Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

As for PP here is why they are being more proactive this election

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rtion-laws-voters-2016-election-supreme-court

The future president of the United States will either defend a woman’s right to access safe and legal abortions – or destroy it, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said on Thursday, exactly 43 years since Roe v Wade, the landmark supreme court decision that legalized abortion in the US.

“There’s never been an election in which Roe was more clearly on the ballot,” Richards told reporters on a conference call. “I do think it’s going to be a defining issue for voters all across the country.”
...
At least one and as many as four supreme court appointments are likely to fall to the next president. A conservative majority could overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade decision.

Also it's not just PP

Both groups and other high-profile progressive groups — such as Emily's List and NARAL Pro-Choice America — condemned the comments.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-presidency-218066

 

[Allard]

I went through all 19 pages. Have you? The basis of my argument is supported with concrete evidence that can be found within this very thread. Have a gander.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with Bernie's statements on the matter. I do have a problem with double standards.

Should Hillary get the nomination, I imagine she may find herself questioning some of her own statements due to possibility of them being misconstrued. No one is infallible and Hillary isn't a perfect politician. If you asked her today if she would choose to rephrase her historical "cut it out" phrase if given the chance, she'd probably would say yes. Yet you somehow believe she'd be impenetrable when going up against the GOP.

Bernie or Hillary may hit a few snags when going up against the GOP, but if they lose the election, it won't be because they made a few insignificant gaffes.

I have, just because I didn't start responding till today doesn't mean I haven't been reading it since it went up. The closest thing to what you are saying is people postulating some hidden meaning to why PP or HRC endorsed Hilary over Sanders, and that these unforced Gaffs are part of said reason for not supporting him. Most throughout the entire thread other then a few knee jerk reactions at the start of the thread have been heavily focused on the stupidity of the comment and the timing of it. You don't talk about PP endorsement, place the term wall street and PP together and say you are taking it on. True he wants to get money out of politics, and in the end PP and large sway over both people and money which he is actively fighting.

I perfectly understand what his comment is about, he is not attacking the rights those groups fight for and is even championing the entire organizations foundation but wishes to fight the choice few who seem to speaking for them all in these 'establishments'. The fact is in this thread most are talking about how stupid the comment is, the double down, and the seemingly persecution complex some Bernie supporters seem to have in this thread where they get some perceived belief we think Bernie doesn't support Reproductive or women rights. It doesn't exist in this thread, we are simply calling him a horrible campaigner, and with the double down his staff is horrible at it too, and we fear him winning the nomination and getting savaged in GE due to that. Its not the first time its happened, but this particular one shows just how horrible he is about staying focused on messaging when pressured with off the cuff questions.

 

[FiggyCal]

As for PP here is why they are being more proactive this election

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rtion-laws-voters-2016-election-supreme-court




Also it's not just PP



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-presidency-218066

Emily's list criticized Bernie Sanders back in October, calling him sexist. And they also endorsed Hillary Clinton, so it doesn't not surprise me that they would criticize him for this also. It's to be expected considering that they never cared for him.

There also seems to be a lot of different ideas going around about what establishment means.

Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund: “it's regrettable and surprising to hear Senator Sanders describe the very groups that fight on behalf of millions of often marginalized Americans --- people who still have to fight for their most basic rights --- as representing the ‘establishment.’ ”

NARAL pro-choice on twitter

“Sadly, establishment is anti-choice forces out to end legal abortion & contraception, not our friends @PPact & @HRC

I don't get how something can get this badly out of hand. Hillary Clinton is also saying that she's battled the establishment on twitter. All of this is just a big misunderstanding of what the establishment really is; maybe it's not a useful word.The argument that they seem to be making is that Sanders calling them establishment is wrong because they aren't republican allies -- "the real establishment is just conservative ideologically driven entities".

Plus all of this empty talk, and it, practically speaking, means nothing. It's not like Sanders doesn't support those groups or isn't pro-choice. I don't think there's a lot of ways to interpret his quote that doesn't directly contradict what his actual stances are.

 

[brainchild]

I have, just because I didn't start responding till today doesn't mean I haven't been reading it since it went up. The closest thing to what you are saying is people postulating some hidden meaning to why PP or HRC endorsed Hilary over Sanders, and that these unforced Gaffs are part of said reason for not supporting him. Most throughout the entire thread other then a few knee jerk reactions at the start of the thread have been heavily focused on the stupidity of the comment and the timing of it. You don't talk about PP endorsement, place the term wall street and PP together and say you are taking it on. True he wants to get money out of politics, and in the end PP and large sway over both people and money which he is actively fighting.

I perfectly understand what his comment is about, he is not attacking the rights those groups fight for and is even championing the entire organizations foundation but wishes to fight the choice few who seem to speaking for them all in these 'establishments'. The fact is in this thread most are talking about how stupid the comment is, the double down, and the seemingly persecution complex some Bernie supporters seem to have in this thread where they get some perceived belief we think Bernie doesn't support Reproductive or women rights. It doesn't exist in this thread, we are simply calling him a horrible campaigner, and with the double down his staff is horrible at it too, and we fear him winning the nomination and getting savaged in GE due to that. Its not the first time its happened, but this particular one shows just how horrible he is about staying focused on messaging when pressured with off the cuff questions.

Then you are either blind or lying. I did a multiquote earlier to clearly present the evidence but it failed, so I will painstakingly go back and copy and paste every single quote that disproves your argument to put an end to this nonsense. I'm a little busy at the moment but I should be done in a few hours.

 

[Slayven]

He clarified on Rachel Maddow, by contradicting himself.

