Do I understand Bernie correctly?

[BainsBane]

Opening relations with China was bad because of TPP, forty years later?

Yet the last debate he criticized Clinton her 2008 position of wanting to negotiate conditions for discussions with Iran? And then, in an earlier debate, he suggested we should move right away to normalize relations with Iran? (He denied it in a subsequent debate but he did say it and it can be verified by reviewing the video).

So open relations with China is bad but good with Iran?

[Recursion]

1. The TPP which was specifically designed to exclude China?

That's an odd argument.

[BainsBane]

3. LOL

It's a comedy of errors.

I will confess I didn't know that, but then I am not running for president or made opposition to the treaty a center of a political campaign.

[BainsBane]

23. I posted the excerpt from the transcript below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1208002

I think I may have given him too much credit in assuming his comment had to do with policy. I think the point was to merely continue the guilt by association attack that is the mainstay of internet memes. I guess I expected more because this was a presidential debate and not a Twitter exchange. My bad.

[Ed Suspicious]

2. Open relations is good. Trade agreements that result in American corporations firing their workers,

in exchange for hiring Chinese workers at a fraction of the wage, only for them to turn around and ship that cheap shit back for Americans to buy enriching CEOs while impoverishing American workers. . . That's bad.

[BainsBane]

4. Except his response was to Clinton's point

that Kissinger opened relations with China, which she believed a good thing. It was in the context of a guilt by association attack, to which she responded it's possible to consult with people on some issues while disagreeing with them on others.

He responded that it wasn't a success because of the loss of jobs and TPP. He specifically mentioned TPP.

[Recursion]

7. We don't have a free trade agreement with China. They'll never agree to one.

Because they'd have to pass a minimum wage and let workers form independent unions. Getting Vietnam and Brunei to sign on to that for the TPP was like pulling teeth; China and India will literally never agree to that, so they'll never get a free trade deal with us.

What's that? US factories still ship jobs to China?

Why, yes they do, many more of them than shipped them to Latin America: that doesn't require a free trade agreement.

[hedda_foil]

16. Certainly we do. The PNTR, which was signed by President Clinton

The status of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) is a legal designation in the United States for free trade with a foreign nation. In the United States, the name was changed from most favored nation (MFN) to PNTR in 1998.
Permanent normal trade relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_normal_trade_relations
U.S. and China Edit

In the last year of his presidency, Bill Clinton called on Congress to help him change China’s normalcy post trade relations status with the U.S. to permanent. This would amend the Trade Act of 1974 which had the trade status of China on an annually review to determine the best course of action. The piece of legislation was introduced to the house as H.R. number 4444 on May 15, 2000 by William Reynolds Archer, a Republican Representative from Texas (he had three cosponsors). Introduce to the house the legislation referred to the Ways and Means committee in the House of Representatives to be amended and written up.[6] The legislation was introduced by saying that the bill was a top priority for the rest of the year and it was vital to the U.S. agriculture market to have access to a market that accounts for one-fifth of the world’s population.[7]

The other crucial point made was the involvement the U.S. needed to help the workers of the People’s Republic of China to lead better lives.[8] Congress added some important points into the legislation to make sure that when China entered the World Trade Organization it could be reprimanded for crimes against the workers of the country, and certain markets would be mutually exclusive between the two countries. The People’s Republic of China’s businesses had to abide by human rights for their workers as stated in the internationally recognized worker rights. To monitor the workers’ rights Congress established the Congressional–Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of China. The commission was to monitor acts of China which reflect compliance or violation, compile lists of persons believed to be imprisoned, detained, or tortured due to pursuit of their human rights, monitor the development of the rule of law in China, and encourage the development of programs and activities of the U.S. government and private organizations with a goal of increasing the interchange of people and ideas. The committee formed, along with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and the International Trade Commission (ITC) was to give an annual report to the President.[6]

Congress believed that they needed to pass a bill that would help the economy stay stimulated if not have a higher growth than at the time.[9] The most productive and trouble-free way to keep the economy growing strong was to outsource and trade more with China. China was to help provide America with superior markets in industry, agriculture, and technology. Congress as whole thought that without these things America would fall behind economically and technologically to some enemies of America.[citation needed] If China did not get support from America they could go to another country that would not be so strict on their treatment of people, and they could use that country to gain access to the WTO. The down side to this was that no markets could provide and receive China’s goods like the United States markets could.[7]

The International Trade Commission’s report was the determination of China’s impacts on United States market, and how those certain disruptions can be remedied or expanded. The ITC was to find what domestic industries were being hurt by the trade and to present how the repair could be made. This was the most important part of the bill for most of the country. The bill breaks down to depending on how the different markets in the U.S. economy are doing it can use China’s markets as a catalyst to help stabilize when need be.

