Support NeoGAF

[balladofwindfishes]

The observation that superdelegates are un-democratic (something which is obviously true) does not preclude the need to still win them - it doesn't make Bernie a hypocrite, did he ever say he would win without them? That would be insane.

I've seen, on one hand, supporters say super delegates would steal the election from Sanders whether he won the popular vote or not, but then turn around and push for Bernie to grab super delegates he didn't earn via the popular vote, to steal the election from Hillary using the same method they originally criticized.

Bernie doesn't really need to do anything to get super delegates besides actually win elections. Even Bill Clinton himself said if Bernie was in the lead, he'd cast his super delegate vote for him.

It's a system in place to stop candidates who are toxic and threaten the entire party's long term health, like Trump. Bernie is basically harmless towards the long term health of the party, so supers wouldn't really matter this election. It's not something even worth thinking about, supers are meaningless this primary cycle.

 

[Clefargle]

The observation that superdelegates are un-democratic (something which is obviously true) does not preclude the need to still win them - it doesn't make Bernie a hypocrite, did he ever say he would win without them? That would be insane.

He didn't say that, his actions spoke far louder than words. Pushing ideological purity, calling fellow democrats part of "the establishment", and never once raising money for other dems is how he sent the message to Superdelegates that "I don't need you". Now he wants to run the tape back because it's clear he can't win without them. Maybe he thought he would get more of them on his side back before the last couple of months of primaries, but when it became clear that he had no path to victory whatsoever without reclaiming a huuuuuge portion of them. He switched to "I think they should vote with their state". If he wanted to run as a democrat, then he should have run as one. Not do it for the political expediency and burn bridges with all the other dems as soon as he got any airtime.

 

[Arkeband]

He didn't say that, his actions spoke far louder than words. Pushing ideological purity, calling fellow democrats part of "the establishment", and never once raising money for other dems is how he sent the message to Superdelegates that "I don't need you". Now he wants to run the tape back because it's clear he can't win without them. Maybe he thought he would get more of them on his side back before the last couple of months of primaries, but when it became clear that he had no path to victory whatsoever without reclaiming a huuuuuge portion of them. He switched to "I think they should vote with their state". If he wanted to run as a democrat, then he should have run as one. Not do it for the political expediency and burn bridges with all the other dems as soon as he got any airtime.

This reads like Bernie fanfiction, and you're still doubling down on this fantasy you've concocted where Bernie denounced superdelegates as un-democratic but since he's so "loldumbguy" he didn't realize he still needs them! whoopsiedaisy!

You can recognize that the system is broken while still needing to participate in said broken system to change it.

He didn't 'switch' to anything. This has been his view since the beginning, it's just become clearer that the race is closer than anyone, including Hillary Clinton, ever thought it would be. Go back to when Bernie announced his candidacy, it was mostly ignored and we figured he'd fare worse than Ron Paul.

 

[nocturnalis]

Oh thanks for reminding me another transgression by the DNC, propping up Hillary and asking everyone else to step aside.

You don't think it's a problem that her only competition (RIP Malley) is from a senior socialist Jew from Vermont?

Biden didn't declare because he lost another child. The DNC can ask that because Hillarybwould be the best representative of Democrats.

 

[Clefargle]

You can recognize that the system is broken while still needing to participate in said broken system to change it.

Here is another example rearing its head during this thread. Sanders' supporters always condemn Clinton for raising money from large donors and still promising to increase Wall Street regulation. Funny to hear this sentiment applied to him and not her. When she plays the game to win it's "SHILLARY is in the pocket of every single company to ever give her money and is LYING about everything". When Sanders plays the game it's "well how else is he supposed to get elected"? Funny double standard you got there.

 

[Dangansona]

Biden didn't declare because he lost another child. The DNC can ask that because Hillarybwould be the best representative of Democrats.

To your first sentence, I was never talking about Biden. I was talking about potential candidates that never got the "will he run?!" buzz he did. To your second sentence, that's all I've been trying to imply to Matt in our discussion, not that the DNC has power to force anyone not to compete.

