Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?[W:44]

[Surrealistik]

I suppose this is part of the problem. Despite all the talk of a "movement" there's no evidence Bernie is actually leading one. Primary turnout is down from '08 and he's still losing badly. These kinds of hand waving answers don't offer much confidence that if through some unlikely turn of events Bernie did find his way to the presidency he'd have any idea how to advance his agenda. "Then a miracle happens" is not a satisfying answer.

First of all, you do understand that a Bernie win in a general is what establishes the mandate, not the Dem primaries, right?

Second, I wouldn't consider 1,147 to 830 as 'losing badly' with states like California remaining in play. If you factor in the superdelegates (which in theory should switch to the winner), you can make that argument, but superdelegates say nothing whatsoever about a mandate or lackthereof so much as the DNC/establishment antipathy towards Bernie.

Equally important, from what I've seen the exit polls show that primary voters who rated health care as their number one issue have broken Clinton's way in state after state, even those Bernie wins. So the assumption of a mandate for single-party seems to be more an article of faith than anything else.

Even people who have healthcare as a priority aren't voting exclusively on the basis of healthcare (further, I would assume there is a strong correlation between these people and the older voters who are and have always been solidly pro-Clinton).

Also, which polls?

As I think I've made clear, one of my biggest concerns about Bernie is that I don't think he appreciates the complexity of the issue or is equipped to tackle it. What I'm hearing here is that he's got no particular plan, and no idea how this non-plan would be passed. That isn't a recipe for success. The immediate pivot to unnamed other countries instead of grappling with the realities of our system and policy environment of the U.S. just underscores how little there there is right now.

A refusal to go into policy specifics over something again as massively complex as singlepayer and its implementation in the States during a primary is clearly not an indication that he doesn't appreciate the complexity, or isn't prepared to tackle it. Conversely it more reflects a recognition and awareness of that complexity, the fact that it's impossible to make promises about its specific functioning and that the exact form it takes would necessarily have to be hammered out during the legislative process. You can't have the formatives of a plan for something like this; that should be unambiguously clear by now! Further, something as visionary and necessary as singlepayer also understands the 'realities' of the US healthcare system: namely that it's thoroughly and completely broken and needs to be replaced more or less wholesale. So far as policy environment goes, that's already been covered above.

 

[reinoe]

She can get elected and that is the critical need. The Republicans have gone off their rocker and we cannot risk having them in charge. Sanders has already shaped policy and has done his job. He never believed he would get the nomination and will be happy with Clinton as President.

Actually he hasn't helped shape any policy at all. He can only do that if he wins. What he's done is force Hillary to adopt his talking points enough to fool people into voting for her.

 

[Ntharotep]

I support Hillary and was an alternate state delegate for her in '08.

I support her because she knows how to get things done in the face of epic adversity. I think Obama's one of the best presidents we ever had, but I think we can all agree that he was more than a little naive in his first couple years...and Hillary's not naive at all. She's got a wealth of foreign policy experience, knows how to work for the people and for the finance sector (I don't like the finance sector, but yeah, we need them, too).

More than anything else, she, like Obama, is a pragmatist, whereas Bernie - whom I personally like a lot more - is more of an idealist...and it's not good to have an idealist in the Oval Office.

Besides, the Right needs to learn that the path to power and prosperity doesn't always run through testosteroneville.

What I most respect about Sanders is that he is the only candidate that when he speaks I don't feel like he should say "wink wink nudge nudge" after he is done. Is honesty a factor at all for you?
Again, honest questions and no judging. I can understand the idea that ideals and honesty do not necessarily work in today's politics (I don't agree with this necessarily but I respect the opinion).

 

[Glen Contrarian]

What I most respect about Sanders is that he is the only candidate that when he speaks I don't feel like he should say "wink wink nudge nudge" after he is done. Is honesty a factor at all for you?
Again, honest questions and no judging. I can understand the idea that ideals and honesty do not necessarily work in today's politics (I don't agree with this necessarily but I respect the opinion).

