Ah, yes, that was me complaining that his policies would set us back on world poverty.
How the Hell would anyone end up as President without being a career politician? The kind of person who ends up as President is the kind of person who’s always a politician, no matter what they happened to be doing at the time.
Now, the President doesn’t need to be old, white, or male, but it’s not like any of those things is a disqualification or something.
The people who are actually in a position to win the presidency are all elderly, white, career politicians. This isn’t a fairy tale. Tim Gunn is not going to barge into your bedroom one morning and announce that, Congrats! You’re the Lost Heir to the Presidency and now you’re the Princess of America!
If you want a non-white, non-male, non-elderly person to win the presidency, you’ll need to start working to get non-white, non-male, non-elderly persons into the upper echelons of political power. I encourage you to get involved and do so!
But at the end of the day, the person who wins the highest political office will be - wait for it! - a career politician.
I should hope not.
Pols do work for a living, you know. And probably harder than CEOs.
All this adulation may be going to his head, and letting him forget what he’s doing and why and what the chances are. He’s considering going negative.
White? Sanders is Jewish. They’re clear, if anything.
Meh.
Never rule out punching back.
I hope both of the main Democratic nominees stay high road. I have not heard Hillary promise no negative ads.
Well I won’t count on it, but I’ll be pleasantly surprised if the the nomination race goes by without either (both) candidates going negative. That would actually be a very mature, positive example to set.
Still, I’ll see it when I believe it. Someone will do it, claiming the other side did it first.
Not quite.
Asked if she would pledge to not run any negative ads against Bernie Sander she made no such pledge, and pressed she explicitly avoided making any such pledge, but responded that she has “no interest” in doing so.
Same level of “I don’t want to but no promises made.”
Sanders’ attempt to expand his base is working. Clinton’s support among African-Americans has plunged by 31% since July, and Sanders’ approval among black voters is up 31%, while Clinton’s is down 16%
You’re reading both statements the way you *want *them to read, not from the actual words. One candidate has claimed no interest in negative ads, one is holding out the possibility. If that doesn’t comport with your preconceptions of their characters, it’s your preconceptions that are at fault.
Sorry but you are the one reading in.
Did either one pledge or promise to not go negative? No.
If the HRC team goes negative will Hillary have lied during that interview? No.
I take Hillary’s words to mean exactly what they say and do not read in things that she did not say. Asked twice if she would pledge to not go negative she answered once about how she wants this to be a campaign “about ideas” and asked again “Can I mark this as a yes?” she answered not “Yes.” but “I have no interest in doing that.”
I respect Hillary. I support Hillary. And I know that she chooses her words carefully, lawyerly, and with some precision. “I have no interest in doing that.” ≠ “I pledge I will not do that.”
No promises made = no promises broken.
That’s one of the funniest things I’ve read in a while. As has been pointed out, she totally dodges giving a simple, definite statement that she won’t run negative ads and uses the old “I have no interest in doing that” routine. Weasel words if I’ve ever heard them.
The Clintons gave us James Carville for chrissakes. They know how to go negative and I guarantee you they will the minute they feel threatened.
Dodging taking stands on issues is Hilary’s MO. It lets her flop right back to what her donors want the minute she takes a new office.
If you think Bernie is a radical you should look at this list of his issues vs the support of those issues among likely voters.
The only reason to call him a radical is that the manor parties, and their reps are so corrupt that their unpopular positions seem, at this point, to be mainstream.
Again, I say this as a Hillary supporter: Hillary has no interest in going negative precisely because going negative is what the team will do if actually threatened. Right now there is no serious threat for the nomination, at most maybe a decent warm-up act. (And that assumes Sanders wins in NH and possibly Iowa.) No real threat, no negative ads, no problem. She has no interest in having a real threat ergo no interest in going negative.
I do not believe that Sanders would be a good candidate in the general, I do not believe he would be an effective president, I do not believe he was an effective Congresscritter … but I do believe that he means that he really hopes he can keep his record of no negative ads going, even if the nomination gets close. But he knows how the HRC campaign went after Obama and to pre-emptively rule out responses in kind would be stupid, let alone to rule out any negative ads in a general election if he became the nominee. He does not parse his words as carefully as Hillary does. (Which I do not see as weasel words, btw, just the longstanding habits of mind of a lawyer coupled with having been burned by ill-chosen phrases at relaxed moments before.)
I like Bernie for a number of reasons but I think you misunderstand me. In the end I realize it is far more likely than not I will be voting for HRC come November 2016. I certainly won’t be voting for whoever ends up winning the GOP contest for head clown. You obviously disagree but I find that lawyerly response to be weaselly. I also recognize it is a big part of what turns a lot of people off about of the Clintons.
And I know the party will no more stand by and let Bernie be the nominee than the GOP establishment will allow Trump to head their ticket. I’m well aware that if for some reason HRC’s campaign were to collapse the party would coalesce around someone far more to the right than Bernie.
Sanders needs to de-troglodize his views on gun control laws before they get too well publicized. Clinton is jumping in and out-saning him already.
Do you mean daring to have views on gun control that even in the slightest deviate from the urban social liberal consensus? And for the record, he has been talking a bit about gun control but obviously if we want a Sander coalition that is not merely a rehash of the Obama Coalition (which cannot win a Congressional majority), then he ought to be flexible on guns as he has before.