Sanders - Clinton go Head to Head Tonight on MSNBC

Having toured some of the right-o-sphere this morning, they are not impressed with Bernie's performance. Not because they dislike him any more or less than Hillary. Remember, it's the right; they don't like either. However, they felt that Bernie had plenty of opportunities to press Hillary and hit her where it would really hurt, and every time, he backed off.

No pressing on emails. No wondering why she won't reveal what she says to donors to the American public (speech transcripts). You don't even have to be particularly negative when you press on these things, but he simply won't go there. And Hillary's biggest negative is her lack of trustworthiness, and when their policy differences are miniscule and he has some very real foreign policy problems ... It hurts him and lets Hillary come away with the upper hand.

a reply to: ketsuko

Hillary is the right so it isn't surprising that the right-o-sphere favors her and believes she won.

Thanks to ALL of you for keeping posting the debate
the other night & last night. I don't have TV so I always
get news here at ATS & online. It has been a very exciting,
nail biting at times & you guys stuck to the main points
keeping me on the edge of my seat.

When HRC makes another comment in re to being a
woman, maybe Bernie will respond with
"I'm a woman trapped in a man's body"...LOL! GO Bernie!

Cheers
Ektar

a reply to: Grimpachi

They don't favor her. They just think that Bernie passed up some huge opportunities to take her out. Thus, she won.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
Hillary's cackling.

Would you ever refer to a man as cackling?

originally posted by: ketsuko
Having toured some of the right-o-sphere this morning, they are not impressed with Bernie's performance. Not because they dislike him any more or less than Hillary. Remember, it's the right; they don't like either. However, they felt that Bernie had plenty of opportunities to press Hillary and hit her where it would really hurt, and every time, he backed off.

No pressing on emails. No wondering why she won't reveal what she says to donors to the American public (speech transcripts). You don't even have to be particularly negative when you press on these things, but he simply won't go there. And Hillary's biggest negative is her lack of trustworthiness, and when their policy differences are miniscule and he has some very real foreign policy problems ... It hurts him and lets Hillary come away with the upper hand.

I think thats a deliberate strategy of the Sanders-team. They (him and his team) probably do that because they feel she doesnt have much content to run a strong campaign with. So far any point Bernie brings up she starts using as well, although in a weak and not very sincere way. He doesnt want to give her any by smearing her, which she can use to spin. She is probably waiting for an attack that she can turn into a weird claim of anti-feminism or something she can run her campaign with other than her name and being a woman. Maybe im reaching though, but it does seem like a deliberate strategy, not sure if its wise/works out.

a reply to: ketsuko

The right would love nothing more than for Hillary to get the nomination. The GOP knows they only have a shot in hell if Hillary runs.

Even then though, the electoral college is locked -- no matter who runs or what happens the Democrats are winning the White House...

The Democratic primary is the REAL election people need to be watching.

a reply to: Annee

I would and have. I think, as a feminist myself, Hillary is a horrible choice for President and not just because I love Bernie Sanders and have for a long time. My thing is that yes, she is a very intelligent woman and in a sense a trail blazer in her own right. I just don't happen to like that particular trail and frankly I'm surprised that many feminists do.

If we remember that Feminism is about equality for all and not just standing behind a woman because she is a woman her policy "victories" haven't played out well for equality in the record she invokes most in this race. Her Defense Secretary record began and ended down a direction that I feel is more right-wing. More War-Hawkish than less which has led to absolutely atrocious inequality throughout the ME. Her record as FLOTUS, a Senator, and a two time Presidential candidate are clearly indicative to me of being accountable to the Financial District rather than the American people or the people in countries where we are in conflict with regimes and terror groups and in countries we have economic policies with.

I don't feel one bit a traitor to Feminism by supporting Bernie over Hillary and frankly her victim playing is making me sick. That doesn't speak 'strong woman' to me, it tells me that she is a weak, manipulative person. I can't be bothered with anyone so willing to play dirty. I won't vote for her in the General election if she wins the nom. I can't. She repulses me. I won't ever vote for the lesser evil ever again. I think that by doing so we condone it and so it won't ever change. We have to stop being so afraid, it freezes our ability to mobilize behind a better choice.