Look at what you posted - "Is honesty a factor at all for you? Again, honest questions and no judging." I would caution you to remember that if one really wants honest and forthright discourse, than one should refrain from implying that the other person doesn't care about honesty.

That said, look at what I posted - I personally like Bernie a lot more. But just because I personally like a person doesn't mean that person is better-suited for a particular job. Bernie is one of those very, very rare politicians who's never much changed his position. That sounds nice, but that also makes him an idealist...and while anyone wanting to do what is right must have some degree of idealism...it really is a matter of degree. The more one clings to one's personal ideals, the less likely one is to make deals that are at least to some degree distasteful to those ideals...and our government was specifically designed in a way that our representatives have to make deals in order to get bills passed - it's been that way since the passage of our Constitution in 1789.

Hillary - like most other politicians not named Trump - has ideals...and she's shown she's willing to flex on those ideals if she has to. I haven't seen that from Bernie. That is why I said that she's more likely to get things done, because it's through deals that things get done by our government.

Again, don't get me wrong - I really like Bernie, his positions and his rhetoric...but he is IMO too idealistic to be president (though I'd certainly choose him over any of the present candidates other than Hillary).

 

[Ntharotep]

Look at what you posted - "Is honesty a factor at all for you? Again, honest questions and no judging." I would caution you to remember that if one really wants honest and forthright discourse, than one should refrain from implying that the other person doesn't care about honesty.

That said, look at what I posted - I personally like Bernie a lot more. But just because I personally like a person doesn't mean that person is better-suited for a particular job. Bernie is one of those very, very rare politicians who's never much changed his position. That sounds nice, but that also makes him an idealist...and while anyone wanting to do what is right must have some degree of idealism...it really is a matter of degree. The more one clings to one's personal ideals, the less likely one is to make deals that are at least to some degree distasteful to those ideals...and our government was specifically designed in a way that our representatives have to make deals in order to get bills passed - it's been that way since the passage of our Constitution in 1789.

Hillary - like most other politicians not named Trump - has ideals...and she's shown she's willing to flex on those ideals if she has to. I haven't seen that from Bernie. That is why I said that she's more likely to get things done, because it's through deals that things get done by our government.

Again, don't get me wrong - I really like Bernie, his positions and his rhetoric...but he is IMO too idealistic to be president (though I'd certainly choose him over any of the present candidates other than Hillary).

I would disagree only with one point here. That tradition is the best method (isn't that a conservative idea?)
Just because deal brokering has been how its always been done, making politicians really interchangeable as they don't have to stick to their guns most times, doesn't mean its the best way. I once again point to the levies in New Orleans by example. Were like that for 70 years or more and then one good hurricane changed all that.
The world is changing, America needs to decide if its going to change as well or stagnate. I see Clinton as a symptom of "more of what we already have gotten" which for me is stagnate.
I respect your very candid and matter of fact opinion on why Clinton is the best choice though I do not agree with it because it invites the Government to just become less honest and less likely to change.

 

[Greenbeard]

First of all, you do understand that a Bernie win in a general is what establishes the mandate, not the Dem primaries, right?

Second, I wouldn't consider 1,147 to 830 as 'losing badly' with states like California remaining in play. If you factor in the superdelegates (which in theory should switch to the winner), you can make that argument, but superdelegates say nothing whatsoever about a mandate or lackthereof so much as the DNC/establishment antipathy towards Bernie.

He's gotten ~2.6 million fewer votes than she has. He's gotten himself into a ~300 pledged delegate deficit, which at this point in the campaign is essentially insurmountable in a proportional primary. California is not winner-take all--and even if it were, Bernie isn't likely to win it! Superdelegates have nothing to do with the fact that Bernie is losing and pretty handily at that.

The revolution has not materialized. Thus his entire plan for achieving change in the unlikely event he were to stumble into the presidency (which, for reasons already discussed, he won't) is discredited.

I grant you, maybe in the imaginary world where Bernie is this transformational figure that's leaving his opponents in the dust and breezing to victory on the back of an unprecedented groundswell of public support, his proposals could get through Congress on wishes alone. But that obviously is not the world in which we live.

A refusal to go into policy specifics over something again as massively complex as singlepayer and its implementation in the States during a primary is clearly not an indication that he doesn't appreciate the complexity, or isn't prepared to tackle it. Conversely it more reflects a recognition and awareness of that complexity, the fact that it's impossible to make promises about its specific functioning and that the exact form it takes would necessarily have to be hammered out during the legislative process.

Fair enough. Let me fill you in on what "single-payer" would look like in the United States, based on 50 years of evolution of existing single-payer programs in this country.

It will look like some mixture of Medicaid managed care (which enrolls the majority of Medicaid beneficiaries today and more every year) and Medicare Advantage (a very fast-growing segment of the Medicare population that enrolls nearly a third of beneficiaries today). Both are essentially privatized versions of the original Medicare and Medicaid programs. It will involve the government providing capitated payments--i.e., paying a monthly premium for enrollees--to private, often for-profit, insurance companies. Those insurance companies will compete for enrollment and will either pay providers largely in accordance with a government-set fee schedule (Medicare Advantage) or through their price own negotiations with health care providers as in the commercial market (Medicaid managed care).

The government will have a policy-setting role but the program will be based on some simulacrum of a market-based system; beneficiaries, for instances, will likely choose their plan in an exchange structure as under the ACA. They may see a relatively fixed taxpayer contribution, ala the Ryan Medicare reforms, or it may be structured more generously. Either way, there will likely be choices--yes, variation in cost-sharing and covered benefits--allowing those who wish to pay more for more generous coverage to do so.

Is this what Bernie is promising? I don't know because he won't tell me. It's obvious he's blowing a little smoke up our asses by claiming his plan will cover everything at no cost--but what he's actually aiming for remains something of a mystery. Perhaps you're correct and he'll defer to Congress to shape it. If so, what I just laid out is probably the best-case scenario. An odd blend of the existing privatized pieces of the Medicare or Medicaid programs, the ACA structure, and perhaps even Paul Ryan's Medicare approach from his budget blueprint. But it will likely lead to universal coverage, perhaps some administrative savings (though nothing like what's claimed), and a more prominent role for the government in policy direction and perhaps rate-setting. So the basic goals, if I understand them correctly, would be attained.

 

[Surrealistik]

He's gotten ~2.6 million fewer votes than she has. He's gotten himself into a ~300 pledged delegate deficit, which at this point in the campaign is essentially insurmountable in a proportional primary. California is not winner-take all--and even if it were, Bernie isn't likely to win it! Superdelegates have nothing to do with the fact that Bernie is losing and pretty handily at that.

Again, the fact is that the gap can only be considered massive when you factor superdelegates in light of remaining states; if they're excised from the equation (as well they should, as they are meant to back the popular choice), the primary is still very winnable.

The revolution has not materialized. Thus his entire plan for achieving change in the unlikely event he were to stumble into the presidency (which, for reasons already discussed, he won't) is discredited.

I grant you, maybe in the imaginary world where Bernie is this transformational figure that's leaving his opponents in the dust and breezing to victory on the back of an unprecedented groundswell of public support, his proposals could get through Congress on wishes alone. But that obviously is not the world in which we live.

Again, you are confusing performance in the Dem primaries with performance in the general; they are not the same. An uphill struggle for a win (or even a loss) in a very stacked, uphill Dem primaries does not in any way necessitate or prove a lack of mandate in the general.

Fair enough. Let me fill you in on what "single-payer" would look like in the United States, based on 50 years of evolution of existing single-payer programs in this country.

It will look like some mixture of Medicaid managed care (which enrolls the majority of Medicaid beneficiaries today and more every year) and Medicare Advantage (a very fast-growing segment of the Medicare population that enrolls nearly a third of beneficiaries today). Both are essentially privatized versions of the original Medicare and Medicaid programs. It will involve the government providing capitated payments--i.e., paying a monthly premium for enrollees--to private, often for-profit, insurance companies. Those insurance companies will compete for enrollment and will either pay providers largely in accordance with a government-set fee schedule (Medicare Advantage) or through their price own negotiations with health care providers as in the commercial market (Medicaid managed care).

