Thom Hartmann, Sanders should have kept her name out of his response.

[BlueCaliDem]

{I am posting this as an OP, taken from one of my posts in GD-P with some added/edited text.}

Sanders undoubtedly made an amateur blunder with that response. For the record, I don't believe he's sexist in any which way, but that's because I'm politically aware. However, for the less politically astute, it's how he came across with his bumbled response during the Democratic debate and he gave Hillary Clinton a club. Don't believe me? I've taken the time to link to the video where you can hear it for yourself.

I've provided an excerpt below:

"As Senator from a rural State, what I can tell Secretary Clinton, "that all the shouting in the world is not going to do, what I would hope, all of us want. And that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end the violence we are seeing."

He made it personal by including her name even though, arguably, it might not have been his intention.

See at 0:18:
http://egbertowillies.com/2015/10/27/hillary-clinton-slammed-for-falsely-accusing-bernie-sanders-of-sexism-video/

Sanders should've kept her name OUT of his response. By including it, he made it appear as if he was telling her that she was shouting. That's how it comes across. It was a politically amateur mistake that could have some serious legs among women who aren't already Sanders supporters.

That said, he should've simply apologized when this problem arose, and he would've nipped it in the bud. Instead, he doubled down. Second big mistake. Until he does, no amount of explaining by his supporters will turn this around.

Sanders should've simply said, "It's not what I meant to say at all, but if some women were offended by what I said, I apologize." There. End of story. But as long as he doesn't do that, Hillary Clinton will continue to use his words against him, and in this race for the Democratic nomination, she has every right to.

[Thinkingabout]

1. K & R

Good point, she was right to respond because he of his "what I can tell Secretary Clinton". It is an issue which needs to be shouted by everyone until there is sensible laws to prevent guns in the wrong hands.

[BlueCaliDem]

9. Thanks, Thiningabout. After reading so many posts on how Hillary Clinton is "taking his words out of

context", I felt I needed to print his words the way I perceived them when I heard him speak them so people can understand why it can come across as sexist even if that wasn't his intention at all. I actually winced when he spoke them. I've been waiting for him to nip this problem in the bud with a simple apology, but he hasn't done so, and it's baffled me. Not apologizing for those words will make it appear as if Hillary Clinton was correct.

[JDPriestly]

66. Hillary needs to make up her mind.

Is she the woman who can stand up to Republicans, the gun lobby, anti-abortion mobs, Russia, all the people she thinks are bad?

Or is she the victim who is hurt by the word choices of other candidates?

If she feels victimized because of Bernie's statement about shouting about gun control, how in the world does she expect to deal with Donald Trump?

A person who is fit to be president has to have a thick skin.

Hillary must decide whether she has a thick enough skin to win the election because the words and accusations thrown at her over the next year and a half, make that nine years and a half if she really does complete her run for the White House are going to be many times more hurtful than the words she is complaining about now.

Who are you, Hillary Clinton?

A strong woman up to the test that the presidential campaign is?

Or a professional VICTIM who complains the minute someone says something you don't like whether true or false.

I happen to agree with Bernie Sanders. Yelling, screaming, shouting, no such things will solve our terrible problem with violence and gun violence in particular.

And we certainly are not going to deal with the social ills that cause our gun violence and our obsessions with guns if we have a president who plays the victim card as often as Hillary does.

Hillary, are you going to continue to scream you are a victim every time someone hurts your feelings or are you going to be strong, calm and accept that politics is a rough game?

Let's talk about issues and not Hillary's hurt feelings.

[BlueCaliDem]

80. Oh, believe me, Hillary Clinton's thicker than any other candidate's running.

But she'll use whatever advantage she has to wound her opponent, as well she should.

The mistake was made on Sanders' part. He should find a way to rectify it. It's not her job to hold his hand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. Did someone just suggest Hillary can't play hardball?

That's like suggesting Ronda Rousey is the retiring type. Ms Clinton is an adroit politician who will only show as much emotion as is necessary and will only play the victim card if it inures to her advantage.

