Friday Open Thread [2.12.16]
NATIONAL—Ipsos/Reuters–Clinton 55, Sanders 43
NATIONAL—Ipsos/Reuters–Trump 35, Cruz 23, Rubio 14, Carson 11, Bush 7, Kasich 2
For the first time since the Democrats began debating in the fall, through six debates, we have a clear winner and a clear loser. Until now, both candidates usually did well enough where pundits and supporters could say “both Hillary and Bernie won.” Not last night.
Hillary clearly dominated the debate and scored a knockout punch with her closing argument that, as you will read below from others smarter than me, finally established her argument against Sanders, and it is a good one. She dominated on substantive points and on speaking style: calm, cool, collected. Last night she most reminded me of the man she hopes to replace. It was her best debate performance this cycle, if not ever.
Bernie, on the other hand, had his worst. I wonder if he is ill, and he could be, since it is winter, it’s cold season, and he was coughing throughout the debate. He also seemed off, cranky and mean. Usually Bernie’s endearing schtick, of that angry uncle or grandpa, normally comes off well. You liked his rants. Last night, the schtick was not endearing, and you heard audible groans from the audience with his mean and condescending comment “You’re not in the White House yet.” It played exactly how Barack Obama’s “You’re likeable enough, Hillary” played. An unnecessary and mean poke that has kinda shattered his charm a little bit. Hopefully it was just an off night for him, and not a sign of things to come.
Substantively, the debate revealed two new weaknesses for Bernie Sanders. First, he has a Rubio problem. Constant repetition of your stump speech and one central theme became obvious rather quickly, and it did not play well. Second, when wasn’t imitating Rubio, he digressed into this guy who was regurgitating 70 years of liberal and leftist foreign policy grievances, like that old crazy hippy that always shows up to every town hall meeting to talk about Cambodia. Look, I get it, Kissinger is a bad guy and Hillary should have just said “All he did was commend my running of the State Department, that’s all I said at the last debate,” and Bernie should have just left it at “Well, I wouldn’t be listening to Henry Kissinger for any advice whatsoever,” and the point would have been made. Instead, Bernie turned what was a mistake by Clinton into a massive mistake by Bernie. His young fans probably had to quickly google names like Mossadegh and United Fruit to figure out what he was talking about.
No doubt, you all think I am a biased Hillary shill. So don’t just take it from me. Ed Kilgore on how Bernie dumped his momentum in last night’s debate:
[Last night,] Sanders instead insisted he was the more faithful follower of Obama. This was a classic example of playing on his opponent’s ground, and since he could not follow Clinton’s passionate bear hug of the 44th president, he wound up giving her the initiative. Certainly it was odd for a candidate supposedly focused on expanding his electoral reach to spend a significant amount time and passion during the debate harping on old-hippie preoccupations from the 1950s (the CIA coup to topple Iran’s Mohammad Mossadegh) and 1960s-70s (Henry Kissinger’s crimes against Cambodia). […]
There was even a bigger symbolic moment when Bernie cited people from a long-lost generation (FDR and Churchill) as his great inspirations, while Clinton went with the more recent and politically pointed Nelson Mandela (as compared to Abraham Lincoln in an earlier debate). Anything Clinton can do to turn the perception of Sanders from the exciting and forward-thinking pied piper of youth into a cranky old socialist is worth its weight in media gold.
Hillary Clinton easily won the debate. She was confident, knew the issues and didn’t let Sanders rattle her. The New York Times reported she had media training this week and it showed. In contrast, Sanders seemed tired, rarely smiled and was best when he was angry. He’s still great at framing the key issues of the campaign. But his phrasing is so similar in every debate that he may soon be accused of having a Marco Rubio robot problem.