 

[SaviourMK2]

He can't be 100% accurate the whole time, even Obama fumbled that first debate between him and Romney.
He still has my vote

 

[NullPointer]

Off the deep end? Like quoting Sanders? I mean I didn't make him double down on his statement.

What are we supposed to take away from his statement? From your perspective?

 

[Gamerloid]

He's not wrong. PP is most definitely apart of the establishment. Higher ups are involved with Hillary, and we know who Hillary is involved with. They are protecting their interest and of course will endorse her.

 

[excelsiorlef]

He's not wrong. PP is most definitely apart of the establishment. Higher ups are involved with Hillary, and we know who Hillary is involved with. They are protecting their interest and of course will endorse her.

You make that sound so neferious.

 

[Gamerloid]

You make that sound so neferious.

Depends on how you view such things in politics. This is what Bernie Sanders doesn't want. I prefer they back what they are for, but instead they are connected to Hillary so she will get the endorsement.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Depends on how you view such things in politics. This is what Bernie Sanders doesn't want. I prefer they back what they are for, but instead they are connected to Hillary so she will get the endorsement.

Or because as they explained Hillary is active about the issues PP cares about.

 

[Gamerloid]

Or because as they explained Hillary is active about the issues PP cares about.

They got to give some reason for the endoursement. Like how Human Rights Campaign gave theirs, yet Bernie was clearly the better candidate since he has a 100% approval with them. Human Rights Campaign's higher ups are involved with Hilllary and her campaign.

It'd be even smarter to not make any endoursement currently in the game. Both Sandwrs and Clinton support PP and Humans Right Campaign, so why be quick to endorse?

 

[excelsiorlef]

They got to give some reason for the endoursement. Like how Human Rights Campaign gave theirs, yet Bernie was clearly the better candidate since he has a 100% approval with them. Human Rights Campaign's higher ups are involved with Hilllary and her campaign.

It'd be even smarter to not make any endoursement currently in the game. Both Sandwrs and Clinton support PP and Humans Right Campaign, so why be quick to endorse?

Because for PP actively talks about them and has a history of active legislation.

They're fighting for their lives and feel that Clinton has made their issue more f a priority than Sanders and possibly that Hillary is better suited to weather the GOP machine in the GE

 

[royalan]

They got to give some reason for the endoursement. Like how Human Rights Campaign gave theirs, yet Bernie was clearly the better candidate since he has a 100% approval with them. Human Rights Campaign's higher ups are involved with Hilllary and her campaign.

It'd be even smarter to not make any endoursement currently in the game. Both Sandwrs and Clinton support PP and Humans Right Campaign, so why be quick to endorse?

Several posters throughout this thread have posted PP's point-by-point breakdown of why PP endorsed Clinton.

 

[Gamerloid]

Several posters throughout this thread have posted PP's point-by-point breakdown of why PP endorsed Clinton.

I'll go back and view them. Thanks for the heads up Royalan.

EDIT: Hard to browse by so much knew jerk reactions... It's like only the thread title was read.

 

[BowieZ]

He's absolutely right. The leaders of these groups have establishment interests. He just framed it really poorly at a time when he needs to be nailing his messaging.

But lol at the first page full of opportunistic Clinton apologists jumping to conclusions!

Edit: Maybe that was harsh, sorry, but I dislike when people quickly post a one-word meme response in a thread after most likely just reading the headline.

 

[excelsiorlef]

He's absolutely right. The leaders of these groups have establishment interests. He just framed it really poorly at a time when he needs to be nailing his messaging.

But lol at the first page full of opportunistic Clinton apologists jumping to conclusions!

Clinton apologists?

Jesus

 

[royalan]

He's absolutely right. The leaders of these groups have establishment interests. He just framed it really poorly at a time when he needs to be nailing his messaging.

But lol at the first page full of opportunistic Clinton apologists jumping to conclusions!

If he's absolutely right then what does that say about the establishment groups that have endorsed his campaign? Endorsements he's openly embraced?

 

[Enduin]

If he's absolutely right then what does that say about the establishment groups that have endorsed his campaign? Endorsements he's openly embraced?

Being in the "Establishment" isn't inherently bad, it's simply there and exists as the main framework by which a system operates. Many certainly have an invested and deliberate interest in keeping it that way. Others play ball simply because it's the way things operate, and if they want to succeed and survive they have to follow the script. This is kind of very well exemplified by PP endorsing Hillary in the first place, when they've previously never done so in a primary. But due to the threats they are now facing they feel it necessary, and in many ways are forced, to choose a side and wade further into politics in order to preserve themselves. Whether this was fully necessary is uncertain and whether they chose HC because they legitimately think she's the best candidate, or because she's the safest or because she has inside connections and is the establishment's favorite is up for debate. I don't know, I don't care. She's a fine candidate. It's probably a mix of all that and more. Just how things work. Doesn't make them bad or anything. They are just one small piece in a much larger machine.

But Bernie wants to change much of that and his campaign has largely avoided many of those strategies and means that reflect that system and has actively campaigned against them. His is a mostly grassroots campaign, no Super Pacs, small donations, appealing to voters directly and relying on their support financially and otherwise to spread his message and garner further support. He's really not catering to special interest groups or trying to lure in endorsements, but he's not foolish enough to cast them aside when they do come. It's also a battle of perceptions. He's an outsider. A independent and "socialist" who holds positions many think are too out there. He doesn't fall in line or fit the mold people come to expect and rely on. He's effectively unpredictable as a result of that. Trump is a good example of his extreme opposite.

