to do things. There’s the common sense approach to doing things. And then there’s the dumb way to doing things. Sanders picked the dumb way, and his choice validates Clinton’s questions. She can afford to backtrack now, as the damage was done, and by Sanders.

    Trump and Cruz are positively salivating at the rabid back-biting going on in Team Blue’s side of the fence. Point out that Sanders did indeed get his qualifications questioned and the likes of Phil, keirmeister, and Badgerite all pile on you like NFL linebackers on a running back.

    In the General, Hillary’s gonna need those Bernie voters she pissed off. Better hope Sanders doesn’t make a third party run ala Trump, because everyone who choice Sanders in the Primary will be hard pressed NOT to pick him in the General if he’s also on the ballot. And if that happens? Well, I’ll just say what I’m going to do just in case. I have enough points to emmigrate to New Zealand as a skilled worker. I’m going to get started on doing that, because “President Trump’ is not something I ever want to hear myself say…

    And now, a much more appropriate place for the GIF I subjected BeccaM to:

  80. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Becca, I normally agree with you, but here, I have to disagree.

    Many things disqualify you from a position. One of them is of course lack of qualifications. You don’t hire me (a software engineer and systems administrator) to do brain surgery because I lack those qualifications.

    But there are others. Another would be a conflict of interests. If a firm hires my wife as their procurement manager, and she starts steering all their software bidding to me, a solid argument can be made that that conflict of interests disqualifies her as procurement manager.

    Yet another would be behavior unbecoming of an employee. I might be the world’s best Server Admin, but if I make my company’s servers my personal porn servers, that would most definitely disqualify me (and end up getting me blacklisted from the industry, rightfully so!)

    Yet another way I can be disqualified is by making poor choices. If I enter a Windows shop and coerce them into moving to Linux, or vice versa, when I make the shop stop because I forced a bad choice on them, you better believe I’ll be run out of the place quick, and down the road, my bad choices will disqualify me for other positions.

    This about covers everything that Hillary can be tarred with. Conflict of Interests? Clinton has millions of dollars of dirty big bank money in her bank accounts. Anyone who makes the evaluation of whether or not she is the choice we want as Dem nominee will take that into consideration.

    Conduct unbecoming? As much as I dislike harping on the e-mail scandal, that is a conduct unbecoming question. So are all of the other scandals that Team Red will scare up. I applaud Sanders for pushing this away and saying the BS lines should be handled by the GOP where Clinton, should she be nominee, can then quickly turn it around and remind the nation that the GOP has been barking up this tree and the Benghazi tree for years without success, while trying to drive the country into the ditch and only Dems have stopped them.

    And poor judgment? This is, as you said, at the heart of the question about the Iraq War and the SuperPAC thing. Honestly, the email debate belongs here as well (as a Server Admin, my first question about this is “who in their right mind trusts consumer hardware and a part-time server admin to protect sensitive official e-mails?!”).

    In this stage of the game, we’re deciding who is best qualified to be Team Blue’s nominee. Sanders has every right to say that he’s the better choice, and provides the best chance to make the General team blue’s. Clinton has the exact same right.

    But whenever you get a question about whether or not a fellow nominee on your side of the aisle is qualified to be President, you answer Yes, right then, right there, no hemming and hawing, no BS, straight up. Because no matter who wins Team Blue’s primary, they’re light years better than who wins Team Red’s Primary.

    And with how crazy this thread has become, I part with this image:

  81. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Gee. Thanks for the backup. Now I need to go take a shower. :P

  82. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    OK. I’ll wait for what Sanders says in response to that. I’ll give him a day, since it took Clinton a day to actually come out and say she didn’t mean to say he’s not qualified to be President by questioning if he’s qualified to be President. :)

  83. Bill_Perdue says:

    She has a history. “Hillary Clinton’s Campaign IEDs (Insinuations, Exaggerations and Distortions) – The Clintons have built their entire political lives on the premise that if they can’t win pretty, they’ll settle for winning ugly. … “Is Obama a Muslim.” Hillary was asked on 60-Minutes. “No. Not as far as I know,” she replied”'s_campaign_ieds_(insinuations,_exaggerations_and_distortions)

  84. Phil in FLL says:

    Clinton could have made this entire thing go away just by saying…wait for it….wait for it…”Yes, Sanders is qualified to be President.”

    Um… that’s just about what Hillary did say, and the blogger who posted this article even included a tweet quoting Hillary speaking to reporters in the Bronx, which you can see on this thread. (I’ve recopied the tweet below.) But just in case that isn’t convincing enough, the same exchange is all over the Internet, including this excerpt from Politico (link here):

    Hillary Clinton expressed puzzlement Thursday in assessing why she thought Bernie Sanders attacked her Wednesday night by calling her unqualified to be president, remarking that she would rather have him as president than either of the top two Republicans running.
         “I don’t know why he’s saying that, but I will take Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump or Ted Cruz anytime,” the Democratic candidate told reporters outside Yankee Stadium in the Bronx at an impromptu news conference before riding the subway.
         Clinton remarked, “So, let’s keep our eye on what’s really at stake in this election.”

  85. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Only if you have an agenda.

    Hillary dropped the ball, and then has the temerity to get angry at Sanders for questioning her. Sure, Sanders should have handled this a better way, but hey, she DID start it.

