home

Post-Debate Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 10:14:45 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Democrat Debate (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

My thoughts: Hillary came across the best in the debate -- by miles. Poised, prepared, and accomplished. With an open mind and willing to listen to other ideas.

Bernie Sanders has better positions on some issues, but he can't win. I hope he stays in the race as long as possible, because it's important for people to hear his ideas.

O'Malley was third, in my view. His best line: calling Donald Trump a carnival barker.

This was a substantive debate that addressed the issues, unlike Republicans who have been an embarrassment to watch and listen to.

The best moment: the standing ovation by the crowd when Sanders said the American people are tired of hearing about Hillary's "damn emails."

Webb and Chafee will be gone soon.

Your thoughts?

Update: One more picture:

Memo to Joe Biden: You weren't missed, this isn't your time, please announce soon you are not running. Similar thoughts here.

< Democratic Debate Live Blog | Thursday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Post-Debate Thread | 213 comments (213 topical)
    It was a true debate of policy and substance. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 10:24:11 PM EST
    IMHO, the most memorable part of the debate was the tag-team that Clinton and Sanders put on Anderson Cooper when he attempted the email kerfuffle, which brought them a huge ovation from the audience, left the moderator mumbling about their responses "playing well to the room," but nevertheless put the kibosh on the issue for the rest of the evening.

    I'm proud of my party tonight.

    HRC did well ... very well, indeed (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 11:46:13 PM EST
    I'm so happy as to be just about speechless.

    After the built-up obstacle course that the media said this month represents for her ... well, so far, she has grown more invigorated and on-point and genuinely confident.

    Up next ... the Benghaziii Hearing. We'll all be there in spirit with bells on.  Timing is everything.

    Parent

    That was a fast 2 1/2 hours; (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 10:31:41 PM EST
    I didn't think there was a draggy moment in it; it was long on substance and devoid of crackpot ideas, xenophobia and woman-bashing.

    Trump is a carnival barker - I though that was a perfect description of him.

    Chafee is no doubt an honorable, if slightly dim, man, but "I have no scandals" isn't a platform.

    Webb?  Ugh.  No.

    O'Malley knows about many of the things he talks about - he captained them through the MD legislature and led successful fights for them.  

    I hope Bernie stays in until the last dog dies - he's good for pushing Clinton to the left.

    There should be more of these debates - and I loved O'Malley's shot at Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has been a complete d!ck about this issue - going so far as to rescind the invitation to another member of the DNC for also calling for more debates.

    That "other DNC member" ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 10:47:59 PM EST
    ... that DWS disinvited to tonight's event is my congresswoman, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Suffice to say that she has her own rather curious issues. I support her, albeit cautiously, because she has made some extraordinarily homophobic statements in the recent past. But to her credit, she's since attempted to live that down, and says that she doesn't subscribe to her father's sort of thinking any more.

    Parent
    My thought: (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 10:54:27 PM EST
    why were Webb & Chafee even there? what, they had a quota to fill? neither of those gentlemen either:

    a. adds anything of substance to the debates or the campaign.

    b. has the proverbial snowball's chance of winning even their own state's democratic primary.

    why waste valuable air time on two people who'll be gone by next week?

    Parent

    They have declared they are running (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 11:02:40 PM EST
    They are credible candidates with both having been Senators. They will drop out when they can't afford to run, but with neither mounting an expensive campaign there is no rush to exit.

    Unless a debate doesn't invite them, they will likely remain until January.

    There was plenty of airtime for other candidates, especially with Anderson Cooper's rapid fire questions and him not letting anyone filibuster.

    But I'd be remiss if I didn't note that Anderson Cooper came across as better prepared than either Webb or Chafee.

    Parent

    Agreed... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:10:39 AM EST
    ...also it seemed like Cooper has team clearing up some important points, he was very good, even the couple times he seemed to try and take it to the mud.

    Webb to me. seemed like he belonged better in an 80's republican debate than 2015 democratic debate.  It is a shame that descent republican with ideas has to sit in a democrat debate to be heard.

    Also, O'Malley's best line was not about Trump, not even close, it was an easy cheap shot from someone who IMO had a lot of really great things to say.  He impressed me the most.

    Also, it would be nice if the media pretended they watched and stop referring to it was some knock down drag out fight.  It was not and I can't emphasize how impressive it was to see the candidates, more or less, on the same page going as far as to compliment each other on positions they agreed with.

    The low point, when D's looked like R's on the stage over immigrant in-state tuition.  I believed Bernie, the rest too scared IMO to disagree.  I don't like that Fox News non-sense of asking all the candidates if anyone disagrees, it doesn't leave any wiggler room to explain.  But that was minor compared to the overall uplifting messages and plans of all the candidates and more on Copper than any candidate.

    Like everyone else has said, when it was done I was thinking, only an hour, but the clock said two plus.  It went remarkably quick and was as enjoyable as anything in politics can be.

    Parent

    But who gets to make that decision? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 11:08:26 PM EST
    In my honest opinion, anyone who's a declared candidate deserves the right to make his or her case to the American people, who should be given the opportunity to evaluate the contestants and determine for themselves who could best lead the country. Attrition will eventually winnow the field.

    Parent
    Apparently, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 06:48:37 AM EST
    the decision about whom to include is made by private corporate entities who establish their own criteria and are answerable to no one.

    Parent
    It's Odd to Me... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:13:50 AM EST
    ...that anyone is giving money to Mr. Granite and the only republican on the stage.

    But so long as they have support, we should hear what they have to say.  It's not the media is giving them any air time.

    Parent

    Because I'm a conspiracy theorist (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 08:17:00 AM EST
    I'm wondering if Chaffee and Webb were asked by the party to "run" so there would be a few candidates to talk about and for debates.  The original complaints were about a "coronation" of Hillary Clinton, so by having a few other people in the race, the optics look better.  Besides, Webb is to her right, Sanders to her left (on some things), so she can hone her arguments for the general.  It would be TERRIBLE for any candidate to go for months with no competition.

    Chaffee has put ZERO effort into running for president and Jim Webb despises campaigning - when he was a Senator from Virginia, it was rare for him to even go to his offices outside of NoVa (and getting him to go was like pulling teeth).

    Parent

    Tulsi was not disinvited (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 08:08:53 AM EST
    In an email from a staffer of DWS, the staffer expressed DWS' desire to keep the focus of the debate on the candidates and not on a distraction, and that if Congresswoman Gabbard could not do that, then maybe she should reconsider going.

    Sounds to me like Tusli Gabbard wanted to purposely make that a "disinvite" and get herself a few headlines, instead of just doing what was asked - keep the focus on the candidates

    Parent

    It wouldn't surprise me. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:01:40 PM EST
    I've known Tulsi Gabbard for 14 years, and she does crave the publicity, and is not at all shy about courting controversy as long as she thinks it makes her look good.

    My one very real reservation about her is her continued ties to a fundamentalist Hindu guru named Chris Butler, aka Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, who leads an aggressive and virulently homophobic sect of Krishna devotees here in Hawaii.

    Whenever Tulsi's been questioned about those ties, she tends to either politely reframe it as some sort of religious bigotry on the part of the questioner, or will simply dismiss the inquiry with the phrase, "Trust me."

    Her Hindu faith is entirely her own business, of course, and as long as she continues to keep it separate from her official duties as a congresswoman, that's really all one can ask. She has completely disavowed her earlier conservative stances on social issues and voiced support for marriage equality, in sharp contrast to her homophobic father, State Sen. Mike Gabbard, who long maintained his own ties to Chris Butler.

    But she's definitely something of an odd bird. And while I do support her as a Democrat, I also prefer to keep my own relationship with her on an entirely formal level, so as to keep some distance between us. She knows that I've clashed rather sharply in public with her father in the recent past in my former capacity as a party official on Oahu, so I'm sure the feeling is probably mutual.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Slight correction: (none / 0) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:12:36 PM EST
    I mislinked above in the third paragraph. I had intended to hyperlink Congresswoman Gabbard's response to the March 2015 article in Honolulu Civil Beat about her ties to Chris Butler.

    My bad.

    Parent

    My thoughts... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 10:32:57 PM EST
    I don't believe in HRC's happy warrior persona.

    I think her answer regarding the legalization of recreational mj was the side of her that doesn't take a position on a controversial issue until she is sure which way the wind is blowing.

    I think her answer about Snowden was right-wing despicable.

    I think her answer about her vote for the Patriot Act showed us that the HRC that voted for the authorization of the war in Iraq is still alive and well. More right-wing stuff. Not for me thanks.

    Webb had nothing to offer as far as I'm concerned.
    Chafee came across as a muddled hair-brain.

    O'Malley's answer regarding Snowden gave me the creeps.

    Sanders came across, imho, as the most genuine of the lot.
    His vision and thought process was the clearest, imo.

    Saying that, "Sanders has better positions on some issues, but he can't win" makes no sense to me. Democrats that say that the person expressing what they want to hear, taking positions they believe in, is not the person they want to win the nomination ... well - I just don't get it.

    I would vote for Sanders.

    I couldn't bring myself to vote for HRC.
    I might root for her against a Republican, but that isn't saying much.

    let me clear up your confusion for you. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by cpinva on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 11:04:29 PM EST
    "Saying that, "Sanders has better positions on some issues, but he can't win" makes no sense to me."

    take a look at the makeup of the attendee's at Sen. Sanders' events. you'll note that they are almost all a tragically white crowd. nothing wrong with that per se, because, well, he's been speaking at places that are, well, mostly white, it is his oeuvre. so far, he's drawn few, if any minorities, because he's failed to address issues pertinent to them, because in his entire political career, he's represented a state that is almost completely pale complected. don't get me wrong, he's not racist or misogynist or anything like that, merely clueless. and this is from a person who likes him.

    and that's why he can't win the general. watch Ms. Clinton's crowds, they are very diverse, because both she and her husband just naturally appeal to a diverse constituency. that's why she will win.

    Parent

    I know that (none / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 05:00:02 AM EST
    you appear to be making a point, but to me it is one tinged with racism.

    Parent
    Say what?! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Juanita Moreno on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:38:12 AM EST
    ... he's drawn few, if any minorities, because he's failed to address issues pertinent to them, ...

    I understand that many people haven't paid a lot of attention to our candidates yet, especially poor people, but that doesn't mean that they won't eventually understand exactly how a Sanders presidency will help them.

    Last night's debate was Bernie's introduction to a lot of people, especially those who haven't been tracking the race yet. They may have heard his name, or heard about his large rallies and enthusiastic supporters, but now they'll pay attention to who he is and what he's already done on behalf of people of color.

