Hillary Clinton unleashes on Bernie Sanders in new documentary: 'Nobody likes him'

[panamaican]

It's still better than Hillary's 0 roll call amendments.

Sanders obviously occupied a fairly difficult position as an Independent, but did the best with what he got, in times when socialism was seen as a bad word.

In many ways he paved the way for modern progressives to be as successful as they have been, through decades of diligent work, in order to popularize that platform.

Best with what he got isn't the same as "good". I'm not trying to slander the man, I'm genuinely curious about how to measure this.

And it doesn't matter if he was more effective than HRC. Her criticism wasn't that she was better at it than him, her criticism was that he doesn't get things done because no one likes him. Which then turned into a conversation about if her comments were fair. Which, to me, turns on whether or not he actually gets things done. Not if he gets more done than HRC or if he's doing well given his circumstances.

"John has a lot of friends for an introverted asshole," is not the same as "John has a lot of friends."

 

[method115]

More importantly I don't see how bills passed, percentages or absolutes, is the preferred metric without regarding the actual substance of those bills.

Exactly. It's not just how many bills you passed but what's in those bills and how did they affect the average american.

 

[Jack V Savage]

hello Lord Coke,

hmmm.

as Bernie himself said, "I’m not good at backslapping. I’m not good at pleasantries. If you have your birthday, I’m not going to call you up to congratulate you, so you’ll love me and you’ll write nice things about me."

it seems like what Mrs. Clinton is saying is being labeled politically incorrect.

This is a big difference between them, seems like. People who actually work with Clinton say stuff like this:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-electing-hillary-in-16-is-more-important-than-electing-obama-in-08

The most famous woman in the world would walk through the White House with no entourage, casually chatting up junior staffers along the way. She was by far the most prepared, impressive person at every Cabinet meeting. She worked harder and logged more miles than anyone in the administration, including the president. And she’d spend large amounts of time and energy on things that offered no discernible benefit to her political future—saving elephants from ivory poachers, listening to the plight of female coffee farmers in Timor-Leste, defending LGBT rights in places like Uganda.

Most of all—and you hear this all the time from people who’ve worked for her—Hillary Clinton is uncommonly warm and thoughtful. She surprises with birthday cakes. She calls when a grandparent passes away. She once rearranged her entire campaign schedule so a staffer could attend her daughter’s preschool graduation. Her husband charms by talking to you; Hillary does it by listening to you—not in a head-nodding, politician way; in a real person way.

This same story has repeated itself throughout Clinton’s career: those who initially view her as distrustful and divisive from afar find her genuine and cooperative in person. It was the case with voters in New York, Republicans in the Senate, Obama people in the White House, and heads of state all over the world. There’s a reason being America’s chief diplomat was the specific job Obama asked Hillary to do—she has the perfect personality for it.

 

[bobgeese]

ITT, the suckers Hillary was referencing lash out.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Just on a percentage basis, that's a very low percentage compared to the others. They're all hovering around 5% and he's at 1%. I have no idea how substantial those bills are, excluding the post office renaming bills.

I read the roll call amendment link from @TheGreatA but when I went into the Rolling Stones link from there, it stated that several of his roll call amendments were rolled back. So, does it count that you pass amendments if they're quickly rolled back before the final version of the bill?

So does that make HRC right? I confess to having never really looked at this aspect of any politician, not just Sanders.

It seems to me that Sanders has always been to the left of the party.

Someone who represents more the 'common man' sentiment which has not always been the agenda so I am not sure it is fair to judge by how many bills he was able to pass, when in fact his biggest accomplishment may be defined as pulling the party more to the left, and towards his positions, if one thinks those aspects a positive.

Consider it somewhat parallel to a successful activist. Does an activist expect to get immediate results, or is their goal to raise awareness that will eventually drag people towards their positions? If MLK did not get a high percent of his initiatives instituted as an activist, at the time of raising but the issues resonated and changed over time, was he effective??

 

[Armbars]

With the greatest respect to the old guy he should retire and enjoy his later years.

He looks far too frail to hold office for four years.

 

[panamaican]

So doing less work and introducing less bills is a good thing if it raises your percentages? He's definitely been way more active than the others, or at least for longer. More importantly I don't see how bills passed, percentages or absolutes, is the preferred metric without regarding the actual substance of those bills.

All valid points but I don't see how it contradicts HRC's claim that he doesn't get anything done.

Speaking to the actual points - empty activity is worthless. Effective activity is worthwhile. Getting things sponsored and/or passed is a decent proxy for effectiveness, imo. I agree that it's not the whole story, what you're getting sponsored and/or passed is just as important. But if someone claims that nobody likes me and I don't get things done, I need to point to what I've gotten done and who has volunteered to help me do it as a refutation.