The bill created a stir among Congress and the American people when presented because people did not believe that America could actually do anything to help regulate China’s treatment of workers.[10] Aside from people’s rights activists many business men believed in the bill to help flourish the different areas of industry. The legislation was passed by the House of Representatives on May 24, 2000 and by the Senate on September 19, 2000. Members of the senate wanted to add in amendments on treating their workers even better than stated in previous legislation, and to make the punishment for breaking the rules greater. Congress was up for re-election that year so due to time constraints all twenty four amendments were rejected. The President signed on Oct 10, 2000 and that day it became Public Law No: 106-286.[6]

I

[Recursion]

17. PNTR is just that, "normal". We don't specifically sanction them.

It's not an FTA.

[hedda_foil]

18. Please read what I posted.

[Recursion]

19. I did. It's not an FTA. It's normal trading relations (nt)

[OrwellwasRight]

33. You don't need an "FTA" to have "free trade."

We do have free trade with China. We do not have free trade with Cuba and North Korea.

[OrwellwasRight]

36. It is FREE TRADE.

That is what the WTO is.

If you have never heard of it, you might wish to start here:

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/inbrief_e/inbr00_e.htm

[Recursion]

39. Which is why FTAs are a much better framework, and why they've been D policy for 25 years

Sure, if you want to say GATT and WTO are the evil neoliberal (or whatever this week's word is) cause of all of our suffering, fine, though it seems odd that people are then so against the FTAs that are being introduced to replace them.

[OrwellwasRight]

49. FTAs do not "replace" the WTO.

And neoliberalism is not new. It's been around and failing for decades. Remember the Great Recession thingy we had back in 2007? yeah, that. That was caused by neoliberalism -- aka deregulation, detaxation. It doesn't work unless your goal is to concentrate wealth at the top. That is what our domestic economic policies do. And that is what our international economic policies do.

You really do need to get educated on trade. You seem to have no idea at all what it is about.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/if_trade_is_war_its_time_we_fought_back_20150521
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Labor-Advisory-Committee-for-Trade-Negotiations-and-Trade-Policy.pdf
http://www.cato.org/publications/cato-online-forum/ttip-battle-soul-trade-policy
http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/compromise-advance-trade-agenda-purge-negotiations-investor-state

[Recursion]

50. Wow... Truthdig *and* Cato? That's got to be a record.

smh

BTW I've posted that exact USTR link several times. You've got a lot to learn about trade, if you don't get that TPP is a completely different framework from WTO, and will replace NAFTA.

[OrwellwasRight]

54. Wow. So sad that you

Last edited Fri Feb 12, 2016, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

read Obama for Anerica's email praising TPP and think you are a trade expert.

#1 The TPP does not replace NAFTA. NAFTA will stay in force. If you believe it will replace NAFTA, please point to the provision in it where is says that. Because it doesn't say that, and the way international law works is that international agreements stay in place unless countries specifically withdraw from them or agree to replace them.

#2 The TPP is not "a completely different framework" than the TPP. Try READING them. The TPP incorporates by reference parts of the GATS, GATT and TRIPS. Its Services and Financial Services chapters borrow from the GATS. The chapter on technical barrier to trade borrows from the WTO's TBT agreement, etc. etc.

In fact, there are many similarities and overlaps, which you would find out if you read the agreements you claim to know so much about.

In fact, take NAFTA and TPP, put the corresponding chapters next to each other, and see if you can spot the differences. There are tragically few differences.

You also might learn something if you watched those videos or clicked on those links. You clearly have not ever read the USTR link that I posted -- you don't even appear to know that it is to a report condemning the TPP by one of the "trade advisory committees."

[Armstead]

30. You're gonna scalp me but....

It may not require free trade agreements, but a lack of protectionist policies certainly helps the process.