    My only real complaint is that the Republicans have plenty of fodder come fall. You shouldn’t be defending Hillary on this. It may just get us 4 years of Trump or Cruz…

  86. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Oh, cute. You think the questions are just about his ideas…and that those ideas have no bearing on her belief of whether or not he’s qualified to be President.

    Clinton could have made this entire thing go away just by saying…wait for it….wait for it…”Yes, Sanders is qualified to be President.” She could have even steered it back to her favor by saying, “…but I think I’m the better choice.”

  87. keirmeister says:

    That doesn’t really matter, does it? Making an insinuation on a stump speech vs. a direct question from a reporter is essentially irrelevant. Heck, one could argue the former is actually worse!

  88. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    The exact source that is referenced when discussions of Sanders and Clinton comes up here. Specifically, at 48 seconds into the clip, Clinton makes a comment about her beliefs on the viability of Sanders as a candidate:

    “Well, I think the interview raised a lot of very serious questions.And I look at it this way: The core of his campaign has been break up the big banks, and it didn’t seem in reading his answers that he understood how that would work under Dodd Frank.”

    Not the unequivacable “yes, he’s qualified”. Not even the “yes, he’s qualified, but I think I’m the better candidate.” And too triangulating for a no. She continues…

    “I don’t think he’s done his homework, and he’s been talking for more than a year about doing things that he’s obviously not studied or understood.”

    More hemming and hawing, but you don’t need to be an English Major to realize the answer she’s dancing around is “no”.

    As for the rest of your post? I see a lot of deflection away from my topic. The Public Option was pulled, for whatever reason. That gets me to my final point.

    Do I think Sanders will deliver on everything he promises? Of course not. But I know how Negotiation works. Sanders, because of that “selfishness” Hillary supporters keeps harping on, will start from a much further left position. Hillary will start, much like Obama, on a much righter position (still left compared to the idiots on the Right, but still righter than Sanders). We didn’t get the Public Option because it was never proposed or fought for. Instead, we got RomneyCare. RomneyCare is better than no-care, yes, but that we’re patting ourselves on the back because we enacted a moderate (compared to Trump and Cruz) Republican’s policy says lots of things about why many of us are fed up with politics at play.

    The sad thing is that, this year, with Drumpfy McDrumpfenstein, it is the best year yet to push through real progressive legislation that addresses the cost of college, the cost of health care, our environment, gay and transgender rights, true religious freedom, and a host of other issues that are near and dear, I think, to everyone’s heart here. It won’t be easy, and electing Sanders wouldn’t be the end of it by far, but it would be a start. Unfortunately, we have plenty of people here across the web Shilling for Hillary, and for many of us, Hillary is, at best, “More of the Same” in a year we were hoping for a paradigm shift. But Team Red has gone off the rails, and Team Blue can nominate an old musty boot and win the nomination. So, that’s exactly what they’ve done. And yes, I just called Clinton an old musty boot. ;)

  89. Phil in FLL says:

    See comment above.

  90. Phil in FLL says:

    Stop the presses! Opinionated Cat Lover caught a flaw when I cut and pasted Hillary’s quote from the Washington Post article. Here is the whole paragraph:

    “I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood,” Clinton said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” just one day after losing the Wisconsin primary to Sanders, “and that does raise a lot of questions.”

    I only copied up to the words “Clinton said.” The last part of the quote (which I didn’t notice) is at the end of the paragraph.

    When I read the last part, it sounded like “that does raise a lot of questions” [about these ideas that Bernie is proposing]. It doesn’t sound like she’s saying it raises a lot of questions about Bernie’s experience in Congress or whether he has enough experience in government to be president. It’s obvious to Hillary or anyone else that Bernie has been representing Vermont in Congress (and running the City of Burlington) since the beginning of time. However, if you want to read Hilalry’s quote a different way, that’s your prerogative. Here is Hillary’s full quote:

    “I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions.”

  91. Larry Evans says:

    Yeah, I have to agree with Heimaey, I am – sadly – done. This blog has been a “go to” over the years, I contributed money to keep it afloat, I believe, at one point, but the mainstream anti-Bernie slant of late, I can’t stomach. And it’s come as a shock: I’d always considered AMERICAblog truly progressive. It’s sad, really. I had high hopes for Hillary as the first woman president, but her track record leans too far to the middle, which is already too far to the right. So I’ll be checking back, occasionally, but I truly hope you take a good hard look at the horse you’re backing in this race.

  92. B00Z says:

    I CANNOT believe a politician would tell a lie about another politician!

  93. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Except he never replied to a direct question of ‘is she qualified to be President’ by questioning her qualifications and insinuating she’s not. :)

  94. Max_1 says:

    Clinton needs to tone it down…

  95. Max_1 says:

    … And Hillary never called Obama’s religion into question, “as far as I know”?
    The CLINTONS are pros at painting guilt and act shocked when called on it.

    I find it amusing to see/read those that keep falling for that schtick.

