Hillary-Sanders Univision Debate: "It Don't Come Easy"

There was another Democratic debate last night, sponsored by the Washington Post and Univision. The full transcript is here. The Washington Post says Hillary was grilled on tough topics like a potential indictment, Benghazi, and polls finding the American public don't think she's honest and trustworthy. After saying she takes responsibility, she adds (from the transcript:)

Look, I have said before and it won't surprise anybody to hear me say it, this is not easy for me. It's not easy to do what I think is right, to help people, to even the odds...

I am not a natural politician, in case you haven't noticed, like my husband or President Obama. So I have a view that I just have to do the best I can, get the results I can, make a difference in people's lives, and hope that people see that I'm fighting for them and that I can improve conditions economically and other ways that will benefit them and their families.


On taking responsibility:

Is there anything in your own actions and the decisions that you yourself have made that would foster this kind of mistrust?

CLINTON: Well, first Karen, obviously it's painful for me to hear that. And I do take responsibility. When you're in public life, even if you believe that it's not an opinion that you think is fair or founded, you do have to take responsibility. And I do.

From the transcript, here are some highlights of the portion about immigration:

RAMOS: But again, yes or no, can you promise tonight that you won't deport children, children who are already here?

CLINTON: I will not deport children. I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members either, Jorge. I want to, as I said, prioritize who would be deported: violent criminals, people planning terrorist attacks, anybody who threatens us. That's a relatively small universe.

RAMOS: OK. So I want to be very specific. So you are telling us tonight that if you become president you won't deport children who are already here?

CLINTON: I will not.

RAMOS: And that you won't deport immigrants who don't have a criminal record?

CLINTON: That's what I'm telling you....

RAMOS: So you will stop those deportations.

CLINTON: I would stop...

RAMOS: The deportations for children...


RAMOS: ... and those who don't have a criminal record.

CLINTON: Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country, I do not want to see them deported. I want to see them on a path to citizenship. That is exactly what I will do.

Sanders answered the same, but first attacked Hillary over a related but different issue: allowing children from Honduras to enter the U.S. (the question was about deporting people who were already here.) Hillary responded to Bernie's accusation anyway.

CLINTON: When I was secretary of state, I worked to try to support many different approaches to ending the violence in Central America. I was there meeting with leaders, security leaders, and others.

What did Bernie do to help the Hondurans besides voice his support? Did he go to Central America and meet with leaders? (I don't know the answer.)

Sanders pointed out that major Latino groups opposed the 2007 bill, even though Ted Kennedy worked hard on it. That's true -- I opposed it as well, because it didn't go far enough, even though it provided a path to citizenship for the undocumented.

While the defeat is considered a "stinging setback" for President Bush, I'm glad it's dead for other reasons. The path to citizenship was too onerous and the bill failed to preserve the principles of family reunification and protect workers' rights. It was too heavy on border enforcement and too punitive.

In case you don't remember the bill, here's a summary. It was a Republican bill with big Democratic support, and Bush couldn't get Republicans to vote for it. Here's the roll call vote that torpedoed it. Note that Sanders voted with Republicans against it. What Sanders said during the debate:

SANDERFS: It's true, Ted Kennedy, a good friend of mine, and I think the secretary did work very hard on that bill. But does anyone really believe that if that bill was all so good, as the secretary is touting, that LULAC and other major Latino organizations, the largest Latino organizations in this country said no to that bill.

He skips the part about voting against it, even though it had a path to legalization, and moves to 2013.

And I worked very hard in improving the guest worker provisions so that in 2013 a bill I strongly supported, people who were in the guest worker program in America would not be treated like slaves.

Hillary points out:

CLINTON: Let me just conclude by saying that United Farm Workers considered that bill in their words the last best hope for farm workers and immigrants They have proven to be right in the succeeding years. I only hope that we can put together a coalition to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the next Congress.

She says Sanders supported indefinite detention in 2006.

And as I said earlier, in 2006, Senator Sanders supported indefinite detention for people facing deportation...and stood with the Minutemen vigilantes in their ridiculous, absurd efforts to, quote, "hunt down immigrants.

So look, I think the goal here is to elect a Democratic Senate, elect a Democratic president and get to work immediately to get comprehensive immigration reform.

Sanders is asked about his support of the Minuteman and after acting like he didn't hear the question, says he did not.

RAMOS: Did you support the Minutemen, Senator? Did you support the Minutemen?

SANDERS: I'm sorry?

RAMOS: Did you support the Minutemen, as Secretary Clinton has said?

SANDERS: Of course not.

Then he acknowledges voting for the legislation that included support for the Minutemen, but insists Hillary took his support out of context.

There was a piece of legislation supported by dozens and dozens of members of the House which codified existing legislation. What the secretary is doing tonight and has done very often is take large pieces of legislation and take pieces out of it.

So he wasn't supporting the Minutemen -- but the legislation he voted for included such support. He just thought other pieces of the legislation were important enough to overlook that part.

Bernie said he'll match his record against Hillary's record any day of the week.

Madame Secretary, I will match my record against yours any day of the week.

He has nowhere near the breadth of experience she has. Where's his record of achievements as opposed to his record of complaining?

After more stuff about bailouts and the auto industry, which I'm just not interested in, they moved on to Trump and his border wall and Hillary says both she and Sanders have supported "some fencing", just not what Trump is calling for. Sanders confirms their positions on that are similar.

SALINAS: But the question is, what is the difference between the wall that you voted for and Donald Trump's wall?

CLINTON: It's a big difference. First of all, as I understand him, he's talking about a very tall wall. (LAUGHTER)Right? A beautiful tall wall. The most beautiful tall wall, better than the Great Wall of China, that would run the entire border. That he would somehow magically get the Mexican government to pay for. And, you know, it's just fantasy. And in fact, if he cared to know anything about what members of Congress, like the senator and I have done, where it was necessary, we did support some fencing.

Where it was necessary, we did add border patrol agents. We have done what by any fair estimate would have to conclude is a good job, quote, "securing the border". So let's get about the business of comprehensive immigration reform.

SANDERS: Let me just say... I think the secretary and I mostly, I think, agree on this issue.

On the Supreme Court justice selection issue:

CLINTON: A court took away a presidency. Now we've got the Republican Congress trying to take away the constitution. And we should not tolerate that.

I would look for people who believe that Roe v. Wade is settled law and that Citizens United needs to be overturned as quickly as possible.

Closing Statements: Hillary went first.

CLINTON: Well, thank you very much for a lively debate. And I appreciate greatly all the questions, especially the questions in person from the people here and those coming at us from Facebook. It just reinforces my strong commitment to do everything I can to break down all the barriers that stand in the way of people living up to their own potential, and of our country doing the same.

So I am going to take on those economic barriers. I have a plan to create jobs and raise incomes. I'm going to take on the education barriers that often leave too many children behind even after they have completed schooling. I'm going to take on the healthcare barriers.

I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that we unite our country. I will find common ground, just as I have as first lady, as senator and secretary of state. I will also stand my ground wherever matters of principles are at stake.

CLINTON: I would be honored to have your support in the upcoming primary on Tuesday, and hope to have the great honor of serving you as your president.

Sanders closing: Right away he goes to his 1% issue, Wall St and Campaign finance. Does he realize this debate is geared to Hispanic issues?

SANDERS: This has been a wonderful debate, but time being limited, some of the most important issues facing our country have not been asked. And that is, is it acceptable that in America the top 0.1 percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

And so on. The moderators end the evening with these comments:

Talk about the importance of Hispanic votes, how in very close races it is the Hispanic vote that can choose the next president of the United States. This is Hispanic power, but the only way that this can happen is if we all go out and vote.
So you know it perfectly, who does not vote doesn't count.

