Clinton hits Sanders on gun control, sharpens attacks

[webfact]

Clinton hits Sanders on gun control, sharpens attacks
By LISA LERER and KEN THOMAS

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Armed with a blistering tabloid cover, Hillary Clinton is pitting Bernie Sanders against the parents of children murdered in Sandy Hook, part of an effort to punch her way into the critical New York primary.

The inflammatory rhetoric underscores the importance of the April 19 New York contest to her campaign and the mounting frustration of Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, with the lingering primary battle.

That irritation spilled out into the public arena Wednesday, when Clinton released a flurry of attacks on Sanders, questioning his truthfulness, preparedness for the presidency and loyalty to Democratic party principles.

Sanders responded at a rally in Philadelphia. "She has been saying lately that she thinks that I am quote unquote not qualified to be president," he said. "I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special-interest funds." He also said Clinton is not qualified because of her vote on the war in Iraq and her support for trade agreements that he says are harmful to American workers.

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon responded quickly, writing on Twitter: "Hillary Clinton did not say Bernie Sanders was 'not qualified.' But he has now — absurdly — said it about her. This is a new low."

In a fund-raising appeal by email early Thursday, Christina Reynolds, deputy communications director of the Clinton campaign's Hillary for America organization, said of Sanders: "This is a ridiculous and irresponsible attack for someone to make — not just against the person who is almost certainly going to be the nominee of their party this November, but against someone who is one of the most qualified people to run for the presidency in the history of the United States."

During an appearance on MSNBC Wednesday morning, Clinton pointed to a New York Daily News cover criticizing Sanders for saying he did not think victims of a gun crime should be able to sue the manufacturer. His comments came when the newspaper's editorial board asked him about a wrongful death lawsuit against a rifle maker over the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

"That he would place gun manufacturers' rights and immunity from liability against the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook is just unimaginable to me," said Clinton, who has long sought to highlight the candidates' differences on guns.

In the interview with the Daily News editorial board, Sanders said he did not think gun crime victims should be able to sue gun manufacturers. But he did say people should be able to sue dealers and manufacturers who sell when they know "guns are going to the hands of wrong people." He also said he supported a ban on assault weapons.

Clinton's campaign — which seized on a number of statements in the interview — organized a phone call for reporters with elected officials and gun control advocates, including Jillian Soto, whose sister was a teacher killed at Sandy Hook, called Sanders' comments "offensive."

"He doesn't know the pain my family has been going through since December 14, 2012," she said.

Sanders responded Wednesday by criticizing Clinton's 2002 Senate vote in favor of the Iraq war. "Maybe Secretary Clinton might want to apologize to the families who lost their loved ones in Iraq," he told CBS News.

Clinton also jumped on the limited details Sanders offered in the editorial board meeting about how he would break up the country's big financial institutions, saying he "hadn't done his homework." And in a separate interview with Politico published Wednesday, Clinton said she tries to explain things in a more "open and truthful way than my opponent."

Later, at a Philadelphia job training center, Clinton said people should know what she would do if she's elected president, "not just lots of arm-waving and hot rhetoric."

Despite a sizable delegate lead, the stakes are high for Clinton in New York, the state she represented for eight years in the Senate. A loss there would be a major political blow that would highlight her weaknesses within her own party, particularly with younger voters who have powered Sanders' primary bid and will be a crucial part of any Democratic candidate's general election campaign.

Clinton aides say there's little they can do to directly push Sanders out of the race. They fear any such effort could compromise her ability to win over the support she'll need in the general election.

Instead, her campaign is escalating its attacks in hopes of a decisive win in New York and assembling an "all but insurmountable" delegate lead by the end of the month.

Sanders notched his sixth win out of seven primaries in Wisconsin on Tuesday night, a streak his campaign is casting as a sign of fresh momentum. If Sanders can win a big share of delegates in New York and the five northeastern contests that follow, his aides believe they can make even larger gains in May and June contests in Oregon and California.

"She's getting a little nervous," Sanders told supporters at a rally in Wyoming on Tuesday night. "I believe we have an excellent chance to win New York."

