Debate Reaction Open Thread [10.14.15]
My personal opinion: I felt that Hillary was the clear winner of last night’s debate. She was strong, quick on her feet, humorous. I feel her performance ended Joe Biden’s presidential aspirations outright, unless something shocking and unknown happens at the Partisan Get Hillary Committee hearing next week. Biden is back to being an emergency Plan B candidate. The viscous cycle of bad press and thus bad poll numbers and thus bad press and thus bad poll numbers is ended by the debate. Reports were that Hillary’s campaign team were ecstatic after the debate, and as well they should be.
Bernie Sanders had some good moments, and two or three awful ones. His gun control position, and his unprepared, unsure and halting response to the criticism, were horrible. He had to have known he would be attacked for that, and that was the answer he came up with. And his Syria answers were not ready for primetime. But the best moment of the night, the moment that probably will stand out to most people and the media, was his very charming and very New York exclamation: “enough about her damn emails!”
I grew to openly despise Jim Webb over the course of the evening. First, stop complaining about your time. No one likes whiners. Second, is he sure he is on the right stage? Seems more suited to the Republican party.
Lincoln Chafee should drop out. Now. This very second.
And Martin O’Malley had one really good and emotional answer, and his overall performance was probably good enough to be regarded officially as “the third candidate.”
The first Democratic presidential debate was much better than expected and that’s largely due to the fact that there were only five candidates on the stage. Republicans should hope that most of their candidates drop out soon.
Hillary Clinton was the clear winner. She was well prepared for every question and left the other candidates far behind. She might not be exciting and she might be grating to those tired of her, but she’s certainly the most qualified Democrat running to be president. She only helped her candidacy tonight.
Bernie Sanders is an important voice and source of energy for the Democratic party. He did a well on issues such as the “rigged economy” and campaign finance, but struggled badly on gun control and foreign policy. Nonetheless, Sanders has tapped into something very important that Democrats must harness if they want to win in 2016.
Martin O’Malley is what Donald Trump would call a “low energy” candidate. He’s mostly auditioning to be Clinton’s running mate but when he attempted to criticize her she gave him a look which suggested he might no longer be on the short list.
I’m not sure why Jim Webb, who was whiny about debate rules, and Lincoln Chafee, who was just terrible, even bother running.
The biggest losers were Republicans trying to use the Benghazi Committee to investigate Hillary Clinton’s email problems. It has energized Democrats and has backfired big time as a political issue.
Backfired big time. Indeed, if what the ex-staffer says is true, every Republican on the committee must be indicted.
Brian Beutler at the New Republic says Hillary Clinton nailed it:
In its entirety, the debate underlined key ideological and strategic differences between the candidates—particularly the leading candidates, Clinton and Bernie Sanders. But at a more ostensible level, it provided Clinton the first opportunity she’s had in months to remind nervous supporters why they assumed she’s had a lock on the nomination all along, and served as a reminder that a Democratic president in 2017 won’t first and foremost be a font of liberal reform, but a bulwark against a conservative counterrevolution against the Obama era. […]
Clinton outshone her rivals on Tuesday night in Las Vegas in several different ways. Two Democratic candidates—Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee—were frankly painful to watch, like single-A ball players whiffing against a big league power pitcher.
Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley played an interesting and substantive role. He delivered persuasive moral arguments for progressive policy, and provided a strong reminder that just a few weeks ago, eleven Republicans were angling to be the most reactionary and insensitive candidate on their own debate stage. But he frequently offered up the kind of canned, and over-mannered answers we were primed to expect from Clinton.
Sanders was the only candidate who came close to matching Clinton’s ease and enthusiasm, but he lacked the kind of rhetorical quickness that at one point allowed Clinton to gain cover for her own support for the Iraq war from Barack Obama’s opposition to it. […]
The candidates spent depressingly little time explaining how they’ll grapple with [Republican] obstruction, apart from striving for consensus. But Clinton more than the others seemed to grasp the importance of reminding the audience that the obstacles a Democratic president will face will be a small price to pay for not handing all three branches of government over to the right.
That is my number one issue and concern. I want to support the candidate that can best defeat the Republican, and not take a flyer on someone like we did on 2008. If this were 2008, I would be for Bernie Sanders. It is 2016, the Republican Party has learned nothing from its past mistakes, and they have committed new and more horrible crimes and they openly admit they will destroy the country once in office. So yeah, I will not be taking any flyers this time around. If Bernie Sanders can prove to me that he is most electable candidate, fine. But he didn’t last night. Clinton did.
Jonathan Chait says the Hillary Clinton Panic among Democrats just ended:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign spent most of the last year descending inexorably into depression and even panic. But the first Democratic presidential debate may have finally turned the tide, or at least stopped her fall. Clinton demonstrated that she was, by far, the best presidential candidate on stage. Indeed, she may have been the only person on stage actually running for president. Lincoln Chaffee touted his lack of scandals as an oblique contrast to the front-runner. Martin O’Malley tried to play up his more left-wing position on Glass-Steagall financial regulation. But none of them waged the kind of frontal assault that would be required to dislodge a front-runner who commands Clinton’s breadth of institutional support. Indeed, in what may be the most important moment of the debate, Bernie Sanders declared, to her insufficiently-suppressed delight, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” […]
Clinton came into the debate with a clear plan to position herself as Obama’s successor. Asked how she would not simply offer a third Obama term, Clinton replied that she would be the first woman president. Asked for a policy-based difference, Clinton proposed to extend and deepen Obama’s program rather than abandon or correct it.
It may be obvious in retrospect, but few people predicted beforehand just how thoroughly the debate atmosphere would play to Clinton’s advantage. The media has viewed her campaign message almost entirely through the filter of the email scandal. Clinton was able to use the poorly-disguised partisan excesses of her Republican tormentors in Congress to escape responsibility for a serious error in judgment on her part, framing the issue (not altogether inaccurately) as a partisan fight, so that Democrats would rally to her side. She further played off the campaign media, casting its email obsession as an unworthy distraction from the policy discussion that she, her fellow candidates, and nearly all the Democratic voters want to hear. Clinton, suddenly finding a moral ground on which to stand (which the news media had denied her for months), burst out in uncontrollable glee.
He says she is once again the all but certain Democratic nominee.
Jonathan Allen says Hillary silenced her critics:
This is the Hillary Clinton Democrats have been waiting for.
The most important aspect of Clinton’s performance in Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, though, wasn’t whether she won — she did — but how she connected with progressive Democrats who worry whether she shares their values and whether she can withstand Republican attacks on her policies and character.
She was confident about the substance of her campaign and comfortable in making the case that her policies are the right ones to move the country forward — even if they don’t always sound like a wish list for the left.
“I’m a progressive who likes to get things done,” she explained when CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked to label her politics. […]
Clinton’s never going to be the perfect candidate for the left wing of the Democratic Party. She’s too much of a capitalist, too willing to use military force and too willing to shift positions to make all liberals love her. But she can be inspiring on a lot of issues that do matter to progressives and good enough on most of the others.
What she needed to do Tuesday night was three-pronged: remind Democrats of what they like about her, reassure them that she’s on their side and convince them that she’s the most likely to win the general election. There wasn’t anyone else on the stage Tuesday night who is nearly as plausible a president.
At one point, Clinton noted that after years of congressional investigation into the Benghazi attacks and her emails, “I am still standing.”
“Hillary has a very strong night. Bernie has a very strong night. They are running one-two in this race, and they are probably stronger now than they were entering the debate. It complicates the rationale for a late entry.” — David Axelrod, quoted by Politico, on the prospects for Vice President Joe Biden entering the presidential race.
Matthew Yglesias on the surprisingly entertaining debate:
In the end, the debate was in many ways surprisingly entertaining. Webb fondly remembered having killed a man, Sanders yelled a lot (including at one point yelling about the inefficacy of yelling as a strategy for political change), and Chafee became the butt of dozens of jokes for a hilariously inept effort to beg off responsibility for a 1999 bank regulation vote on the grounds that he was new in the Senate and his dad had just died.