The spanish speaking questioner:

SALINAS (through translator): And as you know, nobody can reach the White House without the Hispanic vote. Remember, don't let others decide for you. The power is in your hands, you have to participate, you have to vote. Thank you for being with us this evening and thank you for trusting in Univision. Good evening.

I wonder if Bernie Sanders is tone deaf. I highly doubt that the issue of Wall St, campaign finance and the 1% will drive Hispanic voter turnout.

On immigration reform, I know what I support. In 2007, when Republicans killed the immigration reform bill, I figured it would be 2009 when it came up again, and looking ahead, I proposed the TalkLeft Immigration Reform Act of 2009. (TIRA.) These were the highlights:

  • Provide the opportunity for undocumented immigrants to legalize their status
  • Expand avenues for legal immigration and support family reunification
  • Increase access and options for permanent residency and citizenship
  • Strengthen labor protections and their enforcement for all workers, both native and foreign born
  • End border and immigration enforcement abuses
  • Make legalization immediate and without conditions. People would not have to go back to their home countries while awaiting legalization. They would not face excessive costs and taxes for having been here without proper documentation.
  • End criminalization and border walls.
  • Protect civil liberties. Local law enforcement would be precluded from enforcing civil immigration laws.
  • Reduce the list of mandatory aggravated crimes requiring deportation to include only serious violent crimes. For other offense, Judges would have discretion to allow a person who comes before the court for sentencing not to be deported.

There really isn't much difference between Hillary and Bernie on immigration. Neither one is progressive enough for me on the topic. (Did any of the groups opposing the 2007 bill mention Bernie had a better plan at the time? I don't think so.) I'll go for the one with greater experience and a greater chance of getting legislation passed by Congress: That would be Hillary.

As to who won the debate: Bernie didn't knock it out of the park and is no closer to the nomination than ever. Hillary didn't fall. The nomination isn't coming easy to her, but it will come.

Bernie is full of well-intentioned ideals. But he has no way to implement them, even if elected. He's never run for office as a Democrat before. His ideas are not revolutionary or even original. His record of achievements to date seems lackluster. He's in his mid-70's and the Presidency is a job that requires huge amounts of travel and stamina.

My view: It's time to thank Bernie for his contribution to the discourse, for waking up potential youthful voters and for urging Democrats to move left of center, and for him to step aside from this race he cannot win so that the Democrats can focus on winning the White House and control of Congress in November.

< Trump Victory Press Conference | Another Republican Debate Tonight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I had a little of the CNN commentary after (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:07:06 AM EST
    John King, Anderson Cooper, someone else I did not recognize. They all thought Bernie was feeling confident after Michigan and came out more aggressively this time. I did notice he used sarcasm a lot, like taunting her about the GS speeches. I was glad she kept her cool and didn't respond in that way, at least in the parts of the debate I saw.  Last thing we need is Dems acting like Trump and Rubio.

    I was trying to find a clip of both the candidates answers to the lady form Guatemala in the audience who asked about her husband. Maybe if someone has time they can find it. Bernie gave a good answer about his policy, but barely acknowledged the woman was even in the room. Hillary first praised her for her courage and then gave her answer, relating it to other such stories she had heard, like they were actually having a conversation. This corresponds with what I have heard about their campaign styles on the road. I never go to campaign events so normally stuff like that does not register with me, but seeing it in action like that was very interesting. For someone that is not a  natural politician, she sure seems to have learned a lot from the masters.

    Sarcasm is not a good look (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:48:18 AM EST
    I cringed at his sarcastic tone.  There was a lot of it, and it did not serve him well.  It's dismissive and, really, given his record compared to hers, he can hardly justify being dismissive!

    I also thought the responses to the Latina mother were telling.  That's the Hillary I hear about but don't get to see very often.

    I was surprised that there was not more discussion afterwards about Senator Sanders' comments on Cuba and Nicaragua.  That record (and there's a thousand hours of tape of him on a local TV show in Vermont, so who knows what else he said) is why I think he may be unelectable.  That's not why I don't support him; I have affirmative reasons for supporting Hillary.  But anyone who thinks the Republicans won't make hay with Senator Sanders past are kidding themselves.


    The fact that the usual suspect red-baiters (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:40:23 AM EST
    will always try to red-bait someone like Bernie Sanders like it was still the 1950s, doesn't make him wrong.

    But by all means, red-bait away.

    And while we're at it, we could talk about Clinton flunky Lanny Davis working overtime for the oligarchs who were behind the coup in Honduras.

    Do you really wanna go there?
    Probably not, I'm guessing.


    What? (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    You think I was red baiting?  I was commenting on what I expect would happen to him as a general election candidate. I stated that my lack of support for him in the primary was*not* related to the positions he's taken on Cuba etc. Your comment was unfair.

    What I like (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:47:50 AM EST
    Is that Bernie is now proudly proclaiming in every debate "no one ever laid ME for a speech!"

    Well,  duh.

    It seems to me that why no one ever paid Bernie for a speech might at least as valid a question as why Hillary has been paid for speeches.

    Except there is no mystery why people would not be lining up to have Bernie wave his finger and croak at them.


    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:52:14 AM EST
    no one ever laid ME for a speech!"

    Well, that would certainly make an interesting debate question!  :)


    You're now suggesting what? (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:12:37 AM EST
    that corporations only fork over such grotesque sums to politicians because they're simply captivated by their personal charm and eloquence?

    Really. Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


    I will leave suggesting to you (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:17:17 AM EST
    I will say the Bernie Sanders is a politician.   He has been one his entire life.  The wide eyed silliness that he is some kind of an outsider is beyond laughable.

    You know would pay for Bernie speeches?  Gun manufacturers.


    These issues of "insiders and outsiders" (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:25:13 AM EST
    are all a matter of degree, with many shades of gray, as you and I well know.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:27:56 AM EST
    It is not.

    There is nothing grey about it.   Hillary is a life long politician.
    Sanders is a life long politician.   They have both taken money from interest groups.   Those are facts and anything else is BS.


    Why (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:40:51 AM EST
    doesn't Bernie release the transcripts of some of these speeches  "average Americans",
    In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's retreats for the "Majority Trust" -- an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year -- at Martha's Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter.

    The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.
    A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.
    "At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don't recall him ever giving a speech attacking us," the donor said. "While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators."

    Why should he? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 02:19:07 PM EST
    FIJoe: "Why doesn't Bernie release the transcripts of some of these speeches[?]"

    Honestly, all this hoo-hah about speeches and honorariums is such a non-issue. For those people who demand to know the content of Mrs. Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs employees, here's a start: "Proving the Case for Women Entrepreneurs." Knock yourselves out.



    I think it was sarcasm (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 02:33:46 PM EST
    yep (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 04:38:32 PM EST
    and calling out the hypocrisy of it all, Bernie wants to pretend that he is not part of the system, but he is. He knows the reality of of money in politics and has participated in the game to an extent.

    He knows that nobody is going to be elected Senator from NY without some support from wall street, yet he all but labels Hillary "unclean" for doing so.

    He needs to come off his high horse, not everyone can be an Independent politician from a tiny
    state, it's really easy to be (mostly) not "of the money" when you don't need it.

    Bernie and his supporters have set up a purity test that only a tiny percentage of major Democratic politicians over the last 50 years or more could pass, certainly all of the eventual nominees got support from sources that Bernie deems unsavory.

    As a lifetime Democrat I am disturbed by the influence of money in the party, but in big time politics it's a necessary evil, no if and or buts about it.



    I've got news for him, if he is the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    he is not going to get elected POTUS without a lot of that dirty money. No one seems to be asking him about that.

    Do you (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    understand that these speeches are more or less used like business lunches? It's hey we've got so and so speaking and why don't you come and listen. And it goes from there. It's how even the smallest business in America operates. Small businesses might not have speakers but they have tickets to concerts for clients etc.

    It doesnt matter Ga (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:18:32 AM EST
    This is not remotely about logic or reality.

    Correct (none / 0) (#78)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 04:05:51 PM EST
    It is about perception, and judgement.

    Why would someone worth over 100 million, knowing they would running for President,
    Accept those sums of money from Wall Street?

    The perception is awful, as was the judgement


    judgment (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by sallywally on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:58:22 PM EST
    No e after the g.

    Well (none / 0) (#107)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:09:19 PM EST
    I always thought it was either or...

    Judgement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Judgement (or judgment) is the evaluation of evidence to make a decision.
    judgement - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com


    I understand judgement (none / 0) (#117)
    by sallywally on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:29:04 PM EST
    To be the British dpelling. Have to recheck.

    Merriam-Webster (none / 0) (#120)
    by sallywally on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:41:44 PM EST
    Goes for judgment, although judgement is the older spelling. Brits use either.

    I must have some (none / 0) (#121)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:47:04 PM EST
    Brit in me,

    I have always used the e

    And, never gave it much thought either, lol


    Well (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 04:57:11 PM EST
    then you need to start slitting your throat because the entire GOP is supported by a few millionaires sugar daddies funding campaigns and your likely nominee has no problem with Wall Street.

    I will be fine (none / 0) (#87)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:16:06 PM EST
    I dislike almost all politicians, and see them for what they are,

    You, do not.

    A woman worth over $100 million goes out and gets paid obscene sums for a half hour,
    Knowing she will be running for President,
    Is either clueless as to how that will be perceived,
    Or didn't care at the time, as she never imagined the phenomena called The Bern


    Funny comment ciming from a conservative (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:19:55 PM EST
    She was a private citizen who engaged in lawful activity and was paid what the market would bear.

    That is the definition of capitalism.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#91)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:45:37 PM EST
    No one has ever said she couldn't do it. Perfectly legal, working capitalism at its finest.

    Now, considering that you will be running for President, for the Party of the little guy,

    Such poor judgement, at best. She doesn't need the money.

    The other option, which is more likely, is she didn't care about the perception,
    There would be no legitimate Democratic challenger for her, and there still isn't,

    It's a Socialist that is stealing her thunder.


    judgment, no e. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by sallywally on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:27:48 PM EST
    It is about getting seen for being a person (none / 0) (#109)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:10:13 PM EST
    of such status that they can command that money for a speech. Of course she does not need the money. She needed the high profile in powerful circles. Like it or not, those are powerful circles.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#110)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:14:48 PM EST
    for being honest,

    But I still disagree

    She did not NEED that high profile, she has the highest name recognition of any candidate, including Trump.

    Yes it is a powerful circle, that is the reason Bernies supporters want to know, what did she say to that powerful crowd,

    Any promises made?

    I just think it would have been wiser to not go to Goldman Sachs for those speeches, and she chose to.


    Man (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:18:38 PM EST
    you've become a socialist now where you get to decide whether she needs money or whether she should be doing certain things to earn money? Or have you become a communist where you want to take Wall Street to the guillotine?

    I guess you don't realize that a lot of that money was donated to charities.


    Trump (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:44:36 PM EST
    gets paid obscene amounts for what he does and a lot of it apparently is a scam. You seem to have no problem with that as I have never heard you complain about how much money he makes. Obviously you only have a problem with Hillary making that much money. Obviously since she's a woman she apparently can't be worth that much money it would seem. Never ever have I ever heard one person complain about people making speeches to Wall Street until Hillary did it.

    Well, Trevor have you now embraced communism or something?


    He only cares (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:53:22 PM EST
    About Hillarys speaking fees because she is Hillary.  And because she is a democrat.   Have you ever heard him mention any republicans speaking fees.   No you have not.

    You are incorrect (none / 0) (#99)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:56:33 PM EST
    Why doesn't anyone comprehend...

    Any one can give speeches, to whomever they want.

    Is that clear enough?

    Now, when you decide to run for President, then who you gave those speeches to  and what they paid you will be questioned.

    Are we clear?


    Then I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:59:20 PM EST
    You can direct us to your comments concerning the transcripts of speeches given by republican presidential candidates.

    I'll bet Marco has given a few.


    No its far from clear, since as you admit (none / 0) (#122)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 07:09:24 PM EST
    she doesn't need the money.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:19:39 PM EST
    I worry about you with Marco circling the drain.

    Truly (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:54:09 PM EST
    the quality of the concern trolling is going down the drain. Now Republicans are worried about Wall Street? LOL LOL LOL.

    Marco (none / 0) (#93)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:48:47 PM EST
    was my preferred choice to emerge ,

    I felt he was the one with the best chance at governing, he knows how to compromise, the Gang of Eight proved that.
    So I thought he would have been the best coming out of the Republican Party for governing. I never considered Bush or Kasich to have a chance at winning.
    Trump or Cruz, more Washington gridlock, and governing by Executive action. Not a pretty picture


    More than that- Marco knows how to (none / 0) (#123)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 07:11:01 PM EST
    (in the words of Little Boots) cut and run when the wind blows in the opposite direction.

    Little Boots (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 07:25:08 PM EST
    How did Donald miss that one

    Well (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 07:31:17 PM EST
    one thing about the ruling class accruing even more power: catamites will come back into style. So you'll have that to look forward to.

    Yeah, it is about having (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    a Celebrity address your convention, etc.

    It is to draw an audience.....Colin Powell does them.  So do sports people.  Does anyone really think those folks can wield influence?


    And (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:51:30 PM EST
    Not everyone in those audiences would love Hillary Clinton.  Don't you think we would have heard SOMETHING that would be damning from someone that was there??

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#95)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:52:55 PM EST
    So release the damn transcripts

    And end the talking point


    Why (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:59:11 PM EST
    don't you request that everybody release their speeches? Shouldn't Cruz release his? Trump? Sanders has refused to release his speeches. But I know the little lady is supposed to obey what people like you tell her to do. Everyone else doing it is fine.

    You guys have such a double standard it's funny.


    I don't (none / 0) (#105)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:05:28 PM EST
    It is The Bern,

    and his followers that want the transcripts.

    Quite frankly, I have heard enough about Hillary's damn speeches.

    But for those supporting The Bern,

    It just shows either her arrogance, that the nomination was to be given to her,

    Or she had no clue how talking $675,000 from Wall Street for 3 speeches would look.

    So when the campaign starts for the Presidency, demand that the Republican candidate release transcripts of his speeches.


    His (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:09:26 PM EST
    followers don't want transcripts. They just want something to scream and yell about. If they were concerned about transcripts they would be asking for Bernie's but they aren't.

    I don't care about Republican speeches anymore than I care about Hillary's.

    I'm quite aware that Hillary terrifies the GOP and I know that's why you are concern trolling so much. Yes, Bernie has become a useful idiot for the GOP these days.


    I kinda want (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    Her to release the transcripts the day after Bernie exits.

    Or the day after she wins the presidency.  And then I hope (and am confident) that all those shrieking because they think there's a game changer is in there, will have to live with a big pile of nothing.


    Well (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:20:48 PM EST
    that is what I think is going to happen. It's something Bill did. Republicans would scream and scream for something to be released start spinning conspiracy theories about it and then it would be released and the Republicans would be sitting there with egg on their face.

    There's a reason why Newt Gingrich is now mentally ill. He was the king of screaming about everything.


    For gods sake (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 05:54:56 PM EST
    Stop the ridiculous concern trolling.  Do you honestly think anyone reading this doesnt get you?