Still, Sanders' path to the nomination remains narrow. His big victory netted him 10 delegates — but Clinton still holds a big lead in all-important delegate math.

Sanders must win 68 percent of the remaining delegates and uncommitted superdelegates if he hopes to clinch the Democratic nomination. That would require blowout victories by Sanders in upcoming states big and small.

But members of Sanders' team says they see an upside to Clinton's tougher tone: When Clinton attacks Sanders, they say, it pulls down her favorability ratings and makes it harder for her to argue to voters that she's honest and trustworthy.

"We've held rallies now in every part of the state where tens of thousands have come out with 24- or 48-hour notice," said Bill Lipton, New York state director of the liberal Working Families Party, which is backing Sanders. "There's been incredible energy."
__

Corrects 6th paragraph description of Hillary for America organization as campaign unit, not Super PAC.
___

Associated Press writer Hope Yen contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-04-07

[robertthesculptor]

She is such a loser...and says things and then trys to pen the blame on Sanders....she has become an example of what happins when you trade in values for corporate and banking support. She loves low attacks like paying actors to protest at Trump sideshows and when then telling when asked who hired them to rattle on about how great Sanders is.....not to mention rigging the votes in a couple of the states...Arizona may end up having to revote...she is a proven loser now trying to take down the whole party...

[wabothai]

Her true colors.

[up2u2]

Grubby politics. You would expect this from Republicans. Mudslinging foolishness. Bernie has to be careful here and not engage in this type of childish vitriol. The electorate is fed up with this type of political sniping. Engage in the substantive issues and policies that address those issues. If Bernie has made certain comments regarding legal action taken by Sandy Hook victims against gun manufacturers he should discuss and explain those comments rather than engage in 'tit for tat' insults.

This exchange puts into question the campaign manager's ability to properly run the campaign. Hillary trolled Bernie and the response was to snipe back at her. Badly handled by Bernie's team.

[sgtsabai]

As I have said in other threads, the kitchen sink is coming from the Clinton cabal. http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/in_fact_sanders_has_a_very_clear_plan_20160406

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/young_turks_reveals_how_dnc_and_33_states_used_loopholes_hillary_20160406

[connda]

Pageantry for the unwashed masses.

[Jingthing]

Sanders is getting nasty TOO.

Suggesting HRC isn't "qualified" to be president.

That's a stretch.

The thing is HRC really MUST win in New York and there is a small chance she won't.

It makes perfect sense for all to go all out to make sure that she DOES win.

I think the attacks on Sanders that he isn't really a democrat are 100 percent valid when talking about someone seeking the nomination of the DEMOCRATIC party.

Why should that party nominate someone OUTSIDE their OWN party?

Also Sanders really IS weak on gun control.

The truth hurts.

Sorry Bernie is not perfect.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Jingthing

[jmd8800]

One thing is for sure. Americans are fed up with the status quo. The upper middles class (on both sides of the political spectrum) and down has been increasingly ignored since the 60s. The American democracy has been hollowed out.

The American public merely seeks someone to represent them. A fighter in their corner. The inverse of that is.... the status quo of the elite is coming unwound. The elite can't keep 'the natives' quiet any more. The electorate has figured out they have been "hoodwinked and bamboozled" I don't think the next 10 years will be pretty.

[lannarebirth]

Grubby politics. You would expect this from Republicans. Mudslinging foolishness. Bernie has to be careful here and not engage in this type of childish vitriol. The electorate is fed up with this type of political sniping. Engage in the substantive issues and policies that address those issues. If Bernie has made certain comments regarding legal action taken by Sandy Hook victims against gun manufacturers he should discuss and explain those comments rather than engage in 'tit for tat' insults.

This exchange puts into question the campaign manager's ability to properly run the campaign. Hillary trolled Bernie and the response was to snipe back at her. Badly handled by Bernie's team.

