What Does Mossack Fonseca Tell You About The Competence Of Bernie And Hillary-- Or Of Tim Canova And Wasserman Schultz?

Hillary was a big booster of the catastrophic Bush-Cheney decision to invade Iraq and disrupt the stability of the Middle East. Bernie was adamantly opposed. It turned out it be the worst American foreign policy decision in at least a century. And it is far from the only example of Hillary's instinctually bad, Republican-oriented decision-making in terms of foreign policy. Take a look at the video up top that shows her shilling for the terrible Panama Free Trade Agreement, juxtaposed with Bernie carefully laying out why that agreement was a terrible idea. It was her agreement and he, wisely voted against it. The agreement, as we pointed out yesterday, led directly to the still-unfolding Mossack Fonseca scandal.

In the House, the vast majority of Democrats saw this treaty the same way Bernie did-- and voted against it. 123 Democrats voted no, but the Hillary-wing of the party voted YES-- Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Himes, Terri Sewell, Kurt Schrader, Gregory Meeks, Steny Hoyer, Chris Van Hollen, Joe Crowley, Albio Sires... It passed the Senate 66-33, most of the Democrats voting against Hillary's corruption treaty with Panama. Of course, her pal Joe Lieberman was for it, as was Dianne Feinstein, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor and virtually all the Republicans, from Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, Roy Blunt, Rob Portman, Miss McConnell, Mark Kirk, Chuck Grassley, John McCain, Richard Burr, Kelly Ayotte... the whole crew of conservatives who always let the lobbyists sway their votes on trade policy.

Once again, Bernie was right; and, once again, Hillary was wrong. They like painting herself as "prepared." Prepared for what? Being the best Republican president money can buy who's pretending to be a Democrat? As always, Bernie was guided by wisdom, values and principles and, as always, she was guided by corruption and expediency. Yesterday Bernie mentioned that Hillary had "opposed this trade agreement when she was running against Barack Obama for president in 2008. But when it really mattered she quickly reversed course and helped push the Panama Free Trade Agreement through Congress as Secretary of State. The results have been a disaster."

As Ryan Grim mentioned in an e-mail today, "The Bernie pile-on after his interview with the New York Daily News is something to behold. His post about it at Huff Po is worth reading. He shows that it was "the Daily News editors who are bungling the facts in an interview designed to show that Sanders doesn’t understand the fine points of policy. In questions about breaking up big banks, the powers of the Treasury Department and drone strikes, the editors were simply wrong on details... This wasn’t an interview about policy details. It was about who the media has decided is presidential and who isn’t, who is serious and who isn’t. The Daily News and much of the rest of the media don’t think Sanders is qualified to be president, and that’s the motivation for an interview meant to expose what the media have already decided is true... Candidates the media deem to be serious do not get these policy pop quizzes, because it is believed (accurately) that they can hire experienced advisers who can work out the details. But if they were pressed, there’s no doubt a studied reporter could make them look silly."

Meanwhile, Hillary's actual record is what makes her look silly and, worse, unqualified to be president-- and on on a Paul Ryan level. Progressive congressional candidates opposed to the neoliberal treaties she's been pushing for decades can use debate them with their opponents. Oh, but Panama Trade Deal backers like Kurt Schrader, Albio Sires and Debbie Wasserman Schultz refuse to debate their opponents. They're afraid that Democratic primary voters will recognize exactly what they are.

Wassermann Schultz's opponent, Tim Canova, a well-respected critic of the aspects of "free" trade that encourage job loss and degradation of American social and economic justice norms, has been holding Wasserman Schultz accountable for her corrupt perspective on deals like the one with Panama. This morning he reiterated that she "voted for the Panama Free Trade Agreement, as well as other trade deals that undermine our government capabilities to monitor international financial transactions and prevent tax evasion and violations of sanctions against Iran and other rogue states. While she was supporting this Panama agreement, I have spent my entire career as an educator, lawyer, and activist criticizing offshore tax havens and these kinds of trade and investment liberalization agreements."

Will the Hillary campaign's Podesta brothers drag her down as their connections to Panama scandal criminals come to light? Have you contributed to Bernie's campaign yet? Maybe you should give it some serious consideration-- to him and to the congressional candidates who also oppose these corrupt and dysfunctional trade agreements and are running on his platform of progressive issues. You can do so by tapping the thermometer: