Open Thread: Reader Takes on Sanders/Clinton Brooklyn Debate

Due to competing responsibilities and the annoying difficulty of seeing the debate on-line (CNN seems insistent on subjecting you to preliminaries and clips of what they deemed to be highlights), I must confess to seeing only a snippet each of Clinton and Sanders, and I found Clinton to be so offputting that I could not subject myself to watching more. Her voice and manner were more hard-edged than in her previous performances, which is saying quite a lot.

While some of the usual suspects are declaring the event to be a win for Clinton, that depiction appears to be much less prevalent than in past debates. Most accounts instead seem to be focusing on the fact that Sanders and Clinton really mixed it up.

The long-form report I got is from a friend who is a keen social observer but also firmly anti-Clinton. She thought Sanders mopped up the floor with Clinton:

Every time she tried piling on with one of his popular positions, like saying she’d always been in favor of a $15 hour wage, he would come back with how her record said otherwise. “Bill could would have been able to triagulate better, but when Bernie called her out on her lies, she kept repeating things she’d said earlier. And the crowed booed when she lied. It was also clear that she’s an incrementalist, not just from her words, but from all of the ums and pauses when talking about her responses to Sanders-type proposals. And he called her out on Libya and hit her hard on her loyalty to Wall Street and her Goldman speeches and she didn’t have good answers.

And Bernie was the same old Bernie, your Jewish uncle who yells at you to take your feet off the coffee table, but louder, while she’s always pretended to be nice, and it was clear last night that that was a big act.

With all of that said, the Washington Post claimed that despite all the fireworks, the debate would not change anyone’s prior views. And it’s harder than usual to get a good reading from the Twittersphere tonight. So readers, over to you. For those of you who watched all or most of the debate, what is your take on how each candidate did?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. John Candlish

    I knew Hillary was a hawk but her performance at this debate left me somewhat shocked.

    I found her proud ownership of Syrian regime change to be a real puzzler. Audacious without bounds.

    My views have changed. I’m more afraid than ever.

      1. Mahesh Mumbaikar

        Thanks for the link. Had heard about it but watched for the first time. It looked absolutely vulgar. And scary too.

      2. JeffC

        Two particular aspects feel especially disturbing: (1) the implicit reference to imperial Rome, and of course with her in the Caesar role, in the near quote and (2) the fact that she had to have constructed that reference in advance, apparently thinking it was delightfully clever rather than disturbingly ghoulish.

  2. allan

    Clinton radiated a sense of of irritated entitlement. Why doesn’t this guy just go away?

    She really did badly with the question about raising the SS tax cap,
    twisting herself into a pretzel to avoid saying yes.
    Apparently that’s one red line she, and her backers, are not willing to cross.

    FWIW, Prof. K wants us to know that Sanders is going full metal Palin
    with his remark about Clinton doing well in the Deep South.

    1. Alejandro

      Re SS: She did seem to want to emphasize “Trust Fund” and ways of extending the “Trust Fund”…of course “Trust Funds” need “trustees” to manage “its” assets, with the always pesky question of -who CAN be “trusted”? Lost in this campaign is when AND how did SS become a “Trust Fund”?

      1. Penny

        Its always been a fund and in this its somewhat unique. In the UK for example, old age pensions are paid out of current worker’s payments of national insurance–which pays for pensions and single payer health care (NHS). In contrast to the UK pay as you go, the US created a ‘fund’–a bank account if you will–into which social security payments are deposited and the proceeds used to purchase US government bonds. Your social security check depends on what you paid in (since the FICA tax is proportional to earnings) The cap on social security payments arises from the failure of those earning very high salaries to pay their fair share of the social security tax. Their argument is they can use the money they don’t pay to invest for higher returns than that of social security. This is of course not true. But supposing it is? My reply would be to tax them on the earnings above the ss cap at the marginal rate which applies (circa 38%) . They choose

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          One simple way to put all needed money into that account is by applying MMT.

          But Sanders still has not brought that up.

          He talked about taxing the rich (which is good) and Social Security in the same breath. We don’t need taxes to fund that (per MMT), but the way he talked last night, he gave the impression that that taxing the wealth (in itself desirable) would be the source for funding some of it.

      2. athena1

        After watching the 6 minute back and forth between her and Sanders on SS 3 times now, I’m more convinced than ever that she intends to means test it (“to preserve it for future generations!”)

        Start listening at one hour, 26 minutes in here, and watch till 1:31:13…

        Over 6 minutes of tap-dancing around and vagueness. She said everything besides openly calling for fiscal responsibility in our commitment to “entitlement reform”.

        1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

          At one point she said “I know that money has too much influence in politics” and Sanders could have pounced…”I thought you said the millions you received did not influence one vote, how can that be, what was the money for, then?”

          The woman’s capacity to lie is astounding, makes me realize that they are not lies to her, she has a little internal voice that says “I’m saying it so it IS true”. So it makes it damned hard for people to read when she is lying because the cognitively dissonant body language clues are absent.

          Makes me long for Jimmy Carter, basically an honest man who successfully guided the empire for 4 years without a single shot fired in anger.

          1. different clue

            To paraphrase her Spirit Animal, Richard Nixon . . . “If the President says it, it is not a lie. And since I Will BE the President, if I say it , it will be not-a-lie.”

      3. Christopher Fay

        “Trust fund” “trust fund” needs managers at the typical 2 % of assets and 20 % of gains as expenses per annum

  3. johnnygl

    He stumbled a bit early on as she slipped in her usual low blows like, “he voted for the derivatives dereg bill” and he didn’t counter that well enough.

    As the debate went one he got stronger and had her looking pretty shaky on the min wage, on social security, and israel/palestine. She was annoyed at that point.

    He missed a few real chances to hit a home run by bringing up her vote on banruptcy bill, which she switched. Cnn asked him about it right after, which makes me wonder why they didn’t bring it up during the debate???

    He also could have nailed on foreign policy by pointing out how she STILL wants more regime change in syria and is STILL showing the same bad judgement since the iraq war in 2002!

    1. jawbone

      Your last point, that Bernie could have tied Hillary’s Iraq vote to her push to go to war against Libya, seemed to me to be a lost opportunity.

      I wondered about why he didn’t. Afraid to mess her up too much in the public’s mind since she probably will be the Dem nominee? OR…he wanted to make sure his points that he considers most important weren’t swamped by lots of other points for which the public hasn’t been education about?

      She seems to be doubling down on Me Strong Woman like Man warmongering.

      1. Pookah Harvey

        The inner Kissinger is definitely showing in Hillary. Bernie should be hitting her on Benghazi but not the Republican line. There seems to be more and more evidence that the consulate was mostly just a cover for a CIA arms smuggling operation to anti-Assad forces in Syria.

        “The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an attempt to suppress details of a reported US arms smuggling operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed by a mob in the city last year, according to reports”.

        According to Sy Hersh:

        “The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida”.

        “Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

        Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.”

        Clinton possibly providing surface to air missiles to jihadists ” affiliated with al-Qaida. ” does seem like an issue that should be raised. Her gun control stance seems a little hypocritical when considering how she has been supplying lethal weapons to questionable groups all over the world.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          Not one anti-imperial candidate.

          Both offer different versions of the same.

          The equivalent of the manufacturers of hand guns would be the defense contractors and the supplying empire.

          You can’t sue them.

  4. MsExPat

    She was booed, long and loudly, when she tried to dodge the “When will you release the speech transcripts” question.

    Her cackle was out in full force, always a sign she’s rattled. Clearly off balance, off her game, and she compensated by ramping up her volume and angry tone.

    But Sanders frustrated me. There was a moment where he had a wide open opportunity to hit her hard on why she’s bought and paid for (he was asked to give one example where her voting was influenced by her rich patrons). Sanders could have really rammed home the point that influence is not quid pro quo. Or he could have pointed to Clinton foundation donations from the Saudis, followed by her approval of arms sales while SOS.

    Instead he fumbled it. It appeared as if he’d conceded the point. I pounded my fist into the couch.

    He could use some updated talking points and stump material.

    1. Harry

      Sanders acted like he wants to avoid collateral damage to Obama. That’s the only reason I can think of for his unwillingness to focus on the lack of prosecutions. When HRC says can you point to any wrongdoing or undue influence he should be saying “can you point to any criminal indictments of senior management”?

      1. lyman alpha blob

        Clinton came across as a hypocrite RE: Obama and Sanders called her on it , albeit not as strongly as he could have.

        In the early part of the debate she did her whole ‘Barry is my BFF’ act even though they clearly don’t like each other. When it got to foreign policy and the moderator mentioned Obama’s take this week that the aftermath of the Libyan invasion was his biggest mistake and that Clitnon had strongly pushed for him to take those actions, all of a sudden she was just a little old advisor and the decision was all Obama’s.

        I find myself having to give the moderator’s more credit that I thought I would for the way they asked this question, pressed her about not releasing the speech transcripts, and calling her out on trying to blame VT and Bernie for NY’s gun problems.

        Bernie could have done better and hit her harder on a lot of points – Honduras wasn’t mentioned at all as an example of her disastrous foreign policy – but Clinton really had nothing except platitudes.

        1. Allen

          Yes, I hoped he would bring up Honduras, and also her Senate vote against banning Cluster bombs in civilian areas!

        2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          Barry the-buck-stops-here Obama was still the untouchable sacred cow last night.

          (I was certain the shrewd Hillary would invoke ‘because I am a woman’ when she couldn’t pass anything off to the commander in chief).

          And when either one of them sensed vulnerability on a topic, they screamed about how evil the Republicans were. And people responded loudly and the vulnerable topic was then forgotten.

          “And we need to defeat Cruz (or Trump)!!!!”

      2. Donald

        That’s it, I think. Unfortunately politics is in large part a high school popularity contest and if Sanders wants to win or at least do well he can’t seem critical of Obama.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          If Sanders wants to win the Democratic nomination or at least do well, he can’t seem critical of Obama.

          He can be critical of Obama as an independent in the general election.

          1. Yves Smith Post author

            It’s way too late for him to run as an independent. He needs ballot access. Bloomberg would have have a problem even had he started in March.

      3. Ray Phenicie

        The Obama Presidency is a huge Albatross around the neck of the Sanders campaign. Bernie Sanders is the one I’ll vote for. Some of Bernie’s supporters are still unconsciously tied to the Obama Brand. There are so many Obama loyalists inside the Sanders camp that they really have to be mollified with focusing on what Hillary did and supporters usually dare not mention that it was during the Obama Presidency that she did her thing in Libya and Honduras. And so it goes; President Obama has all but pardoned any criminal action that the FBI has probably already discovered. In short, the Sanders campaign has an uphill battle in dealing with a sitting President who has clearly indicated that he is in the opposing camp.

        The corruption connection between the Clinton Foundation and Madame Secretary has been missed by the Sanders campaign. If I were him, I would harp on that day and night. It is a way bigger deal than just the Wall Street speaking fees. Those fees, for a group that controls trillions, are really just chump change. What is key is ALL of the money that swirls around DC and Madame Secretary managed to bring in a fair amount under her roof. She is obviously an advocate of the big money changers being inside the temple.

        I could not watch the debates because my tolerance for watching Mrs. Clinton hovers around zero right now. I’ve had that problem with almost all of our leaders except Bernie Sanders. That in my opinion is why he is so reviled by the Main Stream Press; he is honest, forthright, and most importantly sincere for his own reasons. He does not have to be paid to go to bat for the average working person, he has been a champion of LGBT rights since the get go, he understands immigrants’ situations, he is truly the only person in our circle of leaders who seems to be on the right side of most issues.

        I am searching for my transponder so I can be beamed up to the mothership when Mrs. Clinton is elected President.

        1. Harry

          Yeah. I got a real sense last night that Bernie is just saying the stuff all of us know to be true but were too embarrassed to discuss in public. Like the US is corrupt, US mid east policy is embarrassing, the economy and finance had been mismanaged, the US middle class is going the way of the coral reefs, and the police shoot a lot of black people. Of course if you mention these things in public you are clearly a loon.

          1. Russell

            Really nice there Harry. Stopped me in the comments. I was disappointed myself with Sanders. I thought Obama would end up as Carter did, and there is plenty of evidence of that.
            States Rights & sabotage of the ACA allowed even with our Religious Right who claim God to get any exemption while the KKK C.S.A. Monument Row ID the South as a real other nation out to oppress the poor thinking they are liberal and progressive pledging to the Clintons. Race and gender politics are the gift to the corporate world & its media dividing wage slaves over scraps.
            Would Sanders run with Chris Hedges? Days of Revolt, I watch it. They are simpatico and he wouldn’t let her loose.
            I have offered the Insurodollar since the Petrodollar is on the ropes. Died in Yemen.
            Nukes changed every thing. On our way to the Apocalyptic Riot because the Bible tells us so.
            If the Democrats put the Clintons up, they really risk losing is the bottom line.
            Presidents now are War Dictators cause of that bomb. Every day is a gift. Looks like Kerry ought get at least a nod for stopping any tank battles the Saudis were readying for.
            You have to admit that they all drift towards Groupthink, as if the CIA put something in their soup.
            Reading here & otherwise I get the distinct impression that the US is a hollowed out military enterprise only doing the bidding of the Masters in Greed with all the deeds.
            IN-Q-TEL? Somebody in the Washington DC in crowd of reporters would be set on that story if I had a paper to be Editor of.

          2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            If that’s all Sanders wants to do, he is just one of the foot soldiers of the revolution.