I disagree. All electoral evidence suggests when Bernie "rises above" calling Clinton out for her innumerable criminal, moral, and judgmental lapses it is construed by the electorate as her behaviour being acceptable. After all, if a guy as impeccably clean as Bernie doesn't take issue, why should they, the electorate? That was a losing strategy. Bernie's on the right track now and he should be doubling down and bloody her nose a bit. This primary election is the only election that matters and he should battle as if he understands that.

[lannarebirth]

Sanders is getting nasty TOO.

Suggesting HRC isn't "qualified" to be president.

That's a stretch.

The thing is HRC really MUST win in New York and there is a small chance she won't.

It makes perfect sense for all to go all out to make sure that she DOES win.

I think the attacks on Sanders that he isn't really a democrat are 100 percent valid when talking about someone seeking the nomination of the DEMOCRATIC party.

Why should that party nominate someone OUTSIDE their OWN party?

Also Sanders really IS weak on gun control.

The truth hurts.

Sorry Bernie is not perfect.

This isn't even 10% of what Bernie could have said about this unqualified woman. Her lack of fundamental morality and continually horrendous judgement certainly make her unqualified. Her record in the Senate is awful compared to Bernie's but he's pretty much let her slide on all that.

[NeverSure]

Aw, Hillary. That 1% who's one of the wealthiest people in politics and ALL of that money coming from Wall Street and foreign governments. Yet she's "for the little guy" who gets screwed every time she gives a $250,000 speech.

Let's not mention her many scandals which prove that her supporters have NO morals.

Bernie, the ancient socialist who owns just 2 rumpled suits and zero brains would beat the shit out of Hillary if Hillary didn't have the elite backing and the superdelegates. What a way to end a career - getting beaten by an old nobody socialist.

Hillary fits that old saying "Beauty is only skin deep but ugly goes all the way to the bone". What an ugly woman, all the way to the bone.

Cheers.

[thaihome]

One thing is for sure. Americans are fed up with the status quo. The upper middles class (on both sides of the political spectrum) and down has been increasingly ignored since the 60s. The American democracy has been hollowed out.

The American public merely seeks someone to represent them. A fighter in their corner. The inverse of that is.... the status quo of the elite is coming unwound. The elite can't keep 'the natives' quiet any more. The electorate has figured out they have been "hoodwinked and bamboozled" I don't think the next 10 years will be pretty.

The only people that are truly unhappy in the US are the watchers of Fox news and the associated right wing radio. They are bombarded daily with reports, often inaccurate, showing why they should be unhappy and how it all that left wing, socialist Muslim Obama's fault. Independent surveys show that less then 15% of the US population is unhappy.

TH

[NeverSure]

One thing is for sure. Americans are fed up with the status quo. The upper middles class (on both sides of the political spectrum) and down has been increasingly ignored since the 60s. The American democracy has been hollowed out.

The American public merely seeks someone to represent them. A fighter in their corner. The inverse of that is.... the status quo of the elite is coming unwound. The elite can't keep 'the natives' quiet any more. The electorate has figured out they have been "hoodwinked and bamboozled" I don't think the next 10 years will be pretty.

The only people that are truly unhappy in the US are the watchers of Fox news and the associated right wing radio. They are bombarded daily with reports, often inaccurate, showing why they should be unhappy and how it all that left wing, socialist Muslim Obama's fault. Independent surveys show that less then 15% of the US population is unhappy.

TH

So, why are so many left wing MSNBC news watchers voting for an outsider named Bernie? I don't think you have a clue what's happening with this election. End of.

Cheers.

[JHolmesJr]

"The most qualified person in the usa to run for president"????

Was that before or after she got trounced by a little known black dude and community volunteer?

[TheCruncher]

One thing is for sure. Americans are fed up with the status quo. The upper middles class (on both sides of the political spectrum) and down has been increasingly ignored since the 60s. The American democracy has been hollowed out.

The American public merely seeks someone to represent them. A fighter in their corner. The inverse of that is.... the status quo of the elite is coming unwound. The elite can't keep 'the natives' quiet any more. The electorate has figured out they have been "hoodwinked and bamboozled" I don't think the next 10 years will be pretty.