But I don't appreciate the gesture because I don't see the benefit in putting all your stock in one candidate that early in the process. Should we have had 16 candidates like the Republicans? Maybe not, but there could have been more people on those debate stages.

And there's the fact that a lot of Democrats don't feel like Hillary is our best representative.

 

[Steel]

To your first sentence, I was never talking about Biden. I was talking about potential candidates that never got the "will he run?!" buzz he did. To your second sentence, that's all I've been trying to imply to Matt in our discussion, not that the DNC has power to force anyone not to compete.

But I don't appreciate the gesture because I don't see the benefit in putting all your stock in one candidate that early in the process. Should we have had 16 candidates like the Republicans? Maybe not, but there could have been more people on those debate stages.

And there's the fact that a lot of Democrats don't feel like Hillary is our best representative.

Biden was the only person who anyone thought had a chance of beating Hillary that had presidential ambitions before the race started. He's literally it. Everyone else of any high profile with presidential ambitions are inexperienced. A lot of people(even in the DNC) wanted Biden to run as a contrast to Hillary.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

To your first sentence, I was never talking about Biden. I was talking about potential candidates that never got the "will he run?!" buzz he did. To your second sentence, that's all I've been trying to imply to Matt in our discussion, not that the DNC has power to force anyone not to compete.

But I don't appreciate the gesture because I don't see the benefit in putting all your stock in one candidate that early in the process. Should we have had 16 candidates like the Republicans? Maybe not, but there could have been more people on those debate stages.

And there's the fact that a lot of Democrats don't feel like Hillary is our best representative.

The Dems had 6 candidates on offer. O'Malley, Chafee, Webb, Lessig, Sanders, and Clinton. 4 of them sucked hard, and the fifth is losing. I'm proud the DNC didn't run a clown car on stage. We had a half dozen candidates, and voters have pretty strongly picked their preferred candidate.

And again, I have to repeat that this interview was atrocious. Bernie Sanders would not have enjoyed more coverage if it looked like this.

 

[Arkeband]

Here is another example rearing its head during this thread. Sanders' supporters always condemn Clinton for raising money from large donors and still promising to increase Wall Street regulation. Funny to hear this sentiment applied to him and not her. When she plays the game to win it's "SHILLARY is in the pocket of every single company to ever give her money and is LYING about everything". When Sanders plays the game it's "well how else is he supposed to get elected"? Funny double standard you got there.

It's not a double standard, SuperPACS are shadow money, not only undemocratic but morally bunk. Bernie does not use them, Hillary does, that's a pretty big mark against her, but we tolerate it because she gives lip service that she'll do away with it afterward. Bernie still comes out looking better on this front because he's proven you don't actually need SuperPACS, he's raised an unprecedented amount of money without them.

On the other hand, BOTH candidates are involved in an undemocratic process with superdelegates and they have no choice in the matter. Bernie opting out of this process would mean opting out of the race entirely. No matter how you want to spin this, that's not being hypocritical. DWS said that superdelegates exist to fix the election, there's really no defending this.

 

[Manifest Destiny]

You can't possibly really think this. You really think Clinton doesn't see herself as qualified for governance in any way other than being around for a while and having a vagina? This kind of low effort nonsense is getting tiring. Clinton talks about her time as a senator all the time. She talks about her experience as SoS all the time as relevant to her presidential bid. It's a core part of her campaign. Your comment says more about how you feel about a woman president than it does about how Clinton feels about it. Can you imagine what it would sound like saying that Obama only wanted to be president because he was black? Rediculous

It's pretty sexist to define the male candidates by their actions and aspirations and define the female candidate by her gender and the eternal accusation of "women being liars".

She was a Senator and Secretary of State. She's got better "qualifications" for the job than Obama did.

I don't even like Hillary Clinton, but this is some sexist bullshit.

