Home | About | Donate

Disqualifications, Not Qualifications


Disqualifications, Not Qualifications

Hank Edson

The dust up over whether either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president of the United States is overblown by the corporate media, which is looking for any chance it can get to censor the anti-establishment movement. But more importantly, this dust up is framed entirely incorrectly.

Both candidates have respectable resumes; neither disputes the credentials of the other. Thus, it’s not who is qualified based on their experience, but rather who ought to be disqualified based on their conflicts of interest.


HRC would further strip American sovereignty to the global elite.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


All no doubt very true, but to give this as the reason not to vote for Clinton seems naive and even obfuscatory because there is a bigger reason obliterating all other reasons in its sheer horridness. That would be Hillary Clinton's draconian behavior as Secretary of State. I'm not special here when I point to The Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan. Others of higher profile than mine have said the same thing but then been similarly marginalized or simply not listened to. And although Bernie Sanders is the best presidential candidate by a million miles, he always pulls his punch specifically when it comes to The Ukraine. He needs to discuss Victoria Nuland and Samantha Powers by name. It isn't enough to say over and over that Clinton, who is no George B. Kennan Jr., voted for war in Iraq when there is so much other of her bad judgment to discuss regarding these other countries. And the public knows less about these subjects. A good candidate should inform us.

Clearly, Hillary Clinton is a terrible hawk and therefore is disqualified to be the American president.
To repeat, she is not a woman of peace. And a finch did not settle on her podium..


Yes, "it’s not only who's "qualified" but rather who ought to be disqualified based on their conflicts of interest" - "Bernie Sanders is profoundly qualified to represent our interests" - "Hillary Clinton’s profound conflicts of interest (and criminally ignorant/incompetent/complicit decisions on war and destabilization of the ME & NA - war crimes) ought to disqualify her from representing our interests"! Not to mention Hillary should be indicted here and by the ICJ!

"sale of $29 billion in advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia approved by Clinton’s State Department. Prior to the sale, Saudi Arabia donated at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and Boeing, one of the defense contractors benefiting from the sale, donated another $900,000 only two months before the deal was completed"
"“Hillary Clinton was paid more than $21 million for making speeches to private concerns from April 2013 to March 2015, and thus a mere one month prior to her formal announcement as a candidate for president in April 2015." - can you say quid pro quo?

"The Clintons earned more than $28 million in 2014 and claimed around $3 million in income as charitable tax deductions - but roughly half of that money—$1.8 million—appears to have been channeled to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation" - Greed & self-interest is a family affair!

"Clinton not only helped push the Panama Free Trade Agreement through Congress as S of S (which Sanders vigorously opposed and warned against), but she also has important members of her inner circle working for one of the suspect Russian Banks closely associated with Vladimir Putin implicated in the scandal, and, further, the Clintons are both known to have their own offshore shell companies such as those exposed in the Panama Papers" -

"many of the hundreds of super delegates Clinton lined up appear to have been outright bought"
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/ - read it yourself

Hillary Clinton, one of the best corrupt DINO politicians money can buy! NOT the president or leadership our republic or the world needs!


Anyone out there live in NY and can give me a measure of the overall "feeling" for how the upcoming primary is going to go? Here in NH, it seemed at the very least highly likely Bernie was going to win, and it wasn't a big surprise that he did so convincingly. I now take it for granted that most people I know and talk to are Bernie supporters. His signs are still fairly common. I've seen Hillary signs replaced with Bernie signs. That's why every time Hillary wins another state (and that's been a while), or I see polls with her ahead (even though the gaps are narrowing), or hear Hillary supporters extoll the virtues of their candidate, I am somewhat incredulous. I try to avoid the MSM as much as possible and between what I hear in all the alternative venues of information as well as the scenes of giant crowds at Bernie's rallies I can't believe she could win another state at all much less with anything approaching a wide margin. What's it look like elsewhere in the country?


Poor Nelson, Gary, and Edmund, one got divorced, the other had an affair, and horror of horrors the last cried after his wife was dragged through hot coals by New Hampshire's fire breathing newspaper publisher William Loeb, all were dismissed as not being of presidential timber. Yet, this lady has more baggage than goes through O'hare Airport during the Thanksgiving hollidays, with none of it sticking.


I think you're right to be incredulous slithytove, I am as well. I believe the polls are not counting/missing/understating wide support Bernie has gained. The pattern seems to be Bernie has exceeded "expectations" in state votes except where fraud and voter suppression was a factor. The Clinton camp is frothing at the mouth trying to cement her coronation but she's losing support. Bernie's star is rising as more and more people recognize his honesty, integrity and dedication to the common good. At the same time voters are being informed, even given a biased/bought MSM, and increasingly Clinton's record of service to big-money and self-interested corruption is getting out.


Excellent framing of the main issue in this article.


Basing her platform on continuing Obama's agenda has given Clinton a teflon coating in the primary. Sanders is very limited in how much Clinton baggage he can put into play without being accused of disrespecting Obama or picking on Clinton and the Party.

The basis for many pollsters showing Sanders doing better against the GOP than Clinton is that the GOP will have no constraints in the general election...they WILL expose ALL of Clinton's baggage.


I'd like to hear from those people, too. I'm in Maryland, which as of now is projected to go to Hillary at the April 26th primary. The difficulty here is that it's a very liberal state, but with deep establishment loyalties. On the other hand, in my progressive burb everyone I know is for Bernie, and outreach here has just started.

As to New York, CD has reported that Bernie has gained 30 points recently. I give thanks for every article that's published, like this one, spelling out in detail what moral and legal baggage Hillary would bring. New Yorkers are smart and independent-minded. I have hope.


They are both well qualified by any reasonable standard. This is dumb. Let's move on and try to get back to the issues like climate, healthcare, wages, college affordability, racial discrimination, foreign policy, etc.


perhaps she has recovered a coat from Ronnie and had it re surfaced with the new teflon ??


Howard Friel sez:
Clinton has refused to "rule out appointing a Wall Street veteran to the top economic post in the White House ..."

That's because the position has already been appointed and awaits only the rubber stamp.


This whole "qualification" thing is an unfortunate detour in the primary campaign. It's the kind of thing the MSM loves because it is a frivolous argument that diverts from a discussion of the issues that matter.

I understand the Bernie and his campaign needed to defend himself/itself. But unfortunately this is the kind of "news" that the media can manipulate and twist into what ever it wants to. I'm sorry that Bernie got involved in it at all.

Instead of including HRC's ridiculous hard negative attacks, the MSM focused on Bernie's responses.

Let's get over it and move on.


You OBVIOUSLY didn't READ the article.

The writer, an attorney, makes an airtight case for what should disqualify Mrs. Clinton.


The reality is that most people don't know Hillary's true, comprehensive record.

This article, however, spells it out quite well.


The key is whether states have open or closed primaries. If Independents are permitted to vote, Bernie wins. When it's only official Ds and Rs, added to issues with limited voting stations and restrictions ON voting (due to the I.D. law, and so forth), then Hillary has a better shot.


Everything you have pointed out though makes her the perfect candidate from the Corporatist elites pt. of view within the party and that's why they say she's so qualified.


I wonder Rose have you inspected HRC's spelling and grammar yet? I'm sure you could find her some how deficient in that realm. Or maybe you could find that she has too many squares or oppositions in the wrong houses of the Zodiac to be qualified.