Sanders calls Clinton "unqualified" megathread

[ProudModerate2]

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"

SteveMcQueen,
You forgot to include that Sanders is "not qualified because he drives a Honda," or "not qualified because there was a roach found in Sander's home."

Aren't you a trump supporter ?
(Refer to my post which is 8 spots above yours.)

No, I don't support Trump because Donald Trump is not qualified to be president of the United States, for basically the same reasons Bernie Sanders isn't.  It's not asinine to say and having a minimal understanding of foreign, economic and military policy is not a trivial issue like driving a Honda or having a super PAC.

Oh OK.
Well then in that case, I will follow your exact lead and say that "Cruz is not qualified to be president because he refused to wear a cheese-head hat in Wisconsin."
And "Kasich is not qualified because (include any stupid reason here)."

My reasons weren't stupid.  I feel like you would have written this post no matter what I said.
Please explain how the reasons I gave do not disqualify Sanders from the presidency.
Or, alternatively, explain how "he didn't wear a cheese-head hat" and "he doesn't understand foreign policy, has no idea how to lead the military, and has a high-school redditor's understanding of the economy" are equally trivial reasons.

You are right ... I would have written what I said regardless of what you wrote. Or regardless if someone/anyone else would have wrote "not qualified."

What I mean to say is that the words "qualified" or "not qualified" should be left to how the Constitution reads and its "qualifications" for the Office of President.
If you mean to say that "in my opinion, someone is not fit for the office because of blah, blah, blah" ... then OK.

But to "disqualify" someone because of anything other than what the Constitution requires is ridiculous.
Because otherwise, anyone/everyone can create any silly/asinine statement for "not being qualified."
Remember, that even Supreme Court Justices need not have ANY law background at all to officially "qualify" for that position.

[Ebowed]

Hillary Clinton is a 'moderate' who 'accomplishes' things - supporting a left-wing candidate is foolish!

Wait, unless it's guns.

This is probably why Sanders outpolls Clinton in every general election match-up, over and over and over - rural voters are less worried that Sanders will take away their guns.

Personally, I don't see much point in quibbling about manufacturer liability, but neither campaign goes far enough on this.  The 2nd amendment should be repealed.  That's a no brainer.

[Yank2133]

Hillary Clinton is a 'moderate' who 'accomplishes' things - supporting a left-wing candidate is foolish!

Wait, unless it's guns.

This is probably why Sanders outpolls Clinton in every general election match-up, over and over and over - rural voters are less worried that Sanders will take away their guns.

Personally, I don't see much point in quibbling about manufacturer liability, but neither campaign goes far enough on this.  The 2nd amendment should be repealed.  That's a no brainer.

Sanders performs better because he has gotten a relatively free ride when it comes to negativity from the media.

Same thing for Kaisch.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary Clinton is a 'moderate' who 'accomplishes' things - supporting a left-wing candidate is foolish!

Wait, unless it's guns.

And unless she's Annie Oakley and attacking her opponent from the right on guns, or is approving weapons deals for awful countries like Saudi Arabia after the Clinton Foundation receives millions of dollars from them.

[Ebsy]

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.

Like I said, he's going to have enough delegate control to have some control over the convention, like his speech.

Yeah, not only is he going to have "some control over the convention", he very well may have the control over the convention...especially when you get down to brass tacks about the platform et al. He's practically guaranteed at this point to have at least 40% of the delegates (pledged + superdelegates).

When you take the percentage of Democratic voters who agree more with Sanders on broader policy and ideology than they do with Clinton - which includes a significant number of people who voted for Clinton because of concerns over electability and party loyalty - it is a majority. When you measure that same dynamic among party delegates - who are ideologues, activists and the like - it's an even larger majority. Sanders is going to get his way with the party platform up and down the line: I don't even think a "minority report" is going to be necessary in this case. Any decision that requires the input of a majority of delegates is going to favor Sanders over Clinton.

Add to all of that the fact that there are going to be plenty of Clinton delegates who understand the need for Sanders to play a prominent role in the convention (perhaps even to just avoid the "minority report" platform issues, which I still think won't be necessary for Sanders to get his way unless it's used as a tool for leverage) and Clintonland is going to be hard-pressed to be vindictive about any of this.

