Three more Pinocchios for #Bernocchio Hillary didnt call him unqualified

[stevenleser]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/07/sanderss-incorrect-claim-that-clinton-called-him-not-qualified-for-the-presidency/

.
.
.
The Pinocchio Test

Sanders is putting words in Clinton’s mouth. She never said “quote unquote” that he was not qualified to be president. In fact, she diplomatically went out of her way to avoid saying that, without at the same time saying he was qualified. The Washington Post article appropriately noted that she raised questions about his qualifications, but certainly never said or suggested she said Sanders was unqualified.

Sanders would have been on safer ground if he had said Clinton is raising questions about his qualifications and now he would like to raise questions about her qualifications. But he can’t slam her for words she did not say.

[DemocracyDirect]

1. Yes she took the dishonest way out...

... with a campaign leak.

Getting others to do the dirty work and then play the victim.

[Hortensis]

30. Bernie "leaked" his ignorance to a newspaper

all by himself. One-on-one with the editorial board of a NY newspaper, for god's sake! Was that unbelievable or what? And he can't take it back.

What Hillary said was that Sanders had not done his homework, and boy is that true!

Also a gross understatement. After 25 years in Congress, Bernie has no plan for fixing the problems he's running on and no detailed knowledge of how it might be accomplished. He always thought other people would do it.

[DemocracyDirect]

31. Everything you said is false.

And you know it.

[Politicalboi]

2. OMG! It's OVER!!!!!!

[morningfog]

8. He's a little slow on the uptake.

[Art_from_Ark]

3. The Washington Post is contradicting itself

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/

[geek tragedy]

6. the WaPo earned itself a few Pinocchios there.

But Bernie really should hit the books and read past headlines.

[Beacool]

4. Yep, and three Pinocchios to the WAPO headline that Sanders alluded to when he

made that statement about Hillary at his rally in PA.

Plenty of Pinocchios to go around.

[Fumesucker]

5. I proudly stand with Steven Leser v2.0.08, that dude was a keen judge of character

[frylock]

19. +2008

[uponit7771]

7. Sanders is losing more than just this primary right now

[Land Shark]

9. Msnbc (former PA governor) said Hillary aide who did say it be fired

It wasnt just the Post. It was all over the internet within hours of Wisconsin. Hillary danced right up to it and her aide said it. Is she firing the aide or not?

On msnbc at least there seems to be a rough consensus this was a manufactured issue

[Land Shark]

13. That was Gov. Rended (D-PA and superdelegate) who said clinton advisor should be fired

[morningfog]

10. Does anyone not get the irony of the Post divvying out Pinocchios

on this issue? Hilarious.

Also a good dose irony that this poster chimed in.

[Armstead]

21. The Post deserves Pinocchios for itself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511674401

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/30/the_washington_post_just_published_the_most_inaccurate_editorial_on_bernies_campaign_thus_far_partner/

The ugliest Bernie smear yet: Washington Post shows its corporate colors with new Sanders hit piece
Who'd have thought the establishment paper owned by a libertarian multi-billionaire would take issue with Sanders' populism?


EXCEPRT

The Washington Post has been on something of an anti-Sanders kick lately. Its latest editorial, Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign, is somehow worse than its last one, which derided his single-payer plan in tabloid-like terms. It’s entirely predictable that an establishment gatekeeper publication like The Post would not approve of Sanders’ relatively radical policy proposals, but the degree to which it keeps offering up hysterical, and often times totally disingenuous critiques, is surprising even by its standards. Let’s begin with The Post‘s first claim:

Mr. Sanders’s tale starts with the bad guys: Wall Street and corporate money. The existence of large banks and lax campaign finance laws explains why working Americans are not thriving, he says, and why the progressive agenda has not advanced. Here is a reality check: Wall Street has already undergone a round of reform, significantly reducing the risks big banks pose to the financial system.

Nothing here to see, folks! The claim that Wall Street is more or less reformed and “too big to fail” is a progressive fantasy. But wait, that’s not what theWashington Post itself said in 2014. As International Business Times’ Andrew Perez noted, The Post published a contradictory op-ed a year-and-a-half ago in, “The Post’s View: Bank of America faces a hefty fine, but ‘too big to fail’ still threatens”:

Just or not, no one should confuse this pending settlement with a solution to the deeper problem of the U.S. financial system —namely that Bank of America and other institutions remain too big to fail.

