2 comments

• 

  Elad-vav

  1 year ago

  What's the problem with reconciling it? She is clearly claiming that Greenspan makes no sense, but that he "calms the markets". That's not a contradiction to the ability that she claims to be so-called "commander in chief of the economy".
  
  She's implying that no one understands Greenspan. I don't know if that's true or not, but in any case there's no contradiction.
  
  What do you have against Clinton, anyway?
  
  (Not that I like her myself. I'm just wondering why you're targeting her so vigorously).
  
  
  
  
  without understanding what Greenspan says, then there is no contradiction. She doesn't say that Greenspan makes sense. She's saying that he "calms the markets". It's not the same thing.
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  1 year ago

  I don't think that she was claiming that Greenspan doesn't make sense. He was the chairman of the Fed during her husband's presidency and was held, rightfully, in high regard. One can disagree with Greenspan's monetary policies but no one ever argued that he make no sense. I think that the reading of what she was saying (and that is the commonly understood reading) is that what he said is "above her head". This can be fine statement, although politically problematic, unless you are arguing that you have the knowledge and experience to "run" the economy.
  By the way, I would argue that what she suggested as measure to handle the sub-prime crisis is even stronger evidence that  she is not qualified - but this is a different story :)
  I don't target Clinton more harshly than the other candidates. I think that McCain and Clinton are equally dangerous. I wrote some of the reasons here and some in hebrew here.
  reply