On the candidates, I thought the debate began very well for Clinton and quite shaky for Sanders. He got a very basic question about the size of government, one he would certainly get in a general election and one which I do not think he should shy away from. But he wouldn’t touch it. Clinton was as strong and specific as he was hesitating and resistant to addressing specifics. […]
[T]here’s a vague hint of Rubio-ism in Sanders. When pressed on specifics he comes back to this very general if powerful critique about a rigged economy, a corrupt campaign finance system that undergirds that rigged economy and so forth. He keeps coming back to those same talking points. Now, he’s no Rubio of course. Rubes really is a callow pretty boy who’s had a series of elegantly crafted paragraphs produced for him to fit a certain political moment. What Sanders is saying is what he’s been saying for decades. It is rooted in a lifetime of a very specific way about thinking about the political economy, economic policy and the nature of equality itself. In a way the country or rather a decent chunk of it has simply caught up with him. […]
I think one meta strategy that Hillary brought into this debate was hitting specifics precisely to push Sanders back on to his same recitation. I will say that I thought Hillary’s close was a key moment in the debate, perhaps in the campaign. It’s not that she crushed him or anything. But it was the first time I heard her pull together her essential message in a coherent, memorable way. Here’s the key passage …
We agree we’ve got to get unaccountable money out of politics. We agree that Wall Street should never be allowed to wreck main street again. But here’s the point I want to make tonight. I am not a single-issue candidate and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it’s poison in the water of the children of Flint or whether it’s the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and depressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the lgbt community against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that’s what I want to take on.
In a sense, it’s just another recitation of her laundry list of to-dos. But here it’s a coherent critique of Sanders. It’s memorable. Something you can frame a key part of a campaign around. One can buy it or not buy it. But I think Hillary has many potential supporters who’ve been listening to her and found her just sort of scattered and all over the place. I imagine that when Hillary and Bernie supporters argue over their candidates, you’ll have Hillary supporters come back to “She’s not a single issue candidate.” It sums it all up.
Yeah, I think when the book is written on this campaign, that closing argument moment for Hillary will be the turning point in this primary.
[I]n the debate’s closing moments, Hillary Clinton sharpened one of her most promising—yet fraught—appeals to the Democratic base. Clinton frequently portrays herself as President Obama’s natural heir. On Thursday night, for the first time, she effectively portrayed Bernie Sanders as one of President Obama’s most inconstant allies.
Clinton has been using Obama as a human shield for weeks, and (as expected) she touted his achievements and their relationship throughout the debate. But tonight she was able to deploy her fidelity to Obama in a way that isolated Sanders from the cherished and undisputed leader of the Democratic Party.
In a Thursday interview with MSNBC, Sanders attributed the public’s misgivings about Congress to a lapse of presidential leadership—an implicit but pointed critique of Obama’s performance in office. Clinton used Sanders’s comments as a jumping-off point not just to align herself with Obama, but to write Sanders out of Obama’s legacy. She cited Sanders’s decision to blurb a new book by liberal writer Bill Press called Buyer’s Remorse about progressive disenchantment with Obama, and reminded viewers that Sanders openly called for Obama to face a primary challenge from the left in 2012.
Obama certainly has greater enemies in politics than Sanders—but that was in many ways Clinton’s point. Sanders lays setbacks at Obama’s feet that should rightly be attributed to Republicans and the right’s massive resistance to his presidency. Sanders’s disenchantment with Obama thus isn’t a just a simple question of loyalty or partisanship, but a reminder of the political naivete that makes him imagine he’d face any less resistance.
Of course, Clinton was also creating as much daylight as possible between Sanders, who is popular among progressives, and Obama, who is the most popular progressive in America. It appeared to work.
The whole “Obama Failed Leadership” critique from Sanders does infuriate me, because it is a Republican critique. And you are not going to win over Obama supporters, which make up the VAST majority of Democrats, by trashing the President with Republican talking points. This was another reason Bernie lost last night. He forgot he was running for the Democratic nomination.
Dylan Matthews has his usual Winners and Losers segment (which is, by the way, far more substantive and readable, and less full of Beltway crap than Chris Cillizza’s, in case you were wondering), and this time was the first time that Bernie was not a winner in his post-Democratic Debate wrap ups. His winners were, in this order: Hillary Clinton, Black Lives Matter, and Barack Obama. His losers, in this order: Republicans, Wall Street and Henry Kissinger.
[C]linton made vigorous defense of the Obama legacy — and suggestions that Sanders is less than fully committed to it — the centerpiece of her argument. Early on she defined herself as an advocate of “President Obama’s principle accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act,” and slammed Sanders for jeopardizing it.
The essential strategy, seen several times during the debate — but most crucially during an exchange over Wall Street — was to use Obama as a human shield.