[BlueCaliDem]

88. Sadly, many times over in this thread.

DSB: Ms Clinton is an adroit politician who will only show as much emotion as is necessary and will only play the victim card if it inures to her advantage.

I'm certain they know this, but it's far better to pretend naiveté about her rather than own up to the mistake their candidate made, and his inability to rectify it, isn't it?

[JDPriestly]

89. Sanders is right.

The shouting about gun control does not change the gun death statistics.

The answer is not in shouting about gun control but in changing our culture into one in which working together rather than winning the number one spot is more highly valued.

We have a cultural problem, and it is not just about guns. Guns are one expression of it. Shouting about guns will not help.

I support Bernie fully on this.

And the word "shouting" is not in the least bit sexist. There are words that Bernie could have used that might have had a sexist connotation,. but shouting is not one of the.

A man can shout even louder than a woman.

Much ado about nothing so that Hillary can play the victim card once again,

Her victim card makes her look whiny and weak. They invite sexist terminology, and I'm a woman saying that.

[lark]

104. Love Bernie, but he IS NOT right on this.

He's saying "wait for a consensus". Well, there already is, but it's being undermined by the shouting from the right, not from Hillary or the left. 80% of people support eliminating the gun show loophole and instant background checks for everyone. I'd think that 80% is a pretty good consensus right now. Seems like he's saying we have to get the NRA on board, which you know as well as I will never happen. So, in effect, he's saying there can be no gun laws because the nra enabled rw shouts down any sensible laws.

I agree with Bernie on most things, but he is 100% wrong on guns and is part of the problem, not the solution.

[JDPriestly]

110. Do you have a link to a statement by Bernie supporting the gun-show loophole?

It is my understanding that Bernie wants to close that loophole.

I thought I heard him say that in the debate.

[lark]

112. Yes, I heard that as well.

I also heard him say nothing would change until a consensus was developed and that's weasly to me when 80% (think it might have been more?) support closing gun show loopholes and instant background checks being required for all sales. So, yeah, if 80% isn't enough support to be a consensus, don't know what would be? Seems like he's waiting for the NRA to approve, and that will NEVER happen.

[Kentonio]

101. What the hell?

"But she'll use whatever advantage she has to wound her opponent, as well she should."

Since when should a Democrat use any tactic to 'wound' another nominee who may end up being the party nominee come the general? That's exactly the kind of thing they SHOULDN'T be doing for goodness sake!

[RobertEarl]

2. She wasn't the only one shouting

There are a bunch of gun grabbers shouting about grabbing guns from law abiding citizens. She's not the first gun grabber and she won't be the last shouting about how we should grab guns.

I find it odd that so many Clinton supporters are reduced to using a casual statement as their number one campaign slogan. But then what else do they have?

[JaneyVee]

6. "Gun grabbers"? You ok?

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Gun grabber?? What a curious accusation there, RE. eom

[Agschmid]

26. Did you just have a contest with yourself to see how many times....

You could say "gun grabber" in one post?

[72DejaVu]

36. "What else do they have?"

A big lead in the polls?

[RobertEarl]

45. Shouting about polls? Yes, they have that, too.

Issues? What issues? Hill has endorsements!!! She has numbers!!! 500 delegates!!! A husband who was POTUS!! And a sorry record of voting for war and putting people in jail for weed.

What else they got???

[72DejaVu]

59. You're right

She's ahead in the polls, has the most endorsements and the most committed delegates. She's in big trouble.

[RobertEarl]

61. That's all she has

Well that and Big Money Wall Street backers.

She's the establishment candidate and, by gawd, they have done so swell that everyone is just dieing to go vote!!

No, Hill's not in trouble, but the country is. But not to worry, Hill proposes more of the same!!!

[BlueCaliDem]

83. Oh, she has more than that, but that's pretty darn decent already.

And it's FAR MORE than Senator Sanders can boast.

[lark]

105. What the hell?

"There are a bunch of gun grabbers shouting about grabbing guns from law abiding citizens. She's not the first gun grabber and she won't be the last shouting about how we should grab guns."