[bettyellen]

35. Noooo, I love your hair!

[Recursion]

40. Your hair is safe, and I take your point

I was responding to my reading of the OP that Sanders blamed the TPP on opening diplomatic relations with China, whereas the TPP is pretty explicitly an attempt to exclude China from trade. (Both my reading of the OP and the OP itself could have been wrong.)

[OrwellwasRight]

42. China has a minimum wage. So does Vietnam.

Getting Vietnam and Brunei to sign the TPP was not like pulling teeth. They are both chomping at the bit for access to the US market.

http://www.talkvietnam.com/2015/10/vietnam-enters-new-playground-after-tpp-negotiation-ends/
http://evbn.org/vietnam-hails-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement/

What they didn't want to sign away were the monopoly rights on pharmaceuticals and their sovereignty under ISDS. Those were the toughest negotiating issues, not labor. No one is afraid of the virtually non-existent labor enforcement mechanisms in the US.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-160

And if you don't think we have both "free trade" and "FTAs" with Latin American countries, you need to get educated on the subject before you spout off about it. You are incorrect on both counts.

[Recursion]

43. Of course we have FTAs with Latin American countries; that was my point

The biggest recipients of "US jobs" were China and India, not the countries that we have FTAs with.

[OrwellwasRight]

51. And Mexico and Japan. Ahem.

And India and Japan are also in the WTO, and we have "free trade" with them. And corporations are constantly looking for more legal rights to allow them to control the laws in foreign countries. It is called ISDS. That is why they want MORE RIGHTS in addition to those they have in the WTO: because it makes offshoring less risky and MORE profitable. It's about the incentives. It is hilarious how you pretend to be so economics savvy and you don't even get that giving more incentives to offshore will result in more offshoring.

[Recursion]

52. Japan? Japan has been a source of US jobs, not a sink

Compare the number of Americans working for Toyota in the US vs. the number working for Ford in Japan.

[OrwellwasRight]

56. Wow.

You just don't get it do you? Ford just pulled out of Japan because it can't sell anything there and won't be able to since the US did nothing about currency manipulation in the TPP.

https://ourfuture.org/20160127/ford-motor-leaves-japan-indonesia-blames-tpp

The US goods trade deficit with Japan hit 68 billion plus for 2015. That represents jobs we could have had, but didn't becasue they made it in Japan instead of here.

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5880.html

I also love that you have not supported a single claim that you are making. It's kind of hilarious.

[Art_from_Ark]

65. I think Ford pulled out of Japan because its cars were just too damned expensive

and Japanese tend to avoid foreign cars unless they're status cars like BMWs or Mercedes Benzes. I can buy a nice, new Japanese-made car here in Japan for around $10,000. Last year, I checked the local Ford dealership, and the cheapest car was around $30,000. About 20 years ago, though, Ford was selling a bottom-line car here for around $11,000.

And if you want to talk currency manipulation, Japan was at the mercy of currency manipulators, otherwise know as foreign currency traders, in the '90s, and again just before and after the 2011 disasters, and the wild currency swings wrecked or severely damaged a lot of Japanese industries.

[Recursion]

44. Also China has no national minimum wage, though some provinces have set them

Which, for that matter, has a lot to do with the manufacturing exodus from China to SEA and Africa we're seeing.

Vietnam had one for some sectors, and had to increase it by 15% and universalize it to sign the TPP.

[OrwellwasRight]

57. China has them, it just doesn't pay them.

Cite: http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/newscast/92

Furthermore, Vietnam did not have to increase or universalize its wages to sign the TPP. Here is the exact relevant text from the TPP:

"Each Party shall adopt and maintain statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, governing acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.5"

"FN 5:
For greater certainty, this obligation relates to the establishment by a Party in its statutes, regulations and practices thereunder, of acceptable conditions of work as determined by that Party."

Do you see where it says "as determined by that Party"? That means the US cannot tell Vietnam what kind or level of a minimum wage it has to have. The US cannot dictate whether ANY of Vietnam's laws regarding "acceptable conditions of work" are indeed acceptable. All the TPP says is that Vietnam just has to have such laws.