Plenty of people and organizations within the "Establishment" probably don't care for it and are willing to support Sanders for one reason or another because of what he stands for and what he could mean to changing how things operate. They find him a risk worth taking. Others don't for a variety of reasons. Maybe they don't think he has a serious chance, or they don't agree with his positions on one issue or another, or maybe they just don't want to see someone rock the boat. So it's not surprising Bernie may lament or show disappointment in organizations that he agrees with and who showed strong agreement with him as well play into the system and undermine his campaign because they feel it necessary for one reason or another due to the way politics work and fact that he is an outsider who doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

That said, the status quo sucks, but at least people know it. While the hope is the kinds of changes Bernie is advocating would help to change things for the better it's never that cut and dry. You stop one leak and all of a sudden a new one pops up where you least expected it. Lot of people don't like that uncertainty. The devil you know than the devil you don't and all that.

So that's the establishment he's taking on, which like it or not PP and HRC are a part of, as is pretty much everyone else to one degree or another. That's more or less what I took away from his full statement. Though it would certainly be nice to get a more complete and nuanced response that washes away any confusion or uncertainty. In the end though I think a much greater deal has been made of this than necessary.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

If he's absolutely right then what does that say about the establishment groups that have endorsed his campaign? Endorsements he's openly embraced?

I think it says that they've endorsed Bernie Sanders. Can you tell me what you think their endorsement says about them, because for the life of me I cannot follow this argument.

 

[Armaros]

I think it says that they've endorsed Bernie Sanders. Can you tell me what you think their endorsement says about them, because for the life of me I cannot follow this argument.

So he only spoke out against those two organizations because they didn't endorse him? Unless establishment organizations that endorse him got background checked and none of them are 'bad establishment'

 

[royalan]

Being in the "Establishment" isn't inherently bad, it's simply there and exists as the main framework by which a system operates. Many certainly have an invested and deliberate interest in keeping it that way. Others play ball simply because it's the way things operate, and if they want to succeed and survive they have to follow the script. This is kind of very well exemplified by PP endorsing Hillary in the first place, when they've previously never done so in a primary. But due to the threats they are now facing they feel it necessary, and in many ways are forced, to choose a side and wade further into politics in order to preserve themselves. Whether this was fully necessary is uncertain and whether they chose HC because they legitimately think she's the best candidate, or because she's the safest or because she has inside connections and is the establishment's favorite is up for debate. I don't know, I don't care. She's a fine candidate. It's probably a mix of all that and more. Just how things work. Doesn't make them bad or anything. They are just one small piece in a much larger machine.

But Bernie wants to change much of that and his campaign has largely avoided many of those strategies and means that reflect that system and has actively campaigned against them. His is a mostly grassroots campaign, no Super Pacs, small donations, appealing to voters directly and relying on their support financially and otherwise to spread his message and garner further support. He's really not catering to special interest groups or trying to lure in endorsements, but he's not foolish enough to cast them aside when they do come. It's also a battle of perceptions. He's an outsider. A independent and "socialist" who holds positions many think are too out there. He doesn't fall in line or fit the mold people come to expect and rely on. He's effectively unpredictable as a result of that. Trump is a good example of his extreme opposite.

Plenty of people and organizations within the "Establishment" probably don't care for it and are willing to support Sanders for one reason or another because of what he stands for and what he could mean to changing how things operate. They find him a risk worth taking. Others don't for a variety of reasons. Maybe they don't think he has a serious chance, or they don't agree with his positions on one issue or another, or maybe they just don't want to see someone rock the boat. So it's not surprising Bernie may lament or show disappointment in organizations that he agrees with and who showed strong agreement with him as well play into the system and undermine his campaign because they feel it necessary for one reason or another due to the way politics work and fact that he is an outsider who doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

That said, the status quo sucks, but at least people know it. While the hope is the kinds of changes Bernie is advocating would help to change things for the better it's never that cut and dry. You stop one leak and all of a sudden a new one pops up where you least expected it. Lot of people don't like that uncertainty. The devil you know than the devil you don't and all that.

So that's the establishment he's taking on, which like it or not PP and HRC are a part of, as is pretty much everyone else to one degree or another. That's more or less what I took away from his full statement. Though it would certainly be nice to get a more complete and nuanced response that washes away any confusion or uncertainty. In the end though I think a much greater deal has been made of this than necessary.

I don't disagree with a lot of your post, I just don't think it applies here. Especially in the case of PP who has outlined exactly why they support and have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Like it or not, when it comes to women's issues Clinton has the stronger record, and she's made women's issues a more visible part of her campaign. If PP is going to wade in political waters (which makes sense as a means of survival, as we've both mentioned), then it's obvious that they're going to support Hillary because she champions their issues, and they've made this very clear. Frankly, Hillary has earned their support, she's done nothing to "lure" them into her camp. So to just chalk it up as "the establishment" sustaining itself is a completely shallow and dishonest read of the situation, and just comes off as whining from Bernie's camp considering he has openly embraced endorsements from that very "establishment" he's criticizing when they come out in support of him.

"You're a part of the establishment I'm fighting...unless you support me. Then we good, bruh."

 

[sangreal]

He's not wrong. PP is most definitely apart of the establishment. Higher ups are involved with Hillary, and we know who Hillary is involved with. They are protecting their interest and of course will endorse her.

