Sanders calls Clinton "unqualified" megathread

[Wiz in Wis]

Look, lets be honest... this won't affect the general one way or the other... but the statement itself is clearly laughably off base. She didn't say what he thought she did... at best she refused to defend his credentials. To then turn around and make a pretty clearly untrue claim is a political mistake. It will throw him off message for a few days, and it will rile up Hillary's supporters just when he needed them to be dispirited. It was dumb. Admit you're dude whiffed. Swing and a miss. Other baseball analogy.

#NoCryingInBaseball

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No wait, do people actually think that quote this merits anger and hostility? Hillary Clinton, and her allies, have been implying this about Bernie Sanders from the very beginning of this year. Hillary Clinton, and her allies, have suggested that Bernie Sanders isn't a real Democrat, that he's "a liar", that he's opposed to the Affordable Care Act, that he was opposed to the auto bailout, that he's responsible for Sandy Hook etc. To me, that's a pretty dirty campaign rooted in deception and spin.

Welcome to the big league. The gloves come off.

Even though Sanders has been in Congress for decades, he is a completely unvetted as a national candidate. Sending a completely unvetted candidate straight into the GOP attack firestorm is a terrible idea. This isn't Hillary's first rodeo.

The FBI isn't finished vetting Hillary.

[Wiz in Wis]

That's right, DFB.  The hacks have been insinuating that every Sanders supporter is a youthful, unrealistic conspiracy theorist with no conception of how the world really works.

But in actuality, millions of people are supporting Bernie Sanders because they see exactly how the world really works and it's pretty damn obvious that Hillary Clinton is emblematic of this problem.  She is no antidote.  The pearl clutchers have gotten increasingly desperate, they can't seem to figure out if Sanders is a crazy right-winger in love with the NRA or if he's going to make us all line up for bread.  Well, that's cute.  When you stand for nothing, you fall very easily.  Hillary Clinton is a disaster and she very well could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this November.  How dare she act incredulous at having to answer for taking funding from the gun lobby, for taking funding from fossil fuel lobbyists, for taking millions of dollars from Wall Street vultures.  She is an absolute disgrace.  She should own up to the fact that she is a crony and run with her support for Reaganomics. 

Enough with the lies.

We're so sick of them.

By this standard, nearly every Democrat in Congress, including Elizabeth Warren, is a disgrace. As is President Obama, Joe Biden, Al Franken. They've all taken money from people who work at big banks, gun manufacturers, etc. Hell, even Bernie has taken money from people at Lockheed Martin and WalMart. To insinuate that every Democrat is tainted by every dollar that came from every person who works for an industry that is distasteful moronic. By the same standard, we should assume that Hillary is certain to be good for Gays, because she's taken money from the HRC, good for the environment because shes taken money from the League of Conservation Voters, good for Teachers because of unions... etc. It takes a lot of money to run for president. She clearly doesnt have the time to look at every single donor and determine who gets what kind of kickback.. they'd be mutually exclusive 90% of the time!

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

No wait, do people actually think that quote this merits anger and hostility? Hillary Clinton, and her allies, have been implying this about Bernie Sanders from the very beginning of this year. Hillary Clinton, and her allies, have suggested that Bernie Sanders isn't a real Democrat, that he's "a liar", that he's opposed to the Affordable Care Act, that he was opposed to the auto bailout, that he's responsible for Sandy Hook etc. To me, that's a pretty dirty campaign rooted in deception and spin.

Welcome to the big league. The gloves come off.

Even though Sanders has been in Congress for decades, he is a completely unvetted as a national candidate. Sending a completely unvetted candidate straight into the GOP attack firestorm is a terrible idea. This isn't Hillary's first rodeo.

The FBI isn't finished vetting Hillary.

If Hillary goes down, it sure as hell won't be at the hands of a completely unhinged, flailing Bernie Sanders.

[Xing]

there goes his primetime speaking slot at the convention...i hope team clinton moves him to a low energy afternoon slot

He's not going to speak at the convention.  He lost that privilege in March when his campaign started promoting GOP clinton conspiracies.

I don't share that view, and I'll be the first to admit that I think he went too far with that comment. But if it's wrong for Sanders to say that about Clinton, it's wrong for her to say it (or to be more specific, imply it) about Sanders.

Sanders isn't qualified to be president, though.  He's absolutely 100% clueless on foreign policy, has absolutely no qualifications to be commander of the armed forces, and as the NYDN article revealed to the world (but as most of us who were paying attention already knew) he has no real idea what he's talking about with economic policy beyond a handful of diatribes, applause lines and childish ideas that are just as bad as 9-9-9.

