EffieBlack
EffieBlack's JournalI 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.
WashPost asks: "Why aren't Jews backing Sanders?" Which raises another important question:
Why aren't Sanders supporters asking Jewish voters to explain why they're supporting Hillary over Sanders?
Is it because, unlike voters of color, Jewish voters aren't assumed by some to be low-information voters, voting against their interests because of blind loyalty who need to have Sanders' value explained to them? Or are there other reasons?
“We like Hillary Clinton. We’ve known her well for many, many years. We’ve worked with her. There’s a tremendous comfort level,” said Rabinowitz, the former Bill Clinton staffer. “Bernie Sanders? Eh, don’t know him so well. Like him. Excited for him. Proud about his success. But we’re with the other guy.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/03/08/bernie-sanders-is-jewish-why-isnt-that-convincing-jews-to-vote-for-him/
I'll just set this one right here ...
"Black Men For Bernie Educates Black DETROIT Voters"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511454511
I have less concern about Bernie's use of the term "ghetto" than that his frame of reference for POC
seems to be limited to poverty, criminal justice and welfare.
For example, when he was asked last night what he would do to improve race relations in this country, he talked about crime, poverty and welfare.
And last night was not an aberration; that's a common refrain for him. For example, in a debate a few weeks ago, he was asked what he would do to improve race relations and he responded as follows:
"And the progress that we can build on is to understand that we should not have 35 percent of African-American kids in this country living in poverty ... we need real police reform. We need to make sure that when people are in jail, often, African-American and Latino, there is a path back -- back to civil society so that we don't have the rates of recidivism that we do right now.
"We have got to do away with mandatory minimum sentences. And I'll give you one example where we can make huge progress.
"Right now, it turns out that the African-American community and the white community smoke marijuana at about equal levels, OK? But it also turns out that blacks are four times more likely to be arrested than whites for possession of marijuana, OK? And that is why I believe that we should take marijuana out of The Federal Controlled Substance Act. Too many lives have been destroyed. Too many young people have been -- incurred police records for possession of marijuana."
This is why so many people think that Bernie is tone deaf. But his tone deafness comes from a cramped view of race, which is not surprising since race and race relations is just not something he has focused much attention on in the half century since he worked in the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
That doesn't mean that he is a bad person, that he is a racist or that he hates black people. But it does mean that he is not as racially sensitive as he and his supporters are trying to convince us that he is.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Feb 3, 2007, 12:43 AMNumber of posts: 14,249