            We still need a general.

        2. RUKidding

          I agree. A huge number of D voters – including Sanders’ supporters – still LOVE Obama, and I think Sanders is well aware of that. Hitting too hard on Obama will alienate these voters. It is good strategy on Sanders’ part. I mean: what’s he gonna do? Go for Obama’s jugular and tell the unvarnished truth about him and his Admin? Why? Won’t change those partisans’ minds, nor will it change anything about Obama. It will just hurt Sanders. Gotta bear that in mind.

          1. Enrico Malatesta

            That’s why it shouldn’t be left to Sanders (forget the MSM doing their job) to make Obama tell us now if he intends to emulate the Clinton post-Presidency wealth acquisition model.

          2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            This dates back to the initial decision whether to run as an Independent or to become a Democrat.

            A thorough investigation should have included the rules regarding close and open primaries and super delegates.

            “This is undemocratic. I will have no part in it” or “I am free not to join, and if I can live with them, I will join.”

            Perhaps this is a 11 dimensional chess game, or just strategizing. One man’s strategizing is another woman’s 11 dimensional chess moves.

            1. Kulantan

              The media blackout around Sanders at the moment is a riotous clamouring compared to the utter silence he would have faced as an independent. Plus he would have had a much, much worse chance in the general than he might have running as a Democrat.

        3. JTMcPhee

          …is Obama still President?

          I wish he’d hurry up and issue the various pardons, and then ring the bell, close the book, and blow out the candle…

          Bearing in mind, of course, that the Presidency is just the imago (see psych definition) that stands in front of and obscures all the predatory destructive self-seeking self-serving minions and éminences grise that actually move the levers, of power and its concomitant wealth, the kinds of creatures that are so well limned by Naked Capitalism.

          Once again, we mopes Hope that Bernie might be able to catalyze the kind of Change that might at least reduce the baleful miasma of Bidness and Bigness… Hope Springs Eternal, though in my neighborhood someone is stealing all the candidate yard signs except (speaking of baleful power) those of Cru! the Christian Kin of the Dominion! whose logo is the religious flame of the Holly Spirit or something, the Pentacostal Tongue of Fire,

          1. JTMcPhee

            …and by the way, Yves and Friends, congratulations on reaching 77.6 million visitors! My contribution to NC is on the way, my mite to Lambert went out a couple of days ago. Worth every penny, wish I could afford more.

          2. polecat

            …..there’s that ‘hope’ word again……..

            I’m sorry ….but I’ve completely lost my hopium balloon !!

            ..and it ain’t commin back !

          3. Doug

            “I wish he’d hurry up and issue the various pardons…”

            Maybe he’s waiting for Hillary to be indicted?

        4. Elizabeth Burton

          Re: the speaking fees. “Someone” has started spreading word they were about pay equity for women. Can’t imagine who’s do that, of course. Only ones buying it are the cultists, who are throwing it in every time the subject comes up with smug certainty then disappearing when asked to verify.

        5. Ray Phenicie

          Got home, took my meds, pulled a pint from the fridge and watched part of the debate. Sanders really pushed Clinton on the run and she turned tail at the point when Sanders (he’s so succinct here but thank God CNN staged this because the whole show gave Sanders the edge) calls out Bill Clinton again. Mrs. Clinton is barely able to hold herself together and I bet there was some cracker crumbs spilled on the sheets about that. Go to about 42:00 and watch if you want to just skip my commentary. Stunning defeat of Clinton and I don’t think anyone caught it. Not sure why.

          Here’ my blow by blow commentary for about the first 50 minutes.

          Sanders’ voice is hoarse and gets more so as the debate goes on. I think this really affects his responses.

          I’m watching now and Hillary is bragging (‘We helped New York rebuild after 9-11’- so bring up the emotional tag about 9/11 to garner support,) and it’s all about how helpful she is to the first responders health concerns. Good she did that I guess, just wonder why she doesn’t care about other people’s health now with her negativity about universal health care. No one asks her that question.

          About 7:40 to 8:40 Clinton gets very upset –sign of that? -she starts grinning and soon will emit her famous cackle no doubt. In the 1.5 minutes previous, she tried to show that Sanders was a weak kneed tiger because of his response in the now famous Daily News interview. But here he is questioning her judgment on foreign policy (“Iraq,” Bernie says “is the worst foreign policy decision ever”) and she shows how that arrow pierced her inner sanctuary and she’s almost loses it. Then Clinton brings up Dodd Frank. Why does she get to quote it? But then by that logic attacking Bernie for making that same statement is plain stupid.

          Bernie sums up “The Banks will be broken up Dodd-Frank allows that, end of story”
          So up to know Clinton gets in some strikes but they are not logical and really have no bearing on our current history, when her behavior is examined in light of the standards she supposedly espouses, that of context. You care about health care-for some-you care about breaking up the banks, but when your opponent states that you question his judgment. (I need a Scooby Doo turned head with a whine here)

          Now to the crux of the debate at about 18:40 where Clinton is asked to release the transcripts of her speeches to the banks but she deflects and makes another speech about context. The debate comes to a halt as she is asked again, (“ But Secretary Clinton . . . “) She deflects again and does not answer the question when she is reminded of that the grin comes out again. The crowd is heavily booing as she attempts to deflect by talking about Sanders’ tax returns.

          The moderator gives Bernie a cheering point (23:11) on Verizon by asking about quotes from the CEO. But Sanders does not answer the question but does lambaste the CEO by pointing out the he will not negotiate with his workers. This whole section is really a chance for Bernie to preach about the evils of capitalism and it is here that the debate takes a turn and we see Bernie on the rise; at the end of his bully pulpit sermon, Clinton finally emits the famous cackle and we now that she is in a shambles and the rest of the debate shows her on the run.

          Clinton echoes Bernie on jobs by stating she is all for jobs for everyone-except of course if the banks don’t approve. Clinton lies about getting support from unions and there are boos. Every time Clinton says “I have always been in favor of __________” we can be sure she is lying

          Clinton loses it totally here and tries to shout over Sanders. Clinton is almost booed off the stage as she lies about her support for $15.00. She dissembles here again with context, context, context. Bernie calls her lie big time and she just shakes her head.

          Now comes the heart of the debate in my estimation and it really needs to be seen to realize how Sanders reduces Clinton to a slithering mass of viper like protoplasm; it’s bad for her. This Must Be Watched if nothing else.

          At 42:00 she is asked about her support of the 1994 crime bill, more fast talk and about how she is now on the right side. She squirms very visibly about Chelsea’s response to a SC voter at 44:00 and says “I’m sorry,” then launches into what amounts to “I’ve evolved” kind of self effacement which is very lame. Cheering points when she says she is aware of systemic racism(45:02) but Sanders gets more support when he is asked about calling out Bill on the super predator remarks he made (he recently defended the already debunked ideology and philosophy of the term). Hillary is looking visibly wounded here-very telling and now for certain Sanders is in the lead as he evokes self confidence and the strategy of the night emerges and he takes his audience with him. He reduces the Clinton to rubble in about two sentences and gestures his hand at Mrs. Clinton. Can’t say this enough-a must watch here.

          Bernie does his very unique thing here by conceding to Clinton that she has some points in showing him voting for the bill-this reworks some issues. Sanders now launches into his usual about too many people incarcerated and not enough good paying jobs. Clinton can only watch in awe. Clinton is now openly out about trailing behind Sanders on the ‘let’s help people’ schtick. She keeps babbling over the moderator.

          I gave up here but Bernie finished with a standing ovation from the crowd which I think shows he has a much more powerful message than Hillary.

          1. Ray Phenicie

            Just for the record, should be

            He reduces the Clinton’s to rubble

            but maybe the Clinton is about what we face with Hillary. Freudian slip I guess shows how I view Mrs. Clinton-as a robot for the big money interests she clearly represents. But let Bernie tell it because he does it so well.

            Excuse please the bad grammar and loose sentences, I was watching and typing-tough to do.

        6. oh

          You’ve made several good points. I also happen to think that each section of the orchestra doesn’t work on its own without the conductor! I turned off the CNN stream after watching for about 10 minutes; couldn’t stand the raspy voice and the lies.

      4. pretzelattack

        and that may be a strategic mistake, given that he (or rather the cause he represents) need to oppose obama and his backers. maybe it’s tactically justified for the purpose of winning this specific election.

    2. timbers

      “Her cackle was out in full force, always a sign she’s rattled. Clearly off balance, off her game, and she compensated by ramping up her volume and angry tone.”

      “But Sanders frustrated me. There was a moment where he had a wide open opportunity to hit her hard on why she’s bought and paid for (he was asked to give one example where her voting was influenced by her rich patrons). Sanders could have really rammed home the point that influence is not quid pro quo. Or he could have pointed to Clinton foundation donations from the Saudis, followed by her approval of arms sales while SOS.”

      “Instead he fumbled it. It appeared as if he’d conceded the point. I pounded my fist into the couch.”


      Would Trump allow these openings to go missed? Doubt it. If not she could be seriously beaten by him, especially because as you note even at this late stage in the game she can’t even come up with a counter or obfuscate her way out. No excuse for that given how much time she’s had to prepare.

      1. Roger Smith

        Trump will destroy her. All he has to ask is “Why did she come my wedding? She wanted money, it’s simple folks…”

        1. EmilianoZ

          And why did he want her at his wedding? Because he’s such a lousy businessman he cant make it work without politicians granting him subsidies.

          1. Bas

            I suspect strongly that Trump was enlisted in a strategy as a spoiler to mess up the Republican side and make her win easy. Funny how that worked out. It would be interesting, if she is the candidate, what he would do, if he would even try to win.

            1. Gaylord

              Exactly — this is all rigged. Clinton is the shoe-in desired by the Banksters, so she is guaranteed to win (even if it means pulling any kind of dirty trick or fraud). Trump is the Trojan Horse in the Republican Party, in a way reminiscent of Obama posing as a progressive Democrat. What would Trump do to get out of the way? …he would “throw the game” by making more outrageous statements to alienate more voters than ever. He is ready for the final act. But even if, by some crazy dumb luck, Trump should win the election, he would be steered by the same crooked “advisers” to favor the Corporate Criminals and Neocons on all major issues. The same goes for Bernie, BTW, should he win. “Play ball on our team, OR ELSE…” We are past the stage where national elections had any bearing on policy. A shadow government is running the show.

          2. Waldenpond

            Trump is seriously flawed as a businessman. Bankruptcies, Clinton can easily use that as a 1v99%…. they get second chances, you should too (and then never deliver of course)…. Trump’s such a bad business person he has to use cheap labor visa because he’s either greedy or incompetent and can’t make it on a level playing field….. That’s just the US. Clinton can also point out that she’s popular abroad (death machine that she is) but Trump is loathed.

            The debate was a tie to me. Sanders had opportunities again and again and he refuses to take them. I just do not understand why he is running. If he is telling the truth about issues, Clinton is the opposite and he should find her unfit and he should actually want to win. How nice for him to have an opportunity to get his message out. He’ll be fine. We’re the ones who are going to get effed over. This was his last opportunity to sh@t or get off the pot.

              1. Waldenpond

                Yes, -1 pt for Clinton….as long as no one has died in any of his sweat shops (-1 pt for Trump), the same the Clinton’s were pushing in Haiti (-1 pt for Clinton.

                Round and round they go, circling the drain.

                1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

                  I agree with your points about missed opportunities.

                  You don’t understanding why he is running. If he’s telling the truth about issues.

                  Perhaps the Rubicon will be crossed.

                  Keep this in mind – to tell the truth, but not the whole truth, is lying too.

                  Lie by omission.

                  I hope it’s not that.

            1. tegnost

              Clinton doesn’t support second chances, she supports Goldmans right to garnish your Social Security for student loans, and Trumps ace in the hole when attacked on this will be to say the bankruptcy bill clinton supported is the reason why they get second chances and we don’t. My guess is he will use this, I consider it his nuclear option…trump can support allowing people to claim bankruptcy protection for student loans and he will roar to victory much to wall streets dismay. To your further points, Sanders has managed with some deftness not making himself a target, and has done so by not making over reaching claims. He allows people to know, we don’t need to be told everything, as you noted you are well aware of what he’s leaving out and so does most everybody else and that is why he continues to out perform. Look at Trump, he over reached and now suffers some from it but on the republican side it doesn’t matter, while on the dem side hill and the MSM are desperate for any opening and they’re not getting it, and calls for Sanders to be more aggressive are likely counter productive. I’ve been among the hillarites and for them it’s all “why are you so angry” etc…. and anything sanders does or says must not trespass on the other teams turf. I think he’s been masterful on this and he seems to have been so again. On the point that he let zingers go, remember that hill probably had some well scripted gotcha answers for those things and sanders didn’t offer her the opportunity to say them. Sometimes it’s what you don’t see, and I appreciate sanders allowing me to know whats going on rather than feeling we need to be led down the garden path.

              1. Waldenpond

                Online is not what is being seen by canvassers. I like to check the reddit/sandersforpresident. One canvasser wrote that they encountered only two Sanders supporters. 2/3 knew his name but nothing about him. 1/3 had no idea who he was. The debate was an opportunity to reach them. People who don’t know he exists are not going to a rally by him and NYers keep writing that there is a media blackout/minimizing of his events.

                I am not looking for zingers. I don’t like them except in the face of sneering of top of a blatant lie. It would be effective to add the use of foundations/shell companies by wealthy and politicians to avoid accountability/taxes in any state, even NY, in economic debate topics.

