Sanders calls Clinton "unqualified" megathread

[RJEvans]

I think his comments were disgusting, but my prediction--it won't matter. It'll be like Trump. Say the most outrageous thing and watch your poll numbers increase.

[Wiz in Wis]

If Bernie Sanders or his supporters really thought they had a shot at the nomination, they wouldn't need to go negative on Hillary, would they? They know she's favored in the next round of states and want to take her down a notch. What's missing is that they assume she's been attacking him full strength for the past few months. That's a pretty clear miscalculation.

Frankly, the gun issue is pretty terrible optics for him. He's literally spent his entire career bashing "corporate America" for X, Y, and Z... for him to jump to the GUN MANUFACTURER'S defense makes him look really shady. And pretending that the former Secretary of State, NY Senator, First Lady of the US is "unqualified" is an unforced error too... no every question he will get for two days will start with him on the defense. He never really had much of an opening, and now he's going to be off message for at least two days about this comment. Not smart.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Bernie Sanders or his supporters really thought they had a shot at the nomination, they wouldn't need to go negative on Hillary, would they? They know she's favored in the next round of states and want to take her down a notch. What's missing is that they assume she's been attacking him full strength for the past few months. That's a pretty clear miscalculation.

Frankly, the gun issue is pretty terrible optics for him. He's literally spent his entire career bashing "corporate America" for X, Y, and Z... for him to jump to the GUN MANUFACTURER'S defense makes him look really shady. And pretending that the former Secretary of State, NY Senator, First Lady of the US is "unqualified" is an unforced error too... no every question he will get for two days will start with him on the defense. He never really had much of an opening, and now he's going to be off message for at least two days about this comment. Not smart.

Hillary implied he wasn't qualified first.

[Ebsy]

If Bernie Sanders or his supporters really thought they had a shot at the nomination, they wouldn't need to go negative on Hillary, would they? They know she's favored in the next round of states and want to take her down a notch. What's missing is that they assume she's been attacking him full strength for the past few months. That's a pretty clear miscalculation.

Frankly, the gun issue is pretty terrible optics for him. He's literally spent his entire career bashing "corporate America" for X, Y, and Z... for him to jump to the GUN MANUFACTURER'S defense makes him look really shady. And pretending that the former Secretary of State, NY Senator, First Lady of the US is "unqualified" is an unforced error too... no every question he will get for two days will start with him on the defense. He never really had much of an opening, and now he's going to be off message for at least two days about this comment. Not smart.

Hillary implied he wasn't qualified first.

Where exactly did she do that? The interview I watched this morning had Joe Scarborough repeatedly press her into saying he isn't qualified, and she repeatedly refused to say as much, saying that it was up to the voters to decide. How does that translate into "quote unquote not qualified?"

[Wiz in Wis]

If Bernie Sanders or his supporters really thought they had a shot at the nomination, they wouldn't need to go negative on Hillary, would they? They know she's favored in the next round of states and want to take her down a notch. What's missing is that they assume she's been attacking him full strength for the past few months. That's a pretty clear miscalculation.

Frankly, the gun issue is pretty terrible optics for him. He's literally spent his entire career bashing "corporate America" for X, Y, and Z... for him to jump to the GUN MANUFACTURER'S defense makes him look really shady. And pretending that the former Secretary of State, NY Senator, First Lady of the US is "unqualified" is an unforced error too... no every question he will get for two days will start with him on the defense. He never really had much of an opening, and now he's going to be off message for at least two days about this comment. Not smart.

Hillary implied he wasn't qualified first.