But most of all, Clinton reminded Democrats why they like her. With the attention focused on policy rather than email, she showed off her superior range and depth of knowledge and repeatedly reminded the party faithful of her long record as a fighter for the causes she believes in. Sanders held his own and will continue to be a hero to his fan base, but did nothing to really hurt her or expand his appeal.
Rebecca Traister at the New Yorker says Democrats can stop freaking out about 2016.
Okay, Eeyores, let’s snap out of it. Tuesday night should mark the end of what has felt like an endless phase of Democratic (and media) bedwetting about Hillary Clinton, the state of the party, and the general grimness of this year’s presidential prospects.
From Las Vegas, we saw what was surely one of the higher quality debates Democrats (and certainly Republicans) have held in ages, and it was especially good if you were a Hillary Clinton supporter, a Bernie Sanders supporter, a left-of-center Democrat or anyone who is deeply sick of reading Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Banished were fears of an unlikable, unrelatable, robotic Clinton: Vegas Hillary was relaxed, confident, playful, eager to acknowledge her fellow debaters mostly as allies, with allusions to the years they’d spent together in the political trenches; she even made a joke about how it takes her longer to pee. Yes, she went after Bernie on guns (fairly) and he after her on Iraq (also fairly) but this was a debate; impassioned argument is supposed to be part of the deal. Mostly, Clinton was as loose as she’s been for a while. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen her pull off a televised moment as nimbly as she did the one in which moderator Anderson Cooper asked if she wanted to respond to Lincoln Chafee’s long-winded complaint about her email issues and transparency by saying simply, “No.”
She and Sanders both looked spiffy and happy to be there: her hair was soft, his brushed. Each seemed to enjoy talking with the other. He gave her the night’s biggest Valentine, with his declaration that “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,” but she responded in kind, with genuine gratitude and a warm smile.
The truth is, Sanders has offered Clinton – and Democrats – a million gifts so far this season. Among the most valid fears was that Hillary’s candidacy would go unchallenged, would proceed as a coronation. But the senator from Vermont has already ensured that this won’t be the case. He is a serious challenger, a smart and good man who is probably going to beat her in early states, and perhaps beyond. This is not bad news for Hillary. As tonight’s debate showed, it’s great news. It means there’s someone to keep her on her game; no Hillary is worse than a coasting Hillary. It means an engaged electorate and candidates who need to pay attention to the direction in which their party’s voters want to go.
I am looking at you Jason330. Snap out of it.
Unfortunately for Biden, Hillary Clinton’s adult performance just made it a lot harder for him to take a seat at the table. […]
Clinton inarguably made that choice a lot more difficult. She confidently dispatched tough questions about her flip-flops on trade and the Iraq War. She embraced Obama’s achievements while deftly saying she would go “beyond” his record on student debt and healthcare. And she got the greatest gift she could hope for when Sanders declared her emails a non-issue. Clinton’s spontaneous, and warm, embrace of Sanders after their exchange showed that, no, she’s not a robot.
Going into tonight, Clinton’s strategy was to make Biden seem “unimportant” by focusing on substance and policy. On those fronts she delivered big, and did much to sooth the fears of her anxious supporters.
Suzy Khimm on why Bernie Sanders lost the debate:
Bernie Sanders had a big test at the first Democratic debate: to prove that he could broaden his appeal enough to be a genuine threat to Hillary Clinton for the nomination. While the Vermont senator has made recent gains in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, he’s still more than 20 points behind her on average—and that’s with Joe Biden listed as an option and drawing support from Clinton. After Sanders’ poll numbers rose sharply in the summer, he’s plateaued, stuck in the mid-20s. That raises the question of how much higher he can really go, especially with Clinton’s sizable advantages among women and voters of color. Though he had some memorable moments that lit up Twitter on Tuesday, the debate revealed why the political instincts that have fired the progressive base could ultimately keep him from breaking through to the rest of the party. Clearly, Bernie’s gonna be Bernie. […]
Essentially, the debate seemed to confirm that Sanders isn’t interested in stretching himself as a candidate for the sake of broader political appeal. That’s exactly why his supporters love him so much: He is a true believer who believes that “the casino capitalist process” has corrupted the country and is unwavering in his focus on the issue. And that message is having an undeniable impact on the Democratic primary. This debate opened with a discussion between Sanders and Clinton of “Democratic Socialism,” and the merits of capitalism—subjects that would never have arisen without Sanders in the field. But his moments of weakness in the debate also suggested that he doesn’t have the political instincts or the appetite to court voters on issues outside of those policy priorities. And Bernie, being Bernie, would probably consider that a compliment.