    His numbers will go up now that more people are listening to him, especially if he's promoted from within communities of color. His positions are good, his history is solid, and it's time for us to take the next step on his behalf.

    Parent

    Bernie's (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    numbers are unlikely to move after the debate I would think. Not dinging Bernie but even though voting correctly on issues he has no personal relationship with minority communities like Hillary does. He has had no need to develop these relationships because he represents Vermont. Hillary has spent decades cultivating relationships with the minority community and apparently is considered a rock star in the Hispanic community.

    Parent
    "The Great White Hope?" (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:59:41 AM EST
    How patronizing.  Clinton's relationships are entirely with the political class, self selected professional parasites.

    "Rock Star" is an apt metaphor.  Rock stars put on a show.  They do the same thing for every crowd.  They play the tunes the crowd wants to hear.  When the show's over, they return home to insular privileged lives.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:03:00 AM EST
    actually she goes into the community. In 2008 she was sitting in the living room of Hispanic families. I hardly think that is merely the "political class".

    Parent
    We want results (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Juanita Moreno on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    Hillary is another Obama: She'll tell us what we want to hear to get our vote, then make the rich richer. Will millions of people come out to march in the streets to promote her policies? When they realize she's more of the same, will they stay engaged? Or will we have eight years of more wars, more government secrecy (TPP), more spying on Americans, more suppressing whistleblowers, and more degradation of the middle class?

    Bernie offers results, he represents the opportunity for real change. It's not that all of his policies are different, it's that he's actually telling the truth and his key policies are what will save not just our country, but perhaps the world. That's what is bringing youth into our Party and bringing back disaffected Dems.

    The difference is yoooooge. Hillary won't ever have a movement behind her. She'll just be another Obama. Bernie has us. By next spring, "us" will include people of color.

    Parent

    I found this (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:18:26 AM EST
    interesting
    CLINTON: ...We need a new New Deal for communities of color...

    Channeling her inner FDR here, sounds good, on paper at least, I don't see minorities leaving her at all.

    Parent

    Considering which Roosevelt is her hero (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:42:03 AM EST
    as Clinton has said, that was her inner ER.

    Parent
    Roosevelt is her hero.. (2.00 / 1) (#138)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:16:24 PM EST
    was this before or after Barry Goldwater was her hero? Or does saying FDR's your hero poll better?

    And lets not forget those heroic donors to the Clinton Foundation at Goldman Sachs..

    Parent

    I wonder ER & FDR would say... (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:54:01 AM EST
    about the personal fortune amassed on the back of "public service".

    Traitors to their class, FDR & ER wore that label proudly, welcomed the hatred of the moneychangers and trustfund bluebloods.  I guess you could say HRC & BC are traitors to their class too...in the opposite way the Roosevelts were.

    Parent

    Hillary lost me (none / 0) (#120)
    by Juanita Moreno on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:46:12 AM EST
    as soon as Bernie said where they differ.

    Parent
    Interesting Take... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:29:26 AM EST
    ...considering that I think a lot of democrats like Obama and wouldn't mind an extension of his Presidency.

    Bernie's biggest hurdle is no one believes he is a guaranteed win against Trump.  And as much as I like Bernie, the idea of him losing the election, at this point, isn't worth the risk.  But after last night, the risk seems less, for me at least.

    Also the fact that he took the instruments used to bludgeon HRC to death, and said 'no thanks' speaks pretty highly of his character.


    Parent

    I've (2.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:10:26 AM EST
    seen Bernie's candidacy before and it lost the general election. Until you can convince me there is a huge outpouring for socialism in this country you're whistling past the graveyard.

    And frankly I don't see Bernie being able to accomplish anything you are promoting. The best case I have seen made for him is that he'll do nothing and veto everything.

    Parent

    You must be reading your own comments, (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    because that is the case YOU'VE been making, along with the Demon Socialist Can't Win argument.

    Sanders isn't running on socialism, Georgia.  Last night on CNN, they had someone in a room with a bunch of voters, and one of the questions was about Bernie's Democratic Socialist  affiliation, and the person responded with "no, I don't have a problem with that - he sounds like a Democrat to me."

    He sounds like a Democrat to me, too - and I'm guessing to a lot of other people.  Republicans aren't going to vote for him, but I think you're closing your eyes to the reality of Sanders' message and spending too much time reading DK.

    Parent

    He's not (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:29:31 AM EST
    a demon and you are trying to put words in my mouth. What I said is show me some great outpouring in support of socialism for the country. You're actually kind of making my point by putting "demon" and "socialist" in the same sentence.

    Parent
    You have never missed an (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    opportunity to demonize Sanders' Democratic Socialist affiliation, and you refuse to see that Sanders isn't running on a socialist platform, he's running on a Democratic platform - or don't you regard his policy positions and proposals as mirroring Democratic ones?

    You demonize Sanders every time you say, "50% of Americans say they won't vote for a socialist."  

    If you think you're providing analysis, think again.

    If you don't agree with his platform, just say so, tell us why it's wrong for the country, please.  At least admit that if this was Clinton's platform, you'd be over the moon about it, and there'd be no talk of socialism, just good old-fashioned Democratic ideals -  the kind most of us have been hungry to have someone out there advocating.

     

    Parent

    Today is different. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Juanita Moreno on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    Those other Dem candidates didn't have a chance. We weren't behind them. We hadn't done our job of creating and maintaining the People's democracy that our Constitution lays the foundation for.

    There's a movement behind Bernie. It won't stop just because he gets elected. And he's not another Obama. Bernie tells the truth. You get what you voted for, which is someone who will stop the rich from taking over our government and destroying our democracy. If we stand up and help him.

    This movement isn't about electing someone to veto bills. It's about building something outside of mainstream politics, external of the 1% owned media. It will mean creating a shared vision between the left and moderate Americans. It will result in a massive firing of members of Congress who promote the rich over the rest of us.

    Socialism? That's just a word. This movement is a political revolution. Open your eyes, throw away your fear, let's create something that is actually sustainable.

    Or, just vote for the status quo if that feels safer for you...

    Parent

    I hope the momement is going to help elect (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:07:47 PM EST
    Senators and Reps to help Bernie, because he can't do it alone, any more than he has been able to do it in the Senate.

    I'd love to see the change and results you speak of, I am just not optimistic that President Bernie Sanders can make it happen.

    Parent

    Do tell (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:09:19 PM EST
    how many moderates Bernie is going to get when they have a negative opinion of socialism? You can't overcome that negative in a few months. Whether I think socialism is a good thing or not is beside the point. The point is only 36% of Americans have a positive opinion of socialism. Changing ideas about that kind of thing takes a long time.

    People were behind those other candidates. There just weren't enough people behind them much like Bernie doesn't have enough people behind him.

    Parent

    Moderates are not all uneducated Faux News (none / 0) (#140)
    by Juanita Moreno on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    followers. Most of them are smart enough to distinguish between Democratic Socialism vs the Leninist-type socialism with its slaughter of hundreds of millions of people before it collapsed.

    But maybe we need a new word, and it it describes a functional, sustainable system, the Bernie movement can get on board with it. That word would refer to a political system that promotes those who participate and work to the advantage of all, without excessive drain from either the richest at the top, nor from those who can not or will not carry their own weight.

    Any ideas on what this system could be called?

    Parent

    Here's one version of it: flexicurity. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:45:01 PM EST
    From a DK oped:
    Bernie hasn't discussed this feature of Danish political economy yet. If he wants to win, he will.

    Just an idea.  I have a friend in Finland, where one of my grandmothers is from.  He's tells me they have an interesting social contract too.

    As far as I'm concerned, the ownership class can own itself.

    Parent

    There (3.50 / 2) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    are plenty of people who have a negative opinion of socialism who aren't Fox News watchers unless you somehow believe 2/3 of the country has a diet consisting solely of Fox News. No, I'm sorry most people have a negative opinion of socialism due to the fact of years and years of the Cold War and no, people don't know the difference between democratic socialism and socialism. Educating people about the difference is something that cannot be done in a few months.

    You are the Bernie supporter. It's up to you to come up with another word not me.

    Parent

    "You are the Bernie supporter" (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Juanita Moreno on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    I'm a Democrat. You're the one who sounds gleeful about a scary word hurting the guy who might be our Dem candidate in the general.

    If you can't or won't help, don't waste my time telling me to do what I already know I have to do to help my Party.

    Parent

    I'm not gleeful (none / 0) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:21:37 PM EST
    I'm just stating facts and you're the one using the phrase "scary word" but by using that phrase "scary word" you're pretty much conceding the fact that it is a problem.

    So apparently it is up to me to solve Bernie's issues according to you? Frankly I have no idea what word to replace with socialism and it's what Bernie calls himself.

    Parent

    define "personal relationship" (none / 0) (#132)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    Hillary polling better with minorities has more to do with her being the more longstanding  liberal brand name alternative to the GOP gangsters than it does with any meaningful "personal relationships" she has ( with who specifically?)

    Without knowing anything more about them, I'd go with the Brooklyn Jew over the Illinois suburban Goldwater acolyte as being the one with a more substantive understanding of the minority experience in this country..  

    Parent

    "Goldwater acolyte"? (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 03:21:36 PM EST
    jondee: "Without knowing anything more about them, I'd go with the Brooklyn Jew over the Illinois suburban Goldwater acolyte as being the one with a more substantive understanding of the minority experience in this country."

    For Christ's sake, that was over fifty years ago! Her teenaged status as a "Goldwater Girl" in 1964 has as no more relevance to the 2016 election than does Bernie Sanders' application for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War. Both are ancient history.

    Suffice to say that most people's personal worldviews tend to evolve over time, provided they live long enough. I very seriously doubt that you are the same person today that you were prior to age 24. And at this point in your own life, it's highly unlikely that you'd appreciate the less flattering details of your adolescence and early adulthood being dredged up and publicly flung back in your face by others.

    Of course, you are free to support whomsoever you choose for whatever your reasons during the upcoming Democratic primary season. But if you're at all a good progressive Democrat, then please express that support by highlighting your own preferred candidate's attributes, which are admittedly considerable, and forgoing the personal denigration of his Democratic opponent with crude attempts at caricature like "suburban Goldwater acolyte."

    Thank you.

    Parent

    Well (3.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:14:28 PM EST
    for one being Jewish is a problem and being from Brooklyn is another problem and Bernie was part of the "white flight" out of Brooklyn at a time of changing demographics. Goldwater girl was so long ago it's laughable you're even bringing it up. Since you're from NY you know that Hillary represented a pretty diverse electorate.