Did Sanders want to say that Obama was corrupt because he received campaign contributions from the financial sector? When Sanders says we need a political revolution, does that mean he thinks Obama was a failure?
Sanders largely refused to take the bait, declining to criticize Obama even when that forced him to blunt his criticisms of Clinton. That even the Left Opposition within the Democratic Party doesn’t want to voice clear criticisms of the president makes him a clear winner.
Andrew Prokop says Hillary has found her argument against Bernie Sanders:
Regardless of whether you agree with Clinton here, I suspect this was a significant moment and that we’ll hear a whole lot more of her and her surrogates attempting to portray Sanders as a “single-issue candidate.” Because this one narrative accomplishes several of Clinton’s political objectives:
It paints Sanders as a kind of protest candidate who’s just in the race to make a statement, and shouldn’t be taken all that seriously.
It advances Clinton’s argument that she has broader experience and qualifications on many more issues — that she’s more serious than him.
It implies to women and nonwhite voters that Sanders just doesn’t care about issues important to them all that much.
It portrays Sanders’s diagnosis of what ails America — mainly the influence of big money — as simplistic.
It’s a reason Sanders shouldn’t be the nominee that doesn’t require people who like him (as many Democrats and even Clinton supporters do) to stop liking him.
And, unlike many of Clinton’s other arguments against Sanders, it has the ring of truth to it — Sanders really does bring up Wall Street, corporations, and the wealthy in his answers to practically every question (in this debate he said he’d improve race relations by getting rid of “tax breaks to billionaires”). And he seems less comfortable when he discusses other topics.
The ring of truth in the last paragraph is the issue here. When do debate moments stick? When they are proven true in the debate. Christie’s criticism of Rubio as just a robot who repeats the same lines over and over again stuck because Rubio then spent the debate repeating his lines over and over again. Clinton’s critique of Sanders as a single issue candidate sticks because Sanders spent the debate repeating his same issue over and over again.
I am going to be taking the advice of this next column, “Feel the Bern or Give ’em Hill, but please, chill out“, by Mark Morford, because I got a little heated in comments yesterday over this primary, and I didn’t like myself for it. The article mostly addresses over zealous Bernie supporters, but the point also applies to over zealous Hillary supporters, so I will take the point and tone it down.
Darrell M. West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution describes turnout for both parties as “healthy,” presaging a high-turnout election in November.
It (Clinton’s “I am not a single-issue candidate and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country.”) is memorable. Something you can frame a key part of a campaign around. One can buy it or not buy it. ”
And yet “buying in” is not the same thing as “being engaged” Clinton’s vision is not really of leadership, but of manager-ship.
Which is fine, and something we probably need, but is it enough to move Democratic primary voters to her column? I doubt it. Democrats (being human) want to be moved to act by a compelling vision. If you have a problem with that, your argument isn’t with me – it is with 10,000 years of human evolution.
As more knuckledraggers vote for Trump, it will be more and more clear to people like me that, while Clinton represents some things I hate a politics, the need to keep Trump out will win the day. If last night’s Bernie goes up against Trunp, it’s all over.
Ben, “if last night’s Bernie goes up against Trump, it’s all over.” Do you mean that in a good (he wins) or bad way (he loses)?
Jason330, Hillary does have a vision; it’s of her in the White House. This has been her vision for 20+ years. Time to get on board.
Ben, Bernie just needs to add meat to the bone. His avoidance of specifics last night hurt him several times. How he implements his ideas, how much they cost, how they’ll increase government, and what they will actually look like once implemented are things that he needs to be comfortable discussing.
He should have never let Hillary answer the question on how much his plans would grow government. He needs to get as comfortable with the specifics of his agenda as he is with the message.
I still miss Jack Kennedy’s vision
Jesus Fucking Christ, Ben. How many elections do Dems have to lose before we get it through our heads that VOTERS DON’T TURN OUT TO VOTE AGAINST BAD PEOPLE, OR BAD POLICIES, OR POSSIBLE BAD OUTCOMES. They ONLY turn out to vote FOR people.
I’ve been bloggin for what? 11 years. In all of that time that I’ve been paying close attention to elections voters have NEVER FUCKING TURNED OUT to vote AGAINST bad people, bad polices or bad possible outcomes.
NEVER.
Since there’s so much talk about big donors and SuperPacs, I have a question.