Clinton / Sanders 2016! …Except the VP pick has to be a bit of an attack dog and I don’t see Sanders pivoting his attention from banks to attack the real enemy of mankind – the GOP.
Agree about Webb. STFU, Dick!
The odds of Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination rose after her debate performance, according to the Political Prediction Market. The Democratic front-runner’s odds were the only ones to rise after the debate, from 65% to 70%. Bernie Sanders, who runs second to Clinton in public opinion polls, saw his odds of winning the nomination drop after the debate, from 16% to 15%.
Jamelle Bouie:
New York Times: “Her performance at the first Democratic presidential debate was so commanding that even her greatest vulnerability — the lingering controversy over her private email practices as secretary of state — ended up redounding to her benefit.”
Los Angeles Times: “With nods to time spent in the White House Situation Room and crisp answers about five-point plans, she exuded a sense of command that her rivals onstage often seemed to lack. And in sharp contrast with her reticence on the subject during the 2008 campaign, she repeatedly reminded viewers that with her, they could make history: After the U.S. elected its first black president, it now had a chance to elect its first woman.”
National Journal: “It was a performance that reminded people why she was once seen as the Democrats’ inevitable nominee, and it should serve to stabilize her struggling campaign and quiet nervous supporters who feared her second bid for the White House was in deep trouble.”
That’s what a debate should look like! (*Chafee and Webb had no business being on that stage. Both were cringe worthy.) Going into the evening I was thinking 8:30 to 11:00 was a long time to listen, but the time flew by. Guess I was hungry for a policy driven, substantive debate. Republican candidates should be very nervous.
And I loved how none of the candidates took the moderators’ bait. I’m coming to loathe our press and their laziness. They sure do love them some Trump, Carson, Palin dramatics, while pretending to be disgusted by it. They are an embarrassment.
Generally, I agree with Axelrod’s quote. Both Sanders and Clinton did well and basically solidified their positions as one two. I do find it strange that every poor answer is highlighted and ridiculed except for Clinton’s poor answers.
Sanders isn’t the best on gun control and he doesn’t seem to have a polished “bullshit” response to get his way out of it. Although it’s clear he’s into more regulation.
Clinton has no good answer for not reinstating Glass–Steagall and breaking up the banks. Sanders and O’Malley were quite clear about it. If the banks were “too big to fail” before and that was a big problem, and now they’re even larger, one would think that her little story about going to Wall Street in 2007 and telling them to “cut it out” would get a bit more criticism. It’s fucking terrible answer, but I don’t see anyone pointing out how terrible it is. It’s worse than Chafee’s dad dying.
Clinton’s problem, for me, is that unlike Sanders, who understands capitalism is completely rigged, she loves the idea that if everyone just works hard they’ll get what they deserve. Free public college… if you work as well. Nobody is critical of this?
No matter. Everyone says Clinton “won” the debate so I guess I have to accept that she “won” the debate. I mean it was on the internet, so…
Two observations.
1. The contrast between the Democratic debate and the GOP debate was night and day. Issues and substance vs. (no apt descriptor comes to mind).
2. HRC clearly established why she is the front runner, although Bernie gained some equity. HRC was in command, which is what you would want from a commander in chief and a president.
Best line? “I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.” I will admit that anti-Don Quixote statement resonates with me as a pragmatist.
Unless she stumbles between now and the general election I think she the only logical choice whether you are a progressive, centrist, or just someone who thinks we are now a one party nation because the GOP committed suicide (albeit with agonizing slowness).
