Sanders points to Clinton's shifts on issues
Source: AP
By KEN THOMAS and CATHERINE LUCEY
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders dueled for support among thousands of Iowa Democrats on Saturday, seeking an edge at a high-profile fundraising dinner that could set the tone for the leadoff presidential caucuses in February.
Sanders, the independent Vermont senator, used his speech to draw sharp contrasts with Clinton on a number of issues, implicitly criticizing her delayed opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Keystone XL pipeline as well as her vote in favor of the Iraq war.
Without naming Clinton, he pointedly criticized the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act during Bill Clinton's administration, saying in prepared remarks, "some are trying to rewrite history by saying they voted for one anti-gay law to stop something worse. Let us be clear. That's just not true." Hillary Clinton said in an interview with MSNBC on Friday that the law was signed as a "defensive action."
"I will govern based on principle not poll numbers," Sanders said. "I pledge to you that every day I will fight for the public interest not the corporate interests." He vowed "not to abandon any segment of American society whether you're gay or black or Latino or poor or working class just because it is politically expedient at a given time."
FULL story at link.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks during the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Saturday, Oct. 24, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1be336afac08487e889144b88ba83fe3/clinton-sanders-omalley-coming-iowa-fundraising-dinner
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)msongs
(67,496 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)weird dat
Omaha Steve
(99,845 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1241655
Source: Time
Hillary Clinton sharpened her attacks against Bernie Sanders Friday as her campaign gains confidence, criticizing his gun control record and subtly accusing him of making a sexist remark in the recent debate. During a sunny campaign event in Alexandria, Virginia, on Friday, Clinton apparently referred to a moment in the Democratic debate when Sanders said that all the shouting in the world will not improve gun laws.
Ive been told to stop shouting about guns, Clinton said to cheers. Actually I havent been shouting, but sometimes when a woman talks, some people think its shouting!
She used the same line earlier in the day at the Democratic National Committees Womens Leadership Forum. Friday was the first time Clinton has implied Sanders showed sexism in the Democratic debate by remonstrating Clinton for raising her voice. (Sanders also said in the debate in response to former Maryland Gov. Martin OMalley that we can raise our voices.)
...
Gun control is one of the few issues where Clinton is further to the left than Sanders, and it is an issue she believes will help her win over the Democratic base. One of her strongest moments during the debate last week came when host Anderson Cooper asked Clinton whether Sanders is strong enough of on gun control. No, Clinton said in the debate, not at all.
Read more: http://time.com/4085578/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-sexism/
november3rd
(1,113 posts)The only thing that will change gun laws is changing campaign finance laws.
Hillary knows that's what Bernie meant when he said all the shouting wouldn't do it.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)And honestly - I say it as much to bring myself back to my senses as much as anyone. That is that THE overarching problem with ALL our governing is the glut of money that drowns out public voice.
We get caught up in the individual squabbles of the day - the week - the month, and fuss and fume about them and the stupid idiots who dance on the relevant stage. These are just symptoms. They're symptoms of the primary affliction which is money!
Clinton? Clinton wouldn't even BE in this race if it weren't for the gobs of cash that corporations are throwing her way. The TPP, the Keystone gambit, the gun laws issues, ta-da, ta-da, ta-da..... these are all symptoms of the resident infection.
I had a horrible infection in my leg in 1988. Spent several weeks in the hospital as specialists tried this and that to beat that bug back. (I thank my lucky stars I had dual insurance coverage at the time!). But there were festering sores on the ailing leg, hives all over my body, fever, chills, intestinal woes and PAIN like I had never known before or since. All these bad things were torturous in their own right, but they were all instigated by the infection in my leg. Once the leg infection was overcome, all the symptoms disappeared. And that's my point. Money is what has infected our governing system. That infection manifests itself thru myriad symptoms - when it's simply the wash of money that's at the heart of the symptoms.
Follow the money. Follow it from the recipients to where it came from - the corporations - the banks - the disgustingly wealthy - the "special interests" in general. There's your infection. There's where the symptoms emanate from.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Glad your leg got better. We need publicly financed elections, then everything will get better.
Funding a political system with private money is a quasi-legal system of bribery. The expectation of quid pro quo is blatantly obvious. Reforming this, is essential to reforming everything else.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Keep informing the voters of the truth...you have been doing it for 40 years...no one expects you to back away from that history...
BERNIE is the only answer...
Cal33
(7,018 posts)a huge disadvantage, and must be changed!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders has let other Dem carry his water, he
sat in a small state, knowing, according to his followers:
what are the answer to running the country, but
let the other people do the fighting.