You can read for yourself if you still don't get it: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Labour.pdf

[Bonobo]

5. No, you don't. nt

[uponit7771]

6. Sanders isn't interested in FP, hes made that overt

[Fawke Em]

8. No. You don't. eom

[Mnpaul]

9. Free trade with China was a problem that Bernie recognized in 2003

and did something about it. 57 cosponsors (42D, 15R)
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr3228

[Recursion]

15. We don't have an FTA with China. We probably never will.

They'd never agree to the labor concessions they would have to make.

[Mnpaul]

20. I was going to post "free trade" but it didn't fit

Summaries for To withdraw normal trade relations treatment from the products of the People’s Republic of China.

China dumps tons of junk on our markets while charging huge tariffs on some our goods. It's "free trade" for those exploiting China's cheap labor.

[OrwellwasRight]

32. Hilarious.

We have open trade with China through the WTO. It is called PNTR and it was pushed by Bill Clinton.

As to:

They'd never agree to the labor concessions they would have to make.

hahahahahahahahahahaha

You mean like being able to kill labor leaders with impunity, as Colombia does despite the "labor concessions" in the Colombia FTA?
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Global-Action/Despite-Labor-Action-Plan-Colombian-Unionists-Still-Targeted-for-Death

Or being able to use short-term contracts to prevent unionization under the Peru FTA, despite the "labor concessions" in the Peru FTA?
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Global-Action/Has-Free-Trade-with-Peru-Weakened-the-Rights-of-Working-People

Or do you mean how Guatemala kills off union leaders despite the "labor concessions" in CAFTA?
http://www.labornotes.org/2015/09/guatemala-labor-case-unmasks-free-trades-empty-promises

Or maybe how Honduras fails to enforce any of its labor laws, despite the "labor concessions" in CAFTA?
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Global-Action/Honduras-and-CAFTA-Show-Us-One-of-the-Key-Reasons-Why-TPP-Should-Be-Opposed

Yeah, China is shaking in its boots that it might have to make some meaningless promise that will, in the words of Hillary Clinton, "NEVER, EVER" be enforced.

[Iggy Knorr]

10. Easy question, No you intentionally misunderstand him

[Live and Learn]

11. Obviously not. nt

[H2O Man]

12. no

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Yeah... um, no.

[BainsBane]

14. I'll wait for the transcripts of that portion of the debate to be posted

and then we can look at what exactly he said.

[BainsBane]

21. Here is the quote, verbatim

CLINTON: That's fine. That's fine.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas. I think it is fair to say, whatever the complaints that you want to make about him are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

So if we want to pick and choose -- and I certainly do -- people I listen to, people I don't listen to, people I listen to for certain areas, then I think we have to be fair and look at the entire world, because it's a big, complicated world out there.

SANDERS: It is.

CLINTON: And, yes, people we may disagree with on a number of things may have some insight, may have some relationships that are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the United States.


SANDERS: I find -- I mean, it's just a very different, you know, historical perspective here. Kissinger was one of those people during the Vietnam era who talked about the domino theory. Not everybody remembers that. You do. I do. The domino theory, you know, if Vietnam goes, China, da, da, da, da, da, da, da. That's what he talked about, the great threat of China.

And then, after the war, this is the guy who, in fact, yes, you're right, he opened up relations with China, and now pushed various type of trade agreements, resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. The terrible, authoritarian, Communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he's urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy.

(APPLAUSE)


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/11/transcript-the-democratic-debate-in-milwaukee-annotated/

A bit of context: The Domino Theory, which dates back to the 1950s, long before Kissinger was in US govt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

[OrwellwasRight]

26. Hello.

What is is saying is that Kissinger is an idiot, not that opening China caused the TPP. Try to keep up.

[BainsBane]

29. Yes, I was mistaken to think he was discussing policy

I corrected myself here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1208042

[SoLeftIAmRight]

22. NO

...

[OrwellwasRight]

24. You what's funny?

I got banned from the Hillary Clinton group for asking a much more innocent question. I guess we are less afraid of debate than you are.

[BainsBane]

27. This is GD-P, not the Bernie group

I got banned from the Bernie group for posting a laughing emoticon. Know what else? I didn't complain about it because I knew I'd be banned. I'm not a supporter and don't fit the SOP of the group, just as you don't fit the SOP of the Hillary group.