If he just said PP is an establishment organization there wouldn't be a thread. But instead he lumped it together with the establishment he is "taking on" and that is the controversy

Allow me to reframe everything. Bernie Sanders is the establishment. As a 30-year career politician that is a fact. On its own that is an innocuous meaningless observation. But if I were to say "we need to fight not just Wall Street but the entire establishment this election and Bernie is part of that establishment" now the context has changed entirely and it isn't innocuous at all

 

[brainchild]

I have, just because I didn't start responding till today doesn't mean I haven't been reading it since it went up. The closest thing to what you are saying is people postulating some hidden meaning to why PP or HRC endorsed Hilary over Sanders, and that these unforced Gaffs are part of said reason for not supporting him. Most throughout the entire thread other then a few knee jerk reactions at the start of the thread have been heavily focused on the stupidity of the comment and the timing of it. You don't talk about PP endorsement, place the term wall street and PP together and say you are taking it on. True he wants to get money out of politics, and in the end PP and large sway over both people and money which he is actively fighting.

I perfectly understand what his comment is about, he is not attacking the rights those groups fight for and is even championing the entire organizations foundation but wishes to fight the choice few who seem to speaking for them all in these 'establishments'. The fact is in this thread most are talking about how stupid the comment is, the double down, and the seemingly persecution complex some Bernie supporters seem to have in this thread where they get some perceived belief we think Bernie doesn't support Reproductive or women rights. It doesn't exist in this thread, we are simply calling him a horrible campaigner, and with the double down his staff is horrible at it too, and we fear him winning the nomination and getting savaged in GE due to that. Its not the first time its happened, but this particular one shows just how horrible he is about staying focused on messaging when pressured with off the cuff questions.

Alright, so here we go


First, let's see how Planned Parenthood themselves interpreted his statements out of context, shall we?

We respect @SenSanders. Disappointed to be called "establishment" as we fight like hell to protect women's health.

Hmm, doesn't look they got the memo that he's not attacking their cause, does it?

How about some of the posters in this very thread?

Yeah cause taking on Big Women's Health Services is a hill someone other than the GOP want to die on.

Sanders' true colors are showing. He'll burn women's rights to the ground if it means getting the nomination. Who else is part of the evil establishment? The YMCA?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand you lost me.

And people were wondering out loud why PP put the endorsement behind Hillary.



Edit: FFS OP. Context is your friend.

Ran so far to the left he ended up on the other side.

You've gotta admit though that it's kinda crazy how Bernie went from pro choice to wanting to defund PP. Flip flopper much?

They're one of the main places women, especially minorities, receive healthcare. If you're calling them the same thing the "bad guys" have, you are attacking what the bad guys are attacking, women's rights.

Yeah, but these are services that the government just provides for it's people as standard in other countries.

Stop being so backwards America.

Whether they thought he was right or wrong, the takeaway from this is that they interpreted Bernie's statements as an attack against PP's cause, which most certainly wouldn't have been the case if Bernie's statements were contextualized. And these are just the posts I could find that overtly indicated such a misunderstanding. Many other posts in this thread would seem to indicate that they were under the impression that Bernie was attacking PP's cause simply due to how strongly they were offended (as if he had switched from pro-choice to pro-life) and that's the issue to which the majority of the posters clarifying Bernie's statements were objecting.

So please don't sit here and act like my argument is some strawman that I pulled out of thin air. We have the evidence, now let's move on.

Your feigned concern over Bernie's gaffes in terms of how it woould affect his viability in the general would theoretically apply to Hillary as well. They have both (as well as any politician) demonstrated that they have said things that could have been phrased better had they given it more thought, but a lot of times these gaffes are made on the spot. Isn't anything new, nor is it earth-shattering, and it certainly will not have any significant impact on their ability to handle themselves in the general election, so spare me your 'concern'.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

So he only spoke out against those two organizations because they didn't endorse him? Unless establishment organizations that endorse him got background checked and none of them are 'bad establishment'

This just doesn't logically follow. He didn't criticise Clinton for receiving this endorsement, he criticised the organisation for what he claimed was their reasoning. He said he had friends in the organisations and would want their endorsement. If they had endorsed some unknown ahead of either Clinton or himself would he have criticised them for establishment conservatism? He's taking them on, literally, because they endorsed his direct opponent in a political race.

You could say it's convenient for Sanders that by styling himself as the outside candidate, any endorsement he receives can be chalked up to sincerity and any he doesn't to conservatism, and I'd agree, even though there's a grain of truth to both. But the logic of his remarks is internally consistent.

 

[Zoe]

So he only spoke out against those two organizations because they didn't endorse him? Unless establishment organizations that endorse him got background checked and none of them are 'bad establishment'

He was specifically asked to comment on those two endorsements.

 

[brainchild]

This just doesn't logically follow. He didn't criticise Clinton for receiving this endorsement, he criticised the organisation for what he claimed was their reasoning. He said he had friends in the organisations and would want their endorsement. If they had endorsed some unknown ahead of either Clinton or himself would he have criticised them for establishment conservatism? He's taking them on, literally, because they endorsed his direct opponent in a political race.

You could say it's convenient for Sanders that by styling himself as the outside candidate, any endorsement he receives can be chalked up to sincerity and any he doesn't to conservatism, and I'd agree, even though there's a grain of truth to both. But the logic of his remarks is internally consistent.

Exactly.

To be honest, I don't know why they didn't just wait until after the nominee was chosen, like many other progressive NPOs will do, and even Obama.

 

[Enduin]

I don't disagree with a lot of your post, I just don't think it applies here. Especially in the case of PP who has outlined exactly why they support and have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Like it or not, when it comes to women's issues Clinton has the stronger record, and she's made women's issues a more visible part of her campaign. If PP is going to wade in political waters (which makes sense as a means of survival, as we've both mentioned), then it's obvious that they're going to support Hillary because she champions their issues, and they've made this very clear. Frankly, Hillary has earned their support. So to just chalk it up as "the establishment" sustaining itself is a completely shallow and dishonest read of the situation, and just comes off as whining from Bernie's camp considering he has openly embraced endorsements from that very "establishment" he's criticizing when they come out in support of him.