The government will have a policy-setting role but the program will be based on some simulacrum of a market-based system; beneficiaries, for instances, will likely choose their plan in an exchange structure as under the ACA. They may see a relatively fixed taxpayer contribution, ala the Ryan Medicare reforms, or it may be structured more generously. Either way, there will likely be choices--yes, variation in cost-sharing and covered benefits--allowing those who wish to pay more for more generous coverage to do so.

Is this what Bernie is promising? I don't know because he won't tell me. It's obvious he's blowing a little smoke up our asses by claiming his plan will cover everything at no cost--but what he's actually aiming for remains something of a mystery. Perhaps you're correct and he'll defer to Congress to shape it. If so, what I just laid out is probably the best-case scenario. An odd blend of the existing privatized pieces of the Medicare or Medicaid programs, the ACA structure, and perhaps even Paul Ryan's Medicare approach from his budget blueprint. But it will likely lead to universal coverage, perhaps some administrative savings (though nothing like what's claimed), and a more prominent role for the government in policy direction and perhaps rate-setting. So the basic goals, if I understand them correctly, would be attained.

He never said his plan would 'cover everything at no cost' (again, he has sourced funding, see the link I provided rather than being your typical mud slinging, dismissive Hillarite partisan). Again, he has been very clear since the beginning that his most ambitious ideas, health care reform and single payer included, would require Dem Congressional control, which is necessary for large scale excision of the grossly inefficient private sector in order to realize meaningful savings; this much at a minimum seems probable, particularly given the savings stated. I'm not interested in a Frankenstein approach that requires Republican assent (which you seem to be implying) and I very much doubt he is either.

Second, what's with making affirmative, absolute claims about how Bernie's proposal will work out then immediately after admitting that you in fact have no clue?

 

[Greenbeard]

He never said his plan would 'cover everything at no cost' (again, he has sourced funding, see the link I provided rather than being your typical mud slinging, dismissive Hillarite partisan).

Bernie:

Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs.

As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.

According to Bernie, it covers everything, including things Medicare doesn't. Want to get a routine procedure at an expensive AMC instead of in a more appropriate and cost-effective setting like a community hospital? Don't worry! That decision won't cost you a dime! Because you don't pay anything out of pocket. Ever.

I'm not interested in a Frankenstein approach that requires Republican assent (which you seem to be implying) and I very much doubt he is either.

I'm not implying that at all. Do you think only red states have embraced Medicaid managed care? Or that only Republican seniors choose Medicare Advantage plans? There are reasons these have grown so much. Even traditional Medicare is administered by private insurers that make local coverage determinations for enrollees. Are we going to somehow do away with the structure of Medicare when we go to Bernie's Medicare-for-all?

Ignoring the past and the present is no way to build the future.

Second, what's with making affirmative, absolute claims about how Bernie's proposal will work out then immediately after admitting that you in fact have no clue?

To be clear: Bernie doesn't have a proposal. He has a slogan and some glowing language about how awesome it's going to be. I'm just telling you what single-payer would look like if it came to America (which is to say, it would very much look like an extension of the single-payer programs we already have). If you don't like those programs or don't want to see everyone put into them, perhaps it's time to slow down and think a little more carefully about exactly we're doing, so as to be more deliberate about what we want and how it can be achieved.

And this, as I've said, is the step I'm concerned Bernie is not well-suited for.

 

[Surrealistik]

Bernie:

According to Bernie, it covers everything, including things Medicare doesn't. Want to get a routine procedure at an expensive AMC instead of in a more appropriate and cost-effective setting like a community hospital? Don't worry! That decision won't cost you a dime! Because you don't pay anything out of pocket. Ever.

Choice of health care provider != unlimited choice. Again, as you repeatedly have in the past, you deliberately construe things in the worst possible, most dismissive light.

I'm not implying that at all. Do you think only red states have embraced Medicaid managed care? Or that only Republican seniors choose Medicare Advantage plans? There are reasons these have grown so much. Even traditional Medicare is administered by private insurers that make local coverage determinations for enrollees. Are we going to somehow do away with the structure of Medicare when we go to Bernie's Medicare-for-all?

Ignoring the past and the present is no way to build the future.

Tearing down the past and present as much as you're able is necessarily how you build the future of healthcare in the States. Everything about the current system is a disaster, and any sweeping, systemic revision must proceed in recognition of that, rather than building upon an egregiously flawed foundation as ACA did; what red states and Republicans vs Democrats do at present is completely irrelevant, as they are and have been both working within the system that needs to be replaced wholesale.

To be clear: Bernie doesn't have a proposal. He has a slogan and some glowing language about how awesome it's going to be. I'm just telling you what single-payer would look like if it came to America (which is to say, it would very much look like an extension of the single-payer programs we already have). If you don't like those programs or don't want to see everyone put into them, perhaps it's time to slow down and think a little more carefully about exactly we're doing, so as to be more deliberate about what we want and how it can be achieved.

And this, as I've said, is the step I'm concerned Bernie is not well-suited for.

I don't like what you're offering (mainly because it would be an incremental improvement built upon an irredeemable system, and an epic squandering of political hegemony), but that doesn't seem even remotely close to what Bernie is purporting to institute, nor is it in any way a concrete inevitability despite your claims. Though the specifics are not in place, Bernie's vision of singleplayer is and has always been closer to those successfully instituted in other developed countries. In otherwords the argument you're trying to make is predicated on a fabricated non-issue.

If it were up to Clinton, singlepayer would _never_ happen; she is all for the continuation of a dreadful and exorbitantly inefficient status quo with marginal tweaks and improvements.

 

[Greenbeard]

Choice of health care provider != unlimited choice. Again, as you repeatedly have in the past, you deliberately construe things in the worst possible, most dismissive light.

I don't know what you're saying here. How is Bernie going to steer me to the most cost effective care setting if there's never any cost to me at the point of care? Why shouldn't I go to Mass General for an ankle sprain or the ER for a bandaid?

Tearing down the past and present as much as you're able is necessarily how you build the future of healthcare in the States. Everything about the current system is a disaster, and any sweeping, systemic revision must proceed in recognition of that, rather than building upon an egregiously flawed foundation as ACA did; what red states and Republicans vs Democrats do at present is completely irrelevant, as they are and have been both working within the system that needs to be replaced wholesale.

This is silly, not least because you don't even know what you want to replace it with. "Burn everything down" is not a policy solution. Nor is it feasible or wise; path dependence is not a bad thing. This isn't Game of Thrones, the world is not completely upended and thrown into chaos each time the Iron Throne changes hands. We're a stable, pluralistic republic, not to mention one that employs a lot of people in the health sector. This pablum might sound good to the would-be revolutionaries, but it's a uniquely irresponsible and immature way of approaching a complex public policy issue.

As I said many pages ago, I'm wary of oversimplified "solutions" to complex problems. They betray a lack of seriousness and thoughtfulness. This remains the number one reason Bernie and his followers turn me off, even if his heart seems to be in the right place.

I don't like what you're offering (mainly because it would be an incremental improvement built upon an irredeemable system, and an epic squandering of political hegemony), but that doesn't seem even remotely close to what Bernie is purporting to institute, nor is it in any way a concrete inevitability despite your claims. Though the specifics are not in place, Bernie's vision of singleplayer is and has always been closer to those successfully instituted in other developed countries. In otherwords the argument you're trying to make is predicated on a fabricated non-issue.

The slogan is Medicare-for-all. What I described is an extension of what Medicare is. If we now mean to adopt some other country's approach instead of Medicare, which country are we talking about?

 

[Surrealistik]

I don't know what you're saying here. How is Bernie going to steer me to the most cost effective care setting if there's never any cost to me at the point of care? Why shouldn't I go to Mass General for an ankle sprain or the ER for a bandaid?

Generally the way cost control works with private health providers in SP is a price is determined and set by the government; providers then determine whether or not they want to take the government's price or lose out on the volume. In practice, most opt for the former, so people end up with a lot of choice, even if that choice is not absolute. Maybe that's not the way Bernie's going to play it, but that's typically how it works.