  96. Badgerite says:

    Yes, he had the opportunity. And instead he attacked Clinton and did so based on a false report. Read the article again. Clinton, in response to “questions” raised by the media refused to describe Sanders as unqualified and indeed reiterated that between any possible GOP candidate and Sanders, she would vote for Sanders, no contest. The “questions” were raised by the media and in response to Sanders own disasterous performance in his interview with the staff of the New York Daily News.
    So, basically, to deflect attention from that criticism he bit when the media baited him and attacked Hilary Clinton. Clinton knew better than to bite.
    She put first the interests of her party and the people who she proposes to represent. Sanders did not. He put his ambition first. His wanting to deflect criticism first. Criticism that was by the media and that was valid and that he can expect a lot more of were he to get where he wants to go and then some. And to the Public Option and “optimal”. Well, I have heard how it is all Obama’s fault and all but I frankly have frequently found that the left press and punditry has a tendency to knee jerk reactions as much as any ideologically driven media and have frequently not been entirely on the money. I can give you an example.
    Heather Parton of Digby fame posted an opinion decrying the recapture provision of the ACA if you underestimated your income and received a greater public subsidy then you were entitled to by law. She pretty much claimed that something was being taken away from people that they had a right to. And it was an example of how flawed the ACA was, in reality. Of course she completely neglected to mention that were you to overestimate your income and receive less of a public subsidy then you were allowed law , you would qualify for that portion of the subsidy to be refunded to you through a refundable tax credit. In other words, you were entitled to the subsidy the law allowed you but not what the law did not allow you. Were it otherwise the GOP would have ripped the ACA as something that could be “played”. Her whole post was basically crap. So I don’t know how much stock I put in their idea that somehow Obama “sold out” the public option. I don’t believe that was the case.
    And, frankly, I think the country has a far better system of healthcare now than 8 years ago. And far more than a Bernie Sanders could ever have accomplished.

  97. keirmeister says:

    Well, if we’re splitting hairs, Bernie calling into question Clinton’s choices (since the beginning of the campaign) could be construed as him saying she is unqualified as well, no? It’s the same rhetoric, so why is Clinton considered shifty or evil and Sanders is not?

    I’m sorry, but nailing Sanders on not having specifics about his policy goals…stuff he’s been advocating for decades…is a political win for her – or anyone else who would be smart enough to seize on it. When Clinton brought this into question, I didn’t hear her saying he’s unqualified, I heard her saying, “Don’t Believe the Hype.”

    But I adore Bernie for making these issues front and center. My fear is that they will be only associated to him and not a movement in its own right. If Bernie’s image is tarnished, the issues he is championing will fall behind as well.

    You know this. I know this. You know I know this. I know you know this.

  98. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    >I cannot help but be belittling…

    Well, if you’re cool with being a jerk, that’s your right. :)

  99. nicho says:

    He said – she said, blah blah, blah.

    Still doesn’t make the Clinton Clan any less corrupt. Hillary would be a disastrous president. Bad for working Americans. Bad for world peace. Bad for the economy. Yeah, she spent eight years diddling around in the Senate with no real accomplishments under her belt. She was SoS and screwed up everything she touched. She screwed up health care so bad, we still haven’t recovered.

    She’s what you end up with after decades of a “lesser of two evils” voting strategy.

  100. angryspittle says:

    This is tit for tat bullshit. Compare the two on the really important issues. On war Bernie was right, Clinton was wrong, on trade agreements Bernie was right, Clinton was wrong……the list is long and on virtually every issue Bernie exhibited prescient foresight and Clinton exhibited political calculation to further her fucking career.

  101. Badgerite says:

    That’s too bad. I think what I think. I see what I see. I cannot help but be belittling given the kind of “explanations” for Sanders behavior that are being proffered. Far from Bernie “not having any ego” about this race as Susan Sarandon said, I see someone who has let ideology and ego get the better of him. To the detriment of any real progress with respect to the issues he claims to care about. If you don’t think that the GOP will do with respect to any Sanders campaign exactly what I say they will do, you are kidding yourself. They will and I think it is obvious now that it will be effective. Like Chez says, they will eat him alive. His supporters have been targeting Super Delegates for abusive and harassing treatment. And this ia something he is encouraging through inaction. There is no charitable interpretation of these actions. He either supports that behavior or he has lost control of his own campaign. He just is not presidential material.
    And your being offended by my saying so will not make it not so.

  102. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Good luck. :)

  103. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Many people who support Sanders do think that Obama was not the optimal choice for President. Remember the Public Option? Remember how that got taken off the table so quickly? I do. And part of my support for Sanders and opposition for Clinton is in that memory.

    But you are right. Sanders had an opportunity here to refuse to play the game, and phrase his rebuttal of Clinton’s “questions” with a reply I would have preferred. “Indeed, the voters will decide which of us is more qualified to run as President in the fall, as it should be!”

  104. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Actually, I’ll come out and directly say it.

    Clinton is a politician. Pure and simple. You’re right. She’s mastered the fine game of saying something without actually saying it, and that is part of the tired BS that many of us are sick of.

    Raised questions. About what? Well, of course, his qualifications. Sanders keeps talking about all these pie in the sky things that Clinton doesn’t think have a chance in hell of going through, and she outright comes out and says he isn’t doing hims homework and hasn’t studied or understood what is wrong with his proposals. That’s as close to saying he’s unqualified as you can get without actually saying he’s unqualified. You know this. I know this. You know I know this. I know you know this. The only thing we’re doing here with this discussion is going around in pedantic little circles, with you refusing to accept even an iota that I might be right, Sanders might be right, and Sanders had every reason to go off on Clinton on this.

    The funny thing is I agree with you. Sanders made a critical mistake when he decided to play the game Clinton’s way. He responded to the slight in a way that empowers Clinton and weakens him. In that way, I agree, he’s not ready for prime time. More’s the shame, because now, we’re gonna just get more of the same platitudes we’ve gotten over the past 16 Democratic Presidential years, assuming that Team Red doesn’t steal it this year.