"You're a part of the establishment I'm fighting...unless you support me. Then we good, bruh."

To me it's more that they waded in at all which is the issue. HC certainly may be more strongly aligned of the two, with a more proactive history but was coming in at all right now really necessary? In the general sure that makes total sense but now? It's not as though Bernie would be bad for them at all if he won the nomination instead, nor are his general election chances unfavorable when pitted against the leading Republicans. Not that it matters as he's still a long shot for the primary, so again did they really need to pick a side? The implication with them endorsing a primary candidate for the first time ever when both candidates rated extremely highly with them is a pretty aggressive move.

Given his position as an underdog and outsider that is challenging the establishment and looking to change how things operate I do think it's unfortunate that PP chose this line of action which more or less opposes Sanders and undermines his position and what he stands for in the larger picture of more diverse candidates. It's effectively playing into the establishment that doesn't want to see a strong race and a real chance at Bernie, a more liberal and really independent candidate, winning instead of the party champion. He's got the right ideas and positions, he's just the wrong kind of liberal.

It's PP's choice to make, they obviously felt it necessary and they certainly are a very important institution that is under threat, but there are implications to their actions. Same for Bernie's statements. It's a two way street. I lean towards the opinion that they needn't endorse anyone right now, not that they should have backed him instead.

 

[brainchild]

I don't disagree with a lot of your post, I just don't think it applies here. Especially in the case of PP who has outlined exactly why they support and have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Like it or not, when it comes to women's issues Clinton has the stronger record, and she's made women's issues a more visible part of her campaign. If PP is going to wade in political waters (which makes sense as a means of survival, as we've both mentioned), then it's obvious that they're going to support Hillary because she champions their issues, and they've made this very clear. Frankly, Hillary has earned their support, she's done nothing to "lure" them into her camp. So to just chalk it up as "the establishment" sustaining itself is a completely shallow and dishonest read of the situation, and just comes off as whining from Bernie's camp considering he has openly embraced endorsements from that very "establishment" he's criticizing when they come out in support of him.

"You're a part of the establishment I'm fighting...unless you support me. Then we good, bruh."

I don't think any establishment organization is going to say that their endorsement is solely because they're part of the establishment, so if an organization is indeed part of the establishment, I don't see why anyone would put any stock into their stated reasoning for endorsing a candidate.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure if Bernie was asked about establishment organizations that actually endorsed him, he wouldn't deny that they were part of the establishment. Bernie is honest like that. If he lost their support afterwards, it'd be no sweat off his back.

And he's went on record to call out special interests that have tried to influence him with money; he simply reiterates that he can't be bought. It's literally part of his slogan, so you can keep pushing this hypocritical narrative as much as you want, but it won't make it any less false.

 

[royalan]

I don't think any establishment organization is going to say that their endorsement is solely because they're part of the establishment, so if an organization is indeed part of the establishment, I don't see why anyone would put any stock into their stated reasoning for endorsing a candidate.

WHY?

Does Hillary not have a stronger(er) record in women's issues?

Has Hillary not made women's issues a more visible part of this campaign?

Is PP NOT under more unified attack from the right than they've ever been?

You're arguing from this position that it makes no sense that PP would endorse Hillary Clinton other than her being the establishment candidate, and that makes no damn sense given her record.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure if Bernie was asked about establishment organizations that actually endorsed him, he wouldn't deny that they were part of the establishment. Bernie is honest like that. If he lost their support afterwards, it'd be no sweat off his back.

This is Fantasy Bernie Sanders that you've created in your mind. Lets keep it to things these politicians have actually said and done.

And he's went on record to call out special interests that have tried to influence him with money; he simply reiterates that he can't be bought. It's literally part of his slogan, so you can keep pushing this hypocritical narrative as much as you want, but it won't make it any less false.

This isn't relevant to anything I've said in this thread.

EDIT:

To me it's more that they waded in at all which is the issue. HC certainly may be more strongly aligned of the two, with a more proactive history but was coming in at all right now really necessary? In the general sure that makes total sense but now? It's not as though Bernie would be bad for them at all if he won the nomination instead, nor are his general election chances unfavorable when pitted against the leading Republicans. Not that it matters as he's still a long shot for the primary, so again did they really need to pick a side? The implication with them endorsing a primary candidate for the first time ever when both candidates rated extremely highly with them is a pretty aggressive move.

The problem is that this is general critique that can be made about damn near everyone. Why does ANY organization get involved in politics on the primary level? This is a criticism that Bernie could have made about all organizations tossing their weight behind candidates (and PP certainly isn't under any obligation to abstain from supporting a candidate until the general), but instead he decided to focus it on the organizations that didn't throw their weight behind him. Well here are some tissues, Bernie. Quit whining.

 

[Enduin]

The problem is that this is general critique that can be made about damn near everyone. Why does ANY organization get involved in politics on the primary level? This is a criticism that Bernie could have made about all organizations tossing their weight behind candidates (and PP certainly isn't under any obligation to abstain from supporting a candidate until the general), but instead he decided to focus it on the organizations that didn't throw their weight behind him. Well here are some tissues, Bernie. Quit whining.

Again their case is unique as they have never endorsed a primary candidate before so it's a surprising move on their part. He didn't even bring it up, nor did he seem all that bothered by it. He was asked a question about PP and HRC in their endorsing HC over him and he responded with a rather complicated and big picture answer.

 

[brainchild]

WHY?

Does Hillary not have a stronger(er) record in women's issues?

Has Hillary not made women's issues a more visible part of this campaign?

Is PP NOT under more unified attack from the right than they've ever been?