This is silly, not least because you don't even know what you want to replace it with. "Burn everything down" is not a policy solution. Nor is it feasible or wise; path dependence is not a bad thing. This isn't Game of Thrones, the world is not completely upended and thrown into chaos each time the Iron Throne changes hands. We're a stable, pluralistic republic, not to mention one that employs a lot of people in the health sector. This pablum might sound good to the would-be revolutionaries, but it's a uniquely irresponsible and immature way of approaching a complex public policy issue.

As I said many pages ago, I'm wary of oversimplified "solutions" to complex problems. They betray a lack of seriousness and thoughtfulness. This remains the number one reason Bernie and his followers turn me off, even if his heart seems to be in the right place.

The slogan is Medicare-for-all. What I described is an extension of what Medicare is. If we now mean to adopt some other country's approach instead of Medicare, which country are we talking about?

You're right; this isn't game of thrones, and the world would not be upended and thrown into chaos with the implementation of a singlepayer solution that aims to minimize systemic and egregiously wasteful private sector involvement. If countless first world countries the world over could manage systemic reform of their healthcare system from the private sector to singlepayer without the totality of their health system descending into chaos, I have no doubt that the US could too; all the precedent of such transitions suggests that no such event will occur.

I also have a pretty good idea of what _I_ would prefer the existing system to be replaced with (something comparable to Italy; consistently well ranked, highly efficient with regional customization while still permitting supplemental private insurance and private providers), and I believe that Bernie does as well. With respect to singlepayer, though the particulars vary, the common denominator and core is federal price setting and provider negotiation (something he has explicitly mentioned in his plan). It seems that he intends to combine this with fairly comprehensive coverage.

At a bare minimum it is most definitely not an expansion of the existing, unambiguously failed system per Clinton.

Further, I think it's pretty obvious that Medicare-for-all probably should not be interpreted so literally in light of the things Bernie _has_ specified, and the nature of singlepayer.

 

[Orly?]

 

[Abbazorkzog]

This video hits the nail on the head why I refuse to participate in the "nomination" of an indictee.

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm suspicious of easy answers and oversimplified analyses of complex problems. Purists make me uneasy. It's one thing to present a simplistic picture of the world as a rhetorical device, but quite another to appear to have actually internalized and believe your own cartoon-ized portrait of the world. I haven't seen hints of greater depth to Bernie, which concerns me.

Bernie reminds me of an aged version of the activists I knew in college or the folks on the advocacy side of the spectrum I've worked with since those days: passionate, good-hearted, but ultimately possessing of a very shallow knowledge and understanding of the issues that animate them. That's why he's a fine voice, an excellent message candidate, but not a president.

I don't find Sanders' ideas simplistic in the least but what I find really strange is that people find honesty one of the hardest things to trust in modern politics. Its almost like, if you are honest you must be naïve and can't possibly know how politics "works" (using the term very loosely).

When I talk about lack of depth, hand-waving away specifics, Bernie being something of an anti-wonk (and in that sense Hillary's opposite), I'm talking about what was on full display in his disastrous meeting with the NY Daily News editorial board this week.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority [to break up banks]?
Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.
DN: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"
Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.
DN: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?
Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.

DN: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?
Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?
Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

Daily News: Okay. But do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments [against Wall Street executives]?
Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes.
DN: You believe that? But do you know?
Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don't. But if I would...yeah, that's what I believe, yes.

Daily News: Do you support the Palestinian leadership's attempt to use the International Criminal Court to litigate some of these issues to establish that, in their view, Israel had committed essentially war crimes?
Sanders: No.
DN: Why not?
Sanders: Why not?
DN: Why not, why it...
Sanders: Look, why don't I support a million things in the world?

DN: Okay, while we were sitting here, I double-checked the facts. It's the miracle of the iPhone. My recollection was correct. It was about 2,300, I believe, killed, and 10,000 wounded. President Obama has taken the authority for drone attacks away from the CIA and given it to the U.S. military. Some say that that has caused difficulties in zeroing in on terrorists, their ISIS leaders. Do you believe that he's got the right policy there?
Sanders: I don't know the answer to that.