    You apparently don't realize that Hillary actually goes into minority communities and talks with the voters. Bernie thinks dragging Cornel West around (who called Obama a f-ing n****er) counts as minority "outreach".

    Parent

    That uppity Cornel West really bothers you, eh? (none / 0) (#139)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    you and Larry Summers.

    Parent
    Come on! (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:41:52 PM EST
    Not rational, not even remotely fair. I understand completely where West is coming from. But it's hard to make that jump in the context that West framed it in. It hurts the ears because of certain sensitivities everyone has built. I've always been able to get West though, even when he is on occasion brutally shocking.

    You cannot equate Ga6th's astonished distaste with what West said though with Larry Summer's hatred of West for holding Summer's completely accountable for his horrible irresponsible philosophies, and all of his choices and where he led Harvard and the whole country.

    Parent

    C'mon (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:55:15 PM EST
    you're better than that. There was no reason for Cornel West to use that language and you know it too. He could have made the same point without being so offensive.

    Parent
    West can use whatever language he wants (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:50:41 PM EST
    My opinion is irrelevant.  So is yours.  He doesn't need our approval or disapproval.

    It's past time to free ourselves of the patronization implicit in every approval or disapproval.  Even this post is flawed by that.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    he certainly doesn't need our approval however what he said made him persona non grata in the African American community therefore he's not a good choice for outreach in that community.

    Parent
    You seem to be plugged into a lot of (none / 0) (#192)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 03:04:54 PM EST
    communities.  And "the facts," as you wrote to Juanita Moreno.  Fortunate you.

    Parent
    The job is about more than having ideas I agree (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 03:37:10 AM EST
    with. i dont think any amount of Bernie haranguing people on the meaning of Democratic Socilaism in the next year is going to turn around the electorate to that view.

    A lot of it is communication style - Bernie turns me off with that hot haranguing style even when I agree with him. Communication is at least half the job of the POTUS, be it with his own team, congress, the American people, and the world. I just don't think he is suited to this particular job.

    I don't agree at all with Hillary on the Patriot act or AUMF and I think both votes were craven go along with the majority actions. I don't think either were things she would initiate as POTUS.  I wish I though she would dismantle more of the survelllance state - maybe future debate can go more into that if the moderator isn't firing questions out of a shotgun.

    ymmv obviously !

    Parent

    Check. (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 06:57:32 AM EST
    I don't agree at all with Hillary on the Patriot act or AUMF and I think both votes were craven...

    She is still for the Patriot Act, and regarding the AUMF, judging by her performance in this debate, I see absolutely no reason to believe that she wouldn't kick in with war hysteria once again.

    If you truly believe that her vote for the AUMF was "craven", and cost thousands of innocent lives of American soldiers as well as the lives of countless Iraqis, is that something easy to overlook on the grounds that she looks great and exuded confidence?

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    You're leaving lots of things out, including what her vote was actually about (and how the executive abuses by the Bushies were not in the spirit or the letter of the AUMF), nor the fact that hundreds of other events intervened between the time she cast that vote and when "thousands....being killed".

    But your mind is made up about her. She could cure cancer, eliminate poverty, legalize drugs ("Get high, America!!") and tap dance across America and you wouldn't be happy.

    We get it.

    Parent

    But that's hindsight, and I think what (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:16:31 AM EST
    people are looking for is foresight and real leadership; in the record of the vote, there are no asterisks that denote what the voter was thinking or counting on as a condition of his or her vote.

    I get that she has explained it, but here's the thing: when you put it together with her votes on things like the Patriot Act, and her positions on the NSA and the weakening of American's privacy rights, the total package she presents from that time period, and now, makes her "explanation" about her Iraq war vote suspect.  And it may call her judgment into question, too: I remember thinking at the time, how on earth could she possibly have trusted Bush/Cheney to abide by or adhere to their stated intentions?

    That being said, we can't get a do-over, no matter how much we talk about it and dissect it, it's done, so people are just going to have to weigh the risks - and they are many when you put the GOP into the equation - and act accordingly.

    We have to learn from the mistakes of the past, and the question may be, is there a greater chance that Clinton has learned from it than there is that any Republican running has learned from it?

    Yeah, I hate that that's a "better than the other guy" argument, but what else is there?

    Parent

    There is no doubt in my mind (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:31:46 AM EST
    That Clinton never intended for the Bushies to do with the AUMF what they did. She's just not stupid. She may not be as Liberal as we all would like her to be, but that is a different story.

    The majority of Democrat legislators vote to err on the side of caution when it comes to the Patriot Act and the NSA because one new successful terrorist act can destroy them, and usher in some real crazy bastards taking their seats and running this country.

    The Patriot Act will sadly have to be fought down an inch at a time.

    Parent

    Foresight is available right now Anne (none / 0) (#90)
    by Juanita Moreno on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:43:21 AM EST
    If we are brave enough to step up to the plate and take a big swing:

    http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2015/10/13/201152/00/194#194

    Parent

    "Get high, America!" - great slogan, jb (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:06:35 AM EST


    Parent
    If I thought that her vote alone did all of that (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:46:18 AM EST
    than no, of course I would not forgive it. But the train was leaving the station regardless of her opinion as a new Senator, and she acted like a pol.

    Bush and Cheney were going to get their war even if the entire vote had gone the other way and the AUMF was voted down. I really don't think it made a bit of difference.  

    Parent

    Strongly disagree (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    She was already a national politician with stature at that point.  Her vote helped give them cover and legitimacy.  I am not okay with that one.

    Parent
    So was (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:53:39 AM EST
    Biden and he voted for it. So were a lot of people and frankly I think the buck stops with Bush. The more people obsess about the votes from senators the more they are letting George W. Bush off the hook for what he did. And frankly seeing Obama's behavior over the last 7 years I have no doubts that he would have voted for it had he been in the senate at the time.

    Parent
    I've got no (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    love lost for Biden or any of the rest of them on that one.  Obama wasn't in the senate, so frankly - irrelevant. Yes, the buck stops with Bush.  But the buck for Hillary's vote stops with Hillary.

    Parent
    My issue (3.50 / 2) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:17:30 AM EST
    is the magical thinking that somehow the junior senator from NY could have completely stopped the Iraq War from happening with her vote. Bernie voted against it so why couldn't he stop it is around the same line of thinking.

    Parent
    My issue is with people who rest on (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:48:29 AM EST
    the argument that "it wouldn't have made a difference, so what does it matter?"

    I take issue with the argument that "almost everybody else voted for it," too; accountability cannot be avoided by blending in with the crowd.

    And no, that Bernie voted against it is not the same kind of thinking; maybe you'd want to make the argument that he had the luxury of voting against it because there was no way it wasn't going to pass regardless, but I still think that voting against it was a vote of principle, not political calculation.

    My issue is with people who accuse others of magical thinking even as they are engaging in it themselves.

    Parent

    Just sayin' (2.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:52:46 AM EST
    if you think Hillary could have stopped it with her vote and you are holding her to that standard shouldn't you have the same standard for Bernie being able to stop it?

    Personally I hold George W. Bush accountable for Iraq.

    Parent

    But I'm not holding her to that standard, (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:58:46 AM EST
    and I don't think she could have stopped it with her vote - why do you keep trying to say that is my standard and that is what I think?

    The only thing I can figure is that it's the only way you can get to the place where you can shrug your shoulders and say it didn't matter.

    I'm not holding Hillary accountable for the war in Iraq; she didn't lie and manipulate the intelligence.  She didn't fall asleep on the job and put us in a position where we were able to be attacked.  She didn't send Colin Powell to the UN to lie his ass off.  

    I'm fully aware of who engineered the war, Georgia, and I know it wasn't Hillary Clinton, so please refrain from making comments that suggest that I'm holding her accountable for the war.

    She's accountable for her vote, Georgia - they all are.  I've read the speech she gave in support of her yes vote - read it again, and tell me you don't wince when you read things like this:

    In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

    It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

    [...]

    President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

    [...]

    o it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

    She trusted Bush to go to war as a last resort. Where did that trust come from, because as I and many others were following all of this, WE didn't trust Bush to keep us out of war - WE knew that's where all of this was heading, so how did she not know that?

    I had hoped fewer people would vote yes on the resolution, that more Democrats would stand up instead of do the safe, "patriotic" thing and meekly go off with the rest of the herd.

    I hope her judgment has improved, but her unqualified support for things like the Patriot Act leaves me wondering.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:30:53 AM EST
    You are completely ignoring the context of time and space, so, no it isn't necessarily "Everyone else is doing it too," but "Let's look at this through the junior senator from New York's eyes in 2002."

    You supported Jill Stein.  Pray tell us what were her hinafides rw:foreign policy that attracted you so?  Or was it that "She isn't one of those guys?"

    I always read you supported her candidacy, but I don't remember detailed accounts of why.  Is that the type of candidate you are looking for, and if so, how effective do you think that person woukd be in getting this done?


    Parent

    Never understood (none / 0) (#195)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 03:40:07 PM EST
    how people could not understand how a Senator from NY representing large swaths of upstate NY'ers as well as city dwellers could not understand how as a pol she had to support the AUMF.

    The city and state she represents was attacked for crissakes.  Or should she declare her political career dead not long after it was started?

    Parent

    I Don't Think Anyone... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:50:34 AM EST
    ...believes that, to me at least, it's more about not admitting their mistake in hindsight and dealing with it rather than acting like Jeb in if they had a over...

    Also, in regards to the Middle East, I think it's a valid question to know if intelligence is going to have a little more review before we go in guns-a-blazin' this time.

    Own up to the error and tell us why that won't happen if you are president.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:53:44 AM EST
    she did own up to the Iraq vote.

    Parent
    If By Owning Up... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:38:27 AM EST
    ...you mean the deflection to the Obama debates and him selecting her as SoS, otherwise she did not.

    Granted, that was really impressive, but I would hardly call that owning up to to anything.  

    Same with Patriot Act, she blamed the admin for the interpretation, but I never got the feeling she wouldn't do it again.  If I remember right, her answer started with 'Something had to be done..."

    Parent

    I'm not (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    talking about the debate last night. She has gone over this issue a number of times already in the past.

    Parent
    My Mistake... (none / 0) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    ...thought this was a post debate thread.

    But any links would be helpful in that I have never heard/read her owning up to it.  I know it sounds like snark, but it isn't.  

    You are making a claim and I would like to see the evidence.

    Parent

    Scott, Mrs. Clinton discussed in detail ... (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 04:17:38 PM EST
    ScottW714: "But any links would be helpful in that I have never heard/read her owning up to it. I know it sounds like snark, but it isn't. You are making a claim and I would like to see the evidence."

    ... both her affirmative vote on the 2002 Iraq AUMF, and her later deep regret for that vote, in her political memoir Hard Choices (Simon & Schuster, June 2014, pp. 124-127), admitting forthrightly that "I still got it wrong. Plain and simple":

    "My lack of confidence in the Bush administration went back to the fall of 2002, when it was boasting of ironclad intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. After weighing the evidence and seeking as many opinions as I could inside and outside our government, Democrats and Republicans alike, I voted to authorize military action in Iraq if the diplomatic efforts, meaning the U.N. weapons inspections, failed.

    "I came to deeply regret giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt on that vote. He later asserted that the resolution gave him the sole authority to decide when the clock had run out on weapons inspections. On March 20, 2003, he decided that it had, and he launched the war, with the U.N. weapons inspectors pleading for just a few more weeks to finish the job. Over the years that followed, many Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake [became] more painful.

    [...]

    "Wherever I traveled, I heard from people who were dead set against the war and, as a result, personally disappointed in me. Many had been opposed from the start; others had turned against it over time. Hardest of all were the anguished military families who wanted their loved ones to come home, veterans worried about their buddies still serving tours in Iraq, and Americans of all walks of life who were heartbroken by the losses of our young men and women. They were also frustrated by a war that had weakened our country's standing in the world, was not being paid for, and set back our strategic interests in the region.

    "While many were never going to look past my 2002 vote no matter what I did or said, I should have stated my regret sooner in the plainest, most direct language possible. I'd gone most of the way there by saying I regretted the way President Bush used his authority and by saying that if we knew then what we later learned, there wouldn't have been a vote. But I held out against using the word mistake. It wasn't because of political expediency. After all, primary voters and the press were clamoring for me to say that word. When I voted to authorize force in 2002, I said that it was 'probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make.' I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

    "In our political culture, saying you made a mistake is often taken as weakness when in fact it can be a sign of strength and growth for people and nations. That's another lesson I've learned personally and experienced as Secretary of State." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Aloha.

    Parent

    So did 58% (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:58:28 AM EST
    Of the Democratic Senators, including the other Senator from the state of NY (you know, where the majority of people died on 9/11) - Chuck Schumer.  So did the current SoS and 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry.  So did the 2004 Democratic VP nominee, John Edwards. And as you said, so did the current VP - to a president who had people believing that he himself voted against it.

    Parent
    What's your point? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:07:28 AM EST
    None of that makes it okay.

    I'm extremely well aware of what happened in NY that day.  Which had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.  I don't buy the drum beat to war - anyone with a brain should've seen it for what it was.  And someone with Hillary's stature could've stood up and said "not this one" and it may not have changed the way that one played out but it would have mattered.

    Hillary is my candidate in this race, I don't expect perfection from politicians - none of that makes that vote any better.

    Again, no love here for Biden or Kerry or Chuck Schumer.  They all cr@pped the bed on that one.

    Parent

    I have been a little stumped (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:11:13 AM EST
    By some Dem bloggers who dislike Hillary and want Biden to run. In the in fighting over Afghanistan Biden was over the top pro drone. He was pro drone with no intel on the ground. He gave not one $hit about collateral damage, just light em up.

    The Bush administration left the Obama administration with no real intelligence on Afghanistan. Most of the intel they had was provided by "contractors" and was made up action reports, lies, and fairytales all for easy free-flowing paychecks. I never thought Obama had a choice on Afghanistan. He had to go in and develop real relationships and gather real intel or we were forever crippled by what we didn't know and no intel relationships.

    You know who was drawing all those Afghanistan faux intel gathering paychecks? The guys that mostly made up the organization that swift boated Kerry.

    But if Joe Biden had had his way we would have just droned everyone on the Af/Pak border. That was his solution and he fought hard for it. And thankfully lost.

    So Biden...more hawkish than Hillary could ever hope to be. Made all the same Conservative leaning WOT votes that Hillary did. He's the answer?

    Parent

    The only (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:26:52 AM EST
    thing I can figure with those people is they have a woman as leader issue kind of thing going on. I mean if they think Hillary is too liberal then it makes sense but most of their stuff is much like you say. Dinging Hillary for IWR vote yet letting Biden off the hook for the same vote.

    Parent
    I wish (none / 0) (#174)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    those folks at the debate had spent some time excoriating Bush for his lies.

    They did say that the decision was one of the worst in history, but I think they let Bush off lightly.

    He deliberately lied to us.
    He ignored any information that would have given the lie to his claims about WMD.

    Why in the world can't a Democrat come out and call him the liar that he was and is? In plain language.

    No.

    We have to "thank him for his service".

    Parent

    It can be not ok and also mostly irrelevent (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    to events that played out.

    I don't like that she voted for it. I don't know what 'forgiveness' looks like in politics. Does it mean I never vote for her? Not to me.
     

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#83)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:30:17 AM EST
    Although irrelevant... I don't think it would have changed the course of events.  But I'm not sure I'd call it irrelevant.

    Other than that I agree with you.

    Parent

    I did change it to 'mostly irrelevent' (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:49:03 AM EST
    based on what you said about giving Bush cover...that is very true and was relevant to how things played out with making it look more unified.Ugh, now I'm mad about it all over again. Too soon!

    Parent
    Did you (2.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:34:51 AM EST
    Vehemently oppose John Kerry in 2004 for his vote?  Did you vehemently opposed him for SoS?  For that matter, how about since he was your Senator?

    Parent
    I don't vehemently oppose (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    Clinton.

    So no.

    I strongly dislike John Kerry and have voted against him every time there was a primary challenger.  I'll take Hillary over Kerry any day of the week. I don't mind him as SOS and I think Obama did us a favor getting him out of the senate.  But yes, I was extremely p*ssed at Kerry for that vote.

    Parent

    You and your straw men (none / 0) (#141)
    by sj on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:37:47 PM EST
    Always putting words and attitudes in the mouths of others so that you can valiantly fight them with your little straw sword.
    Did you (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:34:51 AM MDT

    Vehemently oppose John Kerry in 2004 for his vote?  Did you vehemently opposed him for SoS?

    You need to get help for your anger issues.

    Parent
    Ha ha (none / 0) (#166)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:53:41 PM EST
     2 from sj.  Again

    How pedestrian.  And predictable.  Goodness knows she doesn't like facts.

    Keep it comin' - means I'm on the right track.

    Oh, and I'll say it for you - "Oy."

    Indeed.

    Parent

    She (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    was a junior freshmen senator with a famous name, perhaps with a little more leverage then most in that position warranted but really not powerful enough to give cover to anyone.

    I am amazed that some people are willing to excuse Bernie for voting against gun control because he came from a "rural state" yet cannot give Hillary even a little break for being from a State that was "attacked" on 9/11

    This endless talk of a vote from 13 years ago, that was endlessly debated 8 years ago and already apologized for is getting into dead equine territory now.

     

    Parent

    For me, the "endless talk... (none / 0) (#160)
    by sj on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    ...of a vote from 13 years ago" has less to do with her thinking 13 years ago, and more to do with how she views it now.

    Hillary has many gifts. One of the gifts lacking appears to be the ability to say "I was wrong".

    Parent

    I would suggest that you ... (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    sj: "Hillary has many gifts. One of the gifts lacking appears to be the ability to say 'I was wrong'."

    ... read her 2014 book Hard Choices, or at least read the relevant quotes from pages 124-127 which I cited above:

    "I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    That depends on what your definition of was, was (none / 0) (#177)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:09:15 PM EST


    Parent
    It's easy (none / 0) (#123)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:53:47 AM EST
    to say that Bush and Cheney were going to get their war anyway, so what difference would a Clinton "no" vote have meant.

    But I remember those days well.

    Country after country was dropping out of the "coalition" because of the ever increasing doubts about the bogus information being dished out by Bush and the crazed media.

    I remember calling her Senate office and calling upon her to vote against that authorization.

    People were in the streets protesting.
    People were looking for leadership.
    They got none from Clinton.

    She was a high profile person.
    A powerful voice.
    She could have made a difference.
    She could have tried to make a difference.

    But, she "acted like a pol".

    Maybe, as you postulate, Bush and Cheney would have prevailed, but she would have preserved a modicum of integrity, and she could have become a symbol of speaking truth to power, instead of a symbol of whatever it is that she is.

    Parent

    Well (3.50 / 4) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:02:25 PM EST
    why wasn't Bernie able to stop it? He had the same amount of power Hillary had.

    Parent
    Oy (none / 0) (#144)
    by sj on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:02:25 AM MDT

    why wasn't Bernie able to stop it? He had the same amount of power Hillary had.

    Once again this is not "stopping it". This is about a vote. Her vote and her judgment -- then and now. Not Bernie's. Although I understand perfectly why you would want to change the conversation. Your tactics seem craven to me. YMMV

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    it was put forth that she was so powerful she could have singlehandedly stopped the Iraq War. That's my beef. However it was 13 years ago and whatever. It's really more or less beating a dead horse IMO.

    Parent
    Seriously... (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    ...I am going to need this sourced:
    ...she was so powerful she could have singlehandedly stopped the Iraq War

    Not actually because it's an absurd claim and you know it.  Please stop insisting anyone is claiming that HRC could have stopped the invasion of Iraq.

    Parent

    It's a couple comments above (2.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    It's always that if she had voted against it, it would have made some HUUUGGEE difference and implying that she's solely responsible for the Iraq War.

    Parent
    Stop Already... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:08:38 PM EST
    ...no one is making that claim, except you.

    Parent
    Here: (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:13:18 PM EST
    She was a high profile person.
    A powerful voice.
    She could have made a difference.

    It seems to me that it's being said that somehow she was more powerful than anybody else in the senate and voting against it would have made "a difference". I beg to differ. It would have been just another vote against it just like Bernie's was at the time.

    Parent

    That is in Now Way... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:10:52 PM EST
    ...saying:
    ...she was so powerful she could have singlehandedly stopped the Iraq War

    This is dumb as I like HRC, but reading something into a statement that does not exist isn't helping anyone.

    For me, I can't find she owned up to it, which several people keep telling me exists, but it doesn't matter in that she isn't campaigning on peace in the Middle East, nor were any of those votes legitimate in that they were voting on bogus claims and intelligence.  There is no one stating she did not vote in a way that she believed was other than the right vote at the time.

    I know what she is bringing to the table, and I don't like all of it, but I am not going hold her to the flame over a vote that we all know was mired with lies, patriotism, and mushroom clouds.  The more important question is would her constituents have votes yes, and IMO without a doubt they would have.  Bush not only deceived Congress, he deceived a lot of nations.  He might have been fumbling, mumbling idiot, but he sure convinced a lot of people beyond HRC that Hussein needed to go and that it would be a cakewalk.

