Clinton campaign wants Sanders to change his tone

[Morphine Prince 109,997]

Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist laid into Bernie Sanders' camp on Monday for its insistence upon a debate before the April 19 primary in New York, remarking that the Vermont senator has reneged on his promise to avoid running a negative campaign and therefore does not get to dictate the terms of any future debates.

Appearing on CNN, Joel Benenson was asked about comments from the Sanders campaign over the weekend calling for another debate before the New York primary, though he said he did not see that as the most notable story out of the weekend. Instead, he referred to a Washington Post story in which Sanders' campaign discussed possible efforts to sharpen rhetoric against the former secretary of state. "They’re talking about running harsher negatives now," Benenson said, responding that he was not distracting from the issue but explaining the campaign's stance.

“This is a man who said he’d never run a negative ad ever. He’s now running them, they’re now planning to run more," he continued. "Let’s see the tone of the campaign he wants to run before we get to any other questions.”

CNN's Kate Bolduan then inquired why the campaign would not agree to debate in New York despite agreeing in January to more debates. Benenson responded, “Because we agreed to debates up to a certain point. We’re now out campaigning in these states.”

Sen. Sanders doesn’t get to decide when we debate, particularly when he’s running a very negative campaign against us. Let’s see if he goes back to the kind of tone he said he was going to set early on. If he does that, then we’ll talk about debates," Benenson said.

"So no chance of a New York debate?" Bolduan pressed.

“I didn’t say that," Benenson said. "I said we’re going to see what kind of tone he sets."

Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-debates-22129

 

[PERFECTIONIST 2,139]

[Voltaire 4,531]

A "very negative campaign"?

That's incredibly deluded.

[Sizzily 14,574]

Just now, Voltaire said:

A "very negative campaign"?

That's incredibly deluded.

When did you become a mod? 

[Morphine Prince 109,997]

3 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

A "very negative campaign"?

That's incredibly deluded.

You're a mod now? Congrats!

[Voltaire 4,531]

3 minutes ago, Sizzliy said:

When did you become a mod? 

Yesterday!

OT:

The HRC Campaign needs to find ways to get the conversation off of his staggering 40-point-plus triple win last weekend. I understand the grasping for a conversation shift, and I imagine its only going to get more intense in the coming weeks.

[mmm 879]

shes a feminist progressive, what do you expect?

[Born To Slay 10,996]

He should threaten to endorse Jill Stein in the general if he loses. That would severely damage her campaign in November especially when a large number of his supporters already are saying Bernie or Green and dislike her. If Bernie endorsed someone other then Clinton, alot of his supporters would go green. If Clinton wants to pull ****, he should fight back hard. If I were him I'd make the condition that if she doesn't agree to an NY and PA debate this month, I'm endorsing Jill and taking my supporters elsewhere.

I also really love the fact that they're acting like they never said anything negative about him. Hillary has criticized him plenty of times and they've done negative television ads. This is hypocrisy. Both campaigns pledged to have a debate in April and May, if she breaks her promise, well, it wouldn't be the first time she's flip flopped.

[thedirtymonster 793]

The reality is that the states over the weekend were always going for Bernie. They were caucus states with large populations of white liberals. Moving forward, there are only TWO caucus states left, and Hillary still leads Bernie by double what Obama lead her by at the widest margin in the 2008 primary elections. New York is looking GREAT for Hillary, California had a poll out today that has Hillary up 11 percent over Bernie, and Pennsylvania is also looking awesome for Hillary. Those alone are enough for Hillary to take the nomination if she wins by the margins that polls have her at, if you factor in superdelegates. And on the subject of superdelegates, does Bernie ACTUALLY think he's going to get the support of Democratic officials? He only became a Democrat LAST SUMMER and he has literally done NOTHING to support his democratic colleagues that are running for office this year in congressional and state gubernatorial elections. Hillary, on the other hand, has helped raise over $26 million dollars to support Democratic candidates in their attempts to take back congress. Superdelegates should, and will stick with Hillary.

[Lion Heart 15,041]

They kind of have a point though. 

 

With the General Election coming up soon, it is important for both campaigns to come TOGETHER; to unite the Democratic Party so that they have the strength and numbers to take down whomever the GOP nominee and his Vice President are. Has HRC attacked the Sanders campaign? Of course. Both sides have, but now it is time for UNIFICATION, not DIVISION. If they ramp up their negative attacks on each other NOW, it's going to hurt both of them in the GE depending on who the winner is. Time is running out. 

 

I know GE polls have both Sanders and Clinton beating Trump by considerable margins, but they are irrelevant at this point in time. People need to stop being complacent and not expect Trump/ the GOP to go down easily. 

