Let us not be distracted by ex-Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter, who is not a nine-year-old, but plays one on Twitter. He tweeted "tonight@Bernie Sanders said @Hillary Clinton wasn't qualified to be President. THIS is LOW and crosses the line. Take it back, Senator."
"Take it back, Senator," said the juvenile, forgetting to add "or else I'll stomp my FEET and CRY." At about the same time, Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon tweeted "Bernie Sanders, take back your words about Hillary Clinton." A coincidence of wording, no doubt.
"I think that the Sanders campaign needs to take a timeout," Fallon whimpered on Thursday morning, demonstrating he could be as immature when speaking as on Twitter.
Notwithstanding some of her immature supporters, Mrs. Clinton has herself taken the high road since the Senator Wednesday night argued
Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.
I don't think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don't think you are qualified if you've supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs. I don't think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed and which, as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries.
The argument over qualifications began Wednesday morning when the former Senator and Secretary of State three times denied the 20-year veteran of the Senate (or less biblically, implied he is not qualified). Both candidates wish to succeed Barack Obama, who had been a state senator, then a U.S. Senator since last Tuesday. Neither now would question his qualifications, not Sanders and not the candidate running on the slogan "Thou must not question Saint Obama."
The dispute is ironic given the obvious qualifications of Clinton and that, as Branko Marcetic wrote in In These Times early this year, unlike Obama in 2008 "Sanders actually has an impressive record of accomplishments in Congress and is well-versed in the kind of grimy, incremental work involved in passing legislation." It's also destructive because, as Charlie Peters recognizes
Neither one seems to grasp the appetite of the elite political media for a Democratic hooley to correspond to the ongoing one in the Republican Party, because that will allow for the Both Sides In Turmoil narrative that will allow the elite political media to ignore the fact that the top two contenders for the Republican nomination are an ego-driven vulgar talking yam, and an extremist theocrat who believes himself to be blessed by the Almighty to redeem this sinful land.
Share |
1 comment:
Any hooley would have been avoided if the purported high road candidate had not decided to go all out in smearing Bernie after his landslide victory in Wisconsin. Just one example being when she tweeted on Apr 6 "Bernie Sanders prioritized gun manufacturers' rights over the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook." If that isn't politicizing a horrific tragedy for personal gain, I don't know what is. Indeed, anybody else who might do such a thing could easily be labeled a Snollygoster. And while the presumptive nominee didn't specifically say that Bernie wasn't qualified when asked by Morning Joe, her answer clearly called into question Bernie's capabilities to be president, even his intelligence. What's been unnecessary is the constant baiting directed against Bernie on the part of David Brock's favorite politican.
Post a Comment