Sorry I went on a tangent there.

a reply to: ketsuko

Bernie has stated before that Hillarys email scandal is a low priority to him. He doesn't need to go there, that's all the rightosphere even seems to care about & they'll do the work for him. He had mentioned her being bought by special interests in the past, again it's another point that has been made more than enough already & is no doubt going to be brought up plenty more once things start getting more serious.

Funny that the right wing want to hear about her corporate masters, I'd think it would bring too much attention to the blatant corporate brown nosing they currently embody.

a reply to: Kali74

IDK. I'm not a Hillary hater pe se...

But if feminists want to support her, they ought to wonder about her staying with BIll.

IDK, but to ME a strong, independent woman with a lot of self respect and strong personal boundaries would leave someone like Bill after he did what he did.

I know the GOP/conservatives have harped on that ... and it sounds like I'm doing the same. It just seems to me that people who are feminists who want to see a female POTUS tend to overlook that part because they so badly want to see a woman break that barrier.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Kali74

IDK. I'm not a Hillary hater pe se...

But if feminists want to support her, they ought to wonder about her staying with BIll.

IDK, but to ME a strong, independent woman with a lot of self respect and strong personal boundaries would leave someone like Bill after he did what he did.

No one has the right to define marriage, but those in it.

Political power couples have been around since the dawn of time. Politics is what holds Bill and Hill together. I don't think their "union" was ever about anything, but politics.

I give her credit for knowing who she is and what their "union" means to them both. I give them both credit for staying together. They were also, apparently, good parents.

Not all women think sex is what holds a marriage together.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

That isn't something I particularly find weak actually. I'm not in their marriage, her dubious integrity makes me wonder about her motivations for doing so but that doesn't mean it was, they could genuinely love each other and decided to work through his fidelity issues... none of us know one way or the other.

Also there's nothing wrong with an open marriage if both people are good with it. That could be the case too.

originally posted by: Kali74
If we remember that Feminism is about equality for all and not just standing behind a woman because she is a woman...

I am glad you said that since it seems Hillary's main point of electability, in her opinion, and the reason she said in lasts night's debate that she is not 'mainstream' is basically because she has a vagina.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

How can anyone not hate Hillary!? She's the worst possible mix breed of both sides. She wants more war for the petrodollar, more world policing, more taxes, & more social reliance on government & banking, all of which would be implemented in the most antagonistic way to anyone on either side of the aisle.

A true Reagan democrat, The New Republican, a once proud description which she has desperately tried to distance herself from.

originally posted by: Kali74

Also there's nothing wrong with an open marriage if both people are good with it. That could be the case too.

Absolutely! If one person is more sexual then the other, why should it put a strain on a partnership.

Breaking up because of it is stupid. Sneaking around is stupid.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That bothered me a lot. Lots of good women have been in the Establishment doing what they felt was right and a lot of fantastic women fought really hard to break down the walls that kept women out. It's okay if you feel that you have to be in the establishment to fight to the good fight and it was important, certainly, to diversify it. I could respect it if she said: "Well yes I am, women fought hard to be here and I'm proud to be here." Instead, she's trying to steal the populist appeal that Bernie has.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Kali74

Also there's nothing wrong with an open marriage if both people are good with it. That could be the case too.

Absolutely! If one person is more sexual then the other, why should it put a strain on a partnership.

Breaking up because of it is stupid. Sneaking around is stupid.

Forget one being more sexual than the other...What about when one partner is a sexual predator, engaged in rape and sexual abuse?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

If that's the case then half the country is deliberately locked out of being represented by the Executive branch which appoints the Judicial. That means that 2/3 of the government are deliberately set up to keep half the country from being represented.

That sets us up for violent revolution. Is that really what you want? You cannot disenfranchise half of your population and expect it to go over well. The GOP anger is just the start.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Kali74

Also there's nothing wrong with an open marriage if both people are good with it. That could be the case too.

Absolutely! If one person is more sexual then the other, why should it put a strain on a partnership.

Breaking up because of it is stupid. Sneaking around is stupid.

Forget one being more sexual than the other...What about when one partner is a sexual predator, engaged in rape and sexual abuse?

You referring to Bill and Monica?

Personally I would call Monica a predator. Have you done any research? And no I don't excuse her because of age.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, people need to have strong boundaries and ditch their partner before resorting to extramarital affairs. Unfortunately, most people would rather cowardly slink around in the shadows and cheat than confront the issues and problems before risking their current relationships.