The only people that are truly unhappy in the US are the watchers of Fox news and the associated right wing radio. They are bombarded daily with reports, often inaccurate, showing why they should be unhappy and how it all that left wing, socialist Muslim Obama's fault. Independent surveys show that less then 15% of the US population is unhappy.

TH

So, why are so many left wing MSNBC news watchers voting for an outsider named Bernie? I don't think you have a clue what's happening with this election. End of.

Cheers.

Because they're scared a Clinton may become the Democrat candidate.

[thaihome]

So, why are so many left wing MSNBC news watchers voting for an outsider named Bernie? I don't think you have a clue what's happening with this election. End of.

Cheers.

Your question answers itself. Bernie is indeed a left of center candidate, certainly compared to Hillary. That is why left "wingers" vote for Bernie instead of Hillary.

Even if Bernie does not get the nomination, his impact will result in much more progressive party platform then would have happened without his run.

Do you think those left "wingers" are going to vote for cruz or trump?

TH

[NeverSure]

So, why are so many left wing MSNBC news watchers voting for an outsider named Bernie? I don't think you have a clue what's happening with this election. End of.

Cheers.

Your question answers itself. Bernie is indeed a left of center candidate, certainly compared to Hillary. That is why left "wingers" vote for Bernie instead of Hillary.

Even if Bernie does not get the nomination, his impact will result in much more progressive party platform then would have happened without his run.

Do you think those left "wingers" are going to vote for cruz or trump?

TH

The people on both sides are voting heavily for outsiders, meaning people who weren't promoted by the power brokers. That would have been your correct answer.

[NeverSure]

[mopar71]

Hillary crushed Sanders in South Carolina due in large part to the black vote. I wonder if that will no longer be such a strength for her after this...

Bill Clinton: “Black Lives Matter” Protesters Are Defending Murders And Drug Dealers

[up2u2]

Grubby politics. You would expect this from Republicans. Mudslinging foolishness. Bernie has to be careful here and not engage in this type of childish vitriol. The electorate is fed up with this type of political sniping. Engage in the substantive issues and policies that address those issues. If Bernie has made certain comments regarding legal action taken by Sandy Hook victims against gun manufacturers he should discuss and explain those comments rather than engage in 'tit for tat' insults.

This exchange puts into question the campaign manager's ability to properly run the campaign. Hillary trolled Bernie and the response was to snipe back at her. Badly handled by Bernie's team.

I disagree. All electoral evidence suggests when Bernie "rises above" calling Clinton out for her innumerable criminal, moral, and judgmental lapses it is construed by the electorate as her behaviour being acceptable. After all, if a guy as impeccably clean as Bernie doesn't take issue, why should they, the electorate? That was a losing strategy. Bernie's on the right track now and he should be doubling down and bloody her nose a bit. This primary election is the only election that matters and he should battle as if he understands that.

Totally disagree with you here LB. Hillary has never been charged with any criminal offence. It is a mistake to be swept up by the never ending loony far Right Wing Republican smear campaigns. Bengazi, Emails et al. All just imaginary beat ups. Republicans think if they keep saying something over and over and over again it becomes true. If Bernie gets sucked into this type of strategy he runs the risk of being likened to the Republican Party Right Wing loons. Leave all that nasty spiteful personal invective for the Republican Party. Look at Neversure's post above. Classic Right Wing invective. It is just their DNA and that is what makes them unelectable. It is crucial that Bernie attacks the issues and not the person. The point raised was Bernie's position on Sandy Hook victims suing the gun manufacturers he simply has to address the issue raised and explain his position which is a sound one. A good salesman never rubbishes his competitor he just demonstrates clearly and effectively why his product is better.

[jmd8800]

Grubby politics. You would expect this from Republicans. Mudslinging foolishness. Bernie has to be careful here and not engage in this type of childish vitriol. The electorate is fed up with this type of political sniping. Engage in the substantive issues and policies that address those issues. If Bernie has made certain comments regarding legal action taken by Sandy Hook victims against gun manufacturers he should discuss and explain those comments rather than engage in 'tit for tat' insults.

