2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMSNBC: Sanders admits Clinton has the advantage in national security issues.
Just heard it a couple of times, no link. But I applaud him for being straight forward.
Response to MoonRiver (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Response to BainsBane (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Either the claim in the OP or the one insulting the OP.
I find it interesting that you don't even bother to figure out if it might be true because what people say seemingly matters far less than what you want to believe.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)a thinly-veiled troll.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)If you subscribe closer to the neocon and militaryindustrial complex viewpoint on security issues.
The fact is the war on terror has being epic failure, and democrats share the blame with republicans. Sanders has being less vocal about taking on these special interests. If he wants to draw contrasts he will have to point out Clinton record on these issues, and how their aggressive approach to all these problems have not worked.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I believe that statement speaks for itself.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)It means he subscribes to her world view (Iraq war vote, Libya, Syria). If that is the case, he is right.
She is much better positioned to carry water for the military industrial complex.
BainsBane
(53,034 posts)Don't count Bernie out so easily. He's not chump change, but then nor is $800 billion.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Cheney has even more experience than Hillary on national security. Bernie is much better on the issues.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)bernie is enough of a stand up guy to call it straight. being sos increases ones knowledge base on foreign issues more than any other position, its pretty straightforward. he is confident enough in his views to acknowledge that.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)He just had enough sense to have good advisers. What we trust about Bernie is not so much that he knows everything but that he has a good moral sense of what is right and wrong. We can trust him. We do not feel the same way about Hillary. Good advisers make the difference. Hillary went to Henry Kissinger for advise when she was SOS!
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)So your generic "we" is much more limited than you imply.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)those of us who are not hidden.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)the years that have seen no change in direction since 1980. And the young voters are avid Bernie supporters. But this group of voters do not show up in the polls. We will see.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Bernie would better serve the "regular everyday people" but I would better serve the elite. Money talks BS walks so suck it America. No link but I swear I thought she said it on Leno
oasis
(49,388 posts)would be rebroadcast all over the networks and cable news by now
Doncha think so?
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)do you really think Hillary said that???? I did not think I needed a sarcasm tag. Edit to add I did put the tag on it.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)increases ones knowledge base big time.
there really isn't a position in the administration, even the president, that has to deal with foreign leaders all day every day. it probably gives any candidate more advantage than any other post, with the possible exception of veep.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)riversedge
(70,239 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Hillary's post as SOS. This is no big deal. It's more than what Hillary would say about her competition.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)having been SOS, the questions come with her
decisions. She just recently said that she has
still hope for Libya or some such thing.
By killing one head of a snake, we may have produced
some new ones. We shall see.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)More generally, it's certainly relevant to consider Clinton's experience in the Cabinet, and before that in the Senate, and before that as an informal adviser to the President, and before that as a Wal-Mart board member and Children's Legal Defense Fund lawyer.
I personally don't go along with those who include her experience as a Goldwater Girl, but in general, all of a candidate's experiences are part of what that candidate is today.
Of course, in 1992 one candidate was a former Director of Central Intelligence, then Vice President for eight years, then President for four years. The other candidate had been Attorney General of Arkansas and Governor of Arkansas. The Clinton loyalists didn't seem bothered by the contrast back then.
Admittedly, the analogy isn't perfect. In 1992, the more experienced candidate, faced with the question whether to use American military power to overthrow Saddam Hussein, had gotten it right the first time.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)in foreign affairs, but it feels unsettling to me that she benefits from the recent tragedy in Paris, assuming that the focus of the debate shifts from the economy to international matters. Serendipity for her, I suppose.
Just an observation, no judgment.