No, she was asked if he was qualified and she didn't run to his defense. She didn't praise him. She "implied" that he had work to do understanding foreign policy. That's hardly calling him "unqualified." But the larger issue is that he does sound, frankly, out of his depth on some issues. So her saying so is essentially confirming a suspicion. For him to turn around and basically say "I know you are but what am I" is an unforced tactical error. He sounds stupid. She's clearly qualified. He chose a dumb line of attack. The fact that the liberal media folks are all bringing it up is not because it looks nasty, but because it makes him look clueless. The folks at MSNBC, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos are all saying "Really? That's your next move?" It's an unforced error. And frankly, by bringing it up again, it all but invites the media to dig into his foreign policy positions more, bring up his past statements on Cuba, Nicaragua, the USSR... It even comes of as veiled sexism! Not how he wants to spend the next 48 hours.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Bernie Sanders or his supporters really thought they had a shot at the nomination, they wouldn't need to go negative on Hillary, would they? They know she's favored in the next round of states and want to take her down a notch. What's missing is that they assume she's been attacking him full strength for the past few months. That's a pretty clear miscalculation.

Frankly, the gun issue is pretty terrible optics for him. He's literally spent his entire career bashing "corporate America" for X, Y, and Z... for him to jump to the GUN MANUFACTURER'S defense makes him look really shady. And pretending that the former Secretary of State, NY Senator, First Lady of the US is "unqualified" is an unforced error too... no every question he will get for two days will start with him on the defense. He never really had much of an opening, and now he's going to be off message for at least two days about this comment. Not smart.

Hillary implied he wasn't qualified first.

No, she was asked if he was qualified and she didn't run to his defense. She didn't praise him. She "implied" that he had work to do understanding foreign policy. That's hardly calling him "unqualified." But the larger issue is that he does sound, frankly, out of his depth on some issues. So her saying so is essentially confirming a suspicion. For him to turn around and basically say "I know you are but what am I" is an unforced tactical error. He sounds stupid. She's clearly qualified. He chose a dumb line of attack. The fact that the liberal media folks are all bringing it up is not because it looks nasty, but because it makes him look clueless. The folks at MSNBC, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos are all saying "Really? That's your next move?" It's an unforced error. And frankly, by bringing it up again, it all but invites the media to dig into his foreign policy positions more, bring up his past statements on Cuba, Nicaragua, the USSR... It even comes of as veiled sexism! Not how he wants to spend the next 48 hours.

The Hillary campaign already said they were going to disqualify him, and then she clearly insinuated he wasn't qualified to that question.

So what, Univision will air more out of context clips about Bernie?

[Ebowed]

Honestly, Hillary Clinton is out of her depth.  I remember her Nevada victory speech included a reference to wealth inequality, saying it doesn't matter how low you go in America, what matters is that you get back up!!  That's a complete misunderstanding of systemic poverty - a symptom of policies that she supports - and the fact that she doesn't seem to understand why this has become an issue only exacerbates how little she relates to the average person.

Hillary Clinton has spent the last several months flabbergasted that she would even have to fight for this nomination.

She has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgement, not just politically in supporting perpetual war, citizen surveillance, and mass incarceration, but seems to not understand why people would be skeptical of how she has made a fortune from being a political celebrity.

Again, it's not what's in the speeches- although a transcript would be great- it's that she doesn't seem to see what's wrong with accepting $225,000 for a speech in the first place.

Out of touch.  Out of her depth.  Completely unqualified.

[Xing]

I can only imagine how happy Republicans must be with this thread.

[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.

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.

[Ebsy]

Honestly, Hillary Clinton is out of her depth.  I remember her Nevada victory speech included a reference to wealth inequality, saying it doesn't matter how low you go in America, what matters is that you get back up!!  That's a complete misunderstanding of systemic poverty - a symptom of policies that she supports - and the fact that she doesn't seem to understand why this has become an issue only exacerbates how little she relates to the average person.

Hillary Clinton has spent the last several months flabbergasted that she would even have to fight for this nomination.

She has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgement, not just politically in supporting perpetual war, citizen surveillance, and mass incarceration, but seems to not understand why people would be skeptical of how she has made a fortune from being a political celebrity.

Again, it's not what's in the speeches- although a transcript would be great- it's that she doesn't seem to see what's wrong with accepting $225,000 for a speech in the first place.

Out of touch.  Out of her depth.  Completely unqualified.