If Bernie wins the nomination will he court big donors and accept SuperPac money? I hope he does – and I’m fine with that. I’m fine with him playing on the field that exists and won’t hold it against him. Has he spoken to this? I’ve been searching, but I can’t find a specific statement on his plans.
@Pandora, I have been thinking that Clinton might have been well served to brig up that point. Eg. “That’s all well and good, Senator, but the eventual nominee is going to have to run against a VERY well financed Republican.”
Agreed Jason, but I know many people who will vote for the lesser of two evils…and Trump is as bad as they come for most rational people. Even some anti-Hillary folks would hold their nose and vote or stay home.
“I know many people who will vote for the lesser of two evils..”
It is never enough to win against a candidate who has people voting FOR them.
DD, I mean Trump wins. And “it’s all over” means everything. I really fear for the survival of the country if Trump becomes President.
Jason, I don’t like it any more than you do, but Clinton made a very good series of points. If she spends 4 years stomping on the republicans and, more importantly, NOT putting Palin on the Scotus, I guess I can live with that.
@Jason… take the same advice I took, and chill bro. Turn off the CAPS LOCK at least.
And Trump might just test your theory.
@Ben, I agree. With everything you said. If Bernie loses to Trump, I will quit blogging because it will be over. I will just post one final Open Thread that says “I told you so.”
@Jason.. one further point: I will be voting FOR Hillary, not against Trump. I like her. Always have.
I’m still supporting Sanders because you cannot dispute that Clinton is sounding more progressive because of his presence in the race. If she IS just a political windsock, going wherever her polling data tells her, I hope Bernie keeps yelling right up to her nomination.
Our candidates are growing, and these debates demonstrate their weaknesses and give them time to correct their mistakes. You know, what I’ve been asking for – a vetting.
Hillary course corrected last night and it served her well. By the next debate, I predict, Sanders will have corrected his course. The debates will keep getting better.
In the laboratory that is American Democracy, only Democrats refuse to learn from their failed experiments.
When Clinton loses to Trump (as Dukakis lost to GHWB, and Gore and Kerry lost to GWB) I will quit blogging and put up one last Open Thread that says “Hit me up if any of you sons of bitches are ever in Ontario.”
Really? A blogging suicide pact between DelawareDem and Jason? 😉
“Last night she most reminded me of the man she hopes to replace.”
And that is one of many reasons people aren’t excited about her.
I’m in. Anyone know where I can get a Canadian copy of Rosetta Stone?
In the laboratory that is American Democracy, only Democrats refuse to learn from their failed experiments.
Which is how Delaware has the Congressional delegation it does. Over and over and over again.
@SussexAnon I’m constantly stunned by this Obama “hate” (I know it’s not really hate.) and I think it is really an out of touch opinion. I also think it’s a dangerous message for Bernie supporters to send – just like the dust up concerning John Lewis yesterday. Put simply, attacking Obama (or John Lewis) doesn’t help. So… stop it?
Bernie may be single-issue, but it’s a hell of an issue.
Look at it this way: The 1% has broken our arm, smashed our kneecaps,and now has its boot pressed on our throat. Bernie wants to get the boot off our throats. Hillary says, ” Let’s fix that arm and your knee, also you need a haircut” and everyone cheers, because she’s not a single-issue candidate.
The criticism of Obama from the left, including a few calls for a primary, came from his first term and was wholly justified. In the second term however, to his credit Obama responded to the criticism by adjusting his rhetoric and his actions. Criticism from the left is now much more subdued.
Is “I’m not a single-issue candidate” really a message? Yes, it’s a presented contrast, but it doesn’t seem like an aspirational message / reason TO vote for HRC. I think she still needs to present a campaign theme.
The differentiation is now even more clear. Bernie, the progressive populist position, meaning huge emphasis on economic justice. Hillary, the liberal position, meaning huge emphasis on social justice. Bernie, the all or nothing idealism. Hillary, the incremental pragmatist. I’ve spent over 50 years in the idealism camp. This time I’m in the incremental pragmatist camp. Maybe I’m must worn out.
I have heard a lot about incremental pragmatism but I don’t know what the specifics are, so it just sounds like a really bad bumper sticker. Maybe I need to spend some more time reading Hillary’s proposals for this campaign.
