Dean claims that Hillary is the smartest person in the room. I posted here just the other day that Sanders is the smartest person in the room. I will tell you why below.
I quote from the OP and the Washington Post article.
"Clinton’s three most compelling characteristics continue to be her vast experience in foreign and domestic policy; her tenacity and history of getting things done across the political aisle, particularly as a senator; and the ferocious enthusiasm of her followers, particularly among young women working for true political gender equity that is long overdue."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/09/01/howard-dean-the-case-for-hillary-clinton/
OK. Clinton's experience in foreign policy. In spite of the fact that she had lived in the White House and can claim to have been a close confidante of President Clinton for eight years, she still failed to question the Bush administration's claim that we had to invade Iraq due to WMDs and Al Qaeda. She had to have known that we really didn't know. She should have asked for verified evidence of Bush's claims. Other members of Congress, including Chaffee did.
And when the International Inspection team reported on the eve of our invasion (Vanity Fair April 2004) that Saddam had no WMDs, Hillary should have immediately called on Congress to investigate the lies and should have informed the American people.
Further, with regard to the War in Iraq and her vote, why did it take her so long to recognize the error in that invasion and her vote?
At the time of the vote on the Iraq War Resolution, BERNIE SANDERS, in contrast with Hillary Clinton asked the obvious question: OK, so we invade, we get rid of Saddam, WHAT THEN?
That Hillary did NOT ask that question tells me a lot about Hillary.
That Bernie did ask that question tells me all I need to know about Bernie. BERNIE, not Hillary is the SMARTEST PERSON IN THE ROOM. He asks the central questions. All of Hillary's experience cannot make her as independent, or resourceful a thinker, a questioner as Bernie. Bernie is the smartest person in the room.
****
What did Hillary get done across the aisle?
Well, one of the things was introducing a law that would have made burning the flag illegal. I love the American flag. I would never burn it, but can you really call reaching across to a Republican to sponsor a law against burning the American flag much of an accomplishment? I don't.
The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert Bennett. The law would have outlawed flag burning, and called for a punishment of one year in jail and a fine of $100,000.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005
Fortunately, it did not pass. What an exercise in pandering to the right wing of America. What a waste of time in retrospect. If that is Hillary's idea of reaching across the aisle, I don't think I want to vote for her. Not that it is wrong, just ????? What is the point?????
For that, she and Bennett got paid????
Wikipedia reviews her relationships with the Republicans. Looks to me like her hands stretched across the aisle were pretty much slapped down in most cases although she has been an effective and strong advocate for women's and children's issues:
As First Lady of the United States, her major initiative, the Clinton health care plan of 1993, failed to reach a vote in Congress. In 1997 and 1999, she played a leading role in advocating the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
On the other hand, she has in more than one instance voted for bills that she should have questioned. If that is what you do when you successfully reach across the aisle, I want nothing of it because the bills that are passed without that questioning affect my life and the lives of other Americans in negative ways.
Clinton voted for the USA Patriot Act in October 2001. In 2005, when the act was up for renewal, she worked to address some civil liberties concerns with it,[228] before voting in favor of a compromise renewed act in March 2006 that gained large majority support.[229]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
At the time the Patriot Act was passed, I questioned its definition of terrorism and terrorist act which is unclear, potentially vague and overbroad. We all know terrorism when we see it, but so far it has mostly been applied to people of certain religions and maybe even ethnic backgrounds. The definition is not precise enough. That's a huge problem with a bill that creates criminal penalties.
And then there are the confusing provisions in the Patriot Act that have been used to permit the NSA to violate the privacy of American citizens. I haven't heard much from Hillary even now about the revision of the Patriot Act that is needed.
If passing bad legislation that should have been more carefully written is "compromise," I don't want it. Disagreeing on policy is one thing, but passing a poorly written, ambiguous bill just to please the Republicans is quite another. I'm not voting for a candidate that does that. At least you insist that the bill you pass is clear and doesn't permit the government to violate the rights of citizens.
Bernie, in contrast, voted against the Patriot Act and criticizes in particular the license to snoop and eavesdrop on law-abiding Americans that has been given to the elite core of our intelligence and NSA operations with that and other acts of Congress.
Hillary, again not smart enough, not careful enough, not analytical in her approach. She showed over and over the desire to be accepted by her colleagues rather than the kind of independent thinking and ability to see the big picture that a leader should show, that Bernie showed.
When it comes to leadership ability, Hillary headed the State Department for four years. We do not know why she left. That's most of her leadership experience other than working for non-profits.
Bernie's leadership experience was gained as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, AN ELECTED OFFICE, to which he was elected in 1981 and re-elected to two-year terms three times, the last in 1987. He ran against well-funded opponents in some cases but was nevertheless picked to lead that city again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Bernie even has a little teaching experience -- one year at Harvard. I can't quite picture that, but . . . check it out! Pretty impressive for a guy with only a high school diploma and a bachelor's degree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Bernie lost elections when he started out as a politician, but he went on to try and try again, and has won election after election -- re-elected as mayor and to the House and then to the Senate more recently -- over and over. He has proved that he is electable.
Sanders was the first independent elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 40 years,[55] the last having been Frazier Reams of Ohio. He continually won reelection with high margins, with his closest bid during the 1994 Republican Revolution, when he won by 3.3% with 49.8% of the vote.[56]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Sanders filed as a conscientious objector in the Viet Nam War. He did not serve. Neither did Bill or Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney or any other president of the US. George W. Bush went into the national guard, stayed at home throughout the war and came as close to serving as any president. But he did not slog through rice fields, survive a POW camp or, as John Kerry did, serve honorably. Bernie's Viet Nam record, therefore, is an irrelevant factoid. I am just throwing in to be sure that it is covered.