You're arguing from this position that it makes no sense that PP would endorse Hillary Clinton other than her being the establishment candidate, and that makes no damn sense given her record.



This is Fantasy Bernie Sanders that you've created in your mind. Lets keep it to things these politicians have actually said and done.



This isn't relevant to anything I've said in this thread.

Calm down. I never stated that PP is endorsing her because they're establishment. My point is that their stated reasoning holds no merit if they are indeed establishment, because no establishment organization would admit to endorsing solely because they're an establishment organization. It doesn't matter if Hillary did all of those things. If PP wanted to, they could have just as easily put out a list of accomplishments from Bernie that would suggest he's the best candidate to endorse. This has nothing to do with whether Hillary actually did what they said, but rather, if those are actually the reasons that they're endorsing her.

At best, we can say that we'll never KNOW why they actually endorsed Hillary, but I'm certainly not going to take their reasoning as fact just because they said so. If you will, then you have a lot to learn about politics.



And my aside about Bernie demonstrating that he can't be bought (by refusing certain donations) was made to illustrate that Bernie isn't afraid to call out those who want to endorse him, so it's absolutely relevant to the discussion.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Bernie Sanders isn't wrong. Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and many other groups are indeed "establishment" interest groups within the democrat party. But so are unions, which he has aggressively sought endorsements from. You can't have it both ways. If anything this strikes me as another case of Sanders making it quite clear he is not a democrat, and nor are many of his supporters. A democrat would not dismiss Planned Parenthood or other groups as the establishment while running an outsider campaign. A democrat would find some innocuous spin and move on.

 

[Kevinroc]

He clarified on Rachel Maddow, by contradicting himself.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-clarifies-establishment-remarks-606428227780

 

[royalan]

Calm down. I never stated that PP is endorsing her because they're establishment. My point is that their stated reasoning holds no merit if they are indeed establishment, because no establishment organization would admit to endorsing solely because they're an establishment organization. It doesn't matter if Hillary did all of those things. If PP wanted to, they could have just as easily put out a list of accomplishments from Bernie that would suggest he's the best candidate to endorse. This has nothing to do with whether Hillary actually did what they said, but rather, if those are actually the reasons that they're endearing her.

At best, we can say that we'll never KNOW why they actually endorsed Hillary, but I'm certainly not going to take their reasoning as fact just because they said so. If you will, then you have a lot to learn about politics.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how the bolded makes any sense.

I suppose I could understand if PP gave some nebulous, wishy-washy reasoning for giving Hillary their endorsement. But PP has come right out and bluntly said it: Hillary Clinton has championed our causes, she has the strongest record and resolve when it comes to women's issues of any candidate. And guess what? Hillary DOES have the stronger record and she has championed women's issues. What is dishonest about that?

You can continue thinking there's some nefarious, ulterior motive here other than the obvious. But I just can't go there with you.

 

[brainchild]

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how the bolded makes any sense.

I suppose I could understand if PP gave some nebulous, wishy-washy reasoning for giving Hillary their endorsement. But PP has come right out and bluntly said it: Hillary Clinton has championed our causes, she has the strongest record and resolve when it comes to women's issues of any candidate. And guess what? Hillary DOES have the stronger record and she has championed women's issues. What is dishonest about that?

You can continue thinking there's some nefarious, ulterior motive here other than the obvious. But I just can't go there with you.

Do you have trouble with hypothetical clauses? Because you seem to be struggling to grasp the idea that my statement was conditional (...IF they were...) and keep jumping to the conclusion that I personally believe that they have an ulterior motive. Maybe this will help... if Planned Parenthood is not an establishment organization, then their stated reasoning for endorsing Hillary holds more weight. There, is that better? Moving on...



So it looks like Bernie is backpedaling on his statements and claims that he didn't mean to say it the way that he said it. In other words, he made a legitimate gaffe. This is a bit different than his statements being misconstrued. In this case, he's basically saying that he slipped up and that Hillary is taking advantage of that.

Personally, I think he made the right call by taking back his statement, but he needs to fire Tad Devine immediately.

 

[royalan]

Do you have trouble with hypothetical clauses? Because you seem to be struggling to grasp the idea that my statement was conditional (...IF they were...) and keep jumping to the conclusion that I personally believe that they have an ulterior motive. Maybe this will help... if Planned Parenthood is not an establishment organization, then their stated reasoning for endorsing Hillary holds more weight. There, is that better? Moving on...

You can cut it with the condescending tone.

If you're arguing one big hypothetical here...then what is your point at all? Because I'm dealing with what's actually happening, yet you felt the need to respond to me with a what-if scenario that, frankly, doesn't matter.

 

[brainchild]

You can cut it with the condescending tone.

If you're arguing one big hypothetical here...then what is your point at all? Because I'm dealing with what's actually happening, yet you felt the need to respond to me with a what-if scenario that, frankly, doesn't matter.

What's actually happening is that there is a discussion about the legitimacy of categorizing PP as an establishment organization. Since there is no general consensus on this, that leaves multiple possibilities on the table; hypotheticals, if you will.

In argumentation, if you have several branches that lead to rational and logical conclusions, then you don't discount any of them, which is why I interjected in the first place. In other words, you could be right, and you aren't necessarily wrong, but you also aren't necessarily right, and could be wrong, so it's best to consider all plausible possibilities. I chose to balance this particular discussion by highlighting other possibilities. That is one of the useful purposes in utilizing hypothetical scenarios and conditional statements in a rationalized argument.

 

[And_Gignac]

He clarified on Rachel Maddow, by contradicting himself.