At any rate, I posted the quote from the transcript and explained my mistake here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1208042

[OrwellwasRight]

58. You are correct - I didn't see that I had jumped forums.

However, you make assumptions that are ridiculous. You should be banned from groups based on your behavior in them, not based on assumptions about who you may actually support.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Did you miss the part about Kissinger's culpability in the humanitarian catastrophe in Cambodia?

Hell, he didn't even get into the guy's clearly treasonous activity in the leadup to the '68 election.

If we prosecuted that sort of thing half as enthusiastically as we do people who smoke marijuana, any politicians who want Kissinger's "sage advice" would be getting it through a phone and a plexiglass window.

[BainsBane]

28. Yeah, that part I knew about

as well as Chile, which I'm fairly confident I knew about when you were still focused on your Dead concerts.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. oooh, that would like TOTALLY be a burn, except..... it's not.

I was pretty fucking engaged and active back then, too. A swing, and a miss!

It's like a bad pun math problem. When you've got nothing, just ad hominem.

[BainsBane]

37. Okay, whatever you say

I wrote my BA Honor's thesis on the 1973 coup, but whatever. I stand duly chastised.

As I already acknowledged, I was mistaken to think Bernie was actually engaged in a policy discussion. Upon reading the transcript I realize he actually had nothing of substance to say about China but instead was pursuing a guilt by association attack--the stuff of internet memes. I expected more since it was a Presidential debate rather than a Twitter exchange. But then we are in a political environment where a candidate's refusal to inform himself on foreign policy or even assemble a team to help prepare him for that aspect of the presidency is seen as a positive. I will have to continue to struggle to keep up with the new normal where knowledge is bad and policy discussions to be avoided at all costs.

[bettyellen]

38. oh snap, BB. Well said!

[BainsBane]

45. Hey, I haven't seen you in like forever

How have you been?

[bettyellen]

47. Hanging tough, laying low... Hows tricks with you?

I had a banner week- two hides in one night, LOL. Soon you maybe missing me again, HA!
:HI:

[BainsBane]

48. That sucks

Yeah, it ain't easy being part of the dissent.

Did you decide to support Clinton or are you still undecided?

[bettyellen]

55. I decided I am not doing JACK SHIT till there is a nominee. My state will not matter for primary...

November will matter, and I will happily phone-bank my ass off for whoever gets nominated.
Otherwise, it is finally cold as EFF over here. Wow.

[BainsBane]

59. It's quite cold here too

But we have caucuses on March 1 so I'm doing what I can to help with that effort. I also went to Iowa for the three days leading up to the caucuses to help out there.

So far I've been phone banking here in MN, but since it's getting close to March 1 I'll just have to brave the cold to go door to door. It's more effective than phone banking because more people answer. Still, I had a nice compliment from a Clinton staffer last night who told me I was the most persuasive person he's ever seen on the phone. It's nice to feel I'm making a difference. I've been able to persuade some people who have never before caucused that they need to turn out and be counted.

It will be a close election, and I care a great deal about having the most qualified and competent person as our nominee. I also find elections fun to work on. I've volunteered regularly since 2004, but this is the first time I've been involved in a primary contest. I usually make up my mind on party nominees only shortly before voting, but DU helped me decide earlier, particularly when certain people insisted I decide if I was with or against them. As the election has proceeded, I've become more and more certain that Clinton is exponentially more knowledgeable and prepared for the job. I don't agree with her on everything, of course, but I ultimately think ability, seriousness of policy positions, and experience to be determinative factors.

[bettyellen]

61. THANK YOU FOR THIS ----> "I've been able to persuade some people..." I am good on the phone too!

I used to table a lot when I was younger and do much more in local races, but prefer phone banking now. My area gets thuggish and ugly, and I am done with it. I loved calling NH for Obama eight years ago!
I usually try and keep my ears out for an important race every November and see if I can't do calls for it. My state is so late, and so populous I often have to look elsewhere to have any impact. And I am greedy like that!

[Warren DeMontague]

46. I actually think it's a pretty cogent fucking observation, although the debate format doesn't really

lend itself to a deeper exploration of the issues.

