Discussion: Clinton, Sanders Camps Duke It Out Over NY Debate Scheduling

[carlosfiance]

There is the little matter of him not having ant women among his top ten advisors.

Assuming that that´s correct, that´s a legitimate criticism.

And encouraging the view that “it is sexist to want a woman president”

How so? Link?

And not speaking up when his surrogate Susan Sarandon reduced Clinton to “a vagina”

Sarandon said she didn´t ¨vote with (her) vagina¨, not that HRC was one. I don´t know that Sanders should have responded to that.

And not speaking up when his supporters and campaign villified a feminist icon, Gloria Steinem

I thought Steinem was an asshole when she ridiculed younger female Sanders supporters as only being supporting the campaign as a method to meet boys. I respect her for being a feminist leader; not so much for that, and dating Henry Kissinger.

And marginalizing Clinton’s supporters as middle aged women.

And how exactly, and when, did he do that?

Look, Sophie Brown, I understand that for many, the election of HRC represents (not only) a an opportunity to have a woman lead a country that has a tremendously bad history of sexism that continues today. I have respect for anyone who votes for her on that basis, as well as what they may feel to be her qualifications for the office. But I don´t respect when her fans´ desire for her election translates into smears against my preferred candidate and his supporters, which some of her supporters engage in.

[feathered_head]

The far left that been attacking Obama from just about day one – but now Sanders surrogates are attacking him as a way of further discrediting HRC (who is running aa his heir apparent) and the democratic party writ large.

Ever wonder how it is that all these young Sanders voters, who truly have legitimate worries about their futures, have arrived at a strategy of not voting to protest the likely democratic nominee? Is enabling the GOP really a better option? This is nothing less than the fine handiwork of the Naderites – and Sarandon made that abundantly clear to anyone who is paying attention. Its a strategy of holding the party hostage – either meet our demands or we are going to blow this election. This is not the moral exercise of democracy – this is unmitigated stupidity and arrogance that will deliver a fascist victory. Its a mirror image of the strategy that Trump and his supporters are doing to the GOP.

[chelsea530]

But I don´t respect when her fans´ desire for her election translates into smears against my preferred candidate and his supporters, which some of her supporters engage in.

Spoken like someone who has a true desire to keep the controversy going.

Hmmm.

[professorpoopypants]

I almost wonder if the point of demanding another debate was just so that he could use her hesitancy to continue to paint her as dishonest, having something to hide

So by publicly challenging her to debate in NY, they correctly anticipated that she would respond by threatening to break her promise to do the other debates at all, and furthermore they correctly calculated that the backlash to that would leave her scrambling to avoid the appearance that she was ducking the debates? If so, then Comic Book Guy (Jeff Weaver) is smarter than I gave him credit for!

No, I think the simpler answer is that Team Bernie wants a NY debate, felt Team Hillary was dragging its feet and running out the clock, and so they issued the challenge. That’s pretty much standard operating procedure, debate scheduling jousting 101. Little did they know Team Hillary would hand them a public relations coup by announcing they might break their promise and back out of the remaining debates altogether, only to have to pull an abrupt about face two days later. I think Comic Book Guy just got lucky on this one.

[darcy]

That’s the first comment I’ve made on that all-the-same influence argument. And the last. There are legitimate arguments to be made against Bernie as president. This argument is just silly.

[chelsea530]

No, you don’t make sense. She’s not afraid of Bernie Sanders.

She’s not afraid of anyone.

Why do you keep pushing this ridiculous argument?

[chelsea530]

Whatever, darcy. Too bad you’ve been a jerk heretofore.

[professorpoopypants]

Reading comprehension – work on it.

[chelsea530]

I’ve read the same argument from you for days, in one form or another, and you keep pushing it.

[darcy]

I knew this was coming. Forgive me.

Martin said: “The two of them deserve each other. One’s a born liar and the other’s convicted.

Billy Martin on George Steinbrenner and Reggie Jackson.

[professorpoopypants]

Since you’ve obviously misunderstood my remarks on this thread, the fact that you misunderstood elsewhere as well is not exactly surprising.

[beattycat]

I agree. What they are doing now and (in large numbers) threatening to do is immoral. It is backbiting, irresponsible, wrong-headed and hateful. If Senator Sanders has any control over his people and his ardent supporters, he needs to impress upon them that if they continue fucking around like this, they really do risk a Republican monster in the White House. Cruz is the more politically skilled one, but they’re both pretty rotten to the core, Donald Trump and Rafael Theodore Cruz. If they truly wish to start a “revolution” (whatever the fuck they really mean by that!) and abet allowing a President Trump to take over and the down-tickets to allow the Republicans to control both Houses of the Congress … well, they’ll get their revolution, but it’ll be with a Christo-Fascist Flag – no Rainbow Coalition flag. And then pretty much any and all progressive rights we’ve worked so very hard for will be up for grabs. And the Susan Sarandons will fly to a safer, quieter abode where their servants make sure she and her ilk are pampered … while America fights her “revolution.”

[chelsea530]

No, I went back and read what you said. Doesn’t matter, frankly.

Pushing for more debates has made me highly skeptical of your motives.

But, by all means, criticize me for daring to question you as a poster on a blog.

Hilarious.

[sophie_brown]

But LLoyd Blankfein or Jamie Diamond WILL get into the Oval Office.

They don’t get into the oval office because of bundling. They get into the oval office because they head powerful corporations that have a significant influence on society.People tend to listen to them and also try to influence THEM. That’s not a function of their campaign contributions.

Anyway, I discern a subtle shift in this argument, which makes it more plausible, but much less powerful. I agree that bundlers seek access, though I think they seek it more for themselves that their clients. Access, and a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, that’s a perk. But it does not equate to influence. Remember, Sander’s line all along is that Clinton is beholden to corporate interests. Beholden means she does their bidding. It means a lot more than giving someone an audience or a photo op.

[feathered_head]

The way its looking right now, I think its going to be Cruz. And none should underestimate the damage he would do. He’d enshrine his theo-fascism for a generation by packing SCOTUS.

[pluckyinky]

C’mon, in politics, one of the most infinitely predictable acts is that the losing campaign will keep demanding debates and the candidate in the lead will try to avoid additional debates. It’s exactly what happens in damn near every campaign. It’s about as predictable as the losing campaign at some point saying, “the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.” So I don’t believe for even a hot second that somehow a political vet like Devine didn’t anticipate she might try to avoid doing a debate before NY. In fact, I find that impossible to believe.

And a public relations coup? Lol Not hardly. It’s barely even been a story. Literally, no one else but political junkies cares one bit or is even aware any of this occurred. And I tend to think her campaign’s comment about “tone” was a different kind of trial balloon than what it appears. She’s now got pundits talking about the tone of the campaign and whether Sanders needs to back off. That became the story, and so much so that Krugman wrote a piece on it.

[chelsea530]

Well, he seemed to know everything there was to know about 2008.

I guess he doesn’t know that much after all.

[aunt_sue]

No, just a Professional PR guy. You can watch every thread as he does his routine: a nice post about Hillary Clinton, a slightly disparaging post, and then further down the thread, BAMM, he goes into some lengthy history that’s just always at his fingertips–which trashes her.

[chelsea530]

He’s something all right.

But the big tell was when he got criticized and turned into a not-so-nice guy.

[tflick]

You just nailed it. I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed that passive aggressive maneuver because it never gets called out.