Someone explain to me why this is a big deal. Clinton was factually wrong, but given the nature of what she was talking about(what ISIS uses as propaganda), it’s hard to get solid facts, so it should be assumed that anytime a candidate says ISIS uses American leaders’ statements as propaganda that it’s hyperbole. CNN is treating it as if it’s some kind of huge gaffe.
Although if CNN’s making a big issue out of this gets politicians to just stop it with what has become one of the most tired and dumb arguments ever(what that person says gives aid and comfort to ISIS, it increases their recruiting!) then they’ll have performed a public service. It really is getting to be a new version of Godwin’s Law.
If you’re going to consider a candidate as “not serious”, then don’t invite him to the debate at all. If you do consider him serious, then give him as much time as the other serious candidates. Either is defensible (as long as there’s some sensible objective criterion for who’s “serious”), but don’t invite a candidate and then give him less time.
Only watched the first 75 minutes r so. I thought O’Malley did pretty well. He attacked a lot more than I thought he would, especially if he’s angling for some kind of position in Hillary’s administration. Every one of his attacks was met with Hillary’s obnoxious cackle, which does not make her look like a leader.
I didn’t really think it was such a bid deal, either. But… if you’re going to accuse someone of helping Da-esh recruit fighters, you should be certain that it’s true. The accusation rises well above the run-of-the-mill accusations that politicians routinely make about each other.
Clinton, though, was careful to say that Trump was “becoming” Da-esh’s best recruiting tool, not that he actually was. In the debate business, that’s we call “weasel wording”.
IMHO just like FOX news CNN is adopting many of FOX’s tactics. The rule of thumb to apply to headlines that end in a question is that they are almost always answered in the negative.
No, but he was a governor, and he’s actually done stuff on a state level that Bernie is so far only talking about, and Hillary never got her man to do in Arkansas
You have a funny idea of how contests are supposed to work.
I think Bernie may be the better candidate, not least because I come from an area with a lot of gun ownership, but I was gratified to see O’Malley fight the way he did on the gun control issue.
Though both he and Sanders seemed to hit questions they didn’t want to answer on that issue.
(I’ll answer it! Confiscation? Yes, at least of some firearms, eventually. But the first thing you do is constrict manufacturing, and let the supply start to go down. It may take years to start pulling rifles out of private owners’ hands.)
Hillary has only been a Washington insider for 22 years. Bernie Sanders has been in Washington 24 years, though as a Socialist and then an Independent, I don’t know how much of an insider he is.
Yeah, it really doesn’t make sense to try to claim the “Washington outsider” title when you’re running against a guy who doesn’t even count himself a member of either party.
I didn’t notice. I did notice the repeated claims that they’ve already done in Maryland the sort of things the other two were proposing. It seemed like he was emphasizing executive experience, not “outsiderness.” That was my point.
I didn’t mean to imply that “outsider” was the only strategy he was employing. And there is a large overlap between “Governor of State X” and “Washington outsider”.
O’Malley was reasonably strong when he was making actual arguments for ideas. But his game of talking over the moderators in a pathetic attempt for more time, and rehearsed attacks that had nothing to do with what actually just happened (*) came off as desperate and weak.
He’s not going to win. He must know that. Use this opportunity to raise his star a bit. Quit whining, quit attacking, and talk about what matters to you.
(*) Slate rightly called out O’Malley’s line about “Instead, we’re listening to the bickering back and forth” right after Clinton and Sanders were agreeing vehemently and not bickering at all about the DNC voter data leak “scandal.”
