Now that was a debate! Of course, I think Secretary Clinton demonstrated that Senator Sanders is a decent fellow with good ideas who will be less effective than his supporters hope as president. It’s time for an experienced woman for president, in my view.
But what this most recent Democratic debate demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt is that, as Sanders said, both of these candidates on their worst days are 100 times better than any of the Republicans.
I’m surprised that Sanders is flying off to Rome on the eve of the New York primary. If I were him, I’d keep working the Empire State.
What were your reactions to the debate, now that it is done. Can the result be changed by campaigning over the next few days, or is it all over except for the counting?
but Rome still has almost 10,000 potential voters. And contrary to popular opinion, it was constructed quite quickly.
but with that buildup, I was expecting it.
Berine give an example of contributions impacting Clinton? Sanders: Duh?
Berine how would you break up big banks? Sanders: Duh?
Bernie if clean energy is 6% of our total, how would you power the country now? Sanders: Duh?
on and on throughout the entire debate. How long has he being running and he can’t even answer the most basic question on this positions and attack lines?
Did anyone catch Sanders reference to his 1988 loss, he said he lost because of his stance against semi-automatic weapons. Then Clinton retorts that in 1990, two years later he ran and removed his oppo to semi-automatic weapons and won. That’s a pretty devastating counter.
So waiting for Sanders response, and he said in a more pronounced voice…in 1988 I was against semi-automatics and lost. What? How completely clueless can you be? That ranks up there with one of the dumbest moments in this entire campaign.
The other is when they asked Sanders for a single example of how Clinton was impacted by donations. It was a long silence before he made up something stupid that had no reverence. Sanders pathetically tried to use “she didn’t answer the question”. Then Blitzer had to tell Sanders that he did in fact answer the question and told him the answer.
Awful.
Denying Wall Street cash influences Clinton….by parroting Wall Street’s hit line in the very next sentence? LOL.
This nonsense shows why the Democratic party is in the process of falling apart.
Now that Hillary is engorged on Wall Street cash, she insists she can’t be corrupt unless you can point to a specific quid pro quo. But that’s exactly the same standard of corruption defined in Citizens United, opposition to which was supposedly a core principle of the party. Which she said she agreed with, until, well. (Not to mention, the Clinton Foundation’s antics when she was SoS actually do meet the quid pro quo test, but….)
Campaign contributions influence policy. Period. Anyone, including Hillary, who denies that is either irrational or a liar. Our experience says so, common sense says so, and so do decades of research including that definitive Princeton/Northwestern study from 2014. Clinton is unusual in that lobbyists didn’t just contribute to her campaign, they transformed her personally from a wealthy individual to a multi-millionairess one percenter. So now she has her talking points saying things that no rational person would say under any other circumstances. Wall Street is more hated than anybody, so the Repubs will mop the floor with her on that one.
And then there’s the nonsense that Bernie “can’t explain” how to break up banks. There are no circumstances, none, that anyone would make that claim unless they are wholly ignorant of the banking system, or else intentionally dissembling. This week–this very week–ALL of the SIFIs (you know what SIFIs are right?) got failing grades for their living wills. The living will provision of Dodd Frank was how the banks squirmed out of their well-deserved breakup. The idea was that had to present a detailed plan of how they could fail without contagion spreading to the rest of the system. Each business line had to be examined, adequate transparency and liquidity guaranteed, etc. Every single bank failed the test. Which means if any of them failed now, they would bring down the whole system. We gave them the chance to police themselves, and they blew it.
The other thing that’s happening this week–ironically–is that there appears to be some very scary shakiness emerging in the system. Apparently the banks didn’t learn the lesson from junk mortgages so they made lots of junk loans to energy companies. Their books are full of bad assets again. An Austrian bank is failing (an Austrian bank failure also cratered the banking system during the great Depression). There are lots of mysterious emergency meetings at the Fed, and an unprecedented meeting between Yellen, Obama and Biden. Very weird and unsettling. Some of the governors are even making very preliminary noises about breakup maybe becoming necessary.
So now Clinton is taking a mainstream idea, one that has been the core of non-corrupt criticism of Wall Street for nearly a decade, and pretending it’s something radical, ill-considered or what?
“How” is not a legitimate question. No one with any experience in the matter is asking how. New legislation is the cleanest method. If not, Dodd Frank provides other mechanisms, which involve the Treasury Secretary, and agreement from a portion of the Open Market Committee and the oversight board. Or capital requirements for the SIFIs can simply be set at such onerous levels that they semi-voluntarily break themselves up. How they break themselves up is not an issue for discussion: the government just sets the cap and they sort themselves out.
Anyway, if you want to read more criticism of Bernie, go right to the source material on Bloomberg and the WSJ, which just happens accidentally to say the exact same thing as Clinton, who of course isn’t influenced by them at all.
Just too funny.
on issue after issue Bernie proved he understands the problem’s cause BUT Hillary proved she knows how to fix it.
I want a Fixer-In-Chief in the White House.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Maybe that is her most relevant experience
Bernie should make a big TV ad giving at least these 2 examples of how Wall Street bought Hillary — bankruptcy laws and Glass-Steagall restoration:
He should put clips from his April 8 “Morning Joe” interview into his ad, to refute Hillary’s gloat about the Daily News interview “showing” that Bernie doesn’t know how to accomplish one of his central goals, breaking up the banks:
He should also make an ad listing all his gun-related legislation and positions, like Joe Scarborough (of all people) did for him on Morning Joe, later in the interview, the full video is at:
He may not be the best campaigner, but his flaws are in forgetting to bring in what he has, rather than lying about what he is, as Hillary does. (“Most of the guns involved in NY murders come from Vermont.” Sure.)
Really curious.
He flew in, gave the Sanders stump speech to a group of bishops and flee back to New York. It definitely ranks as one the many happy surprises of this pontiff, a list hasn’t ended yet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html
Public officials who were in cahoots with developers against the public interest. This list of unsourced undocumented gossip about a private citizen is silly.
It was typical CNN “smart people” gotcha talk.
Questions on Russia’s provocations in the Baltic Sea: zero
Questions on the Panama Papers: 0
Questions on the ruling on Walker’s right to work law being found unconstitutional: 0
Questions one education ( in the whole primary process): 0
Questions on the Verdon strike: 0
Questions on attempts to force Apple to break into a cell phone: 0
Questions on inversions: 0
Questions on twenty-year old votes:3
Waste of everyone’rtime .