I'm glad there is so much passion to this subject. Let's take into consideration that I am basing this off of Hillary's own words, whether it's her telling children to have her parents vote for her because they should see a women president or her saying isn't it obvious when asked what's the difference between her and Obama during a debate. If you are truly as upset about this as you seem to be then take that up with Hillary because it seems like many others are starting to share that sentiment.

 

[Mael]

It's not a double standard, SuperPACS are shadow money, not only undemocratic but morally bunk. Bernie does not use them, Hillary does, that's a pretty big mark against her, but we tolerate it because she gives lip service that she'll do away with it afterward. Bernie still comes out looking better on this front because he's proven you don't actually need SuperPACS, he's raised an unprecedented amount of money without them.

On the other hand, BOTH candidates are involved in an undemocratic process with superdelegates and they have no choice in the matter. Bernie opting out of this process would mean opting out of the race entirely. No matter how you want to spin this, that's not being hypocritical. DWS said that superdelegates exist to fix the election, there's really no defending this.

If we're talking about undemocratic shitty things the very 1rst thing we should be talking about are Caucuses.
Super delegate represent the Party, considering it's the party that provides the infrastructure and the necessary reach for presidential bid they have a right to have a say on the matter of who they're sending to the election.
the Democrat and Republican nominees are not representative of the society or represent Americans, they are the representation of the Party and THEN the American people choose who they want as Head of State.
The American people may choose someone outside of the 2 current national parties however unlikely that it is.
Caucuses however are by very definition the least democratic thing of the whole process, even worse than shadow Super PAC from Wallstreet.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I'm not sure why we wouldn't want to take Clinton at her word that she appoint justices who would overturn Citizens United. SuperPACs are a net benefit to the Republicans and she knows it. Even if you believe that she's corrupt and only in it for herself, overturning Citizens United is in her self interest!

 

[marrec]

There are Super-PACs spending for Sanders. Why are people saying "Sanders doesn't use Super-PACs"?

It's illegal for any candidate to "use" Super-PACs. That doesn't stop them from spending exorbitant money on these candidates, even Sanders.

 

[Clefargle]

I'm glad there is so much passion to this subject. Let's take into consideration that I am basing this off of Hillary's own words, whether it's her telling children to have her parents vote for her because they should see a women president or her saying isn't it obvious when asked what's the difference between her and Obama during a debate. If you are truly as upset about this as you seem to be then take that up with Hillary because it seems like many others are starting to share that sentiment.

Don't try to walk back what you said. So specifically said:

"JUST because she is a woman and it's her turn"

Clinton has listed many reasons that she is qualified to be president and among those reasons is that women should be represented in all levels of government. You were reducing it down to gender deliberately. Stop trying to revise what you meant when you said it by acting like Clinton has only talked about her gender as her sole quality that qualifies her for office. You obfuscation is stale and weaksauce

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

The Democrats just shot themselves in the foot.

I don't know how much the rest of you know about American culture and politics (I'm an expert), but stupidity and backwardness are huge parts of it. It's not like it is in Canada where everyone is nice and the government is there for you. If you get screwed over in America, you are fucked, and the only way to get solve that is through pure luck.

What this means is the American youth, after hearing about what they are doing to Bernie, is not going to want to support Clinton and any democrat in the future. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but the democrats have alienated the entire youth demographic and their future with this move.

The Democrats must publicly apologize to Bernie Sanders and give him the nomination or else America is doomed.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Man, i know it's been like 10 years or so, but people not knowing where that comes from still kinda gives me a smile.

 

[Hilbert]

There are Super-PACs spending for Sanders. Why are people saying "Sanders doesn't use Super-PACs"?

It's illegal for any candidate to "use" Super-PACs. That doesn't stop them from spending exorbitant money on these candidates, even Sanders.

More superPac money has been spent in support of Sanders then Clinton. People should stop talking about how he doesn't use Super PACS.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-money-democratic-rivals.html

 

[Simon Belmont]

Man, i know it's been like 10 years or so, but people not knowing where that comes from still kinda gives me a smile.

