There's been a lot of feathers flying the last few days about who said what about who when it comes to who is "qualified" to be president.
The "who's qualified" fight came about when Clinton, in losing 7 of the last 8, certain to lose Wyoming and knowing that if she should lose New York or even have it close it would end her candidacy, discussed in her inner circle a possible new attack on Sanders that was "disqualify, destroy" and then "figure out how to unify the party later". Which, as an aside, as a strategy is so stupid stupid stupid it shows a level of desperation coming from Clinton that is what happens when the old line cigar smoke political games aren't working.
Along with other obvious cracks inClinton's campaign there seems to be a tone deafness ( is that why they criticized Sander's tone?) that doesn't recognize the strength of her opponent when such a tactic or anything similar would guarantee Democratic party destruction in November even if she was able to manipulate her way to the nomination.
The Sanders campaign got wind of the strategy and decided to launch their own attack on Clinton as not being "qualified".
What undermines Clinton even more in terms of her "unqualifed" strategy along with the typicially ignorant, lazy, incompetent mainstream news media who droned on about how never have two candidates for president ever accused the other of being "unqualfied" is that in 2008 the Hillary Clinton campaign made a definitive statement that Barrack Obama wasn't even qualified to be Vice President.
The complete statement (see link above) was in response to questions in 2008 about whether Clinton would consider Obama as a running mate for a "unity" ticket (there's that word again).
A Clinton spokesman,speaking on Clinton's behalf, made the point that the answer was a definitive "no", and that Obama was unqualified to be VP because Hillary believed if anything happened to her as president (even then trying to present a false set of expectations that she'd win), Obama wouldnt be qualified to take over the job as president.Which is the same thing as saying Obama is unqualified to be president.
Rachel Maddow the MSNBC host who most of us would like to have as a neighbor but as a functional journalist often doesnt have her facts straight and can be, lets say, anything but objective, did it again during an interview with Jane Sanders over the "unqualified" squabble.
Maddow in a tone that seemed to hold Sanders responsible for the back and forth, insisted to Jane Sanders that even way back in 2008 with all the nastiness that went on between Clinton and Obama no one, Maddow insisted, no one, ever questioned whether the other was qualified to be president.
Except for Hillary Clinton. Which Maddow clearly didn't know about. Which, if she did, probably would have ruined Maddow's interview with Jane Sanders and blown away her preparation since she was hell bent on trying to paint Sanders as the villain who did something that even Clinton and Obama didn't say back in 2008.
It also shows once again that Hillary Clinton is flirting with Richard Nixon as to who could be called the most
untrustworthy politically dishonest politician and presidential candidate, and like the
Axelrod memo of 2008 bluntly said, is a politician with "no convictions and will
shift positions for political expediency". She also seems to think she ought to be able to dish it out but not take it. Which was obvious by her and her campaign's reaction to Sanders response of saying Clinton was unqualified, his way of laying down the gauntlet and letting them know he can give back whatever they try and dish out.
Clinton's cry of foul given her own 2008 statement about Obama being unqualified, makes any complaint Clinton has about Sanders have less credibility
than a Madoff spread sheet.
In all probability Clinton's idea of trying to "disqualify" Sanders didnt mean on resume or ability or experience since he does have more than 25 years in Congress, so she didnt mean the same thing in saying Obama was unqualified. Especially since Clinton has been without success trying to "disqualify" Sanders ideas from the beginning and obviously losing that argument big.
In all probability Clinton's idea of trying to "disqualify" Sanders didnt mean on resume or ability or experience since he does have more than 25 years in Congress, so she didnt mean the same thing in saying Obama was unqualified. Especially since Clinton has been without success trying to "disqualify" Sanders ideas from the beginning and obviously losing that argument big.
So the strategy of "disqualify, destroy and worry about unifying the party later" was more likely Clinton contemplating another trick. And based on some recent public statements like" I dont even know if he's a Democrat" Clinton and campaign manager Robby Mook's plan might have been even more stupid than trying to claim Sanders wasnt qualified on his resume. Because it would have assured destruction of the Democratic Party. And that strategy was to start laying the groundwork for challenging Sanders as not really being a Democrat to "disqualify" Sanders as a candidate at the convention on the grounds he wasnt a Democrat and therefore shouldnt have been running on a Democratic party ticket.
This equally buffoonish idea exhibits a level of judgement so stupid that aside from it clearly not succeeding (Clinton,who in school marmish tones has tried to accuse Sanders of "not having done his homework", and obviously has not done her homework as to DNC rules) she never considered the devasting and destructive consequences that would have brought down the Democratic party not just in November but for years if it did succeed.
Sounds like what led to war in Iraq doesnt it. But thats what happens when, as Axelrod said, you have no convictions, only political ambition and that's all that matters and all you think about.
Sanders has since tried to get the conversation back on the issues which is not what Clinton wants since she loses with large majorities on every issue of substance and cant compete with Sanders in the arena of ideas,vision, and what everyone already has seen, the areas of honesty and integrity.
