Bernie Sanders

Still Seething Over 2016, Hillary Clinton Slams Sanders for Sexism Sans Substance

An unnecessary and personal attack on Bernie Sanders is another example of Clinton's poor political judgement, and smacks of Democratic desperation to stop the Vermont senator's rise.

|

In aiming a series of personal attacks at Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and his supporters, Hillary Clinton achieved little more than once again demonstrating her own poor political instincts and lingering bitterness over her 2016 electoral loss.

Clinton, in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter to promote an upcoming Hulu documentary about her career in politics, blasted Sanders and his supporters for what she called "relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women." She also declined to answer whether she would support Sanders were he to win the 2020 Democratic nomination.

In the documentary itself, Clinton went after Sanders in an even more personal way, saying "nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done," while also characterizing Sanders' decades-long career in the Senate as "just baloney." Asked by The Hollywood Reporter if she stands by that assessment, Clinton said she does.

The comments are bound to make waves in the Democratic primary, just weeks before the first votes are cast in Iowa. Sanders' recent rise in the polls has sent some mainstream Democrats into a tizzy. Meanwhile, the Vermont senator is fending off an attack from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), who has accused Sanders of telling her privately that a woman could not win the presidency. Sanders has denied making that claim.

Me too, says Clinton.

"This argument about whether or not or when he did or didn't say that a woman couldn't be elected, it's part of a pattern," Clinton told The Hollywood Reporter. "If it were a one-off, you might say, 'OK, fine.' But he said I was unqualified. I had a lot more experience than he did, and got a lot more done than he had, but that was his attack on me."

That's a huge mischaracterization of Sanders' own attack on Clinton during the heated 2016 primaries. Sanders did explicitly question whether Clinton was qualified to be president—after she had aimed similar attacks at him—but Sanders' critique of Clinton's record was based on policy, not gender.

Here's how Sanders put it in April 2016, just prior to the crucial New York primary that effectively sealed the nomination for Clinton:

"My response is if you want to question my qualifications, then maybe the American people might wonder about your qualifications Madame Secretary," he said.

Sanders added: "When you voted for the war in Iraq, the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in the history of America, you might want to question your qualifications. When you voted for trade agreements that cost millions of Americans decent paying jobs, and the American people might want to wonder about your qualifications. When you're spending an enormous amount of time raising money for your super PAC from some of the wealthiest people in this country, and from some of the most outrageous special interests … Are you qualified to be president of the United States when you're raising millions of dollars from Wall Street whose greed and recklessness helped destroy our economy?"

Whether you agree with Sanders on that list of policies or not, there's no denying that he was making a substantive argument about Clinton's record—not suggesting that a woman is unqualified for office merely because she is a woman. Indeed, there are many reasons to believe Clinton would have been a bad president, and none of them have to do with her gender—just as there are many reasons to believe Sanders would be a bad president, regardless of his.

Clinton's most recent attack on Sanders' mirrors claims she's made before, most notably in her 2017 book, What Happened. In it, she accused Sanders of "impugning my character" during the 2016 primaries, and said that Sanders' criticisms contributed to her general election defeat to President Donald Trump.

But by refusing to say whether she will endorse Sanders should he clinch the nomination, Clinton is effectively doing what she accuses Sanders' own supporters of doing to her in 2016: refusing to be team players and support the eventual nominee. She knows better than most how that kind of thinking can damage the eventual Democratic pick—regardless of who it is—and yet she's encouraging it. Whatever Clinton may think she is accomplishing here, she's not helping the Democrats' cause.

Sanders, for what it is worth, seems to be handling this issue about as well as possible.

When you get right down to it, this whole debate over who is "qualified" to be president seems quaint and not a little ridiculous in 2020—just take a moment to remember who is the current occupant of the White House.

Remember also that Sanders is an avowed socialist who has palled around with Soviet leaders, admired the economic achievements of Cuba under Fidel Castro, advocated for the nationalization of "utilities, banks, and major industries," disdained private charity, and become a multi-millionaire while delivering a message about the importance of government-enforced equality.