    And like (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:00:51 PM EST
    he really cares. Like you said he doesn't care about the fact that she got money for speeches really because no calls for anyone else to do it. Very low standards for Republicans it seems.

    Max Boot (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:55:40 AM EST
    tweeted the other day that Donald Trump proves everything bad Democrats have ever said about Republicans. It's the same for Bernie. He proves every bad thing Republicans have said about Democrats.

    ridiculous comparison (none / 0) (#80)
    by pitachips on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 04:24:30 PM EST
    Amazing to see that having the gall to disagree with your preferred candidate is grounds to being compared to a racist, xenophobic, sexist, outright liar who harbors pro-fascist tendencies.

    You (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 04:58:47 PM EST
    completely missed the meaning. It's not about any of those things. It is what Republicans say about Democrats. Every awful thing the GOP says Bernie seems to be proving them right.

    like what (none / 0) (#127)
    by pitachips on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:11:00 PM EST
    I'm honestly curious and I don't want to assume.

    I keep hearing that Bernie's attacks on Wall Street/Finance and the fact that he criticizes Clinton's relationship with that sector is a form of repeating GOP talking points. Beyond that I have yet to hear/see Bernie repeat GOP talking points on other issues.


    His (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 06:40:55 PM EST
    attack on her speaking fees, is virtually identical to as the "Clinton Cash" hit job of a year ago, his spin on the gunmakers liability issue was straight "job killing regulation" GOP rhetoric, hinting at Hillary being a gun grabber.

    There are more subtle attacks on her honesty and integrity that he constantly implies, echoing the right wing trope spanning decades.

    Like it or not, Bernie's whole claim to be more qualified than Hillary boils down to she's a dishonest complete and utter tool of Wall Street and he is not.

    Using that one premise and that one premise only, he declares that he will be able to lead some  poorly defined "political revolution" that  will somehow slay the great white whale he appears overly obsessed with.


    Just curious (none / 0) (#129)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:16:57 PM EST
    But when has the GOP attack Hillary for accepting donations from Wall Street?

    That must be a new one. I was under the impression it was only Bernie bringing that up.


    No (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:23:31 PM EST
    it's the personal attacks that he makes that are the problem. What if she screamed at him he's a rumpled old grump. And there have been a number of times he has repeated GOP talking points. But that's still not the point of what I was saying.

    BTW what do you think of the Kochs now funding Bernie?


    koch/bernie (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by pitachips on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    Sanders can't tell the Koch Brothers, or anyone else for that matter, how to spend their money. I would understand your comment if they wrote him a check.



    Why do you think (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 02:08:38 PM EST
    They are doing it?

    possibly (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by pitachips on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    They think it creates bipartisan cover for the issue?

    What were you thinking?


    Me? (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    I think they are doing it because they want Bernie Sanders to be the democratic nominee because they know that would be an epic disaster for democrats.

    what percentage of voters (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by pitachips on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 03:59:33 PM EST
    Do you think are going to base their vote on where the candidate falls on the issue of the Import/Export Bank. I'd be surprised if 1/10 voters even knew it existed.

    Furthermore, for your theory to make any sense you'd have to believe that Democratic primary voters who happened to see the ads would be MORE likely to vote for the candidate who is being tied to the Koch brothers.


    They don't have to know (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 04:07:34 PM EST
    what the Export-Import Banks is or does.

    Here's the text of the ad:

    "I don't want to break the bad news, but Democrats are not always right," Sanders says in the clip. "Democrats have often supported corporate welfare."

    Another clip features Sanders saying, "Seventy-five percent of the funds going from the federal government to the Export-Import Bank goes to large, profitable corporations."

    Text then reads "we agree" and continues, "that's why we oppose corporate welfare across the board."

    All people need to hear are the words "funds from the federal government" and, "goes to large, profitable corporations."  That's it.  "Corporate welfare" also helps.


    If (none / 0) (#151)
    by pitachips on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    The Koch brothers did not happen to hijack the message would you have had a problem with the position?

    Which part of what Sanders said is false or unfair?

    Again I would understand your point if this had to do with an issue that people actually care about.


    Ate you kidding me??? (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 05:25:04 PM EST
    Bernie's WHOLE CAMPAIGN is that "Wall Street / Big Corporations" are the bad guys.

    Running an ad that says "the federal government is giving money to profitable huge corporations" is geared to the VERY audience Bernie is trying to court.  Apoarently, there's at least a couple million people who buy this line.

    But yes, that same audience of college kids and recent grads, many of whom think they are so smart, might not actually understand what the Ex/Im Bank does.


    As far as I know (none / 0) (#133)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:41:11 PM EST
    They are not funding Thee Bern
    A group with ties to the Kochs ran a ad agreeing with a position  The  Bern has,

    The Kochs are libertarian, they like many people have diverse agendas

    Freedom Partners released an ad Wednesday that it says is meant to encourage moderators of the upcoming Democratic debate to raise the issue of the Export-Import Bank, a federal agency that free-market groups like Freedom Partners have characterized as "corporate welfare."

    The Ex-Im Bank, as it's known, helps to finance foreign purchases of U.S.-made goods for large-scale buyers that need to borrow money to make the purchase. Critics of the bank have said that it disproportionately helps major corporations and that it could do more to assist small businesses.

    "Seventy-five percent of the funds going from the federal government to the Export-Import Bank goes to large, profitable corporations," Sanders says in the Freedom Partners ad, in a clip from the Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan, this past Sunday. "I don't think it's a great idea for the American taxpayer to have to subsidize, through corporate welfare, profitable corporations."

    "I don't want to break the bad news -- Democrats are not always right," Sanders said during that debate. "Democrats have often supported corporate welfare."

    "Tonight, we'd like to see moderators push both candidates to explain why middle class Americans should be lining the pockets of major corporations and their campaign donors," Andy Koenig, a senior policy adviser at Freedom Partners, said in a statement Wednesday.

    They (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:10:39 PM EST
    are running ads supporting him. So what if they're not giving him money directly? It's still financial support indirectly instead of directly.

    I swear I've never seen a party ever so blatantly messing in another party's primary. One of the reasons you have to know the GOP is crapping in their pants over Hillary if they're spending money on ads for Bernie. And the Kochs are not the first group to be dropping money on Bernie. Karl Rove has dumped a ton of money trying to help Bernie.


    Makes no sense (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by pitachips on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 04:54:47 PM EST
    Which voters are the Koch brothers hoping to convince to vote for Bernie over Hillary by airing these ads?

    No Democrat is going to see this ad and think to themselves "if the Koch brothers support Bernie then I definitely will vote for him."


    What makes you think (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 04:58:55 PM EST
    Most people will know who is paying for it?

    Can you really be this naive?


    Avoiding the question (none / 0) (#156)
    by pitachips on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 08:12:40 PM EST
    You are claiming that the Koch brothers are paying for these ads to boost Sanders campaign in the hopes that he beats Hillary, presumably because they see him as an easier opponent. All I asked is why you think the Koch brothers are able to swing Democratic voters to Sanders side.

    Thats what happens when you parrot a politician's attack lines without thinking for yourself if it even makes sense.


    You mean this (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 08:18:12 PM EST

    Which voters are the Koch brothers hoping to convince to vote for Bernie over Hillary by airing these ads?

    Well off the top of my head I would say any one who is influenced by tv ads.  Does that help.

    Your turn

    Why do you imagine most people would know who is paying for it?


    Do you think tv ads influence voters (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 08:21:12 PM EST
    If not why do you think billions are spent on them.   Not sure what point you are trying to make.  Or that you do either.

    IT doesn't (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 09:53:40 PM EST
    probably convince democrats because Bernie routinely loses democratic voters in the primaries. However, if it can convince voters in open primaries to vote for Bernie it is successfully helping Bernie.