To wit, yes, "Kissinger (and Nixon) opened up China" --- considered, at the time, a major foreign policy coup and a breakthrough. Understandably. However, it is as valid now to ask questions about it in retrospect as it is to question whether Earl Butz's (lol) magnamous masterstroke of assistance to corn farmers by getting high fructose corn syrup put in 70% of our food, really worked out so well for our larger society.

China was opened, and yes you can draw a straight line from there to the current situation we have today- China has embraced in many ways a tightly controlled corporate economic structure yet still has not extended human rights and democracy to their people, in fact I specifically recall then-governor Bill Clinton arguing forcefully that the GHW Bush administration was not being tough enough on China for human rights issues in the wake of Tiananmen Square, and yet upon taking office President Clinton went the other direction and encouraged more trade friendliness with the regime, not less.

And I wouldn't argue it's all black and white, certainly there have been benefits to both nations from increased trade relations- but at the same time papering over the real problems does no one any good, and many of them are related to issues like outsourcing of american jobs, a race to the bottom in terms of labor and environmental standards, etc.

AND the current economic turbulence on the global markets is directly related, in recent months, to a lack of opacity in terms of China's currency manipulation, economic and governmental policy, ALL factors which directly relate to this sort of frankenstein corporate/totalitarian free market that isn't really free system they've got going, which we have enabled over the past 40 years.

So it's all relevant, and like I said unfortunately an hour or two debate with 2 minute answers doesn't really lend itself to the in depth discussion the question warrants.

As for your honor's thesis, good for you. Being aware of the history, then you should have, as I did, gotten a bit of a squicky feeling when Hillary touted Kissinger's name the other night.

Do you want me to post my resume on DU? is that where we're at, here?

'Cuz I'm not gonna do that, in case you're wondering.

[BainsBane]

60. Then you agree with my initial impression

that his comments were about how opening up relations with China was bad rather than the point of his comments to be about how Clinton is guilty for having spoken to Kissinger?

I think we can safely say that Bernie is far better tuned into the pet peaves of the keyboard warriors than Clinton is. How much that matters to the electorate at large, however, is another factor. As odious as some of Kissinger's crimes have been--and I do believe they are crimes for which he could be held accountable at the Hague--he remains a towering figure in diplomatic circles. In fact, I have seen a number of DUers critical of Nato expansion in Russia's former sphere of influence echo the same positions he has outlined, only they don't realize it.

I think I could take a stab at writing your resume. Don't know if I'd be accurate, but I feel I good make some reasonable guesses.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. some people look better on paper

I'm not one of them.


I think the fact that Hillary spent a good chunk of her Senate time positioning herself as a war hawk, is part of what makes her touting Kissinger's approval so... 'problematic', so to speak. But IIRC, she brought up China as justification of listing Dr. K as an important voice, and that came after Sanders' objections on things like Cambodia.

I do suspect that to much of the electorate, the conversation might as well have been Swahili. Kissinger's name, like Vietnam, looms central in the cultural narrative of many boomers but is more likely meaningless to the increasing number of voters born afterwards.

it's 'peeves', btw. Not trying to be a dick, here, just pointing that out.

[BainsBane]

63. Yes, your command of the English language is unquestioned

which would certainly influence the hypothetical resume I referenced. I've always been a terrible speller, so much so that my thesis adviser in college said she thought my spelling so far below my intelligence that she thought I might be dyslexic. All I can say is thank the goddess for spell check.

Interesting that Bernie's policy positions are so similar to Clinton's when you describe her as a hawk. The one conflict they diverged on was the Iraq War Resolution. Bernie was right there. He, however, is not right--or rather accurate--in his statements about dynamics in the Middle East. He supports the same war against ISIS that Clinton does, likewise opposes ground troops, but has some bizarre notion about compelling various Muslim states (most problematically Iran and Saudi Arabia together) to fight the war as our proxies. That is not the position of a dove.

Bernie's remarks about Kissinger played to his base. I think, however, they did nothing to persuade people not already in his camp. Your analysis is more thoughtful than most I've seen. The typical argument is Kissinger is bad, and Clinton is bad for associating with him. Frankly, I thought the comments beneath Sanders. I expect more from someone seeking the office of president. His refusal to assemble a foreign policy team should concern any thoughtful voter.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Secretary Clinton has done better, overall, the past 2 debates because Foreign Policy is clearly

an area where she knows her stuff. I fully give her that.