                1. Ian

                  This is the issue. In the minds of many Clinton is already the candidate and Sanders is an afterthought. Even if they do not really trust her or like her. This is why Clinton Trolls are so important, even though they have been debunked time and time again. as all they have to do is sound at least somewhat plausible, or appeal to a superficial ideal that speaks to that to uniformed person.

            2. Beth

              No, no. Your are assuming that bankruptcies work the same way for businesses as they do for individuals. The rules have been changed in both situations. The screws tightened for personal bankruptcies but were loosened for companies. Someone in this blog can elucidate.

              Many large companies now use a bankruptcy as a way to reduce labor costs by lowering wages and raiding pensions. Then the execs get a bonus for their genius. In one debate I saw Trump alluded to this by saying that it shouldn’t be legal but since it was, he’d be a fool not to use it.

              His company was not ready to go under but he could profit more by declaring bankruptcy. American Airlines did this is in last few years.

              1. Russell

                Dino Delorentes (sp) pioneered bankruptcy for fun and profit.
                The is a plaque for “Ragtime” on E. 11th.
                Anything Meyer Lansky did is done.
                Hollywood accounting is the leader in how to lose money for profit.

                1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

                  You can stiff small, local or regional banks in your bankruptcy, if you can explain to your big Wall Street supporter the strategic reasons.

                  They won’t hold it against you and you can continue to get your money from the big boys.

        2. Optimader


          Re Trump’s deriving commercial subsidy benefit from HRC f
          Suggested in the comment below, it might be a point if you can substantiate that.

          Lets pick Manhattan, is their a single commercial RE development hustler that is in operation without derived municipal or State benefits? I am geussing no. So Trump doing so is a distinction withoout a difference. Personally i am queitly suprised the RNC has yet to be able to torpedo him on an illegal business deal.

          I think it is more the case with Trump that it serves ego to have politicians come groveling at your invitation. More like kissing the Don’s hand for it’s reflected benefit from other guests. I speculate that in the high society social circuit, he is considered to be a bit “rough” and might be a element of insecurity, if thats the word, for him.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            He is not really old money, I believe, though I don’t know in today’s smartphone/social media billionaires’ world, if that still matters.

            1. Optimader

              I think it does to him. Why else is he so complusive aboutmake punching above his finanxial weight class..

      2. cyclist

        Indeed. I think Bernie thinks he needs to tiptoe around certain issues due to his tenuous connection to the Democratic party. He can’t really attack the Obama record as much as he might like either. At least he hinted at building a new Democratic Party by bringing in the young and disenfranchised, and mentioning the role the independent voters will play in the general election. But Trump will not have to hold back…..

        1. Arizona Slim

          The sooner Bernie starts running as an Independent, the better off we’ll be. Personally, I think he made a mistake by trying to get into the Democratic Party tent. It’s obvious that the DNC establishment doesn’t want him, so why does he bother with them?

          Besides, the younger folks really don’t care about the D or I label. Party identification doesn’t mean so much to them, and why should it?

          1. lyman alpha blob

            If he hadn’t joined the Dems, he would have nowhere near the recognition he has now. He would have not been invited to any televised debates. He would have had to fight for ballot access in 50 states separately which is not easy to get, even more difficult when both major parties are out to make sure you don’t get that access.

            I doubt party ID means much to Bernie but the system is what it is unfortunately and he has to play the game to some extent to get any message at all across.

            1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

              It may take more than one attempt, and in that light, running twice or more as an Independent is necessary.

              Perhaps 2012 and now.

          2. Pookah Harvey

            Remember Nader. He had much better name recognition and only ended up with 3% of the vote.

            1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

              I think the overworked, mal- and under- and mis-informed voter wanders into the booth knowing they should choose Red or Blue just like they always have and just like their parents did. Question is, which Red or Blue? Hey I saw that lady on TV, she said she’s fighting for me!

            2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

              Running a second time, Sanders will have, or would have (had he run in 2012), a bigger name recognition than Nader.

          3. Yves Smith Post author

            As I said above, it is way too late for Sanders to run as an independent. He won’t get ballot access in many states. Even March would have been too late for Bloomberg.

            And Bernie never would have gotten anywhere had he started as an independent. Remember that he was at 1% and Gaius Publius was the only person who said Bernie had a shot. What gave him momentum was Clinton hatred among Dems. He then got beyond that.

            1. Fiver


              Is it not possible to write in any name you want, in any State, and that vote will at least be counted? If the race comes down to Clinton vs Trump or Cruz, a write-in vote that was counted would put Sanders at the top – it would then be a wild-and-woolly finale vis a vis how the Electoral College would work, but supposing the premise is correct, it would be of enormous value to have Sanders out-poll the others even if he did not ‘win’.

      3. Pookah Harvey

        The correct answer to her question “Show me a piece of legislation that shows I have been bought” is that it is impossible to show quid pro quo. But her position that health care for all and free tuition is “unrealistic” when just about every other advanced society already provides for it shows how money from, and association with the rich has shaped her thinking. The rich do not want to pay their fair share for the good of the country and Hillary echoes their concern. She might not be bought and paid for but she certainly has been warped by money in politics.

        1. Jeff W

          Exactly. What’s on—and, really, what is off—the agenda (or what is viewed as “realistic”) is far more significant than any particular vote. (I am not even sure that Sanders has in mind a quid pro quo.) Sanders should have rebutted the premise of the question.

    3. Tiercelet

      Yeah. That was a screaming opportunity to talk about her TARP vote, ferex. Instead he just totally flubbed it.

      But after that weak start things seemed to go better…

  5. abynormal

    Clinton put herself on the defense…a 2yro could sense it. When Sanders called her on Wall St. money, she blew it. Clinton screamed louder and i hit the mute…what i SAW was a sorority deb caught doing the rugby team. Release the GS transcripts dhal’n!

    People must have dignity and identity. If they can’t do it peacefully, they will do it defensively. Joseph Tirella

    1. rich

      Why is it acceptable to the media and her supporters for her to answer with when the republicans release their transcripts, then i’ll release mine?…currently it’s a race between democrats. Is she having an identity crisis?

          1. pretzelattack

            yeah, i don’t really draw a distinction, except for the abortion issue. and i’m not really sure the repubs would make it illegal if they could, it’s such a handy fundraising gimmick to bleed the so called pro lifers.

            1. hunkerdown

              While one might be able to jump on a plane and have surgery done elsewhere, or have a personal physician willing to create an airtight paper reality for why one needed that medication with such “dangerous” side effects as inducing miscarriage, it’s inconvenient. Doubtless they have no desire to obstruct their own class interests or their power relations with the poor.

        1. rich

          kristina schake says she must be held to the same standard on the transcripts with a smiling face…what standard is there for accepting yuge $ (payola) from an industry you vow to rein in? i want to see the transcripts.

      1. Jeff W

        My rejoinder would be “You’d expect a Republican to make comments highly favorable to Wall Street in a speech to Goldman Sachs. It makes virtually no difference if voters see their speeches or not. You’re in a different position as a Democrat. Therefore, it’s reasonable to want to see your speeches, even if the Republican candidates do not release theirs. Or are you saying you’re no different than the Republicans?”

      2. Benedict@Large

        Actually, I don’t hear anyone accusing any Republicans of making quarter million dollar speeches to Wall Street, so which transcripts is Hillary referring to? And even if there are some, none of the Republicans are promising to go after Wall Street. Hillary is being accused of having a conflict of interest, and her only defense is to point to all the others who also have it, except there aren’t any.

      3. Brooklin Bridge

        The moderator made exactly that point, that Hillary was a Democrat and this was an issue among Democrats so why did she have to have everyone’s transcripts? Hillary evaded the question, of course, and Sanders made the point subsequently that she had not answered but by that time the moderator moved on.

        Moderator bias did show, but it was particularly subtle for the first half of the debate where good questions were asked of both and evasion was usually called out on both. The first sign that Hillary was being given a little help came after the mid break and it was in the form of what might be called “opportunity creep” – meaning HIllary was subtly given more resources such as time to answer each question while Bernie was brought up short the SECOND he went over his limit, and so on. As the second half wore on, Hillary was allowed more and more leeway; she could interrupt Sanders somewhat at will without being called; she could take as long as she wanted to answer, she could even answer when it was Sander’s turn and Sander’s was left waving his hands and looking bug eyed at the moderator but exercised enormous discipline not to cut in the way Hillary did when ever she wanted to. This cutting in has been discussed on propaganda talk shows, the one I saw was on PBS, and is presented in the context of male dominance when Sanders DOES it where as when Hillary interrupts it is shrewd debating tactics. And interrupt she did last night, particularly in the second half of the debate usually when Sanders started to score or get close to a nerve. As I said, the moderators knew full well to simply make ineffectual gestures when it was HIllary and to really jerk the reins taut, Sanders didn’t interrupt, but rather when he went an eighth of a second or so over his allotted time.

        It was never really blatant, blatant, and the intensity of the debate covered it up quite a bit, but it did become fairly obvious as the debate wore on and watching it on the PC actually helped bring that out as ours kept having to wait for the stream buffer to flush, giving us time to absorb what we were watching.

        1. farrokh bulsara

          I only watched the last hour or so and I found it particularly annoying that Clinton just kept talking and talking even if the moderator was trying to move on. Also, she rudely interrupted Bernie time after time. This is well demonstrated in the “Debate Dashboard” that is in today’s Water Cooler. Clinton spoke almost 8000 words and Bernie spoke just over 6100 words.

        2. Ray Phenicie

          Clinton was on the run though after the ‘predator’ thing at about 42:00. She seems to be not really strong after that. She’s always referring to Obama as though she is getting his blessing and his anointed heir . If you watch carefully Hillary is on the run after the predator was placed on the stage. She’s called out on Fracking.

  6. Nick

    I couldn’t bring myself to watch it either (I’d rather have a root canal), but I was actually surprised by what I saw in the MSM like NYT and Politico, which both called it a draw, meaning that Bernie won. Though even they seem surprised that Bernie didn’t take the opportunity to call Clinton out on certain things. The only reason that I could see for him avoiding bringing these examples up is that they sometimes require a bit more explanation than the 15-second soundbites allow for.

    Also, according to Time (hardly a leftist rag) and their online poll, Bernie won by a landslide. (Their disclaimer could have been written by the Clinton campaign, and basically says, unfortunately, this poll is completely democratic)

      1. Nick

        Thanks for that infographic recap of the debate! That’s essentially what I was expecting from her

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      The key metric is how many have been persuaded to change…not whether the poll shows a landslide win for Sanders.

      It could be, it’s a possibility, that it’s mostly Sanders supporters who comment online and participate in online polls.

      1. Brooklin Bridge

        Yes. It’s very hard to be objective. There is a bit of the sports event in debates, people have their team going in and it is almost always the same team going out.

  7. John Merryman

    Agree on all of the above, but Clinton’s tone likely played well with her base and given the issues about closed NY voting, that will likely matter a lot.

    Bernie did good and he is playing for the future. It will come, one way or another.

    1. Detroit Dan

      “Agree on all of the above, but Clinton’s tone likely played well with her base and given the issues about closed NY voting, that will likely matter a lot.

      Bernie did good and he is playing for the future. It will come, one way or another.” [John Merryman]


      1. Arizona Slim

        If Clinton is elected POTUS, I don’t think that she’ll serve a full term.

        Why not? Well, there are all of those scandals, past, present, and yet to be announced, that keep dogging the Clintons.

        Her health is also a big factor. Recall that she had blood clots while she was First Lady, and, more recently, she spent quite a bit of time in the hospital before she stepped down as Secretary of State.

        1. redleg

          I’ll bet that, if elected, she’ll be impeached over the email scandal by January 24th.

  8. OntheLiberalEdge

    I saw a repeat of the previous 3 debates–with higher volume and more strident tone–but no real change in the candidate Memes.

    HRC played the entitled, wronged sorority bitch; Bernie stuck to his reactive style; neither landed a knockout blow–although I am very frustrated with Bernie missing a couple of opportunities-

    On the “show an instant where I favored wall street” comment–He could easily have framed her as a Neo-liberal rather than a progressive by noting that while, as she had commented earlier, there were many years of pseudo prosperity from Bill’s administration–the long term impacts of de-regulation, Continuing Milton Friedman’s role as the Fed Chairman despite his clear pro-predatory wall street philosophies and appointing not progressives but Goldman Sachs Alumni to key financial cabinet posts shows a direct line accountability line for terrible Clinton judgment leading to the 2008 destruction of America’s economy; He could have said–before you say that was a ‘different Clinton’ —you certainly played a policy role and have said so multiple times–around health care, the 1994 crime bill and the ending of Glass-Stegall.

    Clearly there is an understanding of the cozy relationship–and the proof that ALL the Democrats–including YOU HRC are on the gravy train is evidenced by a pair of simple questions–“Why was nobody from wall street criminally prosecuted since 2008 despite MULTIPLE admissions of fraud, lying under oath and making false claims to investors?” and “Why is it that Goldman Sachs and their buddies to this DAY hold key financial and regulatory positions in a supposedly progressive administration?”

    Another area I was very disappointed in was the exchange over gun regulation–His team should have prepared him much better to defend against what has become a stock Clinton canard.

    Having said all that– I thought he otherwise distinguished himself– and that he made it clear that it is not a David Vs Goliath comparison on policy or on competence– he showed a clear command of facts–even If they didn’t play well within the establishment memes and he never lost his poise nor his control of the discussions.

