No doubt he is defense after his disastrous Daily News interview which revealed serious gaps in his own knowledge and fitness to be President so now rather than admitting his interview was a face plant. he's trying to deflect by absurdly claiming Hillary isn't qualified either.
Based on what? Because she voted for the Iraq war. This is actually in itself an example of why he's not qualified to be President. Whenever he is pushed out of his comfort zone he goes back to his stump speech.
Every stump speech boasts about not voting for Iraq. But this issue of voting for the Iraq war is an example of making a mistake in policy. She has since admitted this was an error numerous times.
"In "Hard Choices," Clinton, a former secretary of state and former U.S. senator who is exploring a 2016 presidential campaign, writes: "[M]any Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake become (sic) more painful."
Clinton continues, "I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hillary-clinton-on-iraq-vote-i-still-got-it-wrong-plain-and-simple/
Based on what? Because she voted for the Iraq war. This is actually in itself an example of why he's not qualified to be President. Whenever he is pushed out of his comfort zone he goes back to his stump speech.
Every stump speech boasts about not voting for Iraq. But this issue of voting for the Iraq war is an example of making a mistake in policy. She has since admitted this was an error numerous times.
"In "Hard Choices," Clinton, a former secretary of state and former U.S. senator who is exploring a 2016 presidential campaign, writes: "[M]any Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake become (sic) more painful."
Clinton continues, "I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hillary-clinton-on-iraq-vote-i-still-got-it-wrong-plain-and-simple/
In some ways you just have to say to Bernie: Obama called and he wants his 2008 campaign back. After all, he also criticized her for her Iraq vote. However, he subsequently made her his Secretary of State.
With Hillary at State and the President leading the way, she was able to bring the State Department back to its central importance in foreign policy. If Obama trusted her judgment, it's hard to see why Bernie keeps trying to beat this dead horse.
Unlike her he has still failed for his 25 years of being in the tank for the NRA. He boasts that he doesn't take corporate dollars, so presumably his service is just a labor of love. When will he apologize to those who have lost their lives to gun violence the last 11 years since he voted with George W. Bush to shield gun manufacturers from legal liability.
I don't agree that simply making a policy mistake, even a serous one is the same thing as being unqualified-I am against litmus tests.
Though I do think Bernie's inability to admit he's been wrong on guns going back to 1990 is something that might make him unqualified.
A President who is never wrong sounds awfully lot like George W. Bush.
As for Bernie's absurd claim that somehow having a super PAC makes you 'unqualified'-that doesn't even pass the laugh test. He simply doesn't know what unqualified means.
What was shocking about his Daily News interview is it confirmed the suspicion of many of us: that this guy has these deeply held beliefs, but lacks the knowledge and experience to do the job on day one.
Belief is one thing, knowledge and competence is another.
When you have run on breaking up the big banks as your cause celeb and can't even tell us
1. How you would do it
2. What might be the consequences of this action.
3. You are not qualified to be POTUS.
Again, simply having deeply held principles is not being qualified. The fact that he can't game out what breaking up the banks would entail, suggests he ought to have thought the whole thing through better before being so dogmatic about it.
That he has done absolutely no cost-benefit analysis, that he doesn't understand the mechanics of what he's proposing, makes you wonder why he's so confident in what he's proposing.
No comments:
Post a Comment