    This is firmly on Bush & Co.  Democrats should not be getting blamed for not seeing through their deception and bogus intelligence, that is absurd.  When anyone votes they have to believe that the basic facts are not in question, that the President and his cronies would not lie us into a war.  Now we know that could, and did, happen.

    So we can stop putting words down that one one said, stop acting like last night wasn't a huge victory for all democrats and that right now we are damn lucky not to have dimwits as choices.  There is not one candidate on that stage that isn't a hundred times better than any clown car contestant.

    Parent

    point taken (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:27:51 PM EST
    Perhaps the comments about her and this vote were so over the top I went there myself.

    It's time to look forward not backward.

    Parent

    Why don't you just read the words (none / 0) (#187)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:28:58 PM EST
    that are there and stop trying to read more into them than the writer intended?

    Parent
    Do you think (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:32:39 PM EST
    it would have made a difference?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#194)
    by sj on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 03:36:54 PM EST
    Do you think (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:32:39 PM MDT

    it would have made a difference?



    Parent
    And this is what I was referring to (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:17:10 PM EST
    from lentinel at #20:

    If you truly believe that her vote for the AUMF was "craven", and cost thousands of innocent lives of American soldiers as well as the lives of countless Iraqis, is that something easy to overlook on the grounds that she looks great and exuded confidence?

    Seems to me to be saying that  HRC's vote was what cost thousands of innocent lives of American soldiers as well as the lives of countless Iraqis,

    We are saying it took a heck of a lot more than HRC to cause that to happen, and a 'no' vote and all of her influence at the time would not have prevented it.

    Parent

    Wish I could give you +100 (none / 0) (#159)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:22:34 PM EST


    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#171)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    no way to know whether a "no" vote from Clinton would have prevented the war.

    I had reason to believe that she, one of the most famous figures on the planet - even then - could have had an influence.

    There were those who were vocal against going to war, including thousands who took to the streets.
    She could have allied herself with them - with us - instead of the madmen in DC.

    But it is her tragedy, imo.
    She'll have to live with it.

    Parent

    Several comments above (none / 0) (#178)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:09:23 PM EST
    a comparison was suggested about rightness or wrongness of a vote in terms of Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote back then and Bernie Sanders' record on guns.  An interesting comparison; and, to the extent that either or both may be regarded as forgivable error, a provocative comparison.

    Politics & "forgiveness" has always been a challenging subject.  What constitutes a mea culpa or a penance? Does the public need an obeisance in all situations of error by a politician ... or only when one's predisposition aligns or not with said politician?

    Parent

    It (none / 0) (#169)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:56:27 PM EST
    would have made a huge difference if Clinton had voiced her opposition.

    The war may have gone ahead anyway.
    Bush and Cheney were feverish.

    But the voiceless would have had an important voice.
    She was a major name. A player.
    Nobody knew Sanders even though he was eloquent in his opposition.

    People looked to Clinton for leadership.
    I know I did.
    And she gave us nothing.

    That was her moment, and she folded.

    Parent

    Yea I think that's what was so hard (5.00 / 7) (#181)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:16:58 PM EST
    For those of us who were in loud opposition at the time, it felt like our own side abandoned us, and it took a lot of air out of the anti-war movement.

    It was really discouraging, because I for one had really high hopes for her at the time.  I never felt abandoned by Biden or Kerry - those were never my people.  Clinton was, and so it was extra disappointing.

    There's something to the saying that democrats fall in love and republicans fall in line, and I think that's part of what makes the betrayals so hard.

    As for the September 11th comments... Those planes flew out of my airport, my mom was in DC that day and couldn't come home, the girl sitting next to me in class - her sister worked in the towers, my class was about to turn 18 en masse and the drumbeat for war was loud.  I don't need anyone to tell me what that moment meant.  But it was clear as daylight to me at the time that Iraq was a bull$hit made-up boogeyman that had nothing to do with it.

    And we're still paying the price every day.

    But... it's time to look forward.  And I'm not willing to risk a president Trump.

    Parent

    I agree with (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:22:46 PM EST
    you...

    The thing is that her performance in the debate last night - particularly where she was regarding Snowden, revealed to me (in my opinion) that she is the same person who went along with the right-wing hysteria thirteen years ago.

    That is the tragedy.

    I don't look forward to a Trump presidency...
    But I would look forward to a Clinton presidency with major nervous uncertainty.

    I would like to have the option of voting for someone whose presidency I actually would look forward to.

    But it seems extremely unlikely that that will come to pass.

    Parent

    I actually (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    more or less agree with her about Snowden.

    But I understand the sentiment.

    Parent

    Still paying! Every day! (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:57:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    I disagree. I think that it would have had the same result as Bernie's or Paul Wellstone or anybody else's vote against the war.

    Parent
    To your point, Congress was full of senators (none / 0) (#172)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    all looking at each other with the same doubts in their minds.  Nobody but a few marginalized people spoke against the madness.

    History is filled with b/s moments like that.  So are the songs of the Bob Dylans.  Nothing changes.

    Parent

    My sense is that "clueless" Bernie (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 11:32:30 PM EST
    actually has principals whereas Hillary checks with all her pollsters to figure which principals are in fashion this week: does the mob want an Iraq invasion; is the middle class now looking askance at Free Trade..etc etc

    Clinton's (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 06:30:48 AM EST
    vigorous endorsement of the unpatriotic unAmerican "Patriot Act" is enough to make me totally disinterested in her candidacy.

    Her vindictive comments about Snowden are in line with the worst of the Republicans.

    Sanders not only has principles, but, in my opinion, he articulates them clearly.

    I get the sense that many "leftists" are not really interested in leftist positions. They are interested in electing a democrat. Any democrat. (including BIden). And they think Clinton is electable. So they are willing to overlook "tells" from Clinton that make me, a leftist, queasy.

    They willingly did so with Obama - and here we are at war all over the place, income inequality worse than ever, and little or nothing done to help people in the inner cities.

    Parent

    True... (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:22:25 AM EST
    ...but considering that any politician should be on the side of voter consensus, to me at least, it's not a big deal.

    I'd rather have a robot that goes by what the voters want, than a principled politician who may go against his constituents out of principle.

    That being said, HRC is certainly not on the side of voters in regards to marijuana, Snowden, the Middle East, and the Patriot Act.  So she is not the poll fed schuckster everyone is implying she is, which to me is not good.  Her 'principle' points, to me, are in direct conflict with most democrats.

    Parent

    compared to what was being said (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:25:08 AM EST
    8 years ago about marijuana - I'll take it.

    Snowden... that's a tough one, but I'm not sure she's against opinion on that - has anyone even polled it?

    The Patriot Act is a huge disappointment.

    But - her principle points include a lot more than just that.  She's solid on the economy and she's solid on healthcare and she has been for a really long time on both of those issues.

    Parent

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:41:12 AM EST
    ...she is very solid on economic and social ideals, well except marijuana, and considering the whacking Bill took on whether he inhaled, it's disappointing to say the least.  She doesn't know, give me a break.  

    To me, it's very indicative of her view on the whole fiasco war on drugs.  Which was very disappointing that Copper only focused on the marijuana rather than the actual problems, like the war, heroin, prescriptions, and everything else.

    On foreign policy, she is not.

    Parent

    Actually, (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:42:12 AM EST
    A slim majority of Americans favor legalizing it (51%) - which is actually a bit down from last year and earlier this year.  More voters favor her method of decriminalizing and letting it play out in the states.

    Parent
    What I Did Not Like... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:04:15 AM EST
    ...is her take is the same as yours, we need more information.  

    I mean seriously, it's only been around for thousands of years, yet we need more research while Big Pharma is kicking out far more dangerous drugs with little testing ?

    It's not a valid position to take IMO.  If she is against she should have the courage to say so, but she is trying to ride the line of the unknown, when it's probably one of the most widely used drugs in all of human history.  For Christ sake, her husband, who was one of the greatest Presidents ever, used it, ditto for the current Prez.

    The only unknown is her position, which leads me to believe it's not a good one, at this point.

    Parent

    We do need more research (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:09:53 AM EST
    There been very little research done on mj, especially the long term effects, bith physical and societal, while things like alcohol have been studied to death.

    The mj that's available today is nothing like what the hippies smoked in the 60's, or what you may have smoked in high school.

    What's wrong with saying, "Let's see how this plays out in the states?". This isn't a cobstiturional issue, like gay marriage and equal protection we're talking about .

    Parent

    No, But... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:24:57 AM EST
    ...it's an issue at this point politicians should have an opinion about.

    I didn't her mention getting it off schedule 1 so it could be studied, even that would, at the very least, show she has given it some thought and understands the issue.

    Waiting for studies that cannot be done is not a viable position IMO.

    Parent

    I found (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:38:07 AM EST
    Bernie's support for MJ legalization a bit less then full throated.  
    I suspect I would vote yes[on Nevada referendum].

    Not exactly hell yeah personal freedom! His basic point was to stop incarcerating people for it,  which is pretty much what Hillary said
    Therefore, we need more states, cities, and the federal government to begin to address this so that we don't have this terrible result that Senator Sanders was talking about where we have a huge population in our prisons for nonviolent, low-level offenses that are primarily due to marijuana.
    In her own, aggravating waffley wayof course.

    I am surprised that no one mentioned removing the ridiculous class one designation on the federal level which would be a big step in the right direction.


    Parent

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    how you can say that 51% believe in legalization but that "more" favor decriminalization (maybe many?).

    Unless there is some overlap there, the math doesn't add up.

    Parent

    You do understand the difference (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:13:25 AM EST
    Between decriminalization and legalization, right?

    Yes, 51% is a majority, but that number is fluid, since the number of those who support legalization has slipped some, and there is a bare majority who want full legalization.

    No matter how you want to slice it, there isn't an overwhelming seath of people, at least for now, who want marijuana to be a legally sold and consumed product.

    Parent

    If more than half of people (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:20:48 AM EST
    believe in full legalization, even if it's only 51% - than more than that do not believe in "only" decriminalization.

    I know it's not an overwhelming sea of people.  And I actually don't have an issue with Hillary's position on the matter, because I think this is going the way of gay marriage, where it starts with a trickle and ends with a flood.  Only instead of being about constitutional rights, it will be about leaving tax dollars on the table.

    And similar to alcohol, if some places choose to remain "dry", so be it.

    Parent

    That whole "number is fluid thing" (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:28:28 AM EST
    Since 6 months ago, 58% supported legalization, now only 51% support it, doesn't that tell you that people still aren't really sure and want more information?  

    Maybe in 6 months, 70% will support legalization or maybe 35% will.

    (And also maybe people don't understand the difference between decriminalization zation and legalization)

    Parent

    It's not that fluid (none / 0) (#98)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:55:37 AM EST
    There have been some spikes and dips.  But the long term trend is clearly in the direction of legalization.  Also, support is highly polarized, in many places it is clearly pro, and in other places it is clearly not.  Which is why I think the state by state route makes sense.  This isn't gay marriage - it's not a constitutional right.  The drug war is a huge problem, but we don't throw masses in jail for alcohol even if they live in a dry county, so I don't see a problem going that route with pot (decriminalization federally, leave the rest up to the states).  If some places don't want to sell it, fine.  They are free to not do that.

    Parent
    Not a Constitutional Right? (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:08:38 AM EST
    Depends on your interpretation of the 1st, 4th, 8th & 10th Amendments I guess, I'd say it most certainly is a constitutional right, by my liberal interpretation.  It's a religious practice (1st), an effect that is unreasonably seized (4th), cruelly and unusually punished (8th), and a power not delegated to the federal government and hence reserved for the people (10th).

    And perhaps more importantly, an inalienable right endowed by our creator that no government has the right to infringe upon.  Commerce Clause has been misinterpreted and stretched beyond the wildest dreams of the founders, imho.

    Parent

    And, his gun record? (none / 0) (#180)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:16:07 PM EST
    Is that a pander to his rural state OR is it principle?  Could it be that pander or principle and change or politics comes down to the eye-of-the-beholder? Are we talking about Demosthenes?

    I imagine that the right and far-right have discussions (and even find themselves unable to govern, perhaps) about elusive purity all the time?

    Parent

    Larry Sabato said on CNN this morning (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 08:46:53 AM EST
    That criticizing Webb and Chafee at this point is the equivalent of cyber bullying and he just won't do it.

    On a stage with ten candidates (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:11:28 AM EST
    You need to grab attention with soundbite lines. In a field of five you need to be substantive.

    Webb and Chafee took neither approach. Indeed, Webb's whining took a little of the edge off the angriness that Sanders projects making Sanders look more presidential than Webb (not an easy task). Chafee served no purpose for any of the candidates. He came off as woefully unprepared, giving granite a bad name.

    Parent

    Giving granite a bad name :) (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:15:45 AM EST


    Parent
    It's being reported this morning (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:25:46 AM EST
    That Bernie flubbed the "damn email" - this is supposed coming from his own people - that in rehearsals it was intended as an attack on Hillary along the lines of because you did this we are not able to talk about real issues.  

    Some what supported by the fact that they had a fundraising mail set up to go on the subject that went out while the debate was still happening.  Which still btw made over a million dollars for him with >40 dollar contributions bring the average.  

    If that true it's pretty funny all around.

    Parent

    ha - that is really funny (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:42:04 AM EST
    I think especially in the context of the recent exposure of the Gowdy committee as a political witch hunt, Bernie got a lot more approval for seeming to support Hillary than attacking her. He should be happy it played out the way it did, as a unity moment.

    Parent
    Oh My Gosh...that was it (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:43:51 AM EST
    When he said that, his posture was in attack, I noticed that. But because he's always a little surly we weren't sure how we were supposed to apply his surliness :) Very funny :)

    That wasn't an attack that really serves the greater good. It would have been dumb for Sanders to press that, and he listened to his instincts and didn't do it. The audience, interested in the greater good, reformed his attack into something that distinguished both Clinton and Sanders. Incredible

    Parent

    Regardless... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:52:38 AM EST
    ...Sanders gets huge props in my book for stating something that needed to be said and it also shutdown that topic pretty quickly.

    If some D's are unhappy that Bernie didn't act like an R on that subject, they can suck it IMO.  I am guessing the press would rather keep it alive that put in the ground, so they are going to find people to keep the mem alive, regardless.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:36:34 AM EST
    doubt that he was supposed to say simply because it makes sense in a political debate. However he probably said what he said because it's his default answer every time the press asks him about those "damn" emails. It definitely worked for the crowd probably better than what he was supposed to say anyway.

    Parent
    I personally think the email issue is big (none / 0) (#115)
    by Juanita Moreno on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:40:48 AM EST
    If a powerful Secretary of State is able to hide communications from the public, we have huge accountability and transparency problems.

    A SoS could, for instance, promote fracking (or any other nefarious business) in foreign nations, elevate cooperative officials that gain approval in those foreign nations, and receive massive donations to a personal foundation in return from the owners of said nefarious business.

    If such a triangle of unethical exchanges existed, phone records could be subpoenaed and FOIL requests for emails or congressional investigations could expose it. Even emails that have been deleted will show a record of having hit a government email server, and may even be backed up in their entirety. Face to face meetings between a SoS and business leaders wouldn't work either, since the State Dept would have record of those meetings.

    If a SoS were to engage in that sort of activity, or any other unethical arrangement, a private email server is the solution for hiding communications. In fact, one could remove all incriminating communications, backup the remaining non-incriminating mix of official and personal emails, wipe the server so no implicating emails would ever be recovered, then restore the safe emails from backup and delete the personal ones, with a partial wipe of the server so the FBI would "recover" a safe set of emails.

    If even I could think of doing that (a regular American with a little technical expertise), I'm guessing that the billionaires who own our government could think of it. After all, there are trillions of dollars at stake over the next eight years, what with global environmental destruction and endless war profiteering. And it appears from the last eight years that their game plan is to buy Democrats because us lefties are less likely to be up in arms when our Dem leaders start wars, refuse to put the banksters in jail, and promote the billionaire class over the rest of us.

    That said, it does not help our Party if one of our candidates beats the Republican's email drum. Good for Bernie for telling the media to shut up about the email scandal. If what I've just proposed above has actually happened, we'll never find the truth, nor will the FBI. If Bernie wins the Dem nomination, he'll need to pull in Independents and moderate Republicans. Reminding them in our debate the Democrats cheat doesn't promote him as a Dem in the general.

    Parent

    Welcome to your opinion (none / 0) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:08:35 PM EST
    Fortunately it's not widely shared outside the Republican Party and the fringes of Bernieworld.

    Parent
    Serendipity. Take it when you can get it. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:06:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Hillary has a RECORD (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:12:13 AM EST
    Voted YES on Iraq (murderously stupid error which she won't admit as such, nor will any others who voted for it, so she's run of the mill there).

    Libya (not Benghazi, but the actual bloodbath that is Libya) is on her soul, she was a hawk.

    Same with Syria, she wanted Assad gone, was a hawk. That holocaust is on her also.

    Just about as financially corrupted as Obama, she hasn't called for any real reform of Wall Street, AND she pushed the inhumane, anti-worker, corporations-as-sovereign-nations HORSESH*T that is TPP until...she stuck her finger up and realized, uh oh, I better pretend to oppose it. Pfft. Cowardly, small move that reveals a wildly co-dependent political personality. Again, run of the mill to the nth degree.

    We are making the same dimwitted, inexcusable, personality-worshiping mistakes that were made with Obama. Congratulations to us all, myself included, since she'll probably be ceded the nomination and I'll HAVE to vote for her with my nose pinched.

    What is wrong with us? You can knock Sanders all you want, you won't catch me playing personality politics with him, but Hillary's RECORD is not good. At all. In any way.

    Nor is Bill's in retrospect (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:13:47 AM EST
    They set the Democratic Party on its current 21st Century corporate/military industrial complex c*cksucking spree. Eff them.

    Parent
    Clinton and O'Malley on Snowden (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:32:03 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton:
    "...He stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don't think he should be brought home without facing the music."

    Martin O'Malley:

    "Snowden put a lot of Americans lives at risk. Snowden broke the law. Whistleblowers do not run to Russia and try to get protection from Putin."

    Ms. Clinton: Be specific.
    Into whose "wrong" hands did this information about the rampant spying and evesdropping did this information fall?
    The British? The French? The Israelis? Or even worse - The American people?

    Does she realize that Snowden, if convicted for treason as is entirely possible in this nuthouse faces the death penalty? That's what she calls, "facing the music". Nice metaphor for lethal injection.

    Mr. O'Malley:
    How, specifically did the revelations by Mr. Snowden about what the NSA was doing to the American people put anyones life at risk? Be specific.

    Who was harmed by this information being made available to the American people except government agencies who were breaking or bending the law to suit a paranoid agenda?

    And does Mr. O'Malley recollect that Snowden did not "try to get protection from Putin"?

    He was trying to get to South America - and the US kept preventing him from flying there.

    So he accepted the offer of asylum from Russia - rather than being transported back to a country that was salivating to try him as a traitor and fry his arse.

    Both of them sounded like the worst of the Republicans.

    "Progressive".
    It is to laugh.

    They can run for whatever they want, but include me out.

    Cooper Failed... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:44:11 AM EST
    ...when the answers revolved around whistle-blowers in not pointing out what happened to past whistle-blowers who tried to use the legal channels.

    To em if you are going to ask the question, know the pertinent facts so we don't get stock answers.

    Also Assange, who has been holed up in an embassy for 3 years because he fears being taken to America and tried for releasing docs that include HRC as SoS.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by FlJoe on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    SANDERS: He did -- he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that.
    no one except Chaffe was willing to give Snowden a break.

    That being said I was disappointed in Hillary's continued support of the patriot act.

    Parent

    Sanders (none / 0) (#131)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:07:17 PM EST
    added that Snowden had, "played a very important role in educating the American people".

    That differentiates him from those other two who spoke only in terms of the "harm" they claim he caused.

    Sanders sounded compassionate.
    Those other two sounded like hanging judges speaking to the rabble.

    Parent

    I think all of them (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:14:56 PM EST
    were terrible on the Snowden question,  Senator Sanders was in clean-up hitter position, and seemed as if he needed to agree with the first hitters, but hesitated and  faltered.   He prefaced his answer with he committed a crime and needed to pay a penalty.  No. to all of them.  Snowden did not commit a crime--he has been charged with a crime.

     The government filed a criminal comp[aint. (l) theft of government property, (2) communication of national information, (3) willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person.

     The second two are brought under the antique and relic aimed at dissent in WWI, the  1917 Espionage Act. No mention was made of Snowden being able to use a whistle-blower defense, which may not be possible under the Espionage Act.

     And, Snowden's revelations did a major public service, letting the American people know of the extent of NSA reviews, collecting data, not just metadata, and the slippery, template warrants, if or when warranted were even obtained.