Stop baiting jfern and progressivecanadian.

[Ebowed]

Honestly, Hillary Clinton is out of her depth.  I remember her Nevada victory speech included a reference to wealth inequality, saying it doesn't matter how low you go in America, what matters is that you get back up!!  That's a complete misunderstanding of systemic poverty - a symptom of policies that she supports - and the fact that she doesn't seem to understand why this has become an issue only exacerbates how little she relates to the average person.

Hillary Clinton has spent the last several months flabbergasted that she would even have to fight for this nomination.

She has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgement, not just politically in supporting perpetual war, citizen surveillance, and mass incarceration, but seems to not understand why people would be skeptical of how she has made a fortune from being a political celebrity.

Again, it's not what's in the speeches- although a transcript would be great- it's that she doesn't seem to see what's wrong with accepting $225,000 for a speech in the first place.

Out of touch.  Out of her depth.  Completely unqualified.

Stop baiting jfern and progressivecanadian.

I believe every word of that post.

[YPestis25]

If Bernie Sanders or his supporters really thought they had a shot at the nomination, they wouldn't need to go negative on Hillary, would they? They know she's favored in the next round of states and want to take her down a notch. What's missing is that they assume she's been attacking him full strength for the past few months. That's a pretty clear miscalculation.

Frankly, the gun issue is pretty terrible optics for him. He's literally spent his entire career bashing "corporate America" for X, Y, and Z... for him to jump to the GUN MANUFACTURER'S defense makes him look really shady. And pretending that the former Secretary of State, NY Senator, First Lady of the US is "unqualified" is an unforced error too... no every question he will get for two days will start with him on the defense. He never really had much of an opening, and now he's going to be off message for at least two days about this comment. Not smart.

Pretty much nails my view on this. I'm pretty disappointed in the tone the race has taken on, in large part due to Sanders. I know this doesn't compare to 2008, but it's still unfortunate to see from your preferred candidate.

[Wiz in Wis]

If Bernie Sanders or his supporters really thought they had a shot at the nomination, they wouldn't need to go negative on Hillary, would they? They know she's favored in the next round of states and want to take her down a notch. What's missing is that they assume she's been attacking him full strength for the past few months. That's a pretty clear miscalculation.

Frankly, the gun issue is pretty terrible optics for him. He's literally spent his entire career bashing "corporate America" for X, Y, and Z... for him to jump to the GUN MANUFACTURER'S defense makes him look really shady. And pretending that the former Secretary of State, NY Senator, First Lady of the US is "unqualified" is an unforced error too... no every question he will get for two days will start with him on the defense. He never really had much of an opening, and now he's going to be off message for at least two days about this comment. Not smart.

Hillary implied he wasn't qualified first.

No, she was asked if he was qualified and she didn't run to his defense. She didn't praise him. She "implied" that he had work to do understanding foreign policy. That's hardly calling him "unqualified." But the larger issue is that he does sound, frankly, out of his depth on some issues. So her saying so is essentially confirming a suspicion. For him to turn around and basically say "I know you are but what am I" is an unforced tactical error. He sounds stupid. She's clearly qualified. He chose a dumb line of attack. The fact that the liberal media folks are all bringing it up is not because it looks nasty, but because it makes him look clueless. The folks at MSNBC, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos are all saying "Really? That's your next move?" It's an unforced error. And frankly, by bringing it up again, it all but invites the media to dig into his foreign policy positions more, bring up his past statements on Cuba, Nicaragua, the USSR... It even comes of as veiled sexism! Not how he wants to spend the next 48 hours.

The Hillary campaign already said they were going to disqualify him, and then she clearly insinuated he wasn't qualified to that question.

So what, Univision will air more out of context clips about Bernie?

Oh my god... she was asked if he was unqualified. She did not say he was, then he LIED by misquoting her. It's pretty clear he's flailing and this will not help him one iota. First rule of getting out of a hole... stop digging!

[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.

[Comrade Funk]

I can only imagine how happy Republicans must be with this thread.