    Debating a strong woman in an America that is LOOKING for Misogynistic control tactics is harder than it looks–too strong you are beating on that poor woman–too soft and you are not strong enough to be president– this is the 8th time he has walked that narrow line without being faulted– no mean feat in itself.

    1. nippersdad

      You make a very good point. I cannot remember a political cycle where there were so many constituencies actively looking for the opportunity to play the victim, and certainly not to this degree. Whether it is O’bots, Zionistas or “feminists”, everyone appears to be looking for an opportunity to score cheap political points at the expense of the greater issues. Everyone appears to want their little trophy, and it has made public debate a real minefield.

      One expects it from Republicans, it is really disappointing to see it entrenched on the Democratic side as well now. Sanders has done well to walk those lines, but it must be simply exhausting for him.

      1. Foppe

        It’s a great way to distract from the substantive issues, and it’s an unavoidable consequence of declaring economics taboo (even if it takes forever for this to become obvious). ID pol is a disease.

    2. mistah charley, ph.d.

      Just a minor correction – you wrote “Continuing Milton Friedman’s role as the Fed Chairman despite his clear pro-predatory wall street philosophies” – of course you meant Alan Greenspan (Mr. Andrea Mitchell),not only a follower of Friedman, but a member of Ayn Rand’s inner circle, who read Atlas Shrugged as it was written.

    3. jawbone

      He could easily have framed her as a Neo-liberal rather than a progressive

      I think the general public needs a long time to realize just what a NEOliberal is; most will assume it just means a 21st Century liberal, extending the work of FDR and LBJ.

      It is not commonly used in news broadcasts, afaik, and not explained by many general MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) reports.

      1. jawbone

        Just to underline the difficulty of introducing the concept of NEOliberalism, there’s the Monbiot article listed in the Links above. Good, helpful for history of Neoliberalism, but it does assume a basic understanding of economic terms, I think. But requires time to get through; it’s somewhat long for screen reading… and most American voters have no idea of what the word means. They do see the effects, but not what the theories and philosophy behind those changes to our economy and society are.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          It will be a long struggle.

          And one should not be surprised if we need to persist in more than one election cycle.

          If one can see far, it’s because one’s standing the shoulders of giants from the past.

          No MMT this time. No MMT likely the next time. (There is no time, always)

      2. Rhondda

        How about globalism? Kinda sorta the same thing. Better known term. Clear evocation of jobs/sucking sound.

    4. Elizabeth Burton

      “Another area I was very disappointed in was the exchange over gun regulation–His team should have prepared him much better to defend against what has become a stock Clinton canard.”

      There is no defense. People either get it, or they don’t; and you might be shocked by the number of those who deeply believe gun manufacturers should be held liable for gun deaths because their product only has one function—to kill. Lacking any degree of understanding what a slippery slope allowing them to be sued would be, they dismiss the argument against it on the grounds Ford doesn’t make cars to kill. They want someone with big pockets to pay up and that’s that.

      Which is why tort lawyers love juries and the defendants hate them.

      1. nippersmom

        I believe there are two points he could bring up to counter her gun control arguments. One is her arm sales as SoS (but I guess only the lives of exceptional Americans matter). Th other is, if Bernie is such a darling of the NRA, why is the NRA holding fundraisers for Hillary?

        1. Big River Bandido

          Your line about the NRA is pitch perfect. That’s the right response. It’s fast, few words, very easy to understand, and it does undercut Clinton’s attack.

          1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

            I think it needs to be 3 soundbites:
            1. “If I’m so soft on guns then why does the NRA rate my record a D-?”

            2. “I receive nothing, zero from the NRA, whereas my opponent receives campaign contributions from them, why is that, what are they paying for?”

            3. “If you want to compare who has armed more people to kill innocent civilians then you simply need to look at my opponent’s voting record on military interventions and wars, those dead mothers and grandmothers and children are counted in the millions not the thousands”

      2. Brooklin Bridge

        Agreed, Sanders was rather shaky on gun control. Hillary nailed him on his laughter. Her outrage was patently fake, but effective none the less, I’m sure. Sanders made good points but wasn’t confident about them. He should have stated calmly that yes he believed strongly in the second amendment but that he also believed in reasonable regulation of firearms. As I remember it, he missed the opportunity to tie his stand on gun control in with his popularity with the oh-so-crucial-to-win-the-general independents, but then later tried to catch up with that point – only, alas, in a rather clunky manner.

        It would be too good to be true if only Hillary had given one of her $300,000.00 speeches for a gun lobby group and Sanders had been able to call her on that. Those tidbits, if true, will only come out after the general election, of course.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          I agree too.

          There is no defense.

          Apologize and move on.

          As Bill Clinton played it: “Can it be better? I will change to make it better.”

          He and Hillary are players.

          We don’t have to become like them, to use their tactics though.

  9. Rich Caldwell

    Semiotics — Clinton with $gazillion pearl necklace and perma-smirk / scowl / sneer, falling back time and again on her rah-rah stem-winder misdirections; Sanders with nakedly incredulous facial reactions to C’s whoppers. I thought a high point was Sanders’ thoughtful words on Israel and Palestine. The free-wheeling nature of the event tended to show the true, less-restrained nature of both, to Sanders’ benefit. NYT calling it a draw is telling.

    1. susan the other

      I thought Sanders on Israel/Palestine reflected his objectivity without any ego involved. Unlike Hillary who seems to be all ego and no substance. When Sanders said that we need to admit that sometimes Netanyahu is wrong and should show restraint, etc. it was a very direct comment. Hillary doesn’t know how to make direct comments. She hedges everything – which is why she is such a bore.

      1. wendy davis

        Will this matter much, and does it track with his remarks in the debate?

        “Anti-occupation activists are expressing disappointment over U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ decision to suspend his Jewish outreach coordinator — just three days after appointing her — for comments she made critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” at telesur english

        Please know I have no dog in the fight; I’m not a fan of either of them. Well, none of the candidates, though Stein would be closest for me, but her suspension won’t play well if it’s known.

        But a J street critic of Bibi? Didn’t know that was a thing….and aside from the edited profanity, isn’t it what
        sanders said…or close to it?

    2. Brooklin Bridge

      This was an admirable and courageous stance, especially, in NY. It’s going to cost him in the NY primary, but oh did it need to be said! I wish he had been that confident and fluid in his answers regarding guns.

  10. MJ

    I did not watch the debate but I turned on MSNBC after Clinton’s closing statement. Chris Matthews and his entire panel were so pro-Hillary and anti-Bernie that I had to turn it off. Matthews tried desperately to get Sander’s campaign manager to make a gaffe but accidentally (it seemed like none of the panelists could actually control what they were saying) and indirectly accused Hillary of corruption (taking money and going soft on donating parties). Another panelist boldly claimed Bernie knows he is going to lose NY, which is why he broached the topic of Palestine, so he could have a plausible excuse for backing out of the race (i.e. they just couldn’t handle my progressiveness). The woman on the panel couldn’t even hide her fawning over Clinton and disdain for Sanders. Matthews tried to tie up one of his panelists by interjecting the “corporate whore” meme that Sanders has disavowed into a question. It would have all been comical if it was not so sad.

    1. Kokuanani

      And we in suburban MD are “lucky” enough to have Matthew’s local broadcaster wife running for the House.

      Her poor judgment in choosing Dim Chris as a spouse should immediately disqualify her.

    2. August West

      Re MSNBC post commentary panel: That was Howard Fineman. He shocked everyone on the panel with his comment. They were all speechless. He said, the only reason Bernie had the guts to stand up for the Palestinians, “in Brooklyn!”( he added with much indignationn),was because he knew he was going to loose NY state. Cause otherwise how dare he stand up for the Palastinians??!!! Fineman was clearly incensed with Bernie’s Israel comments. It was quite a moment. There was 2 or 3 seconds of crickets…… He then got a hold of himself and apologized for being so cynical.

  11. Sal

    It seemed to me that both Clinton and Sanders were ratcheting up their tone in prep for debates with Trump with excessive ‘talk overs’.

  12. Howard

    I decided for this debate I would read the transcript instead if watching live.

    Clinton interrupted Sanders numerous times. She really comes across as a bully when reading the transcript. Sanders once again dropped the ball on gun control. He should of clearly stated his position and then point out that Clinton ran as a gun supporter in 2008 and has staked out a new position for political expediency.

    Sanders dominated the rest of the debate. He was much better on foreign policy and cleaned her clock on Social Security. She just would not clearly say “yes i support raising the cap on income to better fund SS.”

    While I think Sanders clearly did well, I do not think this debate will have a big impact one way or another after the 24hr news cycle ends. The NY primary is like a big sting operation for Hillary, no independents, no same day registration as a Dem., media in the bag, home of Wall St. etc… If Sanders can come within 10pts it would be a major achievement.

    1. gleno

      I don’t know why he can’t just explain that his personal beliefs on this issue conflicted with the desires of the vast majority of his Vermont constituents. He seems ashamed of this, but needs to get over that and just own it. As an elected representative for that state I think he did the best he could.

  13. EndOfTheWorld

    I started out intending to listen to the debate. As soon as I heard HRC’s voice, I quickly turned it off. Like a reflex. I really can’t stand to listen to her. Bernie had a good line when she claimed she “called out” the Wall Street banks. He counterpunched her effectively, and she visibly crumpled a little. I won’t tell you the exact quote, because I can’t remember, but check it out. He also said somewhere during the debate, “I think we’ll win the nomination, to tell you the truth” and got a lot of applause. The trouble with fighting Wall Street for the NY primary is some of the NYers actually do get “trickle-down” money from the Wall Street crooks. If the banksters bamboozle some Illinois pension fund and make a few billion bucks, that’s a lot of discretionary capital flowing into NYC, to spend at your deli, bakery, bar, strip club or whatever.

    1. redleg

      It was “Oh my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this. Was that before or after you received huge sums of money by giving speaking engagements?”

  14. halley

    Sanders can be so disappointing: he’s handed an opportunity and either through ignorance or disinclination, won’t take it.

    The lost points matter less than doubts these failures raise about Sanders himself. Is he all slogans and no substance, as his critics claim? Does he really not know Clintons’ record of malfeasance and hypocrisy? Or is he reluctant to strike too hard? Impossible to know, which in itself reflects poorly on him.

    These debates don’t change minds anyway, so maybe it doesn’t matter. But still…. Frustrating! OTOH, it’s hard to believe Clinton’s performance, shrill, victimized and histrionic, won her any converts.

    1. dale

      Agreed. He does seem unprepared. He gets so flustered, his whole head turns red and he can’t keep his trembling hand on the podium. So he comes off kind of nutty, out of control, a little foamy. Has he watched a video of himself debating? He doesn’t look like he’s made any progress with his speaking skills. I support Senator Sanders, but in each of the debates I feel like he squandered ripe opportunities to deliver knock out blows against Clinton.

      1. Arkansan for Bernie

        My feelings exactly. If Bernie would lower his tone, refresh his worn out lines, and leave the out-of-control shouting to Hillary, he would come across as someone with the emotional strength to handle Congress. I support Bernie with my heart and soul, but I wish he would come at this with new supporting material instead of depending on what we have heard him say a thousand times. What happened to talking about the climate change as our no. 1 environmental, social, economic, and national defense problem? I realize they are at the mercy of dealing with the questions that are given them, but the closing remarks are poorly used and could have left listeners with new material to ruminate over. In spite of everyone’s opinion that last night was a big looser for Hillary, they both failed to do themselves any good, in my opinion.

        1. John k

          Bernie is 74, from a very small state, and only loosely attached to the dem party, I.e. Hardly an ideal messenger. It’s the right message at the right time that has brought him to the cusp of preventing the coronation of the queen, who has the money, press, the sitting pres and the last dem pres all on her side.

          I hope for a win with or without the Fbi, but I’m grateful that Bernie is doing everything in his power to get the country out of the corrupt, downward spiral its on. Hopefully some progressive politicians are taking notes from this campaign.
          Count our blessings…

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            Thirty years ago, Bill Clinton the consummate political animal would have styled himself as the younger Bernie, taking all his fashionable (to Bill, that is) ideas (easy for him at that time, as he had not yet cornered himself, all by himself, into so many dead-ends).

    2. Bas

      It astonishes me how representative they are of the polar ends of the Dem party. It takes on a surreal aspect for me to see Hillary in a position of defending the indefensible and still carrying on as a credible candidate. I think Sanders has trouble mainly because it is so patently obvious that she is a complete stinker that nailing her on it should not be necessary.

  15. MIchael C

    I admit I did not watch the whole debate. The forum itself is difficult to take seriously for me But, of what I did watch, I have to say that I think Sanders is making a mistake, at least as how it appears to me, that he does not better prepare for these bouts. I use the word “bouts” because if one is going into a fight, one has to do the preparation so one can be effective in the ring. Sanders is not the best off the cuff fighter. He is slow to change his tactics and goes back into his usual themes without offering nuance to them, which in essence is a defensive mode. It doesn’t always work well with someone quicker and more polished in the bad “art” of what has now become political debate. I’d call it ring rust, but to his credit Sanders doesn’t dish out razzle-dazzle, but it at times makes him look ineffective when he does not counter blows. I can think of a dozen ways he could have defended single-payer better than he did. Clinton gets away with jabs to his program and he goes back to what he knows when he needs to emphatically respond with the facts in a clear way. That’s my criticism of him, that he is not battle tested in this game nearly as much as she, even though he has won many elections in his time. One plus for him, he may have been the first candidate to ever at least mention the Palestinians with at least acknowledgement that they are human. He may have felt he could not go any farther than that, I don’t know. He could have corrected the misconception that he doesn’t have hard plans for banks, and dispelled the falsely floated description of his New York Daily News interview. I like him. I just wish he were more nimble in the ring, even if the ring it a ridiculous bizarro universe from where truth lives.