     And, Snowden got results: USA Freedom Act, but no credit given--just happenstance. We were going to do it anyway.  

    Parent

    Gotta (none / 0) (#164)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    agree with you.

    Parent
    Is it safe to state Snowden (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 04:10:23 PM EST
    did not obtain any emails from Hillary Clinton's private servers?

    Parent
    Even the Guardian and WaPo (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    Wouldn't print all the documents Snowden turned over to them - they only posted a few, because even they thought the information shouldn't be made public. Snowden himself has said that what he gave to the NYT was not adequately redacted of classified material and called it a "f@ck up".

    You left out the part where HRC said he could have been a whistleblower and had all the protections of a whistleblower and he chose not to do that

    Even Bernie Sanders said last night  Snowden should face trial and some punishment. Why are you not pilloring him?

    Parent

    Sander, (none / 0) (#129)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:01:42 PM EST
    unlike the others, acknowledged that, Snowden had "played a very important role in educating the American people".

    That is indeed important. To me, at least.

    And those "progressives" HRC and O'M should have said so instead of beating the righteous drum of retribution.

    Parent

    And Snowdem himsrkf (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:55:01 PM EST
    Said he gave improper information away.

    In other words, he "f@cked up".

    Parent

    My thoughts. (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:50:42 PM EST
    Context: to nominate a Democratic candidate, not in the abstract, but one to defeat the Republican candidate.  Any one of them, since any one of them will be a candidate of a runaway political party of fanatics and extremists---and any candidate will be every bit as extremist and fanatical, in his/her own way. The danger of a Republican president, senate and house can't be under-stated or under-appreciated.

    Mrs. Clinton was the winner of the debate in style, poise, substance, and likability. In so doing (and with her experiences) she demonstrated the best prospects to defeat any Republican. While on the national stage for years, made the effort to re-/introduce herself, including as a woman, mother, grandmother.  And, mentioned, law school and practice of law. Often subtly in answer to a question and without a whiff of family schmaltz. The optics were good, she looked good and was assertive but not aggressive.

    Politically, she was astute. She associated herself with President Obama, sidelining differences, pledging to build on his successes. The tactic helped close the door to Biden and supported her maintenance of the Obama coalition. She knows how to do it.

    Senator Sanders was very good, too.  But, did not edge Mrs. Clinton out.  Not at all.  Senator Sanders is all business. He barely introduced himself. No references to wife, children, grandchildren.  He kept on message--"millionaires and billionaires."  A good but focused message.  It bears repeating, of course, but will the repetition become repetitive, losing impact over time?

     The senator seemed on less firm grounds in describing his foreign policies or, even actions. His thoughts are good, but under-developed. The socialism was handled satisfactorily for me, but needs to be faced down in light of the inevitable Republican onslaught.

      His commitment energizes many Democrats and many others. But, it seems to me that his strengths are ethereal and depend on exceptionally large voter turnout.  Senator Sandders is riskier in terms of prospects for  defeat of a Republican.  He has a good ear--his comment about emails made him look good and gave no credence to Republican antics. Of course, it did help Mrs. Clinton, but he knew he had no choice but to do so.

    Webb should stick to writing novels and enter a most dour candidate competition with Fiorina. As for Lincoln Chafee--I didn't know Lincoln, but he is no Lincoln, first or last name.  O'Malley, was OK, but a little politically trite. He got better as the night went on and he looked good. Not a good choice for VP given the dynamics, but maybe Secretary of HUD.

    We're we all supposed to be horrified to (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 04:14:27 PM EST
    hear Cooper throw out the statement, you went to the Soviet Union on your honeymoon?  

    "Horrified " may be ... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 05:00:21 PM EST
    ... a bit hyperbolic, oculus. But I must nevertheless admit that when I heard Cooper's remark about Sanders and his wife had honeymooning in the Soviet Union, visions of Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton in "Reds" immediately crept into my consciousness and started to seek out my lizard brain to activate a visceral reaction.

    But then I quickly came to my senses, remembering that I had also been to the late Soviet Union back in 1984, when I visited Leningrad was on a post-college trip to Europe. And so I found myself shouting at the TV, "Who cares, Anderson? Who. The phuque. Cares?"

    ;-D

    Nothing to add. I agree with Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by masslib on Thu Oct 15, 2015 at 08:53:53 AM EST
    On every point, including Biden.

    Hillary has a RECORD (2.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:12:12 AM EST
    Voted YES on Iraq (murderously stupid error which she won't admit as such, nor will any others who voted for it, so she's run of the mill there).

    Libya (not Benghazi, but the actual bloodbath that is Libya) is on her soul, she was a hawk.

    Same with Syria, she wanted Assad gone, was a hawk. That holocaust is on her also.

    Just about as financially corrupted as Obama, she hasn't called for any real reform of Wall Street, AND she pushed the inhumane, anti-worker, corporations-as-sovereign-nations HORSESH*T that is TPP until...she stuck her finger up and realized, uh oh, I better pretend to oppose it. Pfft. Cowardly, small move that reveals a wildly co-dependent political personality. Again, run of the mill to the nth degree.

    We are making the same dimwitted, inexcusable, personality-worshiping mistakes that were made with Obama. Congratulations to us all, myself included, since she'll probably be ceded the nomination and I'll HAVE to vote for her with my nose pinched.

    What is wrong with us? You can knock Sanders all you want, you won't catch me playing personality politics with him, but Hillary's RECORD is not good. At all. In any way.

    I thought Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 13, 2015 at 11:56:54 PM EST
    did a great job and looked great too. My 41-yr. old neice thinks Hillary needs immediate assistance of a stylist.

    What would she change? Just interested (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 03:40:57 AM EST
    Since I thought she looked good too. I liked the id restated outfit - she already gets enough attention, no need to be out there in red.

    Parent
    I liked her outfit from behind the podium (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 08:54:10 AM EST
    I did not like it though when she was standing out front .  That was when it appeared too understated. First debate though, I'm sure her stylist will punch it up. You don't want her walking on stage as a beauty queen first debate because that is all people want to focus on with women. And shortly after that someone claims she said nothing significant because the initial focus was on how great she looked.  She needed to be heard tonight, and she was. When the focus becomes the issues and not the faux email scandal, then she can punch her "look" up.

    Parent
    *understated outfit (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 03:41:35 AM EST


    Parent
    Niece did not like the outfit. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:25:20 AM EST


    Parent
    I think her next outfit will be much (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:35:51 AM EST
    Better. If she walked out first debate looking female presidential, all the talk would be about how she thinks she's inevitable. Just give her the crown already. If she reminded all of us on the first debate that she is a handsome woman, then she's menopausal, calculating, maybe someone would throw a shrill down. Discouraging, because when men look doable somehow that's perceived as them also being intelligent. And when a woman looks doable, she's dumb.

    Parent
    Outfit was understated, well-tailored, (4.00 / 1) (#117)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 11:42:31 AM EST
    age appropriate. Perfect.

    Parent
    Age appropriate? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:10:06 PM EST
    What is this fresh hell? :)

    I think that outfit was as tailored as one could tailor that outfit. Apparently I'm in agreement with your niece, but I think the outfit was picked so it could not be a distraction.

    I love how Martin O'Malley gets to walk out fresh off of GQ though and that's great. If Hillary had done the same it would be all noise.

    Age Appropriate....you...practicing agism :)

    Parent

    Well, apparently, the plan to dress so that (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    her attire would not be subject to the usual red-carpet snarkiness didn't work out...

    but since I didn't hear a whole lot of talk about what people were wearing or whether they looked old, tired, nervous, I guess it was as much of a win for staying on substance as we're likely to get.

    At least Clinton still looks like herself; Fiorina looks like an entirely different person.

    Parent

    It's almost like Fiorina is trying (none / 0) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:56:21 PM EST
    To Hillary herself.

    Parent
    I would love it if Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    Walked out in a full Brooks Brothers suit and tie.

    Well, maybe a little higher end.  But you know what I mean.

    I would love it because it would make republicans lose their minds.

    Parent

    I don't think she would do it (none / 0) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:08:14 PM EST
    During the election. If she makes it to the White House we should demand she Garbo that place up and give us a photo shoot. I think that would be awesome.

    Boy they'd lose their freakin minds though if she strutted around the Oval Office in tails with a cigarette, hey....maybe cigar.....bahaha.

    I need to shut up now. I'm going to give Conservatives nightmares they haven't even anticipated.

    Parent

    Well, she could a streaked her (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:04:19 PM EST
    hair purple and worn leggings and Lady Gaga shoes and pretended she was en route to the Met  gala by exposing most of her skin.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    Because those are the only two choices.

    Parent
    My spouse, not easily swayed . . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:04:17 AM EST
    was impressed by O'Malley, about whom my spouse had known nothing -- so O'Malley may move up a bit in polls to, well, 1.5 percent?

    We can't see him as a candidate, even for VP, but he could be angling for a Cabinet post.

    I Agree 100% (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:25:09 AM EST
    That guy, as mentioned above, impressed me the most.

    Probably because I didn't know much about him, but he definitely has the politician swagger, meaning that I think he connects with people, and has some very good things to say.

    Parent

    Don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:39:01 AM EST
    He's the lead singer in a Celtic rock band.

    Parent
    That was... (none / 0) (#196)
    by sj on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    ...awesome? It was something, anyway. Thanks for the link.

    Parent
    I honestly don't get (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    The idea he did so well.  I think compared to the other two also ranks he looked like a professional but as some one (CST?) said last night he was a platitude machine.

    One thing that struck me was when he said if you talk to people under 30 you "will not hear the racism blah, blah blah"
    All I can say is I have some under 30s for him to talk to.

    Parent

    That Was an Odd Thing to Say... (none / 0) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:47:34 AM EST
    ...considering almost every hate crime is done by someone under 30, including SC church shooter.

    I liked what he had to say in general, and it probably has more to do with I pretty much know where HRC and Bernie stand on every issue.  And the other two were clearly out of their league on the stage.

    Parent

    Gasp. Frank Bruni awrote a (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 12:47:49 AM EST
    clumn about the Dem. debate and was actually complimentary re Hillary Clinton!

    Frank Bruni did??? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:30:21 AM EST
    He must be ill.  Has he checked into a hospital?

    Parent
    After that (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 07:51:07 AM EST
    awesome debate last night guess what is the top of trends on social media? The fact that Mike Huckabee said he would trust his tax dollars with Bernie Sanders as much as he would trust his Labrador with a Korean chef. I guess he also conveniently forgot about what his own son did. Ugh.