They have nothing to be gleeful about considering riots are pretty much a given at this point regardless of the outcome.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

In contrast, I think that Sanders' attacks have been fair and above the board: yes, it's reasonable to draw a contrast between him and Hillary on campaign finance because he's disadvantaged by not having a "PAC". It's reasonable to draw a contrast between him and Hillary on the Iraq War because she spoke in favor of the war on many occasions and refused to apologize for this for years.

The Clinton campaign's problem is that there are very few ways to hit Sanders in a substantive manner. She can't hit him from the right, that would destroy her candidacy. She can't effectively hit him on policy issues because Democratic primary voters love his policy stances. The only effective campaign strategy, on her part, is to emphasize non-economic issues and try her hardest to "play the gender card" at every turn.

To be fair to Hillary Clinton, she is disadvantaged as a woman running for public office. She has difficulties being a "natural politician" for this reason. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that her campaign tries to extract any possible advantage from her gender, particularly in terms of optics. After all, it's what allowed her to thrash Rick Lazio in New York. So, I can't blame her for this.

[Ebsy]

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.

In contrast, I think that Sanders' attacks have been fair and above the board: yes, it's reasonable to draw a contrast between him and Hillary on campaign finance because he's disadvantaged by not having a "PAC". It's reasonable to draw a contrast between him and Hillary on the Iraq War because she spoke in favor of the war on many occasions and refused to apologize for this for years.

The Clinton campaign's problem is that there are very few ways to hit Sanders in a substantive manner. She can't hit him from the right, that would destroy her candidacy. She can't effectively hit him on policy issues because Democratic primary voters love his policy stances. The only effective campaign strategy, on her part, is to emphasize non-economic issues and try her hardest to "play the gender card" at every turn.

It's really hard to believe your false indignation. But to respond to your first question, Bernie stepped in it and he's going to pay the price.

[Xing]

I can only imagine how happy Republicans must be with this thread.

They have nothing to be gleeful about considering riots are pretty much a given at this point regardless of the outcome.

Their side is obviously a mess, but they're no doubt hoping our side descends into a similar mess.

[Pyro]

Interesting to see how hotly contested the war is between the Dems here lately.
As for the topic, Twitter seems to be having quite a lot of fun with it, with #HillarySoQualified.

[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.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

In contrast, I think that Sanders' attacks have been fair and above the board: yes, it's reasonable to draw a contrast between him and Hillary on campaign finance because he's disadvantaged by not having a "PAC". It's reasonable to draw a contrast between him and Hillary on the Iraq War because she spoke in favor of the war on many occasions and refused to apologize for this for years.

The Clinton campaign's problem is that there are very few ways to hit Sanders in a substantive manner. She can't hit him from the right, that would destroy her candidacy. She can't effectively hit him on policy issues because Democratic primary voters love his policy stances. The only effective campaign strategy, on her part, is to emphasize non-economic issues and try her hardest to "play the gender card" at every turn.

It's really hard to believe your false indignation. But to respond to your first question, Bernie stepped in it and he's going to pay the price.

huh? I'm not angry. The only time I was actually irritated at Hillary Clinton was when she, in a very undignified manner, insulted the intelligence of young Sanders supporters. That was pretty terrible. I think that, in general, her attacks make sense. I understand why she'd hit Sanders on these issues, why wouldn't she? After all, it is a political campaign. However, I also think that Sanders is entitled to hit back.

However, I am annoyed at Hillary supporters on this forum for being irritating hacks. You might not realize this but, whenever you insult Sanders supporters, you insult my parents and my friends. I actually have nothing against supporters of Hillary Clinton, outside of those on this forum who have acted like undignified pests at every turn.

[psychprofessor]

I'll repeat: just because he garnered a certain amount of delegates, the Clinton's and the DNC will control the speakers and speaker times. I hope Bernie gets a low energy Monday afternoon slot when Young Turks can cover his speech. His comment was truly disgraceful.

[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.

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.

[Ebowed]

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.