If mainstream Democrats can't find something in all of that to criticize, they don't deserve to beat him in the primaries.

Advertisement

NEXT: Kentucky Lawmaker Wants To Give Police the Power to Detain People Who Don’t Answer Their Questions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. More Bernie bros have come out in favor of the Gulag.

    Does Reason care?

      1. I would argue it is very real….Clinton is stuck in a time loop revolving around November 2016.

        1. Someone needs to remake Primer starring Hillary Clinton.

          1. No no, GroundHog Day. The plot would change in that she’d never learn and never experiment.

        2. She’s Miss Havisham from Dicken’s Great Expectations.

        3. She should be forced to relive Election Day 2016 in a time loop, like ‘Groundhog Day’. No matter what she does, she still loses.

          I can’t imagine a worse mind of Hell for that psychotic Hag.

      2. Please back that up with at least some partisan news articles. You look rather silly stating something without any evidence.

    1. Maybe you should find a website to comment on that writes about the things you want to read about. Or start your own.

      1. You gonna cry Zeb? Cuz you sound like you might cry Zeb.

      2. Thank you, Zeb. I don’t know why these goobers can’t find a publication that support their views and congregate there. What would you call a person that keeps posting links and talking about knitting on a car repair forum? An asshole.

        1. Ah, you’ve added yours to the font of tears.

          1. This doesn’t even apply to you, you mental patient. While Bryan Caplan would argue that your insanity is just your revealed weird preferences, I believe in mental illness as a biological phenomenon worthy of medical diagnosis.

            1. Imbecile.

              1. “This doesn’t even apply to you”

                Of course it doesn’t imbecile, because I have never complained about the writers choice of subjects.

                It literally DOES NOT apply to me, and you’re such a fucking imbecile that you forgot what you were talking about in your pathetic rush to fire off an imbecilic insult.

                Imbecile.

                1. Lol you’re so mad.

                  1. Well Chipper is like a splinter under the fingernail.

        2. “What would you call a person that keeps posting links and talking about knitting on a car repair forum? An asshole.”

          What would you call a person who thinks knitting on a car repair forum analogizes to political news on a political forum?

          An imbecile.

        3. If you keep engaging in the level of irony required for someone as unsophisticated and uninformed as you are calling other people “goobers”, you are going to break the entire internet. So for the same of modern civilization, could you please try and have just a little self awareness?

          1. This doesn’t apply to you either, John. You are grandfathered in as the token cantankerous conservative that is not interested in learning more about libertarian philosophy.

            1. I would love to learn more. There just are so few people who know more than I do and have anything to teach me.

              1. Learn more, you? You stoop to insults instead of answering questions. You went to glib, got turned down, came back like a skunk in the basement, stinking up the house.

            2. You are grandfathered in as the token cantankerous conservative that is not interested in learning more about libertarian philosophy.

              A summary of libertarian thought: “We should bitch about everything, propose no solutions of our own, and tell everyone that open borders, uncontested protectionism, and abolishing the military will fix everyone’s problems because the market will just sort it out.”

              That about sum it up, Woody?

            3. Ahhh Chipper with the True Scotsman fallacy once more.

              1. He can’t help himself. Without fallacious reasoning he wouldn’t have any reason at all.

    2. Bernie called them “Reeducation Camps”. Not that their is a difference!

  2. “Meanwhile, the Vermont senator is fending off an attack from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), who has accused Sanders of telling her privately that a woman could not win the presidency.”

    What are you talking about “sans substance”? Warren and Hillary said something and so it must obviously be true. #BelieveWomen

    1. IT WAS HER TURN!

    2. Hillarity should have just accused him of colluding with Russia. Worked for Trump and Tulsi.
      And there is one liability of her being a woman; her husband.

  3. Qualified to be President: anyone over 35 years of age, who is a natural born citizen and has resided in the US for at least 14 years. Yep, Sanders, Clinton and Trump meets all those requirements. Let’s leave it at that and let the voters decide who they want for President.

