Undoubtedly, the presidential primaries are the most heated topic in the news today. Candidates are busy promoting themselves and proving to the public their visions and qualifications for the job.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton recently “questioned” each other’s qualifications for the presidency.
Although Clinton’s aides denied that they questioned Sanders’ qualifications, both candidates did, in fact, challenge the other’s credentials for the desired job.
However, in doing so, Sanders did not make a convincing argument; he did not look in-depth into what was exactly said about him.
“My response is, if you want to question my qualifications, then maybe the American people might wonder about your qualifications Madame Secretary,” Sanders retorted.
CNN even pointed out that “Bernie Sanders has been saying similar things on CNN for years.”
According to CNN, last Thursday night, although Sanders claimed that he did not “want to engage in a tit-for-tat with Clinton,” telling CBS News that they should be “debating the issues facing the American people,” he did in fact engage in one, which I think, did not help his case.
Recently, Clinton did severely criticize Sanders for his lack of knowledge on the issues he mentioned during his campaign, such as how he will go about breaking up the banks. And judging from Sanders’ response, he did not seem to know how.
Last Wednesday, MSNBC asked Clinton “if she thought Sanders was ready to be president.” She said, “I think he hasn’t done his homework and he’s been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hasn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions.”
Referring to his interview with the New York Daily News, Clinton criticized that he was unable to elaborate on important topics such as reforming Wall Street, gun control and foreign policy.
Sanders should have first elaborated on his plans for these reforms before he criticized Clinton for her shortcomings, like voting for the Iraq War, certain trade agreements she made and being supported by a PAC (which is a committee that funds candidates). Only then would he have had a much stronger argument.
If he was questioned for his lack of knowledge on specific issues, he would make a stronger argument to the public showing what he knows. I would have been more convinced if he specifically answered the attacks made toward him, instead of just using a ‘you attacked me, so I will attack you’ strategy. And, if he still really felt the need to attack Clinton in the same manner that she attacked him, he should have carefully prepared to do so.
Sanders needs to keep his composure when dealing with the media and press during the race. For example, when Clinton was asked for her opinion about Sanders’ assertions against her, she “laughed” it off and stated, “I’m going to trust the voters of New York who know me and have voted for me three times.” This shows confidence, which all public office holders should express, as they represent us citizens.