A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
https://gatewayredbirds.com/forum/
Hey, well said.ghostrunner wrote:Seems like at least on the Democrat side this is what determines whether you're okay with her or not. I actually think the email is a serious issue, and Sanders was stupid for letting that slide. Her Iraq vote is fair game, as is her general hawkishness. John Kerry, in her old job, has taken her to school retroactively as far as I'm concerned. I don't find her to be an appealing person, and I do recall after supporting Obama in 2008 that I found her demeanor wholly unpleasant. She's not the least bit interested in change. She's interested (and I do believe she's interested) in getting things done in the framework that exists. She's practical to a fault - practical to the extent that she was dismissive of Obama and even his vague promises at change, and she's dismissive of Sanders and his big ideas. It probably keeps her from even considering some ideas until they're obviously feasible. That's all off-putting.Michael wrote:MrSaigon wrote:Just for a second assume Hillary had Benghazi and the emails to work with from Bernie. I think she'd be beyond happy to talk about the 'damn emails.' And somehow questioning Hillary's WS ties (you know the millions she has personally and the well beaten path from Clinton Inc. to some hedge fund or another) is smearing?Michael wrote:She's referencing this question:thrill wrote:snip
Sanders was asked by the Daily News whether family members of the Sandy Hook victims should be allowed to sue gun manufacturers, and he responded, "No, I don't."
"But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of the wrong people," Sanders added.
That said, it's a lame connection and she shouldn't go there. It was also lame Sanders said Clinton should apologize to the victims of the Iraq War. I hope the democratic side stays above this type of stuff.
Also, it was a former gun lobbyist and not a party with the gun lobby.
She's in this game, not above it. She is a poster child for the game: sensational, always a victim, you're talking points become mine, it's only ok when I do it, champion of the issues as electability prudence dictates.
I'm not sure she's the "poster child", but I don't really disagree with anything you said. Clinton is an insider who plays traditional political rulebooks.
But the relentless focus on lobbying and the equating of same to corruption is what I don't get, and that seems to be the note that Sanders and his more vocal supporters like to hit the most. That NRA story is just stupid. The lobbyist hosting the fundraiser used to represent the NRA. He used to because they used to pay him. They don't now and he likely doesn't give two [expletive] about the NRA, and he's not carrying some lingering policy-influencing taint because he used to have them as a client. Focusing on that when she's been solidly against the NRA, and when she's gone further verbally than Sanders during the election? I don't get it.
Speculation on my part I suppose, but I think the way she sees it she's playing the game the way it's been played for 30+ years. It's the way her husband played it, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, and even Obama in 2008. Same oil money, same kind of lobbyists. Expensive per-plate dinners, raising money for themselves, the DNC, and down-ballot candidates. It's a system that's been worked out and worked on for decades. The person she opposed in 2008 took full advantage of it and was widely admired. Now Sanders comes along, and suddenly there's a different standard that she's never going to be able to meet. I don't blame her for being taken aback and frustrated by it.
Just speaking for myself, unless there's some sort of smoking gun where you can tie lobby money to a specific decision where she reversed herself, I really find it hard to get upset about it. I don't think accepting lobby money means you're beholden to someone, and I think that's an oversimplification of how it works. I find the whole lobby industry gross, but it's worth mentioning that in addition to having oil lobby money, Clinton and the DNC take a [expletive] of money from environmental groups, women's groups, and unions. Securities and Investment is the top industry giving to her, but it was the 4th largest industry that donated to Obama in 2008. Sanders isn't taking their money. Good for him. I'm voting for him in the primary. But I do think he ought to be focusing on the problems with the system as a whole, and cut out the thinly veiled accusations. Pin her down on Iraq, emails, her work as secretary, even the Clinton foundation donations while she was in office.
I think that specific phrasing came from this report last night (sorry for the title gore):Michael wrote:LinkWashington (CNN)Bernie Sanders said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton was not "qualified" to be president, an escalation in rhetoric between the two Democratic presidential candidates.
"She has been saying lately that I am 'not qualified' to be president. Well let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is through her super PAC taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds," he told a crowd in Philadelphia.
Sanders added that Clinton was similarly unqualified because of her positions on the Iraq War and trade agreements.
Well this is escalating quickly.
I don't think Clinton has ever said he wasn't qualified to be president?
The shear panic about a serious challenge from the left continues to amaze. I dunno if it's a Cold War hangover or what, but it's bizarre to watch.Michael wrote:There isn't going to be anything close to "uniting the party" like Hillary did for Obama in 08. It appears Sanders is going to pick up his ball and go home.