I want to vote a for a real Dem! Not someone that
just joined the Dem party when he wants to run
for the Presidency.
I take it you will not be voting for the 1%er?
houston_radical
(41 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders never asked to make a speech at any of the conventions
before. Dem's were out fighting when he was home in a small
state getting things right with his opinions, but letting other
carry his water.
America is lucky that the Obama's Clintons, and other Dem's: to
have them put their lives on line to fight for the people.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Anyone who votes for her might as well be voting for a Bush and that is not hyperbole. She will lose the general.
George II
(67,782 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)We may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)As the great dem president harry Truman once said "I don't give them hell.I just give them the truth.And they think it's hell"
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)appalachiablue
(41,199 posts)leftcoastmountains
(2,968 posts)Good speech tonight. Go Bernie!
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)if you focus on perceived personalities, partisanship, or anything
other than the issues of the day . .
I pay zero attention . .
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)The second paragraph began with "the independent senator from Vermont" instead of "the self-proclaimed socialist from Vermont".
We're making headway gang.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)SharpProgress
(23 posts)...the "flip-flopping" line of criticism. Yes, she has flipped flopped. Yes has played the political game. If Bernie (who I am personally voting for in the primary) were not in a safe liberal state, he might have had to do the same thing at some point.
I change my mind all the time based on new or unexplored evidence. Some people have held my current positions long before me. Does that make them somehow better than me?
Change is a good thing. People that don't change their minds, ever, are called republicans.
Hillary's defense of DOMA isn't new. Would we rather have had to overturn a constitutional amendment?
It's one thing to build up a candidate. It's another to just tear another down. And saying "I've been a fan longer" doesn't mean you love your team more.
I'll simply never understand trying to tear down one of the primary Dem candidates. It feels dirty.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Information is good and admirable, but shifting ones opinion for political expediency is totally different. For example, the facts behind supporting same sex marriage have not changed for decades, yet Hil "evolved" over the last two years? I guess because it finally became politically acceptable. Same with Keystone...facts behind why ppl oppose hasn't changed based on climate change, but Hil couldn't figure out what side to come out on? Please.
Bernie has been on the right side of these and many more issues for decades. Hil is just a shape-shifter.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Industry of Mexico. Will that allow the movement of oil, gas and products out of Mexico at ports owned by the Chinese and other foreigner who are buying up land (for natural resources capture) and lands along the coast? That is the same model as the Keystone 1% of Canada and in America, in thinking about Hillary's recent flip-flop. America is now ready to export Canadian black tar through America on to the coast so it can be exported. TPP can run the whole thing without consent from the Congress of veto or Obama; oh wait, Hillary just recently flip-flopped on TPP too.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)... I have a difficult time believing it's just some random "oh gee, I didn't notice THAT piece of the
puzzle, now I do, so i'm evolving due to an actual "discovery" of new information. It' just too obviously
calculated based on polling and based on how those positions resonate powerfully with voters.It might
be believable on ONE issue, but on at least 3 now that I know of: Keystone, TPP and private prisons.
Are their others? How many does it take to become a little suspicious?
One reason this is all important, as Bernie points out, is that making the right decision the
first time, at those critical "forks in the road"when it counts the most, is the essence of what a
President must be good at doing, in order to do their job well.
It isn't really about attacking Hillary, it's about voters making better informed decisions in the voting
booth, based on how respective candidates have performed in the past at the decisive fork in the road,
not just what they say in the present.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Excellent post!
Laser102
(816 posts)Welcome to the club. You are now a typical politician.
George II
(67,782 posts)I prefer a candidate that can listen to her constituency and advocate for them than one who is stuck in the '60s.
Red Knight
(704 posts)Anyone who doesn't understand the deep harm corporate greed is not just doing to our country, but the world, just hasn't been paying attention. And frankly, "cut it out" just won't do it. Her constituency is Wall Street. And yes - she listens to them.
840high
(17,196 posts)Wall St. constituency.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Tho' no one is "stuck in the 60s".... it beats being stuck in early 2000s!
Since she has changed some positions since she started to Sanders', I'd say she's listening the his constituency.
George II
(67,782 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Since Bernie has been advocating for civil rights since the 60's he didn't need to evolve.
mdbl
(4,976 posts)I don't trust Hillary will stick to her recent epiphanies if she wins the general election. If she wins the primary, i'll be back to voting for the lesser of two evils.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I just said the same thing, it she wins the nomination she'll veer right again and stay there.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)dflprincess
(28,094 posts)thinking she'd wait until after the election to reassure Wall Street she was only joking is optimistic. And if she gets the nomination, I too will be voting for the lesser evil.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,703 posts)On his way to victory!