No one really cares that much about the platform though.

[Ebowed]

Hillary Clinton is a 'moderate' who 'accomplishes' things - supporting a left-wing candidate is foolish!

Wait, unless it's guns.

This is probably why Sanders outpolls Clinton in every general election match-up, over and over and over - rural voters are less worried that Sanders will take away their guns.

Personally, I don't see much point in quibbling about manufacturer liability, but neither campaign goes far enough on this.  The 2nd amendment should be repealed.  That's a no brainer.

Sanders performs better because he has gotten a relatively free ride when it comes to negativity from the media.

Same thing for Kaisch.

Wrong.  The "omg socialist" attacks don't work anymore - the right-wing media has been calling the Democrats socialists for decades, and the scaremongering has lost its effectiveness.  People recognize that being a socialist is a liability and that Sanders doesn't shy away from it.  That just doubles down on the widespread perception that he is authentic - a key contrast with Clinton.

Kasich is the worst candidate, out of him, Cruz and Trump, for the Democrats to face in November.  Thankfully, there is no way he can win the nomination in his own right - so there's nothing to worry about.

[DrScholl]

This is exactly why I don't see Sanders endorsing Clinton. You simply cannot say something like this and later endorse someone. Same goes in reverse.

[Oak Hills]

This is exactly why I don't see Sanders endorsing Clinton. You simply cannot say something like this and later endorse someone. Same goes in reverse.

He was very critical of the Democrats in the '80s too, but he still endorsed Mondale and Dukakis. I just really don't see him withholding an endorsement from Hillary when he's endorsed every Democratic nominee over the last 32 years, including (Bill) Clinton and Gore.

[Yank2133]

Hillary Clinton is a 'moderate' who 'accomplishes' things - supporting a left-wing candidate is foolish!

Wait, unless it's guns.

This is probably why Sanders outpolls Clinton in every general election match-up, over and over and over - rural voters are less worried that Sanders will take away their guns.

Personally, I don't see much point in quibbling about manufacturer liability, but neither campaign goes far enough on this.  The 2nd amendment should be repealed.  That's a no brainer.

Sanders performs better because he has gotten a relatively free ride when it comes to negativity from the media.

Same thing for Kaisch.

Wrong.  The "omg socialist" attacks don't work anymore - the right-wing media has been calling the Democrats socialists for decades, and the scaremongering has lost its effectiveness.  People recognize that being a socialist is a liability and that Sanders doesn't shy away from it.  That just doubles down on the widespread perception that he is authentic - a key contrast with Clinton.

Kasich is the worst candidate, out of him, Cruz and Trump, for the Democrats to face in November.  Thankfully, there is no way he can win the nomination in his own right - so there's nothing to worry about.

It isn't wrong.

Bernie has been largely ignored by the media. Hell, Sander supporters whine about his lack of attention all the time on here. Hillary on the other hand has been in the public eye for 20+ years and everyone has an opinion on her, whether good or bad.

If Sanders got the attention that Clinton and Trump, his numbers would drop significantly.

[Ebsy]

This is exactly why I don't see Sanders endorsing Clinton. You simply cannot say something like this and later endorse someone. Same goes in reverse.

Must nastier things were said in 2008, and Clinton did the right think and not only endorsed President Obama, but nominated him on the floor itself. Do you think Sanders is really a lesser man than Hillary Clinton is as a woman?

[ProudModerate2]

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"

SteveMcQueen,
You forgot to include that Sanders is "not qualified because he drives a Honda," or "not qualified because there was a roach found in Sander's home."

Aren't you a trump supporter ?
(Refer to my post which is 8 spots above yours.)

No, I don't support Trump because Donald Trump is not qualified to be president of the United States, for basically the same reasons Bernie Sanders isn't.  It's not asinine to say and having a minimal understanding of foreign, economic and military policy is not a trivial issue like driving a Honda or having a super PAC.

Oh OK.
Well then in that case, I will follow your exact lead and say that "Cruz is not qualified to be president because he refused to wear a cheese-head hat in Wisconsin."
And "Kasich is not qualified because (include any stupid reason here)."

