Last week, he absurdly called her unqualified. This led to some major blowback: women, particularly did not like that at all.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-calling-hillary-clinton-unqualified-smacks-of-sexism/
This was a big mistake by Bernie-it seems that this bad advice came from Jeff Weaver. When you think about it, Weaver has been very condescending towards Hillary the whole way through.
Interestingly, Bernie himself had initially not wanted to go after her paid speeches, rightly reasoning that she has a right to make money. According to him, what changed is when Goldman Sachs paid a $5 billion dollar fine.
I've never gotten why he sees that as an outrage: it's a good thing that the government made them pay this fine. But in Bernie's mind if you are fined for something, this means you should have gone to jail.
Yesterday morning, however, he kind of returned to saying she's not qualified. The new Bernie spin: her experience makes her qualified but her 'judgment' is a problem.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275772-sanders-clinton-judgment-lacking
He now has concerns about what kind of President she would make. Because:
1. She voted for Iraq. Really, this hasn't come up before.
2. She has supported most of the 'disastrous trade deals.'
Ok, 1 first.
1. C'mon Bernie. This has been done before. President Obama criticized her for her Iraq vote in 2008. However, after he won, he made her his Secretary of State-which is-or should be-the QB of an Administration's foreign policy. In other words, he trusted her judgment.
At least she has apologized for Iraq. And no, she is not a hawk: she actually is a big believer in smart power which puts a premium on diplomacy in international relations; fittingly enough, as she was SOS.
While the conventional wisdom is that she was a hawkish voice on Obama's foreign policy team, she was actually a proponent of increasing the influence of diplomacy in shaping foreign policy. In Pakistan, the Administration may have done well to have listened to both her and Richard Holbrooke.
The idea of smart power was to get away from the disastrous go it alone approach of George W. Bush.
But as for Iraq, at least she apologized. More than Bernie has done on what is a terrible record on gun control. He has yet to apologize for giving the gun manufacturers immunity and indeed, in the Daily News interview last week reiterated his view that the manufacturers in Sandy Hook shouldn't' face immunity.
Since 2004, we have lost over 300,000 Americans to domestic gun violence compared to 3000 in Iraq. This doesn't make Iraq a good idea but it gives you some perspective.
2. Disastrous trade deals. This is an issue that Bernie has no context on. She has voted for some deals she's also voted against some deals-notably she was a no vote on Cafta.
What her record shows is that she is neither a pro trade dogmatist, nor an anti trade dogmatist like Bernie.
Bernie had that absurd attack in Michigan, where he compared Detroit in 1960 to today and claimed this is the result of her trade policies. That's absurd as she had no policies at all until becoming a NY Senator in 2000.
And what happened to Detroit is about a lot more than just trade. Among a number of causes, one is the migration of a large number of the black middle class after the riots in the 60s, leaving behind just the black underclass, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Disintegration-Splintering-America-Eugene-Robinson/dp/0767929969/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460381494&sr=8-1&keywords=eugene+robinson
By the 80s, Detroit was already deteriorating, long before even the infamous Nafta.
Actually Bernie's dogmatism about trade is another reason he's not qualified to be President. If he were, he'd understand that trade deals are first and foremost about, not economics, but foreign relations, diplomacy.
If Bernie-or Donald Trump-were to get into the WH and start ripping up trade deals unilaterally, this would lead to a real drop in our international popularity.
If we simply withdrew China's most favored trading status, this would be disastrous to US-Sino relations.
As for the economic effects, Bernie fails to get that lower wages is not the only reason a company moves overseas. He seems to have a rule where we are never to have trade deals with countries with considerably lower wages than ours. Of course, requiring these nations to raise their own wages overnight misses the point that based on the country's development they may not be able to do that yet.
But the China bashing misses the point. Whatever, ill effects it had on wages is baked in the cake. The disparity of US-China wages is receding into history. We've been hearing stories of re-shoring for a few years now.
Overall, then we have to turn Bernie's critique back on him.
1. Iraq shows that she can admit to error something Bernie refuses to do with immunity for gun manufacturers. His refusal to own up to mistake is unpresidential; he is unqualified to be President.
2. His demonization of all trade points in the same direction. Sure he talks about 'fair trade' but I'd be interesting to know if there has ever been a trade deal in history that qualifies for fair trade in his mind.