A central theme of Clinton's campaign is the fact that she's overwhelmingly qualified for the job while Sanders is not.  For her to carry on that theme isn't wrong, because there's a mountain of evidence to back up her assertion.  For Sanders to say the inverse, that he is qualified to be president but she is not, and then back it up with the reasoning that "nobody who has a Super PAC or voted for the Iraq War is qualified to be president" is just astonishingly stupid.  Even the GOP admits that Clinton is qualified to be president, except I guess Trump.

Not that she said it anyway, that's just a lie the Bernie liars are promoting to try to make this indefensible Bernie attack look like "an eye for an eye"

Sanders is not 100% clueless on foreign policy. Generally people who are clueless about foreign policy do not do a very good job of forewarning congress about the dangers of needlessly taking out a dictator, and are usually not proven right shortly thereafter. Clinton's views on foreign policy are one of my biggest reasons for supporting Sanders. She is much more hawkish than I would like, and her Iraq vote was not her only mistake when it comes to foreign policy. He did have an interview that reflected badly on him, I'll admit that. That does not undo 100% of the work he's done in the house and the senate. You can argue that Hillary Clinton is more qualified than Sanders, but I think you lose credibility when you speak in hyperbole, and compare him to someone who has literally no political experience and actually is talking out of his ass.

Trump also supposedly warned about the dangers of overthrowing a dictator.  My uncle told me in 2003 that the Iraq War was a stupid idea and there weren't going to be any WMDs.  It's easy to be clueless about foreign policy and still have simple views, that's the position of most Americans -- we're all surrounded by opinions and news every hour of the day.  But it shouldn't be the position of the man or woman who has to navigate the complex web of relationships America has with foreign leaders, manage and make crisis decisions about how to utilize the world's most powerful and engaged military force, or make judgment calls based on the tradeoffs and potential consequences any decision may have on the millions of interlocking puzzle pieces that make up the rest of the world.

Hillary has shown again and again and again that she has a thorough understanding of how these things work.  Sanders has shown that he read an editorial in Socialism Weekly about how overthrowing dictators is bad.  Every time he's been pressed on foreign policy he's revealed his simplistic understanding of the world.  In these unstable times that's not ok, it's unsafe and he is irresponsible for running when he knows he's not up to the job.  Ask Bernie how he would have negotiated the 2009 Turkey-Armenia peace treaty, the answer is he wouldn't have been able to because there were a thousand issues at play and he doesn't even know what they were, much less how to reason about them.  Hillary did and that's why she was able to secure the treaty.

So you're considering Sanders' vote against the Iraq War and his speech on the House floor a lucky guess? He was a little more specific than just saying regime change = bad. He definitely demonstrated an understanding better than one you get out of "Socialism Weekly" (come on, really?) He's not merely a stubborn pacifist, since there are instances in which he has voted to authorize the use of force, but he's clearly shown more restraint than the vast majority of congress, which is something I find important. Feel free to disagree, and argue that the U.S. needs a more aggressive leader, but if you actually look at Sanders' record, speeches, and his votes, the assertion that he's braindead on foreign policy is ludicrous. I'm not saying Hillary Clinton did nothing good as Secretary of State. I happen to think that she was a very effective Secretary of State on the whole. However, what she plans to do as President regarding Syria worries me, and the fact that she has made some good decisions before doesn't mean that she's right in this particular case.

I am willing to accept that Sanders has shown some understanding of foreign policy in the past, especially in particular situations where he had a good amount of time to study the issue at hand.  His statements on the campaign trail, his responses to questions in debates, and his responses to interview questions, however, all reveal that he lacks the thorough, nuanced and widespread understanding and judgment of Hillary Clinton, understanding and judgment which in my opinion is crucial for any national leader, but particularly the leader of the most powerful and influential country on earth.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. While it's true that he hasn't gotten as specific as I'd like in debates, the same is true for me when it comes to Clinton's responses. Part of that might be the time constraint of debates. I believe that Clinton has been in the spotlight when it comes to foreign policy, and while her accomplishments are easy to see, so are instances in which she showed poor judgment. There are issues, like gun control, where I actually prefer Clinton over Sanders, but foreign policy is definitely not one of those issues for me.

What are Bernie's accomplishments or judgment calls on foreign policy?  Other than his vote against both the Iraq War and the defunding thereof.

Well, for one, he opposed the Gulf War, though he did vote in favor in force in the Balkans. Also, he's been a proponent of beginning to normalize relations with Cuba, and supported travel to Cuba back in the early 2000's.

[Ebowed]

She clearly doesnt have the time to look at every single donor and determine who gets what kind of kickback.. they'd be mutually exclusive 90% of the time!

If only Hillary Clinton agreed with you - I assume there was a good reason she stopped taking donations from private prisons.

