No, this was really dumb. As I said to BillB, if the Clinton campaign thinks they’ll endear themselves to Sanders’s supporters by speaking to him like he’s a naughty kindergartener, by conditioning further debates upon Sanders’s agreement to a pre-censorship of his debate comments, and suggesting that Sanders shouldn’t criticize Clinton, they’re truly incompetent.
By the words “delusional” and “stupid” I assume your mean “winning.”
The winning candidate has no incentive to have more debates. The losing candidate, because they have nothing more to lose, has an incentive for more debates. This is because the losing candidate can only hope for some lucky breakthrough, a embarrassing gaffe by their opponent, to stop their losing slide.
This is politics at it always has been, nothing new or out of the ordinary. Recall that Clinton made the same demands for more debates back in 2008 when she was losing to Obama. Was Obama “delusional” and “stupid” for refusing because he had the lead?
You assume incorrectly. I mean the decision by her campaign to try to control what Sanders says about Clinton and to say—again and again, actually—that Sanders promised not to criticize Clinton but since Clinton didn’t promise not to criticize Sanders it’s fine for her to do so.
If the Clinton campaign thinks they’ll endear themselves to Sanders’s supporters by speaking to him like he’s a naughty kindergartener, by conditioning further debates upon Sanders’s agreement to a pre-censorship of his debate comments, and suggesting that Sanders shouldn’t criticize Clinton, they’re truly incompetent.
I’m guessing, Bill, that you work for the Clinton campaign, based on when and how you make your appearances here in the comments threads, and on your use of a Clinton hallmark: pretending that someone meant something that that person clearly did not mean.
It seems a bit premature to be using the terms “winning” or “losing” candidate. Both Sanders and Clinton have made strong showings from their base supporters. What would be most effective in regards to a national Democratic Party win in November is for both candidates and their campaign staffs to show restraint in the use of abusive campaign rhetoric, especially of the less than truthful type. Leave that to the bottom feeders that have taken over the Republican Party nomination process.
Beverly, I think you are taking the discussion too literally. Clinton is not seriously demanding pre-conditions to a debate. Effectively she is saying “I wouldn’t debate you again in a million years even if you wrote me sonnets.” It’s the polite equivalent of telling a unwanted suitor that you would love to go out on a date but you going to be busy washing your hair on Saturday night.
Clinton has nothing to gain by debating Sanders at this late point in the campaign and doesn’t see the need to do so. The pre-conditions thing is just an excuse. You shouldn’t take it personally.
Skirmishing seen in every campaign everywhere in the history of elections. Not worth a reaction one way or the other.
No, this was really dumb. As I said to BillB, if the Clinton campaign thinks they’ll endear themselves to Sanders’s supporters by speaking to him like he’s a naughty kindergartener, by conditioning further debates upon Sanders’s agreement to a pre-censorship of his debate comments, and suggesting that Sanders shouldn’t criticize Clinton, they’re truly incompetent.
By the words “delusional” and “stupid” I assume your mean “winning.”
The winning candidate has no incentive to have more debates. The losing candidate, because they have nothing more to lose, has an incentive for more debates. This is because the losing candidate can only hope for some lucky breakthrough, a embarrassing gaffe by their opponent, to stop their losing slide.
This is politics at it always has been, nothing new or out of the ordinary. Recall that Clinton made the same demands for more debates back in 2008 when she was losing to Obama. Was Obama “delusional” and “stupid” for refusing because he had the lead?
You assume incorrectly. I mean the decision by her campaign to try to control what Sanders says about Clinton and to say—again and again, actually—that Sanders promised not to criticize Clinton but since Clinton didn’t promise not to criticize Sanders it’s fine for her to do so.
If the Clinton campaign thinks they’ll endear themselves to Sanders’s supporters by speaking to him like he’s a naughty kindergartener, by conditioning further debates upon Sanders’s agreement to a pre-censorship of his debate comments, and suggesting that Sanders shouldn’t criticize Clinton, they’re truly incompetent.
I’m guessing, Bill, that you work for the Clinton campaign, based on when and how you make your appearances here in the comments threads, and on your use of a Clinton hallmark: pretending that someone meant something that that person clearly did not mean.
Clinton is dumb as Cruz on war.
It seems a bit premature to be using the terms “winning” or “losing” candidate. Both Sanders and Clinton have made strong showings from their base supporters. What would be most effective in regards to a national Democratic Party win in November is for both candidates and their campaign staffs to show restraint in the use of abusive campaign rhetoric, especially of the less than truthful type. Leave that to the bottom feeders that have taken over the Republican Party nomination process.
Beverly, I think you are taking the discussion too literally. Clinton is not seriously demanding pre-conditions to a debate. Effectively she is saying “I wouldn’t debate you again in a million years even if you wrote me sonnets.” It’s the polite equivalent of telling a unwanted suitor that you would love to go out on a date but you going to be busy washing your hair on Saturday night.
Clinton has nothing to gain by debating Sanders at this late point in the campaign and doesn’t see the need to do so. The pre-conditions thing is just an excuse. You shouldn’t take it personally.