    1. So, no debates or campaign ads?
      I’m pretty sure the whole point of debates (or a big part of it) is to give candidates an opportunity to argue that they are more qualified or their opponents are less so.

      1. Cage fight?

        1. I like it. But you could only really do it once before the parties start bringing in ringers.

          1. Chess boxing.

          2. Pistols at dawn then. If the ringer is willing to die for the cause, I think you have to let them do it.

            1. Didn’t Sliders have an episode similar to this, where the lawyers were actually professional gunslingers who, rather than argued in court, instead dueled in the streets?

              1. “Didn’t Sliders have an episode similar to this, where the lawyers were actually professional gunslingers who, rather than argued in court, instead dueled in the streets?”

                That sounds awesome! Let’s do that here!

          3. Re: ringers, that’s OK. I’d vote for Mike Tyson over Hillary any day of the week.

      2. Soldier’s comment in no way precluded having debates, or cage fights, but asks to take “qualified” out of the mix. Most of us qualify, but what has to be determined is who would do a great job.

        1. Wait, we’re supposed to get people who would do a great job?

          We’ve been fucking up big time for… 2 centuries?

          1. I’d settle for someone who just didn’t constantly make things worse.

          2. Clearly that’s not a philosophy the Libertarian Party has ever bought into, since they nominated Gary Johnson…twice.

          3. A little over that I believe.

      3. The debate is about which policies you prefer not about their basic qualifications. It is a job interview. Yes, I advertise for someone with a minimum of a MS in Animal Science with a nutrition background to serve as the nutritionist at my feedlot but which of the several candidates that apply do I agree with the most and which do I think will do the best job. The presidency is no different. We set minimum qualifications the campaign is the job interview section. We are only listening to those who meet minimum qualifications, which are explicitly stated in the Constitution. Now the voters get to decide who they want to hire.

    2. I still haven’t seen Trump’s long-form birth certificate and living in a Manhattan penthouse is stretching my definition of “residing in the US”.

      1. It’s yuuuuge!

  4. Thankfully Clinton didn’t become president. Sadly Trump did. With over 200 million citizens of the USA eligible to president, you’d think that we could come up with someone better than those two bozos. Oh wait a minute……

    1. I Think We’re All Bozos on This Bus.

      1. Please exit left to funway

    2. I still want to try 4 years without a president and see how that goes. I’m not convinced we really need one.

      1. I think there are towns that have elected a dog as mayor, and I’d rather almost any dog I’ve ever met be in charge than anyone I’ll actually get to vote for.

        1. I have been saying that all along. There is one now in a town in California I think.

          I have discussed this with my Labrador. He seemed interested up to the point when a squirrel ran by in the yard.

          1. What’s your labrador’s name? I can always write him in.

        2. Idyllwild in California has Max the golden retriever as a mayor. In dog years he’s over 35 and born stateside so he’s just about as qualified as Buttigeg to run for the dem nomination.

      2. Kinda like when doctors go on strike and mortality drops.

      3. Sure Zeb, let the unelected bureaucracy run things. Don’t put anyone who was elected and accountable to the public in charge of them. No, just let them run things with whatever level of control Congress feels like giving them. That sounds like a great idea.

        Really Zeb? Come on. You are not Chipper Morning Wood or Chem Jeff for God’s sake.

        1. With no President, nothing gets signed except what Congress can pass with a veto-proof majority. There’s no way this Congress could have that much agreement on anything beyond “Good job Superbowl winners!”

          1. They’d vote to give themselves a raise right off the bat.

          2. With no President, there is no one except Congress to control the bureaucracy.

            1. What does the President do to control the bureaucracy? He’s a guy with with a paddle trying to change the course of a cruise ship. The only people who can control the bureaucracy are the ones who appropriate the money for its paychecks.

