Bernie Sanders held his ground Thursday morning in an increasingly bitter battle with presidential rival Hillary Clinton, saying "this campaign will fight back" in the face of attempts by the former secretary of state to "disqualify" him.
I think this was a trap and Sanders took the bait, however it will come up in the debate, and I think he will handle it well there, and hopefully that will be the end of it.
Here's a clip from what i wrote last night after watching the video of Sanders' talk in Philly:
i've only heard Sanders three times now, but he seems brasher and more forthright each time... Here he calls Clinton "unqualified" to be President, repeating the phrase on multiple grounds. Responding to Clinton having called Sanders unqualified, he hit back harder than she had. i feel like he's adopting more of a street-fighting stance, still firmly rooted in never being the side that starts unnecessary fights.
He blasts Trump repeatedly (and also the Republicans in general). Even as he blasts Trump, it seems to me he's directly appealing to Trump voters, in both his content and his delivery. Seeking fed-up independent voters who might start choosing to vote for Sanders, rather than the imploding Trump, in open-primary and open-caucus states during the Democratic primary, as well as prepping for the general election. Sanders is plainly fighting to win.
He grounds everything in calls for genuine community that translates into political power. Sanders stresses over and over, and cites numerous examples in different contexts, that coming together, standing together and fighting together with allies for shared goals, is the only way to accomplish significant social change.
He does not hesitate to point fingers directly at major social and economic changes encompassed in the political revolution being attempted, and at entrenched enemies that must be faced down.
i keep thinking, "He sounds a lot like me, if i had about 90% more self-restraint." i guess i'm starting to buy into the significance of the political revolution being attempted.
Clinton's strategy is: "Disqualify him, defeat him, and unify the party later."
Um, The Party™ has been unified foursquare behind Clinton from day one. If the network means to suggest she'll unify Democratic primary voters later, it might wish to queue up a clip of a camel passing through the eye of a needle as an illustrator of how that will work.
Bernie is a principled gentleman, she is a scum bag spoiled child supposed by an army of felons and malefactor wrongdoers hell bent on crowning their wretched queen.
Let their historic votes record decide, who is the more qualified!
Yeah, that's the problem alright..her proper pedigree.
Yeah exactly, what good is a crook with a PhD? Only a more destructive crook. A crooked politician only gets "better" at telling more believable lies.
Hillary is a lawyer, trained to cast doubt. The truth matters little if at all.
An simple advice for Sanders during the CNN moderated debate with HRC. Rephrase a question that intends to entrap you and be aware that they will be stealthy and hostile.
The days of vituperative mud slinging at Hillary Clinton are over. Please consider this and the breadth of reasons why it is worth considering very seriously.
Each time name calling and mud slinging are engaged in precious internet space without citing irrefutable fact, strength of argument is deeply compromised.
How many thousands of people visit these pages looking for REASONS to (re)consider their perspectives.
The 'sound bite' of destructive innuendo already has outlets in virtually every home in the country. It is a well known fact that increasingly people turn to the internet to find alternative, documented information.
Humor, links to documentation, the strength to broaden any given article is blessedly in our hands. Lets utilize and not miss the opportunity.
Cnn sez - they are reporting what the Clinton camp told them.Verbatim.
I have to laugh when I hear the corporate media talk about New York as Hillary's "adopted home state". There's another name for that - "Carpetbagger". Yeah, take that you soul-crushing Succubus. You sought out an open Senate seat in a state you thought you could win in, and got lucky having an incompetent opponent. You had no historic connection to the Empire State, you used it cynically to set up your eventual runs for President. You are the ultimate Stepford candidate.
How about "You are not a qualified Democratic candidate for President if you consider a war criminal like Henry Kissinger to be a close friend, advisor and mentor?" How about, "You are not a qualified Democratic candidate for President if, as Secretary of State, you aided in a right-wing military coup in Honduras to overthrow a democratically-elected left-of-center President who sought land reforms for his people, because your corporate backers could not stand for that?" Huh? How about, "You are not a qualified Democratic candidate for President if you and your husband made $150 million in the past 15 years taking money from wealthy interests opposed to the best interests of the vast majority of the American people?" How about them apples, bitch? (Drops mic.)
The Clintons relocated to New York prior to the end of Bill's second term so they could be closer to their money source. Hillary's Senate seat was part of the pay back package for 8 years of giving Wall Street and the corporate cronies everything they wanted.
A query on your comment, shouldn't "supposed" be "supported"?
* But, good on ya!
A person's "qualifications" as a leader require far more than Hillary's record of actions in private and public life represents! In Hillary's case her record cannot be separated from that of husband Bill and his/_their_ administration read: NAFTA and today's TPP!
"A party (or candidate) beholden to corporate power cannot simultaneously be the party (or candidate) of ordinary working people"
Decisions on war are critical to understanding a persons basic moral compass - Hillary failed that test miserably in Libya & murder of Qaddafi, and her openly stated servitude to the Zionist state at the AIPAC bootlicking - both at great expense to American interests!
Actions serving big-money/banker/Wall Street interests, especially when in public office then obscenely profiting from those sectors in many ways/mechanisms, like "speech fees", could/should be seen as criminal, and very much not in the public interest.
Supporting/serving the fossil fuel industry, Monsatan big-ag, big-pharma, for-profit health-care & insurance industry, TBTF banks, off-shore tax havens, etc, etc.......
Notice the Democrats have not invited Carter to speak at a convention in decades.
I think you are right about it being a trap - we are all about to witness an impressive example of the ways in which power gets mean when it is challenged. In the context of the famous Gandhi sequence, we've passed steps one and two ("ignore" and "laugh at"), and have arrived at step three ("fight"). It would be naïve not to expect it.
It would also be naïve not to expect Secretary Clinton to be really good at "vicious" and "underhanded." The cohort of "hired guns" in her corner, from David Brock to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, is not there to be "nice."
As for Bernie "taking the bait" - he had no choice. Once he began to invoke fear among the powerful, the proverbial "shit storm" was inevitable. There's no way to play that game without getting a bit dirty. I like to think that Bernie will be able to:
A. "Take it," and
B. Keep it (relatively) clean.
That would be really "presidential."
Seeing how well it has worked to capture the black vote in earlier primaries you bet "Clinton will re-up the artful smear that Sanders has no respect for President Obama".
Good sarcasm! Mrs. Clinton is fully qualified by the economic,elite to be their whore!