Hillary:"Where was Bernie when I got healthcare in 93?" Right there, she thanked him

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt said:
This really means nothing, other then create a silly gotcha moment.
Click to expand...
Normally I'd agree but man, she provided all the setup here. Its the punchline to her own bad joke.

I can't stand optics over substance, but maybe she shouldn't have used that line to begin with, and maybe she's been mispeaking a bit too much lately.

I think she's rattled and taking some pretty weak avenues of attack, but I think she'll get over it.
 
RobbieNick said:
Really? I'd take ANYONE over Trump. Hillary's not great, but not near as bad as him.
Click to expand...

I don't get why all these "Settling for Hillary" people won't just vote for Bernie instead. It just baffles the mind, the way these people think. Had everyone just voted for Bernie to begin with, we would have had our second Obama and everything would have been fine.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
I don't get why all these "Settling for Hillary" people won't just vote for Bernie instead. It just baffles the mind, the way these people think. Had everyone just voted for Bernie to begin with, we would have had our second Obama and everything would have been fine.
Click to expand...
Man people expect a lot of Bernie.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
I don't get why all these "Settling for Hillary" people won't just vote for Bernie instead. It just baffles the mind, the way these people think. Had everyone just voted for Bernie to begin with, we would have had our second Obama and everything would have been fine.
Click to expand...

I'm voting Bernie in the primary. If I'm forced to, I will vote Hillary in the general. Settling for her, even if she's just status-quo, is better than the alternative.
 
nib95 said:
Jesus dude, it's like you've lost all rationality in your support and defence of Hillary. I feel like she could almost do or say anything and you'd still support her, or frame a negative in to her positive. You're literally trying to re-write and frame her very specific words here.

Questioning where he was when she was pushing it is an attack, not a promotion, the very obvious objective being the implication that he wasn't there supporting it, or her at the time. She is very clearly misleading.
Click to expand...

Yea, people are trying really hard to make this not an embarrassing situation for her, but it's already happened. She was trying to talk like he was a total no show or wasn't even interested in the topic, and she got shutdown in the worst way imaginable, by way of proof that not only was Bernie there, but Hillary was directly thanking and engaging with him on the subject of healthcare.

There's no way to try to spin it to have any other meaning. She lost this one clean.
 
shinra-bansho said:
It would frankly be so far beyond stupid to try and say he wasn't for public healthcare that she and her campaign staff would have had to have suffered mass aneurysms. So I'm not sure where that interpretation is even coming from. I mean I guess it's possible her campaign has really dropped its game that much. But it seems an unlikely line of attack.

As opposed to saying I've led on this issue, I've taken the slings and arrows, I've gotten things done, he hasn't. Which has been a campaign refrain.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between accusing someone of "not" being for something, and being "not actively" for something. She's basically trying to score points accusing Bernie of not being anywhere near as active as her for healthcare, whereas for all intents and purposes he was as active as he could've been given his limited capacity.

And once again:

HILLARY PRAISED SANDERS FOR HIS "LEADERSHIP".

There are videos of this in the thread.
 
Machina said:
This is by far the biggest gaffe Clinton has made since the race began
Click to expand...

No, because she probably meant "why didn't he support my bill?" and even if she didn't it's nowhere near as bad as the Reagan thing. Reagan was a horrible guy who didn't give any fucks about AIDS victims and she praised him, that was super weird and a big deal
 
Risette said:
Nah, nothing compares to the Reagan thing. That was genuinely offensive and concerning,
Click to expand...

ciaossu said:
No, because she probably meant "why didn't he support my bill?" and even if she didn't it's nowhere near as bad as the Reagan thing. Reagan was a horrible guy who didn't give any fucks about AIDS victims and she praised him, that was super weird and a big deal
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but Reagan isn't the man running against her.
 
BowieZ said:
HILLARY PRAISED SANDERS FOR HIS "LEADERSHIP".

There are videos of this in the thread.
Click to expand...
That is something politicians say, not really a statement meant to stand up to posterity.

But again, absolutely her campaign should have known these images and quotes would come up, and not gone down this path in this way.
 
royalan said:
He also didn't get the attacks that she did by placing herself in front of the issue and using her clout to attempt to get it passed. Hillary Clinton was beaten bloody by the right and by the health insurance industry for pushing universal healthcare. And this is important, because at several points in this race, Sanders has characterized her as being against universal healthcare "like every other country in Europe" because she's against his plan. That's what I think she's implying here, that if Bernie Sanders actually was around in the 90s (which he was), then he should know that she is very much for universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

Bingo
 
ciaossu said:
No, because she probably meant "why didn't he support my bill?" and even if she didn't it's nowhere near as bad as the Reagan thing. Reagan was a horrible guy who didn't give any fucks about AIDS victims and she praised him, that was super weird and a big deal
Click to expand...

Whats crazy is most of these flubs is because she is being forced to think on her feet. Nancy Reagan's death made her feel impelled to say something nice and instead of just saying something that might of been real (and or the low hanging fruit) about how she and Nancy were both former first ladies and maybe the stress of being the wife of the President..... she went and made stuff up.

I was all about Hilary until these last couple of days but I am a very big believer that a persons presidential campaign is indicative of how they would be as president. Now the trend for Hilary just seems like she is the type of politician to get involved in shit she shouldn't have for dubious reasons and then everyone is left trying to justify it to make it seem less shallow than it was.

Thats been the playbook for all her gafs so far. Get involved in some shit (sometimes halfheartedly), make the wrong choice on what to do/say, disengage, watch as people try to logic why she got involved, repeat. Its sort of Bush'esque.
 
Zeus Molecules said:
Whats crazy is most of these flubs is because she is being forced to think on her feet. Nancy Reagan's death made her feel impelled to say something nice and instead of just saying something that might of been real (and or the low hanging fruit) about how she and Nancy were both former first ladies and maybe the stress of being the wife of the President..... she went and made stuff up.

I was all about Hilary until these last couple of days but I am a very big believer that a persons presidential campaign is indicative of how they would be as president. Now the trend for Hilary just seems like she is the type of politician to get involved in shit she shouldn't have for dubious reasons and then everyone is left trying to justify it to make it seem less shallow than it was.

Thats been the playbook for all her gafs so far. Get involved in some shit (sometimes halfheartedly), make the wrong choice on what to do/say, disengage, watch as people try to logic why she got involved, repeat. Its sort of Bush'esque.
Click to expand...

I mean, if I'm honest? I'll still take this sort of flub over the "I'm going to promise to reduce the prison population by half a million people in the heat of the moment and then double down on it" sort of flub. The Reagan thing and the Trump thing were both bad and they dampened my enthusiasm, but I'm not really seeing the smoking gun here
 
cdyhybrid said:
:lol

No. Only if Bernie supporters take their ball and go home and/or vote for Trump if Bernie loses.
Click to expand...
I don't think Bernie would win if Hillary supporters did the same if situation was reversed.
Which is why I find the whole "Bernie or Bust" type of attitude towards both candidates horrifying.

There's more at stake than simply Hillary or Bernie, and their rather small differences in the grand scheme of things.
Liberals have to show up this election and secure a win for the Democrats, personal preference between those two or whatever pain is felt if one's favorite loses will be meaningless come the general election.

I haven't watched Real Time in ages for many issues I have with Maher, but this week's New Rule segment said it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdv9W-xcgeQ
 
Matt said:
I mean, I honestly doubt she remembered who was at this speech 26 years later. But her campaign should have.
Click to expand...

Well now she knows. I expect a retraction and an apology.

EDIT: ....which still won't suffice -- now that I think about it -- because what she did is completely inappropriate and irresponsible. "I didn't know" is not an excuse. She didn't question whether or not Sanders supported her. She leveled an accusation. She was positive that Sanders had nothing to do with it.

So if she didn't remember, she shouldn't have acted like she did.
 
Why do people even want Hilary as President? Haven't really followed these elections, but every time I've seen her on the news here (UK) she gives me bad vibes. Completely distrust her and her husband.
 
Matt said:
I mean, I honestly doubt she remembered who was at this speech 26 years later. But her campaign should have.
Click to expand...
Maybe we shouldn't be voting for someone for President who has a selective memory at best. Why does she above others deserve to be President, again?

