Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Not Good, Not Good At All (TPM EDITOR'S BLOG)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/not-good-not-good-at-all--2By JOSH MARSHALL
As you no doubt saw, last night Bernie Sanders launched a pretty blistering attack on Hillary Clinton, calling her unqualified to be president because of various past positions, relationships and votes. The attack was premised on Sanders' claim that Clinton had said that he was unqualified to serve as president. Only she didn't say that. The sorry tale tracks back to what was simply a false story in The Washington Post. The Post published a story that put together various Clinton interviews and recent statements and summed it up as 'Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be President.' As I said last night, I'm willing to believe, actually assume that Sanders was told the story was true. But the fact is that it wasn't.
This morning he half blamed the press for the false claim but also doubled down on it. "So when, you have headlines in The Washington Post, 'Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president,' my response is well, you know, if you want to question my qualifications ..."
All candidates, by definition, say that they're more qualified than their opponent. Various things Clinton said can be reasonably interpreted as questioning whether Sanders is up to the job of the presidency. But it is an entirely different matter when an opponent, in his own voice, says flatly his challenger is "unqualified" to serve as President of the country. That's something that cannot be unsaid. If Clinton is the nominee, it will undoubtedly be a staples of GOP stump speeches in the Fall. These are simple realities of political campaigns. Primaries that drag on get intense. Especially in the venomous and kinetic New York media environment. The Clinton operation has plenty of sharp elbows themselves. But it is incumbent on both candidates to fight hard and yet not say things that can't be unsaid - not always as easy thing to manage. Because it matters a lot on various fronts, what the candidate him or herself says, says explicitly.
The scuffle got more intense and more cynical later this morning when Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver came on MSNBC and now explicitly doubled down, actually doubly double-down. He says the Post was right. Clinton did say Sanders was unqualified. So they'll say it about her. So there!
Now, as I've watched this campaign unfold, I've increasingly had the sense that Weaver is a, maybe the key source of toxicity and cynicism in the Sanders camp, and I suspect doesn't care terribly about the November election if Sanders isn't the standard bearer. Obviously Sanders is responsible for his own campaign. And it's difficult to overestimate the mix of exhaustion, frustration and intensity that gets churned up in a hotly contested race like this. People get mad. On both sides. No crying in baseball, of course. Campaigns can and do do what they feel they need to do. But the consequences are ones all should understand and absorb.
This is cynical. It's a lie. And it's playing with fire.
32 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
But think of the embarrassment Sanders campaign could have avoided had they actually read the article. They could have said, "look, that's not what Hillary said. That headline is wrong." They could have turned the mistake into a positive for them, giving Hillary a deserved pass ("look how nice we are to the corporate shill"
while beating up on "the establishment media" for attacking the Sanders' campaign.
But they didn't.
Amateurs.
Bernie cares about the November election if he is not the nominee. 
"Now, as I've watched this campaign unfold, I've increasingly had the sense that Weaver is a, maybe the key source of toxicity and cynicism in the Sanders camp, and I suspect doesn't care terribly about the November election if Sanders isn't the standard bearer".
They absolutely do not care about November if BS isn't the nominee. Susan Sarandon already said as much. It's the height of white privilege on the part of the alleged surrogates of the BS campaign.
support to someone you have declared "unqualified" for the job? Can you imagine the tv ads? 
Sanders Accused of ‘Discourtesy’ in Seeking Vatican Invitation
snip//
A senior Vatican official accused Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders of showing a “monumental discourtesy” in his lobbying for an invitation to a church-sponsored conference on economic and environmental issues for political purposes.
Sanders, whose foreign policy experience is under attack by rival Hillary Clinton, on Friday said he was “very excited” about being invited to the meeting hosted by a pontifical academy. It will put him at the seat of the Roman Catholic Church just four days before the New York primary.
The head of the academy said Thursday that Sanders sought the invitation and that put an inappropriate political cast on the gathering.
“Sanders made the first move, for the obvious reasons,” Margaret Archer, president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, which is hosting the conference Sanders will attend, said in a telephone interview. “I think in a sense he may be going for the Catholic vote but this is not the Catholic vote and he should remember that and act accordingly -- not that he will.”
MOre..
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-08/sanders-accused-of-discourtesy-in-seeking-vatican-invitation
seaglass~http://www.democraticunderground.com/110794988
Tarheel~
snip//
A senior Vatican official accused Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders of showing a “monumental discourtesy” in his lobbying for an invitation to a church-sponsored conference on economic and environmental issues for political purposes.
Sanders, whose foreign policy experience is under attack by rival Hillary Clinton, on Friday said he was “very excited” about being invited to the meeting hosted by a pontifical academy. It will put him at the seat of the Roman Catholic Church just four days before the New York primary.
The head of the academy said Thursday that Sanders sought the invitation and that put an inappropriate political cast on the gathering.
“Sanders made the first move, for the obvious reasons,” Margaret Archer, president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, which is hosting the conference Sanders will attend, said in a telephone interview. “I think in a sense he may be going for the Catholic vote but this is not the Catholic vote and he should remember that and act accordingly -- not that he will.”
MOre..
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-08/sanders-accused-of-discourtesy-in-seeking-vatican-invitation
seaglass~http://www.democraticunderground.com/110794988
Tarheel~ 
Reminds me of Pee-wee Herman's childish "I know what you are but what am I?" 
