I am a 70 year old woman, with 50+ years as a loyal Democratic voter, supporter and activist. I think I know a "qualified" presidential candidate when I see one. Seen some pretty bad ones. Seen a couple of good ones. With the exception of Barack Obama--who was completely unqualified in any conventional sense, but had the qualities of freshness and no "baggage"--I haven't seen a really good Democratic candidate for president in a very long time, until Bernie Sanders came along.
You see, being qualified to be president involves understanding the potential consequences of your actions, as perhaps FIRST qualification. Couldn't judge Obama on this (too young--not many things he'd done to have consequences) but gave him the benefit of the doubt. Except for one thing: HE VOTED AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR.
So did Bernie Sanders. Point 1 to Sanders, who, in addition to voting against the war, explained in detail what the consequences would be, in destabilizing the region and the rise of terrorist groups.
Point 2 for Sanders. The current Panama mega-scandal: Sanders voted against the U.S./Panama trade agreement because, he said in his speech, it will create a big tax haven for billionaire tax scofflaws. Clinton voted FOR that trade agreement. Sander was right, because he saw and heeded the CONSEQUENCES. (And here I have to "triangulate" a bit: Clinton may have seen the consequences, too, but approved of them, rather than disapproved. She has billionaire donors who likely utilize tax havens.)
So, second qualification for president: After evaluating the potential consequences of your actions as to the common good, you have the INTEGRITY to use the common good as your highest criterion for action. Sanders has no contributor ties to billionaires, banksters, war profiteers and others out to control our government's actions in their own interest. Clinton has many.
Sanders has demonstrated devotion to the common good throughout his career. Clinton has repeatedly not done so, on a very long list of bad policies, including mass incarceration of the black, the brown and the poor, and creation of the private prison industry; "trade agreements" that screw U.S. workers and that furthermore make emergency action to slow the global warming catastrophe--vitally needed--all but impossible (under TPP, which she called "the gold standard" of trade agreements, "we the people" can be SUED in secret tribunals for anything we do to protect our environment that cuts into transglobal corporate profits); on the Patriot Act (the end of cherished Constitutional protections); on the "war on drugs" (big drug warrior, Clinton)--one of the most disastrous, on-going public policies of the last 50 years; on supporting the fascist coup in Honduras and on destroying Libya's stable government--both leading to mass murder and mayhem, and on and on and on.
Clinton seems to never look at consequences, or else puts consequences aside in favor of the interests of her big donors.
Who is more qualified to be president? In my opinion, Sanders by far! That is my opinion as a long, long time Democrat. And this professional spinner, Christina Reynolds, is "communicating" to ME that Bernie Sanders is "unqualified," when her candidate has made so many bad decisions, on so many momentous issues, that it would be tedious to list them all. Why should I trust her judgement and not my own? She is being paid for her opinion. I am not. I just have to live with the consequences of more bad Clinton decisions, along with millions and millions of other people, if we are so unfortunate as to see another Clinton in the White House.
= new reply since forum marked as read