Matt said:
That is something politicians say, not really a statement meant to stand up to posterity.
Click to expand...
But I thought she's "not a natural politician!!" lol

#WhichHillary indeed
 
BowieZ said:
Maybe we shouldn't be voting for someone for President who has a selective memory at best. Why does she deserve to be President?
Click to expand...

This is just unreasonable. She doesn't have a bad memory, you are just asking for a recall ability no one has. Politicians give a lot of speeches, sign a lot of cards, thank a lot of people. Bernie would have just as much trouble remembering such a thing.
 
shinra-bansho said:
I don't really know whether the bolded is agreement or disagreement with what I wrote. This stands as the general attack line under what I wrote. But I'm not sure how the latter two interpretations of said bolded are the only corollaries.

It would frankly be so far beyond stupid to try and say he wasn't for public healthcare that she and her campaign staff would have had to have suffered mass aneurysms. So I'm not sure where that interpretation is even coming from. I mean I guess it's possible her campaign has really dropped its game that much. But it seems an unlikely line of attack.

As opposed to saying I've led on this issue, I've taken the slings and arrows, I've gotten things done, he hasn't. Which has been a campaign refrain.
Click to expand...
When someone says this:
"I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94," a fired up @HillaryClinton says of Sanders.

It implies he wasn't doing anything for it. When he was literally right behind her and she thanked him for his leadership. Again you're reading much further into the comment to pull a narrative that just isn't there. As you said that attack/narrative itself is just as weak since the reason Hillary was able to push these things is because she married Bill Clinton.
 
HighResTomato said:
Why do people even want Hilary as President? Haven't really followed these elections, but every time I've seen her on the news here (UK) she gives me bad vibes. Completely distrust her and her husband.
Click to expand...

I don't think many "want" her in the traditional sense, but (rightly or wrongly) believe she's the best candidate for the democrats in the general election. Her voters tend to skew older (over 45 or so) and wealthier compared to Bernie. She also trades a lot on her name, whether her supporters want to admit that or not. People just aren't crazy about her.

She's arguably a weaker candidate against Trump.

There's a major enthusiasm gap between the two and it's starting to show.
 
remember when bernie was at 3%

time is a berned circle, dank souls

719-1-1391499110.png
Click to expand...
 
Matt said:
This is just unreasonable. She doesn't have a bad memory, you are just asking for a recall ability no one has. Politicians give a lot of speeches, sign a lot of cards, thank a lot of people. Bernie would have just as much trouble remembering such a thing.
Click to expand...

So you're just giving her a free pass to say whatever she wants and make all kinds of wild, inflammatory accusations?
 
Matt said:
This is just unreasonable. She doesn't have a bad memory, you are just asking for a recall ability no one has. Politicians give a lot of speeches, sign a lot of cards, thank a lot of people. Bernie would have just as much trouble remembering such a thing.
Click to expand...

This is something that has already come up recently within this election cycle.

People of her caliber are supposed to be armed to the teeth with fact checkers.
 
Zoe said:
This is something that has already come up recently within this election cycle.

People of her caliber are supposed to be armed to the teeth with fact checkers.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. I literally said that her campaign should have known this.
 
HariKari said:
There's a major enthusiasm gap between the two and it's starting to show.
Click to expand...

Then I guess it's showing everywhere but where enthusiasm actually matters: turnout.

Hillary is beating Bernie in both delegates and popular vote. So the enthusiasm argument doesn't make much sense when you pull out and observe the entire electorate, and not just a certain set.
 
Matt said:
Yes, I agree. I literally said that her campaign should have known this.
Click to expand...

Should a candidate not stick with what they know? She invites gaffes upon herself by speaking out on issues when it isn't really called for. It looks and feels cheap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

When i logged in today neogaf was in dark mode and other weird behavior
7
418
FatallyYours replied
Is there a flight website where ....
10
871
Trilobit replied
Where is the "Everyman" in todays pop culture?
37
617
Doom85 replied
I am become retarded but when
NSFW 
27
2K
Cyberpunkd replied
HIM | Official Teaser Trailer (Sports Horror Film)
5
459
StueyDuck replied
Top Bottom