  105. Badgerite says:

    The only thing I can agree with here is the “cat lover” part.
    The United States is a large, diverse country that also just happens to be a world leader and one of the powers of the world right now. Bernie Sanders criticisms of Hilary Clinton could just as easily be levied against President Obama. He also supports a trade agreement, in fact he negotiated it, that the left is against. Is he then, “not qualified to be president”. Interesting concept. In other word, he’s running off at the mouth in a desperate attempt to cover up his own limitations as a candidate and as a party leader. And by the way, a party leader is what you need to actually get anything done in Congress. It is something, I believe, like cat herding.
    And I don’t see Bernie Sanders demonstrating any of the qualities in a leader that would allow him to actually do anything but get himself impeached by the GOP.

  106. BeccaM says:

    I’m so stealing that particular retort.

  107. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    I’m sure that each side has criticisms about the other.

    You just dismissed Sanders with the typical Clinton dismissal.

    Sanders supporters say that Clinton imperils the general election for having triangulated on so many things that passionate voters (read: the 40% that came out and voted for Sanders so far, plus those yet to come going forward) stay home or otherwise reject the choice between Moderate Republican and crazy-stupid Republican. His criticisms about her working with SuperPACs and benefitting from the same crooked system that has given us the GOP? Also valid.

    While the Democrats could nominate an old, stale, musty boot as their candidate, it’s a shame that they can, because I, for one, am sick of the Democrats feeding us the same corporatist BS because they can because the Republicans are That Much Worse ™.

  108. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    You didn’t quote the entire passage.

    “I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions.”

    Boy, what a change you can make when you cherry pick bits and pieces.

  109. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Well, your opinion on the question (and your opinion on its accuracy) isn’t what’s under question here. The question here is did Clinton imply that he’s not ready for the position, then get all bent out of shape when he hit her back with the same criticism.

    Sanders has done a good job of contrasting himself with Clinton, pointing out why she’s not fit to be the Democratic Nominee for President. I happen to agree with him — Clinton is a reprisal of her husband, with the exact same triangulating BS that irritated me about his terms in office, and the same thing that resulted in Obama’s voters staying home in 2010, getting us in the mess we’re in this year. His solutions to our problems may not be feasible, but they sure are a welcome change from the same old tired ‘you just can’t have what you want’ BS we’re getting from Clinton. To those of us who are tired of that same old song and dance, the answer to your question of is it accurate is a resounding no.

    The real question here is what will Clinton do about the 40% of the primary voters who selected Sanders as their choice based on that answer? More platitudes? More people like you coming in and blowing smoke? I’m sure Trump and Cruz are just salivating at that possibility. ;)

  110. doug dash says:

    That’s fine, you have every right to take sides and explain your reasoning. Hell knows, if you do your explaining properly you may change someones mind or convince some one to vote for Clinton. There are a lot of people on the fence on who they want to vote for. You will never change anyone’s mind by belittling them or with anger. And I have seen way too much of that going on with both sides.

  111. keirmeister says:

    You specifically say Clinton didn’t avoid calling Sanders unqualified, then you quote her talking about “raising questions”, which isn’t the same thing.

    Maybe her intent was to talk around the question. But what’s more disturbing is your characterization of her (“sneaky”). It’s as if whatever she does, you assume some twisted Machiavellian purpose. Maybe her background as a politician, who has gotten attacked at every turn, has made her wholly aware of how her words are taken, so she knows she must be careful in what she says. But to assume everything negative about her no matter what she DOES shows only the success of Right-Wing smears against her through the years.

    This is FRAMING, and even we Liberals are falling for it!

    I’ve done my own little part in the world of politics and activism, and one of the first hard lessons is that people will assume the worst about you if there is the slightest disagreement. It’s also interesting how quickly people assume ill intent of others. I’ve been attacked for decisions I’ve made where I had more information about the issue than my attackers. That doesn’t mean Clinton is free from criticism; but it’s very disheartening to hear Liberals sounding like Conservatives…using the same talking points and personal attacks.

    We would like to think we’re better than them. But I guess not.

  112. Jim Hart says:

    Well, to me the question isn’t who said it. The question is’, Is it accurate?

    All evidence is that the description accurately describes Bernie. All the noise since then appears to be nothing more than obfuscation and misdirection.

  113. Badgerite says:

    I’m sure. But I am taking sides here in this dispute because it points to a a deficiency in one of the candidates, Sanders, that would jeopardize election prospects in a general election.
    First he went into a planned press interview unprepared. Than he went off on Hilary Clinton without first checking his facts.
    This does not bode well for a general election.

  114. heimaey says:

    You know how it goes – that was the buzz word they trended, so he got on it. You cannot act like the media is all innocent in this.

    Ok that’s really it – I am out for good (maybe I’ll come back in a few months we’ll see). Bye everyone.

  115. timncguy says:

    so, she is responsible for the headline writers at the Wash Post? Or, is it Sanders responsibility to READ THE ARTICLE?

  116. heimaey says:

    I mean – where’d he get that “lie” from?

  117. timncguy says:

    pointing out what “quote / unquote” means is not rhetoric. He LIED

  118. Jimbo2K7 says:

    Good grief. Enough already.

  119. heimaey says:

    Plus you all are being played by WaPo

  120. heimaey says:

    Saying someone isn’t fluent in English sounds and awful like saying “you’re a dumb immigrant.” English isn’t my very first language, but I’ve been speaking it my whole life.

  121. heimaey says:

    I mean we can play rhetoric games all day – he’s simply calling her out on what she meant.

  122. EW says:

    The same Washington Post that posts dozens of negative Hillary articles a month?

  123. S. Parilla says:

    So what’s the ratio of anti-Hillary to anti-Bernie articles you would be happy with?

  124. timncguy says:

    The difference is she actually said it about Obama and said no such thing about Sanders. “Quote / Unquote” has meaning and it isn’t to imply.

  125. timncguy says:

    the phrase “quote / unquote” has a specific meaning and it isn’t “implication”. Bernie LIED. Get over it and move on.

  126. heimaey says:

    Maybe. Your comment made my day.

  127. heimaey says:

    Add some to yours. The whole argument behind this post is “how dare he” when she definitely implied the same thing, and has also made the same accusation to others. So it’s just further proof of her hypocrisy and her excellent game of playing the victim.

  128. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    You’re still hanging around, so I have a request. You are one commenter I enjoy reading. Why don’t you just take a vacation for awhile? Come back in a month or so and check things out. Give the blog a benefit of a doubt as many of us are trying to do.

  129. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    More pedantic hair splitting. Should have expected it.

    The bottom line is Clinton did question Sanders’ qualifications. Sure, she didn’t actually come out and directly call him unqualified. She just came out and said so in a round-about way, and then counted on useful tools such as yourself to come out and defend her then Sanders rightfully pointed out that she did say so.

    The thing about pedantic behavior is it can be turned around on you. Why would someone put quotes around a word? Well, there’s the primary purpose of quoting someone else’s words, which I’m sure you’re aware of, pedantic one, but you forget the other uses. Let’s look at the use of quotes in an ironic or disagreeing way, also known as “scare quotes”. Could Sanders have been using this to disagree with Clinton’s assessment? Could he have been pointing out that the ‘questions’ Clinton refers to on his qualifications are political slanders designed to impugn his reputation? Why, yes. Yes they could have been. So, in that context, his “qoute/unquote” makes perfect sense, which would make it into the transcript rather than hooking his finger in an air-quote gesture.

    Be careful about being pedantic. I don’t think you’re very good at it. :)

    I’m going to vote for whoever makes it out of the Primary to the General, simply because Herr Drumpf and Preacher Cruz are worse, but I sure agree that Sanders had a right to be angry with how he was cast by the Clinton team. I also think he has a right to be pissed about the hypocrisy of Clinton’s team first painting him as unqualified, then getting all bent out of shape when he turns the attack back at them. Don’t dish it if you can’t take it.

  130. Phil in FLL says:

    “Who paid you to disagree with me?! I demand to know!”

  131. Phil in FLL says:

    Hillary’s actual quote (in answer to questions on Morning Joe about Bernie’s New York Daily News interview) is just above in my comment. After reading your reply, many people would think that you’re not really fluent in English.

  132. Phil in FLL says:

    Add some substance to your disagreement, please.

  133. heimaey says:

    Her implication was clear. Let’s not dance around rhetoric.

  134. BeccaM says:

    Good clarification there of what actually happened and who said what.

  135. kladinvt says:

    Is Ryan the surrogate for Aravosis’ daily negative diatribes against Bernie?

  136. heimaey says:

    Sure – keep telling yourself that.

  137. timncguy says:

    Look. “Quote / Unquote” has a specific meaning and it isn’t “in so many words” or “in a round-about way”. If he hadn’t used the phrase “quote / unquote” in his statement, I’d be fine with what he said. But, as stated, it was a lie. Plain and simple. I do understand English.

  138. Phil in FLL says:

    Up to this point, there are specific policy matters about which Bernie and Hillary have been able to disagree in a civilized, professional manner. So far, so good. “I don’t believe she is qualified if…” is probably the wrong way for Bernie to begin a disagreement about policy. Elsewhere on this thread, some Bernie supporters have suggested that Hillary implied that Bernie is unqualified in the Washington Post article, even if she didn’t actually say it. Those commenters are mistaken. Hillary did not imply that Bernie is unqualified. The link to the Washington Post article is here. In this article, the authors noted that Hillary had appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, and she been discussing an interview that Bernie gave with the editors of the New York Daily News in which his explanations of his proposals were either vague or unconvincing. The following is Hillary’s assessment of Bernie’s interview with the New York Daily News editors:

    “I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood.”

    That does not imply that Hillary thinks Bernie is unqualified for the presidency or lacks the experience to be president. To anyone who understands English, her statement is simply a criticism of Bernie’s answers to the editors’ questions. Elsewhere in the Washington Post article, the authors of the article, Juliet Eilperin and Ann Gearan, write the following:

    “Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on Wednesday questioned whether her rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), is qualified to be president.”

    Herein lies the confusion. A few delightful but misguided commenters on this thread are attributing the words of the two journalists to Hillary. I think it’s a widely understood concept that we are responsible for our own statements, but not the statements of others. Okey dokey?

  139. ADDISON GAINOUS says:

    It was way past disgraceful for Bernie or his campaign minions who allowed him to comment on a WP headline (after the idiotic 147 FBI debacle) instead of the content of the article. And saying this is disgraceful in the year of the “orange man” & “McCarthy Jr.” that is saying something.

  140. doug dash says:

    Hey, I hear there is a job opening feeding live chickens at an alligator farm in Florida. If you ever got tired of writing this blog you should consider it. I think you would be good at it. You seem to be well qualified and I know you would enjoy it.