Yes, the critique of political funding applies to other Democrats.  Hillary Clinton represents a particularly egregious case because she has repeatedly used her influence and clout to improve her wealth.  Let me break it down this way - the only way you get paid $225,000 for a flimsy, content-free speech is by being incredibly wealthy to begin with.  But to say that Clinton would not be able to compete without money from gun, oil and gas lobbyists is ludicrous.  There happens to be a candidate who relies on small donations - if he can do it, why can't she?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

She clearly doesnt have the time to look at every single donor and determine who gets what kind of kickback.. they'd be mutually exclusive 90% of the time!

If only Hillary Clinton agreed with you - I assume there was a good reason she stopped taking donations from private prisons.

Yes, the critique of political funding applies to other Democrats.  Hillary Clinton represents a particularly egregious case because she has repeatedly used her influence and clout to improve her wealth.  Let me break it down this way - the only way you get paid $225,000 for a flimsy, content-free speech is by being incredibly wealthy to begin with.  But to say that Clinton would not be able to compete without money from gun, oil and gas lobbyists is ludicrous.  There happens to be a candidate who relies on small donations - if he can do it, why can't she?

And that is why Hillary and the Democratic establishment hate Bernie. Every day, he proves that they don't need to get in bed with special interests, but that they choose to get in bed with special interests.

[Ebsy]

She clearly doesnt have the time to look at every single donor and determine who gets what kind of kickback.. they'd be mutually exclusive 90% of the time!

If only Hillary Clinton agreed with you - I assume there was a good reason she stopped taking donations from private prisons.

Yes, the critique of political funding applies to other Democrats.  Hillary Clinton represents a particularly egregious case because she has repeatedly used her influence and clout to improve her wealth.  Let me break it down this way - the only way you get paid $225,000 for a flimsy, content-free speech is by being incredibly wealthy to begin with.  But to say that Clinton would not be able to compete without money from gun, oil and gas lobbyists is ludicrous.  There happens to be a candidate who relies on small donations - if he can do it, why can't she?

This is on its face absurd, and you know it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She clearly doesnt have the time to look at every single donor and determine who gets what kind of kickback.. they'd be mutually exclusive 90% of the time!

If only Hillary Clinton agreed with you - I assume there was a good reason she stopped taking donations from private prisons.

Yes, the critique of political funding applies to other Democrats.  Hillary Clinton represents a particularly egregious case because she has repeatedly used her influence and clout to improve her wealth.  Let me break it down this way - the only way you get paid $225,000 for a flimsy, content-free speech is by being incredibly wealthy to begin with.  But to say that Clinton would not be able to compete without money from gun, oil and gas lobbyists is ludicrous.  There happens to be a candidate who relies on small donations - if he can do it, why can't she?

This is on its face absurd, and you know it.

Obama didn't take lobbyist money. Hillary does.

[Virginiá]

There happens to be a candidate who relies on small donations - if he can do it, why can't she?

In all fairness, not everyone can raise that kind of money via small donations. Presidential campaigns are super expensive and at this point, it's not even a given that Sanders can raise the necessary capital to run a strong, competitive campaign that also doesn't neglect downballot races (I would personally never vote for someone who didn't assist in other races).

It takes a certain kind of person to have such an appeal that they can raise such money, and just because someone doesn't have that appeal doesn't make them a bad candidate for president. They could end up being a great president but still lack the appeal that they would have needed to run a campaign on small donor support.

[Ebsy]

Obama didn't take lobbyist money. Hillary does.

Are you serious?

[dax00]

Obama didn't take lobbyist money. Hillary does.

Are you serious?

Of course Obama took lobbyist money.

[Ebsy]

Obama didn't take lobbyist money. Hillary does.

Are you serious?

Of course Obama took lobbyist money.

I mean, only 3 of the top 20 places of employment for his contributors in 2008 were lobbying firms.

 

And 3 of his top 20 in 2012.

[Landslide Lyndon]

This.

@DemocratMachine  2h2 hours ago

A certain candidate could say "She's not qualified due to Iraq".

But, that certain candidate did vote for confirm her as Sec of State.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama didn't take lobbyist money. Hillary does.

Are you serious?

Of course Obama took lobbyist money.

I mean, only 3 of the top 20 places of employment for his contributors in 2008 were lobbying firms.

 

And 3 of his top 20 in 2012.

I thought he didn't. Well, they did just change the DNC rules so that they could take lobbyist money for Hillary, undoing a change Obama made.

[ProudModerate2]

I can not believe how nutty this whole thread has become.
And I will be the first to admit that I had some part into what it has morphed into.
Ugggggggggggg.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Things are simple. Sanders' inexperience as a national candidate was in full display today after just a couple of days where he got a modicum of media scrutiny with his NYDN disastrous interview, the NYC media asking him to apologize for defending gun manufacturers and the increasingly loud complaining among Democrats that he does nothing to help the party downballot.