Chafee was actually pretty good in the first hour or so, I thought. Only after the big shit he took on the dog ate my homework answer he tanked. But if you pay attention to Chafee’s experience and his ideas, Lincoln Chafee is just as qualified as anyone up there.
Plus he goes by “Linc” and that was my favorite character on the old Mod Squad TV show. So there is that.
Also, and I don’t see this mentioned so I’ll throw it out there, I thought Anderson Cooper was professional and decent. Of course the bar on these things is set pretty low and he did have the benefit of speaking to reasonable professional people rather than reality show lunatics and half wits.
Wow. I had the completely opposite reaction to Anderson Cooper and the whole CNN production. I thought Cooper was rude, interrupting, trying to gin up false right wing controversies, asking gotcha questions, getting into fights with Webb over time. And why is it that CNN went to African American Don Lemon for a “black lives matter” question, and to Woman American Dana Bash for a question on family leave and Carly Fiorina, and then to Latino American Juan Carlos Lopez on Immigration.
Weird and oddly racist/sexist.
Jim Webb was the only adult who showed up. No wonder people are begging for Biden to save them. The Democrats are in crisis.
Chafee’s answer on why he became a D was a major red flag. “My party (Rs) left me.” Boo hoo. Please save me from “RINOs” looking for a home. He’s another R looking to pull Ds to the right so he has a place to call his own. He’s a moderate Republican. Fine, but, imo, that disqualifies him as a D presidential candidate. Sorry, but “I’ve been kicked out of my party so I’m coming to yours” Republicans are still touting R ideas. That’s my biggest problem with them.
Well, to be clear, I agree on the CNN production. I fail to understand why we need all that bullshit and Don Lemon and question from the internet and fucking graphics everywhere, etc. But I won’t criticise Cooper for that. Do you think it was his idea to throw it to Bash and Lopez for women’s and Latino questions respectively? I don’t
So-called gotcha questions are just to ensure that the candidates have an answer for the weak spots. Are they obvious, yeah. But that’s fine. Those questions require answers. The thing Cooper did was always follow-up after a pivot. When a candidate goes to the talking points he always followed up to say that the actually question was about X.
As far as interruptions, he can’t let politicians who talk you to death about bullshit for a living just drone on and on (no pun intended).
Pandora – If you watch that exchange closely Chafee said that his positions on issues haven’t changed. Cooper asked him what he meant and he gave concrete examples. Then, on the third push from Cooper, Chafee used “the party left him” cliché (and he smiled bashfully). At that point there was really no other way to say it… and it his case it happens to be 100% accurate.
Hahaha, Republican David. Your comment is laughable. Pure comedy gold. I picture you rocking back and forth mumbling Benghazi. Email. Benghazi. Email.
Republican David is in another fucking world. Hey, bud, we know your views. They’re stupid and a waste of our time. You’re positions are simple minded and you have nothing interesting to say. You’re a bore. Jim Webb! Hahahaha! Yeah, last night he was a real fucking dynamo… You’re ideas are joke.
Piss off back to your fucking hole.
DD: You must have had too much kool-aide. Anderson did what he was supposed to do. It was not about him, but the candidates. Especially, for CNN-Clinton News Network.
I agree, Dorian. He has no other answer to that other than the truth. And the truth is he was a liberal Republican. Now he is a conservative/moderate Democrat. Now, why he thinks he should be President is beyond me, but I was not put off by that answer. I was by his “my father just died so I just voted with the crowd answer.” Yeah, that answer ended his quixotic campaign.
David is Ben Carson without the scalpel.
DG: Let’s the f-word fly. You must have watched Casino last night.
Anonymous: I was unusually stone cold sober last night. And I really do not care about Anderson Cooper, but when Dorian praised him for professionalism, I had to speak up. Oh, and I love the whole Clinton News Network trope that you radical reichs bring up all the time. First, its not true, CNN goes after Clinton all the time. Second, given Fox News, Boulder, meet Glass House.