OMG, how did I get on Drudge? This is about the most insane post I've seen on this board yet toadying for guns. Who is saying anything about grabbing legal guns? NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE! Why are you making up this story, it's not even without a light year of the actual truth.

[AgingAmerican]

3. This is crybaby level nonsense

I vote for candidates because of their stand on issues, not crap like this.

[BlueCaliDem]

12. Elections are popularity contests, first and foremost. You're a Sanders supporter so I understand

why you don't think this is a big deal - you've already made your choice.

But for those who haven't yet made up their minds and aren't as politically involved as you and I, this can be devastating to his image come the elections.

[AgingAmerican]

16. This whole 'issue' is no more than drama

[BlueCaliDem]

18. Welcome to the world of American politics, AA. eom

[AgingAmerican]

24. So you admit it's no more than drama

[BlueCaliDem]

75. Nope. eom

[dogman]

28. Or devastating to hers.

People who interpret the exchange as they did in your links will see her as divisive for no reason. She would do better to take the high ground and debate the policy not perceived slights.

[BlueCaliDem]

76. Or devastating to hers. But I wouldn't hold my breath. eom

[tularetom]

30. Did she shout? Sounded to me like she did

I'm sure that Senator Sanders will eventually commit a gaffe worth attacking him over. But this ain't it. She shouted. She shouts constantly. Deal with it.

She has this ginormous lead, what are you so worried about?

[frylock]

98. Because they know this ginormous lead is smoke and mirrors..

A majority of likely Democratic voters, most of whom are over 50 years-old and being polled over land lines favor her. When the votes start being tabulated, you'll hear conspiracy theories floated about how Republicans voted for him in the primaries because he'll be a soft opponent in the GE.

[boston bean]

4. What does his campaign do instead that very night Hillary said that?

Spout some condescending bullshit they said right in front of a reporter, hoping to get it printed.

Further enforcing the idea that at the least they are tone deaf to womens issues.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. I don't understand that, either. A simple apology, like the one in my OP, would have

sufficed. I'm still baffled why that hasn't happened yet because, you're correct, it's enforcing the idea that his campaign is tone deaf to women's equality issues - something that the Clinton campaign, barring an apology, has every right to point out.

Is Sanders serious about winning the Democratic nomination or not?

[72DejaVu]

37. "Bernie doesn't move"

[BlueCaliDem]

85. He can if he chooses to. eom

[Cha]

95. Like .. "Hillary would make a great vice president". and "let them get over by a

Mack Truck.." So scary.. ohhhhh

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-28/bernie-sanders-brain-trust-says-he-can-beat-hillary-clinton

[Bluenorthwest]

5. I just find all of this posturing to be hypocritical. What I am used to enduring in political speech

is more like this:
"Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality.
However, allowed to be "married" by a Mayor, or a power-invested civil servant for gays, and lesbians, is right, and good.? "

That post comes from DU, it's in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1352110


So that's the level of rhetoric some of us have been expected to take for years and years. The sudden concerns for civility and the feelings of others seems situational, does it not?

[boston bean]

7. Well, what is your fix for this.

No one should speak about it.

We've been dealing with sexist, homophobic, racist shit for years here on DU, no one worse than the other.

You get no disagreement from me on the point it happens and way to often.

But what are you trying to say? Because homophobic shit was said, sexist shit shouldn't be called out? That is rather situational, no?

I suggest we all speak out against these kinds of bigotries and biased bullshit. Instead of making lame excuses to allow it to continue unabated.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. I'm quoting the OP. The Bible speaks negatively about homosexuality and about women speaking

in public or daring to usurp the authority of any male. It is infuriating. Hillary cited a book against me that says Hillary should not even address men in public. Let's get an apology for that. Let's at least talk about that.
People who live in glass churches should not throw stones.

[boston bean]

34. what??

Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Are you meaning people can't discuss sexism against someone because someone in a glass house threw a stone?

To me, all of this is an attempt to stop this from being discussed.

Cause you sure aren't discussing the issue at hand.