Daily News: Well, no, separate and apart from Guantanamo, it could be there, it could be anywhere. Where would a President Sanders imprison, interrogate? What would you do?
Sanders: Actually I haven't thought about it a whole lot.

God love him, Bernie can't even speak cogently about his own signature issue. He can rile folks up with soundbites with the best of them, but at the end of the day there's no there there. That's a problem for me. Like I said: passionate, good-hearted, but ultimately possessing of a very shallow knowledge and understanding of the issues that animate him.

 

[Surrealistik]

When I talk about lack of depth, hand-waving away specifics, Bernie being something of an anti-wonk (and in that sense Hillary's opposite), I'm talking about what was on full display in his disastrous meeting with the NY Daily News editorial board this week.

God love him, Bernie can't even speak cogently about his own signature issue. He can rile folks up with soundbites with the best of them, but at the end of the day there's no there there. That's a problem for me. Like I said: passionate, good-hearted, but ultimately possessing of a very shallow knowledge and understanding of the issues that animate him.

Ridiculously cropped and cherry picked with the usual disingenuous take away from the usual disingenuous Hillary supporters. I invite anyone to go read the full transcript.

That said, since you apparently have such difficulty understanding what seems painfully obvious, I'll generously set aside some time to help you out:

#1: I think it's painfully obvious that he was making the point that executive power is a function of legislation per Dodd Frank.

#2: Sanders/the executive branch does not oversee the specifics of handling a break up; that is the responsibility of those running the actual banks being divvied. He also handled several of the questions in follow up that was omitted from your excerpts.

#3: The MetLife case wasn't really a landmark case with respect to what Bernie wants to do, especially given its non-Bank status, and intention to spin off and divest several of the operations that brought it to the attention to FSOC; it is also beyond the scope of banking institutions. To fault Bernie for a lack of familiarity with the specific outcomes of this is asinine given that any precedent it set would likely not interfere with interventions in the likes of say JP Morgan.

#4: I don't think it's reasonable to fault Bernie for admitting ignorance to specific statutes under which he would prosecute. It might be tempting to throw out something general like 'securities fraud', but he was asked for specifics, and further, pressing criminal charges was never a part of his platform/campaign which probably explains why he doesn't have those specifics memorized.

#5: Obvious trap/gotcha question given the power of the Israeli lobby. I sympathize with Bernie on this issue; it is a virtual death knell to be too critical of Israeli's criminal expansionism and aggression. That said, Hillary is worse than him on this issue in pretty much every way in that she's unabashedly in its corner, whereas Bernie actually has ethical and moral reservations. Overall I am not a fan of his policy towards Israel in that I find it too friendly and forgiving, but I understand it both in the sense that he's Jewish, and that the political pressures associated with the question are immense.

#6 & 7: You really want to criticize Sanders for not having a definitive answer for very specific questions on very specific pieces of foreign/military policy that have never been integral to his campaign? For something as steeped in minutiae as his view on the pros and cons of military vs CIA control over drones and the geography of ISIS imprisonment? Seriously? Absurd.

Overall, if you want to compare gaffes, this is pretty tame (at worst) stuff compared to what Hillary has put out.

 

[reinoe]

When I talk about lack of depth, hand-waving away specifics, Bernie being something of an anti-wonk (and in that sense Hillary's opposite), I'm talking about what was on full display in his disastrous meeting with the NY Daily News editorial board this week.









God love him, Bernie can't even speak cogently about his own signature issue. He can rile folks up with soundbites with the best of them, but at the end of the day there's no there there. That's a problem for me. Like I said: passionate, good-hearted, but ultimately possessing of a very shallow knowledge and understanding of the issues that animate him.

It's better to have beliefs and ideas than having someone who sells out to the highest bidder.

 

[Casper]

Re: Hillary Clinton Supporters: Why Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

My guess is that for a good percentage of Hillary supporters it will be because she is at least not a full fledged Socialist and proud of it.