Oh, because everyone says “fuck” in the film Casino. Yeah, I see what you did there. Attempting to be clever. OK. Word of advice. Take it or not. You aren’t anything even approaching clever. It’s not having the effect you think it’s having.
My sincere hope is that Republican David is working hard to make sure the GOP nominates the adult, Ted Cruz.
The country needs a “real conservative” in this race.
Praise for Anderson Cooper is like everywhere.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/14/anderson_cooper_did_a_great_job_moderating_the_cnn_debate.html
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/the_real_debate_winner_was_anderson_cooper_who_knew_good_journalism_still_makes_for_great_tv/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anderson-cooper-democratic-debate-moderator-2016_561e0df2e4b050c6c4a3748d
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/what-grade-did-anderson-cooper-earn-as-cnns-democratic-debate-moderator/
Well, ok, then. Still have my opinion. 😉
So wait.. is the media hive mind now exculpatory or inculpatory?
LOL, Andy Borowitz: In Serious Gaffe, Sanders Treats Opponent with Dignity and Respect: http://nyr.kr/1ZD6tzJ
Fair enough. Same as I don’t think HRC necessarily “won” just because it’s all over the web.
Speaking of which, since everyone is kissing her ass about how great she did, I wouldn’t mind somebody posting something explaining a few of HRC’s comments, like:
–If the “too big to fail” banks are even bigger now, why not break them up rather than just going to Wall Street and telling them to “cut it out”.
–When she said the files Snowden leaked “fell into the wrong hands” and “put American lives at risk” exactly what facts support this?
–Exactly which part of TTP failed to meet her initial expectation of a “gold standard” trade agreement?
–When she says she loves Denmark but we aren’t Denmark what exactly about Denmark makes it’s social and economic policy unacceptable is the USA other that just saying “this is the United States of America”?
Just to be clear I don’t think she did poorly at all. She did fine and pretty much as expected. But there are areas that go unexplored and we’re just suppose to accept that these were great answers I guess.
Thanks for linking to the New Yorker post…
“Bernie Sanders’s behavior towards Hillary Clinton Tuesday night has raised some grave questions about him in voters’ minds,” Foyler said. “If he treats people with decency and civility now, what kind of President would he be?”
Like Dave commented way up in this thread, the Democratic debate was something to be proud of insofar as it was about substance and issues rather than the petty personal attacks and phony posturing of a Real Housewives post-game panel on Bravo. The two GOP debate made me embarrassed to be an American. Last night at least had some dignity.
On the list of items I’d like HRC supporters to address… one other one I forgot.
She loves going to the states’ rights thing. She did it twice that I remember. First with undocumented people getting college tuition benefits (if the states say OK she says OK). Then on marijuana, again, state issue.
When Republicans pull this Federalism dodge it often gets shit on in this space, but HRC uses it and “wins” the debate.
Again, I don’t necessarily disagree. It worked for marriage equality. Her position is her position. But do you have any comment on this?
@DG
“–If the “too big to fail” banks are even bigger now, why not break them up rather than just going to Wall Street and telling them to “cut it out”.”
Telling them to “cut it out” is a euphemism for bank regulation that better protects the taxpayer. That really is the better option. Let banks pay with their own money when they take bad risks.
“–When she said the files Snowden leaked “fell into the wrong hands” and “put American lives at risk” exactly what facts support this?”
This is certainly true. Snowden wasn’t very careful with what he leaked.
“–Exactly which part of TTP failed to meet her initial expectation of a “gold standard” trade agreement?”
How about the fast and loose fast track authority? Or maybe the part that puts the taxpayers on the hook for $$$ billions if a company fails to get expected profits?? Or maybe that it’s blatantly setup to be anti-Chinese? There’s a lot to dislike here.
“–When she says she loves Denmark but we aren’t Denmark what exactly about Denmark makes it’s social and economic policy unacceptable is the USA other that just saying “this is the United States of America”?”
We have serious problems that Denmark doesn’t. We can’t be Denmark, but we could learn from their most successful programs (like healthcare and guns,…).
The problem with the debate format is that she really doesn’t have time to go into the details. That doesn’t mean that she is unaware of the details.
