Another Democratic presidential debate tonight, Thursday 02/11/16

BrainGlutton · February 11, 2016, 11:04pm

On PBS and CNN at 9:00 p.m. EST. At the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Clinton and Sanders only, of course, O’Malley having dropped out.

Interesting question: Will tonight’s Democratic debate finally mention abortion? (None of the other debates so far have featured a single question on abortion or reproductive health.)

BrainGlutton · February 12, 2016, 3:07am

Hard to tell who’s doing better. They both seem to be getting equal amounts of applause. Hillary, at least, is trying to give the impression that their policies differ only in details.

Hank_Beecher · February 12, 2016, 3:09am

Bernie just claimed that his campaign has “decided not to have a super PAC”.

But he does have super PACs. And it’s not even up to him anyway. It’s our constitutionally guaranteed right to individually or collectively communicate our opinions about him, or about anyone else.

Bernie Sanders’s Super PACs

…
Take National Nurses United, the largest nurses’ union in the U.S. The group endorsed Sanders for president back in August. Its political arm—National Nurses United for Patient Protection—has so far spent more than $550,000 in support of Bernie Sanders, including doling out money for print and digital advertising. The group qualifies as a super PAC, according to the Federal Election Commission. Union organizers, however, reject that name.

“It’s not a super PAC, super PACs are corrupt,” RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United, said. “They’re a way for the billionaires to influence the political process and spend unlimited money. This is nurses who want to get our support for Bernie out there. That’s way different than the Koch brothers. This isn’t big money. I think people understand the difference.”
…

Onomatopoeia · February 12, 2016, 3:23am

They’re both doing well. Seems to be a little more talking-pointalism in this debate compared to previous.

Stoneburg · February 12, 2016, 3:51am

This is the problem when you’re trying too hard to make an argument. You’re both saying that he has a super PAC and at the same time saying that it’s not up to him. Technically you are correct that it’s not up to him, because anyone can start a super PAC and decide to endorse Bernie Sanders, but that’s pretty far from the reality of how things work.

It’s also a bit dishonest to compare a super PAC endorsed by a candidate and built on donations by billionaires to what is in effect a union of nurses independently deciding to support Sanders. Not cool, and not convincing.

Lakai · February 12, 2016, 3:56am

I thought Clinton did much better than usual. She had a much more clear message about how she would fight for disadvantaged Americans, and in a much more substantive manner than Sanders.

Bernie Sanders looked like he needed some more water during this debate. I will admit that he did defend himself pretty well against Clinton’s attacks.

ISiddiqui · February 12, 2016, 4:05am

So it appears that after the debate, journalists such as Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod (no conservatives) went to Twitter to say that Senator Sanders was full of it when he applied he didn’t savagely go after President Obama. I think that’s the first time Sanders has been caught like that before in this campaign.

Hank_Beecher · February 12, 2016, 4:06am

Yes, I am claiming those things, and they are true. One can have a super PAC, even though it is not up to them, in the same way that one can have fans or enemies without giving any consent.

What’s dishonest is a candidate claiming that he does not have a super PAC when he does.

Kolak_of_Twilo · February 12, 2016, 5:25am

But when one has a burning, irrational hatred for a candidate dishonesty is to be expected, no? I agree, it isn’t cool or convincing.

BrainGlutton · February 12, 2016, 10:54pm

BTW, Sanders was entirely right about Henry Kissinger. And it is also clear Clinton regards Kissinger as a mentor. On foreign policy, Sanders is the better choice.

BrainGlutton · February 12, 2016, 11:02pm

More on Kissinger.

DSeid · February 13, 2016, 1:31am

Yeah … a poor play for her evoke Kissinger positively, even if just as a judge of her skill at running the department.

But Sanders still is a very scary prospect for foreign policy considerations in my book. For all of Kissinger’s evils (and they had been many) and nefarious implementations, the fundamental concept of realpolitik, the idea that international affairs is in reality often choosing not the ideal but the least poor option, is better within a President’s possession than not. And someone who not only knows as little as Sanders seems to know about current international affairs but who seems to be as uninterested in knowing about them … is frightening to me. The “Sanders Doctrine” as presented thus far seems to be a head in the sand isolationist “What Me Worry” approach in a world that is a very complex web of shifting interrelationships that we cannot escape from. Maybe there actually is more depth there and he is avoiding showing it off?

Snowboarder_Bo · February 13, 2016, 1:50am

I agree: Kissinger is a moron.

BrainGlutton · February 13, 2016, 2:00am

DSeid:

Yeah … a poor play for her evoke Kissinger positively, even if just as a judge of her skill at running the department.

But Sanders still is a very scary prospect for foreign policy considerations in my book. For all of Kissinger’s evils (and they had been many) and nefarious implementations, the fundamental concept of realpolitik, the idea that international affairs is in reality often choosing not the ideal but the least poor option, is better within a President’s possession than not. And someone who not only knows as little as Sanders seems to know about current international affairs but who seems to be as uninterested in knowing about them … is frightening to me. The “Sanders Doctrine” as presented thus far seems to be a head in the sand isolationist “What Me Worry” approach in a world that is a very complex web of shifting interrelationships that we cannot escape from. Maybe there actually is more depth there and he is avoiding showing it off?

Far, far better to have a POTUS largely ignorant of foreign policy than one who thinks about it the way Clinton does.

Clinton continues, still today, to laud Kissinger’s record. In her review, she proclaimed that Kissinger’s notoriously belligerent foreign policy “largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration’s effort.” And, borrowing Kissingerian language, Clinton said she yearns for “sustaining America’s leadership in the world.”

Hillary, an unapologetic hawk, has flaunted her bellicosity in the debates. The fact that she continues to do so, and continues to invoke the name of Kissinger, just shows how much of an ideological imperialist Clinton is. She truly, wholeheartedly believes in the supposed benevolence of U.S. empire and the forceful projection of American military power.

Sanders frequently reminds voters that Clinton voted for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But she did not only support the war, which the U.N. said was illegal; she went above and beyond, and, echoing Bush administration propaganda that many other Democrats rejected, accused the avowedly secular dictator Saddam Hussein of having ties to al-Qaeda, as journalist Doug Henwood documents in his book “My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency.”

This is just one of Clinton’s hawkish policies, among many. She also led the catastrophic NATO bombing of Libya, which plunged the country into chaos and created a vacuum largely filled by extremist groups like Ansar al-Sharia and ISIS, famously remarking “We came, we saw, he died” after Muammar Qaddafi was killed. She oversaw the U.S. drone war, in which targets are assassinated without charge or trial. She previously defended torture. She even said in her presidential campaign in 2007 she would consider dropping nuclear bombs on militants in South Asia.

<snip>

Hillary’s record led renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs to declare Clinton not just the candidate of Wall Street, but also “the candidate of the military-industrial complex” and “the candidate of the war machine.” “Hillary is a staunch neocon,” Jeffrey Sachs wrote earlier this month, adding “Hillary’s record as secretary of state is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern U.S. history.”

septimus · February 13, 2016, 5:51pm

I’m a fervent admirer of Bernie Sanders, yet I felt Hillary won the debate overwhelmingly. She came across as more pragmatic, more fluent on the issues, less obsessed with a single issue, … more Presidential. I felt she got more time to speak than Sanders did … but also had more to say.

I’m very glad Sanders has pushed the debate “to the left.” But I think Hillary would make a better nominee and a better President.