The irony is that Clinton's claim of Obama as unqualified might
actually have had some credibility. But it is only someone with little integrity and a lot of political ambition who would accept the position of Secretary of State to carry out the policies of someone they didn't think qualified to be president which in its own way makes Clinton unqualified to be president.
It's obvious from Clinton's 2016 campaign that everything Clinton has done and said
since proves she made her own dishonest pact with Obama for political purposes which exposes her to charges of being the two faced politician that is her public perception, making claims and statements that contradict past statements and clearly lacking in credibility and integrity.
Sanders fighting back has caused Clinton to back down. Sanders in turn has said Clinton is qualified based on resume but still says she is unqualified based on her lousy judgement,her ties to Wall Street and big money political donations and a host of other things. But with Clinton coming out on the short end of her "disqualify and destroy" tactic, its clear that this was one more Clinton strategy that can only be called an unqualified disaster. With another one on the horizon if she loses New York or if she wins and it's anywhere close
Sanders fighting back has caused Clinton to back down. Sanders in turn has said Clinton is qualified based on resume but still says she is unqualified based on her lousy judgement,her ties to Wall Street and big money political donations and a host of other things. But with Clinton coming out on the short end of her "disqualify and destroy" tactic, its clear that this was one more Clinton strategy that can only be called an unqualified disaster. With another one on the horizon if she loses New York or if she wins and it's anywhere close
I couldn't find anywhere in he article where she said he was unqualified. It was a spokesperson talking. Should we hold Bernie responsible for all the outlandish things Ted Devne and Jeff Weaver have said?
ReplyDeleteActually, it has been a pattern of his spokespeople to say one thing and then Benie comes out and says something else. Ex. We didn't campaign in South Carolina. On the same day Bernie walked back his unqualied statement and said HIllary is definitely qualified Jeff weaver, on CNN would not say she was qualified when asked directly. The most he would concede, after being pressed, was she was qualified only on a slim meaning of the word.
ReplyDelete"I couldn't find anywhere in he article where she said he was unqualified. It was a spokesperson talking. Should we hold Bernie responsible for all the outlandish things Ted Devne and Jeff Weaver have said?"
ReplyDeleteYou ARE kidding, right ? No one speaking on behalf of a presidential candidate as part of their campaign says ANYTHING that hasnt been discussed before with the candidate and reflects the candidates views. Wolfson was not offering his opinion he was making a position statement on behalf of HIllary Clinton that was clearly discussed previously since the whole idea of Obama as her running mate was already out there in the news which is why Clinton felt the need to answer it and put the speculation to bed.
As for what Jeff Weaver says, you calling it outlandish is only your opinion. I havent heard anything Weaver has said that was outlandish. But as for Bernie being responsible for what Weaver says and Weaver reflecting Bernie's views justlike Wolfson was expressing Clinton's views of Obama being unqualifed, you bet Weaver is expressing and reflecting the views of Bernie and Bernie's campaign.
"Actually, it has been a pattern of his spokespeople to say one thing and then Benie comes out and says something else. Ex. We didn't campaign in South Carolina. On the same day Bernie walked back his unqualied statement and said HIllary is definitely qualified Jeff weaver, on CNN would not say she was qualified when asked directly. The most he would concede, after being pressed, was she was qualified only on a slim meaning of the word."
ReplyDeleteTaking the last first, I also watched all the interviews Weaver did AND the interviews Bernie did on the Today Show and you are playing games with what they both said when you use the term,"slim meaning of the word" instead of just saying what they said. Which was, Clinton was qualified based on her RESUME,but they were both standing by their statement that she was UNQUALIFIED based on a number of things they have been saying throughout the campaign, like her disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq which both Bernie AND Tully Gabbard an Iraq war vet and member of congress said disqualifies Clinton from being being commander-in-chief, and Bernie has said Clintons close ties to Wall Street makes her unqualified.And mmore.
So you reducing all that to some " slim meaning of the word" is as preposterous as some of Clinton's positions.
As for South Carolina you misrepresented that too.No one ever said they didnt campaign there. What they said was they chose not to put the same kind of resources there that they did in other states and for obviously good reasons.Just like Clinton didnt show up in Wyoming, a state she knew she'd lose and instead is concentrating on New York, Sanders chose to concentrate elsewhere but nowhere did anyone say they didnt campaign there. Using the slim meaning of the word.
Well, the truth is that Obama was not qualified. And to this day, I could say the same.
ReplyDeleteThough doth protest too much. Hmmm...
ReplyDeletealibe said...
ReplyDeleteWell, the truth is that Obama was not qualified. And to this day, I could say the same
I agree. Which is why I said in the article that Clinton's statement in 2008 had some credibility. It is ignoring that assessment to take the position of Secretary of State and reversing it in 2016 for purely political reasons and for what she thought was a political advantage that gives her no credibility and worse, no integrity meaning nothing she says can be trusted. Just like the candidate in 2008 she said wasn't qualified.