[Autumn]

8. "unthinkable"

[cwydro]

11. I'm a longtime Hillary supporter, though currently undecided.

I don't think he meant that in any way as a sexist remark.

That's a turn of phrase I've heard many times in my life.

[BlueCaliDem]

13. I am, too, and I don't believe he meant it the way it came across.

Therefore, a simple apology would nip this problem in the bud and take that political club out of the Clinton campaign's grasp. My question is, why hasn't he done it yet?

[cwydro]

14. But why should he apologize for something he didn't do?

Hillary is doing just fine without ginning up some imaginary insult.

I'm quite certain she'll be the nominee; I will probably vote for her in our primary (ages away sadly), but in the meantime I'm just watching and listening. She was my candidate in 08, and I am still very disappointed she did not get the nomination.

But, she is better than this.

[BlueCaliDem]

17. Optics. Since he refuses to apologize, he's basically affirming Hillary's charge.

Those are optics his campaign can't afford to have.

He needs to nip this in the bud, but I'm afraid too much time has elapsed for any apology to mean anything anymore.

[cwydro]

19. I see your point.

But that's part of politics that I can't stand.

Personally, I don't think anything is going to help his campaign at this point.

[Autumn]

23. So he should apologize because Hillary made a false charge?

Your words

he's basically affirming Hillary's charge.

you

don't believe he meant it the way it came across

but he should apologize anyway. Horse shit, no one should ever need to apologize for something they didn't do. I think Hillary and her campaign owe Bernie an apology.

[cwydro]

31. I agree with this.

I wish this whole thing hadn't happened.

I think she is better than this. This is a shame all the way around.

[Autumn]

39. Bernie defended her against the media and their email crap, in the same way, same tone he said

what he is being vilified for here. It's a damn shame.

[frylock]

99. Past actions show that she ISN'T better than this.

This IS Hillary. The same Hillary we saw in 2007-08. I don't know why people continue to give her the benefit of the doubt.

[Rose Siding]

38. It wasn't her responsibility to comb through his previous statements

Barring her going to him and saying "please sir tell me what you meant", she made a logical conclusion about his remark in the moment.

[Autumn]

40. No, she made a useful conclusion about his remark in the moment. n/t

[JimDandy]

93. It wasn't in the moment. It was days later

so it was a calculated move. Some bumbler in her campaign undoubtedly came up with the idea to misrepresent that sound bite of Sander's from the debate to make it sound sexist. They just didn't count on the media exposing their fraud by showing that Sanders has made nearly this same "both sides shouting" comment through out this campaign season.

Now all the Clinton camp has left is: 'Well, at least he's having to explain it to expose her. Explaining makes bad optics for a candidate, so he loses anyways.'

Now THAT is f@#%$ing jaded. Seriously.

[Jim Lane]

97. No combing necessary. He said the same thing to O'Malley a couple minutes later.

She was standing right there when Sanders, in the next exchange, made the same point (about "raising our voices&quot in disagreeing with O'Malley.

Furthermore, she came out with this imbecilic attack several days after the debate. Are you telling me her staff has NOT combed through Sanders's past statements? They'd be parsing his kindergarten essays if they could get their hands on them. This was concocted by strategists who knew perfectly well what the truth was but decided that the Clinton campaign could get a political advantage from a false insinuation of sexism.

[frylock]

100. Nevermind that the "moment" was several days after the debate..

If she was so taken aback by Sanders' accusations of shouting, then why didn't she raise objections then and there? Is she incapable of thinking on her feet? Or perhaps she was too timid to say anything? Or maybe someone in her campaign saw an opportunity to gin up some false outrage several days after the fact.

[BlueCaliDem]

77. He bumbled. He misspoke. He made a politically BAD mistake.

And yes, he should've apologized when it was pointed out to him. Instead, he doubled-down and affirmed Hillary Clinton's charge. Hillary Clinton owes him NO apology since she merely used what he gave her and what he's still loathed to rectify through a simple apology.

And no, I don't believe he meant it the way it came across, but then again, as I've made clear in my OP, I'm politically astute (although I had winced when I heard him speak those words during the Democratic debate). Most Americans are not.