    As for Clinton, I must say her whole self-righteous and disingenuous answers (that are really non answers) and phony facade of who she is and what a get it done change-maker she is disgusts me. I squirm watching her disdain of, not only Sanders, but of the public in her belief that we are all stupid. Her smirk is worse than Bush’s because at least with Bush it was not one of superiority, it being probably the opposite. For that reason I listened to the sound after a few minutes since I have much problem seeing her display of entitlement, a demeanor which makes the American people seem as if serfs eyes. I guess in the end, though charming for not being so polished, I wish Sanders would have done his road and ring work before getting into these unseemly extravaganzas of what passes for the epitome of American democracy at work.

    1. ChiGal

      yep, in a nutshell she came off as politics as usual (despicable) and he came off as a guy with integrity who let her land punches he could easily have been prepared for. Crowd did boo her a couple times but she also got cheers, as of course did he.

      he is the one who needed to change minds, kinda doubt that happened… sadly, I think he will be lucky to get her lead down to single digits, meaning no narrowing of the delegate gap.

      1. tegnost

        Sanders does not need to change minds, he’s running very strong and has a lot of support, more obviously than he is credited for in the MSM. You note the crowd booed her, did the crowd ever boo bernie? He needs to let hillary change minds, and I’d say she’s doing a pretty good job of it, considering that his support continues to grow.

    2. fresno dan

      MIchael C
      April 15, 2016 at 8:15 am
      All good points, and I agree.
      I suspect that detailed rebuttals of Clinton would also make Obama look terrible as well – and that is probably someplace Sanders feels he cannot go.
      We live in a world of branding, and the Obama brand is “liberal” or “progressive” even though that is far removed from reality. We are in the contradiction where dems just will not admit that a black president walks like a repub, talks like a repub, and makes policies identical to repubs….

  16. nippersdad

    All told, I would have to say that the debate was pretty hard to watch. Sanders was weak early on, refusing to go for the jugular as usual. By the time he got into his stride Clinton was filibustering to a degree that should have been called out by Sanders or the moderators. If the contestants were irritating, the audience was even moreso; it sounded more like a high school pep rally than anything else I have heard in a while. Credit where credit is due, the moderators often followed up when the question was unanswered, and there were a lot of fairly tough questions.

    I don’t know if this debate will change any minds but it did give a good sense that both of them hate each other’s guts at this point. I kept thinking that she needs to either do some research on his actual votes or tone down her criticism of them because her actions on that stage only served to confirm her reputation for dishonesty; something that, more than anything, she needed to address during this debate. No one likes a liar, and she came off as the ultimate exemplar of Tricky Dickdom last night.

    1. Waldenpond

      If you have been fired/layed off by Trump, replaced by visas or outsourced to any of Trumps’s foreign manufacturing, not very well. They are both putrid candidates. They are both morally corrupt, they are both financially corrupt, they are both politically corrupt. They are compatriots. They may even sign a Sanders contract and leave this off the table but I guess they can also just point fingers, call it a wash on corruption and debate over who will do the most damage domestically and abroad and fight for the low turnout.

      1. jrs

        not to mention had your hopes of a better life crushed by Trump’s anti-union policies.

        I admit I didn’t follow the Trump/Colorado thing that much. Wasn’t that the day Sanders won Wyoming? I was so blown away by Sanders winning another and the media only covering Trump stuff that …

  17. Donn

    Is it possible that machines (literally speaking) vote for Hillary and humans for Sanders? I think the voting in this democratic primary is rigged.

    1. hreik

      it is already rigged. there are reports (reddit) of numerous people checking their voter ID and seeing that “lo and behold” their registration was changed from Democrat to something else… not allowing them to cast a vote for Bernie.

      1. Bas

        I have a voter ID card. I got it when I registered. Could this not be used by people screwed electronically?

      2. RP

        MA, AZ, NY party identities “miraculously changed”

        AZ outright suppression

        MA – Bill campaigning at polling places (illegal)

        WY – Hillary’s hundreds upon hundreds of “absentee waiver” caucus votes

        They don’t even care that the high-information citizens know, because there aren’t enough of us, evidently.

  18. Watt4Bob

    I never liked George W, but it took me a couple years to reflexively hit the mute button.

    I was amazed at how soon I started muting Obama after he was elected.

    I fear I’ll need spare remotes going forward if Hillary is elected.

  19. Medium Rare

    I thought Sanders clearly won. Clinton was dodging questions left and right. She couldn’t answer yes or no questions on several issues. She came across as a typical politician who is unwilling to state her true position. She bullied the moderators, interrupted Sanders numerous times, etc. I don’t think she will win votes with that performance.

    Sanders presented himself as a clear progressive alternative for the future of the Democratic party. Though he didn’t say everything I hoped he would, I think he made it clear whose side he was on and what he stood for while Clinton dodged.

    I don’t see how someone could vote for her after watching that.

    1. Pavel

      Hear, hear.

      Hillary’s deflections and filibusters were so obvious, as were her other disingenuous responses. Plus her endless references (positive) to Obama until Libya came up and (as others have put it) she threw him under the bus.

      How anyone can support that person just boggles my mind.

      And YUGE kudos to Bernie for a rational, humanistic call for Palestinian justice and evenhandedness in the Mideast. Who woulda thunk a Jewish politician would be the first presidential candidate to be so fair and so refreshing? Even if (when) Sanders loses to HRC, that one impassioned call for justice and sanity will have left its mark.

      1. sleepy

        Sanders should have drilled more deeply into Hillary’s Bibi love–her statement that she would invite him to the Whitehouse shortly after her inauguration, and how this was a real betrayal of Obama’s hostility to Bibi’s speech before congress and his efforts to undermine Obama’s Iran policy.

        I think it would have been good politics

    1. RP

      best part of the debate

      if she becomes POTUS 45, the over/under on US/Israel wars started/supported by hillary the hawk in first term is 1.5…

      Anyone taking the under?

  20. Steven Greenberg

    I thought that Sanders missed too many points where he could have made a good rebuttal, but just fell back on his old talking points. After 9 debates, when is Sanders going to come up with good rebuttals to all the usual tricks that Hillary plays?

    If only Sanders would read the book, “Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?” Can we all chip in a few micro-cents to buy him a copy?

    And when is he going to listen to all that Bill Black and Stephanie Kelton have to say about economics and Wall Street criminal behavior? Especially rebuttals mentioning Obama’s lack of standing up to Wall Street after taking uuuuge amounts of money from Wall Street for his Presidential campaigns. Obama’s behavior is not a get out of jail free card for Hillary’s taking Wall Street money. Obama’s behavior is a stark reminder of the worst that can happen when a candidate takes Wall Street money. Dodd-Frank is not a great Wall Street regulation bill. No wonder Barney Frank supports Hillary for giving the bill the high praise that it does not deserve. And Obama-care is a complete capitulation to big Pharma and to the insurance companies.

    When Hillary still complains that Sanders won’t explain how he intends to “pay” for his programs, he should ask her “What part of a tax on Wall Street speculation don’t you understand?”

    The Sanders campaign volunteers need to get together to do some debate research for Sanders and come up with rebuttals he can’t seem to manage on his own.

  21. fresno dan

    What I really got out of it is that the dem candidate/party (i.e., Hillary) believes in the status quo, its morning in America, and other than a few tweaks, yada, yada, yada, and O! the war in Iraq was a minor mistake, but Libya, Syria and where ever else we go are not and will not be….

    I did a search for the word “inequality” – not spoken once. With regard to employment, Clinton only said it in conjunction with racism. Clinton said the word “economy” twice**, and one of those times was with regard to the Palestinian economy (astounding that the economy in America is not worth discussing by Clinton). So really, you just have Clinton doing rope-a-dope and the media goes along with the Clinton contention that the economy is not much of an issue.

    As I’ve said before, the contradictions for the repubs are now ripe, I think things have to get even worse before the constant refrain that the economy is OK becomes untenable for the dems – one more election cycle is necessary for the dems to implode.

    CLINTON: And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza.
    So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.

    (Clinton speaking about Dobb-Frank — and of course, prosecutions implied the NEXT time this stuff happens….) There are two sections there. If they fail either one, that they’re a systemic risk, a grave risk to our economy, or if they fail the other, that their living wills, which is what you’re referring to, is inadequate.

    Every time I hear the words Dodd Frank, I wonder about the words Sarbanes Oxley. Is it, or is it not a fact that every law dealing with finance is written so that nobody can be prosecuted for anything???

    1. Pavel

      Every time I hear the words “Dodd Frank” I think of the corporate sellout whore Barney Frank. He about sums up Hillary’s competence and integrity on this matter.

      1. polecat

        should be called ‘The Dodd/Frank Prank’ ……which more descriptive to my mind, at least…

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          My hearing is not as good, and sometimes I thought I heard ‘Dodge Prank.”

  22. EndOfTheWorld

    I think since this was the prelude to the NY primary Bernie didn’t want to come out with both guns blazing about the Wall Street crooks. NYers to an extent LIKE their Wall Street crooks. Anything that would diminish the extravagance, wealth, and importance of the big Wall Street banks will also diminish the stature of the Big Apple. Bernie had to say his anti-Wall Street stuff for the national audience, but to go overboard on this topic would hurt him in parts of NY. He has to get past the NY primary without getting massacred, do OK in some of the other east coast states, then win CA and some of the other states. I love it when Camp Clinton constantly tells Bernie it’s time to quit. Why would he quit?

  23. HotFlash

    the Washington Post claimed that despite all the fireworks, the debate would not change anyone’s prior views.

    Hate it when I agree with WaPo, but I do.

    Fortunately didn’t have to watch the debate. I had been watching the TYT interview with Jane Sanders and noticed “live” come up on the teaser thumbnails. SInce they didn’t have video rights, we got audio feed, selected stills and a TYT peanut gallery which commented thru the commercial breaks (thanks for that!) — it was kinda like SciFi Theater. Oddly enough, Jane in her interview said *a lot* of the things commenters above wish Bernie had said. So it’s not like his campaign doesn’t know the stuff.

    I read it as Bernie not wanting to burn bridges. If he wins, and I fervently hope he does, as HIllary seems bent on presiding over WW3, he will have to work with both hostile R’s and hostile D’s.

    1. pretzelattack

      i’d like to see a jane-bill debate, then. somebody needs to bring these points out forcefully.

      1. HotFlash

        Oh yeah! Sanders campaign people, this to your ears! A tag-team event, even! MSM, think of the ratings!

  24. marco

    I have been giving WAY MORE money than I can afford to Bernie (about $500 so far) but seem unable to stop. The following scenarios usually provoke another donation (1) after a debate (2) after a Krappy Krugman article (3) when Hillary or Hillary Surrogates attack (4) a positive media event (a) the Vatican visit (b) the Verizon strike picket line (5) when he attacks Hillary HARD especially in relation to foreign policy (5) when the Democratic Party primary process seems rigged against him (ie Arizona, closed primaries, super-delegate bull-shit).

    Curious what motivates other Bernie doners?

    And…if / when it becomes extremely obvious that he has no chance at the nomination when would I STOP giving to him? I don’t know the answer to that and would seriously consider giving more should he continue to push the Democratic Party to the left AFTER he loses.

    1. Pespi

      Those Rocky moments always get me, when he’s on the ropes and lands a looping blow. Alright, what’s my amex number, I think I finally maxed my donation.

    2. pretzelattack

      i’m starting to accept we will be scammed again, which means figuring out how to go forward. i don’t think the democratic party can be reformed, all we’ll get is some token posturing by clinton before she throws us under the bus, but i hope i’m wrong. i’m not voting for any more dinos.

      1. Harry

        The idea is not to reform it but to take it over. That’s what Clintons crew have done over 40 years. Now you are meant to take it back by showing up to meetings.

        1. pretzelattack

          it’s not just the clintons, it’s the clintons-reagans-kissingers-obamas-bushes etc. and all the assorted apparatchiks like krugman and friedman, and the billionaires behind all of them. i dont think we can take the party back, by showing up at meetings. i think there has to be some major civil disobedience and some serious threats to the status quo. and i think there will be, because people are getting more desperate. i don’t know what this will lead to, but it might be a fascist takeover.

    3. Marco

      More to the point…what does Bernie have to do for me to keep giving money irregardless of this primary?

    4. Bas

      Usually with me it is hearing about another of $hillary’s fundraisers. The Clooney one in particular was galvanising in its outrageousness. And reading first-hand accounts of people who have attended.

    5. Waldenpond

      I stopped last week. I was waiting to see if he was going to pull punches and he did so I’m done. If he wins NY, I’ll start up, but I think it will be a double digit loss.

      I focus on the candidate and try to cut out the noise. I don’t have cable, can’t stand it. I don’t care what elite media writes about politics. I don’t care about Clinton or people who want to get a bribe laundering war criminal elected (I’m actually repelled). The rallies do make me smile, but no, they don’t make me donate because I know a large percentage of those in NY can’t even vote for him. I will be unregistering as a D because of the electoral corruption and will vote 3rd party.