You know what gives me a smile? BIM marks.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

More superPac money has been spent in support of Sanders then Clinton. People should stop talking about how he doesn't use Super PACS.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-money-democratic-rivals.html

Of course he doesn't use a Super PAC. Just like every other candidate, there just happens to be extremely well funded PACs spending $$$$$$$ that he has absolutely nothing to do with.

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[StopMakingSense]

You know what gives me a smile? BIM marks.

Hell YEAH they do.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Hell YEAH they do.

I should have just asked, but I'd wondered where the hell your avatar came from until HDTGM did The Apple.

My first reaction when I saw them was literally "hey! It's that guys avatar from GAF!"

 

[StopMakingSense]

I should have just asked, but I'd wondered where the hell your avatar came from until HDTGM did The Apple.

My first reaction when I saw them was literally "hey! It's that guys avatar from GAF!"

It's the greatest story ever told.

 

[Simon Belmont]

It's the greatest story ever told.

It's...The Apple

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlBnxVIAQ20

 

[Arkeband]

More superPac money has been spent in support of Sanders then Clinton. People should stop talking about how he doesn't use Super PACS.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-money-democratic-rivals.html

This is including sneaky Republican SuperPAC antics.

Hillary's Priorities USA Action SuperPAC has far more money invested than the Nurse SuperPAC that is trying to assist Sanders. This article is bunk.

 

[Mael]

This is including sneaky Republican SuperPAC antics.

Hillary's Priorities USA Action SuperPAC has far more money invested than the Nurse SuperPAC that is trying to assist Sanders. This article is bunk.

Ah, the "NRA didn't rate me as a A so them helping me getting elected doesn't count" defense

 

[UFO]

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

This is the specific question OP got his quote from. And according to wiki, Daily news isn't even correct about MetLife, as they were brought under the stricter regulations and their appeal to get out failed.

 

[News Bot]

Normally I'd make a derogatory comment about Sanders and move on, but I think it's best to refrain. It really is important for his supporters to realise that no matter how appealing you might find his message, this man is not qualified to be President

The President isn't a lone ranger. It's okay to not have every single possible area covered when you have a team of aides whose entire job is to assist with them. It's not like previous Presidents had all the answers, they were just better at deflecting and letting their aides do the heavy lifting.

 

[Mael]

The President isn't a lone ranger. It's okay to not have every single possible area covered when you have a team of aides whose entire job is to assist with them. It's not like previous Presidents had all the answers, they were just better at deflecting and letting their aides do the heavy lifting.

Considering the team behind his candidacy you could make the argument that he doesn't even know how to pick people to join his team...

 

[nitekrawlwer]

The President isn't a lone ranger. It's okay to not have every single possible area covered when you have a team of aides whose entire job is to assist with them. It's not like previous Presidents had all the answers, they were just better at deflecting and letting their aides do the heavy lifting.

If his aides aren't prepping him to answer basic questions then it still shows his lack of effective team building.

Edit: Beaten

 

[Arkeband]

Ah, the "NRA didn't rate me as a A so them helping me getting elected doesn't count" defense

No, the defense was literally "the math doesn't check out", with the additional point that it includes Republican "attack" ads.

 

[News Bot]

Considering the team behind his candidacy you could make the argument that he doesn't even know how to pick people to join his team...

That's totally valid and I agree.

 

[Mael]

No, the defense was literally "the math doesn't check out", with the additional point that it includes Republican "attack" ads.

the math checks out,
the title of the article is :

"Bernie Sanders Has Benefited More From Super PAC Money Than His Democratic Rivals "
If a JEB Super PAC decided to spend money for an ad in favor of Sanders, Sanders would still have benefited from that Super PAC money.

 

[Hilbert]

This is including sneaky Republican SuperPAC antics.

Hillary's Priorities USA Action SuperPAC has far more money invested than the Nurse SuperPAC that is trying to assist Sanders. This article is bunk.

how does one superPAC count and another doesn't? A superpac is spending money promoting sanders and his message.

 

[Boney]

how does one superPAC count and another doesn't? A superpac is spending money promoting sanders and his message.