Even this morning, when he was given a platform to make an apology on Thomas Roberts on MSNBC and kill this thing, he's explaining. In politics, when you're explaining, you're losing. But he's still explaining!

[Autumn]

84. No he did not. He clearly was speaking about the shouting between the GC factions.

No point in discussing this any further.

[riversedge]

54. Optics are very important in campaigns-so very very important.

[BlueCaliDem]

82. You bet, riversedge.

People who don't understand that, and only believe it's all about the issues, need to take Eddy Izzard's advice.

"And, as I say, 70% how you look, 20% how you sound, only 10% is what you say." ~ Eddy Izzard.

Optics matter.

[Volaris]

25. Yeah I watched the debate and I didn't take it that way at all..

More of a general public statement of outrage and that all the public expression of outrage --I.E. 'shouting' --isn't going to amount to a hill of beans so long as the NRA can keep writing checks to congresspersons.

That's what I took his meaning to be, anyway.

[bravenak]

21. I agree.

I was trying to explain this last night.

[jkbRN]

22. Watch

10min 30sec in; Emily's List Response

[TheProgressive]

27. When/where did Hartmann say this?

[BlueCaliDem]

32. He didn't. My OP was addressed to him since he admitted in his video that he visits DU

from time to time. I would have used a colon rather than a comma had I quoted him.

[willvotesdem]

29. Mr. Hartmann

maybe correct, he a political expert. However Sec. Clinton's unfavorable rating is 49% her favorable rating is 43% according to Huffington Post.


http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

[Politicalboi]

33. Hillary would still claim she's the victim

Even if Bernie gave the apology to her personally. He has NO reason to apologize to people who want to play the victim to a non sexist comment.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. No. She wouldn't.

Even if Bernie gave the apology to her personally.

He shouldn't apologize to her personally. It's not her he should apologize to.

He has NO reason to apologize to people who want to play the victim to a non sexist comment.

Well, if you say so.

[Vinca]

35. Everyone has been shouting about guns. How was this interpreted as just Hillary anyway?

Her response seemed to be the "poor, victimized woman" card which is inappropriate for a woman who wants to be the leader of the free world.

[SunSeeker]

43. Calling out sexism is just the opposite of playing the victim.

It means you refuse to let them make you a victim of their sexism, and are doing something about it.

[Vinca]

47. Oh, baloney. It wasn't sexism.

Bernie's not a sexist. To imply he is - which seems to be happening - is nothing more than political mud slinging. I was starting to like Hillary a little until the "poor victimized woman" line came out. I can't stand it. We women aren't weaklings who must whine every time someone looks at us cross eyed.

[SunSeeker]

49. Calling out sexist language is not a sign you are a "weakling."

It is just the opposite. Your argument comes really close to telling women to just shut up and take it.

Bernie may not be a sexist, but he used sexist language and he needs to acknowledge that. The longer he denies that, and the more sexist statements come out of his campaign, the more it looks like that line was not an accident.

[Vinca]

67. I'd better not continue this conversation.

Women who are so weak they must call out every slight drive me nuts. It's a personal pet peeve so I'd best shut up. I cannot stand whiny.

[SunSeeker]

44. Also, not everyone has been "shouting" about guns. The bullies are on the NRA side.

In fact, the people who support reasonable gun control have been effectively silenced by the NRA for far too long. Even if he didn't mean to be sexist, I found Sanders comment to be an offensive NRA talking point. The NRA loves to label gun control activists as "emotional" or merely "appealing to emotion." That downplays the merit of their arguments and belittles them, much like women are belittled as being "hystetical" when they speak up.

[RobertEarl]

46. To be clear

Sanders recognizes that we have made no progress on mass killings.

What he has said is that we need to sit down and have a conversation with the opposing stakeholders and come to an agreement on finding a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who will use guns to commit mass murders.

If shouting worked, it would have worked. It hasn't. You can get mad at Bernie for stating the Truth, but that's no better than shouting.

