Have you ever had somebody try to sell you on something but the pitch goes on and on and on with a complicated explanation which is almost impossible to understand? If you were smart, you would walk away with your hand on your wallet.
Such was the case yesterday when Gene Sperling, Hillary Clinton's economic adviser, attempted to explain her economic policies on Bloomberg's With All Due Respect to hosts John Heilemann and Mark Halperin. His seemingly endless complex explanations seemed to frustrate the hosts until Heilemann asked Sperling to very briefly explain her economic policy. The result? Sperling went on another yet filibuster that did nothing to enlighten the hosts. This was actually one of several Sperling filibusters beginning with his overlong explanation about how Hillary no longer supports TPP even though most people think she still does after years of her enthusiastically promoting it.
JOHN HEILEMANN: Joining us now is Gene Sperling, an economic adviser for the Clinton campaign and former national economic adviser to Presidents Clinton and Obama. Gene thanks for coming on the show. We're going to talk a little bit about the campaign momentarily and the outsourcing push that the campaign is putting out right now but I want to ask you a little bit about President Obama yesterday who made a really full throated argument for why TPP is in America's interest. What's your view about that? Are you now in disagreement with your president on this issue?
So since Hillary now supposedly opposes the TPP the answer should be brief with something like a simple "yes" perhaps followed perhaps by Sperling stating that Hillary will urge Congress not to take up TPP during its lame duck suggestion. Instead, Sperling gives us the first of his series of filibusters which to a skeptical mind suggests he wants to avoid a direct answer to that question.
GENE SPERLING: You know it always hard when you're the child and mom and dad disagree. I think President Obama, everything he does, he is directed towards helping workers and that's what he believes. But on this issue I think Hillary Clinton is in the right place which is that we have to put our full focus as party progressives on uniting behind clear job creating measures like infrastructure, like investing in manufactures, like insuring that we don't have a tax code that encourages outsourcing and inversions. She sees real challenges with this and she wants to put TPP in the rearview mirror and be focusing. So these are two great people who I'm honored to have worked with. They disagree. I think trade is always a difficult issue. But as we say, I'm with her.
Did you notice in all that word garble any specific reasons why he and Hillary oppose TPP? All he does is want to put TPP in the rearview mirror...but only as a campaign issue. The reason why Sperling is so evasive on this matter is that almost exactly a year ago on August 2, 2015 he was still hyping TPP as you can see in this CNBC clip:
It therefore seems that Sperling is pretending to oppose TPP every bit as much as Hillary Clinton who Jonathan Chait of New York magazine described as pretending to oppose it.
That overlong answer of Sperling pretending to oppose TPP was followed by a second unenlightening filibuster when Mark Halperin asked him if he believes that Hillary thinks that globalization is good for American workers. Sperling's extended reply produced so much sleep inducing ennui that Heilemann practically begged him to provide a brief concise answer to his question.
HEILEMANN: Gene, you had a pretty important role in shaping President Clinton's economic agenda and his theory of the case. I could if I needed to describe to you what Bill Clinton thought about the economy in about 10 or 15 seconds. Putting people first would be the first words out of my mouth. A phrase I know you're familiar with. Do that for Hillary Clinton right now. Don't spend more than 30 seconds but tell me, what's her theory of the case on the global economy and where we're at right now?
Please, Gene. I beg you to keep it short and simple.
Well, here is Sperling's version of brevity bereft of any sense of enlightenment. And if you think it is torture to listen to his extended explanation, believe me it is much worse when you have to transcribe it.
SPERLING: The theory of the case is that we need to focus all of our tax, trade, manufacturing, and skills policies on the bottom line of whether they are creating good, high wage jobs in the United States. We can't assume that just because something might be good for the profit bottom line of a company or an individual, it's necessarily what is best for middle class workers and people striving to be in the middle class. And that's the lens she is going to put all her policies through. What are the things that are not just good for GDP or the productivity of one company. What are the things that are good for creating the strong middle class jobs and providing greater security in a changing economy. And that includes things like healthcare, pensions, paid family leave. Things that are critical to whether a family feels they're raising their children with dignity and security.
WHEW! Did that clarify things for you, John? I think the answer to that can be ascertained from the dazed, pained reaction on Heilemann's face at the 4:08 mark. Oh, and Mark didn't look all that happy about it either.
Sperling has a filibuster encore after this in reply to a question from Mark Halperin about manufacturing jobs. His painfully long answer is no more enlightening that his previous filibusters since again it seemed to be just words he was throwing up against the wall in order to get him through the interview without really saying anything.
Exit question: Would it be cruel to refer to him in the future as Sominex Sperling?