He didnt contradict himself. He was pretty clear the first time. He meant the leadership. If Clinton and their stans will try to push this dumb lie that he was attacking PP and HRC they can do it. It wont work as a political attack because its based on an evident lie.

Meanwhile,

Over half a million views for Sanders last Iowa ad. A POLITICAL AD.

The hype is real.

I wonder why theres not the same excitement for Clinton?

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-clarifies-establishment-remarks-606428227780

Kasie Hunt just said everything I would have said in this segment. Hillary is making a mistake to try to capitalize on this and lasso the "establishment" narrative for her benefit. She had an opportunity to show that she's not necessarily as calculating or opportunistic as she's been labelled and totally blew it. She could have defended Sanders over a moment of what Obama would call "silly season in politics" and instead decided to go to war with Bernie over it. As a result, very few people doubt that Bernie stands with PP and HRC's causes, but they have been given more reason to believe that Hillary Clinton is a politician in the pejorative sense of the word. Clinton could get a quick bump out of this, and is instead hurting her own optics. I don't think she's capable of considering a course of action other than "attack at any sign of weakness" when that option presents itself.

Remember Bernie's "sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails" moment? Hillary could have had one of those moments for herself.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Kasie Hunt just said everything I would have said in this segment. Hillary is making a mistake to try to capitalize on this and lasso the "establishment" narrative for her benefit. She had an opportunity to show that she's not necessarily as calculating or opportunistic as she's been labelled and totally blew it. She could have defended Sanders over a moment of what Obama would call "silly season in politics" and instead decided to go to war with Bernie over it. As a result, very few people doubt that Bernie stands with PP and HRC's causes, but they have been given more reason to believe that Hillary Clinton is a politician in the pejorative sense of the word. Clinton could get a quick bump out of this, and is instead hurting her own optics. I don't think she's capable of considering a course of action other than "attack at any sign of weakness" when that option presents itself.

Remember Bernie's "sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails" moment? Hillary could have had one of those moments for herself.

The high road is worthless when people think she is inherently untrustworthy and panders to begin with. No one is likely to change their mind because she doesn't attack; in fact it would affirm their belief that Bernie was right all along. She didn't attack when the data breach occurred and took the high road. Look how that turned out.

And a quick bump is exactly what Clinton needs right now. Winning Iowa is top priority atm for each candidate.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

The high road is worthless when people think she is inherently untrustworthy and panders to begin with. No one is likely to change their mind because she doesn't attack; in fact it would affirm their belief that Bernie was right all along. She didn't attack when the data breach occurred and took the high road. Look how that turned out.

And a quick bump is exactly what Clinton needs right now. Winning Iowa is top priority atm for each candidate.

I watched that debate with my roommates, one of which is a Bernie fan and the other left-leaning but mostly apolitical, and we all were pleasantly surprised by how Hillary took the high road regarding the data breach issue. I don't think it would be a zero sum game if she did that a little more often.

That said, I think she squandered the quick bump. I think she runs the risk of going too negative as she did in '08. I would almost guarantee that if she attacks Sanders with this at the town hall in a few days, it will backfire.

 

[Allard]

Alright, so here we go


First, let's see how Planned Parenthood themselves interpreted his statements out of context, shall we?



Hmm, doesn't look they got the memo that he's not attacking their cause, does it?

How about some of the posters in this very thread?
























Whether they thought he was right or wrong, the takeaway from this is that they interpreted Bernie's statements as an attack against PP's cause, which most certainly wouldn't have been the case if Bernie's statements were contextualized. And these are just the posts I could find that overtly indicated such a misunderstanding. Many other posts in this thread would seem to indicate that they were under the impression that Bernie was attacking PP's cause simply due to how strongly they were offended (as if he had switched from pro-choice to pro-life) and that's the issue to which the majority of the posters clarifying Bernie's statements were objecting.

So please don't sit here and act like my argument is some strawman that I pulled out of thin air. We have the evidence, now let's move on.

Your feigned concern over Bernie's gaffes in terms of how it woould affect his viability in the general would theoretically apply to Hillary as well. They have both (as well as any politician) demonstrated that they have said things that could have been phrased better had they given it more thought, but a lot of times these gaffes are made on the spot. Isn't anything new, nor is it earth-shattering, and it certainly will not have any significant impact on their ability to handle themselves in the general election, so spare me your 'concern'.

First off you need to calm down, second I clearly stated most, and yes most of the thread IS related to optics of his statement, most are condemning the statement for such a reason but clearly show they understand what he was going for. Third I am pretty sure half those posts are being sarcastic. And lastly 4th I am alluding to the simple fact that due to his own usage of words, he has presented a case against himself on a sound bite level that is allowing for these misunderstandings and thus returns to my original observation, he isn't a good national campaigner, he is a good policy maker, I respect Bernie for his years of work and I would vote for him in the General were he nominated, but I believe there is legitimate concern, and always have been, that he isn't a savvy enough politician to survive the general election, what he does in Vermont just won't work in this current climate on the national scale. To me the optics of the statement is worth talking about. Hilary has had plenty of gaffes as well, but she is a more savvy politician, especially after the trouncing she suffered under Obama in 2008, she appears to actually know when to let things go, when to defend and has a support staff that knows how to actually mitigate damage rather then doubling down. This is a huge change from 2008 and she has been so villianized in certain circles that so many attacks just won't stick anymore. As for Bernie, Its not just Bernie, its his whole campaign and staff too. Hillary sucked in 2008 in large part because she had horrible people managing her campaign, and some of those are now working for Bernie and are doing the same foot in the mouth lack of tack Hilary was known for in 2008.