I'm not agreeing with HRC, I genuinely don't know if it's true. But people were saying that HRC's comments were out of line without establishing if they were untrue.

 

[panamaican]

This seems to be the overall rebuttal in regards to getting things done.



So the argument is, can "things get done" another way?

I have my doubts

I think that's fair but if he can't get things done his way and he can't get things done their way, what other metric is there for effectiveness? Proxy sponsorship?

 

[TheGreatA]

Best with what he got isn't the same as "good". I'm not trying to slander the man, I'm genuinely curious about how to measure this.

And it doesn't matter if he was more effective than HRC. Her criticism wasn't that she was better at it than him, her criticism was that he doesn't get things done because no one likes him. Which then turned into a conversation about if her comments were fair. Which, to me, turns on whether or not he actually gets things done. Not if he gets more done than HRC or if he's doing well given his circumstances.

"John has a lot of friends for an introverted asshole," is not the same as "John has a lot of friends."

Problem is that she's just clearly full of shit and saying things like "nobody likes him" based on the bubble she lives in.

Obviously he's not popular in her circles, but nothing indicates that he's unpopular overall.

It's also very clear that she's using her own career as a standard of good politics, yet her run as a senator left much to be desired. Probably, because like a true career politician, she just saw it as a stepping stone job for "bigger and better things", whereas Bernie actually tried to influence things in that position, leaving him to find just how fucked American politics tend to be, particularly when representing a position that diverges from the established views.

Nonetheless, he has been able to push his ideals to the forefront of politics and is now a serious candidate even for US presidency, so in that sense he has been very effective.

 

[franklinstower]

Thoughts?

@Jack V Savage
@Fawlty

Nobody likes the most popular senator there is......

Oh and this seems pretty consistent with what we hear on the news all the time so it MUST be true.

 

[panamaican]

It seems to me that Sanders has always been to the left of the party.

Someone who represents more the 'common man' sentiment which has not always been the agenda so I am not sure it is fair to judge by how many bills he was able to pass, when in fact his biggest accomplishment may be defined as pulling the party more to the left, and towards his positions, if one thinks those aspects a positive.

Consider it somewhat parallel to a successful activist. Does an activist expect to get immediate results, or is their goal to raise awareness that will eventually drag people towards their positions? If MLK did not get a high percent of his initiatives instituted as an activist, at the time of raising but the issues resonated and changed over time, was he effective??

When your job is "activist" I'll judge him by his activism. But he's not running for activist, he's running for President and part of that duty is the ability to make his agenda a reality.

 

[MikeMcMann]

You usually have good takes but this is off the mark. I don't particularly mind her attacking Bernie, or rather that it's to be expected, but she's been consistently hypocritical in all of her attacks. Also, insinuating that Bernie is a sexist because a staffer felt mistreated in 2016, which had absolutely nothing to do with him, is a very disingenuous. Especially given that his record on womans rights and support through the years is equal to, if not better, than hers https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-womens-rights/, https://observer.com/2015/11/why-bernie-sanders-cares-more-about-womens-issues-than-hillary-clinton/. Not to mention he is on record saying that a woman can be president 30 years ago. It's a complete nonstarter. She still blames Bernie for losing her the election and not supporting her, however a smaller percentage of his voters voted against her during the general, than was the case with her voters against Obama in 2008. Bernie campaigned rigorously for her, much more than she herself did again for Obama, and supported her after the nomination. She's continously said that democrats need to unite, and now she wont even commit to supporting Bernie if he wins the nomination? Something Bernie has said multiple time he will, regardless of who it is. She claims he never did anything, but what did she achieve in congress that was so great compared to Bernie? Who was on the right side of the issues?

Every single line of attack is jarringly hypocritical, or simply incorrect. When Bernie says that she has recieved large sums from wall street he is not being hypocritical, nor dishonest. Whenever Bernie goes after the other candidates, he always puts the policies at the forefront, to the dismay of many who wants him to be more aggressive (I personally don't). She clearly really doesn't like Bernie and has a thorn in her side, never taking responsibility for the errors of her campaign, and for losing the election. It's always someone elses fault.

And he did multiple campaign stops for her in key swing States she never took the time to visit and she ended up winning, very narrowly.

Also was it not true that some of Hilary's top campaign officials during the run were complaining Bernie was doing too many stops and spending too much money, campaigning for her as they wanted that budget and more control of if?