  141. BeccaM says:

    It was a rhetorical stumble and not a good one either. “Not qualified” for most people connotes a lack of job experience, and however one might feel about former Secretary of State, a lack of experience is not Secretary Clinton’s problem.

    Now then, it’s fair game to question the good judgment of someone who supported the Iraq war and every free (sic) trade agreement to come along and to ask if this is the kind of candidate we want as our next President. I think it’s also totally fair game to point out the differences between Sanders’ campaign fund sources and Clinton’s (although the “no Super Pac support” claim is slightly disingenuous).

    But poor judgment and/or being supported by a Citizens United-enabled Super Pac aren’t the same thing as being unqualified.

    I don’t know why Sanders tried to make this angle work. I would have thought his campaign ought to have been scrambling to release policy papers to address all these areas in that terrible interview where he kept saying he didn’t know what he’d do or what his strategies would be or even what laws and regulations he could rely upon to enact his proposed reforms. I mean, if you keep saying over and over you’re going to “break up any ‘too big to fail’ financial institution,” you’d best have a concrete plan, even if that plan is the least likely to succeed one of having Congress pass enabling legislation.

    Most especially when its the central theme of your campaign — Wall Street, breaking up big banks, dealing with our fucked up campaign finance corruption — these are precisely the issues where you need the sound bites, the ability to give detailed strategy answers, and produce on demand wonky policy papers. Sadly, by trying to deflect to Clinton, Sanders gives instead the impression all he has is the sound bites. Which I’m sure isn’t the case, but again, it’s a bad campaign strategy.

  142. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Then by all means, start organizing the new Left. You keep hammering the Democrats. Now’s your chance. ;)

  143. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Clinton didn’t avoid saying that. She just said so in a way that couldn’t be directly tarred to her.

    I mean, what do you get out of:

    “I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions.”

    I get her questioning his qualifications. But of course, she was sneaky enough to make sure that people can say “oh, she never said that!”

  144. JS says:

    By his definition, how long is the list of people who are qualified? This was just a dumb thing for him to say. To those questioning if he would be a good president vs Clinton, he keeps demonstrating that he’s not ready. He’s not going to work well with democrats to get things done, And he has no hope of getting the republicans to work with him.

  145. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    It’s becoming tempting to ship out myself. This blog used to be a voice of reason in an unreasonable world, but of late, it seems the Sanders-bashing has been taken to new levels. And now this article. Wow….

  146. stupidicus says:

    the qualification of implication isn’t necessary. If you hemhawed around after your wife asked you how she looks in her new jeans, would she need to jump through those hoops while explaining the resulting anger where the question of implied or explicit insult takes a back seat?

    ANd no, my recollection of his “quote” “that she’s been saying lately, quote/unquote…” could just as easily be referring to the headlines where that speciufic language was used that she what, failed to rebut prior to his comments?

    Regardless, my initial point stands. There’s absolutely nothing unreasonable about the interpretation of her words in isolation from the headlines pleading that case in this perception game. She could have removed all doubt by answering in the affirmative when asked if he was qualified, and Bernie qualifying her being qualified by way of an “if and only if” she turns her back on the laundry list of things he noted is not the same as the unqualified “NO SHE ISN’T” you HC supporters are painting it as.

    Dishonesty indeed

  147. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    Pedantic hair-splitting is pedantic. Clinton’s exact words, per CNN, were:

    “I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions.”

    She said he was not qualified. She just did so in a way that she had plausible deniability. But any reasonable person will see that and call it as it is. She called him unqualified. His only mistake was not taking the high road to that.

  148. Opinionated Cat Lover says:

    “I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions.”

    Clinton didn’t say this?

  149. Phil in FLL says:

    The main point here is that your comment refers to a comparison between Obama as presidential candidate and Bernie as presidential candidate–two completely different people. I don’t see that there’s any valid comparison between the two. Obama had been in office as a U.S. Senator only three years when he began running for president, and he had not been a member of Congress before that. Bernie, in contrast, has been the U.S. senator from Vermont for 10 years now, and he has represented Vermont in the House of Representatives or the City of Burlington as mayor since Julius Caesar was a baby. There really is no valid comparison between Obama and Sanders regarding their experience when they started to run for president.

  150. doug dash says:

    Not if you are a supporter of the person being accused of the flavor of the day of insults.

  151. heimaey says:

    I will add one last thing since I’ve gotten a few notifications from my last post, and I will not comment on further posts, but remember when Obama wasn’t qualified to be president or vp? This is one of her popular narratives and Bernie struck back.

  152. dcinsider says:

    False equivalency.

  153. dcinsider says:

    Spot on! 100% correct analysis.

    Bernie got all grumpy old man and none of his aides had the good sense to talk him out of it. Temperament is also a virtue for a President, not flying off the handle with idiotic accusations like some kind of demented old clown.

    His “get off my lawn” anger needs a chill pill.

  154. doug dash says:

    My point is that they are both doing it. This is what is suppose to be happening. The winner will win and anyone who has half a brain will support the winner. Let the process play out. If Sanders had never gotten in the race Clinton would not be as good of a candidate as she is now, Both candidates should be commended for what they are putting themselves and their families through. It’s quite easy to sitting at your desk being a back seat driver.

  155. timncguy says:

    Look, this is what it comes down to.

    Sanders said that Clinton said he was not qualified to be president. She did not say that. So, Sanders LIED.

