A lot of the Beltway is trying to characterize Hillary's recent exchange with a protester in NY as her 'losing it' or what have you. I couldn't disagree more. She's right-Bernie should stop lying about her record.
He keeps suggesting that somehow she's not honest. Some are arguing this is not such a tough attack line and somehow she's overreacting to it. I disagree. What is more primary than you're integrity? Bernie is using innuendo to try to undermine it. He has no proof of any vote of hers being bought.
I for one like her punching back like this. From what I'm seeing on Twitter many agree with me.
He plays the McCarthyite game of demanding to see her paid speeches. No one else in public life has been forced to do this. Why must she play by special rules yet again? Is it just a coincidence that she is the first woman running for President?
Again people in all kinds of walks of life give paid speeches-Gloria Steinem, Al Sharpton, etc. Why are groups sometimes willing to pay so much? Obviously it's always just what is said but who's saying it. That's the market and it's puzzling why this is the new Bernie litmus test.
As Bernie has no path to victory, what good is he doing going so negative at this point other than to help the RNC defeat her?
Paul Krugman:
"Now, as the bumper stickers don’t quite say, stuff happens. But at this point it’s something like a 90 percent probability that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Anyone denying that arithmetic is basically pulling a con job on Sanders supporters."
So what does that say about appropriate behavior on the part of her rival? Two things, I’d argue.
"First, the Sanders campaign needs to stop feeding the right-wing disinformation machine. Engaging in innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt is, at this point, basically campaigning on behalf of the RNC. If Sanders really believes, as he says, that it’s all-important to keep the White House out of Republican hands, he should stop all that – and tell his staff to stop it too."
"Second, it’s time for Sanders to engage in some citizenship. The presidency isn’t the only office on the line; down-ballot races for the Senate and even the House are going to be crucial. Clinton has been raising money for other races; Sanders hasn’t, and is still being evasive on whether he will ever do so. Not acceptable."
"Oh, and the Sanders campaign is saying that it will try to flip superdelegates even if it loses the unpledged delegates and the popular vote. Remember when evil Hillary was going to use superdelegates to steal the nomination? Double standards aside, what makes the campaign think that he will get any backing from a party he refuses to lift a finger to help?"
"It’s important to realize that there are some real conflicts of interest here. For Sanders campaign staff, and also for anyone who has been backing his insurgency, it’s been one heck of a ride, and they would understandably like it to go on as long as possible. But we’ve now reached the point where what’s fun for the campaign isn’t at all the same as what’s good for America."
"Sanders doesn’t need to drop out, but he needs to start acting responsibly."
He keeps suggesting that somehow she's not honest. Some are arguing this is not such a tough attack line and somehow she's overreacting to it. I disagree. What is more primary than you're integrity? Bernie is using innuendo to try to undermine it. He has no proof of any vote of hers being bought.
I for one like her punching back like this. From what I'm seeing on Twitter many agree with me.
He plays the McCarthyite game of demanding to see her paid speeches. No one else in public life has been forced to do this. Why must she play by special rules yet again? Is it just a coincidence that she is the first woman running for President?
Again people in all kinds of walks of life give paid speeches-Gloria Steinem, Al Sharpton, etc. Why are groups sometimes willing to pay so much? Obviously it's always just what is said but who's saying it. That's the market and it's puzzling why this is the new Bernie litmus test.
As Bernie has no path to victory, what good is he doing going so negative at this point other than to help the RNC defeat her?
Paul Krugman:
"Now, as the bumper stickers don’t quite say, stuff happens. But at this point it’s something like a 90 percent probability that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Anyone denying that arithmetic is basically pulling a con job on Sanders supporters."
So what does that say about appropriate behavior on the part of her rival? Two things, I’d argue.
"First, the Sanders campaign needs to stop feeding the right-wing disinformation machine. Engaging in innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt is, at this point, basically campaigning on behalf of the RNC. If Sanders really believes, as he says, that it’s all-important to keep the White House out of Republican hands, he should stop all that – and tell his staff to stop it too."
"Second, it’s time for Sanders to engage in some citizenship. The presidency isn’t the only office on the line; down-ballot races for the Senate and even the House are going to be crucial. Clinton has been raising money for other races; Sanders hasn’t, and is still being evasive on whether he will ever do so. Not acceptable."
"Oh, and the Sanders campaign is saying that it will try to flip superdelegates even if it loses the unpledged delegates and the popular vote. Remember when evil Hillary was going to use superdelegates to steal the nomination? Double standards aside, what makes the campaign think that he will get any backing from a party he refuses to lift a finger to help?"
"It’s important to realize that there are some real conflicts of interest here. For Sanders campaign staff, and also for anyone who has been backing his insurgency, it’s been one heck of a ride, and they would understandably like it to go on as long as possible. But we’ve now reached the point where what’s fun for the campaign isn’t at all the same as what’s good for America."
"Sanders doesn’t need to drop out, but he needs to start acting responsibly."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=0
I notice that there are two feelings out there right now.
1. GOPers and Beltway pundits are throwing spitballs at Hillary-why is she letting Bernie's very gentle attacks get under her skin?
2. Most liberals and Democrats don't see it this way. Jonathan Capehart also calls out Bernie's hypocrisy in criticizing Hillary for raising money form wealthy donors that helps the Democratic party-that would stand to benefit him if he were the nominee, while he refuses to lift a finger.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/31/heres-why-a-bernie-sanders-victory-for-the-nomination-would-make-him-a-hypocrite/
As much as the Bernie bots try to demonize Debbie Wasserman-Schutlz, at least she raises money for the party.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/president-obama-endorses-debbie.html
No comments:
Post a Comment