Isn't the national nurses Union endorsing Sanders?

This is the specific question OP got his quote from. And according to wiki, Daily news isn't even correct about MetLife, as they were brought under the stricter regulations and their appeal to get out failed.

Wow really? Now that's dirty.

 

[Arkeband]

the math checks out,
the title of the article is :

"Bernie Sanders Has Benefited More From Super PAC Money Than His Democratic Rivals "
If a JEB Super PAC decided to spend money for an ad in favor of Sanders, Sanders would still have benefited from that Super PAC money.

Turning around to then proclaim Sanders a hypocrite when he has zero control over what Republicans are doing when we all know that every candidate has complete control over what their own superPACS are doing is beyond disingenuous.

 

[Damaniel]

The President isn't a lone ranger. It's okay to not have every single possible area covered when you have a team of aides whose entire job is to assist with them. It's not like previous Presidents had all the answers, they were just better at deflecting and letting their aides do the heavy lifting.

He doesn't need to have all the answers or recite the full contents of Dodd-Frank on demand, but he should be able to do better than 'I don't know' when asked questions central to the main plank of his domestic policy. On top of that, he and his supporters have gone out of their way to paint every potential experienced aide as an 'establishment' shill and throw them under the bus, so what kind of competent 'team' could he even manage to throw together?

As someone who doesn't live in America so only hears about this on the internet, the opposition to Bernie Sanders seems more crazy.

Most of us on the left here are receptive to Bernie's message - we just think he's completely incompetent and lacks the ability to compromise or get along with anyone else in government. It's hard to pass legislation when you consider literally every legislator to be a roadblock to the revolution and every media outlet in the country to be corporate shills. Give me a candidate with Bernie's ideals and a dose of pragmatism and I'd vote for him or her in a minute - it just happens that Hillary gets us 90% of the way there without treating everything as being the fault of the big bad oligarchy.

 

[Boney]

He doesn't need to have all the answers or recite the full contents of Dodd-Frank on demand, but he should be able to do better than 'I don't know' when asked questions central to the main plank of his domestic policy. On top of that, he and his supporters have gone out of their way to paint every potential experienced aide as an 'establishment' shill and throw them under the bus, so what kind of competent 'team' could he even manage to throw together?



Most of us on the left here are receptive to Bernie's message - we just think he's completely incompetent and lacks the ability to compromise or get along with anyone else in government. It's hard to pass legislation when you consider literally every legislator to be a roadblock to the revolution and every media outlet in the country to be corporate shills. Give me a candidate with Bernie's ideals and a dose of pragmatism and I'd vote for him or her in a minute - it just happens that Hillary gets us 90% of the way there without treating everything as being the fault of the big bad oligarchy.

Isn't he known to be one of the most successful members of the senate to form bipartisan programs and to get them approved?

Right he's known as the The Amendment King

 

[Arkeband]

He doesn't need to have all the answers or recite the full contents of Dodd-Frank on demand, but he should be able to do better than 'I don't know' when asked questions central to the main plank of his domestic policy. On top of that, he and his supporters have gone out of their way to paint every potential experienced aide as an 'establishment' shill and throw them under the bus, so what kind of competent 'team' could he even manage to throw together?

The way I first read the article was that his "I don't know" remarks were in specific regard to MetLife, which someone just pointed out the Daily News was not even correct about.

His answers weren't great, but there's some spin going on.

 

[egruntz]

Isn't he known to be one of the most successful members of the senate to form bipartisan programs and to get them approved?

Yes. He is well known for very aggressively amending bills and getting them passed. This narrative that he's "incompetent" and "cannot get anything done" is a sadly uninformed one.

On this OP topic...
He said he doesn't know if the Fed has the ability to break up the banks on their own accord. But he does know the implications and practicality of utilizing Dodd-Frank to do this. I don't understand the criticism. Whether the Fed has the ability to break up the banks is irrelevant — he won't go that route. And if he admits he doesn't know something, that's not a bad thing, lol. I'd take that over someone like Clinton who pretends to know the answers any day.