So which is it? Is Sanders’ too-big-to-fail rhetoric useful or not? It certainly was to the Washington Post a year and a half ago, but now it’s not “reality.”


That the Post’s sole owner, Jeff Bezos, is an arch-libertarian worth $53.2 billion and has a whole host of investments in private health care, we’ll assume is entirely separate from The Post editorial board’s recent swath of hysterical Sanders criticism, including these two gems from last week; the first an editorial, the latter ostensibly straight reporting:

The Post’s View: Mr. Sanders needs to come clean about the funding for his health-care plan

Most of Bernie Sanders’s big ideas are dead-on-arrival in Congress. Do Democrats care?

Notice the tone is the same throughout: Sanders is insane and his ideas will never work. There’s very little discussion of substance or evidence to support the idea that his plans are untenable. It’s just asserted as true.

The Post’s latest op-ed is just another example of this type of dismissive establishment ideology policing, much of which has animated Sanders anti-establishment appeal. To this extent, perhaps there’s nothing more helpful to the Sanders campaign than an oligarch-owned newspaper bashing your every proposal at every turn.

[carburyme]

11. Bernocchio is not qualified!

I don't care who said what!
IMO Bernie is the one not qualified to be POTUS! No! Never! Not in this lifetime!
Get over it Berners!

[Gothmog]

12. Sanders is having issues telling the truth.

Fact checkers are catching Sanders in a number of lies

[Land Shark]

14. You mean the Washington post is having issues with truthful headlines?

And CNN was lying when it summarized the Clinton aide?

Or you agree with Gov. RENDELL on ALL IN with Chris Hayes who said that Hilary aide who talked to the press in this way should be fired? This is a spokesperson for the candidate.

[Armstead]

23. They should be embarassed for themselves

They write a headline that doesn;t pass muster and they pretend to be all "accurate and fact checky" over the results of their own words.

But what does one expect from the Amazon Times?

[redstateblues]

15. Bernie said "Quote Unquote"- BIG lie

[snowy owl]

16. WAPO did and her surrogates did "disquality" him Get over it. It was tit-for tat. Hardly an issue.

Get out of the gutter and think about what's best for this country. Do you have any opinion on that?

[riversedge]

28. Bernie hit on HIllary with a big personal attach -a LIE and you say get over it. Not likely

[snowy owl]

36. what lie?

[MattSh]

17. I would expect "Pinocchios" from websites like Buzzfeed...

The fact that WaPo is doing it signals that a once proud paper (yes, decades ago), has jumped the shark and should be considered no longer relevant. Dump WaPo as a source and find more legitimate outlets that do real journalism.

[Cheese Sandwich]

18. Washington Post is a laughing stock...

[frylock]

20. Fucking laughable!

knr

[senz]

22. Her campaign said she'd disqualify him. She refused to admit he's qualified.

Immediately after Bernie won Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign threatened to disqualify him.

they're running out of patience…. so they're going to begin deploying a new strategy… it's going to be called 'DISQUALIFY HIM - DEFEAT HIM' … and then they can unify the party later.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017350521

The next day on Morning Joe she was asked three times if Bernie is qualified and ready to be president and she refused to answer, instead making demeaning suggestions that he's mentally unqualified for the presidency, saying he doesn't know how to do what he says he wants to do, that he hasn't done his homework, that he doesn't understand what he's talking about, that he doesn't understand the law.

Later, when he returned her accusation, rhetorically referring to her as "unqualified," he in no way attacked her mental abilities as she had attacked his on Morning Joe. She hit below the belt. He did not. She is the one who should be roundly and soundly censured by the media.

[azurnoir]

24. .....

[ThePhilosopher04]

25. Of course she did. She used weasel words like weasels tend to do. She's unfit for public office

and needs to drop out of the race. She's a disgrace.

[bobbobbins01]

26. She didn't say Obama was a muslim either.

At least in Clinton-speak she didn't. Everyone knows what was said, and her bullshit legalese doesn't fool anyone.

[Kalidurga]

27. I don't care what Hillary said. Bernie finally spoke the truth many of us already know.

Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be President of the United States.

[riversedge]

29. Bernie had Pinnochio's for lunch yesterday

[mcar]

32. Not Sanders' best week

[Logical]

34. You were against hillary before you were for her! Lol!

[SidDithers]

35. DU rec for all the best reasons...nt

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

37. If it comes from "journalist" Steve Leser & The Capehart Gazette, I'm not buying.

Lying carries consequences.