In deference to those who were offended by reference to He Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken, I changed this article to remove those references.
Last week, when questioned about Senator Sander’s interview with the Daily News, Secretary Clinton (despite being baited to say more) simply stated that she didn’t think he did his homework. At or around the same time, the idiotic talking heads at CNN were theorizing (I use the term loosely) about what Secretary Clinton needed to do to win, with one opining that she had to “disqualify, defeat and worry about uniting the party later.”
Somehow the Sanders campaign got the message that Secretary Clinton said Senator Sanders was not qualified to be president. That was, simply, not true. However, in a knee-jerk reaction Senator Sanders railed in front of a rally crowd that Secretary Clinton was not qualified to be President because (among other things): (a) she had a super PAC; (b) she took donations from Wall Street bankers; (c) she supported trade deals and (d) she “voted for the war in Iraq.”
Let’s deal with the Iraq vote first. It was not a vote for “war” — it was a vote authorizing President Bush to use force if necessary after the administration made promises that it would exhaust every other possibility. John Kerry voted for it — and Tad Devine (name familiar?) vigorously defended Kerry’s vote when he was running for President.
The “trade deals” — all lumped together — have been revealed by economists (and somewhat grudgingly admitted by Sanders) as being quite profitable and beneficial to the United States. As for superPACs and donations — let’s be real here. If that standard was applied, the last 20 presidents were, in Sanders’ world, not qualified.
But here’s the thing. Once the confusion around the original shot-across-the-bow was cleared up — with Secretary Clinton the very next morning telling reporters that she’d take Senator Sanders over the GOP candidates any day and that he was, indeed, qualified, it should have been allowed to die. However, it was not. The next day and evening, Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine made the rounds on CNN and MSNBC.
The upshot of both their comments were that the shot Senator Sanders took was pre-emptive (Weaver said it “let [Clinton] know that Sanders’ team wasn’t going to be pushed around) and that campaigns were “rough” — Weaver saying that Secretary Clinton “made a deal with the devil.”
When it was Bernie’s turn, he grudgingly admitted she was qualified, although on the Maddow Show this past week, it was Jane Sanders who took pains to point out that there was a difference between “unqualified” and being “disqualified” — which Senator Sanders believed was the case based on (a)-(d) above.
About midweek, Sanders made another CNN appearance, during which he insisted that he was running a clean campaign. He went on (and paraphrasing here): “Have I mentioned her emails? No I have not. Have I mentioned the FBI investigation? No I have not.”
Well, actually, Bernie, you just did. I, however, won’t mention about you, well, what I won’t mention. What I will say is the problem people have when they climb on a pedestal, is occasionally they slip and fall. What I will say is that you have benefited from Wall Street $$$ through DNC, you have made questionable votes in the past and have made questionable decisions. Hindsight is 20/20.
Today, on the Sunday babble shows, the Sanders campaign doubled down on its muscle flexing, with Tad Devine saying that there would be a “very bad reaction if Superdelegates” contradicted the “will of the voters.” That, no matter how you wrap it up, is a threat. That threat is in line with the published Sanders strategy of a win achieved by cajoling (again, I use the term loosely) Superdelegates over to his side of the fence.
That cajoling, over the past month (unchecked and/or uncondemned by Sanders) has been an unprecedented campaign a vicious, insulting and threatening tweets, facebook posts, emails and other communications to the Superdelegates, those politicians who have stayed neutral (like Elizabeth Warren) and Clinton supporters.
Let’s face another unpleasant truth. There has been very — VERY — little vetting of Bernie Sanders. Not by the GOP, not by Secretary Clinton. Those polls he keeps referring to which show he can beat GOP candidates by a higher margin? Those are pre-vetting. And there is enough hay to make of Senator Sanders’ past to fill a barn. The fact is, you can’t live to be 70 — anywhere, but especially in politics — without stuffing a skeleton in a closet or two.
However, I digress: Senator Sanders’ recent tactics are not the tactics of a person who claims the high moral ground. They are not the tactics of a unifier. These are not the tactics of a team player. They are dirty tactics. (Ironic to note, however, that Secretary Clinton is 2.5 million votes ahead of Senator Sanders.)
While Secretary Clinton has been parsing her words very carefully — well aware that if Sanders should win the nomination, the GOP would use those words against him — Senator Sanders (and his henchmen) have been creating soundbytes galore.
And it should stop. Now.
The threats (public and cyber), the foot-stomping, the cheat-calling, the “Oops, I said that? Of course I didn’t mean it” nonsense, the innuendos and the lying. Yes, I said lying. Real Clear Politics, the Washington Post, the New York Times and several other publications that do fact-checking have pointed out that of the two candidates on the Democratic side, Bernie is by far the bigger twister-misrepresenter of facts. They have also pointed out that among the entire field of candidates, Hillary Clinton is the most truthful. And that’s a fact.
So stop it, Senator Sanders. Just stop widening the divide of the Democrats. It’s unnecessary, it’s hurtful to our party, and it’s unworthy of you.