My reasons weren't stupid.  I feel like you would have written this post no matter what I said.
Please explain how the reasons I gave do not disqualify Sanders from the presidency.
Or, alternatively, explain how "he didn't wear a cheese-head hat" and "he doesn't understand foreign policy, has no idea how to lead the military, and has a high-school redditor's understanding of the economy" are equally trivial reasons.

You are right ... I would have written what I said regardless of what you wrote. Or regardless if someone/anyone else would have wrote "not qualified."

What I mean to say is that the words "qualified" or "not qualified" should be left to how the Constitution reads and its "qualifications" for the Office of President.
If you mean to say that "in my opinion, someone is not fit for the office because of blah, blah, blah" ... then OK.

But to "disqualify" someone because of anything other than what the Constitution requires is ridiculous.
Because otherwise, anyone/everyone can create any silly/asinine statement for "not being qualified."
Remember, that even Supreme Court Justices need not have ANY law background at all to officially "qualify" for that position.

[Frodo]

I have avoided attacking (or supporting attacking) Bernie Sanders ever since Super Tuesday, but after this, it may be time for Hillary to unleash the dogs of hell on this bastard, and give his supporters a taste of what negative campaigning is really like.  

[Yank2133]

This is exactly why I don't see Sanders endorsing Clinton. You simply cannot say something like this and later endorse someone. Same goes in reverse.

Must nastier things were said in 2008, and Clinton did the right think and not only endorsed President Obama, but nominated him on the floor itself. Do you think Sanders is really a lesser man than Hillary Clinton is as a woman?

Lesser man, no.

But for whatever you think of her, Hillary is a party loyalist and Bernie doesn't give a crap about the party. So I could easily see him not endorsing her.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is exactly why I don't see Sanders endorsing Clinton. You simply cannot say something like this and later endorse someone. Same goes in reverse.

He was very critical of the Democrats in the '80s too, but he still endorsed Mondale and Dukakis. I just really don't see him withholding an endorsement from Hillary when he's endorsed every Democratic nominee over the last 32 years, including (Bill) Clinton and Gore.

True, for 8 straight Presidential elections he's endorsed and sometimes campaigned for the Democratic nominee. That's longer than for Jerry Brown or Elizabeth Warren.

I have avoided attacking (or supporting attacking) Bernie Sanders ever since Super Tuesday, but after this, it may be time for Hillary to unleash the dogs of hell on this bastard. 

She already did. She implied he wasn't qualified.

[Frodo]

She already did. She implied he wasn't qualified.

She didn't, but you already knew that. 

[Comrade Funk]

I was at the rally. Definitely caught me off guard, but nice to see Bernie fighting back.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

Like I said, he's going to have enough delegate control to have some control over the convention, like his speech.

Yeah, not only is he going to have "some control over the convention", he very well may have the control over the convention...especially when you get down to brass tacks about the platform et al. He's practically guaranteed at this point to have at least 40% of the delegates (pledged + superdelegates).

When you take the percentage of Democratic voters who agree more with Sanders on broader policy and ideology than they do with Clinton - which includes a significant number of people who voted for Clinton because of concerns over electability and party loyalty - it is a majority. When you measure that same dynamic among party delegates - who are ideologues, activists and the like - it's an even larger majority. Sanders is going to get his way with the party platform up and down the line: I don't even think a "minority report" is going to be necessary in this case. Any decision that requires the input of a majority of delegates is going to favor Sanders over Clinton.

Add to all of that the fact that there are going to be plenty of Clinton delegates who understand the need for Sanders to play a prominent role in the convention (perhaps even to just avoid the "minority report" platform issues, which I still think won't be necessary for Sanders to get his way unless it's used as a tool for leverage) and Clintonland is going to be hard-pressed to be vindictive about any of this.

No one really cares that much about the platform though.

Well, based on positions taken in the wake of the 2012 Democratic Platform, that's certainly the case for Clinton. There is still an impact to be had there: see 1988. She's not going to be able to get away with ducking and dodging the party platform as the presidential candidate, though; neither the base nor the Republicans will let her get away with it (nor the media, for that matter).

And it's not just about the platform, either.

[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.