              1. Trump has done some by causing many to quit in anger and then not hiring anyone to fill their positions.

            2. This is why you go with my idea of making a dog be president.

              President still has to sign things for them to become law, and that dog ain’t signing shit. Untold levels of prosperity follow.

              Dog for president is the only libertarian position.

              1. BARK FOR LIBERTY!!

                DOGETARIANS 2020!!

                We really need to talk more about this.

          3. even then, they’d probably demand to know whether the winners knelt with Kapernick or not, and give congrats accordingly

        2. John just can’t imagine people running their lives with no one in charge. It terrifies him almost as much as a universe without an overseeing deity.

          1. Read my comment again and think really hard. Not having a President is not the same thing as not having a bureaucracy. Leaving the the bureaucracy without any oversight is not “letting people live their lives with no one in charge.” It is turning a bunch of people with the power to do real harm lose on the country while depriving the public of any way to fight back.

            What the fuck is wrong with you? What would cause you to say something this stupid? Did you start sniffing glue again?

            1. You’re dealing with a utopian market thinker who doesn’t understand that the world doesn’t operate in ideological absolutes and never will. He just assumes if you get rid of the government he doesn’t like, that means that the situation he wants will automatically flourish.

              Although what usually happens instead is it gets replaced by something far worse. But since he’s, presumably, an American who’s spent very little time outside of America, he thinks the place he’s living now is the norm and all it requires for his perfect libertarian world is a few little tweaks.

              1. Like every idealistic Libertarian, he thinks everyone on earth is just like him. Communists believe man can be perfected by government. Libertarians believe man can be perfected by the government leaving him alone. Both views are equally contrary to reality.

                1. And his perspective is a Western perspective, operating on the presumption that every other culture operates on values of freedom, rights, and the law similar to his own. They do not. In fact, most of the world’s population does not. A great many of those people find our values appalling and something to be fought. No matter how many NBA jerseys or fancy cars they buy.

                  That’s where the globalists show their naivete. They think that a world in which all humanity is connected is a world in which the values of Western civilization will eventually dominate. Our lives are far more likely, however, to change into something resembling life in China.

                2. Hes not a Libertarian. Hes an Anarchist.

                  Guys like him want to live under the greatness of this Constitutional Democratic Republic but act like undermining it is so kewl. They are too scared to band with other Anarchist and buy some island to start Anarchyland.

                  Meanwhile they vote for Democrats who expand government.

          2. John just can’t imagine people running their lives with no one in charge.

            I can. It’s called Afghanistan. It usually ends up being rule by warlord, because the problem with a world without government is that it doesn’t eliminate the drive of people to pursue power, and generally in that world it’s the most brutal and autocratic people who end up in charge.

            And you should absolutely be terrified of living like that, unless you’re a complete idiot who has never seen how the world outside of our borders functions.

          3. John just can’t imagine people running their lives with no one in charge.

            I can. It’s called Afghanistan, and I’ve seen it firsthand. It usually ends up being rule by warlord, because the problem with a world without government is that it doesn’t eliminate the drive of people to pursue power, and generally in that world it’s the most brutal and autocratic people who end up in charge.

            And you should absolutely be terrified of living like that, unless you’re a complete idiot who has never seen how the world outside of our borders functions.

            1. Chipper crossed that thin line from Libertarianism yo Anarchism a long time ago. But he still claims Libertarianism.

              1. Nobody listens to you when you say you’re an Anarchist.

                1. As opposed to the hordes of people who listen to you when you say you’re a libertarian?

          4. That’s, literally, not what he said.

            You’ve got john derangement syndrome chipper. He’s wormed his way into your anxiety complex.

      4. What we need is four Prez’s. Elect a new one every year with slightly overlapping terms. Let them fight it out for credibility. Or figure out how to split the exec branch duties up. Every time a SC slot opens up, each of the four would submit their candidate and the one who gets the most votes in the Senate wins. Might be a little confusing when they are all fighting over the remote control to figure out what country we’re supposed to be bombing today but that’s more a problem for the country where the bombs are falling anyway.

