What Clinton/Sanders Did/Didn’t Say About Their Opponent’s Qualifications - Washington Monthly

[Bill USA]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_04/what_clintonsanders_diddidnt_s060182.php#

The big discussion in the Democratic presidential primary today is about Bernie Sanders’ remarks last night that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president. As this thing gets spun by the candidates, pundits, campaign staffers and surrogates, it has the potential to lose touch with what has/hasn’t actually been said. So let’s ground ourselves in the facts.

It all started with Clinton’s appearance on Morning Joe yesterday. Here is the entire segment. Her response to the Sanders interview with NYDN goes from about 1:20 to 3:40.

Notice that at least three times, Scarborough directly asked Clinton whether or not Sanders is “qualified” to be president. But she consistently refused to answer the question on those grounds.

~~

Perhaps responding to media reports rather than what Clinton actually said, here is Sanders at a rally last night:

~~
~~
[font size="+1"]
In the end, a challenge to Clinton’s qualifications to be president is perhaps more damaging to Sanders’ credibility than it is to hers. So perhaps he would do well to address the problem posed by his own interview rather than simply launch a rather Rovian attack on her.[/font]

[rachacha]

1. You forgot to mention the WaPo headline, posted before Sanders' response:

"Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/

Kind of a key piece of the story, don't you think?

[Arkansas Granny]

2. Maybe Bernie or one of his staff should have read/listened to

the original interview before making baseless accusations. Someone should have done some homework.

[CrowCityDem]

3. It is key...

... To showing Bernie's incompetence. If he scorched the earth based on a headline, without checking to see if it was true, it's pathetic.

[Bill USA]

4. see how WaPo factchecker debunked that headline

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1674231





Sanders’s incorrect claim that Clinton called him ‘not qualified’ for the presidency

The Pinocchio Test

Sanders is putting words in Clinton’s mouth. She never said “quote unquote” that he was not qualified to be president. In fact, she diplomatically went out of her way to avoid saying that, without at the same time saying he was qualified. The Washington Post article appropriately noted that she raised questions about his qualifications, but certainly never said or suggested she said Sanders was unqualified.

[reformist2]

7. "she diplomatically went out of her way to avoid saying that"? What tripe!

[Beacool]

10. No, what truth.

But it appears that Sanders can do no wring in the eyes of his supporters.

[dogman]

9. There's some parsing.

"she raised questions about his qualifications, but certainly never said or suggested she said Sanders was unqualified."
That sentence defies logic. What was she suggesting when she raised questions about his qualifications?

[TM99]

11. It is a double message.

She raised questions but never said it.

Clinton supporters and surrogates can run with both of them now as is evidenced by this thread, these articles, news reports, etc.

But the big news is really Bill Clinton's racist fuck up. Will that see the light of day or just more of this rat-fuckery?!

[dogman]

12. She got away with disrespecting the BLM lady in SC.

Telling her if she's unhappy she should run for office herself. They set their own standards and they're not very high.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

5. Hillary's response to Joe was reminiscent of her "dog whistle" ambugation about Obama being a Muslim

If Hillary never said "unqualified" Bernie shouldn't have quoted her. And it was totally unnecessary because half the time Hillary makes a gaffe (impromptu), and the other half of the time her responses are carefully crafted (rehearsed). She's made it very clear what she thinks about Bernie's qualifications without using the word.

[Bill USA]

14. "ambugation"??

[Beacool]

8. Maybe Sanders should have watched Hillary's video and not based his attacks on the WAPO headline.

[anigbrowl]

16. WaPo headline =/= a quote from Clinton

Some Sanders supporters seem to think they have a point by repeatedly posting screen grabs of it, but all they are doing is making themselves look somewhat illiterate.

When I see a newspaper headline I am well aware that it is an imperfect summary of a journalist's interpretation of events; and even then, I pay attention to whether it quotes or merely paraphrases the subject of the article.

[dogman]

6. "campaign's deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, argued that Sanders is unqualified."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democrats-unity/index.html
"Hillary Clinton's campaign is taking new steps to try and disqualify Bernie Sanders in the eyes of Democratic voters, hoping to extinguish the argument that he is an electable alternative for the party's presidential nomination."

[Cal33]

13. I wonder if Scarborough deliberately asked this question for the purpose of stirring up

trouble. Perhaps his boss told him to.

[Samantha]

15. It didn't start with the Morning Joe interview

It started the night the Wisconsin returns came in, and the Clinton camp was upset. It was reported that an intern for the Clinton campaign said an emergency meeting had been called as to how to combat the Sanders' factor. One of the three things was she would "disqualify" him for President. Clumsy turn of the phrase, but people who heard this interpreted it to mean she would challenge his qualifications to be President.

No, Hillary didn't personally say this on the Morning Joe program; but do you really think it was a coincidence Chris Murphy and others came out publicly around the same time and said:

Bernie is a friend, but this is really bad. Dems can't nominate a candidate who supports gun manufacturer immunity.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-senator-blasts-bernie-sanders-stance-guns/story?id=38195828

In politics, there is no such thing as a coincidence.

In the political arena, politicians seek to have their cohorts say what they will not publicly say because no one makes a video of that and brings it up down the road.

So Hillary is just posturing here. This was a decision she and her campaign made to lodge against Sanders: he is not qualified. Just because she didn't publicly mouth the words doesn't mean she isn't responsible for the statement.

Sam

[anigbrowl]

17. But Chris Murphy didn't say Sanders was unqualified either

Sure, he is suggesting that he thinks Sanders would be a terrible or unacceptable choice for the Democratic party but that's not at all the same thing as saying Sanders is unqualified.

In politics, there is no such thing as a coincidence.

Of course there is, to think otherwise is a fallacy of composition. Sorry, this debate is beginning to resemble a conspiracy theory argument in which Sanders supporters appear to consider that they have a unique insight into what other people really mean, rather than admit that Sanders might have exaggerated a bit during a stump speech.

Hillary exaggerates things for sure. I wasn't on DU for the last few weeks due to more pressing matters, so I missed the whole Greenpeace flap but I'm happy to admit that her complaints about that were overblown. All politicians say stupid or questionable things, but you don't enhance their prospects by doubling down on it when they do.

[Samantha]

18. You are playing with words -- the inference is certainly there in the quote

You can believe whatever you like about coincidences in politics. There are many establishment sources stepping out and commenting on this while Hillary smiles and says politically polite responses. That is how the game is played.

Sam

[anigbrowl]

19. Actually, that's what you're doing

You found what you consider to be a relevant inference (an opinion you're fully entitled to by the way) but you're trying to make out it's the same as a direct quote. It just isn't. By your logic any expression of skepticism about an opposing candidate can be re-interpreted to mean something else.

I think it would be a hell of a lot easier to just admit that Sanders exaggerated a bit the other day than to go about inventing imaginary rules for an imaginary game in order to be able to argue that his statements were factually, objectively correct. Some Clinton supporters on DU certainly blew his exaggeration out of proportion and while I support Clinton I think his remarks were pretty harmless and insignificant, but I come back to DU today and Sanders supporters are falling all over themselves to re-interpret the past events using rules and logic known only to themselves. I'm embarrassed for you.

[Samantha]

20. There obviously is no middle of the road for the two of us to meet at

so save your embarrassment for your own reputation.

Bye.

Sam

[anigbrowl]

21. A logical, carefully reasoned reply.

Not.