A mote in Sanders’ eye?

The Clinton campaign is being sick and tired of all the scrutiny they are facing and the evidence of hypocrisy, ties to the banking industry and other ethical issues this is bringing forward. So they are pointing their fingers at the Sanders campaign and saying, “what about him?”

“There’s a lot of stuff that comes out about Hillary. She’s been scrutinized, scrutinized, scrutinized. I don’t see any of that about Bernie coming out—and there are things,” said Barbara Marzelli, who runs a gardening business in New Hampshire. “It’s like everybody’s throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. They haven’t started to fling spaghetti at Bernie.”

Source: Hillary Clinton and Her Allies Are Starting to Openly Question Bernie Sanders’ Integrity | TIME

That’s all well and good but what happens when you scrutinize someone and all you can find is extremely minor stuff like accepting campaign money from the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which accepted money from Wall Street, while claiming not to have received money from Wall Street.

I think he can stand up to the scrutiny but I wonder about the spin.

However, how can the Clinton campaign honestly scream about the mote in Sanders’ eye while she has a log in her own eye?

2 thoughts on “A mote in Sanders’ eye?

  1. Larry Burton

    The problem that she’s gotten herself into is that millennials are hard to get to the polls to begin with. If Sanders loses many of those just won’t see a reason to vote in the general election, their guy lost. The only reason they were voting in the first place is because Sanders inspired them. Now not only does their guy lose but the winner disses them to get the win and the marginal ones that might have stuck around to keep the Republicans at bay are now gone too. Meanwhile, people who are prone to vote Republican when they bother to vote now have someone to hate to motivate them to go vote.

    Me? I’m sitting here thinking that not only do I not like Sec. Clinton but she is showing me a complete lack of leadership ability in her method for campaigning. Leadership by intimidation isn’t leadership, it’s tyranny.

  2. Dan Lyke

    I’ve been thinking about the “Bernie Bros” tactic and a lot of the vitriol being spewed at Sanders supporters, and the fact that many of the Sanders supporters wouldn’t show up for Hillary, and wondering what that means in terms of the “whoever wins, we’re going to have to pull together to defeat the Republicans” sense that I’m starting to see come from the Hillary camp.

    By alienating Sanders supporters, rather than courting them, she may have already destroyed that voting base. Thus, if Clinton wins the primaries, the mainstream election will come from turnout based on how evil she can frame the Republicans as being. If the Republican candidate is anyone but Trump, that may be a tough road,


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.