I’d say a phased implementation of Medicare for all is exactly the kind of incremental building on Obamcare that is needed. But I guess the “pragmatism” part means we need to keep paying tribute to the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.
How many living wage jobs do we lose before we change course
“the debates will keep getting better”
The election for President is in November. When is the election for Masterdebater? My takeaway from last night – every time I see Sanders he is stooped over. Made me wonder if he has a physical issue. Do candidates normally release a medical report prior to the general?
I’d it time for this already? Yes, candidates release medical information.
“Made me wonder if he has a physical issue. ”
You mean like FDR?
Remember, Trump has the bestest most astoundingest health ever
I’m not sure what an “incremental pragmatist” is either. Pragmatism, is concerned with the success of practical application of an idea or solution. Pragmatism also recognizes that solutions have a greater chance of success in the long term if we move towards them in an incremental fashion (evolution vs revolution). Revolution creates chaos and while order can result from chaos, great damage ensues during chaos because small differences in initial conditions results in widely diverging outcomes, rendering long-term prediction impossible. The real outcome of revolution is not deterministic with any degree of accuracy.
Lasting change is both incremental and pragmatic, which increases the chances for intentional outcomes. Revolution enthusiasts should pay heed to the law of unintended consequences.
“Is the old guy okay?” The artfull (?) smear. DD did the same thing in the body of the post.
FWIW – Here are things I don’t like about Sanders from a marketing perspective:
1) Old
2) Democratic Socialist (let’s face it, it would be better if he was running as a Democrat.)
Here are things I don’t like about Clinton from a marketing perspective:
1) No clear, concise energizing message.
2) May tend to remind men of their ex-wife. (Sexist, I know, but it is what it is.)
“You mean like FDR?”
No, FDR had polio. I just noticing that Sanders never seems to stand up straight and wondered if there was a reason.
The attacks on this post against our candidates are what’s heading their way in the general (and much, much worse). Perhaps our time would be better spent coming up with answers to these attacks? For both candidates.
Seriously, people, if we’re losing our sh*t on a liberal blog and can’t respond to attacks from people who basically agree with us our candidates are in trouble.
I can’t even imagine how nasty the general the will be, but I’m starting to have nightmares.
One caucus and one primary in on 12 February and the discussion has devolved to posture. Not like metaphorical “posturing,” but like standing up straight.
No wonder I have to fight cynicism and nihilism everyday.
Agreed, Pandora, but our candidate, whichever it is, needs to learn to be just as nasty and to respond to a slap with a punch. I know I probably sound like the Donald, but after 2004 and the swiftboating, the realization that negative stuff works and looking weak does not is strong.
That said, I’d like better if everyone on the same side stuck to the issues, but questions being raised need to have answers because they’ll be asked again in a much more negative way between now and November.
On a semi-unrelated note, anyone else notice Bloomberg has a site up and running??
At some point I hope we can have a thread to discuss the Dem candidates’s specific positions.
I found Hillary’s issues statement to be rhetorically inspiring but chock full of weasel words that to informed readers signal lip service and lack of real commitment.
Bernie’s statement is also rhetorically inspiring but I feel his taxation of the rich lacks nuance.
And neither candidate articulates a 50-state strategy that would enable them to enact their agendas.
Have at it:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/
Here’s the deal, Pandora: If I get on board with HIllary now — if lots of the non-hard-core Bernie supporters like me do — we’ll hear nothing more about income inequality, much less about the 99%, etc. Many people — those who pay little attention to politics — have never heard this stuff, and don’t understand it much yet, but they understand that the game is rigged.
The longer Bernie stays viable, the more the general public will hear about these issues, which will lay the groundwork for single-payer and Medicare for all in the future. She sounds great right now — the huskier voice helps — and I’ll vote for her when the time comes. But she’s not going to go into these issues without someone pestering her from the left.
What Geezer said. Count me as “Supports Bernie – for now.” Hillary won’t get the message until Bernie wins a few more primaries.
@DG, Nobody fights cynicism and nihilism like you. Keep on trucking, my man. Keep on trucking!!
“On a semi-unrelated note, anyone else notice Bloomberg has a site up and running??”
I predict Bloomberg’s fire in the belly will die down in inverse proportion to Hillary’s delegate count.