    3. If you look at how our leaders are chosen it’s no surprise that the worst candidate in history lost to the second worst candidate in history.

  5. It is always funny when the Democrats turn the tactics they usually reserve for Republicans on an outcaste progressive who has gotten uppity and needs to learn his place in the pecking order.

    Though, frankly, much of what she said about nobody liking him or want to work with him is probably true as Sanders seems to be an angry, sanctimonious, jerk.

    1. And in fairness, what has he accomplished? I get tired of him telling me what he is going to do when he becomes president, and it’s like, dude, you’ve been a US senator for over 20 years, why haven’t you done anything in that time?

      1. My favorite is when they all talk about what laws they will pass when elected president. Almost all of you are in Congress now, putting you in a much better position to pass laws

      2. To be fair, do nothing Senators are my first choice, because when Senators do something, it almost always makes things worse.

        1. He’s not nearly do-nothing enough. He’s using his position as a podium for appalling views that would destroy the country and the economy, while enriching and empowering himself at everyone else’s expense.

        2. Unfortunately Sanders is only “do nothing” because what he wants to do has been too extreme even for our Leftist politicians, not because he wanted to be do nothing.

      3. And he conveniently forgets that nowhere near half of Congress agrees with anything he says.

        1. I would sincerely doubt he cares about that. If he ever won office, he’d look to implement his agenda through the welfare state and the most socialist judicial appointments you can imagine.

          1. He shoulda let Trump build the wall, Bernie’s gonna need something to put all the kulaks and wreckers up against.

      4. That criticism might be better coming from someone who was not as equally unaccomplished in her shorter Senate career.

  6. The only reason to vote against Hillary is because you hate women.

    This is self evident.

  7. Hillary is a vindictive cunt, news at 11.

  8. If I were a Democrat I’d be massively torqued that a much-hated member of my party who lost a presidential election is promoting and participating in a documentary about her during the an election year that they HAVE TO WIN in order to be considering anything less than a party of incompetence that should never govern.

    Her massive ego won’t let her retire into elder statesman mode.

    1. Wait till she announces she’s running next month…

      1. pls no, I want off Mrs. Hillary’s Wild Ride.

    2. You’d think at this point that Obama and Biden and the rest would be calling her non-stop to just STFU and stay at home. But heaven forbid that we’re allowed to have nice things

  9. “an upcoming Hulu documentary about her career in politics”

    Barf.

    When will Reason spare some time from Sexism-Gate and give some attention to Gulag-Gate?

    1. They have a somewhat inexplicable fondness for him. I suppose it is because of his semi independent status and knee jerk anti-military stance.

      1. They do seem to have a bit of a soft spot for him on those things. But seem ready to criticize his socialist BS.
        I don’t know how they should take the idiot staffer trying to rehabilitate the idea of re-education camps. It is particularly outrageous, and I’d like to see a lot more on how being a communist remains more or less socially acceptable.

        No one is going to hold back on some Trump supporter or staffer saying something racist or whatever, so maybe turnabout is fair play.

        1. No, your take above is actually correct, even though I gave you shit for it.

          It’s some low level nobodies (spare me their credentials, please, they’re nobodies) and just about any campaign will have some wackos. Maybe Bernie has a few more, being a little wacky himself, but the story is nothing.

          1. On the contrary, SPB, the story is the lack of story. The normal response to such a leak would be “this was one egregious outlier, this person is not on the campaign staff any longer”. There would then be a collective shrug from everyone rational, due to what you said.

            The issue I have is that not only was there no apology or public termination, but the media has done everything possible to shut down and even censor this, giving tacit approval of the claims (or at least of not responding to the claims).

        2. “I’d like to see a lot more on how being a communist remains more or less socially acceptable.”

          #MeTOO!!! They call everyone who disagrees with them a fascist, yet being a socialist and/or a communist is socially acceptable. What is the actual difference between the three? Why is communism/socialism good, and not considered pure evil?