    The flaw in your statement is "Democrats". Bernie largely is not supported by Democrats.


    Caught about half of the debate (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Suisser1 on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:25:03 AM EST
    Thought it was quite telling how each responded to the mother of 5 with a husband who had been deported, Sanders answered first and mixed up who had been deported in the family even though the mom was stranding right there. Gave what I heard as a cold, distant non-response. HRC did just what I imagined - acknowledging the mom's bravery, her boldness for speaking up in that venue, then expressed very genuine concern for that families safely and wellbeing and policy that would prevent such deportations from happening again. After I saw HRC on stage speaking through a translator with the mom. In the end what I like about HRC mists that she's like so many women I know, "see a problem, try and fix the problem" Sanders? more, "let's take up a lot of space through gesticulation while we talk about the problem".

    From people on the ground (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 07:18:00 AM EST
    Via Twitter, HRC stayed around to talk to people while Bernie took off.  Strange that no one is covering that this morning....

    HRC asked why people don't like her (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Coral on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 07:52:04 AM EST
    I always find that question so insulting and rude. They asked it at last night debate. I was impressed by her calm and gracious response.

    Then they asked Bernie something like, "Why do you think people don't trust Hillary."

    Horrible questions. Terribly unfair to Hillary. Why don't they ask Bernie why people don't like him?

    ... Hillary Clinton is somehow entirely responsible for public perception of her. As I wrote in Monday's Open Thread:

    "[A] quarter century's worth of near-daily demonization of the Clintons by the Republican Party has likely had a deleterious effect upon some people's public and personal perceptions of them. A steady and force-fed diet of unsubstantiated innuendo and hearsay can eventually corrode even the most independent of personal judgments."

    One of these days, I would hope that the media will finally awaken from its self-induced stupor, and start taking seriously the likelihood that it's not just the GOP base that's been played for chumps by the Republican leadership all these years.

    Because if Mrs. Clinton's as dishonest and untrustworthy as her critics love to state ad nauseum, then how can it be that none of the many claims of nefarious wrongdoing leveled against her by these same critics have ever actually been proven as correct and true?



    You are missing the point (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:00:29 AM EST
    It doesn't matter that none of the dozens and dozens of BS "charges" have ever been proven.    All that matters is that there are dozens and dozens of charges.   With all those charges SOME of them simply have to be true.

    That is the republican playbook.   And you know what?   It works.  The sub thread you placed that comment in proves it.


    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:03:18 AM EST
    it's all about the GOP creating smoke and then screaming where there's smoke there must be fire. And they yell and scream and Luntz has said if you repeat a lie 5 times people will believe it and here we are.

    As Digby named the phenomenon: (none / 0) (#57)
    by Nemi on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 12:39:25 PM EST
    Cokie's Law: 'It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's out there'. Inspired by Cokie Roberts who said:

    "At this point it doesn't much matter whether she said it or not because it's become part of the culture. I was at the beauty parlor yesterday and this was all anyone was talking about."

    That was 1999. I guess gossip 'at the beauty parlor' hasn't changed much since then except now it takes place 'at the web'.


    Exactly, Donald (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    Additionally: It may be that the singular "Why don't people like you?" question serves as a kind of take-down or a putting-her-in-her-place technique.  It is an ugly technique that seems to be reserved, imo, for the real change-makers, trailblazers, and others who are not beholden to the barriers designed to hold them.

    In a strange way, that question and the loaded query about what HRC would do if indicted were answered in such an open and forthright way that any attempt at inflicting humiliation itself suffered a complete fail.  What a game: Media constructs and pushes questions of "scandal" and whatnot for years; then, ask selected public how they feel about the targeted person and, not surprisingly, elicit the answer expected by the story; and, even as the newest invention of a scandal or wrong starts to fall apart, media finds justification to ask questions in imitation of a grand inquisition.  Yet, the media exhibits amnesia when they go too far so that they resemble the persecutors rather than the prosecution they intend.  But wait... on top of it all and as we saw last night, she responds clearly, directly (without a hint of self pity) serving to elevate her human standing and give televised witness to her integrity. Viva Hillary!


    It's not the Clinton's fault that (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    "millionahs and billionahs" were the one's behind the protracted smear campaign that targeted the Clintons all through the nineties, but it does resoundingly underscore Sanders point about the devasting effect of money on true democratic discourse in this country..

    But then, conceding that would actually make it appear as though Bernie were right about something-anything and we can't have that.


    He has never said that (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:04:06 AM EST
    And you know it.  His implication is that they are all supporting her.

    Try harder.


    Obviously you hear and read (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:18:37 AM EST
    only as much as you're inclined to in the moment.

    The corrupting influence of money in American politics is practically all Sanders talks about.

    You don't think that theme relates to the smear campaigns aimed at the Clinton's in the nineties? Connect the dots fer crissake.


    Then (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:33:25 AM EST
    Sanders is utterly and completely corrupt as he has taken money from special interests.

    Utterly and completely.. (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    One trick..they'really ALL just pols and that's the end of it.

    End of discussion.

    If I want to see pictures only painted with violently broad strokes, I'll go to MOMA.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    they are all pols which seems to be the response when it comes to pointing out Bernie's flaws. However the equivalent of Bernie screaming that Hillary's Wall Street friends collapsed the economy would be Hillary saying Bernie's friends in the NRA gunned down those children in Newtown and handed the gun to Dylan Roof to murder those people in the church in Charleston.

    Maybe both charges are true.. (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 11:32:42 AM EST
    And where does that leave us?

    Back fixing all these problems -- so that we don't continue careening down same roads being forcibly subjected to the same appalling consequences.


    That's an excellent point (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 12:02:50 PM EST
    How about this, how about uniting behind the candidate that can win in November.  The one who's plan to deal with, among other things, Wall Street has been praised by nearly everyone from Krugman on down.

    You are a smart guy.   Smart enough to know that Trump or anyone else would destroy Bernie Sanders in a general election.   He has never in his life experienced anything like what would be thrown at him.   But you know who has?  Hillary has.

    People always say this but this election will be the most important in any of our lifetimes.   It would have been that before it looked like Donald Trump, a man who terrifies the entire world, would be the republican nominee.  If we nominated Sanders we would be giving the keys to the White House to Trump.  You know it.  I know it.

    How about we come back to earth.  Quit with the now entirely pointless vanity campaign that can do only one thing going forward.  Weaken the democratic nominee.

    How about that?


    I'm tired (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 12:29:00 PM EST
    of hearing the "most important election" in our lifetimes. I didn't believe it in 2008 nor 2012 however it does seem so this year looking at the GOP.

    Is that right (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    Maybe you should think about President Trump for a while.

    Or maybe think about president Cruz nominating three Supreme Court judges for lifetime appointments.


    Oh (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 12:46:29 PM EST
    I know. I don't think cut glass would keep me from voting this year. I just didn't see 2012 as all that important. I saw 2008 as more important than 2012.

    Btw (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    By your comments I would think you share this dangerous and stupid idea that Trump would be easy to beat.

    I would urge you to do a little reading on how Trump could scramble the electoral map.

    In any case I was talking about a Sanders candidacy.  Either Trump or Cruz would very likely beat Bernie.  


    Actually (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 01:06:52 PM EST
    it depends on the day. For one thing Trump drives up turnout on our side. I keep hearing people say they won't vote for him. I'm sure some of them won't but some will.

    No, actually I can see the case where Trump would be harder to beat than Cruz. I just don't know if it is true or not. I've read stories going both ways.

    However what i don't get is why the GOP is not licking his boots if there is a chance he can win. They act like he can't win a general election.

    But yes, I can see Bernie losing to Trump and Cruz. Americans are more amenable to right wing authoritarianism than left wing authoritarianism.