Dorian… just to be clear, that New Yorker Borowitz post is satire, like the Onion.
@J “Except the VP pick has to be a bit of an attack dog”
That’s only true for Republicans. They took a good and honorable man like Bob Dole and turned him into a rabid attack dog. Painful to watch…
On the Democratic side… Do you think that Al Gore was an attack dog? or Walter Mondale? or Hubert Humphrey?
–If the “too big to fail” banks are even bigger now, why not break them up rather than just going to Wall Street and telling them to “cut it out”.
The Financial Industry questions were her weakest answers and Bernie’s best, I’ll give you that. I am not sure why she is reluctant to reimpose Glass-Steagall while at the same time saying her plan would essentially do the same thing.
–When she said the files Snowden leaked “fell into the wrong hands” and “put American lives at risk” exactly what facts support this?
Classified facts, most likely. But that has been the position of the Obama Administration and the CIA. I do not understand why some progressives and libertarians feel like he should get off scot-free. Like I said at the time, I would have been a huge supporter of Snowden if he had stayed in country and faced trial. He would have been a cause celeb hero. But to flee like a coward to Russia of all places. So my position is “fuck off Snowden.”
–Exactly which part of TTP failed to meet her initial expectation of a “gold standard” trade agreement?
I do not understand why you are unhappy with her opposition to TTP. Like LE said, there is a lot to dislike.
–When she says she loves Denmark but we aren’t Denmark what exactly about Denmark makes it’s social and economic policy unacceptable is the USA other that just saying “this is the United States of America”?
Well, first off, Denmark is a small homogeneous country and culture. America is not. We are diverse. We are a huge country. 3rd most in total population on Earth. 3rd biggest in land size. What works for a small country in population and size may not work for us.
@LE… Al Gore was a sort of attack dog in 1992. As was Ferraro in 84. And Biden pulled his punches against Palin, but he went after Romney-Ryan. I don’t remember enough about Mondale and Humphrey (was not alive or politically conscious).
But Edwards and Lieberman both cowered before Cheney.
DD – Do you think I’m 7 years old or Rusty Dils? Yeah, man, I get it.
LE – Your responses are not even close to satisfactory. No facts, just your conjecture. Horrible effort. C-, perhaps D.
Your answer on the bank regulation thing is a joke. Did you mean it to be funny?
Your answer to the Snowden thing gives no facts and I propose that your assumption about the risks taken is absolutely wrong. No facts produced.
On TPP, I don’t support it either. The issue, as everyone knows, is that a Sec of State Clinton or a Senator Clinton would support this. Now she doesn’t.
Your reply to the Denmark question is basically the same shitty reply Clinton gave.
DD – So we agree on the bank / GS issue.
On Snowden, I never said he should get off free and clear. But I’m not simply buying the “secret facts” gambit. And the entire ‘flee to Russia” thing is a joke too. He got stuck in Russia, first of all. Second, if he were able to mount a real criminal defense for exposing what we now know is totally illegal that would be fine. But based on the 1917 Espionage Act he’s barred by statute from even making a real defense for himself. So coming back to sit in prison for life seems dumb. You’re a attorney. You must know this.
My issue with TPP is that this is the kind on thing she’d be totally behind if she weren’t running for President. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.
On Denmark, it’s funny how progressives support the Scandinavian type social programs specifically but when ‘candidate’ HRC is pressed we accept that she has to pander and make excuses for why we can’t. Outside of this election-cycle campaign thing we push for all of it. We wouldn’t accept that equivocation from another politician you didn’t already support outside the context of a presidential campaign.
@DG “LE – Your responses are not even close to satisfactory. No facts, just your conjecture. Horrible effort. C-, perhaps D.”
Ha! I wasn’t shooting for an A.
“The issue, as everyone knows, is that a Sec of State Clinton or a Senator Clinton would support this. Now she doesn’t.”
What I fail to see is your consternation. She said she supported it (in principle) BEFORE it was written. She said she didn’t like it AFTER it was written.
Him: Hey Honey… What’s for dinner tonight?