          1. because ‘good intentions’

    2. Reason’ writers are so desperate not to say anything positive about Trump, that they’re all in love with the least libertarian politicians around. Socialists are not anti-war, they *are* war. They are repression. If we are free minds and free markets, they are the exact opposite.

      1. Stalin had a better PR bureau then Hitler?

        1. “Stalin had a better PR bureau then Hitler?”

          Yeah, the NYT.

          1. Yep

  10. I’ll take vindictive bitch for 500 Alex.

  11. She could go through the pockets of a shooting victim on Fifth Avenue and the media wouldn’t care.

    1. Spot on.

    2. Of course they would care. They would spend weeks discussing how it’s obviously Trump’s fault that the victim was shot, based on an offhand remark he made years ago. Many of them would suggest that he pulled the trigger himself. Then, when you bring up the ‘Hillary Looting’ incident, you would be angrily denounced for gas-lighting, whataboutism, and fake news.

      That’s a lot of effort for not caring.

    3. “She could go through the pockets of a shooting victim on Fifth Avenue and the media wouldn’t care.”

      I assume the shooting was done by Philippe I. Reines or Mark Penn.

      1. It was a suicide.

  12. Hulu is showing a documentary of her political career? A career whose success was entirely dependent on riding the coattails of her sleazeball husband?

    I have never understood the Left’s sycophancy for her, or Bill for that matter. Though at least he has an oily sort of charisma going for him.

    1. His oily charisma was the evidence which got him in trouble.

      1. But he was entertaining (without having to look away most of the time).

      2. Is that an oily charisma stain on your dress?

    2. They have this thing for Bill because the economy fucking crushed it while he was in office. That was largely unrelated to anything he did, the internet becoming a thing would’ve made anyone look good, but he was in the right place at the right time.

      Hillary is a mystery though, I have no idea why they love her so much. She’s not charismatic and never achieved anything of note, and her biggest claim to fame is, as you note, being married to a famous and successful dirtbag. If those are their criteria, Melania oughtta be the nominee.

      1. “I have no idea why they love her so much”‘

        Because she and Bill have been around national politics and the movers and shakers and celebrities and industrialists who fuel it for almost 30 years.

        They know everyone. They’ve made careers for their supporters, money for their business partners, who’ve in turn infiltrated the media and the D’s political infrastructure.

        Thus the Clintons are owed their due–which is Hillary becoming the first female president. That will never happen.

        1. Unless Hulu offers her a “reality” series where she runs against the Trump/Hitler ticket, wins 99% of the vote, and goes on to restructure the world from her Whitehouse.

          Come to think of it, offering fictional realities to all political whack jobs and their deluded acolytes might be the best way to de-stupid our politics.

        2. “”Because she and Bill have been around national politics and the movers and shakers and celebrities and industrialists who fuel it for almost 30 years. “‘

          Yes, and Epstein did not kill himself.

      2. Except they were in love with these two even before he was elected to the presidency, and Hilary was touted as being so smart she would make an better president than Bill before he even took office (I recall a Cynthia Tucker column in the AJC around that time).

        1. Because the Clintons embody the upscale Boomer idea “professional couple with one perfect child” that national journalists and pundits identify with. The Clintons were their kind of people, and needed to run the free world.

        2. Cynthia Tucker’s take hasn’t aged well, has it? She got outsmarted, badly, by Donald fucking Trump. How smart could she be?

          But fair enough, I was a wee lad when Bill got elected so I don’t have much knowledge of how they were perceived pre-Presidency.

          1. “so I don’t have much knowledge of how they were perceived pre-Presidency.”

            His moniker “Slick Willy” wasn’t coined after he got to the White House, it was when he was a governor. And some of their scandals happened before he was elected. They were well known as as slick operators not to be trusted.

            1. This is correct.

        3. It is a Boomer thing Mickey. Bill Clinton was the first boomer President. And that was a big of a thing to that generation as Obama being elected as the first black President was to the Black community.

