In Slate’s weekly “Political Gabfest” podcast, CBS News political director and Face the Nation host John Dickerson proclaimed that Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal is “a stupid issue” unlike the debate over a $15 minimum wage because that’s “the central question of the campaign, which is how do you help people with wages.”
Dickerson’s slip came during a discussion with fellow Slate writers Emily Bazelon and David Plotz over the influence socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has had on the presidential campaign and how he’s forced Clinton farther to the left on issues like wages. [Listen to the audio below]
Speaking to Clinton’s ever-changing positions on issues like this, Dickerson surmised that her answer on it during the April 14 CNN Democratic Debate was a either a case of her “just mangling her position because she was just being clumsy or churlish or B, she was fussing it up for the purposes of fussing it up and making everyone think everywhere what she wanted them to think.”
He added that, in the grand scheme of things among “policy experts,” those who won’t back her if she continues to oppose a nationwide $15/hr minimum wage would “be a hell of a lot smaller than those who might vote for her if she’s on for $15.”
Before turning their attention back to Sanders, Dickerson flashed his true feelings on the ever-growing scandal that’s still being investigated by the FBI (emphasis mine):
I found that just a big either muddle or just what irritates people about Hillary Clinton which is basically she was trying to have it both ways and trying to have it both ways not on a stupid issue about e-mails, but on an important policy issue that really matters to what a lot of people think is the central question of the campaign, which is how do you help people with wages, bread and butter stuff that she’s potentially being sneaky on.
Overall, the clear takeaway here is that so many on the left continue to act as though scandals that involve national security and even the death of Americans (like in Benghazi) are a waste of time because they’re not direct policy (e.g. abortion, energy, tax reform, etc.).
The relevant portion of the transcript from Slate’s “Political Gabfest” podcast on April 22 can be found below.
Slate’s “Political Gabfest”
April 22, 2016
7:33 mark to 8:40 mark
JOHN DICKERSON: And in the debate, it was unclear whether, A, she was just mangling her position because she was just being clumsy or churlish or B, she was fussing it up for the purposes of fussing it up and making everyone think everywhere what she wanted them to think. In other words, the number of policy experts who are going to not vote for her because she supported a $15 national minimum wage is going to be a hell of a lot smaller than those who might vote for her if she’s on for $15. And her position always had a weird wiggle which was she’s for the fight for 15 in the places in the states where they’re fighting for 15 where it matters in the labor market there. She just didn’t support it at the national level. I found that just a big either muddle or just what irritates people about Hillary Clinton which is basically she was trying to have it both ways and trying to have it both ways not on a stupid issue about e-mails, but on an important policy issue that really matters to what a lot of people think is the central question of the campaign, which is how do you help people with wages, bread and butter stuff that she’s potentially being sneaky on.
