Bernie asked for the Gov of Michigan to resign over this. Hillary demanded that he solve the problem. I appreciate the sentiment behind punishing the Gov, but I think that what the people of Flint really needed at the moment wasn’t for someone to be punished, but rather for someone to do something to help solve their immediate problem.
I think this is a prime example of a substantial difference in how Bernie and Hillary approach dealing with problems. Hillary saw people in immediate need and immediately acted to help start solving their problem. That meant putting pressure on the Gov to act, which worked. Bernie on the other hand asked the Gov to resign. That’s fair, but it wasn’t going to happen right away and in the meanwhile, it wasn’t going to help the people of Flint.
This seems typical of Bernie’s approach to solving problems. He seems to zoom out to the big picture to clearly identify the responsible party and extract them, so they can’t keep causing the problem.
Hillary’s approach seems to be focused more on helping the people in immediate need. She seems willing to settle for forcing a change in behavior to solve a problem.
I think both approaches are valid and necessary. But for a President, who’s job it is to take on the immediate difficult problems that nobody else can solve, I prefer Hillary’s approach. The world moves as lightning speed and I prefer someone who’s instinct is to find a practical immediate solution to a pressing problem. I think congress can handle calling responsible parties in front of the firing squad and writing laws to change behavior in the long run.