    "his labrador with a Korean chef?" (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:16:36 AM EST
    These guys don't miss an opportunity to push the xenophobia buttons.

    Parent
    Littlefinger (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 08:40:40 AM EST
    I mean Carcetti, I mean O'Malley looks like he'd make a fine VP.  And Hillary looked like she'd enjoy his presence in the office...  My sister and I would also not mind having him on camera more.

    On a more substantive note I was happy with the top 3.  I actually think Bernie's position on guns is the most electable one - in the general.  I still worry about his ceiling.  Hillary IMO looked young and fresh and sharp as a tack and very prepared.  To be honest I was a little worried about how little we've seen of her so far, but that seems misplaced.  She sure isn't going to make the Al Gore mistake of throwing Obama under the bus.  O'Malley said good things and the cameras like him, but he's definitely the also-ran.  Chaffee is so irrelevant and just bad at answering questions.  Webb looked like he had a pole firmly up his bum and needed a stiff drink.  He's also in the wrong primary, IMO.  But I guess he gets credit for not officially associating with the clown car.

    Mostly I was impressed with how substantive it all was.  Especially compared to the clown show.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 08:58:32 AM EST
    if I were a Republican I would definitely be embarrassed in comparison with this debate and the two GOP debates. The GOP sounded like a bunch of middle school boys.

    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:13:28 AM EST
    The VP was not on the stage.  She is in the senate.

    Parent
    If you're talking about Warren (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:16:15 AM EST
    IMO, she's not looking for that job.  And if Hillary is the candidate, I don't see any "she" getting that gig, just the way it is.

    If only Rubio were a Democrat.

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:19:43 AM EST
    I don't agree but I still think the VP was not on the stage in any case.

    I don't see the rational fir any of those guys, who were let's face it terrible, there are so many other better choices.

    Parent

    I'd say Julian Castro (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CST on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:22:18 AM EST
    But I'm not sure Mayor and Secretary of Housing is enough of a resume.

    Parent
    I used to think that way too, (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:38:10 AM EST
    but really, is one term senator a better resume than mayor of a large city?

    I am warming to the Castro idea.

    Parent

    I would say no chance (none / 0) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:50:18 AM EST
    Nor is there a chance at VP for Greg Stanton or Kevin Faulconer.

    Parent
    I really like the Castro brothers (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:49:47 AM EST
    Someday they will make a vote that fits into that pols will be pols and do what they do, and it will break my heart.

    Parent
    Actually, I think someone like Jim Webb (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:16:38 AM EST
    Let Hillary stay more left on economic and social issues, and shore up the more conservative (pro military, pro-gun, white male) Dem vote.

    It won't be Warren.

    Parent

    I sincerely hope it is not Jim Webb (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:30:18 AM EST
    Someone like Jim Webb that does what you say...maybe, except I see no reason to explicitly court a pro-gun vote.

    I'd prefer Wesley Clark if she goes that route.

    Parent

    Feeling the "Chaff" (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:12:27 AM EST
    My favorite post debate line.

    One thing I thought of last night while watching, and this includes my own personal opinion that Donald could in fact be the republican nominee, was that I think Donald could beat anyone on that stage besides Hillary.

    Yeah yeah, I've seen the meaningless polls.  He above all would destroy Bernie.

    I share that opinion. In fact I broaden it (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    to more people on the GOP stage besides Trump. I think HRCis by far the closest thing to a sure winner, and I don't want to risk the country being totally in control of those lunatics.

    Parent
    You give the Donald... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:58:06 AM EST
    too much credit me thinks...more than half the country could not vote for that guy under any circumstances.  He has a bigger unfavorable bias problem than Hillary.  

    Parent
    Honestly (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:06:26 AM EST
    "Polls" should always at this point be in quotes.  I saw one this morning that had Hillary losing to Carson.

    If you believe that........ I don't know how to finish that.

    More people say they would not vote for Jeb.  For what that worth.  Also saw that this morning.

    I believe you underestimate Donald.  As do many others including Jeb.  

    Parent

    I don't think... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    I underestimate Donald, a clown is a clown...but I might overestimate my fellow citizens, I do that a lot.  

    Parent
    Fwiw (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 02:21:18 PM EST
    I don't think he is a clown at all.  I think he is easily the smartest person on the stage at those republican debates.

    The carnival barker act is exactly that.  You can hate him, that's not hard.  You can disagree wth him, although I honestly don't think anyone has the slightest idea what he really thinks about anything.  But to dismissively call him a clown, no.  He is not.   He knows exactly what he is doing.  And if "polls" are any evidence he is doing it pretty well.

    Parent

    I Strongly Disagree With This Comment (none / 0) (#199)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    Trump is not the smartest person on a stage of 10 people anywhere.  The idea that cheap visceral popularity is something beyond tapping into the right's hatred of everything different, is silly.

    What is does show is the complete dislike the party has of the very people they voted for, and I would imagine under some examination, is the exact same reason they like Trump, bodacious and unrealistic promises.  

    It isn't unique nor is it some master strategy Trump hass carefully crafted.  If anything it's luck in that he is lucky that the country is filled with small minded bigots who don't give a damn about anyone else, aka lot of Donald Trumps.

    Parent

    I do not think the idea (none / 0) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    That Donald is where he is in life or politics solely because of luck is reasonable or realistic.  

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    this "anybody can beat Trump" is an example of magical thinking in my book.

    Parent
    Kdog (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:20:21 AM EST
    at least 50% of Americans won't vote for a socialist. So what does that say about Bernie's chances in a general election? They like him but won't vote for him.

    Parent
    I would think... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    when push comes to shove, they'll vote for a socialist over an arsehole or a lunatic.  But who knows, like Cap Howdy said "polls"...it's all how the question is framed.  

    Parent
    I wish (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    that were true but history has proven you wrong on that account and the polls don't back you up with only something like 36% of Americans having a positive opinion of socialism. The opinions are changing but not enough at this point.

    Parent
    Don't Give Chafee Credit for Trump Putdown (none / 0) (#203)
    by RickyJim on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    What he did was to reuse a characterization of Ted Cruz that Rep. Peter King (Republican NY) gave on March 23 on CNN
    "Shutting down the federal government, reading Dr. Seuss on the Senate floor are the marks of a carnival barker, not the leader of the free world."
    When Clinton (none / 0) (#205)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 08:37:57 PM EST
    said that she had previously said that she "hoped" that TPP would be the Gold Standard, she wasn't telling the truth.

    In 2012 she said is was the Gold Standard.
    No qualifier.

    Why she b.s.ed about that is... anybody's guess.

    More on Benghaziiii??? (none / 0) (#206)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 14, 2015 at 09:52:50 PM EST
    Another Repub congressman--Cong. Richard Hanna (R) from upstate New York--is reported by HuffPo to have said on a radio interview this a.m. that the Benghazi investigation was "designed to" bring down Hillary Clinton.  If the latest--bringing public disclosure claims to 3 from Repubs--is real, then what does one say?  It seems like a movie about mean conspirers about to get caught ... a movie with a good ending?!?

    Donald (none / 0) (#208)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 15, 2015 at 09:31:42 AM EST
    Thanks for providing the quote.

    Don't you find it a bit odd that the only place her apology can be found is in her book ?  Every time she gets a chance, as far as I can tell, she deflects to her book or the Obama debates instead of saying the words.

    That basically means most people have never heard her apologize for it.

    I am glad she apologized, but why so tight in admitting an error that I think most reasonable people would accept as a product of the times and misinformation.  If anything it provides a quick and easy way to show what horrors republicans are capable of, aka lying us in a war.

    Not 2014 (none / 0) (#209)
    by bison on Thu Oct 15, 2015 at 10:00:18 AM EST
    None of the candidates are running away Obama in this election cycle.

    Scott, you're right (none / 0) (#210)
    by sj on Thu Oct 15, 2015 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    I haven't read her book, and Donald, while I do thank you for providing the quote, one shouldn't have to refer to the book to get the acknowledgement that her vote on the war was a mistake.

    If she was sincere when she wrote it, she should be able to say so when given the perfect opportunity. It still seems like she is unable to say "I was wrong". I get that. It's hard to do. But some mistakes are big ones.

    Aloha from SoCal. (none / 0) (#211)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 15, 2015 at 06:00:51 PM EST
    Scott and sj, with all due respect, you are now trying to move the goal posts here.

    Scott, you specifically asked for evidence that Mrs. Clinton admitted both her error and her regret for the Iraq AUMF vote, and I provided it.

    And for your part, sj, you said that Mrs. Clinton has a hard time saying that she was wrong relative to the Iraq War resolution. That quote from her memoir proves otherwise.

    But both of you are now apparently wanting a perpetual mea culpa from Mrs. Clinton while she's out on the campaign trail. Sorry, but that's highly unlikely to be forthcoming. I'm sure she'll once again reiterate her regret for that vote and acknowledge her error, if and when she's ever asked about it. But she's hardly going to bring up that issue spontaneously on her own -- and why should she, for that matter?

    Further, Mrs. Clinton's memoir is hardly an obscure document. From the standpoint of history, it's likely to far outlast any specific video soundbite said in passing, and thus her candid admission of error and regret is of much greater and lasting value because it's both in her own words and in writing.

    That's the last I'll say on this issue because I've got other pressing matters this week.

    Aloha.

    Donald (none / 0) (#212)
    by sj on Thu Oct 15, 2015 at 06:15:35 PM EST
    First and foremost let me say that I am very sorry to hear about your cousin-sister. I wish the very best for you and your family, and I think you are probably right where you should be right now.

    Now for the unimportant-in-the-scheme-of-things stuff:

    I'm not moving the goalposts at all. Rather you are conflating two different things.

    I said

    Hillary has many gifts. One of the gifts lacking appears to be the ability to say "I was wrong".
    You responded by quoting her book. Which is well and good. Truly. But writing is a different act than speech. What I said was literally that she appears to lack the ability to say "I was wrong". Good for her that she wrote it down. But she had an opportunity to actually say it for the benefit of all the millions of people that don't or won't buy/read her book, and she chose not to.

    And while you are joining the ranks of those who create straw men so that you can valiantly fight against them (e.g. "But both of you are now apparently wanting a perpetual mea culpa from Mrs. Clinton... ".  Pfffft. A straw man if there ever was one.), I will point out that most people will not read her book.

    The issue of "which lasts longer" is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with what I said.

    sj (none / 0) (#213)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 08:57:34 AM EST
    I would rate a '5', but I don't want to move the post up and I agree, no goal post were moved.

    From my post:

    most people have never heard her apologize for it
    Post-Debate Thread | 213 comments (213 topical)