[TiphEret 1,320]

2 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

shes a feminist progressive, what do you expect?

what does that even mean? So being a feminist or a progressive automatically acting like Hillary? because I am sure many feminist don't want to be compared to her. I don't see how she is especially feminist.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

I think some people in Hillary's staff are confusing Bernie for his supporters. While Bernie has actually been negative towards Hillary a few times, they're nowhere near significant enough to warrant a "very negative" description. The times he was negative towards her, it was only to seize on a political ****up. Hillary does it too after all.

He has been a little hypocritical regarding some somewhat tangential shade, such as when he criticized superdelegates going to Hillary and claiming that it should be the people that decide or whatever (while ignoring the fact that they are necessary). Now when he thinks superdelegates can go his way, he's all of a sudden content with them? If he thinks they are necessary evils to win, then he shouldn't criticize anyone to begin with.

Still it's hardly enough to call it negative campaigning. They inevitably are going to trade some blows here and there.

His supporters though are often batshit Trum-supporter-level crazy and one can say that Bernie is indirectly and silently supporting them only because they are working for him rather than against him.

[Kayla 7,595]

10 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

I think some people in Hillary's staff are confusing Bernie for his supporters. While Bernie has actually been negative towards Hillary a few times, they're nowhere near significant enough to warrant a "very negative" description. The times he was negative towards her, it was only to seize on a political ****up. Hillary does it too after all.

He has been a little hypocritical regarding some somewhat tangential shade, such as when he criticized superdelegates going to Hillary and claiming that it should be the people that decide or whatever (while ignoring the fact that they are necessary). Now when he thinks superdelegates can go his way, he's all of a sudden content with them? If he thinks they are necessary evils to win, then he shouldn't criticize anyone to begin with.

Still it's hardly enough to call it negative campaigning. They inevitably are going to trade some blows here and there.

His supporters though are often batshit Trum-supporter-level crazy and one can say that Bernie is indirectly and silently supporting them only because they are working for him rather than against him.

I've been a little annoyed by some of Bernie's shade and the occasional diss he puts out, and I say this as an avid Bernie supporter. 

That being said, I do feel that out of all our candidates he is the one with the most integrity and the one who genuinely would try the best to stand by his word. 

And Clinton was launching attack ads against Bernie months ago so she can cool it with trying to say he's got a "negative" campaign. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, Kayla said:

That being said, I do feel that out of all our candidates he is the one with the most integrity and the one who genuinely would try the best to stand by his word. 

This can (and often is) a negative thing though in the world of politics. 

It's a little cynical but it's simply how the world works. It's a little arrogant to assume that Bernie will be able to change the political atmosphere not just in the USA but the entire world as well. 

He's full of talk. He's only worked locally so far so it was easy to "stick to his principles". Hillary on the other hand has had to deal with foreign affairs. In that department, idealism becomes blurred with pragmatism.

So I'm not saying that sticking by your word is unimportant. There needs to be some level of trust after all. The issue is that nothing in politics in absolute, and being incapable of diplomacy and compromise is a very huge downside of Bernie. It's probably the main reason I do not support him.

[socotra 3,357]

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

This can (and often is) a negative thing though in the world of politics. 

It's a little cynical but it's simply how the world works. It's a little arrogant to assume that Bernie will be able to change the political atmosphere not just in the USA but the entire world as well. 

He's full of talk. He's only worked locally so far so it was easy to "stick to his principles". Hillary on the other hand has had to deal with foreign affairs. In that department, idealism becomes blurred with pragmatism.

So I'm not saying that sticking by your word is unimportant. There needs to be some level of trust after all. The issue is that nothing in politics in absolute, and being incapable of diplomacy and compromise is a very huge downside of Bernie. It's probably the main reason I do not support him.

While I agree with some of your points (last paragraphs), for me it's Bernie's integrity coupled with Hillary's lack of integrity that makes me like him so much. While his idealism may not be practical now, it's something that I do think we need more of in politics. Hillary has been on a much larger stage than Bernie ever has, but that's no reason for her to sell out. She changes her opinions constantly, and that's where I think Bernie's integrity is further highlighted. Just because Hillary has had to "deal with foreign affairs" doesn't mean she needs to sacrifice morality in other places. 

She can evolve on her opinions – that's great, I love that. But we're electing a person, not a figurehead, and I want the president to have the foresight and morality to make decisions correctly the first time. I want them to have a concrete platform so that you know exactly what you're getting when you vote for them. You more or less have that with Hillary, give or take some things, but Bernie's ideology is pretty clear.

I honestly could not tell you if Hillary is liberal, moderate, or conservative, because she truly has been all three throughout her career.