I just finished navigating the CBSN links to watch the entire debate (I had to join late, so I watched the live portion after 10p, and then back-filled the first hour).
It was nice to watch grownups running for president.
I was again impressed by Hillary Clinton, and perhaps more so by Martin O’Malley. While I liked some of what Bernie Sanders had to say, I remain convinced that his primary contribution is to shape the discussion and ensure that the issues that matter most stay front-and-center during the campaign. I do not, at this point, see him as my President.
I was very impressed by Martin O’Malley’s insightful responses.
Tonight’s exchanges left me hoping that our ticket is Ms. Clinton for President, and Mr. O’Malley for Vice President. I think that Martin O’Malley will one day be a formidable presidential candidate. I think he’s not there yet.
Since I see no other new diaries about tonight’s debate, I invite the thoughts of the BMG hive-mind.
I’ve always liked O’Malley and thought he came off as very practical and thoughtful. Sanders had some great lines and as the candidate furthest to the left, definitely had the most red meat to throw to the audience. While I agree with him about such problems as the influence of big money in campaigns, I don’t see that changing any time soon.
Clinton seemed a bit flummoxed at times by having some pointed attacks aimed at her in rapid sequence by the other two; sometimes it seemed like they were ganging up on her. The moderators for this debate were also the best I have seen so far at demanding answers to the original question posed. She managed to stay out of trouble, though, and defended some of her more “nuanced” positions well. All in all she came off as extremely professional and knowledgeable.
According to some sources, the debate was originally not supposed to cover foreign policy, and I thought their answers on that subject were considerably less substantive than those on domestic issues. It occurs to me that officials at that level may not normally apply a lot of hands-on experience to international issues, as they are probably extensively prepped on certain subjects by experts in the field, both as candidates and as officeholders. There are some issues that have been extensively covered in the foreign-language press that they didn’t really seem aware of (probably because they are not relevant to the US Presidential primaries . . . )
As a side note, I had the privilege of talking to my Congresswoman Katherine Clark today; I personally have had a hard time warming up to Clinton as candidate, but I will definitely take Clark’s prediction that she would be an effective President into consideration.
regardless of who your candidate is — I proudly stand with Secretary Clinton — as progressives, they did us ALL proud.
The debate was both informative and illuminating.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Just what does accepting Wall Street campaign money have to do with 9/11? Clinton knows, and it seems to have something to do with integrity:
So — taking the banksters’ money is part of the War On Terror, or something. Rudy Giuliani would be proud.
I think she was trying to say that she represented Wall Street and sees the people in that business as more than just deep pockets.
“I’m not as much of a Socialist compared to Eisenhower.” I also think O’Malley came off very well. I did hear that a Sanders aide was pretty upset that foreign policy was going to come into play, but that is to be expected given the last 48 hours and of course being President means things won’t always happen when it is convenient for you.
From the New Republic:
The fact that the a rep from the Sanders campaign actually asked not to discuss foreign policy is giving me great pause, I love the man, still think he has had the best one liners and signature moments in the debate, but I am beginning to question if he is seriously committed to becoming President or just injecting social democracy into the conversation. It’s looking increasingly like the latter. There was only one Commander in Chief on the stage, and it’s disappointing that she is largely getting a free pass on the issues where she is most vulnerable to Republican attack.
In my view, Bernie Sanders plays a vital role as the “Greek Chorus” in the classical election drama unfolding, speaking as the voice of The People and ensuring that the concerns of the people are front-and-center in the campaign.
He is essential in that role, and his poll standing or foreign policy credentials are irrelevant to it.
We must not allow the barbarian hordes of the GOP to control America for the next four or eight years. We MUST NOT.
that has moved Hillary Clinton to the left mainly on economic issues. And that’s good. We should all thank him for that contribution to the public dialogue.
But watching this campaign unfold I am now convinced that Bernie wants to be admired more than he wants to be President. And I come to this conclusion reluctantly but his debate performance was mediocre at best.
As for his slippage in the polls and credibility in foreign policy — I would remind all those that want to defeat the Republicans next November — the wisdom of Winston Churchill : ” The first duty of every stateswoman (sic) is to get elected”.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
It’ll be interesting to see the terrorism scare play out, particularly on the Republican side. I have a feeling this seals the deal for Hillary Clinton on the Dem side, with Bernie reluctant to debate the issue at all and O’Malley admitting he had no prior experience to deal with it. Her 9/11 gaffe and ‘not America’s fight’ gaffes aside, I think she made the best case from a leadership standpoint.
As for the Clown Car that used to be the Republican Party, we already knew Rand Paul was done, but this confirms it. I wonder if it helps or hurts Trump, always hard to tell with that one. But if there is a rally around experience effect in either primary, it should benefit Clinton and Bush. It seemed Jeb!’s campaign was toast no matter what he does, but it would be awkwardly ironic if this incident helps his campaign. His usual right wing critics are praising his response and Rubio’s. It would be especially considering how much ISIL owes it’s existence to his brother’s administration.
There is no such quote on the Internet, and if there were, I do not believe that your “(sic)” would be accurate.
At the same time, I was displeased by Sanders’s fumbling around on the gun control question. He and his campaign must know this is a weak spot, but they seem eternally surprised by these questions. At some point, you have to prepare even for things that you don’t care much about or see as a priority.
Social democracy and inequality are important, but they aren’t the answer to every single question.
foreign and domestic policy. Not either or.
So far Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who has demonstrated a mastery of both domestic and foreign policy issues. She speaks with authority in both spheres. That is why she looks and sounds presidential. Her oratorical skills articulate a clear combination of substance, depth, style, passion and charisma that defines leadership.
Fred Rich LaRiccia