 

[Manifest Destiny]

Don't try to walk back what you said. So specifically said:

"JUST because she is a woman and it's her turn"

Clinton has listed many reasons that she is qualified to be president and among those reasons is that women should be represented in all levels of government. You were reducing it down to gender deliberately. Stop trying to revise what you meant when you said it by acting like Clinton has only talked about her gender as her sole quality that qualifies her for office. You obfuscation is stale and weaksauce

Oh please, you give yourself way too much credit. I don't feel any need to back trace from my comment when it's become clear to many that she has no shame to mention her sex as a reason to vote for her. As others have said she has stated we need a woman in the white house. Obama never said it's time to put a black person in the white house.

Over all the clear desperate attempt to find something to get offended by was sloppily executed. Maybe next time?

 

[damisa]

Yes. He is well known for very aggressively amending bills and getting them passed. This narrative that he's "incompetent" and "cannot get anything done" is a sadly uninformed one.

On this OP topic...
He said he doesn't know if the Fed has the ability to break up the banks on their own accord. But he does know the implications and practicality of utilizing Dodd-Frank to do this. I don't understand the criticism. Whether the Fed has the ability to break up the banks is irrelevant — he won't go that route. And if he admits he doesn't know something, that's not a bad thing, lol. I'd take that over someone like Clinton who pretends to know the answers any day.

She doesn't need to pretend, she actually knows the answers. It's not like Bernie was asked to name the President of khazakstan's brother's name. Breaking up the banks is one of his central campaign themes, that he can't answer such simple questions show his and his team's incompetence. He shows time and again that he has minimal knowledge on any details, but the biggest problem is he seems completely uninterested in even learning.

 

[thestopsign]

Here is another example rearing its head during this thread. Sanders' supporters always condemn Clinton for raising money from large donors and still promising to increase Wall Street regulation. Funny to hear this sentiment applied to him and not her. When she plays the game to win it's "SHILLARY is in the pocket of every single company to ever give her money and is LYING about everything". When Sanders plays the game it's "well how else is he supposed to get elected"? Funny double standard you got there.

I read that exact sentence you quoted and thought the same thing! There really is no clearer example than that right there.

 

[Mael]

Turning around to then proclaim Sanders a hypocrite when he has zero control over what Republicans are doing when we all know that every candidate has complete control over what their own superPACS are doing is beyond disingenuous.

He hasn't denounced the super PACs that were helping him spread his message?
If he hasn't he's a hypocrite because it means he thinks it's ok for him to be beneficiary but if it's other people they're corrupt.
In this case (and many others) you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Justin]

The best part of that interview is his reason for not holding Israel accountable for their disproportionate response in 2014 leading to the deaths of 10,000 civilians (his number) is because "Look, why don't I support a million things in the world?" Wow!

 

[Boney]

Juan Gonzales from Democracy Now! Was at this interview and here's their take on it. Saying that while the interview was incredibly aggressive and fast paced with different questions coming from different people, Bernie managed great under pressure, but he does name the specific banking issue as the big blunder.

I'm pretty inclined to think that the editorial team was being much more aggressive that one how regular interviews go to try to make him slip up /tinfoil hat

http://youtu.be/MQmsJuXwvNA

 

[Clefargle]

Oh please, you give yourself way too much credit. I don't feel any need to back trace from my comment when it's become clear to many that she has no shame to mention her sex as a reason to vote for her. As others have said she has stated we need a woman in the white house. Obama never said it's time to put a black person in the white house.

Over all the clear desperate attempt to find something to get offended by was sloppily executed. Maybe next time?

So what if she said that? Who cares? She has listed many reasons she should be president. You single out the one you want to paint her with and exclude everything else. What is wrong with someone voting for a woman for a list of reasons including that they want more representation for women? Nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Just because you think the glass ceiling has been shattered and women shouldn't push the idea of equal representation in the highest levels of government, you misrepresent her own motivations for running down to her gender? I don't give myself any credit here, because it took zero effort to notice your blatantly sexist comment and call it out appropriately.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

Oh please, you give yourself way too much credit. I don't feel any need to back trace from my comment when it's become clear to many that she has no shame to mention her sex as a reason to vote for her. As others have said she has stated we need a woman in the white house. Obama never said it's time to put a black person in the white house.