      I focused on getting to/through NY. For me, he needed to win and then only lose one a week later. I want the D branch of the money party burned down as much as the R branch of the money party. Sanders could only have done that if he won.

      1. tegnost

        If he had won what? NY isn’t til next week or the week after? Using your own hard edged methodology, how many hillarites have you converted to bernie?

        1. Waldenpond

          That last paragraph is garbage. The debate was important to NY and the following states. I do not think he moved anyone w/the debate and I believe he has to win NY.

          I, myself, am a converted Clinton supporter from 2008 and even donated a little. Sanders is the first campaign I have donated to significantly, bought gear and worked for. We have never used bumper stickers, signs etc so it is unusual. I can’t phone bank as I have been hearing impaired since I was 30 and can’t canvass so I am concentrating on registering people and I guess it would be called marketing.

          I have convinced only two people to switch, gotten 3 people for Sanders and will continue but Clinton support is entrenched, they simply do not care about policy and you have to be flexible in how you communicate. My parents will support Clinton and I have two conservative relatives I want to cancel out, so my personal goal is at least 8. I also have a one neighbor insisting on Clinton although her husband has switched,( he hid a thumbs up from his wife when I put up my yard sign). I wore my Bernie shirt to a meeting of likely Trump supporters and managed to have side conversations with 5 people and I think I did well with two but who knows. I am in CA and have until at least May 9 when early ballots come out.

          I think anyone is more effective if they are trying to get votes FOR someone rather than contempt for the other candidate. People expect someone in their 50s to be a Clinton supporter, but my reaction is the same as Clinton’s when she encounters poc that don’t agree w/her… I actually lean away. ha! At the Bernie meeting, I actually mumbled that Clinton is a bribe laundering war criminal and it would be immoral for me to vote for her. Rude, but at least it makes clear that Ds are lose(she loses)-lose(responsible for her war mongering) if they vote for her.

          1. tegnost

            I too spent time trying to swing californians to bernie and you were way more successful than me. My point is that in my case the attacks that some people want bernie to engage in actually harden the resolve of clinton supporters, while letting them think about how these issues affect their grandkids without interference actually might work. They don’t respond to the harsher tactic for better or worse, and just like you’ve said they are entrenched and one must be flexible communicating, and when bernie pulls his punches I think he’s possibly making the right choice.

          2. Waldenpond

            Yes, yes, yes, BS $15, Clinton doesn’t, BS universal health care, Clinton doesn’t, BS individual donors, Clinton WS money, blah, blah, blah, clicks donate. Jeesh, yes, and a frickin 10% tip for actblue.

            What the hell is wrong with this campaign? I’m expressing my frustration and have to time out to donate? Jeff Weaver on the other hand, can buzz off. :)

    6. SpringTexan

      It’s that he continues to work so hard and fight so hard that also induces me to donate more than I generally would. Also enjoy the total bemusement of the establishment that he continues to raise money.

      Heard a remark from someone on the radio yesterday saying that unlike Clinton, Bernie does not do “debate prep” by having a mock debate. She does the standard thing where she spends time with a fake Bernie practicing on issues that may come up so she’ll be more poised (not that there’s anything wrong with that, but he doesn’t do it). The infuriating remark that made me want to donate (but I didn’t since I had donated yesterday) was that well that didn’t hurt him with his base of low-information voters. What does practising to be more poised have to do with low information? Who is more informed, Sanders voters or other voters? They put in these insulting, throwaway lines that make no sense at all.

      I love that Sanders doesn’t spend time on fundraising and mock debates, but spends time communicating ideas and listening.

  25. Anne

    I also felt that, early on, Clinton was kind of having her way with Sanders; that she was doing it with such smugness and air of entitlement made it even harder to take. If you watch her, she raises herself up and looks down her nose; it is not a good look for her – for anyone – and I half-expected to see the royal wave at some point.

    I think Sanders missed several opportunities to counter what she thought were winning zingers, which was disappointing. He missed the chance to remind Wolf that it was the Washington Post’s reaction to Clinton campaign comments that started the whole “Bernie is unqualified” mess. He missed the chance to remind Clinton that more than a few respected economists and banking experts found his responses to the NYDN showed that Sanders absolutely did know what he was talking about, and that perhaps the NYDN couldn’t identify that because their editorial board didn’t know the answers. He missed the chance to ask Clinton if she could cite the sections of the federal criminal code under which Wall Street bankers could be prosecuted– or would she defer to the knowledge of Justice Department lawyers. He could have given a two-word answer to “give us one example;” “bankruptcy bill.”

    I thought he did better as the debate went on. The “Fight for 15” portion of the debate, her inability to just answer his question about raising the cap on income subject to Social Security, her history of being in favor of fracking. I wish he had hit her on going around the world as Secretary of State hawking the TPP as the gold standard of trade agreements. I think her gun argument has lost its punch, and more air went out of it when CNN called her on the BS about blaming Vermont for NY’s gun violence problem.

    I suppose part of it, for me, was wanting him to wipe that smug attitude off her face, but I had to settle for knowing that she was doubling down on smug because he was getting to her.

    I wish Sanders had also asked her if she understood that he was running against her, not President Obama, because on almost every issue, she invokes Obama’s name as if it were a shield designed to protect her. She’s practically carrying Obama around in a backpack – well, except on those pesky foreign policy decisions that she wants everyone to know she only advised on.

    Even though she brought it up as a distraction from what she had been asked, I do have to give Clinton credit for bringing up the fact that in none of the debates have they gotten even one question about women’s reproductive freedom.

    I don’t know how the vote is going to shake out on Tuesday, but I think it’s going to be closer than the polls indicate.

  26. TedWa

    She clearly would not admit Libya or Syria were mistakes, she doubled down on that saying or implying she’s not done there and would insure democracy for all in the ME, (imperialism). I think that did change some minds. She admitted she was a war hawk for the first time and that for America that will be business as usual if she wins the nomination. I’d think those voters that were on the fence and unclear about HRC’s major parts and parcel in all our ME problems would be in shock and awe at her war hawk stance, especially those voters that might have believed the kindly old grandmother she portrays on TV in the debates is in reality a war monger and proponent of endless wars.

    I loved that she refused to say yes to raising the cap on the SS tax and Bernie insisted she answer the damn question. That should show other voters on the fence that she’s not serious about saving SS. Hemming and hawing all around the question.

    Bernie really needs to get her to drop the guns questions. Why wasn’t he more prepared for that I’ll never understand. One of the CNN commenters even suggested he use the same terms as Obama did in 2008 by saying she took so much money from the NRA she should be called Annie Oakley. Hilarious.

    Sanders won, Hillary had her back to the wall during most of the debate and had to rely on bumper sticker meme’s she knows would get applause to get back off that wall. I just hope enough people on the fence noticed these tells to turn the tide to Bernie. She qualified to be President alright, but certainly not qualified in any ways that matter to most Americans. I think Bernie got across the message that she’s bought and paid for better than at all the previous debates. The lady doth protest too much and that is the biggest tell about her “sincerity”.

    1. fosforos

      “She admitted she was a war hawk.” At that moment, for the first time, I seriously considered Trump as a MUCH lesser evil in the event of such a dreadful choice. A US president whose mind swarms with the words “fighting” and “war” is a direct menace to everyone alive. Against her how can anyone pretend that a bullshitter whose mind swarms with the words “deal” and “dealing” is not clearly preferable?

    2. TedWa

      She’s eminently qualified to be a Republican President, but certainly not a Democratic President, at least not the Democratic President that we need at this time.

  27. Steven

    How about we all take the “No more lesser of two evils” pledge?

    This contest is really about the PTB in both parties maintaining that power, even at the cost of shredding the charade of democracy they have managed to foster here in the land of the ‘chosen people’.

    If, as I suspect, Bernie is denied the nomination by the Democratic PTB and then proceeds to endorse Killary and work for ‘party unity’ I will have lost all hope for peaceful political change in this country.

    1. pretzelattack

      i don’t know how bernie will respond, but otherwise i agree. i’m really worried about the future of this country.

      1. RP

        Here, Bernie, I even wrote your non-endorsement:

        “Knowing what I know about our broken democracy, I cannot in good conscience endorse Secretary Clinton for the Presidency. If I could, I would not have run. I believe our country faces structural problems that run much deeper than she is willing or able to acknowledge, and that she is central to those problems. I encourage all Americans to vote their conscience in November.”

        1. John Wright

          Bernie could be a bit more politic in his “endorsement” of Clinton.

          Maybe something like this:

          “People have encouraged me to endorse Hillary Clinton for President.

          I am very familiar with her long record on approval and advocacy of illegal and immoral foreign military operations, her support for harmful trade agreements, her support of weak regulation of the financial industry, her opposition to single payer healthcare, her opposition to raising the minimum wage and her very limited support in combating climate change..

          I simply can’t say enough good things about Hillary Clinton.

          Thank you,


  28. fosforos

    I commented to the effect that a US president whose brain it teems with the words “fighting” and “fight” and is a manifest Hawk is clearly a much greater threat to the world than a manifest Bullshi.ter whose brain it teems with the words “dealing” and “deal,” and that last night’s performance convinced me for the first time that, in the event of such a terrible choice, a “lesser evil” vote for the Trumpe-l’oeil would be justified. And your “moderation” seems to have censored it, since it hasn’t appeared. What gives?

  29. August West

    It was difficult to watch especially in the beginning. Bernie found his stride. He did well overall. Hills was defiantly on the defensive. Sander’s missed opportunities to hit her hard on numerous issues have to be part of some bigger plan to keep his message simple, but we’re frustrating to me. I was dissappointed that the revolving door has not come up. Simple to ask if she would appoint someone from Goldman to be treasury secretary for example. I think with regard to criticism about his simple message and why he does not expand his views…we here are familiar with Bernie but we have to keep in mind( this opinion comes from discussions with my 25 yr old son who loves Bernie)that a lot of people are just starting to pay attention and may be for the first time,noticing him. There are still a lot of people who don’t know what Bernie is all about. There may have been a lot of people watching the dem debate for the first time.

    1. EndOfTheWorld

      Right, there was a 100% media blackout on Bernie for the first half of the campaign and there is still a 50% blackout on him. The debate for him was still just an opportunity to introduce himself and get exposure. If this whole thing hadn’t been fixed since Day 1 Bernie would have it wrapped up about now. As it is he’s still hanging in there.

  30. James McFadden

    I think many people vote with their gut – their emotional reaction to the candidate. Do they trust the candidate? Emotions are triggered by our right brain – our subconscious reaction to tells. As an evolved social animal, where trust has been a key to survival, our brains are very good at detecting lies. Unfortunately master salesmen like Trump are so good at lying that they fool many a person who votes with their gut. So for this debate I paid attention to my emotional reaction – which was reflected by the crowd cheers and boos. Clearly Hillary doesn’t have the skill to lie successfully – so many tells – the cackle, something with the eyes, body language, arrogance. Her body language on the minimum wage, Wall Street transcripts, warmongering – my right brain is saying you can’t trust her. And she wasn’t able to play the fear mongering card. I suspect this gut reaction might put Bernie over the top in New York – he’s one of them and they will trust him.
    Now for those who ignore these gut reactions and focus on substance, I think it unlikely that anything that was said would change any minds. If you are progressive or want something more than promises of incremental change, then Bernie is your guy. If you are establishment or strongly identify with the struggle of women in our society and can’t stomach another old white guy, then Hillary is your candidate.

    1. IdRatherbeSomeplaceSane

      I totally agree with your commentary, and this fact has been quietly ignored by almost everyone. Looking at Clinton’s favorable/unfavorable ratings, they just keep getting worse over time, which means that she will have a very hard time getting people to vote for her in the general election.

      The only thing that might get her elected if Mr. Sanders does not prevail, is the fear of the alternative, which is NOT a reliable basis for voting.

      This will probably be one of the most interesting elections in history, and I do not mean that in a positive sense.

  31. Lord Nhyx

    I thought Bernie killed it last night, although this is the first Democratic primary debate I’ve been able to watch, so I can’t compare past performances to last night’s. I was shocked at how angry and entitled Clinton seemed. It was extremely off-putting. It instinctively reminded me of being a little kid and watching my mom fly into a rage over me refusing to clean my room or something (she has a temper at times and I was a very messy kid). Sometimes when Sanders was speaking I would watch Clinton’s face as she was listening to his reply and it was cringe-worthy. Man, if looks could kill……it was scary stuff. I don’t remember her acting that angry and entitled during her debates in 2008. Her Highness clearly thought she’d get a coronation this time around and Bernie is ruining it all.

    1. nycTerrierist

      I agree and can’t believe more people aren’t repelled by her demeanor.
      A child could see she seems unhinged, phony and contemptuous.
      With a thin skin and a temper like that, her honesty-deficit and her terrible record as a war-criminal,
      it is terrifying to imagine her as commander-in-chief.
      Whereas Bernie shows the courage of a true leader, getting in front of the parade on important issues,
      not waiting for public opinion to get there first.
      He reminds me of the best of FDR and for the first time I’d be proud of our president if he’s elected.

    1. B1whois

      He calls the New Democrats a loser, but makes the argument that it completely has to do with mass incarceration.
      Zero acknowledgement that it might have to do with Wall Street corruption. What a neoliberal dou€hebag.
      Then he spends a great deal of type throwing rocks at $15 an hour.
      I can’t believe I used to respect this guy.