[SunSeeker]

48. The gun control proponents have not been "shouting." That is an unfair put down.

They did sit down with stakeholders. They even proposed bipartisan background check legislation after Sandy Hook, sponsored by both a Dem and a Republican. But because of the rabid opposition of the NRA, it did not pass.

[hack89]

50. They initially bundled UBCs with an AWB and registration

that is what engendered the "rabid opposition". By the time cooler heads prevailed and they focused on UBC, it was too late - the blood was in the water and the political feeding frenzy was ongoing.

The Democratic leadership overplayed their hand - they though Sandy Hook was the tipping point that would let them pass a long list of gun control measures. They got their ass handed to them for their error.

[SunSeeker]

52. The right wing and NRA showed ridiculous outrage over a reasonable package of regulations.

That was not Obama's fault nor the Dems' fault nor the gun control advocates' fault. What, the NRA is the Incredible Hulk now? "Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry." That is ridiculous.

And what the fuck are you talking about re "blood in the water"? The "political feeding frenzy" from the NRA would have occured regardless of what the Dems introduced. The NRA opposes all gun control legislation. Don't blame Dems for the right wing's and NRA's irrational temper tantrum. They are adults. They should act accordingly.

[hack89]

53. Gun bans and registration are not "reasonable" to a majority of Americans.

Secondly it is the Dems fault if they so completely misread the political environment that they accomplished nothing of what they intended and handed their political enemies a huge victory.

You do realize that your "reasonable" package couldn't even pass the Democratic controlled Senate? Turned out Harry Reid was more interested in protecting moderate Dems from pro-gun states who were up for reelection than passing strict gun control. Can't put that one on the NRA.

[SunSeeker]

56. What "gun ban" are you talking about?

The Dems did not misread the public. All of the measures they proposed had the support of the majority of the public. But then the NRA turned on the propaganda and started lying about what the legislation was. Kind of like what you are doing now by describing it as a gun ban.

[hack89]

58. What do you think the "B" in AWB stands for?

So Harry Reid played no role in this? 100% NRA's fault?

So why didn't the Democratic leadership realized what would happen and do something besides sticking their fingers into the fan blades? Surely if everything you say is true a smart and savvy political leadership could have figured out a way to out maneuver the NRA. Are they truly that invincible or are our leaders in Congress monumentally inept? After all, according to you, they got their asses kicked by a group out of touch with the American public.

[SunSeeker]

60. Those are not "guns," assault weapons are military equipment.

The right wing and the NRA continue to succeed, despite being outside the mainstream, because they lie. It is simple as that.

[hack89]

63. They are semiautomatic centerfire rifles - the most popular rifles in America for 25 years.

a technology that has been around for over a century. Military assault "rifles" are selective fire and heavily regulated.

Did you know that the Sandy Hook shooter did not use an assault weapon? CT had a strict AWB and his gun was perfectly legal.

[SunSeeker]

69. Yes, assault rifles are the dream weapon for today's wannabe mass killer. nt

[hack89]

71. No - handguns are. Have you forgotten Va Tech?

Adam Lanza could have killed all those kids without his AR-15.

But you are missing the point. The AWB proposed post-Sandy Hook would not have actually banned the ownership of semiautomatic rifles. It was not retroactive. Do you understand that it would not have made you safer?

[SunSeeker]

72. No, did you forget Aurora, Sandy Hook, the McDonald's massacre...

The list goes on and on.

Virginia Tech has become the exception to the rule.

You can't use a 100-round magazine on a handgun.

[hack89]

73. CT had registration and an AWB.

Think about that for a second.

[RobertEarl]

51. It isn't a put down

It was the way it was. The mass deaths had lots of people shouting. Even made me shout with grief and anger! To say otherwise is a putdown that claims people were not upset.

The problem is that Hillary has an election losing gun grabbing stance, and has not done anything that makes progress in fixing the problem. So, instead of offering a reasonable solution she goes off topic and makes it seem she is a victim in order to throw everyone off.

[SunSeeker]

55. "Gun grabbing stance"? She is not talking about confiscating guns.

Why would you use vile NRA language to describe her support of common sense gun control measure?

