Well, I'll call thst progress.
The thing is, he *is* a 78 year old man who *did* have a heart attack. Convergent evolution of phrasing is not a conspiracy.
As for whether or not it's a scandal, that's not really something that can be dictated effectively by anybody. If people decide that they're scandalized over it, that makes it so. You can argue that they shouldn't be so worried about it, but I don't think it's true that they actually aren't, by and large.
Two thoughts on this: first, a candidate is more than a platform. To argue to an extreme (I'm not trying to suggest this is likely), if Bernie were to drop dead Octover 1st, his platform and policies wouldn't count for much. Or, to use a less dramatic example, if you don't trust Bernie as a person implicitly, maybe his decision to reverse himself here is giving you the nerves a little. Both are fine reasons to be concerned, and should probably addressed as if they're real things people really believe, not just dismissed as obviously disingenuous, because that really doesn't accomplish much and it's unprovable anyway.
Secondly, I don't think it's ever a good idea to put a candidate up on a pedastal. All of these people have problems, and it's important not to become so wrapped up in defending and arguing over them that we seek to minimize those issues. Stuff like "if you like Sanders platform this shouldn't matter at all" is bad because it doesn't leave people room to hold nuanced views on the candidate. You can't be a Bernie supporter who wants him to release the records, you have to be ALL In or you're no supporter at all. It's silly.
This is an interesting example and it reminds me that I should have been peppering a caveat into my statements: none of what I said applies to Republicans. They actually are full of shit all the time. If a Republican says it, definitely feel free to ignore/ridicule it. It's when other Democrats or people on the left say it that good faith engagement becomes reasonable.
