WaPo: "Bernie Sanders just gave an amazingly condescending interview about Hillary Clinton"

Can anyone explain this to me?

I honestly don't know how this is any different than many of the other threads GDP threads. Any idea why this was locked?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512173318#post15

What happens when an immoveable object meets an unstoppable force?

For months on DU (and elsewhere), some fervent Bernie Sanders supporters have vigorously rejected even the mildest notion that their candidate could ever be wrong about anything - and often attacked anyone who had the temerity to suggest that he was anything less than perfect. And they also went after anyone who endorsed Hillary Clinton - regardless how loved, how proven, how progressive they were - because, to that particular element, the very act of endorsing Hillary ipso facto made them sellouts, corporatists, DINOs and worse.

So, it will be verrrry interesting to see how these folks respond when Sanders (he who can never be called wrong) endorses Clinton (she who turns everyone who embraces her into a despicable piece of you-know-what).

Will they remain consistent with their belief that Bernie can do no wrong and try to explain why, unlike the others, HIS endorsement is not proof of nefariousness? Or will they throw Bernie under the bus with all of the others whose endorsement of Hillary was supposedly unassailable evidence of their bad character - and admit that they were horribly wrong about Bernie all along?

I can't wait to see how this paradox resolves itself ...

Without da Google, can you tell which of these is a DU GDP headline and which is a Trump tweet?

"Drop out now Hillary, with honor."

"If she can't win Kentucky, she should drop out of the race."

"How can Hillary put her husband in charge of the economy when he was responsible for NAFTA, the worst economic deal in U.S. history?"

"How can Bill Clinton be put in charge of the economy he played a MAJOR role in destroying?"

"System rigged!"

"Hillary has bad judgment!"

"So tired of the media being in the tank for Clinton."

"Hillary demanded a Secretary of State appointment in exchange for calling off her PUMAs."

Bernie - you really need to go somewhere and sit your ass down

Really. Please.

Larry Wilmore's last line at the WH Correspondents Dinner

Discuss

I wonder how many people who are whining about "disenfranchisement" because they didn't bother

to learn how to qualify to vote in a Democratic primary, ever bothered to lift a finger, write a letter, march, donate (or withhold) money or do anything else of substance or import (other than vote in an online poll or rail on a message board) to protest the disenfranchisement of minority voters through photo id laws in North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Alabama or elsewhere.

I'm sure some did - and if you were among them, hats off to you. As for the rest, hmmm ...

Interesting to see some of the same people who are "outraged" about "CP Time"

think it's fine to refer to Hillary Clinton as a "whore."

just saying ...

Blaming Sanders' "she's not qualified" blunder on a "misleading headline" doesn't help his cause

Many people here are claiming that Bernie was given "bad information" based on a "misleading headline" and THAT's why he stood up at a podium and accused Hillary of calling him "unqualified" actually makes him look worse. Yes, he obviously was given bad information and the headline was clearly misleading. But a candidate, a Senator, a President should not ever base anything they say or do on such shaky second-hand information. Bad information is everywhere - but they have a responsibility to vet it before running with it.

Yes, they often have to depend on their staffs to give them information - they certainly can't be expected to spend their time running every piece of information to ground. But they also have a responsibility to check out certain things for themselves and to ask the right questions, especially on matters as sensitive and critical as calling their opponent out the way he tried to do with Hillary.

It's not difficult. It goes something like this:

Staff: Hillary called you unqualified to be President.

Bernie: Seriously? She said that? Where are you getting that?

Staff: The Washington Post.

NOTE: The actual conversation seems to have stopped there. But most savvy politicians would have gone a few extra steps:

Bernie: Wow. What exactly did she say?

Staff: I'm not sure. I just read the headline.

Bernie: Well, pull up the story and read me what she said. If that's true, we need to take the bark off of her.

Staff: {pulls out his phone and takes about 15 seconds to pull up the story) Here it is. "Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president."

Bernie: What did she actually say? Read me the story.

Staff: OK. Let's see. "Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on Wednesday questioned whether her rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders, is qualified to be president. '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,' Clinton said in an interview on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe,' just one day after losing the Wisconsin primary to Sanders, 'and that does raise a lot of questions.'

Bernie: That's pretty obnoxious. Where does she actually call me unqualified?

Staff: She doesn't say it in so many words.

Bernie: Well, that's different. She didn't actually say I was unqualified. That headline is pretty misleading. She didn't call me unqualified but she's saying I haven't done my homework. Lots of people are saying that and it's really pissing me off because it's not true, but I can see why they might think that since I did have trouble answering some of the questions the other day. I know a lot more than these people are giving me credit for and I'm tired of everyone saying I don't. I want you to put together a murder board to drill me on some of these questions so I can make sure that I answer them better in the next editorial board interview. We gotta do better next time.

It's not all that complicated. A critical part of leadership is asking the next question, particularly if you're going to step out and accuse your opponent of something based upon information that you've been given. If you don't, at best, you end up spending the next several news cycles walking something back. And if you're in a position of real power, the consequences could be much worse than simply having to dislodge your foot from your mouth.

I always thought Sanders was a decent person, but I'm starting to think he may be a jerk

I've always respected Sanders and have felt no ill will toward him. Even my criticisms of his campaign have not been directed at him personally but instead at his approach and, often, the behavior and attitudes of some of his supporters. Nevertheless, I liked him and, although he wasn't my first choice, I would have had absolutely no problem voting for him if he got the nomination.

But in the last few days, Sanders has changed his comments and tone and he's acting and sounding like an ass. I'm hoping that this is just a strange but temporary detour and that he'll get back on track and go back to behaving with some dignity and decency since I don't want to dislike him and I certainly don't want to see him turn the Democratic race into a version of the Republican circus. We're better than that - and I think he is, too.

Bernie, please don't prove me wrong. This isn't good for you or us or any of the things you care about.