This exchange puts into question the campaign manager's ability to properly run the campaign. Hillary trolled Bernie and the response was to snipe back at her. Badly handled by Bernie's team.

I disagree. All electoral evidence suggests when Bernie "rises above" calling Clinton out for her innumerable criminal, moral, and judgmental lapses it is construed by the electorate as her behaviour being acceptable. After all, if a guy as impeccably clean as Bernie doesn't take issue, why should they, the electorate? That was a losing strategy. Bernie's on the right track now and he should be doubling down and bloody her nose a bit. This primary election is the only election that matters and he should battle as if he understands that.

Totally disagree with you here LB. Hillary has never been charged with any criminal offence. It is a mistake to be swept up by the never ending loony far Right Wing Republican smear campaigns. Bengazi, Emails et al. All just imaginary beat ups. Republicans think if they keep saying something over and over and over again it becomes true. If Bernie gets sucked into this type of strategy he runs the risk of being likened to the Republican Party Right Wing loons. Leave all that nasty spiteful personal invective for the Republican Party. Look at Neversure's post above. Classic Right Wing invective. It is just their DNA and that is what makes them unelectable. It is crucial that Bernie attacks the issues and not the person. The point raised was Bernie's position on Sandy Hook victims suing the gun manufacturers he simply has to address the issue raised and explain his position which is a sound one. A good salesman never rubbishes his competitor he just demonstrates clearly and effectively why his product is better.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. --Eleanor Roosevelt

So the next time you see an attack like this ask yourself ... do I want to discuss ideas, events or people?

One of the big problems with the American news media is there is no discussion of ideas. Only people and events.

The bold in up2u2's post is my addition.

Edited April 8, 2016 by jmd8800

[Stupooey]

Sorry, I've come to this debate about hand guns rather late. Which of the two is proposing that the US moves out of the 19th century and into the 21st by banning them. Only asking.

[Jingthing]

Sorry, I've come to this debate about hand guns rather late. Which of the two is proposing that the US moves out of the 19th century and into the 21st by banning them. Only asking.

Neither, but Clinton is more pro gun control than Sanders.

Nobody could get elected president with an extreme, by U.S. standards, position you favor.

[jmd8800]

Sorry, I've come to this debate about hand guns rather late. Which of the two is proposing that the US moves out of the 19th century and into the 21st by banning them. Only asking.

Neither, but Clinton is more pro gun control than Sanders.

Nobody could get elected president with an extreme, by U.S. standards, position you favor.

Correct. You won't find any far reaching gun control in the USA for at least two reasnons:

1) it is big business and they have powerful lobbyists

2) the right to bear arms gives the American public the illusion that they can redress their government should the need arise. (actually the need arose many years ago.... but I digress)

[SheungWan]

Sorry, I've come to this debate about hand guns rather late. Which of the two is proposing that the US moves out of the 19th century and into the 21st by banning them. Only asking.

Neither, but Clinton is more pro gun control than Sanders.

Nobody could get elected president with an extreme, by U.S. standards, position you favor.

Correct. You won't find any far reaching gun control in the USA for at least two reasnons:

1) it is big business and they have powerful lobbyists

2) the right to bear arms gives the American public the illusion that they can redress their government should the need arise. (actually the need arose many years ago.... but I digress)

I guess you don't think US unions employ lobbyists.

[jmd8800]

Sorry, I've come to this debate about hand guns rather late. Which of the two is proposing that the US moves out of the 19th century and into the 21st by banning them. Only asking.

Neither, but Clinton is more pro gun control than Sanders.

Nobody could get elected president with an extreme, by U.S. standards, position you favor.

Correct. You won't find any far reaching gun control in the USA for at least two reasnons:

1) it is big business and they have powerful lobbyists

2) the right to bear arms gives the American public the illusion that they can redress their government should the need arise. (actually the need arose many years ago.... but I digress)

I guess you don't think US unions employ lobbyists.

@SheungWan you guessed wrong. Unions are special interest groups just like AARP, NRA and AAA..they depend heavily on lobbyists.

Edited April 9, 2016 by jmd8800