  32. allan

    Sanders delivers left hook after Brooklyn brawl [Reuters]

    The Sanders campaign released a television ad on Friday that skewered Clinton, without naming her, as accepting more than $200,000 from Wall Street for a speech while not embracing raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $15.

    It depends on what the definition of `embrace’ is.

    1. HotFlash

      I get the sense that liberal voters privately don’t really care that much about gun control at the end of the day. They’ve been told they’re supposed to. It’s one of the few issues the establishment allows to be debated because it doesn’t interrupt the flow of capital to the top

      Interesting insight! Thank you, I will try this on with other “litmus” issues to see if it fits — I very much anticipate that it will.

  33. Roquentin

    I watched about the first hour and 20 minutes. I’m surprised I could pull myself away from playing Dark Souls III even for that long. To me, it was more of the same, just with added levels of aggression. Clinton was completely full of shit, pretends to support things she didn’t after the fact, but that isn’t new and anyone who doesn’t get that already probably never will. Sanders started off weak and got strong while Hillary did the reverse (just like these primary polls).

    All Clinton ever wants to do is talk about her resume and name drop. When talking about Israel she couldn’t stop mentioning how she had been “alone in a room with Netanyahu and two other people” as if this said anything about policy or ideas she had. I quit during the Israel/Palestine portion. Clinton’s responses were too odious, too self serving, and I just couldn’t do it anymore. Plus, I was done eating diner and the siren song of violent video games was too strong to ignore.

    One thing I will say, is that I get the sense that liberal voters privately don’t really care that much about gun control at the end of the day. They’ve been told they’re supposed to. It’s one of the few issues the establishment allows to be debated because it doesn’t interrupt the flow of capital to the top, but I almost get the sense that a lot of people are breathing a sigh of relief that someone a little less supportive of it is getting on the Dem ticket. I grew up in small Midwestern towns, and good God almighty do they love their firearms there. Sanders will do vastly better in the general on issues like that anyone with a shred of sense can see it. I support gun control, but if an issue had to be jettisoned to bring more people onboard it could be a lot worse.

    Most of these “wedge issues” which are all consuming now are only that way because they are cultural signifiers which indicate which side of the political aisle you’re on. Once they lose that function, there’s way less psychological investment in them. It’s not even guns, abortion, or gay marriage per se, it’s about indicating if you’re one of us or one of them. Even young Republicans aren’t really on board with some of these and my hope is that we can finally talk about something else during an election cycle and have it matter.

    1. Lambert Strether

      The amazing thing to me on the gunz issue is that of all the policies you could “work with” “across the aisle” with Republicans, gunz is probably the most difficult. So on this one issue, pragmatism apparently does not apply.

  34. susan the other

    Hillary might be vacuous but she knows how to drone on endlessly to obfuscate that fact. CNN was on to her last nite bec. they cut her off at the end of every comment when her comment had dissolved into pontification. That was nice. The point I’d like to make is this: Hillary has no new vision for the future. So she must pretend everything is in order and all we have to do is use our same old tools and government will work for everyone. It amazes me she could be so out of touch. We are in deep and uncharted waters and she is pretending to be a grand and wise woman because she has no new vision. I loved it last nite when Bernie got exasperated with her “we will never have single payer” nonsense and said, “You mean to tell me that the United States can’t do single payer when every other industrialized nation in the world does it (and their health care is far better than ours for cheaper)?” And she didn’t say a word. She merely changed the subject to how she knows better because she once did HillaryCare so Bernie is fantasizing. She clearly has no solution to her cronyism.

    1. RP

      “It amazes me she could be so out of touch.”

      Why should we be surprised?

      She’s been really rich for a really long time.
      She’s never been poor.

      Like almost all of her donors and an uncomfortably large % of her voters.

  35. Watt4Bob

    I listened to a disgusting PR piece on NPR last night, featuring a handful of ‘representative’ Black Women explaining their support for Hillary.

    Clearly a piece of pro-Hillary propaganda disguised as a news piece.

    One by one they give their reasons for loyalty to Hillary;

    “Hillary is consistent, and that consistency gets my vote.”

    “She’s in it for the long run..”

    “She shares our concerns…”

    And more vague, but reasonable sounding fluff.

    (Close, but not actual quotes, but you get the idea)

    Very hard to listen to, part of what I have been calling the ‘Full-Court-Press’.

    I’m afraid to think what the media are going to subject us to after Bernie wins NY and CA.

    Hold on to your hats.

    1. Badbisco

      NPR is unbelievable now and actually makes me a little sick. Great example of the crapification of the US and public resources in general.

      Yesterday, listened to a NPR host actually question whether regulators were hurting innovation by considering banning the top 2 at Theranos from owning/running labs.

      This is a company that has failed multiple inspections, knowingly sent out inaccurate blood test results to sick people, and whose “disruptive” blood test doesn’t actually give accurate or repeatable results. Huge scam that pulled in a lot of PE/Venture $.

      The neo-liberal beatification of “innovation”, “disruption”, and businesses that pass costs on to others is disturbing.

      1. polecat

        Whenever I listen to my local radio, as soon as I hear anything National Propaganda Radiation, I feel compelled to either switch channels…….or turn the damn radio off entirely !!

        NPR has become like the undead ………sucking your brains for PROFIT & INFLUENCE !!

  36. meeps

    One of the most terrifying moments where I felt Hillary was being her innermost self, was during the NATO response:

    CLINTON: I will stay in NATO. I will stay in NATO, and we will continue to look for missions and other kinds of programs that they will support. Remember, NATO was with us in Afghanistan. Most of the member countries also lost soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. They came to our rallying defense after 9/11. That meant a lot.
    And, yes, we have to work out the financial aspects of it, but let’s not forget what’s really happening. With Russia being more aggressive, making all kinds of intimidating moves toward the Baltic countries, we’ve seen what they’ve done in Eastern Ukraine, we know how they want to rewrite the map of Europe, it is not in our interests. Think of how much it would cost if Russia’s aggression were not deterred because NATO was there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward.


    She will SEEK OUT/CREATE/MAKE WAR in every ravine on Earth if allowed to continue to do so. She seemed immediately aware her true colors were showing, moving deftly to 9/11 (NY you gotta be with me here!) and on to Russian ‘aggression’.

    I’d rather not hear her speak another grotesque word. She should carry a suitcase of scary clown dolls, picking out the expedient one as she waves it frantically in front of her face.

    1. meeps

      And that’s not touching what she said in her speech to AIPAC:

      “It’s also why, as president, I will make a firm commitment to ensure Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.

      The United States should provide Israel with the most sophisticated defense technology so it can deter and stop any threats. That includes bolstering Israeli missile defenses with new systems like the Arrow Three and David’s Sling.”

      1. ekstase

        I think people who have a vision are increasingly able to spot the liars in our society. The internet has changed everything. People used to watch these debates, and then were told what it was permissable to think afterwards, by the network spokestalkers. If you wondered, “Hey, didn’t she advocate for $12/hour, not $15?” You could just stuff that idea back down. Or, “One of these people seems to be continually lying, but not the other.” If the folks who “hosted” the debate didn’t say that, then you were probably way off base. This has gone on for decades. But now, finally, there are enough people who can watch debates unfold in real time and communicate their non-commercially-censored reactions, that the whole house of cards is coming down. I don’t believe that Sanders needed to attack Clinton more. I think her anger is coming out and he doesn’t need to hit.

        There’s a sea change underway. We can’t maintain the status quo because of climate change. That fact is enough. The melt season in Greenland started two months early this year. Lying, cheating and greed aren’t going to work anymore as our leaders’ M.O. if we are going to survive as a species.
        When the house is falling down, you just can’t ignore the cracks in the facade anymore.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          You think the White House is located high enough?

          “Which country will be the first to go completely underwater?”

        2. meeps

          ekstase @ 4:06 pm

          Excellent synthesis.

          One such visionary teacher, David Holmgren, said something similar in an interview and it really stuck with me. He was speaking about “gloomy scenarios and possibilities” that nations might engage in, “…but my hope would be that the world is informationally networked enough that the failure of these strategies will become very obvious very quickly and that the other strategies that people have often seen as being idealistic or utopian, that cooperative processes are actually just effective survival strategies in an era of declining energy.”

          Here’s to people discarding the M.O. of lies, cheating and greed. It’s simply not adaptive.

          That interview:

    2. TedWa

      Great comment. If endless war doesn’t scare the bejeesus out of people, I don’t know what will. It’s gotten to the point that shes’ joined the Obama club of people I just can’t listen to anymore. LOL about the scary clown dolls, funny cause it’s true and why aren’t people seeing it?

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        I hadn’t listened to her in years (until this past one or two months when they debated).

        And I didn’t listen to Obama (almost) at all in 2008, but people said, the crowd at Colorado was more than 75,000.

        As estimates go, that’s up there with Sanders’ recent rally. Some stated here that that one in New York was the largest ever. I wonder about how to compare them when they are all just estimates.

    3. Bas

      It makes sense after reading Michael Hudson’s interview on the Panama Papers (above). He says the U.S. depends on war for its economic survival.

  37. Brooklin Bridge

    Here’s wishing the population of NY can see as clearly as NC commenters on Tuesday.

  38. David Carl Grimes

    Question for other readers? Why did Sanders go to the Vatican at this critical juncture? Is he confident that he can win New York without any additional campaigning in the state? Particularly since it is a closed primary?

    1. Paul Tioxon

      The world does NOT revolve around the 24 hour news cycle of American TV. The opportunity to make international allies concerned with income inequality, as part of a transnational movement is only a shakey proposition in the minds of those obsessed with minute tactical advantages of optics and other odd bits of politicking. If the media pays scant attention to him enough, as many of his supporters say, and as complained about here often, his travel to the Vatican is important enough by itself for simply garnering more than the usual MSM coverage. Only pundits recoil in horror when the rules of the horse race are broken, proving they can NOT see all and know all about the American political process. The race is too important, the stakes too high for Sanders’ Quixotic quest for him to meander about the world like a petulant child who has grown bored with the game in his back yard. Apparently, this too is too unusual, a trick play, far outside of the tried and true folk wisdom and mores of America. Not only can an Israeli Prime Minister be wrong in one policy, but the Roman Catholic Pope can be right about the immorality of the rampant greed of neo-liberal capitalism. What wackiness will ensue as Bernie continues to confound the received wisdom? And this is an endorsement that will play very well with Catholic Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans and others voters who respect the Pope’s positions on social issues that ask for empathy and concern of the victimized of the world. It is the kind of free publicity money, even money $27 at a time, can’t buy.

  39. Russell

    And one quick point from me about the imprisonment of urban black labor.
    Pot. Sanders is for ending the Federal Prohibition of Pot. Or was. Now the call is for “rescheduling”.
    Clinton & Biden will not let go of marijuana as a tool of the status quo.
    Pot in the US is an established folkway. About a quarter of the US population has used it, or does.
    As a tool to be used by the occupying forces in the US, which is a third of the police force arresting growers, dealers, and users, White People can get out of the system, but Black people, can’t.
    Drugs period are part of the social fabric and a folkway, which as a result of higher profits from something truly addictive like heroin, well the social fabric is about what but hopheads and blockheads.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Pot can be argued on its own merits, but not necessarily because 1/3 of the population use it.

      It’s like saying most people faster than the speed limit. And maybe we should be more like European nations, socialist or not, with our own autobahn. But we don’t hear this cause often (not exceptional enough?) Though it doesn’t make it less a profit center for the police.

      We are better off with the other merits, unless we join the movement to liberate speed limit as well.

  40. TK421

    the Washington Post claimed that despite all the fireworks, the debate would not change anyone’s prior views

    I disagree. Polls show pretty clearly that the more they learn about Sanders, the more they like him.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      If lies are not challenged or debunked, how does one learn more about any candidate from a debate?

      Anyone can just say anything.

  41. JerryDenim

    I didn’t watch the entire debate but it looked to me like Sanders missed more opportunities than usual and after 9 debates he still slips on the exact same banana peels. I understand not having a good answer ready for a Clinton attack line the first time she uses it, but after 2 or 3 times it’s just malpractice. Inexcusable. He looked much sharper to me at the last debate in Miami. The bickering, catty tone of this debate probably helped Clinton more than Sanders. Clinton supporters seem to like her because she is a bitch not in spite of it. Sanders has been attracting voters with his message of love and optimism so going negative is probably worse for him than for her. Clinton thrives on hate and fear.

    Regarding this whole gun thing I think Sanders needs to embrace his record and his position on gun control. I believe it’s pitch perfect for the general. Liberal people from urban areas who were never raised around guns or hunting are terrified of them and generally want them banned. Liberal people who have a bit of familiarity with guns support the second ammendment and usually have nuanced views on gun control. There’s no perfect stance that will make everyone happy but there are way more 2nd ammendment supporters among independents and Democrats than there are anti-gun zealots. Most anti-gun voters are willing to forgive some idealogical impurity on the topic in exchange for a President that is right on 95% of their other concerns. Sanders should own it and tell the hypocrite “Annie Oakley” who courted the upstate deer hunting crowd when she ran for her Senate seat to bugger off. She sells arms to islamic terrorists that destabilize and radicalize entire regions killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Who is she get indignant about Sandy Hook?

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      He should own it – I find that to be the best approach myself, if I don’t always remember to practice it.

  42. crittermom

    I became engrossed in something else so missed the first 40 minutes of the debate. Drat!

