During an interview on MTP, he said that the Clinton Foundation maybe did some good stuff for HIV/AIDS, but that if Hillary becomes President she shouldn't be involved with it. It's not a hugely bad comment, in the grand scheme of things. But, if he's going to be a surrogate, he needs to be given (and stick to) talking points. He should have offered an endorsement of the organization and pushed back that the whole thing is a witch hunt. That's what a good surrogate would do. The thing is, Bernie is not a good politician. He may be a good man. (And I think he is) but he's not a good messenger or surrogate. It's probably because he's never done it before in his life, and he's just not accustomed to having to represent a candidate other than himself. (These aren't reads, these are just, you know the way I see things).
He didn't say anything very controversial. Trump choosing to basically create his own reality over those words is not the fault of Sanders.
Some of you are displaying a rabid and irrational hatred of the guy at this point. The primary is over.
I mean, just to be clear. I've never had hatred over Bernie Sanders. I don't much care for him or SOME of the people he managed to build his support around, but I don't hate him. I don't like him. The opposite of like is not hate, it's apathy. I'm apathetic towards him.
But, there is a rational argument to be made on how helpful Bernie's movement was and will be going forward. That's not irrational at all. I think it's also fair to talk about how and why I wouldn't want certain people to be surrogates. Like, I don't like Ed Rendell. He's terrible. He shouldn't be a surrogate. He can't stay on message either.