    He didn’t say she “implied” it. If he had, there would be no argument to be had. He said she said it. She didn’t say it. He lied.

    This is all pretty straight forward and easy to verify.

  156. dommyluc says:

    Clinton was Senator from NY for 8 years. She won her second election in 2006 by a margin of 67% – 31%. There is a general consensus she is very well liked in NY.
    As far as the NY primary is concerned, I think Bernie Sanders just blasted a cap in his own ass.

  157. stupidicus says:

    well, hollow declarations like that almost always originate and are propagated by those with relatively hollow heads.

    well done

  158. Badgerite says:

    Sanders can’t take the “heat”. Hell, he can’t even take press criticism. He went off and said something ultimately even more damaging to his relationship with the party he proposes to lead in November and he so without even checking his facts. Not ready for prime time.

  159. stupidicus says:

    you can’t say that with any more certainty than I can that her waffling was 100% intended to and motivated by a desire ro plead his being”unqualified” case. ANd again, I don’t know if you have the reading comp skills of a third grader or the dishonesty level of Clinton, but the only one I attached the “implied” thing to was her, not Bernie.

    SO take your dumb or dishonest ankle-biting elsewhere no?

  160. Badgerite says:

    That last line says it all and has the added benefit of being unquestionably true.
    He would get creamed in a general election. No matter who supports him. Because he is not up to the kind of sh-t storm that the GOP would throw at him. They do not fight fair. Clinton does.
    They don’t. And once they start defining your image, the game is over. And he clearly is not someone who could handle that well.

  161. karlInSanDiego says:

    No. But we can hold her coordination with Bezos and the Washington Post who has clearly declared itself a surrogate. They ran the misleading headline. Sanders did not. Did HRC call Bezos and demand a retraction? No, because it served her.

  162. The_Fixer says:

    I feel for ya and wish you well. For me, I am staying out of this Hillary v Bernie thing that’s happening here and won’t participate in these discussions until the smoke clears. Too much ill will and I don’t want to deal with it. I’ve all but stopped reading any Hillary or Bernie story here, and probably will just stop reading them after what I’ve seen this week.

    Oh, I remember Orchid Sundays, too. I just lurked, but enjoyed it.

    Best of everything and peace to you.

  163. timncguy says:

    now you want to hold Clinton responsible for a misleading headline by a couple of reporters???

  164. timncguy says:

    his “quote/unquote” was specifically directed at her. Go listen to his statement and try using your comprehension skills. When he “quotes” you don’t get the luxury of changing the discussion to what was “implied”. That’s completely dishonest.

  165. doug dash says:

    And I suppose Chelsea Clinton didn’t tell everyone that they would lose there insurance if Sanders got elected. Come on, this politics; a dirty business. Can’t take the heat get the fuck out of the kitchen.

  166. Mawm says:

    Bye bye

  167. Mawm says:

    Man, you sure live up to your name.

  168. stupidicus says:

    try a reading comp class eh. I compared and contrasted their respective comments with BS as the explicit, HC’s as the implied, and despite the fact that BS qualified his comments with “if” from start to finish.

    The only thing “inconvenient ” here is my having to explain or clarify the obvious to a _____ with another time and text investment.

    And was his “quote/unquote” remark directed at the headlines pleading that case, or the horse-mouthed Clinton?

  169. TiberiusB says:

    And five about Sanders, with more on the way, I’m sure…

  170. TiberiusB says:

    “Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president”

    That’s the exact headline from the Washington Post. Did Clinton say it? Literally? No. Effectively? Absolutely. So here we are, now, with the Clinton boosters twisting themselves in knots because Bernie strongly implied Clinton isn’t qualified to be President. And let’s be clear, he did just insinuate it by listing actions he felt should disqualify someone from being President. The fact that all the demonstrably bad decisions he lists HAVE been made by Clinton or her campaign is a problem Hillary boosters CONSTANTLY dismiss or outright ignore. I know it’s painful when someone stops taking abuse and pushes back, but you shouldn’t be surprised. The DNC and Hillary’s campaign have been playing the surrogate game for some time, letting Hillary’s backers attack Sanders repeatedly while rigging the campaign to benefit her at every turn (debate schedules, DNC funneling money from the states to the “Hillary Victory Fund”, etc.). The now widely debunked claim that the interview with the Daily News, a “major newspaper” (puhhhhlease), was a disaster gets held up as evidence of incompetence even now by Mr. Avarosis’ proxy, Ms. Ryan, who dutifully parrots all the anti-Sanders blather we’ve become accustomed to from this blog over the past couple of weeks. I clearly remember the Bush camp playing the “he never lied” game and hiding behind semantics for 8 painful years. That kind of nonsense, where Clinton shields herself from taking any
    risk and lets her loyal network handle all the smears and hit jobs is
    fooling no one. I suspect it does the opposite, making her look manipulative and dishonest.

  171. timncguy says:

    sorry. But. “quote/unquote” has a specific meaning. And. it isn’t that someone “implied” something. I understand that’s an inconvenient fact for you. But, that’s how it goes.

  172. stupidicus says:

    Good for him. Her and her minions are “just like” their rightwingnut cousins in the way they “debate” insomuch as they think there’s some substantive diff between calling someone a poopyhead by implication/innuendo in 25 words or less, and simply calling them a poopyhead. Well sorry folks, but that’s one of the things about Bernie so many find appealing, and why we’ll continue to prefer a Saint like him with Tourettes over the sniveling. whining bully in the skirt that stupidly thinks that there’s a meaningful diff between the strongly implied and the explicit.