          1. No, *Clinton* was the first black President, didn’t you hear?

            /sarc

      3. IT WAS HER TURN!

        1. “IT WAS HER TURN!”

          God, she must be so disappointed in all of us voters.

          1. Ma href=”https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/12/hillary-clinton-we-failed-her-sarah-churchwell”>We failed Hillary.

            To do so is to realise that it is time to stop suggesting, as some commentators are doing, that Clinton failed us. The truth is, we failed her.

      4. The thing is, Bill is kind of a private person these days, he doesn’t do too many things. Hillary does, and I think the reason why she’s so big with the party bigwigs and media, AND why she can’t let it go that she didn’t get “her turn”, is that she is the brains of the operation. Hillary’s always been the smarter of the two, after all she’s not the genius who decided to start banging anything with tits while being one of the most-watched people in the world. And if she had an unofficial presidency already, doing the work but not getting the credit, I could see where she’d want that power again, and also get recognized for it.

        1. And if other Dems realize that she’s the power behind the throne, there’s a reason she gets that special treatment.

          Of course, if even half the theories are true as to the number of bodies they’ve had buried, that could also be why they get so much respect. That’s a nice life you have there, would be a shame if something happened to it.

    3. I thought Netflix already made a documentary called “House of Cards” about her.

    4. The documentary seems as if it is “electioneering communications” of the sort that would’ve been prohibited, this close to the Iowa Caucus, but for the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC (a case concerning another Hillary documentary)

  13. I’m not a fan of Bernie’s, but I find Hillary’s complaint a bit puzzling. Don’t people who are competing for a big prize usually try to, uh, win?

  14. Usually yes, but competing against women is misogynist.

    1. This was meant as a reply to Enjoy’s statement right above it, but the squirrels got it.

  15. With her bitter attacks on Bernie and Gabbard Hillary seems a lot more like Trump than she’s like to admit.

    1. Maybe? but Jeb was low energy, and I don’t believe Tulsi is a russian asset or bernie is a sexist.

      1. And I don’t think Trump was ever that bitter either…

  16. Bernie Sanders is an unapologetic socialist whose supporters openly talk of their desire to send their political opponents to gulags. And the only thing about him Democrats have a problem with is that he might be a “sexist” who said something impolite to Hillary or Warren.

    That about sums up the current state of the Democratic Party.

    1. The main problem they have with him is that he might win the candidacy and embarrass them in a national election. They know they can’t let him become the face of the party.

  17. “If mainstream Democrats can’t find something in all of that to criticize, they don’t deserve to beat him in the primaries.”

    If mainstream Democrats thought that anything in that list was worthy of criticism, they’d be Republicans.

    1. Forget being a Republican, if they found anything on that list to criticize, they would be part of the dreaded white nationalist alt right.

  18. Well the Democrats certainly can criticize him for not being a member of the party to which he is seeking a nomination. That no Democrat actually criticizes him for this is proof we’re living in Bizarro World.

  19. One of my favorite Youtube lawyer breaks down why CNN is the most hated name in news.

    For those not clicking through, he shows the clip where CNN moderator asks Sanders if he told Warren a woman couldn’t be president. He categorically denied ever uttering such a remark. Moderator immediately turns to Warren and asks, “So how did you respond to Sanders when he told you a woman could never be president.”

    People in the media are fast becoming the most vile people in society.

    1. I don’t think there is any “becoming too it”. They have held that title for a while now. The only difference is that social media has made it more obvious.

      1. Of course but what’s interesting is they’re becoming vile on camera during their broadcast, not in a tweet that might be charitably viewed as “off the record” or beyond the purview of their employer.

        1. This is how they have treated Republicans for years even on camera. What makes this different is that they are acting that way towards a Democrat. I think it shows that the media is more about protecting the establishment and the powers that be than anything else. Sanders is a threat to the people who run the Democratic Party. And the media sees protecting the people in power as its job.

    2. One of them is lying. Given their histories I bet it’s Warren. But Bernie cannot be allowed to win the candidacy under any circumstances. So this is what they have to do.