    Allow me to explain why they are not (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 01:27:18 PM EST
    Licking his boots.

    I would suggest you watch the CIRCUS video I linked to.  That might help.  Shorter version, he is not a member of the club.   He doesn't take their money or need, or want, their support.

    They are terrified of him.  He is entirely unpredictable.  He does not speak the party line.  He is against free trade.  He has said he strongly supports social programs like SS and Medicare and even PP.  They have no idea what he would do and they have no control over him.

    They are as terrified as we are.

    That's why.


    I saw (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    that video if it's the one where they are sitting at the dinner club talking about Trump? All I thought when I saw that was yeah, this is going to help them make their case about voting against Trump===NOT. That video inadvertently made the case exactly why the base voters hate the GOP establishment and I completely understand.

    So more or less you're making the same case a lot of GOP voters are and it's that the "establishment" would rather lose than win with Trump and only wants to win if it's the "right" candidate?


    That's exactly it (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 01:53:44 PM EST
    They may actually nuke their own convention to stop it.

    Though I continue to say they will not.


    i don't (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 02:48:52 PM EST
    know if they will or they won't. There actually is a good reason for them to nuke the convention and it's not about trade. It's about the bigotry Trump has inspired or rather exposed in the GOP ranks.

    As far as trade I wonder how much of that is an issue because for the last 35 years or so every candidate has pretty much supported free trade that has won anyway. I know it's an issue in some areas but I hear complaining about NAFTA down here but yet George W. Bush had fast track and signed way more trade agreements and it's crickets from the same cast of characters.

    Manufacturing has been declining in the US since 1979.


    One other thing (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 01:51:57 PM EST
    His position on trade is essentially the Sanders position that's giving Hillary problems right now.   He would run to Hillary's left on trade.

    That is not a republican position.  Until now.


    Perot ran on a similar position on trade (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 03:01:58 PM EST
    and so did Pat Buchanan, if memory serves.

    These are aren't completely novel positions on the right side of the aisle.


    one of our biggest problems as liberals (none / 0) (#130)
    by pitachips on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:18:31 PM EST
    is that we are so chickenshyt when it comes to putting our ideas against the right and actually fighting.

    you're practically soiling your pants at the thought of going up against a man whose negatives are so high among his own party that they are putting up tens of millions of dollars to stop him. a guy who is so hated by just about every segment of the population that the only reason he is still a factor is because the media realizes that the eventual crash and burn will be a ratings bonanza. a candidate who is so hated by his own party that they started talking about a brokered convention just after the primary began.


    You have no idea (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:28:27 PM EST
    What you are talking about .

    Either generally or specifically to that comment you "replied" to.

    Bernie wallows in GOP talking points.  It's not surprising you don't know that and it's not GAs job to find them and link for you.
    Google is your friend.


    we can revisit post election (none / 0) (#137)
    by pitachips on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:59:12 PM EST
    We'll see.

    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 02:08:38 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton has put out A LOT of proposals to go against the conservatives - very detailed ones.

    So whom are you referring to when you say "liberals are too chickensh1t to out out ideas?"


    That is utter (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    Bullsh!t.   You can do better.

    Forget it (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:36:49 AM EST
    you're in that 24 hr rage hangover mode you get into after every one of these "war of good vs evil" debates.

    Hopefully we can have a more rational discussion in another day or two.  


    Don't count on it (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:54:02 AM EST
    I'm really sick of Bernie Sanders

    I picked up on that (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 12:00:38 PM EST
    Me, I'd rather talk about George Martin's beautiful harpsichord solo in In My Life and enough with the sorid, low business of American politics, which is beneath all us whether we realize it or not..

    But suit yourselves.

    As Rumi says, Today a Spring Source is under everything..and life is trembling like a drop of mercury in the palm of a palsied man..


    Sordid Low Business... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 01:19:27 PM EST
    you said it Brother, you said it.

    Bernie Sanders is a dirty no good son of a b*tch...for sucking in me and making me give a sh*t about a Democratic Party primary.  Of all things to give a sh*t about!  I should have my f8ckin' head examined.

    Never again...it's much easier on my constitution to go back to only being a casual observer of this perverse spectacle.


    When the topic turns to Bernie (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 03:46:31 PM EST
    not only do a lot of folks wanna throw the baby out with the bath water, they wanna rip out the plumbing and burn the feckin' building to the ground..

    They remind of my fellow Bills fans who hate the Patriots so much that they're unable to concede that Brady might be a great qb..

    Whatever. Let the dead bury their dead.


    Yeah man... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:13:58 PM EST
    Kinda the point (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:28:18 AM EST
    The corrupting influence of money in American politics is practically all Sanders talks about.

    Screaming "Wall Street" as the response to every issue is not a plan for anything and is why Sanders is a one-trick pony.


    But don't you see (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:33:09 AM EST
    By screaming Wall Street Wall Street Wall Street speeches speeches speeches he is implicitly criticizing the coordinated decades long right wing assault on the Clintons.

    It all so clear to me now.  



    Actually in the nineties it was mainly (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    about Bill's (supposed) commie college connections, "draft-dodging", womanizing, bjs, Vince Foster-Ron Brown, Arkansas naughtiness etc..

    The Right tends to shy away from the corporate-Wall St thing because they're more tainted than the Clinton's will ever be.


    Jondee: Much much more than $$$$ (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    On Main Street and on all the streets of the country--even including Wall Street--it doesn't take money to spread lies. While funding might help the publication process, the fabrication of scandal and smearing of individuals need only be repeated...and repeated...and repeated.  Older than the hills.

    The twenty-five years of smearing Hillary Clinton, tho, is rather unique in the annals of US political history ... exceptionally mendacious in scope, duration, and repetition.  Nothing proven, nothing established ... keep spreading, keep the repeating through the scandal-hungry media ....  In the midst of all this pseudo-scandal(s) cr#p, what is truly impressive is the object of the smear.  Hillary Clinton stands firm, keeps working and doing her job throughout her life, doesn't give up.  Strength of character ... unbounded.  (Sometimes it turns out that way, doesn't it? It turns out that unfounded and baseless pummeling can show the opposite of what it was intended to do.  Funny that way.)


    Christine, I suggest of read (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 03:12:05 PM EST
    ex-right wing hit man David Brock's book Blinded By the Right. Keeping a long term dirty smear campaign going ain't no shoestring operation..

    Money may not be the whole of it, but it's undeniably integral aspect of it. The infamous "Arkansas Project" of the nineties was lubed and kept running by infusions of cash from people like Richard Melon Scaife, "the sisters" network of right wing foundations and a lot of generous contributions from "millionahs and billionahs".

    That's just the nitty gritty, on-the-ground reality and history of what occurred back then.


    Another great book on the subject is ... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 04:19:36 PM EST
    ... "The Hunting of the President" by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, who meticulously document Scaife's "Arkansas Project" and trace its roots back to Bill Clinton's days as Arkansas governor. They've since updated it as a free e-book called "The Hunting of Hillary."

    Let's assume that's true (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 04:27:34 PM EST
    That is not campaign money.  How, exactly, would you imagine Bernie or anyone else would stop people from soending money on a campaign like the Arkansas project?

    This has nothing whatever to do with "getting money out of politics".    It has nothing to do with campaign contributions.

    It's a complete deflection.


    Much easier nowadays (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 04:42:26 PM EST
    With blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc.  You only need a few people to sit at computers and create a firestorm and the cable news outlets and bigger blogs will pick it up.

    Very true (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 04:49:27 PM EST
    How about this, the one thing this year has shown us is that the importance of " money in politics" has been vastly overrated.

    Guess who has spent less money than anyone.  The guy who is crushing everyone else.  Who spent the most?  That would be Jeb.  It bought him 3-4%.