Bernie voted against the first Iraq (Kuwait) War but supported bombing in the Kosovo conflict. He voted for the Afghanistan War and against the Iraq War.
Bernie's score on defense and national security is again, a smart one. He is not a pacifist on the one hand, nor a war hawk on the other. In this area, as in virtually all areas, he has shown great insight, far-ranging vision, and instinct for the morally correct choice and great respect for the Constitution and for the individual liberties, the freedom, of American citizens. I for one agree with Bernie's choices when it comes to the use of military force and foreign policy.
Bernie is an outstanding and vocal advocate for Veterans, for their health care, for their rights and for them as people. He is just beyond reproach in this area.
In my view, Hillary Clinton is strong as an advocate for women's and children's issues. But that is pretty much it. I question whether her policy in Syria and Libya has worked well. As many, many refugees make their way into Europe escaping the havoc that ISIS and the various wars in the Middle East are causing, I think that history will have to judge her role in the unrest.
Hillary is weak when it comes to willingness to sign and enforce the legislation we need to get our economy back on a road to prosperity for all of us. She is reported to oppose the passage of a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act that would protect taxpayers from yet another bail-out of the Wall Street gamblers.
It is in my view essential that we tell all bankers that they may not gamble on derivatives or other "investment" schemes with depositors or government money. Never. We need to take a new look at what is going on with Wall Street in terms of the use of computers, speed trading and the lack of a sense of fiduciary duty with regard to small investors. We need a new ethics in banking and investment and overall in our business community.
In contrast,
Sanders has been a vocal critic of Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan; in June 2003, during a question-and-answer discussion with the then-Chairman, Sanders told Greenspan that he was concerned that Greenspan was "way out of touch" and "that you see your major function in your position as the need to represent the wealthy and large corporations."[71][72] Sanders said in 1998 that investment banks and commercial banks should remain separate entities.[73] In October 2008 Greenspan admitted to Congress that his economic ideology was flawed.[74]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Hillary was not in the Senate in 2008 when Congress voted to bail out the banks.
Sanders' heroic stance against that bail-out which resulted in the handing over of tax money to irresponsible, arguably criminal, bankers with almost no conditions, no strings attached that would have protected our economy and ordinary Americans is discussed on Wikipedia.
And I ask DUers to view this picture of Bill Clinton signing the Glass Steagall Act which set the stage for Bush's failure to enforce other securities laws and ultimately led to the 2008 crash.
https://www.google.com/search?q=signing+of+repeal+of+glass+steagall&biw=1011&bih=520&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAgQ_AUoA2oVChMItb7h1MnWxwIVhDKICh2oGwPz#imgrc=xeF6OSKHnBMATM%3A
Are they clapping or are a couple of them greedily wringing their hands in anticipation of the profits they hope to make?
That picture pretty much sums up what "reaching across the aisle" has come to mean for Democrats in our Congress.
It has come to mean trading huge tax cuts for the already under-taxed wealthy corporations and 1% of our population just to maintain a little bit of the money for food stamps, Medicaid and other programs desperately needed by the poor and working people in our country.
Democrats like Hillary invariably lose out when they compromise with the right-wing bigots and fanatics in our country. I know the self-appointed "realists" will ask, "What is the alternative? My answer is: a really, really strong fight for the interests of ordinary Americans. If you are going to lose as badly as Democrats lost in 2014, at least do it for a noble purpose, for fighting for what is right, not because you failed your voters by too readily compromising THEIR INTERESTS.
I could go on and on but I do want to end with one cautionary note.
I agree that most of the Republican s' personal criticism of Hilary is unfounded and unfair. She has the distinction of being the only First Lady to actually be subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury. See her Wikipedia page cited above for the sordid facts about the Republican campaign over more than 20 years to tear her down.
The good news is that the attacks on Hillary have failed every time. And that does speak to Hillary's strength.
The bad news is that if we elect Hillary, we will have to deal with the Republican attempts to poison her reputation for the entire term of her presidency. She has become their favorite dog to beat. We know what we think of people who beat their dogs over and over. But that doesn't help.
Bernie is dealing with that nonsense in the best possible way. He ignores it and he tells the press and everyone that he does not do negative campaigns; he does not do negative ads and he puts the burden on the nasty and hateful to do their thing without his help.
That is so refreshing. And Bernie can turn any question, any negative ad into an opportunity to tell Americans about the good future he wants to bring for our country. That is irresistible in my book. It is so refreshing. Bernie gets my vote on that count alone.
In contrast, the propaganda by the right against Hillary has been extremely successful. I have a friend who is liberal and actually thinks that there is something to one of the hideous stories told about Hillary.
I would support Bernie rather than Hillary even if Hillary were viewed as a courageous, wonderful woman by the Republicans.
Nevertheless for people who are not sure who to support, I think that all of us should consider whether we really think that Hillary, with all the unfairly negative stuff about her out there, has a chance to win in the general election.
I will bet that just about one or two weeks before the election, the Republicans will trump up some bogus claim about Hillary just in time to prevent her from responding to it. She attracts Republican dirty campaigning like no politiician before her.
All respect for Howard Dean, but our strongest Democratic candidate is Bernie Sanders. No question about it in my mind.
Sorry for writing such long posts. There is so much to say.
= new reply since forum marked as read
... Surely she knows that the drug war is responsible for filling our prison cells with low level non violent drug offenders. Yet her buddy Debbie Wasserman-Schultz allies with sheldon adelson on the topic of arresting cancer grannies for getting high.
