Discussion for article #245672
He is and she shouldn’t let him get away with it. He is not the nice little ol’ non-politician that he makes himself out to be. He sings one note and that’s all there is.
12 Likes
OK – please take my advice – stop repeating “artful” – falls as flat as “Change you can Xerox.” Just say what it is without the qualifier – a smear.
1 Like
CBS News host John Dickerson asked Clinton to respond to a comment she made at the last debate where she said that financial interests weren’t giving her much money, which fact checkers later debunked.
“That’s just not the calculation that we’ve done but if that’s somebody’s analysis I’m not going to argue with it,” Clinton said.
Then, she turned the argument toward Sanders.
Somebody´s being pretty artful here.
10 Likes
Clinton summons Tom Hagen: “This committee owes an apology, this committee owes an apology. An apology, Senator!”
Sanders got 4.3 million dollars worth of help from GOPers in Iowa in the form of anti-Clinton ads. Why didn’t he get upset about the millionaires and billionaires who were trying to influence the Democratic Primary there? Is the oligarchy cash ok when it’s spent against your opponent?
13 Likes
"What the Sanders campaign is trying to do is link donations to my political campaign or really donations to anyone’s political campaign, with undue influence with changing people’s views and votes. "
Ummmmm… Isn’t the WHOLE POINT of political donations to influence politics by helping to elect people that you agree with?
No, it doesn’t mean that there’s a specific quid pro quo from Wall Street, but they certainly believe that Hillary would act in a manner that they like.
Which makes it perfectly legitimate to discuss-- specifically since the base of the Democratic Party is sick and tired of being raped by Wall Street and the 1%.
12 Likes
feathered_head, you call Sanders observation about HRC´s Wall Street funding a ¨smear¨. A couple of serious questions: Do you believe that there is too much money sloshing around in politics, and that that money influences politicians? If so, what is it about Wall Street money and HRC that is fundamentally different than other politicians whom you think are under the sway of their donors?
7 Likes
Nothing is different about her relationship with her donors, and that’s kinda the point.
We fully expect the Republicans to be sell-outs to big money Wall Street. That’s their M.O.
So when we have the main candidate for the Democrats claiming to be one of us, but getting millions in donations from the same people, there are legitimate questions to ask about whether she’s really one of us, or is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, who will spout the right lines to get elected, but then disappoint us by enacting policy favorable to the 1%.
10 Likes
The ¨outside money¨ for Sanders in Iowa was from unions and environmental groups, which last I checked, were generally supported by the Democratic Party. If you know of oligarchs supporting Sanders, please show us a link - otherwise, your assertion is a smear.
6 Likes
Bernie is very good on domestic policy. Unfortunately Bernie is very lacking in foreign policy. Considering where the world is now, to me, foreign policy has a bigger edge.
2 Likes
Sanders is being very (artfully) disingenuous here. He has no idea what is necessary to win a campaign in a big state, let alone the nation. Vermont has 600,000 people, and it is not that difficult to campaign in that small state.
It is truly unfortunate that Republicans have been successful in allowing nearly unlimited money to decide elections. That being the case, is it better to be pure, and lose? Sanders won’t know what hit him in a national campaign, and without big contributions will not be able to defend himself.
4 Likes
That’s right Hillary, keep pretending it’s about quid pro quo trades of specific donations for specific votes. When we all know that’s not even close to being the main way in which money influences politics, that it’s largely about relationships and access, and about donors rewarding and promoting candidates who they think have been or will be favorable to their interests.
Meanwhile, we are supposed to believe that all the millions in campaign contributions, speaking fees, and contributions to the Clinton campaign all had zero effect on who she and her close associates meet with, the boundaries of what she might be willing to consider policy-wise, how hard she might push for reforms, etc. Good luck with that argument…no wonder she instead wants to change the subject and deny the imaginary charge of direct quid-pro-quo bribe-taking.
Bernie: "Here’s the problem, it’s inarguable, and if the shoe fits, wear it."
Hillary: (grabs another shoe, a tiny ugly one) "This shoe over here doesn’t fit, and I am just so outraged that anyone would suggest it did!"
#####[Standard Disclaimer: This commenter wishes it to be known that in November he or she plans to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be, and will encourage their fellow primary candidate supporters to do likewise.]
10 Likes
The Sandinistas are over at HuffPo on a story about Gloria Steinheim calling her “this old girl” and a sexist old woman.
Gloria Steinheim.
Sanders has the most sexist campaign ever. EVER.
2 Likes
I’m still not getting the smear part here. Clinton is saying that, no, she won’t do Wall Street’s bidding just because they’ve given her money. But that’s a straw man, and backwards. The argument is that Wall Street is giving her money because her policies would be more friendly to them than those of Sanders, which is just obvious.
6 Likes
He´s ¨disingenuous¨, and ¨has no idea¨? Sounds a little like a little like Obama, who can only read off a teleprompter, yet has a secret plan to sell America to the New World Order. 
7 Likes
Perhaps you missed it, but Steinem made the rather amazing argument yesterday that young women were just flocking to Bernie because they’re boy crazy, and that’s where “the boys” are. Now that’s quite a surprising argument for a feminist icon to make. I wouldn’t go so far as to call her a “sexist old woman” (which would be age-ist and sexist, and whoever said that is an ass), but it does look like Steinem’s enthusiastic support for Hillary has warped her thinking in a rather surprising way there.
9 Likes
Krugman, yesterday’s blog
On electability, by all means consider the evidence and reach your own conclusions. But do consider the evidence — don’t decide what you want to believe and then make up justifications. The stakes are too high for that, and history will not forgive you.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?_r=0
Couldn’t have said it better myself. If you decide you don’t like Hillary or Bernie, then vote for the other one Screw these stupid pie fights. The constant repetition of rote grievances is worthy of Marco Rubio.
5 Likes
Definitely one of my favorite points about the Haters…
Look, either he’s dumber than a box of rocks, or he’s the evil super-genius mastermind, but you CAN’T have both at the same time.
3 Likes
It’s funny that you ding Sanders for somehow pretending to be a non-politician and then another anti-Sanders politician dings him for not being enough of a politician.
Here it is: Bernie Sanders is a politician, and he’s good enough at it to get your shorts in a wad.
12 Likes