He obviously lost his cool and launched an attack that not only was roundly condemned by Democrats but also laughed off even by Republicans who might hate Hillary but readily admit that she is well qualified to be President.

Now, if this happened after two days of mild pushback imagine how he will react when Republicans start unloading on him for being a communist babykiller who wants to take the money out of the pockets of wholesome middle class families and give them to hippies to buy free marijuana. Ol' Bernie will have a nervous breakdown.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary also implied that Obama wasn't qualified.

"I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yYlzX2ZOLM

[Desroko]

Things are simple. Sanders' inexperience as a national candidate was in full display today after just a couple of days where he got a modicum of media scrutiny with his NYDN disastrous interview, the NYC media asking him to apologize for defending gun manufacturers and the increasingly loud complaining among Democrats that he does nothing to help the party downballot.

He obviously lost his cool and launched an attack that not only was roundly condemned by Democrats but also laughed off even by Republicans who might hate Hillary but readily admit that she is well qualified to be President.

Now, if this happened after two days of mild pushback imagine how he will react when Republicans start unloading on him for being a communist babykiller who wants to take the money out of the pockets of wholesome middle class families and give them to hippies to buy free marijuana. Ol' Bernie will have a nervous breakdown.

I actually think he'd be able to shrug off laughable GOP attacks - these people are too cartoonish for their own good, as our two-term Gaycommunazimuslimkenyanterrorist president could tell you.

It's when he got hit close to home - on his gun positions and shallow grasp of policy - that he lashed out.  

[SillyAmerican]

No wait, do people actually think that quote this merits anger and hostility? Hillary Clinton, and her allies, have been implying this about Bernie Sanders from the very beginning of this year. Hillary Clinton, and her allies, have suggested that Bernie Sanders isn't a real Democrat, that he's "a liar", that he's opposed to the Affordable Care Act, that he was opposed to the auto bailout, that he's responsible for Sandy Hook etc. To me, that's a pretty dirty campaign rooted in deception and spin.

Welcome to the big league. The gloves come off.

Even though Sanders has been in Congress for decades, he is a completely unvetted as a national candidate. Sending a completely unvetted candidate straight into the GOP attack firestorm is a terrible idea. This isn't Hillary's first rodeo.

The FBI isn't finished vetting Hillary.

If Hillary goes down, it sure as hell won't be at the hands of a completely unhinged, flailing Bernie Sanders.

Agreed. But I find myself in agreement with Bernie's sentiment: Hillary Clinton is "not qualified" to be President, if for no other reason than that she doesn't seem to understand how to safeguard sensitive information in her care.

[Lyin' Steve]

No wait, do people actually think that quote this merits anger and hostility? Hillary Clinton, and her allies, have been implying this about Bernie Sanders from the very beginning of this year. Hillary Clinton, and her allies, have suggested that Bernie Sanders isn't a real Democrat, that he's "a liar", that he's opposed to the Affordable Care Act, that he was opposed to the auto bailout, that he's responsible for Sandy Hook etc. To me, that's a pretty dirty campaign rooted in deception and spin.

Welcome to the big league. The gloves come off.

Even though Sanders has been in Congress for decades, he is a completely unvetted as a national candidate. Sending a completely unvetted candidate straight into the GOP attack firestorm is a terrible idea. This isn't Hillary's first rodeo.

The FBI isn't finished vetting Hillary.

If Hillary goes down, it sure as hell won't be at the hands of a completely unhinged, flailing Bernie Sanders.

Agreed. But I find myself in agreement with Bernie's sentiment: Hillary Clinton is "not qualified" to be President, if for no other reason than that she doesn't seem to understand how to safeguard sensitive information in her care.

ayyy #hillaryforprison #feelthebern

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Oh for god sakes, yes Obama has some corruption too Hillary all of Washington does. Pointing out others corruption by hiding behind Obama doesn't excuse your own corruption.

[Sir Mohamed]

Oh, why? Because she can do the math other than him? Ridiculous, Bernie.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Looks like the dying TV media is already trying to spin this with headlines like "Clinton campaigns in New York amid Sanders fight". Oh yes and while a Clinton surrogate is on telling us how good of a New Yorker Clinton is while she is riding the subway.

[skoods]

Used to think I could vote for Sanders if he won. But, I'd probably abstain or vote for Trump at this point. The man is clearly unqualified. He doesn't know a thing about his own policies. He incites these ludicrous supporters who think that they should be given everything without working for it. And he doesn't support the party whose nomination he's running for.

He's a crook.