Her: I’m making a beef stew.
Him: That sound’s really great. I support that 100%.
…
Her: So Dear.. did you like the stew?
Him: No. It was terrible. What sort of crazy spices did you use.
Her: But… but… YOU SAID YOU SUPPORTED IT 100%
I’ll take the states rights question, DG. If you look at the R’s stance, it is usually used to enforce “majority rules” concepts to restricting stuff (abortions, voting rights, accommodations) whereas Clinton’s stance was more of permissiveness (drug laws, expenditures on undocumented immigrants, etc.). Obviously, there are other places where the tables would be turned (Can guns be restricted more in some states than others, for example).
The perfect Clintonesqe equivocation.
I agree with you on one thing. The explanation is politically sound, as in rhetorically speaking she can weasel herself out of the original support of it in theory.
That’s fine. You think she’s against it on it’s face. You believe she looked at the finished product and then made a decision. I think she made the decision because now it’s in her interest to be against it. I think if she were Senator or Secretary Clinton she’s be working for it’s passage.
What exactly did she hope would be in it that isn’t? What exactly is in it that is news to her? Of course the bad spices in your example don’t exist. It’s the same stew it was years ago.
I also think you all know it as well, but like to believe the answer of the candidate you support. I get it. It’s fine. Again, I’m not a fan of TPP either because it makes it far easier (again) to ship job to Asia and pay workers less. But the idea that HRC’s position on it isn’t a simply political calculation seems incredibly naïve.
Campaigning at a county fair in 1964, Hubert accidentally stepped into a pile deposited by one of the prize-winning bovines.
“I just stepped on the Republican platform.”
It’s just extremely interesting that there’s always a “good reason” to make the argument when she does it. It’s always slightly different. There’s always some rhetorical escape hatch… no way you all would accept this from another candidate.
Look, I see now that I’ll very likely have to swallow hard and press the Hillary Clinton button next November. What I don’t like is all the rationalisation and equivocation and excuses. I feel a bit like Bill Maher. Did you hear his remarks Friday? He likes the slogan “Ready for Hillary” because he said he’s ready. Is he excited. Absolutely not, but he’s prepared.
I understand what my obligations are next November, but they’re not the same as my obligations until then.
@DG “But the idea that HRC’s position on it isn’t a simply political calculation seems incredibly naïve.”
What is incredibly naïve is that politicians shouldn’t be making political calculations. That that’s some sort of bad thing… like selling out one’s principles.
It’s perfectly OK that this is also a political calculation. I’ll take deft maneuvering over rank dogma any day… even if it’s dogma that I’d support.
Is Hillary perfect? No. Not by a long shot, but she is the most electable person running. Her cabinet will be competent. Her USSC nominees will be superlative.
The GOP alternative will be stark and painful for the bulk of the electorate.
The fact the we accept this as standard operating procedure without a word or action to challenge it is sad and unthinking and lazy and weird. And I’m not talking about purity either. Nobody’s perfect and I have no qualms disagreeing with somebody whose campaign I’ll support financially, volunteer my time for and ultimately cast my ballot in favor of.
I’m talking about authentically representing our common interest rather than designing and fine-tuning positions to get elected because the alternative is stomach-turning. I’m talking about manufacturing reasons for why a mistake or bad idea wasn’t really wrong “at the time.”
The bar for the democratic process in the USA is set incredibly low.
“The bar for the democratic process in the USA is set incredibly low.”
They’re digging a trench to put it in as we speak.
Sometimes I read the comments section here at DL and think to myself “This same group of people would find a way to kavetch about a sunny, 70-degree day in which everyone in the world got free ice-cream and the newspaper headlines from around the globe blared ‘World Peach Achieved’, ‘Homelessness and Hunger Vanquished’, and ‘Palestine and Israel Sign Peace Accords.'”
LOL, Prop Joe.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-won-because-of-lack-of.html
The minute Hillary believes Sanders is no longer a credible threat, she is free to begin her pivot to the right. Support Bernie for as long as possible.
Good point.
It was too windy that day and the beach sand was blowing on my blanket