2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Calling Hillary Clinton Not Qualified Is Like Fingernails On A Black Board To Many Women"
<...>
in this race and his supporters are passionate for a good reason. And I think that all of us are reluctant to say to Bernie Sanders and his supporters that the math doesn't work. I think this will take care of itself as long as the campaigns stay by and large very positive about the things we agree on and don't go into negative attacks. And calling Hillary Clinton not qualified is like fingernails on a black board to many women across this country, and I think Bernie probably knows that.
<...>
Well, I just think it's one of those things that -- maybe it's not right -- but I think women who have succeeded in male-dominated fields have been used to being marginalized about whether or not they are truly qualified and this is an example where we have a candidate for president who is the most qualified and happens to be a woman. And I think there are many women that are excited about that and for anybody to call her unqualified is hard for those women to hear.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/07/mccaskill_calling_hillary_clinton_not_qualified_is_like_fingernails_on_a_black_board_to_many_women.html
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...Did he say she wasn't qualified because of her gender?
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)and her naughty parts weren't on the list
dsc
(52,162 posts)who did all of the things he says makes her unqualified, one wonders what the difference is.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And they still try and contort and twist and say it has nothing to do with being sexist.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...there wasn't one, except Howard Dean who couldn't have voted on it anyway, who questioned the Iraq War. This time, we have a choice in candidates who have big differences on these things. Different primary, different situation.
it just so happens that every single solitary man who did what she did is just hunky dory but let a woman do it and she is unqualified. But if we dare point out the discrepency and we are the problem.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)positions.
he sure as shit didn't have the gumption to say that about Obama.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...is that his fault as well?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Democrats know that you don't call primary rivals unqualified and unfit for office.
Because they're all Democrats and have to come together for the general.
Bernie isn't a Democrat, so that thought never occurred to him.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)"Disqualify and Defeat. Party unity later." Those are her campaigns words, from before any of this "unqualified" talk started. Don't act like you didn't know.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Because, you know, only a third party saboteur would try to contest a convention despite having lost the pledged delegate count and having less than 10% of superdelegate endorsements.
Or do you think Jeff Weaver is lying when he says they're going to contest the convention no matter what?
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)got us nafta, Iraq, Libya, Syria, it also halved minimum wage in Haiti, and set up an even greater ability for more offshoring of tax dollars in panama. Nothing quite like someone in the 1% to understand the working man's plight. Nothing like a person who make 225,000 an hour to understand what working two jobs for minimum wage is like. I wonder does she apologize to Iraq war veterans (dead and injured) for her hideous vote? Does her heart get sadden by the death and destruction that follows her votes and term as secretary of state? Does she know how many people, how many families she destroyed with her support of credit card companies re : her bankruptcy bill vote. If she's a democrat i'd hate to see her when she was a republican. Oh wait. We are seeing it.
DFab420
(2,466 posts)Wall Street and Oil and Gas companies has nothing to do with her gender.
The only people who are trying to make this about her gender are her supporters.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)no surprise
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Sexist double standard.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)because she's smarter than him and knows that's something that the candidate themselves shouldn't say
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bernie shut her up.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)P.S. Taking the high road isn't a sign of weakness. And Clinton hasn't shut up, and her people are still hammering Bernie here.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)prepared for him to take her on directly.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)about her before.
Which is why everyone's talking about what a desperate liar she is.
Oh wait, no, that's Bernie they're talking about.
He gets his followers and fans all whipped up with this stuff, but it plays very poorly outside his revival tent.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)"Qualified Applicant" is white male privilege code speak
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)Isn't it awesome to be so cynically manipulated?
Technically they're both qualified, because there are only 3 qualifications:
- Natural born US citizen
- Over 35 years of age
- Lived in the US for 14 years
Any additional qualifications anyone wants to add are entirely subjective.
Can we get back to discussing actual substance? Or get to it, anyway?
dr60omg
(283 posts)I suppose being one of those women who succeeded in a male dominated field my need for precision begs the question can you enumerate what you mean by many? Do you have data to support this. My mom used the use the word many which was actually a signifier for I think everyone feels the way I do ... SO
Show me the data
revbones
(3,660 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)trying to play it.
Pathetic.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)...is to equivocate on reproductive rights.
I know what Senator Sanders meant, its really not that hard. If any person running for office has shown a pattern over a long period of time to have horrible judgment then I feel they are disqualified as a candidate (for me).
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)Served in the Senate from 2001 - 2009 (8 years)
Served as Secretary of State 2009-2013 (4 years)
That's not the heaviest resume I've seen.
Bernie has been in elective office since the 1980's:
Mayor of Burlington VT for four terms
Congressman from Vermont for 8 terms (16 years)
Senator from Vermont for 2 terms and reelected with 71% of the vote.
That's a breadth of experience that Clinton doesn't have.
The Clintonistas will throw up her work for the Children's Defense Fund, but on Democracy Now:
AMY GOODMAN: Marian Wright Edelman, we just heard Hillary Rodham Clinton. She used to be the head of the board of the Childrens Defense Fund, of the organization that you founded. But you were extremely critical of the Clintons. I mean, when President Clinton signed off on the, well, so-called welfare reform bill, you said, "His signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children." So what are your hopes right now for these Democrats? And what are your thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton?
MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you dont and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so. We were for welfare reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we need healthcare, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare.
She brags about her time with the Children's Defense Fund, but she doesn't mention those years she spent on the Board of Directors of Walmart. That should be enough to disqualify her by itself.
Vinca
(50,273 posts)That's the impression I get from her supporters every time they play the "sexism" card. It makes me feel embarrassed for Hillary.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)I can't even watch that woman on tv.
Broward
(1,976 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)That's not going to work.
And qualifications for President is subjective. Ask 10 people what qualifies a person to be President and you'll get answers all over the map.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)has nothing to do with sexism it's just a cynical fundraising effort by the Hillary campaign.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/07/sanders-clinton-continue-fierce-feud-over-qualifications/
TheBlackAdder
(28,202 posts).
While, in you little head, think you are coming to the defense of HRC, studies from the only university specializing in women in politics, the Rutgers-Eagleton Center for Women and Politics, has compiled research showing that any gendered attack, whether it's to highlight looks, family, begin a woman or man--only has negative effects on one candidate, the female candidate.
You can trash a man's looks, this manner of speech, anything about their physical being and there will be no negative impact at the polls, for a woman, it hurts them by 5 percentage points.
So, you might want to spend a week over at the following site and learn something. If would be better if you have an EDU account and can look at more peer-research as JSTOR and other sites:
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/
.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)So sorry ur ears hurt.