      1. I bet it is Warren too. I loath Bernie as much as anyone. But, this doesn’t sound like something anyone would actually say. It sounds like something Warren would make up more than it sounds like something Bernie would say. Why would he say that?

        1. It sounds like some sort of tactical analysis by Sanders that Warren gave the most ridiculously uncharitable interpretation of, if it actually happened.

    3. Seeing the full sequence of events, it looks like coordination between CNN and Warren, since the “what did you think when…” question gives Warren an opening to segue into a “vote for me because I have ovaries” speech that might be awkward if the reporter had not ignored Sanders categorical denial.

  20. Bitterness is a stinky perfume.

    1. haha to democrats it’s a powerful elixir

  21. “Remember also that Sanders is an avowed socialist who has palled around with Soviet leaders, admired the economic achievements of Cuba under Fidel Castro, advocated for the nationalization of ‘utilities, banks, and major industries,’ disdained private charity, and become a multi-millionaire while delivering a message about the importance of government-enforced equality.

    If mainstream Democrats can’t find something in all of that to criticize, they don’t deserve to beat him in the primaries.”

    Kind of difficult to criticize positions that you’re in agreement with. All of those things sound like pretty mainstream Left-wing beliefs in the U.S. today.

    1. Reason is still trying to pretend Ds aren’t full totalitarian

  22. You have to see it from her perspective. She and the DCCC kneecapped Bernie and screwed him out of the nomination last time around and that will be patently obvious if Bernie beats Trump in 2020. So if she doesn’t do everything she can to prevent a Sanders presidency in 2020, and if Sanders prevails, she will be historically remembered as the idiot-villain who through her own hubris gave us Trump in 2016, forever besmirching the white house and making clear the reality that American politics is has no more gravitas or meaning than the WWF. Obviously she has no choice but to try to prevent that scenario by screwing Bernie again. It’s just politics.

    1. Wow. Yea, I like this take.

  23. Perhaps Hillary is hoping that the convention will nominate her by acclamation.

    Trump is probably hoping for that too.

    1. Bipartisanship!

  24. That’s a very good post, This post give truly quality information. tree trimming

  25. Hillary is horrible person, being, slug, leech..but what she said about Bernie is true. Bernie the career government leech who’s most famous for being “independent” but votes D all the time is loved by the socialists. He has done nothing in Congress. wait, maybe that is why…

  26. While it does not exculpate her, she is right. Bernie doesn’t actually want to be POTUS and never did. He just wants a platform to spout his nonsensical and delusional, if sincere, worldview. He is tiresome, even to someone enjoying his DNC well poisoning.

  27. Hillary Clinton did move on. She’s not still running for president like Bernie.

    Somebody has to try to stop him before he actually becomes president for God’s sake. He’d be terrible. Why doesn’t everyone see that?

    1. Hello Tony, long time no see.

      So who exactly wouldn’t be terrible in this pack?

    2. Tony,

      Wouldn’t you agree that “moving on” should involve refraining from discussing the crop of candidates who’ve replaced you?

  28. “Still Seething Over 2016, Hillary Clinton Slams Sanders for Sexism Sans Substance”

    Alliteration exercise from your English professor?

    1. Alliteration is almost always annoying.

  29. “…once again demonstrating her own poor political instincts and lingering bitterness over her 2016 electoral loss.”

    And it’s January and it’s cold today. And that is anyone’s fault but Stumble McMyturn’s.

  30. “Indeed, there are many reasons to believe Clinton would have been a bad president, and none of them have to do with her gender”

    Uh, well… maybe more accurate to say that “most of them have nothing to do with her gender.”

  31. Deplorable Hillary… enough said.

  32. I’m not a fan of Bernie but Hillary should just move on.

  33. ..decades-long career in the Senate as “just baloney”… Every career politician has a baloney career. Which explains the congressional disapproval rating…only we are too stupid to vote them out. But, we sent Claire packing last time!

    Hilary’s character “impugns” her character@!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.