    I admit to offering a slanted view since I absolutely despise Hellary & find Bernie to be the first candidate in my long life I actually WANT to vote for, rather than just having to choose between the lesser of two evils.

    IMO Hellary continued with her “better than all of you” attitude pretty much throughout. (Gads, how I hate her smirk!)
    When she lacked anything to support her views she pulled out the “poor women”, “poor children” cards & as usual patted her own back at all the programs she’s in support of to benefit them, knowing that would get a sure round of applause for her. (IOW, she tends to play the women/children card when on defense & is sidestepping the actual issue).

    She continued to ride on Obama’s coattails when it suited her while distancing herself from him when it didn’t by saying the ultimate decision to do whatever was his when the end result was negative.
    If it turned out to be a positive thing, she’d take credit, thank you.
    So blatantly obvious.

    She continued talking so many times after being told her time was up, I’m still hoarse from screaming at the screen, “Shut her up!” Within ten minutes memories came to me of the old “Gong” show. Tho’ I never watched it I think we’re all familiar with it, & I was wishing they had a large gong to hit when her time was up, to drown her out.
    At one point she even had the audacity to tell (demand) the moderator, “Let me finish!”……& she continued on.
    Wow. Talk about entitlement!
    I now think a mute button for her microphone should be required for those times when she refuses to accept they’re supposed to get equal time. (“I’m the queen. How dare you limit ME!”)

    Bernie hit harder than I’d witnessed in past debates & his frustration was obvious several times when she babbled on & on answering a question, yet when Bernie was anxious to answer the same question the commentator stopped him & said they had a new question for him.
    So her point was made with no chance for rebuttal.

    On the positive side, it did appear to me there was more actual debating going on this time, with rebuttals going back & forth sometimes, before reverting back to the “Hellary Hour” on “Clinton News Network”.

    Perhaps it’s due to my extreme dislike (hatred?) of her, but it appeared she used up some of his time allotted (numerous times), thereby limiting his time to expand on his answers.

    Twice I jumped up from the couch & shouted, “Go Bernie!” when he continued to demand a direct answer from her or pointed out that (for all her babble), she still hadn’t answered the question.

    One of the moderators even asked her at one point the question regarding caps, saying TWICE it was a yes or no question.
    Not for Hellary. As another commented on here, she twisted herself into a pretzel to avoid a direct answer.

    I jumped from the couch once again (& I live alone) when Bernie finally got an answer from her on something, & he actually used the word “flipped” (I’m quite certain?) in response to her answer that now surprisingly (ha, ha) matched his view, & said if that’s how you now feel, welcome aboard. That was a highlight for me.

    I was disappointed that while Bernie continues to talk of free medical, college, etc, he fails to expand on how they’ll be paid for. That’s a big point of contention for many, with them concluding it’s all “pie in the sky” & just words. When Hellary was speaking of it & how HER #’s people disagreed with his plans, saying they weren’t possible, he didn’t come back hard enough IMO.

    Most of the time Bernie was his polite self when told his time was up, but after observing Hellary abuse the time allotted by going well over it as she chose, he actually fought back with the same tactic a couple of times, continuing to talk.

    The only time she didn’t talk over him or into “his” time was when she was on defense–& really had none that would work for her.
    Then, & only then, she seemed to shut up when told.

    I also wish Bernie would explain that all the “free” programs & schooling he speaks of, are for EVERYBODY–not just those at the bottom.
    The argument I’ve heard from literally every Trump supporter I’ve spoken with is that they “like what Bernie has to say”, but are adamant about not wanting “more taxes imposed upon them so their hard-earned money can be taken from them & given to those too lazy to work.”
    If they understood his proposals better, they might even vote for him.
    I wish he would explain & stress more that his programs are for all & how he intends to use money from the 1%, big pharma, oil companies, the TBTJ banks, etc, to pay for them by closing loopholes they’re using to avoid paying taxes.

    And yes, her reference & answer regarding NATO terrified me. Hoping folks truly understood what she was saying!

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Scarier still when it’s connected to the trauma New Yorkers went through 15 years or so ago.

      Most voters will probably nod to themselves, “She is making the world safer for us and our children.”

      That’s just too, er, skillful.

    2. Optimader

      Nice heartfelt assesment, i might look for it online when i go to bed and warch it til she drills me into fitfull unconciousness

  43. ahimsa

    Late to the commenting party..

    I felt Sanders clearly came off the better overall, although there were many exchanges where you could honestly see how both sides probably perceived their candidate scoring the points for the round. The rambunctious crowd was a bit comical.

    Openly calling the term “super predator” racist – a heavy punch, cutting her?
    Disdainfully sarcastic reply to her telling Wall Street to cut it out – sucker punch, wrong footing her.
    Forcing her into a tight corner on SS – clever boxing.
    Her letharthgic delivery during final round – badly bruised & disoriented.

    Otherwise, I think Sanders missed a couple of glaring opportunities:
    (1) Make her an offer on live TV. – E.g. I’ll release my tax returns and you release your Goldman Sachs speech transcripts, how about it?
    (2) Strip her of her Obama cloak
    (i) Yes, Obama though you were qualified to be Secretary of State. He also thought your Libya intervention to be one of the greatest failures of his presidency. He also strongly questions your judgement on Syria.
    (ii) Am I running against President Obama or against Secretary of State Clinton? Because I thought the idea is to stand behind your own record not somebody else’s.

    P.s.: Surely neutral observers must see through Clinton’s hammy bad acting when delivering her lines and trying to appear convincing in body language and tone?

  44. MojaveWolf

    Hopefully you guys don’t mind a long post. I was driving and listening to the debate and texting my SO who can’t stand to listen to hillary lie while listening, so you get what almost amounts to a live blog, except obviously I was a little constrained by the whole driving thing and missed a bit talking on phone so it’s a relatively short, sketchy live blog.

    Here is:
    Me: Damn. Debate started early by my clock. Missed part of Bernie’s opening statement.
    OMG. After “I heart NY” beginning HRC talked about championing bold progressive ideas.
    1st question 4 Bernie-is hillary qualified to be prez?
    “Certainly has experience but I question her judgement then litany of her misdeeds Iraq libya trade deals etc
    HRC response pretty horrid so far. (typo so bad I can’t tell what I texted–was texting w/out looking at fon)
    OMG brought up daily news article and she basically called him stupid, said he was unable to answer questions.
    He is great she is awful. Good u not watching don’t or your head will explode
    Ok they now both didn’t answer the asked question even w/follow up. He 4 name a decision where she voted dif coz money & she “why not release transcripts if nothing to hide”. Both looked really bad there tho his coulda been politeness. Gah. Shoulda killed.
    They going on and on about guns. OMG. She said he “a very reliable supporter of NRA”
    1st hit question of night goes to Bernie. Daughter of principal killed by gun sez Bernie owes her family an apology. Will he apologize?
    He just explained why he opposes the law and said not owe apology. He was good there.
    Hillary not helping herself w/repeated mischaracterizations but he not so good on the infighting and mostly refusing to call her a liar even when he has to to defend himself.
    Xcept when he pointed out she said w/in a few minutes of each statement she supports $15 & $12 as minimum wage.
    Heh. Bernie just said he called out clintons 4 “super predator”because it’s a racist term & everyone knew it was a racist term.”
    Just called 4 end of war on drugs starting w/legalizing marijuana.
    She going super negative 2nite. Wow.
    Woooooo! Bernie brought up her pushing fracking as sos.
    She wrapping herself in obama again. & wow she is awful.
    Heh. CNN brought up her “fracking around the world.”
    Xcept 4 one question they’ve been fair. She trying to defend fracking as better than coal and needed to get europe away from russian oil.
    They having whole section on climate change. Yay! My only complaint is constant “johnny said u suck” questions.
    Very boisterous audience on both sides. Bernie supporters booed n laughed at her a couple of times.
    She very proud of how US handled libyan aftermath of deposing khaddifi.
    OMG. Not deposing assad has created far greater disaster than regime change in libya? She wants more invasions?
    Hillary going on and on about the dangers of Russia.
    Bernie sez he’s 100% pro israel and it’s in Israel’s best interest to treat the Palestinian people with dignity.
    Wow she sounds like a neocon on the Middle East.
    Missed a little coz fon. Now she condemning free stuff.
    Keeps interrupting him and ignoring mods when her time out.
    Refused to say she supports lifting cap on social security taxes for rich. Now she says she does support but whether she does or not the other side is worse?
    Bernie saying if he just heard right she now agrees with his position welcome aboard glad u finally here.
    Now she backtrack n bernie pinning her down. She saying yes but not yes. People booed her.
    Wow. She coming off horrid I think.
    Bernie not perfect but good enough. Much more plain speaking.
    Her people just booed him 4 saying if elected he’d ask obama 2 withdraw nom of Garland coz not clear he’d overturn cit united.
    She just brought up abortion. This was good. (for her, sadly) Her people going nuts.
    Bernie mentioning his 100% pro choice voting record, sadly not mentioning he’s better than her on this.
    Asked Bernie if he really a democrat (he said yes) & so why he not fund raise 4 them like hrc. Good answer but long will tell later.
    OMG Hillary going on and on about unifying party (expetives)
    OMG she basically just said she has it won & he should quit trying. Mentioning states she won including AZ hahahahahahahaha. Yes, “won” in the sense of “cheated in vote counting so blatantly anyone not (expletive) and an idiot knows she blatantly cheated and probably has in lots more states why doesn’t anyone cover the constant cheating????
    Is over. Sorry was on phone. Basically not Bernie’s best but not bad & very good in places. Hillary’s rhetoric good n spots but overall I think she came off horrid, phony, nasty, dishonest & itching 4 warfare on multiple fronts.
    Spent a ton of time on guns.
    Apparently while I was talking he said something about being out of south now. HRC surrogates saying he insulted south. I doubt, and doubt ny will care.
    She definitely told a whole bunch of whoppers which I hope she gets called on.
    FP: Israel can do no wrong, regime change good, must be ready to fight russia, brief mention of iran as enemy of israel.
    Accused Bernie of supporting our actions in libya falsely and he called her on it.
    Came off super nasty & condescending.
    He was very very good n places. He didn’t hurt himself n I think helped himself if people hadn’t seen him already. Didn’t mean to give negative impression. I wanted his best n only sometimes got. I truly
    wish he’d go in for kill instead of shying away from taking fatal shots but he was good. Specacular in some spots.
    He once again murdered her in foreign policy. And pushed her into coming off as super phony on minimum wage.
    She hurt herself. Her “I’m way ahead n bernie needs to get his supporters behind me” bit probably tripled the number of people who will NEVER vote for her. And I have never heard her sound so offputting EVER as tonight. Just wow.

    Ok, those were my off the cuff while busy real time impressions of debate. fwiw

    1. tegnost

      good going! my favorite
      “Good u not watching don’t or your head will explode”
      you are very brave…

    2. Carla

      “I was driving and listening and texting”

      fwiw — Don’t ever do that again.

      I was too angry to read your “live blog” but I can only imagine that the greatest loss when you crash because of “driving and listening and texting” will be the other person or persons you kill.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Does it mean anyone who is hoarse is a liar?

      I hope that’s not the case.

      But perhaps we all are liars in something, if one is a born pessimist about human nature.

  45. ian

    I’m a bit surprised Sanders doesn’t include the decision to set up a private email server in the “poor judgement” category. To me, that’s one of the worst aspects of the whole thing.

  46. Fiver

    I only saw clips, then a bit of CNN’s post-debate chat, during which the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee repeatedly pronounced there will be a ‘presumptive nominee’ well before the Convention. They also featured an oft-repeated Clinton lie that CNN deemed TRUE – but a little bit misleading.

    I think the most salient aspect of the Sanders phenomenon is that a critical mass has been reached among the public vis a vis the credibility of MSM, now clearly seen as part of the derelict status quo, one that is currently hell-bent on ensconcing Clinton. Sanders supporters did not come to him via CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NYT….

    It is vitally important for Sanders supporters to pre-empt an otherwise virtually certain effort under a Clinton regime (with TPP or without) to disrupt, degrade, destroy that critical mass by cutting off the independent media sources that provided the great bulk of the real news, information, discussion, thinking, communicating, organizing etc. required to generate a real movement. The powerful and their hacks know we can see them, and rather than even consider modifying their actions, they will do everything they can to shut down this core ability to organize.

    In the meantime, I’m hanging my hope on Obama being so peeved that Clinton was so void of class she dumped her Libya policy on him that he let’s the FBI loose and they indict her for everything from flagrant, wanton security breaches, multiple false statements of fact given to various authorities, deletion of State records/obstruction of justice – and of course, influence peddling, which is the only sensible construct I can put on her insistence on the setup she demanded.

  47. Fiver

    Went back to re-read rest of comments, and as always, lots of good ones. I wanted to point out one thing, though, and that is it seems to me like both Trump and Clinton have major personal chips on their shoulders – that what we are going to get with either of them is someone intent on proving themselves, or even ‘showing’ whichever ‘them’ whose approval they craved but did not receive.

    Ever see one of Trump’s Roasts? Has there ever been such a collection of near-celebrity talent? He’s on his own with this, really a one-man show and he has no greater goal than to finally show ALL of them, all of them, all the Wall Street guys, the Republicans, the media, any and all he came to believe placed themselves above him re smarts, business acumen, credibility, manliness, worth to other people. Trump wants into the Big League and it’s not impossible he makes it if events so conspire.

Comments are closed.