[Oak Hills]

This is exactly why I don't see Sanders endorsing Clinton. You simply cannot say something like this and later endorse someone. Same goes in reverse.

Must nastier things were said in 2008, and Clinton did the right think and not only endorsed President Obama, but nominated him on the floor itself. Do you think Sanders is really a lesser man than Hillary Clinton is as a woman?

Lesser man, no.

But for whatever you think of her, Hillary is a party loyalist and Bernie doesn't give a crap about the party. So I could easily see him not endorsing her.

Let's dispel with this fiction that Sanders doesn't care about Democrats winning. There's a reason he's endorsed every presidential nominee since Mondale, and I don't see why he would feel differently about downballot candidates.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Despicable but not surprising. He's basically been saying it all along, but obviously this is a new low.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She already did. She implied he wasn't qualified.

She didn't, but you already knew that. 

She said he didn't do his homework when asked if he was qualified. Members of her campaign were talking about how they'd show he's not qualified.

[Lyin' Steve]

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"

SteveMcQueen,
You forgot to include that Sanders is "not qualified because he drives a Honda," or "not qualified because there was a roach found in Sander's home."

Aren't you a trump supporter ?
(Refer to my post which is 8 spots above yours.)

No, I don't support Trump because Donald Trump is not qualified to be president of the United States, for basically the same reasons Bernie Sanders isn't.  It's not asinine to say and having a minimal understanding of foreign, economic and military policy is not a trivial issue like driving a Honda or having a super PAC.

Oh OK.
Well then in that case, I will follow your exact lead and say that "Cruz is not qualified to be president because he refused to wear a cheese-head hat in Wisconsin."
And "Kasich is not qualified because (include any stupid reason here)."

My reasons weren't stupid.  I feel like you would have written this post no matter what I said.
Please explain how the reasons I gave do not disqualify Sanders from the presidency.
Or, alternatively, explain how "he didn't wear a cheese-head hat" and "he doesn't understand foreign policy, has no idea how to lead the military, and has a high-school redditor's understanding of the economy" are equally trivial reasons.

You are right ... I would have written what I said regardless of what you wrote. Or regardless if someone/anyone else would have wrote "not qualified."

What I mean to say is that the words "qualified" or "not qualified" should be left to how the Constitution reads and its "qualifications" for the Office of President.
If you mean to say that "in my opinion, someone is not fit for the office because of blah, blah, blah" ... then OK.

But to "disqualify" someone because of anything other than what the Constitution requires is ridiculous.
Because otherwise, anyone/everyone can create any silly/asinine statement for "not being qualified."
Remember, that even Supreme Court Justices need not have ANY law background at all to officially "qualify" for that position.

I use qualified in the sense that "a teenager with no job experience is not qualified to be CEO of JP Morgan Chase."  I think that's how most people understand the term.  When I say that, nobody asks "why, is he not a citizen or lawful resident of the United States?  Was he unable to produce a passport, birth certificate, or other valid form of identification?"

I guess that's why you were mocking me earlier.  Because you think it's ridiculous to use the term "qualified" in that sense... I see, it is all about that little semantic technicality, that was what you disagreed with?

[Yank2133]

This is exactly why I don't see Sanders endorsing Clinton. You simply cannot say something like this and later endorse someone. Same goes in reverse.

Must nastier things were said in 2008, and Clinton did the right think and not only endorsed President Obama, but nominated him on the floor itself. Do you think Sanders is really a lesser man than Hillary Clinton is as a woman?

Lesser man, no.

But for whatever you think of her, Hillary is a party loyalist and Bernie doesn't give a crap about the party. So I could easily see him not endorsing her.

Let's dispel with this fiction that Sanders doesn't care about Democrats winning. There's a reason he's endorsed every presidential nominee since Mondale, and I don't see why he would feel differently about downballot candidates.

If he actually cared about the party and advancing his agenda if elected, he would actually be raising money for other Democrats in state/congressional elections.

He isn't a serious candidate at all.

[Ronnie]

He will probably regret his comments, but hey, he had nothing to lose.  His odds of winning are so grim now that he probably figures that going scorched-earth is the only way he'll have a shot.

[Lyin' Steve]

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.