    They have spent about 50 mill going after Donald just on the last few weeks and we can see how well that's going.


    A deflection from what exactly? (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:03:44 PM EST
    You're saying money can't corrupt elections?

    So, you were fine with all those Swift Boat ads in 2004 that not only slandered Kerry but every vet who turned against the Vietnam War?


    You are not dense (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:15:25 PM EST
    You know exactly what I'm saying.  Bernies "getting the money out of politics" would have exactly zero to do with the millions spent outside election cycles attacking the Clintons.

    Or are you saying you think Bernie will just be able to wag his finger and stop rich people from spending money any way they like?

    I know.  Maybe he could interrupt them


    What he's been saying right (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:25:13 PM EST
    along is that we all need to pitch in and interrupt them - the way people are supposed to do in a participatory democracy - and at the very least level the playing field much more than it has been in the last few decades..

    If you really  believe the role of money in politics has no relation to the income inequality travesty, it ain't me that has density issues. Sorry to say.


    Now you are just babbling (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:31:40 PM EST
    Uh huh (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 06:33:17 PM EST
    I suggest you read.. (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    I don't (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 07:57:12 AM EST
    think any of that is new though. It's the same thing they've been asking forever.

    It did expose a lot of things about Bernie though that the media here in the US hasn't bothered to report on.


    It's interesting she keeps getting the question (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 08:14:00 AM EST
    Since we established yesterday that the people who don't like her don't even know why they don't like her.

    Nonsense... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 08:39:14 AM EST
    I know why I don't care for her...it's insulting to say everybody who doesn't care for Hillary is simply brainwashed by 25 years of GOP mudslinging.  Some of us have legitimate reasons to prefer Sanders, just as some of you have legitimate reasons to not care for Bernie and prefer Hillary.

    This "everybody who votes for Sanders/Hillary is an easily susceptible to propaganda moron" meme is total bullsh*t...enough already.  


    It is a different question than (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    why you don't support her politically. They are making it personal, not political.

    I'm sure some of you do (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 08:56:42 AM EST
    But it's very clear some of you don't.  Sorry.  I refer you to the "I don't really know why I don't like Hillary " thread from yesterday.   I didn't make it up.  

    Because (none / 0) (#9)
    by sallywally on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 08:35:45 AM EST
    20+ years of incessant media/Republican bashing. Sounds like the media are in the tank for Sanders still? Again?

    Way back, there was a piece in the New York Review of Books that claimed media folks were saying they had a great chance in this campaign to "take her down." Sorry, I rresponsibly have no citation. If I can find it, I will note it.


    Politico - Dylan Byers (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by mm on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 08:46:09 AM EST
    This argument overlooks two important factors: First, the national media have never been more primed to take down Hillary Clinton (and, by the same token, elevate a Republican candidate). Even before she announced her presidential bid, The New York Times alone had published more than 40 articles related to her private email account, spurring other stories across the national print, digital and television media. Since announcing her bid, the national media have spent the bulk of their time investigating potential lines of influence between Clinton Foundation donations/speaking fees and Clinton's actions as secretary of state. The Times, The Washington Post and others even struck deals for early access to anti-Clinton research.


    The (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 08:50:58 AM EST
    Media is not in the tank for Sanders, it's just the "Clinton Rules" in effect, everything she does is looked at through a different lens then anybody else. Rather normal political behavior, attack and defend, deflect and spin becomes some kind of evil machination when preformed by Hillary.

    I don't know. (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 08:59:51 AM EST
    It seems no one has been talking about his embrace of communist dictators until the debate last night. So either they're lazy and aren't going to dig into his background and go over everything he's done or they're fluffing Bernie.

    Depends on what you call media (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:03:22 AM EST
    MSNBC is absolutely unquestionably as far in the tank fir Sanders as they could possibly be.

    That is a fact.

    It's gotten downright satirical in its blatant unveiled obviousness.

    And the left blogosphere if even farther in the tank.


    This was on "Morning Joe" this morning (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:14:15 AM EST
    So there's that....

    (My bold)

    MIKA BRZEZINSKI (HOST): Is liar really -- I mean, I don't think that's the word necessarily at least?

    JONATHAN CAPEHART: Oh, no, that's the word. That's the word that a lot of people think when they think of Hillary Clinton. But can I just say this? Can we not forget that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified for, what, 12, 13 hours before the Special Select Committee on Benghazi? That was the opportunity for Congress, the opportunity for Republicans, the opportunity for the RNC to press the former Secretary pretty aggressively on what she did or didn't do during Benghazi and instead wasted that opportunity. And she handled it very well. We cannot look at this in isolation. It's not just that Hillary Clinton used email or didn't use email. It's how Benghazi and the email situation has been used for political purposes to damage Hillary Clinton. And let's not forget, the House majority leader said on camera that the whole purpose of this was to drag down her poll numbers.

    I just quoted another part (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:29:55 AM EST
    Of that conversation.    It would be amazing if it was not so typical.

    What I quoted (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:32:37 AM EST
    Was Scarboris response to that very statement.

    Whatever it is, (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by mm on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:07:05 AM EST
    I'm sick of it.

    She was asked very politely last night that if she were to be indicted would she withdraw from the race?

    Every single forum, every single debate, every single one-on-one interview, she is asked some form of the question, "why don't people think you're honest and trustworthy".  Yet there is never any substance to justify these questions.  No other candidate in my memory has ever had to put up with this bull.  

    She was by all accounts an honest hard working US Senator for 2 terms working across the aisle to get things done and was applauded for her work by Senate leaders from both parties.  

    Now all of a sudden she's the most dishonest person to ever enter politics.  

    In MI, for those who thought honesty and trustworthiness were the most important quality in why they voted, over 80% went for Sanders.

    That is the result of a very successful campaign by the media and the right in this country to totally demonize her.


    You are correct (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:28:55 AM EST
    Hillary explained it once back in the 90s when she said to a reporter the true fact that the real story, if any one wanted to cover it, was the vast right wing conspiracy to discredit her husband and herself.

    Instead of doing that the media dutifully turned that completely true and reasonable statement I to one of the most infamous examples of "Clinton paranoia" ever.

    The absolutely is and was a vast right wing conspiracy to destroy them because they have seen them both, rightly,  as a terrible threat.

    I am watching Morning Joe.  Here's a quote from Joe hisself in response to John Capehart saying more or less what I just did-

    "But Johnathan let's talk about the ongoing problem if the Clinton campaign.  Every day when you go to work you see big letters on a wall, it's a Ben Bradley quote, that says "the truth no matter how painful is better to get out that a lie in the long run"(I don't think that's the actual quote, but whatever) I'm not suggesting Hillary is lying about the Clinton money or the Clinton emails.  I don't know, none of us know what the actual truth is.  We will know when the FBI finishes their investigations.  But it has been......just the constant drip of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton speeches, the constant drip of the emails.   Every time you think that story's over it just keeps dripping.    And sh has all of these drips from all of these different sides and as everybody running around trying to patch it up and it really is.......whether she is absolved at the end of all of it or not it is a political nightmare.  That they just can't get the truth out there fast enough  and get it behind them."

    I rest my case


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    Where he says it doesn't matter if she is cleared says it all in a nutshell.

    The irony is if she really was what Bernie proclaimed her to be she probably wouldn't have all the problems with the press she has.


    My take (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Belswyn on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:21:21 AM EST
    It was an interesting debate in the sense that we got a different set of questions with different emphases than we normally get, and for that I think it was refreshing.

    The moderators were pretty terrible in the debate; I guess mostly through inexperience. You interrupt a candidate when they're bloviating, but not when they're in the middle of making an interesting point. And yet they did the latter time and time again.