Schlich wrote: I think that specific phrasing came from this report last night (sorry for the title gore):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... banks.htmlJOE SCARBOROUGH: We're going to ask about Wisconsin in a second, but we've been talking about Bernie Sanders' New York Daily News interview. I want to start with that and ask you in light of the interview, in light of the questions he had problems with, do you believe this morning that Bernie Sanders is qualified and ready to be president of the United States?
CLINTON: Well, I think the interview raised a lot of really serious questions and I look at it this way. The core of his campaign has been break up the banks and it didn't seem in reading his answers that he understood exactly how that would work under Dodd-Frank, exactly who would be responsible, what the criteria were. And you know, that means you can't really help people if you don't know how to do what you are campaigning on saying you want to do.
SCARBOROUGH: So is he -- so is he...
CLINTON: And then there were other very...
SCARBOROUGH: Is he -- I know there are a lot of examples of where he came up short and the interviewers were having to repeat questions. So the question, and I'm serious, if you weren't running today and you looked at Bernie Sanders, would you look and say this guy is ready to be president of the United States?
CLINTON: Well, I think he hadn't done his homework and he'd been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn't really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions. Really what that goes to is for voters to ask themselves can he deliver what he's talking about, can he really help people...
SCARBOROUGH: What do you think?
CLINTON: Can he help our economy? Can he keep our country strong? Well obviously, I think I'm by far the better choice and...
SCARBOROUGH: But do you think he is qualified? And do you think he is able to deliver on the things he is promising to all these Democratic voters?
CLINTON: Well, let me put it this way, Joe. I think that what he has been saying about the core issue in his whole campaign doesn't seem to be rooted in an understanding of either the law or the practical ways you get something done. And I will leave it to voters to decide who of us can do the job that the country needs, who can do all aspects of the job, both on the economic domestic issues and on national security and foreign policy.
I'd like Sanders to strongly support Clinton when this is all over, but I'm not panicked.Arthur Dent wrote:The shear panic about a serious challenge from the left continues to amaze. I dunno if it's a Cold War hangover or what, but it's bizarre to watch.Michael wrote:There isn't going to be anything close to "uniting the party" like Hillary did for Obama in 08. It appears Sanders is going to pick up his ball and go home.
I'll say this, unlike Sanders, Clinton is actually supporting down ticket state level candidates with her fundraising.Freed Roger wrote:Sanders not paying his dues giving props to the DNC makes me like him a bit more. DNC is awful. while I am thankful they have managed to keep the Federal GOP autocracy at bay by hanging onto the WH-they seem oblivious to the fact that the issues they promote and people that support them get their asses kicked at state level.
Gun control, gay rights, environment, public safety fiascos (Flint), collective bargaining...it is almost like the Democratic Party doesn't care what happens in the states. Scratch the almost like. They don't care. such is the nature of politics, fake concern over issues.
No doubt this is coming from Devine and Weaver, but yeah I agree.Honestly, I think Bernie just screwed up and I hope he backtracks.
He has emphatically said that it is of the utmost importance that a Reublican does not win the white house, and he will do everything in his power to make sure of it. There's no reason not to believe him when he says that, and he's got the endorsement track record to prove it. But I'm not going to be surprised when an endorsement doesn't come her way. She doesn't need it.Michael wrote:I'd like Sanders to strongly support Clinton when this is all over, but I'm not panicked.
I suspect we'll get a frosty Ted Kennedy 1980 convention type of speech. My earlier "taking the ball" comments were hyperbolic. That said, I'm really shocked by his qualified comments, so at this point nothing will surprise me.Schlich wrote:He has emphatically said that it is of the utmost importance that a Reublican does not win the white house, and he will do everything in his power to make sure of it. There's no reason not to believe him when he says that, and he's got the endorsement track record to prove it. But I'm not going to be surprised when an endorsement doesn't come her way. She doesn't need it.
She's also fundraising directly for the DNC and state parties:Schlich wrote:I'll repeat: The Hillary Victory fund is sketchy a.f. and I honestly think it's meaningless regardless.
LinkHillary Clinton raised about $29.5 million for her primary campaign during March. That amount brings the first quarter total to nearly $75 million raised for the primary, beating the campaign’s goal of $50 million by about 50 percent. [Hillary For America] begins April with nearly $29 million on hand.
Clinton raised an additional $6.1 million for the DNC and state parties during the month of March, bringing the total for the quarter to about $15 million.
LinkTwo congressmen trying to make it to the Senate also got boosts from Clinton. Rep. Bernie Sanders, who is running for the seat held by retiring Vermont lawmaker Jim Jeffords, received $10,000, as did Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee, who is campaigning for the seat being vacated by Majority Leader Bill Frist. Newly minted Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey also got $10,000.