[RobertEarl]

57. See my OP in gdp

She has painted herself into that corner. I didn't do it, she did it herself.

Yes, I see you too are surprised she played right into the hands of the NRA. Dumb political move which she is trying to cover up by this gender card smear she is playing.

[SunSeeker]

62. It's called courage and leadership.

And I am very proud of her for it. Sanders caved to NRA and gun nut pressure in his state to get elected to Congress. She's having none of that.

[RobertEarl]

64. Wait just a second

You claim:

""Gun grabbing stance"? She is not talking about confiscating guns."

But then after reading the Truth you then claim she is showing leadership and courage.

Blowing in the wind is all I see.

Bernie can't be painted as a gun grabber, but Hillary sure can. I call that political wisdom. Bernie's is smart, Hill's is lacking.

[SunSeeker]

65. Sanders supports an assault weapons ban. Do you think that makes him a "gun grabber"? nt

[RobertEarl]

68. No. Do you?

We can do this all day. But I have better things to do than play games with you.

[SunSeeker]

70. No. Yet you call Hillary a gun grabber for supporting an assault weapons ban. Why?

[mcar]

41. Why is this so hard to understand?

It could have been handled in a simple, sincere manner as you just described. Instead it's turned into a brouhaha with Sanders campaign manager's ill-conceived remarks adding fuel to the fire.

Candidates make mistakes, even Sanders. Surely his supporters can acknowledge that one thing.

[SunSeeker]

42. K & R

[Flying Squirrel]

74. You should really change the subject line

Too many people including myself have been given the impression that Thom Hartmann made the statement following his name.

[portlander23]

78. You should edit for clarity

Make it clear that Thom Hartmann did not say this, and that this is an open letter addressed to him.

Secondly, Mrs. Clinton should apologize for the slur. Should she prevail in the primaries this kind of ugly tactic will depress any support she has among Sanders supporters.

Terrible political stunt, and it backfired.

[Peregrine Took]

79. HRC DOES shout a lot and its very unnerving and doesn't serve her well.

She sounds strident and crabby.

[portlander23]

81. OK, so seriously

This is what a personal attack directed at Mrs. Clinton looks like.

[Bucky]

92. "strident" and "crabby"... nice

That's a big improvement over "shrill" and "shrew-like". Also, "unnerving" is a nice image. Totally sells the harridan image without sinking to the level of the B-word. I salute you.

[rbrnmw]

90. I don't think Bernie is sexist

I do think when you say something offensive even if it wasn't meant that way you should apologize.

[JonLeibowitz]

91. I find your statement offensive to me as a man

I demand an apology!

[Cha]

94. "As Senator from a rural State, what I can tell Secretary Clinton, "that all the shouting in the

world is not going to do, what I would hope, all of us want. And that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end the violence we are seeing."

snip//

That said, he should've simply apologized when this problem arose, and he would've nipped it in the bud. Instead, he doubled down. Second big mistake. Until he does, no amount of explaining by his supporters will turn this around.

Thank you Thom Hartmann..

Mahalo BlueCali!

[merrily]

96. Oh, please this is beyond trumped up ridiculous.

[djean111]

102. And this is no reason to support Hillary instead of Bernie. At all. n/t

[merrily]

106. More like the opposite.

[djean111]

108. Yup. A person that thin-skinned, as the president? That is frightening, actually.

Especially when that person is a hawk.

[merrily]

109. She doesn't really need excuses to start wars, anyway, at least, not in the Middle East.

Let's pretend we have an excuse seems to be good enough.

However, trumping up outrage over imagined sexism hurts women who really need to earn a living, who really need that job or that raise. And that's the pity of this, not Secretary Clinton's imagined slights.

[Cleita]

103. Really? In a debate he is not supposed to name the person he's addressing?

I think that is a peculiar debate standard. I see it as just anything to trash Bernie by taking things out of context.

[AgingAmerican]

107. She needs to develop a thicker skin

This is crybaby nonsense.

[Cha]

111. Sanders blew it and didn't apologize. anyone who saw Benghazi knows she has a thick skin.