He fails to grasp that trade deals are also a vital part of diplomatic policy. His desire to go in there and rashly start ripping up deals unilaterally, again makes him unqualified to be President.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-calling-hillary-clinton-unqualified-smacks-of-sexism/
This was a big mistake by Bernie-it seems that this bad advice came from Jeff Weaver. When you think about it, Weaver has been very condescending towards Hillary the whole way through.
Interestingly, Bernie himself had initially not wanted to go after her paid speeches, rightly reasoning that she has a right to make money. According to him, what changed is when Goldman Sachs paid a $5 billion dollar fine.
I've never gotten why he sees that as an outrage: it's a good thing that the government made them pay this fine. But in Bernie's mind if you are fined for something, this means you should have gone to jail.
Yesterday morning, however, he kind of returned to saying she's not qualified. The new Bernie spin: her experience makes her qualified but her 'judgment' is a problem.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275772-sanders-clinton-judgment-lacking
He now has concerns about what kind of President she would make. Because:
1. She voted for Iraq. Really, this hasn't come up before.
2. She has supported most of the 'disastrous trade deals.'
Ok, 1 first.
1. C'mon Bernie. This has been done before. President Obama criticized her for her Iraq vote in 2008. However, after he won, he made her his Secretary of State-which is-or should be-the QB of an Administration's foreign policy. In other words, he trusted her judgment.
At least she has apologized for Iraq. And no, she is not a hawk: she actually is a big believer in smart power which puts a premium on diplomacy in international relations; fittingly enough, as she was SOS.
While the conventional wisdom is that she was a hawkish voice on Obama's foreign policy team, she was actually a proponent of increasing the influence of diplomacy in shaping foreign policy. In Pakistan, the Administration may have done well to have listened to both her and Richard Holbrooke.
The idea of smart power was to get away from the disastrous go it alone approach of George W. Bush.
But as for Iraq, at least she apologized. More than Bernie has done on what is a terrible record on gun control. He has yet to apologize for giving the gun manufacturers immunity and indeed, in the Daily News interview last week reiterated his view that the manufacturers in Sandy Hook shouldn't' face immunity.
Since 2004, we have lost over 300,000 Americans to domestic gun violence compared to 3000 in Iraq. This doesn't make Iraq a good idea but it gives you some perspective.
2. Disastrous trade deals. This is an issue that Bernie has no context on. She has voted for some deals she's also voted against some deals-notably she was a no vote on Cafta.
What her record shows is that she is neither a pro trade dogmatist, nor an anti trade dogmatist like Bernie.
Bernie had that absurd attack in Michigan, where he compared Detroit in 1960 to today and claimed this is the result of her trade policies. That's absurd as she had no policies at all until becoming a NY Senator in 2000.
And what happened to Detroit is about a lot more than just trade. Among a number of causes, one is the migration of a large number of the black middle class after the riots in the 60s, leaving behind just the black underclass, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Disintegration-Splintering-America-Eugene-Robinson/dp/0767929969/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460381494&sr=8-1&keywords=eugene+robinson
By the 80s, Detroit was already deteriorating, long before even the infamous Nafta.
Actually Bernie's dogmatism about trade is another reason he's not qualified to be President. If he were, he'd understand that trade deals are first and foremost about, not economics, but foreign relations, diplomacy.
If Bernie-or Donald Trump-were to get into the WH and start ripping up trade deals unilaterally, this would lead to a real drop in our international popularity.
If we simply withdrew China's most favored trading status, this would be disastrous to US-Sino relations.
As for the economic effects, Bernie fails to get that lower wages is not the only reason a company moves overseas. He seems to have a rule where we are never to have trade deals with countries with considerably lower wages than ours. Of course, requiring these nations to raise their own wages overnight misses the point that based on the country's development they may not be able to do that yet.
But the China bashing misses the point. Whatever, ill effects it had on wages is baked in the cake. The disparity of US-China wages is receding into history. We've been hearing stories of re-shoring for a few years now.
Overall, then we have to turn Bernie's critique back on him.
1. Iraq shows that she can admit to error something Bernie refuses to do with immunity for gun manufacturers. His refusal to own up to mistake is unpresidential; he is unqualified to be President.
2. His demonization of all trade points in the same direction. Sure he talks about 'fair trade' but I'd be interesting to know if there has ever been a trade deal in history that qualifies for fair trade in his mind.
He fails to grasp that trade deals are also a vital part of diplomatic policy. His desire to go in there and rashly start ripping up deals unilaterally, again makes him unqualified to be President.
No comments:
Post a Comment