Over all the clear desperate attempt to find something to get offended by was sloppily executed. Maybe next time?

So now she should be ashamed to mention her sex. I didn't want to attribute people's dislike of Hillary Clinton on OMG their sexist but you're not making it hard not to.

P.S. Obama mentioned many times that his background made his bid for the presidency unique and unprecedented. It's not his fault race relations prevent him from saying it outright instead of alluding to it. I guess sexism is still at the level too going by your comments.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Isn't he known to be one of the most successful members of the senate to form bipartisan programs and to get them approved?

Right he's known as the The Amendment King

No, what he actually does is get some minor changes to bills that are going to pass anyway. All positive things, but not the great accomplishment of say, overhauling the entire American health care system that Obama accomplished or in the case of Ted Kennedy, the man Bernie Sanders wishes he could be, working in a bipartian manner w/ George W. Bush's White House to overhaul education.

 

[dramatis]

I'm glad there is so much passion to this subject. Let's take into consideration that I am basing this off of Hillary's own words, whether it's her telling children to have her parents vote for her because they should see a women president or her saying isn't it obvious when asked what's the difference between her and Obama during a debate. If you are truly as upset about this as you seem to be then take that up with Hillary because it seems like many others are starting to share that sentiment.

Oh please, you give yourself way too much credit. I don't feel any need to back trace from my comment when it's become clear to many that she has no shame to mention her sex as a reason to vote for her. As others have said she has stated we need a woman in the white house. Obama never said it's time to put a black person in the white house.

Over all the clear desperate attempt to find something to get offended by was sloppily executed. Maybe next time?

If people don't point it out, they would be accommodating your sexist nonsense. Accusing others of 'desperation' does not rebut the specific criticism I made, which is that you evaluated the male candidates by their actions and aspirations, but reduced the female candidate to her gender and your characterization of her as a 'liar'.

Rather than doubling down and considering yourself righteous and other people 'weaksauce', you might want to reconsider your words and maybe think about whether or not you should rephrase yourself. You're getting the benefit of the doubt that you're being stupid rather than deliberately odious. Among the candidates, in raw resume form there is no one more qualified for the position than Hillary Clinton. But the thing you attribute to her is just her gender and you call her a liar, which is typically sexist. If you are going to argue, argue on policy.

It must have been nice and comfortable for you to not have to hear Obama talk about what it means to become the first black president. As long as you don't have to hear about it you can humor him? If he had talked about it, would you say, "Gosh, I wish he would stop thinking he should be president because he's black"? What a conceit.

 

[noshten]

Juan Gonzales from Democracy Now! Was at this interview and here's their take on it. Saying that while the interview was incredibly aggressive and fast paced with different questions coming from different people, Bernie managed great under pressure, but he does name the specific banking issue as the big blunder.

I'm pretty inclined to think that the editorial team was being much more aggressive that one how regular interviews go to try to make him slip up /tinfoil hat

http://youtu.be/MQmsJuXwvNA

VAN JONES: Can I say a couple things here? New York City is the war to settle the score inside the Democratic Party. The Clinton forces understand there is a rebellion in this party. Under ordinary circumstances, it would already be over, because the big donors would have taken the checks back. There are no big checks. This is a people’s movement. They are going to have to bury this movement in New York City, and they know it. You’re going to see a vetting of Bernie Sanders like you’ve never seen. You’re going to see the mainstream media go after him. Now there’s blood in the water on specifics. They’re going to go after him on specifics, you know, way beyond anything any candidate has had to address. And people are going to have to—I mean, he’s going to have to step up his game, because you can’t, you know, write excuses for people. He’s got to be able to answer those tough questions.

Van Jones spot on as usual