TRANSCRIPT: Bernie Sanders meets with the Daily News Editorial Board, April 1, 2016

[jbird]

What do you guys make of it? Bernie is feeling some heat from the media over this. Does this show a lack of understand of some his central policies? Is he more about ideology? I thought this was an interesting read.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

[MayfieldFan]

I read it, not nearly as bad as talking heads on media are making it out to be. Shocking news that they might "overtalk" something. Any candidate sitting down with an editorial board that is questioning with that type of aggressive questioning will have a few parts that can be criticized.

 

I like Bernie because he is honest and consistent. I like his priorities. He won't get any of his stuff done, but no candidate is going to get anything done. Heck, the house of representatives struggled to elect a speaker (after one resigned mainly because of dysfunction) and that was a simple election within the same party. Our government is completely unable to function now, so if we can't have a President who is going to be getting much done, might as well have one that is honest and consistent.

 

I'm 50 years old (later this year) and Bernie is the first honest and decent politician I can remember since Carter, and I can't remember Carter really. I am happy to support him for this reason.

[Hellcats]

My only problem was the fact he struggled with questions about busting the banks. That should be his wheelhouse. He should have turned on that one and yarded it.

[Habib]

Most of what Sanders advocates is aspirational or DOA. Considering that, there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary here.

 

From what I can gather, the media hubbub over the interview started with Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post who is a well known Clinton cheerleader and insider, which means I've both ignored his column for nearly a decade and read his criticism through that lens. I'd normally not rely on an ad hominem response and instead focus on the substance of his point, but I think his criticism has defined the narrative around this interview due to his credibility as a major media figure and his criticism is essentially Clinton's campaign rhetoric, which is that Clinton is the pragmatist who offers policy proposals that are achievable and Sanders is the candidate who puts principles over policy realities.

 

To an extent that's generally true about their campaigns. But for Cillizza to opine that this otherwise typical interview with Sanders is the harbinger of his coming collapse is rather shamelessly hoping to tilt the "momentum" toward Clinton.

[mcpapa]

Most of what Sanders advocates is aspirational or DOA. Considering that, there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary here.

 

From what I can gather, the media hubbub over the interview started with Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post who is a well known Clinton cheerleader and insider, which means I've both ignored his column for nearly a decade and read his criticism through that lens. I'd normally not rely on an ad hominem response and instead focus on the substance of his point, but I think his criticism has defined the narrative around this interview due to his credibility as a major media figure and his criticism is essentially Clinton's campaign rhetoric, which is that Clinton is the pragmatist who offers policy proposals that are achievable and Sanders is the candidate who puts principles over policy realities.

 

To an extent that's generally true about their campaigns. But for Cillizza to opine that this otherwise typical interview with Sanders is the harbinger of his coming collapse is rather shamelessly hoping to tilt the "momentum" toward Clinton.

 

What does hominy have to do with it?

[Fear the Nation]

I read it, not nearly as bad as talking heads on media are making it out to be. Shocking news that they might "overtalk" something. Any candidate sitting down with an editorial board that is questioning with that type of aggressive questioning will have a few parts that can be criticized.

 

I like Bernie because he is honest and consistent. I like his priorities. He won't get any of his stuff done, but no candidate is going to get anything done. Heck, the house of representatives struggled to elect a speaker (after one resigned mainly because of dysfunction) and that was a simple election within the same party. Our government is completely unable to function now, so if we can't have a President who is going to be getting much done, might as well have one that is honest and consistent.

 

I'm 50 years old (later this year) and Bernie is the first honest and decent politician I can remember since Carter, and I can't remember Carter really. I am happy to support him for this reason.

 

Hence the multitude of executive orders lately. I don't like that but I dislike our dysfunction more so.

[75center]

I like good 'ol Doc Brown. He's entertaining. Unfortunately he left his common sense back in the 60's.