 

[godking]

hello Lord Coke,

hmmm.

as Bernie himself said, "I’m not good at backslapping. I’m not good at pleasantries. If you have your birthday, I’m not going to call you up to congratulate you, so you’ll love me and you’ll write nice things about me."

it seems like what Mrs. Clinton is saying is being labeled politically incorrect.

- IGIT

Sound legit

Bernie is not one for pleasantries and small talk which coupled with him being somewhat of an outsider is probably the reason why he is at times difficult to work with.

But he does have the ability to rally people to his cause.

Hillary does perfom the basic pleasantries but lacks the charisma to rally people to her cause.

 

[cooks1]

Why do you say that when it is so demonstrably false?

Bernie did far more for Hillary then, for instance Hillary did for Obama, if we use that as the bar.

I'm not sure why you would pick that for the bar. The Clinton-Obama primary campaign was even closer than the Clinton-Sanders campaign. And Hillary was even more bitter than Bernie was when she lost that primary. She is a bitter old woman too. Probably more bitter than Bernie. Even now she can not look back with a critical eye and see the tactical blunders that were so instrumental in her defeat.

Maybe my expectations are too high.

 

[franklinstower]

I am sure Hillary is still chafing and blames Bernie a lot for losing the election. And to be fair, he does bear a lot of responsibility.

You will remember in the primary, both candidates pledged to work hard to help the other one win no matter the results. But Bernie just folded up his tent and went home. When you have over 40% of the primary vote- that hurts. Deep down, he is a bitter old man.

Bernie did over 30 rallies for Hillary after packing it up FYI.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Alright gotta give Bernie props on the rebuttal

I love wife jokes like that. Not even dad joke tier, more like granddad joke level.

It's still better than Hillary's 0 roll call amendments.

Sanders obviously occupied a fairly difficult position as an Independent, but did the best with what he got, in times when socialism was seen as a bad word.

In many ways he paved the way for modern progressives to be as successful as they have been, through decades of diligent work, in order to popularize that platform.

This and the difference between him and Hillary is that he continued to do so after losing in 2016 and helped bring some more progressive candidates to to Congress. Meanwhile Hillary disappeared and has only recently reemerged to promote a documentary about herself. If you wrote a character this selfish and narcissistic the audience wouldn't believe it.

 

[IGIT]

hello godking,

Sound legit

Bernie is not one for pleasantries and small talk which coupled with him being somewhat of an outsider is probably the reason why he is at times difficult to work with.

But he does have the ability to rally people to his cause.

Senator Sanders is absolutely legit. he is the real thing, if such a phenomenon actually exists in US politics.

the downside to that is that he probably isn't all that well liked on Capital Hill. respected? sure. well liked? i dunno. its hard to believe that he is seen as "someone who can be worked with".

again...on one hand we can see this as a good thing. it sounds admirable, for sure. he's uncompromising. on the other hand, we know what its like to have a disagreement with someone we find completely uncompromising; it can be an irritating experience.

Hillary does perfom the basic pleasantries but lacks the charisma to rally people to her cause.

its hard to connect with the people when you're portrayed as the most corrupt politician in the history of mankind.

- IGIT

 

[Sano]

All valid points but I don't see how it contradicts HRC's claim that he doesn't get anything done.

Speaking to the actual points - empty activity is worthless. Effective activity is worthwhile. Getting things sponsored and/or passed is a decent proxy for effectiveness, imo. I agree that it's not the whole story, what you're getting sponsored and/or passed is just as important. But if someone claims that nobody likes me and I don't get things done, I need to point to what I've gotten done and who has volunteered to help me do it as a refutation.

I'm not agreeing with HRC, I genuinely don't know if it's true. But people were saying that HRC's comments were out of line without establishing if they were untrue.

I don't see that Bernie needs to prove anything though. If he was running as a status quo "nothing will fundamentally change" candidate (like Biden), then he would. But he's not, he's running on a political revolution exactly because he believes congress is dysfunctional as it is. Bernie was an independent, as far as I understand he didn't kowtow to either party and was there to represent the people. If that means he was less popular, that isn't really a slight on him in my view.

In regards to his record specifically. He probably was a middling senator in regards to getting bills passed and above average in regards to putting forth amendments, and introducing legislation. Recently his Stop Bezos act did some great work in putting pressure on amazon and increasing wages. Looking at his votes, he has an good record and has been on the right side of most issues. He has also put forth some really good legislation that should be passed. Better than any candidate from my perspective. Anti-war, medicare for all, loan shark prevention, cap on interest rates, opiod crisis accountability, veterans affairs, so on. Good stuff.

 

[Javelina]

lol, no one liked her either. they were just afraid to say anything with all the associates "committing suicide"

 

[44nutman]

No one likes her either. No wonder William Jefferson used an intern as a humidor.