    Also, the moderators should have looked much harder at Clinton and Sanders positions/records. Most of the time it seemed liked they basically agreed with one another on the issues that the moderators were pushing.

    Bernie didn't come off so well in a couple of places, but I thought he handled the Cuba/Nicaragua question well. I wonder, however, if Republican attack ads couldn't make a lot more of some of these early positions that would hurt him. I thought his closing speech was good.

    I thought Clinton handled everything, but I thought her answer on Michigan was weaker than I would have liked. I have no idea why Jorge Ramos felt like he had to grill her on deportations. Is there some history here that I'm missing?

    A funny debate spoof Q&A from WaPost (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:04:24 AM EST
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:07:06 AM EST
    But the media is certainly NOT in the tank for Bernie.

    Bernie (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    is more or less their useful idiot in attempting to get a Republican into office.

    Not at the Univision debate (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 12:45:40 PM EST
    But after the Flint one, this happened:

    DETROIT, Mich. -- Following the recent Democratic presidential debate in Flint, Bernie Sanders was approached by a Syrian refugee who wanted to ask the candidate a question about the nation he left.

    Sanders initially was open to answering a question, but upon hearing the query was about Syria, Sanders brushed the man aside,saying he was "tired."

    His refusal to allow a Syrian refugee to even pose a question is just the latest episode illustrating his disinclination to talk about national security matters.

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#160)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 04:37:10 PM EST
    kindness to a fellow human.

    A year ago - (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Nemi on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 03:24:46 PM EST
    actually by coincidence precisely a year ago today - Peter Daou wrote a piece presenting what he called The Master Guide to Anti-Clinton Memes. In it he lists the top anti-Clinton memes at that time:

    • CALCULATING (Scheming, crafty, manipulative)
    • SECRETIVE (Suspicious, paranoid, uncommunicative)
    • POLARIZING (Divisive, alienating)
    • UNTRUSTWORTHY (Corrupt, deceitful, dishonest, unethical)
    • OVER-AMBITIOUS (Will do or say anything to win)
    • INAUTHENTIC (Disingenuous, fake, unlikable, insincere)
    • INHUMAN (Machine-like, robotic, abnormal, cold)
    • OVER-CONFIDENT (Inevitable, defiant, imperious, regal)
    • OLD (Out of touch, represents the past)

    Except for "Old" - with Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump for that matter, older than or same age as her, that is a no-go - it's pretty much the same memes today. But not only that, it seems to me that the opposite is now used to describe Bernie Sanders - and to some degree even Donald Trump! - something like:

    Up front, straightforward

    Great communicator

    A uniter

    Honest, trustworthy

    Frank, down to earth


    Warm, human

    What you see is what you get

    As I was looking (in vain) for a piece by Peter Daou at #hillarymen, about those memes, I was reminded of the illustrations used for the articles there: Hillary Clinton with men of all ages, shapes and colours, and what struck me - again - was how happy and relaxed everybody looked in those pictures, and how everyone seemed totally at ease and comfortable in her presence. Quite a different picture, literally, from the one the media tries to paint of her.

    The debate was in (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 03:38:36 PM EST
    some ways, more interesting than some of the others. The 14-year old boy who sang the national anthem was Sebastien DeLaCruz, the mariachi singer who was subjected to racists attacks after singing the Star Spangled Banner at an NBA game (Miami/San Antonio) in 2013.

    After a prolonged commercial break, the debate began with odd questions, more insulting than irreverent and more repetitious than remarkable. The Univision sponsorship understandably focused on immigration, but all the more reason to use time efficiency and effectively---a goal lost on the moderators.

    Both Senator Sanders and Mrs. Clinton looked good and seemed reasonably rested given their hectic and grueling schedules. Mr. Sanders appeared less stooped and natty in his Reagan-ish brown suit and tie.  Mrs. Clinton was at her best in navy with a single string of pearls--the clutching of which was necessary with some of the curious questioning.

     Both seemed to have conquered their campaigning hoarseness-- best to be treated for such conditions by an Otolaryngologist, the therapeutic outcome being: if you can pronounce the specialty, you don;t have a sore throat.

    Mrs. Clinton claims not to be a natural politician,  but it is clear that she is a masterful debater. Sets up and builds a case with lawyerly and diplomatic skills.

    Senator Sanders is not so such a debater as a polemicist.  He has his message and weaves it into the question being asked, or one he prefers was asked. He has his proved strategy and sticks to it, which works for him. Little new information on policies by him. The arguments are rather familiar, whereas, Mrs. Clinton's are less recycled and show signs of sharpening and address specifics. And, she has fleshed out policies, such as on jobs.

     However, Mrs. Clinton's experience in statecraft may be playing against her, there  is little room for nuance or conditioned responses, especially with millennials who seem to trust only black and white answers, anything else is seen as being slippery/evasive/dishonest.  Mr. Sanders', yes or no's, are just what seems to work for them.

    Mrs. Clinton's loss in Michigan is attributed, by some, in part, by the previous debate's exchange on the auto bailout, which reveled a issue that transcended the substance itself.  Both senators voted for the auto bailout as a stand-alone that subsequently failed; but differed when monies to be released were bundled with TARP.

      Sanders considered bailing out Wall Street (actually loans that were largely repaid, a pont made by Mrs. Clinton last night, but not in Detroit) to be more bad than saving the auto industry was good.  It is a choice that senators have to make; is the combined bad better than the good. And, what will be the result of the vote on people and jobs. It does not mean that Sanders was against the auto bailout, he was not. But, it was a call that proved not to be the best for saving the auto industry.  Sometimes a yes or no, is not judicious.  And, sometimes a nuanced response can cost a win.

    The auto bailout thing gets me (none / 0) (#136)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:37:13 PM EST
    maybe the Clinton campaign overdid it in framing his vote against TARP, but frankly, he did not support the auto bailout. If you ask if you can borrow my car tonight, and I say sure, then drive off all night with it, I didn't really support you, now did I? It would be disingenuous of me to claim that I did.

    And at this point, Sanders has been harping on Wall Street with such an astonishing lack of specificity that I question whether he would come up with a rational plan to actually achieve his goal. The legislation he introduced is only four pages long! This is what he claims he'll sign into law?


    That's what I don't get (none / 0) (#138)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 06:23:00 AM EST
    Sanders can rail against Wall Street about the bad things they've done, but what happens if he gets his way and all the big banks are broken up?  Then what?  What are the affects on our economy?  On the global economy?  What's plan after that?

    (And if he breaks up the big banks, all the Lloyd Blankfeins of the world won't be make the same kind of money they are now.  Those are the same people he plans on taxing to the gills to pay for free healthcare and free college - how's that math going to work out?)


    You're discussing this as if (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 07:31:06 AM EST
    any of it will ever happen.

    Kinda the point (none / 0) (#141)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 08:40:38 AM EST
    It would be nice if the candidate or his supporters would address this so they appear to have coherent arguments.

    Just saw a Hillary ad on TV. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 09:59:37 PM EST
    Tonight is Shonda Rhimes night on ABC. And the ad that just aired features Shonda and the three women who star in her Thursday night shows- Ellen Pompeo, Kerry Washington and Viola Davis- talking about Hillary and why they support her.

    It's a good ad. Serious, dignified.

    Made it to 7:30pm Pacific (none / 0) (#44)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Mar 10, 2016 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    Then I turned it off.

    This primary has gotten old. Fast.

    Bread and Circuses, Freaky. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 07:32:22 AM EST
    Line up the advertisers.  The rubes want more.

    why is Sanders so stuck on just a couple of things (none / 0) (#148)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 11, 2016 at 03:40:28 PM EST
    Sanders doesn't seem to have very much knowledge about foreign affairs etc...for a potential president that would be dangerous wouldn't it?