And I would not dispute the notion that it is an important part of the job as POTUS/CIC. No question. I have my personal opinion about certain specific issues that I feel have gotten short shrift in the debates or otherwise not been adequately addressed or answered by certain candidates, but I do believe foreign policy has been covered well.

On ISIS it seems to me that neither candidate has a great answer, Hillary's plan for an aerial campaign can only go so far, and certainly we all can be forgiven for being reflexively wary at the idea of 'boots on the ground' going back to that part of the world when we still haven't finished paying for the last adventure. I do believe Sanders' points about judgment and caution are good ones, as a general philosophical approach to military adventurism abroad, but should HRC become POTUS foreign policy is one area where I do believe she will exhibit competence. It's just not my main motivator in this primary conversation, it's not. I agree with Sanders about the IWR vote, but it's not the dealbreaker to me that it was in 2008.

Many of the foreign policy objections being levied at Sanders were also levied at Obama, too. I don't want the next president to be in a hurry to do ANYTHING with our military, so I would imagine that Bernie Sanders still has time to assemble a foreign policy team. In the meantime, while foreign policy (again) has not only been covered into the ground in recent debates, it's been a primary topic of national conversation, for good or ill, for the past 15 years.

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders is the first politician in a very long time with a national platform to raise some of the issues he currently is, although the execrable John Edwards did manage to hint at some of them back in '08.

ISIS, Syria, also the Israel/Palestinian situation- these are all problems for which, sadly, there just don't seem to be good answers, only varying degrees of bad ones. I believe Sanders' point, broadly and philosophically, is that the fight against ISIS is a fight against a certain strain of fundamentalist Islam, and as such it is best waged by other predominantly Muslim countries, otherwise we are playing into the "Crusader" narrative ISIS wants to establish.

Unfortunately there is no shortage of both Sunni and Shia Fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively as well, but I do think the guy has a point.

[BainsBane]

68. I agree with most of that

Except for the point about Obama. He has always had a strong interest in foreign policy, didn't evade it as a point of discussion, and had a very respectable foreign policy team in place by Iowa. Politico talks about those differences in its main piece about Bernie's foreign policy credentials.

The only explanation for Bernie's failure to assemble a foreign policy team that makes sense to me is that he didn't expect to win the nomination but was running to raise issues. At this point, however, he has become a contender for the nomination and has a responsibility to take foreign policy seriously if he is to remain in the race. He certainly has the financing to last for some time.

Since George Bush, competence has been a central criteria for me in a president. I would not consider Clinton in 08 because of her war vote. I was seriously looking at Biden because of his leadership of the foreign relations committee, but he dropped out before I voted. (Yes, I know he voted for the war, and I cannot explain why I didn't hold that against him. Like many, I suppose I was persuaded by media hype against Clinton. Frankly, I don't think I ever thought about my own hypocrisy on that point). I ended up supporting Obama.

Now eight years later, Clinton has additional experience as SoS, and I find her opponent less persuasive or qualified than Obama. While I appreciate Bernie's attention to key issues of money in politics and inequality, I do not find him credible as a potential president. I am suspicious of politicians who promise the moon, and his lack of specifics combined with what I've learned about the chasm between what he says and does only confirms those suspicions.

Obviously I've made my mind up since I am volunteering multiple shifts every week for the Clinton campaign.

[valerief]

34. Kissinger bad-mouthed the threat of China during the Vietnam WAR PROFITEERING YEARS.

As the war ended, China was wonderful to him and soon our manufacturing jobs were going to China.

That was his point about Kissinger, who Clinton felt important to note complimented her.

[jeff47]

41. No. Your failure of comprehension is your belief that trade with China is new. (nt)

[Gothmog]

53. Sanders does not understand foreign policy

[NurseJackie]

71. This is what I'm seeing.

[KelleyKramer]

64. China is not part of the TPP !

No, you do not understand

Not at all

[phleshdef]

66. Can you not separate the concepts of friendly relations vs unproductive trade deals?

[AgingAmerican]

69. No, you misunderstand him

[LWolf]

70. I very much doubt it.

It's not hard to do. The first step is to WANT to.