Hillary Loses in Wisconsin, Questions Sanders’ Democratic Creds
“I don’t know quite how to characterize him.”
Hillary has had a rough primary stint, losing six of the last seven contests to the Democratic Socialist competition — Bernie Sanders.
USA Today reported:
In a victory speech from Wyoming — which holds a caucus on Saturday — Sanders claimed momentum and argued he is a stronger general election candidate than Clinton.
“We are defeating Donald Trump by very significant numbers,” Sanders said of the Republican front-runner, before taking aim at the billionaire class, the fossil fuel industry and super PACs that are funding other campaigns. “Yes, we can change the status quo when we think big and when we have a vision,” said Sanders. “I am not naive, I know the power of Wall Street and their endless supplies of money.”
Clinton sent a congratulatory tweet to Sanders.
Congrats to @BernieSanders on winning Wisconsin. To all the voters and volunteers who poured your hearts into this campaign: Forward! -H
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 6, 2016
But the niceties were short-lived.
In a podcast with Politico’s Glenn Thrush, Clinton questioned Sanders’ Democratic credentials.
Sanders had just told an interviewer that he was iffy about raising money for down-ballot Democrats, so I asked Clinton the obvious question: Did she think Sanders is a real Democrat?
“Well, I can’t answer that,” she said with a smile. Then she proceeded to answer the question. “He’s a relatively new Democrat, and, in fact, I’m not even sure he is one. He’s running as one. So I don’t know quite how to characterize him.”
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Well, I can’t answer that,” she said with a smile. Then she proceeded to answer the question. “He’s a relatively new Democrat, and, in fact, I’m not even sure he is one. He’s running as one. So I don’t know quite how to characterize him.”
I am loathe to admit that I see no problem with that whatsoever. He *is* a relatively new Democrat who is running as a Democrat (because running as a communist probably wouldn’t work). Since the definitions for democrat, socialist, and communist are purposefully fluid, I wouldn’t know how to characterize Sanders either, beyond the obvious – he’s a run-of-the-mill tax and spender who’s a bit more honest about his inherent communism than other Democrats.
Said Sanders, “I am not naive, I know the power of Wall Street and their endless supplies of money.”
Wrong, you ignorant, marxist bastage. That would be government you’re talking about, with its police power to throw you in jail and confiscate your property.
My flippin investment broker can’t do any of that.
Now, why isn’t this vile, venal witch Hillary in prison already?
Sanders is pro-choice. Selective dignity, value, science, religion/morality, etc. The baby trials will continue. Clinton needs to lose her empire, settle down, and consume the opiates.
I want the Clintons and their name to be so badly destroyed that Chelsea is compelled to drop the hyphen and go by her married name only and ends up doing a Howard Hughes in her $10 million dollar apartment.
…and I just threw up a bit in my mouth with the visual of her living nekkid and bottling her urine.
Defining Democrats is about as fruitless as trying to nail water to a wall. Is Hillary upset because she can’t manage to get to the left of Sanders?
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”
– P.J. O’Rourke
“I don’t know quite how to characterize him.”
How’s this, Mrs. Scum: as crazy as you, but without the thieving.