Okay, so you guys don’t want to come up with defenses for Hillary right now. That’s fine. So come up with some defenses against the attacks against Bernie. I’m all about being productive today!
BTW, I’m not convinced he can’t win the primary.
Clinton has been continually attacked for the last 20 years, by just about everybody at one time or another on both the left and the right. She obviously can stand (relish even) the heat. There’s nothing we can cook up that she doesn’t know about on both offense and defense. About the only thing anyone can really offer is what play to call. If the GOP hasn’t taken her down in the last decade, about the only thing that can do her in at this point is the October surprise or a death wish by the Democratic Party.
Hillary has never effectively addressed criticism from the left, because she doesn’t think she has to. Her support comes from the party’s right.
@Jason – I meant it’s an internal struggle. With all due respect, you actually wouldn’t know anything about it.
Also, after your madness with the Caps Lock perhaps you should be more judicious with the exclamation marks.
MERCI for the due respect!! Also – Internal, external..Keep on trucking all the same!!
In all seriousness. You add a lot, and I appreciate your comments, even when I disagree.
Her support comes from the right of the party? I think she has evolved with the party rather nicely, though admittedly she is to the right of Sanders. That said, her views today, compared with “mainstream” Democratic thinking from 10 to 15 years ago (including her), are extremely left / liberal. She makes Bill look like a Republican on many issues.
@Mike: How do you know she has evolved with the electorate? My worry is that she’s learned how to mollify us but hasn’t really changed her attitude about anything. I always used to think she’s was to the left of Bill, but I don’t see a whole lot of evidence of that anywhere. And I don’t mean what she says, I’m talking about actions. The corporate system has rewarded her too well for her to really think it needs serious changes.
@Geezer “I’m talking about actions.”
Well she has called for closing the carried interest loophole. That’s a high priority in my view. But really, I wonder what actions you might have expected considering her official status as a Sec State and then private citizen. She has made all the right noises (which might have caused you to think she was trying to mollify you), but other than the bully pulpit as a popular public figure I don’t see what actions she could have taken.
Yes, she got paid handsomely to make speeches, but surely no one expected her to make them for free. She is using her experience and talents to earn money. Now if she pulled a fast one and called the earnings “carried interest,” I’d pitch a fit.
Maybe that’s why we tend to elect governors. At least they have history of actions to judge. In Clinton’s case he have foreign policy and national security to assess. But domestic policy? All we can go on for the most part is what she says. Clinton does seem to give detailed information on the issues though, which I appreciate since I am detailed oriented, because I use that information to assess executability.
The most tangible thing we have when it comes to how liberal Hillary is is her Senate record. During her time there she was the 11th most liberal Senator. Sanders was first. Obama ranked 23rd.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sexist-double-standards-hurting-hillary-clinton/2016/02/12/fb551e38-d195-11e5-abc9-ea152f0b9561_story.html
@pandora: Obama’s approval number hover in the high 40s, just as they have for quite a while now. I don’t see how to get 50% of the vote by tying yourself to somebody half the country is tired of.
Plus, tying herself to Obama just to win South Carolina is going to hurt her in the general. The only time running against Obama hurts Republicans is when Obama is actually running. They won big in 2010 and 2014 by running against Obama.
It’s the kind of bullshit thing HIllary is always doing. She loves Obama now because blacks in SC love Obama.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/02/believe-it-or-not-you-can-support.html
“It’s the kind of bullshit thing HIllary is always doing. ”
Yeah but Geezer, it’s the kind of BS thing all politicians are always doing. That’s why they give radically different speeches in different parts of the country. They become ethanol loving farmers in Iowa, business loving suits in NYC, and evangelicals in the deep south. Essentially they become chameleons.
It’s the electorate’s fault because they can’t seem to get past someone who is not like them; who doesn’t speak their language; who doesn’t dress like them. So politicians contort themselves to be like those voters. The God blessed purity tests that fault them for not being progressive enough, or conservative enough. Hell, people questioned whether Obama was black enough!
If you want people to be real, it helps if you don’t completely disparage them for being real. Not you personally of course, I mean the figurative “you.” I do have to give Sanders some credit for being “real” because he seems to put on the same shtick regardless of the audience. Unfortunately, he is at the same time unrealistic with his platform.