What I have been seeing in this thread however, is that some Bernie supporters seem to be taking an almost persecution complex like front to the statement and putting words in the mouth of people in this thread when way more then a majority in this thread aren't saying the things (including I might add a large majority of Bernie supporters) you are saying about how this thread has been transpiring. Some did yes, but 95% of the people who are posting in here are not.

 

[Suikoguy]

I watched that debate with my roommates, one of which is a Bernie fan and the other left-leaning but mostly apolitical, and we all were pleasantly surprised by how Hillary took the high road regarding the data breach issue. I don't think it would be a zero sum game if she did that a little more often.

That said, I think she squandered the quick bump. I think she runs the risk of going too negative as she did in '08. I would almost guarantee that if she attacks Sanders with this at the town hall in a few days, it will backfire.

It's not a particularly wide opening, especially now that Sanders has backed down from his establishment talk. I suspect it won't be brought up at the debate. After that Rachel Maddow segment, I think the whole thing is over.

The only legitimate avenue for attack was Sander's apparent black and white view. What does he have against establishment organizations, even if they are doing the right thing(s)? Why must things be viewed through such a lens? Anything beyond that is dishonest.

I always found attacking the policies and actions to be more prudent then attacking establishment or non-establishment which is what irked me about the original post.

 

[Clefargle]

Digesting this, I don't think it's wrong to call them Democratic establishment per se, but its not like it is a "bad" part of it that you need to fight against. Sanders needed to clarify a lot instead of lumping it in with his regular lines

I think he wants to dismantle most of the establishment, dem or not. He just happens to want to fight one of the non profits most attacked by the GOP. Bad look sandy

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I think he wants to dismantle most of the establishment, dem or not. He just happens to want to fight one of the non profits most attacked by the GOP. Bad look sandy

He's "taking them on" in the sense that they've endorsed his direct rival in a political race. He hasn't said he wants to fight or dismantle them.

 

[Clefargle]

He's "taking them on" in the sense that they've endorsed his direct rival in a political race. He hasn't said he wants to fight or dismantle them.

No shit, that's why it looks petty. He waits until they endorse his rival to call them establishment and then retract it?

 

[A More Normal Bird]

No shit, that's why it looks petty. He waits until they endorse his rival to call them establishment and then retract it?

Your post implied that Sanders wanted to fight and/or dismantle the organisations in question, so I provided some clarification. At this point I'm convinced that establishment is a much more loaded term in the US than I (and apparently Sanders) thought. Regardless, it would be a bit odd to criticise them for endorsing the establishment candidate before they had done so, wouldn't it?

 

[brainchild]

First off you need to calm down, second I clearly stated most, and yes most of the thread IS related to optics of his statement, most are condemning the statement for such a reason but clearly show they understand what he was going for. Third I am pretty sure half those posts are being sarcastic. And lastly 4th I am alluding to the simple fact that due to his own usage of words, he has presented a case against himself on a sound bite level that is allowing for these misunderstandings and thus returns to my original observation, he isn't a good national campaigner, he is a good policy maker, I respect Bernie for his years of work and I would vote for him in the General were he nominated, but I believe there is legitimate concern, and always have been, that he isn't a savvy enough politician to survive the general election, what he does in Vermont just won't work in this current climate on the national scale. To me the optics of the statement is worth talking about. Hilary has had plenty of gaffes as well, but she is a more savvy politician, especially after the trouncing she suffered under Obama in 2008, she appears to actually know when to let things go, when to defend and has a support staff that knows how to actually mitigate damage rather then doubling down. This is a huge change from 2008 and she has been so villianized in certain circles that so many attacks just won't stick anymore. As for Bernie, Its not just Bernie, its his whole campaign and staff too. Hillary sucked in 2008 in large part because she had horrible people managing her campaign, and some of those are now working for Bernie and are doing the same foot in the mouth lack of tack Hilary was known for in 2008.

What I have been seeing in this thread however, is that some Bernie supporters seem to be taking an almost persecution complex like front to the statement and putting words in the mouth of people in this thread when way more then a majority in this thread aren't saying the things (including I might add a large majority of Bernie supporters) you are saying about how this thread has been transpiring. Some did yes, but 95% of the people who are posting in here are not.

My argument was never that the majority of posters were directly responsible for manufacturing the narrative that Bernie is anti-women's rights, but that the narrative existed in the first place, which you blatantly denied. Even PP themselves interpreted it that way, based on Hillary's tweet. It's fine if you want to backpedal but don't get mad when somebody calls you out on your bullshit.

Furthermore, Bernie's 'optics' are why he resonates so well with his core base; it fits the notion of him being an outsider. He's not trying to be 'a savvy politician' that carefully plays the political game in a cold and calculated way, and his supporters view his candid and angry approach as a prime example of how genuine he is compared to his opponents. If he tried to be more like Hillary, he'd lose a significant amount of his base, including me. So you can be concerned about his optics if you want to, but Bernie being Bernie is what's going to get him nominated, if nothing else.

Lastly, your persecution complex theory is about as solid as the theory that Bernie is turning pro-life after this fiasco. In other words, it flies in the face of actual evidence. But go ahead and believe whatever you want. Who knows, you might be right. Maybe Santa Claus is real, too.

 

[Matt]

As someone who has worked in Democratic politics in DC, I'll say this:

Bernie Sanders is the Democratic version of John McCain. He believes in (most) of what he says, but more then anything Bernie Sanders believes in Bernie Sanders. His role, what he stands for, his righteousness. The fact that PP and HRC would dare support anyone else is, to him, a sign of their own failings. After all, if they can't see he is the right choice, they MUST be wrong, and should be lumped in with all the rest that just don't see the truth.