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)And connects with people (stories about having lunch with regular people in the Senate building).
He also needs the mechanics and the networking. Hope his campaign staff is taking care of that.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)K&R
snot
(10,549 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,524 posts)Thanks for the thread, Omaha Steve.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Recall? Nay.
It's like the poetic saying of some old bar/club bands: "You may love us, You may hate us: That doesn't matter because you just paid us".
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Yay, Bernie!
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Chameleon.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)I think he should name her.. many low info voters wont get it otherwise.
riversedge
(70,441 posts)decisions. Guess Sanders feels he needs to go negative now that Hillary has had a steller 2 weeks and the last poll once again showed Hillary in the lead in Iowa.
Omaha Steve
(99,845 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1241655
Hillary Clinton Sharpens Her Barbs Against Bernie Sanders [View all]
Source: Time
Hillary Clinton sharpened her attacks against Bernie Sanders Friday as her campaign gains confidence, criticizing his gun control record and subtly accusing him of making a sexist remark in the recent debate. During a sunny campaign event in Alexandria, Virginia, on Friday, Clinton apparently referred to a moment in the Democratic debate when Sanders said that all the shouting in the world will not improve gun laws.
Ive been told to stop shouting about guns, Clinton said to cheers. Actually I havent been shouting, but sometimes when a woman talks, some people think its shouting!
She used the same line earlier in the day at the Democratic National Committees Womens Leadership Forum. Friday was the first time Clinton has implied Sanders showed sexism in the Democratic debate by remonstrating Clinton for raising her voice. (Sanders also said in the debate in response to former Maryland Gov. Martin OMalley that we can raise our voices.)
...
Gun control is one of the few issues where Clinton is further to the left than Sanders, and it is an issue she believes will help her win over the Democratic base. One of her strongest moments during the debate last week came when host Anderson Cooper asked Clinton whether Sanders is strong enough of on gun control. No, Clinton said in the debate, not at all.
Read more: http://time.com/4085578/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-sexism/
cannabis_flower
(3,769 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Her past is basically one continual kiss-up to corporate interests at the expense of hardworking Americans.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)on politics, on issues, is not an "attack."
Or do you expect Sanders' campaign to be run without reference to his opponent?
houston_radical
(41 posts)with facts - deal with it
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)After the week Hillary has had it's understandable for Bernie to want to throw a Hail Mary or two.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)I'll take the honesty and integrity route every time it is presented to me. That's why I support Bernie Sanders for POTUS.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)to a fellow DUer in an email yesterday
And indeed, we all know that the HC camp is no stranger to the dirty deed, unlike her highbrow opposition.
If I have any reservations about Bernie's abilities, it's whether he can draw a significant and distinct enough line between respective pasts and the present without using rhetoric that might get her dander up. How does he speak about the corporations in disparaging terms AND insulate a corporatist like her from the guilt by association?
Those are the kinda minefields I don't like negotiating. I'm curious to see how, unlike most of his supporters, he manages to never suggest that she's been and will be in the future, part of the problem, and not a willing architect of what we and this country need to near the extent that he is. That "unwillingness" as I've long seen it, is revealed by her opposition to single-payer alone...
more than anything else, my hope is that BS doesn't become a victim to that old adage about how "nice guys finish last".
KansDem
(28,498 posts)You can count on it!
azmom
(5,208 posts)Bern. Stand up and fight people.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Sanders 16' as we spend in pointless argument with Hillary folks who've either sold out to the Oligarchy or simply don't know/care...we CAN WIN THIS. The Corporate Media will NOT decide this if we all WORK!!!!
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Even if we lose we will at least be able to sleep at night as the destruction of America's middle class is completed.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Points, or just looks to his right and comments on what is common knowledge (aka the elephant in the room)? Secretary Clinton has gobs of goodwill from lots of supporters but, imo, it's a given that her opponent in the primary will want to discuss her record.
And yeah, her positions have shifted a lot. So much so that some of Clinton's advocates reflexively view comments about that as an attack.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Okay if received by his wife.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)This is a line of attack that coukd certainly be used against many politicians.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I can understand how confusing it may seem to the dogmatic and myopic when perception, opinion or value changes over time, regardless of how one's bias force them to perceive it as a narrative of their own.
different equation
(69 posts)Time will tell.