    Nobody was confused about HC’s intent and meaning, and no more so than we are about another example of when and why she can dish it out, but not take it like a woman.

    She’s qualified to play the victim, and she does that quite well, and possibly better than anything else.

  173. timncguy says:

    there are currently two negative stories about Clinton on the front page of this site. That’s not enough for you?

  174. SteveK says:

    I’ve been a reader since the beginning too – but I can’t take the blindly pro-Hillary / anti-Bernie attitudes here anymore. I agree with Jim in hoping that Americablog will come back to the progressive / liberal side of things in the future, but for now I’m out.

  175. timncguy says:

    Bad Headline. Sanders didn’t “suggest” Clinton is not qualified. He said it, straight-up, loudly and in front of a crowd of thousands. And, at the same time, he justified it by lying and making the false claim that Clinton had “quote unquote” called him unqualified. Sanders has since doubled down on his lie by pointing to a misleading headline in the Washington Post, which also contained no quote of Clinton calling Sanders unqualified. Additionally, he is citing an unsourced comment from CNN which also has no statement from Clinton calling him unqualified.

    “quote/unquote” has a meaning. It means you are quoting word for word exactly what someone else has said. It doesn’t mean that you may think someone else implied something. It simply does not mean that.

    What Sanders did is LIE, nothing short of LIE. His brand is supposed to be his honesty and integrity. He has called both of those into question with this incident. And, he can’t bring himself to back down from it. He’s back out there this morning trying to justify his misquote and lie once again.

  176. heimaey says:

    Hey guys I want to say good-bye to AmericaBlog. It’s been 12 nice years but it’s time for me to move on, as I don’t like what the blog’s become and I cannot support John Aravosis in his endeavors right now. If you are interested at all at all in my relationship with AB, and my feelings, read below. If not then, good luck to you anyway (I’m sure 99.9%., if not a complete 100% of you don’t care, but I’m saying my peace anyway).

    About 12 years, almost exactly as I believe this blog started in the spring of 04, or thereabouts anyway, my boyfriend Rick told me about his friend John’s new blog. We’d read it all the time and thought it was cool we knew someone who had a blog (they were pretty newish back then). We’d read it a lot and laugh (in a good way) about the plant posts (before there was a pet page there was a lot of plant postings). But we also found a lot of insightful posts and felt it was a good alternative to the MSM. Ricky read that blog all the time until he passed away from cancer at the age of 40 in August of 05. I continued to be a fan and reader of the blog afterwards. It always reminded me a bit of Ricky and his love of politics and his friend John, but I also thought it was a good blog and wanted to support a friend.

    In 08 I was so happy John was supporting Obama and it felt like some hope was finnally coming our way. John and his team did their part to help get Obama elected and I think they were appreciated by many. Fast forward to the 16 campaign. I have my disagreements about John with his choice to back Hillary, especially after tearing her apart so much in 08, but thought it was a fun place to voice opinions and talk politics anyway. Pretty quickly it became apparent that the spin John was using was not just unproductive it was downright full of lies and grasping for straws. It was dirty. Which OK fine – that’s often politics, but I still thought it was a safe place to voice my opinions in a respectful manner. Some of this would go over to twitter where I followed John and he followed me back. Discussions were had, but then yesterday he blocked me out of nowhere.

    Silencing an old friend’s voice, and someone who has been a supporter of this blog from literally day 1 is unacceptable to me. You can disagree with me, you can tell me I’m wrong, you can even get a little annoyed and sassy with me – it’s cool; arguing politics is fun and necessary. But shutting me off so coldly is mean. That and the fact that his posts have become increasingly irrational (mostly just his – others have been fair with Sanders on here) have convinced me it’s time to let go. I’ve unfollowed AB on twitter, and FB, unfriended John on FB, and have gotten a few other friends to do the same. I will not be directing readers here anymore, and I will not be part of this community. It was a nice 12 years but alienating long-term readers and friends is counter productive and mean.

    I wish the blog much success in the future and I hope it comes back to being a more progressive and liberal blog, and if it does I may return (never say never) but for now and probably for good – good-bye. Thanks for 12 (mostly) fun years.

    – Jim Morrissey

  177. keirmeister says:

    That is a very bad line of attack to make, particularly against someone who is one of the most qualified candidates – male or female – we’ve seen in a long while. One can disagree with her policies, but you can’t say she’s not qualified.

    What’s interesting is that Clinton did not say the same thing about Sanders, even when she was being pressed to do so. That shows political savvy and understanding of how this stuff works. Sanders instead took a false representation created from the media reports and reacted to that. In other words, he fell for the trap that Clinton avoided. That doesn’t mean Sanders is a bad guy or not qualified for the job; it instead illustrates Clinton’s history and experience with the political cesspool – a cesspool that ain’t gonna change no matter who wins the nomination.

  178. Bill_Perdue says:

    As I’ve pointed out before, the Democrats and Republicans will both lose much of their support and undergo divisive splitting because of the challenges posed by Trump and Cruz to the RP and by Sanders and Clinton to the DP.

    If the Republicans nominate Cruz or Trump they’re screwed and if they don’t nominate Trump they’ll get skewered. If the Democrats nominate HRH HRC they’ll lose massive numbers of BS supporters and the same is true if they nominate BS and he can’t make good on his promises. It will make their defeat and debacle in 2010 look mild by comparison.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS