Sen. Sanders is pandering to many more than his rural Vermont voters with his pro-gun stance: most of his following is young white males, and we all know they really love their guns as a demographic.
2
Lincoln Chafee insisted on calling the Christmas tree at the Rhode Island statehouse a "holiday tree." What more do you need to know?
Sanders is living in a world of fantasy.
O'Malley would make an excellent presidential candidate - in Cuba.
Hillary was Hillary without the worts, not because the worts are gone, but because there were no skin doctors in the house.
I like Jim Webb, but he's in the wrong party.
Sanders is living in a world of fantasy.
O'Malley would make an excellent presidential candidate - in Cuba.
Hillary was Hillary without the worts, not because the worts are gone, but because there were no skin doctors in the house.
I like Jim Webb, but he's in the wrong party.
The people on the stage were frighten in their disregard of individual liberty and private property. The Democratic party has become officially a socialist party.
1
How well would Hillary stand up as a righteous truth-teller?
Is the line drawn at telling an outright lie, stone-walling, crying victim, or just outwaiting questioners?
Is the line drawn at telling an outright lie, stone-walling, crying victim, or just outwaiting questioners?
2
If these were the adults taking the stage, I pity the children. What I saw appeared as a gaggle of barnyard chickens all squawking to outspend each other with a myriad of "freebies" which they forgot to divulge SOMEONE would have to pay for. Unfortunately, that someone will be our children and grandchildren, not the Wall Street bankers or CEO's who finance their campaigns!
2
Saint Bernard is a gun nut. But you can't point that out to his fan club any more than you can point out to American 'liberals' and the right alike that the present Pope supported the fascist junta in Argentina.
1
They only needed the Donald to make it interesting.
1
For thirty years now the Democratic Party has been trying to find a way to re-capture the so-called "Reagan Democrats." Perhaps they can do this by returning to their political heritage and becoming "Roosevelt Democrats." Now that's something I would like to see.
5
I like what Sanders says. I like his passion, his logic, and his plain talk. However, I'm voting for Clinton. Why? Well, she said it best the other night, "I'm a liberal but I'm also practical." To me, from what I've seen with past votes for ideals and not for practical politics, the dream can become a nightmare. The left wing vote for Ralph Nader in 2000 helped throw the election to Bush. There is no need to go into details about that disaster. I voted for Obama in 2008, and while I think anyone who followed the Bush era would have had a tough time, - the country was a disaster - I think his lack of experience in politics and diplomacy has hurt him. I do think Obama will make a great Supreme Court judge someday, but he comes up short as a president. Clinton is someone I don't agree with as much as Sanders, but I feel she is someone people can work with and someone who can get things done. I didn't feel this before the debate on Tuesday, but after watching her and Sanders, I'm sold on Clinton. Again, Sanders has great ideas, but I don't think he has the political skill to get the work done effectively, and experience continues to show, no matter how much we believe something, it takes some arm twisting and a little snake oil to get it to become a reality.
3
The Democratic Party base has absolutely no reason to turn out the vote for Clinton. Her servility to Wall Street and reckless, neoCon-tinged foreign policy are anathema to Party activists smarting from the Obama bait'n'switch.
The debate still managed to largely ignore the TPP and none offered much vision to reviving the economy. They all ignored restoring Glass Steagall.
For these reasons the GOP has the edge in polls and likely on Election Day unless the Party gratuitously antagonizes segments of the electorate.
The debate still managed to largely ignore the TPP and none offered much vision to reviving the economy. They all ignored restoring Glass Steagall.
For these reasons the GOP has the edge in polls and likely on Election Day unless the Party gratuitously antagonizes segments of the electorate.
1
Great start for the Democratic Party debate season. Here are two things that would make the next debate even better:
1) Thank O'Malley, Webb, and Chaffee for their interest, but ask them to step down from the stage. They added some textural points to the first debate. But unless something in the post-debate polls changes in a surprising way, none of them has enough following to merit their inclusion in future debates.
2) Ask Joe Biden to develop a crystal clear "platform" for his candidacy, declare his candidacy, and get him on the stage. Then we'd be able to see whether or not Hillary can take a solid position on what she really stands for (and connect the dots of her various programs so they begin to look like policies which she's committed to pursue).
In other words, with clear and relatively coherent platforms from the Bern and Joe, Hillary would be called to own her stuff in a comprehensive way-- or reveal herself as essentially a candidate of political expediency.
Debates with that kind of substance underlying them would be even more interesting and worthwhile.
1) Thank O'Malley, Webb, and Chaffee for their interest, but ask them to step down from the stage. They added some textural points to the first debate. But unless something in the post-debate polls changes in a surprising way, none of them has enough following to merit their inclusion in future debates.
2) Ask Joe Biden to develop a crystal clear "platform" for his candidacy, declare his candidacy, and get him on the stage. Then we'd be able to see whether or not Hillary can take a solid position on what she really stands for (and connect the dots of her various programs so they begin to look like policies which she's committed to pursue).
In other words, with clear and relatively coherent platforms from the Bern and Joe, Hillary would be called to own her stuff in a comprehensive way-- or reveal herself as essentially a candidate of political expediency.
Debates with that kind of substance underlying them would be even more interesting and worthwhile.
3
If you progressives would get out of your bubbles you'll find that the majority of U.S. citizens are not with you on immigration (much less illegal immigration), gay marriage = no / civil unions = yes (no ones debating sexuality), transgenderism = mental illness (XX cannot become XY or vice versa), and you might find that some of us (recent republican) might meet you half way on things like background checks and waiting periods. However, if you do not reign in the crazy then the majority will vote you out of power and will not work with insane people. The Redskins issue is assinine and demonstrates your incredulity and demand that others adhere to your opinions and not what a majority opinion wants. Keep it up if you want, but it will not serve you well. People will get and are offended daily...it's life...toughen up...parents have raised a generation of ninnies!
1
The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is this: Democrats believe in governing for everyone; Republicans just want to rule over us all.
4
The liberals fell all over themselves, salivating on GUN control and it's time to go after the gun manufacturers and hold them accountable. Bla Bla Bla.
Something I think you NYT's liberals need to contemplate and then start the same drum beats on is......
According to the NTSB. Automobiles in 2012 killed 90 Folks per day. Gee the same number Hillary used for gun deaths.
I believe that the feds should start to hold the Automobile manufactures accountable insofar as their product is out of control and killing to many Americans.
You liberal lawyers would love that , look at the billions you can reap in in fees.
Something I think you NYT's liberals need to contemplate and then start the same drum beats on is......
According to the NTSB. Automobiles in 2012 killed 90 Folks per day. Gee the same number Hillary used for gun deaths.
I believe that the feds should start to hold the Automobile manufactures accountable insofar as their product is out of control and killing to many Americans.
You liberal lawyers would love that , look at the billions you can reap in in fees.
2
I know some Danes who now live in the US of A. They brag about how great Denmark is all the time. But they still live HERE, don't they.
1
Public Opinion Polls: Sanders wins debate.
Corporate media: Hillary wins debate.
Seems to be a disconnect here. Or more likely a con job(corp job?).
Corporate media: Hillary wins debate.
Seems to be a disconnect here. Or more likely a con job(corp job?).
4
It is very clear that this paper and most of the rest of the corporate establishment are fully in Clinton's corner. Her performance certainly relieved me of most of my apprehensions about her, but what I have seen from the web Sanders was the favorite to most millennials.
While his stance on gun control is more nuanced than many of his other stands, I was not put off by his answers to his votes on the issue.
The respect showed to one another, and to the American voters, was a very clear indication that these people take their quest for the White House very seriously.
Watching "grown ups" search for answers to the important questions of today did indeed give me hope for our future.
While his stance on gun control is more nuanced than many of his other stands, I was not put off by his answers to his votes on the issue.
The respect showed to one another, and to the American voters, was a very clear indication that these people take their quest for the White House very seriously.
Watching "grown ups" search for answers to the important questions of today did indeed give me hope for our future.
7
Just got a comment from a friend in Vermont -- Bernie's state. She said that Bernie is wanted to remain as Vermont's senator because of the good he has done for the people of Vermont. If he gets to be the president, Vermont will lose his time to do good for them.
How true.
How true.
"The Republican candidates may have a lot of fun campaigning for office, but they haven’t a prayer of knowing what to do if they ever enter the White House."
The Editorial Board writes as if Trump & Carson are the only two candidates on the GOP side. Alas & despite the media's best efforts to make it appear so, they aren't.
Give me John Kasich' measured intellect & years of legislative experience up against any of the Democrat candidates. Any day of the week.
The Editorial Board writes as if Trump & Carson are the only two candidates on the GOP side. Alas & despite the media's best efforts to make it appear so, they aren't.
Give me John Kasich' measured intellect & years of legislative experience up against any of the Democrat candidates. Any day of the week.
1
The whole thing was from fantasy land. How are they going to do anything with a solidly Republican Congress?
1
Sanders is "in touch with rural voters," but you say it like that's bad.
If anyone is unelectable IRS Hillary Clinton. Here disapproval rating is over 50% . W will not vote for her. How do you win an election with less than half the vote? (No this supreme court will not save her hanging chads)
If anyone is unelectable IRS Hillary Clinton. Here disapproval rating is over 50% . W will not vote for her. How do you win an election with less than half the vote? (No this supreme court will not save her hanging chads)
The debate was "civil" because the fix is in. For all his bluster, BS will soon be taken out of the equation by the party. That with leave HRC standing alone. The Dem hope is that nothing fatal will come from the e-mail scandal. Hillary's big-money backers and foundation donors have too much riding on this election to let it play out any other way.
2
Dear democrats, I hate to break this to you but the rich don't have enough money to pay for all the new spending and expansion of government that was proposed during the debate. The only thing missing from this debate was a connection to reality. Comparing the US to tiny economies like Denmark and Switzerland? Implying an FBI investigation into one of the candidates is meaningless? Blaming Bush? Are you kidding. Talk about clown cars, what I saw on Tuesday night was a clown parade.
2
Comparing the Republicans children the NYTimes avoids entirely any of the real issues that actually matter to Americans.
It's expected but readers should remember; in 2009 the Times was going to disappear and it was saved by Carlos Slim lending it $250 million at 14% interest.
I'd say the Times was like the child, unable to manage its affairs and provide its customers what they want; actual information, not propaganda.
It's expected but readers should remember; in 2009 the Times was going to disappear and it was saved by Carlos Slim lending it $250 million at 14% interest.
I'd say the Times was like the child, unable to manage its affairs and provide its customers what they want; actual information, not propaganda.
1
You reference the Democratic Party’s big tent of reality-based views. Perhaps you meant to say the Democratic Party’s views on BIG government… perhaps I should say “bigger” government. It is clear that we are on a path to bigger and bigger government. Let’s hope that our frequently ineffective government (e.g. TSA, Medicare, IRS, Secret Service, to name a few) can do a better job of managing its expanding responsibilities.
2
Ahhhhh!!! The grown-ups. Would that be the grown-up sociopath who tells one lie, then when caught tells another? We've been through maybe five iterations of that one. Contrary to what "the grown-ups" said about that, the American people aren't tired of hearing about Hillary's emails. Rather, they're sick and tired of hearing lie after sickening and ridiculous lie.
You see, sociopaths are very charming. But at the end of the day, they're still sociopaths.
You see, sociopaths are very charming. But at the end of the day, they're still sociopaths.
1
So in all the candidates talk about the death of the middle class, the hardship of ordinary Americans in the economy, and the need for "new leadership and action"...are Democrats in agreement that seven years of Obama have been terrible for the economy?
1
The debate focused heavily on domestic issues and with good reason. But let's not forget that the next president must also deal with foreign policy in an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world. We need someone who can stand toe-to-toe with the wily, aggressive Putin, counter and contain an expansionist China and figure out the best strategy for the Middle East chaos. I'm no fan of Hilary's but I must admit that, of all the candidates, only she has any experience on the international stage.
3
"The Republican candidates may have a lot of fun campaigning for office, but they haven’t a prayer of knowing what to do if they ever enter the White House."
Yes, they do. They will take directions from the Kochs, Adelson, and the other members of the 136 families who sponsor them.
Republicans do not have to worry about policy or other mundane responsibilities. They need only be figure-heads while their advisers, like Cheney during W's time in office, run the show from behind the curtain.
Voting for the Republican candidate is voting for ALEC. By the time they are done, not a single "public" building or function will be left. They will all be sold cheaply to the highest bidder. You will even have to pay to visit the Lincoln Memorial.
Yes, they do. They will take directions from the Kochs, Adelson, and the other members of the 136 families who sponsor them.
Republicans do not have to worry about policy or other mundane responsibilities. They need only be figure-heads while their advisers, like Cheney during W's time in office, run the show from behind the curtain.
Voting for the Republican candidate is voting for ALEC. By the time they are done, not a single "public" building or function will be left. They will all be sold cheaply to the highest bidder. You will even have to pay to visit the Lincoln Memorial.
7
Very scary to see how far left the Democratic Party has gone. John Kennedy wouldn't get the nomination today. When they endorse a crack pot like sanders and think America would flourish under his socialist ideas I fear for this country. People who want this kind of America please do me a favor and move to countries who have it and failed. The candidates on stage all want to play santa clause and give away the store. Of course this seems to work for large parts of the population.
I consider myself a moderate voter (liberal on social issues) and I can't imagine myself voting for any of the Republican candidates, none of whom seem even to be in touch with the fact-based world (with the possible exception of Gov. Kasich on a good day). So I have to choose among the Democrats. I appreciate that Bernie Sanders has highlighted income inequality as an issue and I hope it remains an issue in the election as we go forward. But his specific remedies seem highly unrealistic. The American people don't want to keep cutting taxes on the wealthy as the Republicans advocate, but neither do they want "soak the rich" schemes. "Medicare for all" makes sense but we just had a huge national struggle to get Obamacare, which originally was a Republican idea! And free tuition at public universities? If it's "free" to the student who is going to pay for it? Public universities are almost all state institutions anyway, they are not even under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Yes let's try to make higher education much more affordable, but "free" is a fiction. So, to me, Bernie Sanders serves a useful role as a gadfly, but his policy solutions often seem immature. I'm supporting Hillary.
3
Conservatives always rail against big government and government spending, deficits, and debt. It show how completely CLUELESS they really are.
Big government is necessary to contain the elites and the corporations. It's a zero sum game. When government recedes, they become more powerful. It not the average American that becomes empowered. The average American suffers under small government. It's why we have government in the first place. The government is the people. Don't believe it? Check out the very first words of the constitution. "WE THE PEOPLE"
Conservatives are under the delusion that Republicans are good stewards of deficits and debt. Of the last five Presidents 3 were Republican and 2 were Democratic. Deficits and debt soared under the Republican Presidents and contracted under the Democratic Presidents. Want something more recent. Take a look at Kansas where the Republican Governor slashed taxes and spending and is now running huge deficits while public services suffer. Kansas was suppose to be the model of Republican Governance. You know what? It is.
What's really good is that the "people" are starting the realize that they've been conned by the establishment and the conservatives over the past 30 years. The old tried and true of appealing to the worst in people is not working as well any more. That Conservative governance is being expose for what it is. A complete unmitigated disaster. Hence the panic on the right.
Big government is necessary to contain the elites and the corporations. It's a zero sum game. When government recedes, they become more powerful. It not the average American that becomes empowered. The average American suffers under small government. It's why we have government in the first place. The government is the people. Don't believe it? Check out the very first words of the constitution. "WE THE PEOPLE"
Conservatives are under the delusion that Republicans are good stewards of deficits and debt. Of the last five Presidents 3 were Republican and 2 were Democratic. Deficits and debt soared under the Republican Presidents and contracted under the Democratic Presidents. Want something more recent. Take a look at Kansas where the Republican Governor slashed taxes and spending and is now running huge deficits while public services suffer. Kansas was suppose to be the model of Republican Governance. You know what? It is.
What's really good is that the "people" are starting the realize that they've been conned by the establishment and the conservatives over the past 30 years. The old tried and true of appealing to the worst in people is not working as well any more. That Conservative governance is being expose for what it is. A complete unmitigated disaster. Hence the panic on the right.
7
Happily, this "debate" not only was about substance, but its atmosphere was tolerable for a change.
I hope that we are ready for a female commander in chief; but if a simplistic, fickle electorate feels a need to flip Dems out of the Oval Office, then it would take a brave new world to give us leadership that we can trust. Gasp.
At least the somewhat "empty" Republican debate showed those rich guys for what they are: not up to the job.
I hope that we are ready for a female commander in chief; but if a simplistic, fickle electorate feels a need to flip Dems out of the Oval Office, then it would take a brave new world to give us leadership that we can trust. Gasp.
At least the somewhat "empty" Republican debate showed those rich guys for what they are: not up to the job.
5
It seems that the Times ignored a salient fact, as usual, about the Republican and Democrat debates. Jake Tapper set out to cause conflict between and among the candidates, while Anderson Cooper did not. This fact alone would cause a major in the tone, style, and outcomes of the debates, and it did.
From what i saw the differences among and between the Democrat candidates was more in terms of just how much more they are going to tax and spend, and create more government rules, regulations, restrictions, red tape, bureaucracy, and bureaucrats. IOW, there was nothing new and unusual in any of their beliefs, policies, and agendas.
From what i saw the differences among and between the Democrat candidates was more in terms of just how much more they are going to tax and spend, and create more government rules, regulations, restrictions, red tape, bureaucracy, and bureaucrats. IOW, there was nothing new and unusual in any of their beliefs, policies, and agendas.
1
Its becoming increasingly clear that Republican elected officials' denunciation of "big government" is simply a convenient cover for the fact that they're not competent enough to run a government.
9
"the grown-ups take the stage"
Unfortunately, The Dumbing Down of America is producing more and more childlike voters every day who view their Republican political idols as the perfect people to run America.
Unfortunately, The Dumbing Down of America is producing more and more childlike voters every day who view their Republican political idols as the perfect people to run America.
8
The point made clear as glass is now the Progressive/Socialist Party (Democrats) openly identify themselves as anti-capitalist and openly Socialist.
The debate touted in this still spinning article could be described as the debate team in Jr High, doing a performance on stage for a gathering of the PTA.
The liberal party has hit an incredible new low.
The debate touted in this still spinning article could be described as the debate team in Jr High, doing a performance on stage for a gathering of the PTA.
The liberal party has hit an incredible new low.
Lead to the story is unfair to the GOP, extremely tendentious. Does the EB really believe that neither CARSON, nor DT,nor Kasich or CARLY FIORINA is an adult, and not worthy of respect.?CARSON worked his way up from poverty to become one of the world's leading doctors, and head of surgery at Johns Hopkins. But for the LEFT his cardinal sin is that he is black and a Republican. DT graduated first in his class at WHARTON,and has added millions to his family's considerable fortune. Kasich is the governor of the key state on the electoral map, and has governed it wisely and well. FIORINA was the C.E.O. of 2 multinational corporations,a feat which she accomplished w/o the help of a man in her life. And these super achievers r not worthy of ur esteem?An error in judgement, that's for sure. AC was a poor choice to moderate the face-- to-- face. Avoided questioning HRC about how she could pose as champion of the folk while collecting 6 figure fees for speeches. Why has her Foundation accepted money from ME states which violate human rights of women , practice Sharia law and condone female circumcision?Does HRC still think that a video caused the death of our diplomats in Benghazi? AK played it safe, for reasons of his own. A more aggressive moderator might have made things interesting, but perhaps CNN put the kaibosh on that in favor of HRC.Found entire debate "ennuyeux comme les pierres," and I have a hunch millions of viewers would agree.
A number of Clinton's supposed liabilities are considered strengths by many Americans. She is uncompromisingly strong on defense, once indicating that Iran would be pulverized if it invaded Israel. She is more pro-business that those left of her, and a lot of us Democrats are in business and do not consider entrepreneurs or corporations our enemy. I like her.
2
If by grown-up you mean old and white then the Democratic 2016 Presidential candidates certainly fit the description. All were born white and wonderful in Jim Crow America before 1960 except for Martin 0' Malley. And their world view is interminably stuck in a deja vu Vietnam Civil Rights era time loop from their 1960's teen age years. Bernie was 20 years old, Webb was 15 years old and Hillary was 14 years old when Barack Obama was born.
“SANDERS WON THE DEBATE”
This is not the time to let the media tell us who won the debate. They were poised to say Clinton won even before the debate began.
Bernie had the very difficult task of showing what he had to offer was better than what Clinton was offering without doing in the Democratic Party in the general election and making for the disaster of having a Republican President. So he did what he could do which is repeatedly point out that Wall Street governs Washington not the reverse, and that he was the only candidate of both parties who had not been purchased by the so-called “donor class.” In perhaps, the only way he could, Bernie was saying do not believe what Clinton says.
The clever soundbites by Clinton are no more than that. Bernie told the truth, including about the e-mail nonsense, and that had to deeply affect everyone who heard this debate. .
We all have the desire to feel hurt and wallow in it, or blame our candidate for his faults. No matter how unfair the press has been for months, it is still a self-indulgent luxury we cannot afford. We should keep in mind as Tom Payne said about another revolution:
“This is the time that tries men’s souls…”
This is not the time to let the media tell us who won the debate. They were poised to say Clinton won even before the debate began.
Bernie had the very difficult task of showing what he had to offer was better than what Clinton was offering without doing in the Democratic Party in the general election and making for the disaster of having a Republican President. So he did what he could do which is repeatedly point out that Wall Street governs Washington not the reverse, and that he was the only candidate of both parties who had not been purchased by the so-called “donor class.” In perhaps, the only way he could, Bernie was saying do not believe what Clinton says.
The clever soundbites by Clinton are no more than that. Bernie told the truth, including about the e-mail nonsense, and that had to deeply affect everyone who heard this debate. .
We all have the desire to feel hurt and wallow in it, or blame our candidate for his faults. No matter how unfair the press has been for months, it is still a self-indulgent luxury we cannot afford. We should keep in mind as Tom Payne said about another revolution:
“This is the time that tries men’s souls…”
3
I had a couple of problems with the debate. Why is it wrong to say "All Lives Matter"? Didn't they start coming up with a bunch of emails that Hilary didn't turn over because they were personal and they were anything but personal?
Well it certainly seems no one has lost a step here. Both the editors and the readers for the most part remain flaming left wing liberals first foremost and always. With all the talk about that right wing flank in the House, it's worth noting how far left the demorcrats have become. We have an unapologitic socialist on the stage and Hillary Clinton rushing out to the left so not to be outflanked by him. All of a sudden she doesn't like the TPP. She seems to remember all to well how a left winger came out of nowhere in 2008 to seize the nomination from her. I hate to spoil your party, but NCIS had more viewers Tuesday than the debate. Anyway, may the best candidate win.
How arrogantly elitist of you! At least you have now abandoned any pretense of speaking for the broader proportion of the population. Americans are nearly universally disappointed with Government in general, and Washington in particular. This sentiment has been growing over the past few years, and the emergence of the Tea Party is a manifestation of it. The disappointment crosses over the boundary between those who are receiving Government benefits and those who are paying for them. Continue in your blindness and denial and one day perhaps you too can eat cake.
One of the most glaring insults was the distortion of Bernie Sander's stance on gun control. His reason for voting against the the Brady Bill was a logical reason not a vote against control as policy. Here is his reason and I quote, "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer."
So lets make the it clear if that portion wasn't in the original bill he would have voted for it. His vote since then are clearer indications of his support of gun control.
With today's technology it is possible for manufactures of guns to limit access to the owner's use of the guns. We should push for holding the manufacturers of guns in new legislation.
Another thing is we should look at the failure of our foreign policy since the 1950's not use it as a way to hit at Bernie Sanders experience in foreign policy.
So lets make the it clear if that portion wasn't in the original bill he would have voted for it. His vote since then are clearer indications of his support of gun control.
With today's technology it is possible for manufactures of guns to limit access to the owner's use of the guns. We should push for holding the manufacturers of guns in new legislation.
Another thing is we should look at the failure of our foreign policy since the 1950's not use it as a way to hit at Bernie Sanders experience in foreign policy.
2
I agree with this article on the debate. A real debate on real issues. What is troubling though is the NRA rating system. Who do they think they are? They have way too much influence in our national politics and I hope the next president takes a stand against them.
2
The Democrat debate contained 5 people. The front runner is an untrustworthy, by popular opinion in the polls, older woman whose claim to fame is that she is the wife of the popular ex-President Bill Clinton, who was in fact impeached in his second term and not kicked out of office even though the evidence against him indicted he should be kicked out, because the Democrats refused to let that happen. Hillary's experience in government positions is less than spectacular to be kind. When pressed recently to list her accomplishments she could not and referred to interviewer to her book. That being said and the fact that all the opinion polls taken after the debate show that Bernie Sanders, a Socialist won, the debate the pundits still congratulate Hillary as the runaway winner. Go figure. The deck is truly stacked in favor of Hillary by the media. All one can say about the other three Democratic candidates are totally unknown and are just for show. PS: When the GOP debate was hosted by CNN they made a deliberate attempt to get the candidates to attack each other and when CNN hosted the democrat debate they made a deliberate attempt to be sure their questions did not promote attacks between the candidates but were designed to help them attack the GOP.
2
I think the NYTimes is a little unfair about the Sanders gun rights issue.
It's easy for Clinton to be fully anti-guns. In classic Clinton style, she moved to New York state - where she had no business and never lived before - because that's where she had the best chance of getting elected Senator. And it's easy to be anti-guns coming from New York.
Things are a little different in Vermont. However much Sanders is against guns, he knows that he has a duty to represent the interests of the people of his state.
And I really don't get the point the Times is trying to make about Maryland. Vermont is far more rural than Maryland, as anyone knows who has been to those states.
It's easy for Clinton to be fully anti-guns. In classic Clinton style, she moved to New York state - where she had no business and never lived before - because that's where she had the best chance of getting elected Senator. And it's easy to be anti-guns coming from New York.
Things are a little different in Vermont. However much Sanders is against guns, he knows that he has a duty to represent the interests of the people of his state.
And I really don't get the point the Times is trying to make about Maryland. Vermont is far more rural than Maryland, as anyone knows who has been to those states.
"THE DONALD" MORPHES FROM NARCASISTIC PRANKSTER TO . . .
...a full-fledged Joseph McCarthy as he said, 'Let's be frank, Bernie is a real socialist communist. Does he not know that there is a difference between socialism, communism and democratic socialism? ... As practiced in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, The Netherlands and other nations.
Every country practices some form of socialism ... including the U. S. We have social security, Medicare, the USPS. And, should the police and fire departments examples of socialist or communist philosophy?
He knows ... anything to stir up the political pot.
He now has entered danger waters and it's time not to treat him as a joke ... as he has entered fascism for his amusement.
...a full-fledged Joseph McCarthy as he said, 'Let's be frank, Bernie is a real socialist communist. Does he not know that there is a difference between socialism, communism and democratic socialism? ... As practiced in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, The Netherlands and other nations.
Every country practices some form of socialism ... including the U. S. We have social security, Medicare, the USPS. And, should the police and fire departments examples of socialist or communist philosophy?
He knows ... anything to stir up the political pot.
He now has entered danger waters and it's time not to treat him as a joke ... as he has entered fascism for his amusement.
2
The difference of the two debates was striking. On the Republican side the main topic of the debate was who is more religious. On the Democratic side the main topics was equality, education,& justice for all.Which is why I vote Democrat.
7
If we search for the cause of the problems facing our nation, we find two: the supreme court's citizen united decision, and the gerrymandered voting districts. It doesn't matter who runs for president or what any candidate will say or do, if the integrity of the political process is broken. So, where are the attack ads against that two-legged monster. With all of the money being spent on campaigning, don't you think we should be spending some on defeating the root causes? We may need a super-PAC on steroids to do this.
3
Sanders "got lost in the odd idea that he is more in touch with rural voters than the governor of Maryland".
Why is that an odd idea? O'Malley has absolutely no affinity for rural life, and it would hurt his chances if he somehow managed to win the nomination.
Why is that an odd idea? O'Malley has absolutely no affinity for rural life, and it would hurt his chances if he somehow managed to win the nomination.
the absence of blather and venom on the democratic stage augers well for the possibility of cogent debate, chances are is still slim but, with some public pressure, the message might even get to the "hell, no!" congress.
2
Hillary may be the most qualified candidate since....Al Gore? On substantive policy & governance, Gore trounced W, but MSM including NYT's Bruni & Dowd weren't looking for substance. Obviously Cooper was not looking for substance when he served Bernie an opportunity to attack Hillary on "email!"
Thankfully Bernie didn't take the bait: “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about (Clinton's) damn emails.” Here's hoping Bernie's right, & "the people" demand that the media & candidates focus on substantive policy & governance issues.
Thankfully Bernie didn't take the bait: “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about (Clinton's) damn emails.” Here's hoping Bernie's right, & "the people" demand that the media & candidates focus on substantive policy & governance issues.
2
The "grown-ups"? Really? Adults understand that you can't give away something without taking it from someone else. These "grown-ups" have promised the world, with no explanation of the theft that must take place in order to dole out these bribes. Adults don't clamor to be taken care of, proving that Dem voters are also quite immature and not very grown up. But don't let reality spoil your dreams!
The Republicans are running a business tycoon, a brain surgeon, and a CEO. Men, women, old, young, black, white. The Dems? They've only got old and white. No candidate with real world experience. Only lifetime politicians. How are those pols doing, now? Are you happy with their "service"?
Republicans should not be underestimated here as fools and incompetents. It is a risk to dismiss them so easily. They know what they are doing. I do not believe the Republicans actually think their policies will work. They want to get elected. That is it. To do so, they fabricate issues that some voters may find attractive: "right to life,"gun laws," "Iran," "taxes," etc. Any one of these issues will attract many people to vote for them. Many people will not vote for any Democrat because they believe in unregulated gun laws. This one issue will attract many to any Republican. Many others will only vote Republican because of their hostility to current immigration laws, or abortion laws, or gay marriage laws, or "All Lives Matter," or because the Progressives have mounted a war against Christianity. Voters will be attracted to any one of a long list Republican concoctions. They are not the fools you portray them.
What a surprise! The Times finds Democratic candidates for the Presidential nomination mature and reasonable and the Republicans absurd and destructive. How novel. Evidently progressive fantasies are what the U.S. really needs. No, it doesn't matter that in the majority of states voters have put more conservative politicians in charge, sane or not. Nor does the pathetic performance of the current Democratic administration or its majority public disapproval matter. After all, reality is often quite unsatisfactory. One wonders how the Times will dismiss future events if by some small chance there are further Republican political successes and Democratic performance failures.
Shouting, raising hands, pointing fingers, 4 or 5 people pulled off the Vegas strip could have done better. Completely humorless, lacking charm and grace. If it was a social gathering, most people would have snuck out the back door. The word "free" was used over and over. The word "deficit" never made an appearance, and the pie in the sky "policies" have no basis in reality. A perfect night for rabid Liberals, but far from Presidential. And Sanders showed the country he is an angry, bitter old man who has been in Congress way too long.
Climate change is the biggest threat to the US and only 1 candidate correctly identified it. Bernie Sanders.
3
This Op-Ed piece is why I support Hillary Clinton and fully expect that she will be our next president.
It has all been very entertaining to watch the circus going on with the Republican presidential candidates but I have a hard time taking some of them seriously. Donald Trump is mainly a lot of hot air and I think he would make a horrible president -- he would be completely out of his element and should stick to running his own business.
And Mike Huckabee? Please..........
It has all been very entertaining to watch the circus going on with the Republican presidential candidates but I have a hard time taking some of them seriously. Donald Trump is mainly a lot of hot air and I think he would make a horrible president -- he would be completely out of his element and should stick to running his own business.
And Mike Huckabee? Please..........
2
Not sure why Sanders' connection between gun rights and rural voters is described as 'odd'. Rural voters make that connection all the time.
1
'THE DONALD" CALLED THE DEM DEBATE BORING . . .
...as he of course distains substance and our nation for his narcasisstic reality show debates ... with no substance ... just insults and junior high school antics.
Is he an American patriot in favor of our fragile democratic republic? No! Go back to your multi-billion dollar real estate and branding business and back to NBC for your being able to make fools of people by firing the. And, remember that it was your father who began the business ... so, you are not in any way self made, What would he think of you?
You will be remembered as being an immortal self serving fool.
...as he of course distains substance and our nation for his narcasisstic reality show debates ... with no substance ... just insults and junior high school antics.
Is he an American patriot in favor of our fragile democratic republic? No! Go back to your multi-billion dollar real estate and branding business and back to NBC for your being able to make fools of people by firing the. And, remember that it was your father who began the business ... so, you are not in any way self made, What would he think of you?
You will be remembered as being an immortal self serving fool.
1
The title of this article is a contradiction of terms—“adults took the stage!” Really!
Honesty and trustworthy doesn’t register – doesn’t seem to be high on the authors concern in depicting Hillary’s character or presidential persona. Hillary displayed exceptional strength in communicating ideas as well as the ability to sidestep the issue or question asked. Polling won’t change much. However, Bernie made a terrific showing, unlike the others. Webb, Chafee and O’Malley were more like “adult stage props.”
Honesty and trustworthy doesn’t register – doesn’t seem to be high on the authors concern in depicting Hillary’s character or presidential persona. Hillary displayed exceptional strength in communicating ideas as well as the ability to sidestep the issue or question asked. Polling won’t change much. However, Bernie made a terrific showing, unlike the others. Webb, Chafee and O’Malley were more like “adult stage props.”
Says the Board, " Hillary Rodham Clinton reminded us why she’s the front-runner, with her experience, command of the issues and strength in communicating ideas."
That's great, but why didn't the Board list any of her accomplishments to reinforce the idea of Mrs. Clinton being the superior candidate?
That's great, but why didn't the Board list any of her accomplishments to reinforce the idea of Mrs. Clinton being the superior candidate?
Thank you Bernie for being such a gentleman and telling the truth about those "damn emails".
The debate last night was refreshing. It was a most pleasant change to see a debate that actually followed some rules of decency and politeness, and the debaters stuck to issues without getting carried away by fantasies.
However, Bernie, I realize that rural voters do like having a gun as many hunt and it is probably very useful to keep a gun in a rural, isolated home. Most likely, his constituents teach their children how to behave with guns. But, the case is very different in cities. There is no harm in requiring that people have a license to have a gin and register their guns. There is also no sensible reason for anyone to have a high powered rapid fire weapon of any sort.
The debate last night was refreshing. It was a most pleasant change to see a debate that actually followed some rules of decency and politeness, and the debaters stuck to issues without getting carried away by fantasies.
However, Bernie, I realize that rural voters do like having a gun as many hunt and it is probably very useful to keep a gun in a rural, isolated home. Most likely, his constituents teach their children how to behave with guns. But, the case is very different in cities. There is no harm in requiring that people have a license to have a gin and register their guns. There is also no sensible reason for anyone to have a high powered rapid fire weapon of any sort.
4
Would you be so forgiving and understanding about those "damned emails," if the Secretary of State in question was Condoleeza Rice?
Waiting to see if anyone goes after congress. It would be smart politics. A dem in the WH needs a democratic congress or nothing gets done. Given the state of gerrymandering it will be harder to assemble a majority and going after a do nothing congress a la Truman is a winning approach.
3
"For those despairing about the future of American politics, here was proof that it doesn’t have to revolve around candidates who pride themselves on knowing nothing or believe that governing is all about destroying government."
This is a great summation of the past two days. Indeed, it seemed we'd entered another century or time zone when the Democrats took the stage.
Anyone comparing their first debate with the "Political Survivor" lunacy of the GOP "events", has to only conclude one thing: why are so many in the far right competing for the chance to destroy the very institution they seek to work for?
This is a great summation of the past two days. Indeed, it seemed we'd entered another century or time zone when the Democrats took the stage.
Anyone comparing their first debate with the "Political Survivor" lunacy of the GOP "events", has to only conclude one thing: why are so many in the far right competing for the chance to destroy the very institution they seek to work for?
14
Hillary "won" the debate on style points… but Bernie's economic agenda made the debates substantive and brought out the best in his party. As for the notion that Bernie was somehow thrown off by the issue of gun control, anyone hearing his final words on the issue can see that guns would be more tightly regulated and the mental health issues that underly many of the widely publicized shootings would be addressed. And the the political revolution that Bernie advocates takes place and we get 63% of the electorate to VOTE instead of 63% staying home, gun control will take care of itself because the electorate will bring Bernie the support he will need to get his agenda in place.
7
After reading most of the NY Times articles on this debate it is now obvious this paper is backing Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders is the most realistic candidate, but with a Republican Congress and a Republican Supreme Court nothing can change, in fact things will get even worse, something the Chinese are very happy about. I predicted and wrote about that back when Obama was first nominated.
As Bernie Sanders has very realistically said, there has to be a revolution, otherwise we are dead meat.
As Bernie Sanders has very realistically said, there has to be a revolution, otherwise we are dead meat.
8
The Right may not have a clue about the nation, the world, reality, or what to do should they ever gain the WhiteHouse - with the possible exception of "Start a War in Iran ASAP." However, this does not keep a large fraction of the American People - and a lot of Power Money - hell bent on getting them elected.
The US Press is criminally negligent in not taking on this issue relentlessly in all it's countless manifestations... variants of lies, distortion, myth-making, and grotesque (even treasonous) demonizing of the government and it's leadership. The pathetic counter response of irregular, timid objections and vague False Equivalency has left this country a woefully damaged intellectual shambles. The Press has the mandate of keeping the people informed and educated, as the last bastion of Liberty. For the most part, it has failed.
We reap the tragic outcome daily. We will never take our country back without an intensive reeducation in Civics, Government, our History, and the Rights and Obligations of the citizenry.
The US Press is criminally negligent in not taking on this issue relentlessly in all it's countless manifestations... variants of lies, distortion, myth-making, and grotesque (even treasonous) demonizing of the government and it's leadership. The pathetic counter response of irregular, timid objections and vague False Equivalency has left this country a woefully damaged intellectual shambles. The Press has the mandate of keeping the people informed and educated, as the last bastion of Liberty. For the most part, it has failed.
We reap the tragic outcome daily. We will never take our country back without an intensive reeducation in Civics, Government, our History, and the Rights and Obligations of the citizenry.
7
Hillary turned in a terrific debate performance as did Sanders, both showing that Senators (or former) in the main are unlike Ted Cruz, which gives comfort to most of the nation.
Sanders is good on gun control, realizing what it will take coming as he does from a 'gun state'. We should listen.
His answer to Do Black Lives Matter or do all? was so perceptive, showing his talk of reform to the criminal justice system is backed by understanding.
Much more needs to be asked/answered about campaign finance reform, Hillary's no-fly zone in Syria and her hawk tendencies and the reality of health of Soc Security, among other issues.
So much misinformation out there from R debates that we need more just to set the record straight about actual fact based reality, leaving religion and its tribal superstitions out of it.
More debates, DNC, please! Much to be discussed and dissected and people are paying attention.
Sanders is good on gun control, realizing what it will take coming as he does from a 'gun state'. We should listen.
His answer to Do Black Lives Matter or do all? was so perceptive, showing his talk of reform to the criminal justice system is backed by understanding.
Much more needs to be asked/answered about campaign finance reform, Hillary's no-fly zone in Syria and her hawk tendencies and the reality of health of Soc Security, among other issues.
So much misinformation out there from R debates that we need more just to set the record straight about actual fact based reality, leaving religion and its tribal superstitions out of it.
More debates, DNC, please! Much to be discussed and dissected and people are paying attention.
8
The best part. Religion or God not mentioned once. This is what separation of church and State sounds like.
1
I suppose the Democratic debate was not as exciting as the Republican debate. After all, the Democrats were talking about boring things such as substantive issues. Bu then, it has always been more exciting to go to the circus and watch the clown car.
6
The Cons offer nothing but division, derision and delusion. The Pro's offer big tent substance, support, and smarts.
3
to Danneskjold:The three phrases, Citizen's United, Bush Tax Cuts, paid family leave have everything to do with what is on voter's minds. All of those things contribute to the inequality and job difficulty in the life of average Americans. It is thanks to the Republican Bush/Cheney/Supreme Court rulings that we have the issues we now have.
4
By grown ups you mean 5 old white people. I thought the democrat party was one of diversity. Well, I guess having an old soviet style socialist in the mix adds some diversity !
2
It is not skin color or age that makes the difference it is the content of their character that makes the Democrats different than the Republicans. The Republican candidates all have the same character, robber barons and gunslingers.
This kind of knee-jerk PC-babble gives liberals a bad name. The leader of the Democratic party (who happens to be the president) is African-American. The leading candidate is a women. If the bumbling Lincoln Chafee can be a candidate, I don't believe for a minute that a person of color couldn't have been up there if they wanted it. Any suggestions?
"Big Tent"? Look a bit closer, that's a row of old White people.
1
"Big tent" means diversity of ideas. If the candidates were non-white but all had identical ideas and policies, I suppose that would make you feel good but there would be little point.
Wow! I can't believe the editorial went from the much needed discussion of what a political party of adults acting like looks like, to another NYTimes Hillary love letter.
This is amazing. And you had to throw in "The debate probably won’t change much in the polling." Just like all of your articles about Bernie say "But Hillary will win."
Meanwhile, Bernie won every focus group, every online poll, got 2 million in new donations, more new Twitter followers than Hillary (and has more now than her in total), but the herd mentality still exists among Times writers.
I think you need to have an intervention, this is getting serious.
This is amazing. And you had to throw in "The debate probably won’t change much in the polling." Just like all of your articles about Bernie say "But Hillary will win."
Meanwhile, Bernie won every focus group, every online poll, got 2 million in new donations, more new Twitter followers than Hillary (and has more now than her in total), but the herd mentality still exists among Times writers.
I think you need to have an intervention, this is getting serious.
7
Writing this w/out first reading the editorial (it's almost 3AM, but I care about the future!)--
Bernie Sanders both won and lost: he made the most compelling case on the corruptions and abused tainting and undermining out economy, and accordingly, our democracy, from not just skyrocketing but acceleratingly skyrocketing inequality, to citizens united which says in effect corporations can be "people too" for purposes of buying the political process to their interests without the accountability that real people incur as the condition of civic participation (way to go SCOTUS btw!)
But here's my real point: Hillary. Everyone says she did great, but that was sub-high school level theatrics, gamesmanship and substance-dodging. Bernie should have called her on it. Any time a tough question came her way, she offered a few phrases of sophistry and flim-flam, and erupted into pep ralley style, "and next year we're going to REALLY SHOW THE REPUBLICANS!!" Give me a break.
Bernie, that's where you lost some ground. We're pulling for you, but you have to be a bit strategic, even if it's not your thing. Say "Hillary did some nice things, but to entrenched in the Wall Street-White House complex" going back to Bill, Bush, and only mildly challenged by Barack"...
Bernie Sanders both won and lost: he made the most compelling case on the corruptions and abused tainting and undermining out economy, and accordingly, our democracy, from not just skyrocketing but acceleratingly skyrocketing inequality, to citizens united which says in effect corporations can be "people too" for purposes of buying the political process to their interests without the accountability that real people incur as the condition of civic participation (way to go SCOTUS btw!)
But here's my real point: Hillary. Everyone says she did great, but that was sub-high school level theatrics, gamesmanship and substance-dodging. Bernie should have called her on it. Any time a tough question came her way, she offered a few phrases of sophistry and flim-flam, and erupted into pep ralley style, "and next year we're going to REALLY SHOW THE REPUBLICANS!!" Give me a break.
Bernie, that's where you lost some ground. We're pulling for you, but you have to be a bit strategic, even if it's not your thing. Say "Hillary did some nice things, but to entrenched in the Wall Street-White House complex" going back to Bill, Bush, and only mildly challenged by Barack"...
3
Where was Larry Lessig? It was disgraceful that the debate included a non-entity like Chafee but not Lessig.
Four years ago one candidate promised to make American people better off while the other one promised to stop sea waters from rising.
The country chose to be worse off, and our president delivered spectacularly on that.
Now he is trying to stop waters from rising, which, according to sea gauges, they do at the same rate as 150 years ago, 3mm/year, as in Lincoln's time (so bringing the world economies back 150 years won't help.)
It appears that the leading candidates in the debate promise to continue to concentrate on stopping sea levels from rising. And presumably to make us worse off as well.
PS How can one stop sea levels from rising, which they do for centuries at the same rate? The easiest way, especially for someone with a legal background, is to make it illegal to mention the actual levels, and declare them stopped.
The country chose to be worse off, and our president delivered spectacularly on that.
Now he is trying to stop waters from rising, which, according to sea gauges, they do at the same rate as 150 years ago, 3mm/year, as in Lincoln's time (so bringing the world economies back 150 years won't help.)
It appears that the leading candidates in the debate promise to continue to concentrate on stopping sea levels from rising. And presumably to make us worse off as well.
PS How can one stop sea levels from rising, which they do for centuries at the same rate? The easiest way, especially for someone with a legal background, is to make it illegal to mention the actual levels, and declare them stopped.
1
"The country chose to be worse off, and our president delivered spectacularly on that." I guess you slept through 2007-2008.
1
military budget. military budget. military budget. military military military budget. out of control crazy wasteful F35 trillion dollar program garbage plane military budget. military war practices in every state of the union, destroying the environments. US Military the largest consumer of fossil fuels on the planet. given that fact, US Military is logically one of the biggest contributors to global warming. military is so powerful, the candidates can't even talk about it. the US has undergone a military coup and it's the elephant in the room.
3
Hillary Clinton's rebirth as a 'progressive' is not believable. When cornered on Glass Steagall, she can't continue the farce.
Add her foreign policy stance, she is no different than a republican. Biden needs to get into the race, else we are heading into bankruptcy.
Add her foreign policy stance, she is no different than a republican. Biden needs to get into the race, else we are heading into bankruptcy.
2
Obama has put through a comprehensive health plan that is helping untold millions who had no health care before the ACA. Obama led this country back from one of the worst financial disasters in the history of the United State - a disaster created during a Republican administration. The GOP vowed to block every move that Obama made from his Day One in office. They tried and failed and they are suffering from a deep loss of self esteem as a result. They are casting about amidst their own ranks looking for the guilty parties to blame, destroying the GOP in the process. Moderate Republicans have either fled the rancorous chaos or been driven from the ranks. What is left is a pathetic group of presidential pretenders who appeal to the remaining extremists. It would be far better for this country if they had even one serious candidate who could carry the GOP banner but they do not. After reaping maximum value from his Reality TV appearance as a presidential candidacy even Donald Trump knows when it is time to bow out. This is not a time for gloating by Democrats about being the only "grown-ups" at the table, this is a time to ask whether the two party system can survive the onslaught brought to bear by the rabid out-of-control extremists who have captured the Republican Party. The GOP as a credible leadership force is dead. Who is going to replace them?
9
I want to know what you are drinking. Health care costs have skyrocketed. I no longer have my same Drs. and there are still millions uninsured. By come back you must mean 18+ trillion in debt and a workforce participation at record low levels but yeah the Fed stepped on interest rates making the stock market go up. Simply amazing.
Between all the juvenile insults, name calling, and clever one liners in this op-ed, the debates and most reader commentary you have to ask "why would anybody tune in much less participate outside of entertainment or morbid curiousity?" Do the op-ed writers, debate moderators or most article commentators really think they are advancing any policy discussion, convincing their fellow voter or changing hearts with these antics?
We bash our congress for their partisan stalemate when, truth be told, our political leadership and legislative paralysis are a reflection of our very selves.
Perhaps when we grow up, our politicians will as well.
We bash our congress for their partisan stalemate when, truth be told, our political leadership and legislative paralysis are a reflection of our very selves.
Perhaps when we grow up, our politicians will as well.
4
I'm intrigued by the fact that when the Times writes one of its endless yammerings about how the US should throw open its borders, its readers fight back with their comments and tell the Times unequivocally that we want Americans to be put first and control our borders. Then I read all the comments tonight about how much readers loved what the Democrats said last night. I didn't hear them talking about putting Americans first - I heard them pandering and wanting to make everyone that comes here citizens. What?
4
Civility? It was a contest among participants each trying to out left the others. Boring! Hillary dodging questions and Sanders advocating revolution. The others, other than Webb, junior Clintonites. If these are grown ups, as Obama would say: "they are the jv squad". Indeed, according to the Democrat debaters, everything is free to the populace, damn the cost.
3
Yep, not discussion AT ALL of raising taxes to pay for things. They'll just magically happen ... oh wait, no, that's not what happened at all.
It would be interesting to know how many Republicans watched the first Democratic debate of the 2016 primary season. I'd guess few. So the emergence of five adults and no children at that debate will play to the choir of Democrats and have absolutely no effect on Republicans.
So, I wouldn't crow, as Hillary did repeatedly and O'Malley did a couple of times, at the circus atmosphere of Republican debates that feature moderators acting as Bull-ring picadors egging on an all-too-willing Donald, who wildly swings his horns and makes mad charges that need to be parried by the others.
The biggest agreement was the most entertaining, at least to me. It's quite apparent that all the candidates agree that seven years of Obamanomics have resulted in a lot of burger-flipping jobs, a grossly understated unemployment rate as our labor participation is at an all-time low, and this famous inequality. Yet they all defend Mr. Obama's policies; indeed, we're being asked to double-down on them by electing a Democrat who sees the only solution to all these ills to be the maximal soaking of that infinite cornucopia of plenty, Wall Street.
It's ideologically convenient to miss the fact that there are as many serious adults among the Republican candidates as there are among the Democrats, because Republicans also feature a few unserious children and naive adults. But it won't matter a hill of beans once Hillary and JEB! face off for the REAL rodeo.
So, I wouldn't crow, as Hillary did repeatedly and O'Malley did a couple of times, at the circus atmosphere of Republican debates that feature moderators acting as Bull-ring picadors egging on an all-too-willing Donald, who wildly swings his horns and makes mad charges that need to be parried by the others.
The biggest agreement was the most entertaining, at least to me. It's quite apparent that all the candidates agree that seven years of Obamanomics have resulted in a lot of burger-flipping jobs, a grossly understated unemployment rate as our labor participation is at an all-time low, and this famous inequality. Yet they all defend Mr. Obama's policies; indeed, we're being asked to double-down on them by electing a Democrat who sees the only solution to all these ills to be the maximal soaking of that infinite cornucopia of plenty, Wall Street.
It's ideologically convenient to miss the fact that there are as many serious adults among the Republican candidates as there are among the Democrats, because Republicans also feature a few unserious children and naive adults. But it won't matter a hill of beans once Hillary and JEB! face off for the REAL rodeo.
2
Right on!
Thanks for a different context and perspective as to how and why both U.S. Congressional chambers and a majority of state executive mansions and legislatures are ruled by red Republicans.
Thanks for a different context and perspective as to how and why both U.S. Congressional chambers and a majority of state executive mansions and legislatures are ruled by red Republicans.
With all due respect I did not see Bernie Sanders pander to the gun lobby. Brady bill or not, his explanation that he represented a small rural state is a valid one. Maryland may have pockets of rural areas, but the largest share of its population is drawn from the Baltimore/Washington DC metropolitan area. Vermont, whose largest city is a mere 42,000, is almost solidly rural.
We put our politicians in an impossible bind. We want them to be authentic, but in doing so forget that they have been sent to Congress to do the will of the constituents who elected them. I found his response refreshingly honest, and when framed in that light, a D minus from the NRA is quite good.
We put our politicians in an impossible bind. We want them to be authentic, but in doing so forget that they have been sent to Congress to do the will of the constituents who elected them. I found his response refreshingly honest, and when framed in that light, a D minus from the NRA is quite good.
10
Glad to see adults in action. Now for the Times to cover the election like adults, and not like a child watching a beauty show pageant.
7
Several things became clear last night:
• None of the candidates understand how Dodd-Frank actually solidified "too big to fail" at the expense of community and regional banks. In short, its effect has been largely the opposite of what it was sold as.
• None of the candidates seems remotely aware of how the nation’s public education system is rotting from within, nor did CNN bother to raise the issue.
• All of the candidates are perfectly satisfied to ignore alleged criminal activity, because the person who allegedly committed it is politically favored.
• None of the candidates seems aware of how events this century have transformed Scandinavian socialism into something far less attractive.
• None of Hillary’s opponents seem willing to point out that reminding everyone she wants their vote because she’s a woman demeans feminism.
• CNN set up the second GOP debate to be a circle shoot shouting match, while making civility much more achievable, even desirable, for the Democrats.
• None of the candidates will able to show how “Black Lives Matter” is not in conflict with “All Lives Matter,” and that both should be a priority. (Hillary was allowed to run away from the issue entirely.)
If I was a Party leader, I might not be smiling over Tuesday’s outcome.
• None of the candidates understand how Dodd-Frank actually solidified "too big to fail" at the expense of community and regional banks. In short, its effect has been largely the opposite of what it was sold as.
• None of the candidates seems remotely aware of how the nation’s public education system is rotting from within, nor did CNN bother to raise the issue.
• All of the candidates are perfectly satisfied to ignore alleged criminal activity, because the person who allegedly committed it is politically favored.
• None of the candidates seems aware of how events this century have transformed Scandinavian socialism into something far less attractive.
• None of Hillary’s opponents seem willing to point out that reminding everyone she wants their vote because she’s a woman demeans feminism.
• CNN set up the second GOP debate to be a circle shoot shouting match, while making civility much more achievable, even desirable, for the Democrats.
• None of the candidates will able to show how “Black Lives Matter” is not in conflict with “All Lives Matter,” and that both should be a priority. (Hillary was allowed to run away from the issue entirely.)
If I was a Party leader, I might not be smiling over Tuesday’s outcome.
4
Absurd and unfair lead to ur editorial, considering GOP challengers as if they were infants playing in a sandbox. Consider Carson's life story:Worked his way out of poverty to become a world famous doctor and head of surgery at John Hopkins. DT, graduated first in his class from WHARTON, and then has gone on to add millions to family fortune. DT neither drinks,nor smokes and seldom indulges in a cup of coffee, hoping that the payoff will be sustained good health.John Kasich, serious, soft spoken but effective governor of perhaps key state,Ohio, on the electoral map. GOP is ethnically diverse, but left will never forgive CARSON for being a successful black man and a Republican who speaks his mind,and damn political correctness.His GOP affiliation is the cardinal sin for the left.Democratic pres. candidates are all white, but the NYT gives them a pass on that. Cooper is a bad moderator, failing to ask HRC how she can identify with the folk if she demands several hundred thousand for a 45 minute speech, or why her foundation accepts money from ME dictatorships which violate human rights of women, including the cruel practice of female circumcision, common in ISLAM.No questions re ISIS, which poses an existential threat. Sanders lost my vote when he said "people r sick and tired of hearing about e mails," a statement that the audience and press applauded.What about FBI investigation?So many questions that should have been asked but weren't."Ennuyeux comme les pierres!"
3
I find it troubling that the New York Time, a newspaper which formerly attempted to be balanced in its editorials uses terms like "Republican circus of haters, ranters and that very special group of king killers in Congress." NYT, you've lost your way. When I think of the choice that Democrats have, an avowed socialist or the shrill, dishonest Hillary Clinton, What is it that your big tent is full of?
5
Agreed. The blatantly partisan stance taken by the supposed "paper of record" is disturbing. Present your readership with usable facts, not cheerleading.
I listened to Bernie Sander's response to the question of gun laws, and the Brady Bill, and I didn't think he was pandering to anyone, or that he got lost.
5
That email quip wasn't directed at Mrs. Clinton, it was directed at the GOP.
3
"The Republican candidates may have a lot of fun campaigning for office, but they haven’t a prayer of knowing what to do if they ever enter the White House."
This really isn't a problem. Grover Norquist, the Koch brothers and ALEC will tell them. All they will have to do is sign the legislation.
This really isn't a problem. Grover Norquist, the Koch brothers and ALEC will tell them. All they will have to do is sign the legislation.
6
I've tolerated a certain degree of partisanship from the NY Times as a price of enjoying good journalism. Unfortunately, this editorial made me realize that I'm supporting partisanship that rivals what one finds with Fox News. Used to be the Paper of Record, now an integral part of what is pulling this incredible country apart. Subscriber from 1983 until the billing department opens tomorrow :-(
5
The Socialist debate was obviously delightful to those who think giving out freebies will solve this nation's problems, pandering to the Black Lives Matter haters is necessary to secure the black vote, and rewarding illegal immigrants with free health care benefits will be rewarded with Hispanic votes. Fortunately for the the United States, the four clowns on that DNC stage, along with the grandmother who is facing a criminal indictment, will make the election of any one of the far superior Republican candidates a welcome change come November 2016.
4
You should try socialism - it's great and people who live in so-called (for Americans anyway) socialist countries like Denmark are actually HAPPY, thin and educated - something most Americans are not.
Dream on. The democratic candidates are clown? And the republican candidates are adults? Your world is surely upside down.
1
Full disclosure. I missed seeing the Democratic debate. But I somehow can't imagine it could be anything near that circus now being staged by the Republican Party; with a front-runner in the polls they would rather deny....And yes, that is you, Mr. Trump.
That said, in face of all the insanity taking place on the world-stage today, it would definitely serve the Nation best to consider any candidate who has a modicum of Diplomatic ability. Because as it now stands, there is simply too much at stake by firing first and asking questions later-- and there's no room for 20/20 hindsight.
That said, in face of all the insanity taking place on the world-stage today, it would definitely serve the Nation best to consider any candidate who has a modicum of Diplomatic ability. Because as it now stands, there is simply too much at stake by firing first and asking questions later-- and there's no room for 20/20 hindsight.
3
I was happy to see Clinton do well in the debate since I think she could be a good president & that democrats need her right now to cushion the blow of losing so many down-ballet federal and state offices in the past 3 elections. Having her in the White House gives dems time to rebuild.
But I was surprised that Sanders didn't go after Clinton more forcefully on her war record or her emails. While Bernie's 'damn emails' line is refreshing, it makes him seem uninterested in winning. Clinton's only real vulnerability is the trust/how-she-handles-scandals issue. No one really tested her on this weakness. Being 'too moderate' isn't really going to lose her the nomination. Sanders needed to move beyond that attack to make a strong case that she was bad at running for office and he was good at running for office to have a chance of winning. Some might say that this kind of negativity isn't who Sanders is and wouldn't work for him - but if true, then he can't be considered a serious contender - Obama went after Clinton while retaining his brand of being above-it-all. To win, Sanders must replicate that strategy somehow.
I'm sure Clinton will do well in debates against the Republican nominee, but no one else on stage came to win the debate, and no one is forcing her to work to win the nomination. Even though I agree with Bernie more often than Clinton, I saw no reason to support him last night.
But I was surprised that Sanders didn't go after Clinton more forcefully on her war record or her emails. While Bernie's 'damn emails' line is refreshing, it makes him seem uninterested in winning. Clinton's only real vulnerability is the trust/how-she-handles-scandals issue. No one really tested her on this weakness. Being 'too moderate' isn't really going to lose her the nomination. Sanders needed to move beyond that attack to make a strong case that she was bad at running for office and he was good at running for office to have a chance of winning. Some might say that this kind of negativity isn't who Sanders is and wouldn't work for him - but if true, then he can't be considered a serious contender - Obama went after Clinton while retaining his brand of being above-it-all. To win, Sanders must replicate that strategy somehow.
I'm sure Clinton will do well in debates against the Republican nominee, but no one else on stage came to win the debate, and no one is forcing her to work to win the nomination. Even though I agree with Bernie more often than Clinton, I saw no reason to support him last night.
1
Democrats are not the people writing religiously motivated laws that invade the privacy of your body.
9
Compulsory vaccination laws invade the privacy of a person's body. Are those laws religiously motivated?
Overall, I consider myself a moderate conservative. I'd love to vote for an honest, intelligent, sincere, reasonable, pro-science, diplomatic, moderate conservative, or right-leaning centrist, or the closest person to that.
Next November, looks like I'll be voting for a Democrat again.
Next November, looks like I'll be voting for a Democrat again.
14
Looks like you'll again be compromising your alleged desire to vote for a candidate who is pro-science.
I'm not sure that I would want a change from capitalism to socialist capitalism or something along those lines as Bernie Sanders put it. It's not particularly beneficial to the middle class having to pay the ObamaCare bills already, so I don't see how it will get any better having to finance free college tuition, etc.
3
Socialist medicine costs half of what the multiply duplicative US system costs, and delivers a healthier public.
11
So why are most of the hospitals in the British National Health service rated by the government as Unacceptable?
true
Bernie has the people backing him and is genuine.
Hillary has big money backing her...and ....it shows.
Hillary has big money backing her...and ....it shows.
7
We are finally getting down to fundamentals. Every country is a balance between capitalism and socialism. This balance is made in three areas:
Which goods and services are provided by for-profit corporations?
What control does government have over business?
What control does business have over government?
See www.middlerising.org for a discussion of why our current system is failing and what can be done to enter a new golden age.
Which goods and services are provided by for-profit corporations?
What control does government have over business?
What control does business have over government?
See www.middlerising.org for a discussion of why our current system is failing and what can be done to enter a new golden age.
5
The Republicans have no clue how public-private synergy works.
7
The Democrats have no clue how a free enterprise system works. For them the government is the Be All and End All of existence
We have Capitalism for the poor and working class and Socialism for the 1% and the Banks.
Comrade Bernanke was very good for the Banks and now is working for them, and Comrade Obama will be giving Bill Clinton style $250,000 speeches to the Bankers when he leaves office.
Is that the Balance you are speaking of?
Comrade Bernanke was very good for the Banks and now is working for them, and Comrade Obama will be giving Bill Clinton style $250,000 speeches to the Bankers when he leaves office.
Is that the Balance you are speaking of?
The last statement in the editorial is a ridiculous generalization.
3
When one looks at the results in states being run by democrats (Minnesota, Colorado, California, to name just 3) and compares to the results of republican states (Wisconsin, Ohio, Kansas) it is very clear that republicans do not have a clue how to govern once they achieve the offices they seek.
Agreed, it was a civil, thoughtful and refreshing debate. Yes, Sanders had a bit of trouble with the 'gun control' issue, but what seems to be lost in most of the media overview, is as I understood it, what he was strongly advocating was that the usual polarization and NRA against those who support more regulations, needs to stop, take a deep breath, and work together. Each side has an agenda, there is truth and reality in both, but bitter confrontation and throwing money to lobbying resolves nothing. Sanders is asking for them to come together, and find common ground. That may not be possible, but if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got. Grid lock. For me, that was a good point, but seemed to be lost in the rest of his explanation.
3
This is a fair and balanced opinion on the Democratic Party debate, with which I agree. The five Democratic contenders represented themselves and their party well.
What is tremendously concerning, however, is that this op ed is more balanced than the Times' news accounts of the debate, which ignored public reaction as evidenced by focus group results, Internet search data and donation activity. By these metrics, Sanders emerged the winner for many or most debate viewers. The Times's journalists have every right to report Clinton the winner on the basis of content and style, but it is inexcusable for news accounts to ignore public reaction.
The Times' coverage of the Democratic race has sunk to a new low when the editorial page gives a more balanced accounting of the debate than the news pages. Color me disillusioned and disgusted.
What is tremendously concerning, however, is that this op ed is more balanced than the Times' news accounts of the debate, which ignored public reaction as evidenced by focus group results, Internet search data and donation activity. By these metrics, Sanders emerged the winner for many or most debate viewers. The Times's journalists have every right to report Clinton the winner on the basis of content and style, but it is inexcusable for news accounts to ignore public reaction.
The Times' coverage of the Democratic race has sunk to a new low when the editorial page gives a more balanced accounting of the debate than the news pages. Color me disillusioned and disgusted.
17
@Anetliner Netliner
Washington, DC
To start with they didn't ignore these online polls and focus groups. There is a story about it elsewhere in this newspaper. So either you're ignorant or making stuff up. However they're completely worthless as anyone with an IQ above room temperature understands. And since when has donation activity been a metric. You're clearly an extreme Sanders partisan and the fact is he didn't really do very well as several commentators have observed.
Washington, DC
To start with they didn't ignore these online polls and focus groups. There is a story about it elsewhere in this newspaper. So either you're ignorant or making stuff up. However they're completely worthless as anyone with an IQ above room temperature understands. And since when has donation activity been a metric. You're clearly an extreme Sanders partisan and the fact is he didn't really do very well as several commentators have observed.
For that matter, ALL polls aren't exactly what they're cracked up to be.
Like many other forms of market research (including focus groups, and auditorium testing), on the one hand, they' re a necessary evil; on the other, they're a flawed, imperfect, inexact science, for which too much stock is taken in them, and are treated as gospel, chapter, and verse.
Like many other forms of market research (including focus groups, and auditorium testing), on the one hand, they' re a necessary evil; on the other, they're a flawed, imperfect, inexact science, for which too much stock is taken in them, and are treated as gospel, chapter, and verse.
John donations are usually THE metric that the corporate mediauses, except when it goes to the wrong candidate.
Sanders got 2 million donations st an average of $30 each, which means that about 66,000 people thought he won bee enough to send him cash. How much did Clinton raise? What was her average donation?
Sanders got 2 million donations st an average of $30 each, which means that about 66,000 people thought he won bee enough to send him cash. How much did Clinton raise? What was her average donation?
Dear Editorial Board,
"The Republican candidates may have a lot of fun campaigning for office, but they haven’t a prayer of knowing what to do if they ever enter the White House."
One thing I know about all the Democratic contenders is that they want to increase the size and scope of the federal government, even if it means deficit spending as far as the eye can see. We are already $18 trillion+ in the hole. Was there any meaningful talk about fiscal restraint or reducing spending? If you disagree, then how many things did the candidates offer as "free"? They may be free for the user, but someone else is paying for it. There were no grownups at this debate, only kids desperately wanting to take control of the cookie jar.
"The Republican candidates may have a lot of fun campaigning for office, but they haven’t a prayer of knowing what to do if they ever enter the White House."
One thing I know about all the Democratic contenders is that they want to increase the size and scope of the federal government, even if it means deficit spending as far as the eye can see. We are already $18 trillion+ in the hole. Was there any meaningful talk about fiscal restraint or reducing spending? If you disagree, then how many things did the candidates offer as "free"? They may be free for the user, but someone else is paying for it. There were no grownups at this debate, only kids desperately wanting to take control of the cookie jar.
10
hmmm ... military spending ... shutdownss ... multiple repeal Obamacare votes ... Benghazi persecution waste ... refusal to deal with climate change, resulting in vast emergency sums ... endless tax cuts for the rich ...
Your guys bust the bank. Dems are good at getting the economy under control. Bush gave away Clinton's savings. Obama began to get Bush giveaway losses under control. Or hadn't you noticed, the economy has recovered quite a bit in the last 8 years?
Your guys bust the bank. Dems are good at getting the economy under control. Bush gave away Clinton's savings. Obama began to get Bush giveaway losses under control. Or hadn't you noticed, the economy has recovered quite a bit in the last 8 years?
9
Go back and re-read the editorial. "Mr. Sanders said he would change the tax code to have the wealthiest pay a lot more, with new revenues going to education, free college tuition and health care for all." I would support a candidate that reduced our military spending by half, got us out of the Middle East, reduced drug prices comparable to what the rest of the world is paying for the exact same medicines and drugs, offered healthcare for all, drove pharmacy and doctors to cure patients rather than just alleviate symptoms, removed all funding for charter schools. (If someone wants to send their child to a private school, fine, just don't ask the American taxpayer to do it.) I would support a candidate and Congress that passed a balanced budget that included paying down the deficit. No more tax breaks for the rich or anyone else until the deficit is paid off. We must not leave future generations with our generations' debt. Remove corporate tax breaks at the local, state, and federal levels so we can rebuild our local, state, and federal infrastructure (highways and bridges, airports, railroads, etc).
Spending and deficits typically rise under republicans. Take note of George Bush's mid east crusade and his advice to Americans to go shopping.
Also, as a member of a democratic society it is your and my obligation to lend assistance to those less fortunate. It's called a helping hand in sane society not the 'free stuff' your side inaccurately opines.
Also, as a member of a democratic society it is your and my obligation to lend assistance to those less fortunate. It's called a helping hand in sane society not the 'free stuff' your side inaccurately opines.
1
Aside from the love-fest from the debate, there are three problems that no one I know can answer...
1: If the economy, income-gap, education costs are the big issues facing america today, then why isn't that Obama's/Democrats fault? It cannot be that he's powerless, because if so, then so will the next president.
2: No matter how much the NYT and its readers bash the Republicans, the fact remains that they took control of the House and Senate in the last two elections, decidedly. I can't believe the majority of the country believes in the democratic party, given recent elections.
3: I have no explanation for the vast difference in the quality of questions/topics CNN posed last night vs the republicans - none.
Well, other than doing their part to support the liberal candidates at any cost, that is.
1: If the economy, income-gap, education costs are the big issues facing america today, then why isn't that Obama's/Democrats fault? It cannot be that he's powerless, because if so, then so will the next president.
2: No matter how much the NYT and its readers bash the Republicans, the fact remains that they took control of the House and Senate in the last two elections, decidedly. I can't believe the majority of the country believes in the democratic party, given recent elections.
3: I have no explanation for the vast difference in the quality of questions/topics CNN posed last night vs the republicans - none.
Well, other than doing their part to support the liberal candidates at any cost, that is.
7
In answer to your final point, I believe the Democratic candidates made clear to CNN that they wanted - yes, wanted - to debate issues and would not tolerate a slug-fest.
Since the GOP candidates have no policy suggestions that they can sell - ah, tell - the American public, their only option is a slug-fest. As the party of bullies, it is what they do best. For proof, look at what is happening in the House over the Speaker position. To get someone willing to take it they will have to enlist the support of the Democrats or be locked in their sandbox fight until after the election when Nancy Pelosi can take the gavel again. That is the only thing that will make the House functional again.
Since the GOP candidates have no policy suggestions that they can sell - ah, tell - the American public, their only option is a slug-fest. As the party of bullies, it is what they do best. For proof, look at what is happening in the House over the Speaker position. To get someone willing to take it they will have to enlist the support of the Democrats or be locked in their sandbox fight until after the election when Nancy Pelosi can take the gavel again. That is the only thing that will make the House functional again.
1.Kind of hard to do anything when the Republicans block everything the President proposes. That's why the economy didn't recover as quickly and the healthcare law wasn't a lot better..
2. In the last 3 elections for the House, Democrats had more votes cast for their candidates than Republicans. Gerrymandering keeps the GOP in control of the House. It why the GOP is so keen on voter suppression laws. They don't want to actually have to face the voters. They'll lose.
The country is now center left. If the GOP keeps on it's current path, they'll will become a regional party. They have no shot at the Presidency in 2016. The Democratic candidate will have a huge advantage in the electoral college. The GOP candidate will have to sweep the swing states to eke out a small victory. There is good possibility that the GOP will lose control of the Senate. A large number of Republican Senators are up for reelection in blue states in a Presidential election year.
If the Republicans lose the Presidency in 2016, their next effort will be trying to rig the electoral college.
2. In the last 3 elections for the House, Democrats had more votes cast for their candidates than Republicans. Gerrymandering keeps the GOP in control of the House. It why the GOP is so keen on voter suppression laws. They don't want to actually have to face the voters. They'll lose.
The country is now center left. If the GOP keeps on it's current path, they'll will become a regional party. They have no shot at the Presidency in 2016. The Democratic candidate will have a huge advantage in the electoral college. The GOP candidate will have to sweep the swing states to eke out a small victory. There is good possibility that the GOP will lose control of the Senate. A large number of Republican Senators are up for reelection in blue states in a Presidential election year.
If the Republicans lose the Presidency in 2016, their next effort will be trying to rig the electoral college.
Full employment requires fiscal policy the Republican Congress refuses to deliver. The "dual mandate" it placed on the Federal Reserve Bank to perform this function essentially destroyed traditional banking, and it obviously does not work.
The Grown ups.. Ha ha what a crew. A doddering old man who appeared confused at times, couldn't hear, and refused to even criticize his opponent. He thinks the U.S. can be like Denmark, a country with 5,000,000 people.
Next a former Republican who concocted a ridiculous explanation why he voted to repeal Glass-Steagal, I didn't understand it, my father died, sounded like a middle schooler explaining why he didn't do his homework. Then Webb, a respected military man who seemed mixed up because he's obviously in the wrong party. Supports gun rights and is a foreign policy hawk, the current Democratic Party wouldn't nominate him in a hundred years. O'Malley actually did a good job of bragging about his progressive record but never explained how all the things that are so bad got that way under the same policies he is touting for the future. And yes finally Hillary, who clearly won because it would be impossible not to with this crew. She was not attacked or criticized by her opponents, and lamented on how bad things are, but didn't say a word about the current leadership that got us here, or how her policies are different from Obama's failed ones. And no one gave her any hard questions on that. The Democratic Party has moved so far left they don't even realize how far away they are from mainstream American beliefs. That's why there is a historic majority of Republican senators, congressmen, and Governors, and that will continue.
Next a former Republican who concocted a ridiculous explanation why he voted to repeal Glass-Steagal, I didn't understand it, my father died, sounded like a middle schooler explaining why he didn't do his homework. Then Webb, a respected military man who seemed mixed up because he's obviously in the wrong party. Supports gun rights and is a foreign policy hawk, the current Democratic Party wouldn't nominate him in a hundred years. O'Malley actually did a good job of bragging about his progressive record but never explained how all the things that are so bad got that way under the same policies he is touting for the future. And yes finally Hillary, who clearly won because it would be impossible not to with this crew. She was not attacked or criticized by her opponents, and lamented on how bad things are, but didn't say a word about the current leadership that got us here, or how her policies are different from Obama's failed ones. And no one gave her any hard questions on that. The Democratic Party has moved so far left they don't even realize how far away they are from mainstream American beliefs. That's why there is a historic majority of Republican senators, congressmen, and Governors, and that will continue.
25
It simply false to say that the Democratic Party has moved significantly to the left. They are not any further from the center than usual. They are left only in comparison to the Republicans, who have gone off the right side of the chart, pandering to a bigoted, ignorant base, taking ridiculous positions, and making yet more fantasy-based promises far to the right of anything we have ever heard in Presidential politics: ignore Artucle 6, repeal the 14th Amendment, deport 12,000,000 people, defund Parent Parenthood, seize the Iraq oil fields, more guns, sending refugees back, etc. Tom Cotten even increased the suspicion that he is simply insane by suggesting Dick Cheney, one of the most hated people in America, and rightly so, for Speaker. On an issue-by-issue basis, the Democrats are, as always, far closer to the middle and to public sentiment that the Republicans, who will be swept out if they continue doubling down on their highly unpopular positions while their colleagues in Congress continue to display what Republican commentator David Brooks rightly called "jaw-dropping incompetence".
Re historic republican majority...yes.... but never have so many achived so little.
Your historic majority of Republicans is about to take a hit in 2016. Enjoy your privileged perch while you can; the chaos in the House is a precursor of what is to follow.
Utterly unsurprised the NY Times thinks Hillary won the debate. Also unsurprised (but slightly embarrassed for you guys as journalists and editors) to find no mention in anything you've written (including an article entitled 'Who Won the Debate?') of the fact that nearly EVERY opinion poll and focus group you can get your hands on shows Sanders winning.
From this right-of-center perspective, I thought Sanders' integrity spoke for itself last night, disagreements on the issues aside. I honestly found him impressive and likable. Hillary's debating strategery was in fine form, but I'm flabbergasted that anyone can get excited for a candidate who constantly has to twist herself in knots just to stay a half step ahead of her own baggage train. But what do I know -- I lived in NY when she was elected senator from a state she had no ties to whatsoever, so maybe I'm picky....
From this right-of-center perspective, I thought Sanders' integrity spoke for itself last night, disagreements on the issues aside. I honestly found him impressive and likable. Hillary's debating strategery was in fine form, but I'm flabbergasted that anyone can get excited for a candidate who constantly has to twist herself in knots just to stay a half step ahead of her own baggage train. But what do I know -- I lived in NY when she was elected senator from a state she had no ties to whatsoever, so maybe I'm picky....
7
"A spectrum of reality-based views" is what sets this apart from what the Republicans offer.
That Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee are Republican exiles is of note.
Jim Webb would have been a leader in the GOP of the 80s and was the type of Republican for whom I could be comfortable voting.
Lincoln Chafee addressed the issue by saying he hadn't changed, the Republican party left him.
In contrast, the Republicans, led by Donald Trump, seem to be incapable of dealing with reality or truth. They're concerned with building bigger walls on the borders but not Climate Change. They can't wait to go to war with someone, anyone. Most of them prefer attacking Iran, but Chris Christie sets himself apart by wanting to threaten Putin and shoot down some Russian jets. And of course, the solution to every economic problem is cutting taxes and regulations.
That Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee are Republican exiles is of note.
Jim Webb would have been a leader in the GOP of the 80s and was the type of Republican for whom I could be comfortable voting.
Lincoln Chafee addressed the issue by saying he hadn't changed, the Republican party left him.
In contrast, the Republicans, led by Donald Trump, seem to be incapable of dealing with reality or truth. They're concerned with building bigger walls on the borders but not Climate Change. They can't wait to go to war with someone, anyone. Most of them prefer attacking Iran, but Chris Christie sets himself apart by wanting to threaten Putin and shoot down some Russian jets. And of course, the solution to every economic problem is cutting taxes and regulations.
15
The NYT either missed the point Bernie Sanders tried to make about guns, or denies that the distinction he made is valid. The number of gun owners who bought their rifles and shotguns and pistols with self defense or murder NOT the primary purpose they had in mind far exceeds, I feel safe in saying, those with fear or crime as their motivation. Many of these gun owners are not in thrall with the NRA, and some who are members are uneasy about their membership. But they genuinely feel no one else will lift a finger to preserve their ability to hunt legally.
The guns purchased by hunters and those sold to the vast majority of city dwellers resemble each other only in that they will fire bullets. Hunting rifles rarely allow more than half a dozen rounds to be loaded into the gun at one time. There is even snobbery among hunters, with the purists preferring single-shot rifles only. For bird hunters, a double barrel side-by-side or over-under is the statement of choice. Not exactly de rigueur for a day mowing down shoppers at the local mall.
Hunting, in rural communities, is as sacred as a statue of Jesus on the cross is in the Catholic Church. In states that are rural, in the sense that there are no metropolitan sprawls of major significance, that feeling can legitimately encompass the overwhelming majority of a state's residents, regardless of political party affiliation or whether the person lives in the country or the state capitol.
The guns purchased by hunters and those sold to the vast majority of city dwellers resemble each other only in that they will fire bullets. Hunting rifles rarely allow more than half a dozen rounds to be loaded into the gun at one time. There is even snobbery among hunters, with the purists preferring single-shot rifles only. For bird hunters, a double barrel side-by-side or over-under is the statement of choice. Not exactly de rigueur for a day mowing down shoppers at the local mall.
Hunting, in rural communities, is as sacred as a statue of Jesus on the cross is in the Catholic Church. In states that are rural, in the sense that there are no metropolitan sprawls of major significance, that feeling can legitimately encompass the overwhelming majority of a state's residents, regardless of political party affiliation or whether the person lives in the country or the state capitol.
13
If you were the NRA I would gladly sign up.
Instead that organization acts as the lobbying arm for gun manufacturers, spreads lies about how guns will protect you, and prevents any meaningful study of guns' impact on society's health and safety.
Gun safety has never been about confiscation. It has always been about education.
Instead that organization acts as the lobbying arm for gun manufacturers, spreads lies about how guns will protect you, and prevents any meaningful study of guns' impact on society's health and safety.
Gun safety has never been about confiscation. It has always been about education.
Serious audiences demand serious answers. When you are addressing an audience that believes that Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, or a Michelle Bachman are definitely qualified for the highest office in the land, then it relieves the pressure on any candidate to express thoughts which are reasonable, practical, and serious. Candidates rise or sink to the level of the people they are speaking to. Does anyone believe a Democratic audience would boo a gay serviceman asking a question from Afghanistan, or applaud a Governor who brags that his state leads the country in executions, or act with anything but derision to someone who suggested we deport 12 million people. In the end Democrats demand their candidates present arguments that are based in reality and offer serious consideratio ; Republicans just want large portions of red meat statements to arouse their passions and to stir their emotions.
23
ok, i am no sanders supporter, but this is ridiculous: 'He seemed so determined to continue pandering to his gun rights constituency in Vermont that he got lost in the odd idea that he is more in touch with rural voters than the governor of Maryland and ended up undermining his image as the righteous truth teller.'
um, he is from vermont. which is more rural than maryland. even western maryland. not only that, but he was the only one to point out that urban and rural voters have differing needs, views and concerns about guns and that some of the proposals in states that have cities the size of baltimore - which is where o'malley (the guy i actually support in this race) is actually from, so let's not pretend dude is in touch in rural voters the same way Bernie is.
that's not 'pandering to his gun rights constituents,' it's a more nuanced and realistic answer on a very complicated issue.
um, he is from vermont. which is more rural than maryland. even western maryland. not only that, but he was the only one to point out that urban and rural voters have differing needs, views and concerns about guns and that some of the proposals in states that have cities the size of baltimore - which is where o'malley (the guy i actually support in this race) is actually from, so let's not pretend dude is in touch in rural voters the same way Bernie is.
that's not 'pandering to his gun rights constituents,' it's a more nuanced and realistic answer on a very complicated issue.
17
Compared to the Republican high drama, the Democratic debate was really substantive reflecting varied nature of policy priorities and governance style, nonetheless the tricky issue of campaign finance reforms was strikingly missing, indicating a bipartisan consensus of sorts on the issue.
10
@prof, Sanders was all over that issue, speaking clearly.
1
I must have missed that important point. If so he should be credited for that- an issue skirted by leaders and parties. Whether it materialises or not, that's a different matter. Thanks.
1
Actually, Sanders took that on in his criticism of Citizens United and the prevalence of super PACS, contrasting himself subtlety with Hillary and the others who have super PACS.
1
The democrats debated EDUCATION as a key topic, whereas the republicans spent zero time on it. That should tell you everything you need to know about the two parties, their debates, and their candidates.
42
This article must have been written for a skit on Saturday night live...Adults, please.Whiney liberals with agendas that costs trillions and never discussed the real issues we have in America. Republicans have nothing to worry about in the next election.
As in all of these debates, the topics were chosen by the moderators not the candidates. If you have a problem with the subject matter discussed take it up with the people in charge of the debate. Also, it isn't too much of a stretch why Democrats would want to discuss education as the biggest contributors to the Democratic party are teachers unions whose main focus is to line their pockets, taking money out of the classrooms. Take a look at Newark, NJ that has one of the highest $$/student in the country yet most of that money never sees the classroom, the majority of it goes to administrators and pension costs. Then you have progressives such as DeBlasio who are vehemently against charter schools because of the union backing ($) he enjoys.
This has to be the saddest article I have ever seen. Grown Ups? Democrats basically whining about how bad the Obama economy is. Then whining for more freebies. On the average Student loan the payment is $300.00 per month. If you can't afford that you probably shouldn't have attended college. You don't want to invest in yourself why should I ?
8
Indeed. But I have the way to fix it. More Undocumented Immigrants. That will get you a job and clear your debt for you, or have non of you heard you do not want to work they do?
@dennisd, yeah, why couldn't they have picked on each other's looks, and made up really sad stories about P Parenthood? Why couldn't they have been more like, "don't worry about a plan, I will get some ace people to advise me when the time comes that I really need to know stuff!" Geez, those Smarty Pants Democrats!
sanders seems completely nutty to me. who actually thinks a candidate for president can disavow capitalism and seriously suggest we emulate denmark and still get elected?
8
Maybe you need to study capitalism. I doubt you know what the word really means, especially in Bernie's context, "casino capitalism."
And Denmark is an amazingly successful nation.
We would do well to emulate Denmark.
If Bernie Sanders can't get elected in the US it isn't his fault, it's ours.
And Denmark is an amazingly successful nation.
We would do well to emulate Denmark.
If Bernie Sanders can't get elected in the US it isn't his fault, it's ours.
Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland are all democratic socialist nations. They have universal health care, really good educational systems, publicly financed elections, child care, parental leave, a strong middle class, and a - here is the best part - rank at the top of the developed countries in happiness.
You are right, of course. Why would we want that when we can have widespread economic instability and inequality, no basic security, a lousy educational system, a weak and shrinking middle class, corporately financed elections, a government that serves the billionaires and no one else, and a nation too busy shooting each other to even wonder if we are happy. Why, indeed.
You are right, of course. Why would we want that when we can have widespread economic instability and inequality, no basic security, a lousy educational system, a weak and shrinking middle class, corporately financed elections, a government that serves the billionaires and no one else, and a nation too busy shooting each other to even wonder if we are happy. Why, indeed.
sophia, you need to study american electoral politics. disquisitions on the meaning of capitalism and the superiority of Scandinavian social systems are hardly winning arguments.
I agree there was civility only because statements were made that went unchallenged or were not explored.
Point 1. The candidates had their laundry lists of giveaways Sanders multiple free programs will add trillions over 10 years. Hillary wants to cover illegals under the ACA, despite the fact that premiums are projected to rise 20% to 40%
Point 2 Hillary talks about capitalism run amok. I find this curious since her biggest contributors to her 2008 campaign were Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, et Does that she will return the $250,000 in speeches from Goldman Sachs from last year?
Point 3. Where was a discussion on cyber attacks from Russia and China? Where was the discussion about Russia's expanded presence in Syria? ISIS and a strategy for dealing with them? Our strategy in dealing with global terror?
Point 4. Hillary doesn't want to talk about the emails but she cannot claim that is partisan given 2 independent inspector generals recommended an investigation and it is conducted by the FBI
POINT 5. This paper have no choice but to extol Hillary's virtues, if she has any. They will not cover the emails responsibly because to do so weakens her and she is their only hope. And as more damning emails come out they will claim it's a witch hunt instead of being honest about the content of the emails
Point 1. The candidates had their laundry lists of giveaways Sanders multiple free programs will add trillions over 10 years. Hillary wants to cover illegals under the ACA, despite the fact that premiums are projected to rise 20% to 40%
Point 2 Hillary talks about capitalism run amok. I find this curious since her biggest contributors to her 2008 campaign were Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, et Does that she will return the $250,000 in speeches from Goldman Sachs from last year?
Point 3. Where was a discussion on cyber attacks from Russia and China? Where was the discussion about Russia's expanded presence in Syria? ISIS and a strategy for dealing with them? Our strategy in dealing with global terror?
Point 4. Hillary doesn't want to talk about the emails but she cannot claim that is partisan given 2 independent inspector generals recommended an investigation and it is conducted by the FBI
POINT 5. This paper have no choice but to extol Hillary's virtues, if she has any. They will not cover the emails responsibly because to do so weakens her and she is their only hope. And as more damning emails come out they will claim it's a witch hunt instead of being honest about the content of the emails
7
The New York Times was the publication that broke the Hillary email story to begin with...
A real revolution cannot occur within the confines of the party system. It could however occur from outside it with a transitional mechanism from within the existing political mechanisms such as the write-in vote which virtually every state has.
A favorite campaign trick the GOP pulls (really the brain-child of Karl Rove) is to highlight an apparent GOP weakness, and through misinformation, out-and-out blatant lies, and code-words make it the weakness of the opponent. We´re seeing this gimmick play out now with the GOP assault on Hillary Clinton's character being coded "untrustworthy" (or "untrustable" as McCarthy so succinctly put it) and "dishonest" and brazenly being attributed to Clinton gratuitously at every turn without qualification. So persistent is this character assassination effort that I see this theme embraced in many of the comments here. Even in debate analyses at hand now, conservative pundits keep trying to make it an issue peculiar to Clinton where it could just as well or even more appropriately be applied to most of the GOP candidates.
27
People are amazed the debate drew 15 million plus viewers. That number exceeded expectations and previous records by far.
I think it's a measure of how worried, even desperate, Americans are about who will lead us as they witness the clown show the Republican candidates are putting on and the chaos in the House of Representatives.
What a relief to hear from mature candidates who have clearly spent most of their adult lives doing the hard work tackling the issues and clearly ready with strategies to deal with today's challenges.
I think it's a measure of how worried, even desperate, Americans are about who will lead us as they witness the clown show the Republican candidates are putting on and the chaos in the House of Representatives.
What a relief to hear from mature candidates who have clearly spent most of their adult lives doing the hard work tackling the issues and clearly ready with strategies to deal with today's challenges.
32
Yesterday's debate gives hope for comprehensive gun control.
The debate provided a truer measure of what the majority of American people really feel about guns. It was a central issue in the debate. Jim Webb openly defended guns, while Hillary Clinton came down hard against it and Bernie Sanders opposed it weakly.
Yet the poll numbers of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders went up, not down after the debate. Their numbers should have dropped if as many people (including democrats) support guns, as NRA and gun apologists will have you believe. I hope this persuades Bernie Sanders to get stronger on gun control.
The debate provided a truer measure of what the majority of American people really feel about guns. It was a central issue in the debate. Jim Webb openly defended guns, while Hillary Clinton came down hard against it and Bernie Sanders opposed it weakly.
Yet the poll numbers of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders went up, not down after the debate. Their numbers should have dropped if as many people (including democrats) support guns, as NRA and gun apologists will have you believe. I hope this persuades Bernie Sanders to get stronger on gun control.
9
Big tent? I didn't see any blacks or Hispanics on the podium. No conservatives either. Just a bunch of white leftists. They've occupied the WH for seven years now. What have they done about income inequality which is supposedly their biggest concern? It was the biggest non-debate imaginanable.
9
Nice to see the NYTimes finally acknowledge all the issues Bernie Sanders has been addressing for months...and now Hilary is copying him on all and acting like she was always on that path...give us a break!...
Who says she is leading? NYTimes, of course, give her all the publicity.
Go Bernie, 2016!
Who says she is leading? NYTimes, of course, give her all the publicity.
Go Bernie, 2016!
18
Now I know why the republicans are so eager to investigate Hillary and to get her out the process with their phony trumped up charges. Hillary would pulverize their Front Runner Donald Trump in a 1/1 debate.
40
It was a sense of relief watching the Democratic debate last night.
We have the least worst governing system in the world, but I was getting worried after watching those Republican debates.
Civility is what we need, and that what was I witnessed last night. Adults discussing some very hard issues with different ideas on how to solve them.
Props to Anderson Cooper for not asking what dead woman should be on the ten dollar bill, or what the candidate's preferred Secret Service code name would be.
It's America, baby. Let's agree to disagree, but find some common ground to move the country forward, as this many decade's slide is starting to burn our backsides.
Until the Republicans get their house in order it's Democratic voting for me.
We have the least worst governing system in the world, but I was getting worried after watching those Republican debates.
Civility is what we need, and that what was I witnessed last night. Adults discussing some very hard issues with different ideas on how to solve them.
Props to Anderson Cooper for not asking what dead woman should be on the ten dollar bill, or what the candidate's preferred Secret Service code name would be.
It's America, baby. Let's agree to disagree, but find some common ground to move the country forward, as this many decade's slide is starting to burn our backsides.
Until the Republicans get their house in order it's Democratic voting for me.
20
"Republican circus of haters, ranters and that very special group of king killers in Congress. For those despairing about the future of American politics, here was proof that it doesn’t have to revolve around candidates who pride themselves on knowing nothing or believe that governing is all about destroying government."
It may not have to be like this but it is like this. This election will be very close no matter who the GOP puts up; most likely it will all come down to OH and FL.
So I'd not let optimism set in too early. The GOP will fight to the death before they allow Hillary in the WH. And Bernie would be a landslide defeat for the Dems, no matter who the GOP runs.
It may not have to be like this but it is like this. This election will be very close no matter who the GOP puts up; most likely it will all come down to OH and FL.
So I'd not let optimism set in too early. The GOP will fight to the death before they allow Hillary in the WH. And Bernie would be a landslide defeat for the Dems, no matter who the GOP runs.
7
Berniecanwin
I think part of the complaints about the circus like quality of the Republican debate are not being fairly directed. CNN did a far better job focusing the debate on substance in the Dem context than in the Rep context. They asked some really inane questions of the Republican candidates. That is not the candidates' fault, it is the moderators. Also the sheer volume of candidates forces the debate to feel crazy, give the audience whiplash, and lends itself to name calling or personal attacks if only to desperately find the camera for a few minutes. The better questions and the smaller number of candidates makes them feel much more substantive. If the field narrowed, perhaps the comparison would be easier. If CNN had spent less time asking "what woman should be on the 10.00 bill?" or "what is your dream secret service code name?" and more time focused on substance the comparison would be more fair.
30
Really stretching it to say the number of candidates forced the participants to name call and launch personal attacks. Surely someone who wants to be President would have to have impeccable self control and be skillful enough to make the circumstances work for them.
Is it not up to the candidate to turn even the most inane question into something meaningful? If asked "Who should be on a ten dollar bill?" might not the candidate be smart enough to turn the question into something having to do with fiscal policy: "I'm not worried about who will be on a ten dollar bill as much as how much that ten dollar bill will be worth because of Obama's fiscal machinations." You take a stupid question and turn it into something of value, rather than chase every shiny object like a stray dog.
The problem with the first debate from the CNN standpoint, Jake Trapper. Enough said.
How wonderful it was not to have to look at the many faces of Donald Trump.
How wonderful it was not to see squirm at what Carly Fiorina might or might not say to Donald Trump.
How wonderful it was not to have to see Jeb Bush try to get a little or big jab at Donald Trump.
How wonderful it was not to have to see Rand Paul and Donald Trump set an ice block on the debate stage.
Of course how wonderful (being a Wisconsinite) it was not to see Scott Walker thinking riding a Harley was going to make him the best president yet. even better than Donald Trump.
Well in essence, how wonderful it was not to have to see the Republicans last night period. Now maybe they can watch last night's debate as an athletic team studies their opponents. Because Republicans, you are not entertaining - you create stress among the viewers. We want information, not feelings of who is going to verbally abuse another candidate. We want to hear the issues and what you've done and what you'd do - but information that makes sense, not some off the planet garbage that is insulting to us.
So, Republicans, get going on rewatching the Democratic debate last night.
Maybe you'd learn some manners and give yourselves some information points if you can do as well.
How wonderful it was not to see squirm at what Carly Fiorina might or might not say to Donald Trump.
How wonderful it was not to have to see Jeb Bush try to get a little or big jab at Donald Trump.
How wonderful it was not to have to see Rand Paul and Donald Trump set an ice block on the debate stage.
Of course how wonderful (being a Wisconsinite) it was not to see Scott Walker thinking riding a Harley was going to make him the best president yet. even better than Donald Trump.
Well in essence, how wonderful it was not to have to see the Republicans last night period. Now maybe they can watch last night's debate as an athletic team studies their opponents. Because Republicans, you are not entertaining - you create stress among the viewers. We want information, not feelings of who is going to verbally abuse another candidate. We want to hear the issues and what you've done and what you'd do - but information that makes sense, not some off the planet garbage that is insulting to us.
So, Republicans, get going on rewatching the Democratic debate last night.
Maybe you'd learn some manners and give yourselves some information points if you can do as well.
18
Last night reminded me of why I will always be a Democrat: climate change is real, war is to be avoided, women need the right to choose, the system is rigged for the rich, and we need to fix that, and maybe, just maybe, we can enact some kind of gun control.
And, sorry Bernie, I am a big fan, but I lived in VT for seven years. Vermonters are reasonable and will accept good gun control measures that will not curtail hunters' (without criminal backgrounds) rights to own guns for hunting.
Thank you for an intelligent debate that makes the Republic Party look even more like the circus show that it is.
And, sorry Bernie, I am a big fan, but I lived in VT for seven years. Vermonters are reasonable and will accept good gun control measures that will not curtail hunters' (without criminal backgrounds) rights to own guns for hunting.
Thank you for an intelligent debate that makes the Republic Party look even more like the circus show that it is.
31
Yes, civility was the big winner last night, something we haven't seen coming from any of the Republican pseudo candidates.
After watching Hillary Clinton show her command of the issues and being able to articulate them as a President, she is without a doubt the biggest winner.
I'd say the biggest losers hands down are all of the Bozo's that have been appearing in the GOP Gong Show, otherwise known as the Republican forum, debate or amateur hour for clowns.....it's no contest.
After watching Hillary Clinton show her command of the issues and being able to articulate them as a President, she is without a doubt the biggest winner.
I'd say the biggest losers hands down are all of the Bozo's that have been appearing in the GOP Gong Show, otherwise known as the Republican forum, debate or amateur hour for clowns.....it's no contest.
16
As the Editorial notes, it was unbelievably refreshing to hear a "reality based" discussion of issues that actually have an impact on the lives of most Americans. And it's equally disturbing that no one in the GOP camp has spent the last 24 hours dodging and weaving to avoid even acknowledging those issues, while keeping up a steady patter of ad hominem snarks and sneers. Democrats are often as guilty as Republicans of catering to Wall Street and moneyed interests, but at least they're willing to publicly put the problem on the table.
17
Actually I thought Bernie was both pragmatic and cogent on the on the guns issue. With roots, family and friends in Texas I am fully aware of how quickly hysteria and irrational paranoia can set in when the subject is broached. (The NRA has done a spectacular job of ensuring that is basically impossible to have a discussion.) Listening to Bernie... I sense he knows better than the others how to break through that impasse and start a real conversation that leads to real outcomes.
9
Sen. Sanders was impressive. Sec. Clinton did very well, I still have a trust problem with her especially when she walks into a roomful of bankers and tells them to "knock it off." O.K. that did not do the trick. O'Malley could have put himself on the V.P. consideration list if he can be consistent from here on out. Not the short list, but the list. Gov. Chafee was far to nervous, but genuine. Sen. Webb was well spoken and delivered his message, I wonder how he would do in the polls if he was running as a Republican, I think he would be doing alright, he just does not behave like a Republican. I vote Sen. Sanders in the primary and will vote for any Dem. nominee in the general.
10
Best case scenario; Hillary runs against the worst the GOP can churn out (and they pretty much all fit that bill) and wins with 300 electoral votes. The Senate has too many vulnerable Republican Senators at risk in a Democratic year. The House, hopeless 'til the next census, finds a leader who doesn't want the country to fail. The Supremes get 3 new justices who don't think like Scalia. I can wish.
I've never had a problem trusting Hillary. If she can consistently come across as she did last night, and the phony hearings fade away, my scenario has a shot.
I've never had a problem trusting Hillary. If she can consistently come across as she did last night, and the phony hearings fade away, my scenario has a shot.
15
Best case scenario Hillary is indicted and the Clintons become a grease spot in history. The woman is a joke.
Anyone else notice that Hillary mentioned "God-given" three times during the debate? (No other candidates made such reference.)
Gotta snag those Christian moderates / independents sitting on the fence!
Gotta snag those Christian moderates / independents sitting on the fence!
5
@gmb007, I noticed that too, and was disappointed in that blatant vote grab. But here's the thing - many voters still have trouble with the reality that religion has no proper place in government.
One had to note that they were all in favor of the NSA surveillance state, continued war everywhere, no mention of Guantanamo Bay. SOS as they say. No mention of our destroyed reputation in the World that they had a hand in creating. What losers they all are, and I am supposed to vote for one of them. Please.
2
As the religious right would say (well, not about this op ed of course)... Amen!
3
All five democrats on the stage last night made every one of us proud. They had varying degrees of charisma, strength, and mental agility, but they all shared one common attribute; sanity. After the absurd performances of the right, this was sheer relief. We realize there are people of quality willing to put themselves on the line for the most difficult position in the world. Hillary Clinton, to me, was the most impressive. Bernie Sanders is a brilliant man, but he's looking old, and I question his ability to carry the load. Martin O'Malley was a person of interest, both Webb and Chaffee seemed weak. So here we are, the first woman president, strong, tough, and so so smart...why not?
9
What I have learned is the following - the solutions remain the same: Tax the middle class to the pulp, increase costs of doing business on the US soil through regulation and force US companies abroad, enrich large banks and hope that they would help with anything. We do not need higher taxes -we need to spend wisely those taxes we already collect. US already has the most progressive system of collecting taxes but the least progressive system of spending them. Zero interest rates only help large banks by making capital cheap.
2
My thoughts precisely. It is refreshing to hear what the adults at the big table have to say, rather than having to listen to all the tantrums from the kiddie table.
5
You ain't seen nothing yet! If Hillary wins either the Democratic nomination and the presidency, the Benghazi nonsense and E-mail nonsense will be childs play after Fox and Cruz bring out their artillery, to play up every zit in her past. These 15 dwarfs from the right learned well from the 'Obama Haters Club' how to rouse the unwashed, poorly educated miscreants
6
They can spew all the nonsense they want, but they won't be able to win the White House on emails, Benghazi!, goldbuggery, and Vince Foster conspiracy theories. It just isn't going to happen. Despite the headline-grabbing temper tantrums, America just isn't that bad off. We have too much to lose to elect a president willing to put the Tea Party platform into practice. This ain't the soup-kitchen 1930s.
Thanks to the Times team for extraordinary coverage of the debate & providing the debate transcript a benefit of turning to the Times for issue coverage.
In assigning scores for the debating points Mr. Sanders seemed to be the winner. His clear leadership on defining the issues & having at the ready solutions gave him a slight edge over Mrs. Clinton, though she was quite good in the crowd pleasing zinger category. E.g., "this is not Canada".
Major economic issues were addressed by Mr. Sanders and when all of the candidates gave their opinion on the greatest threat to US security, his response that it was global warming showed judgement & leadership. The others gave the expected response.
I also detected that Mr. Sanders was sensitive to the nature of the Republic and its importance in the public policy process (maybe it was his experience in the House of Representatives) & achieving better policies that make all of our lives a little better.
His treatment of the realities of US politics forged in the politics of obstruction and elections that uses voter suppression and gerrymandering & BIG MONEY to control of the Congress may have created a politician that can take his campaign to the dark red corners of America & persuade people to turn out and cast their vote for fair collective action on the Nation's problems.
Mr. Sanders also seemed to know about the mess created by the persuasive power of Eisenhower's military industrial complex.
In assigning scores for the debating points Mr. Sanders seemed to be the winner. His clear leadership on defining the issues & having at the ready solutions gave him a slight edge over Mrs. Clinton, though she was quite good in the crowd pleasing zinger category. E.g., "this is not Canada".
Major economic issues were addressed by Mr. Sanders and when all of the candidates gave their opinion on the greatest threat to US security, his response that it was global warming showed judgement & leadership. The others gave the expected response.
I also detected that Mr. Sanders was sensitive to the nature of the Republic and its importance in the public policy process (maybe it was his experience in the House of Representatives) & achieving better policies that make all of our lives a little better.
His treatment of the realities of US politics forged in the politics of obstruction and elections that uses voter suppression and gerrymandering & BIG MONEY to control of the Congress may have created a politician that can take his campaign to the dark red corners of America & persuade people to turn out and cast their vote for fair collective action on the Nation's problems.
Mr. Sanders also seemed to know about the mess created by the persuasive power of Eisenhower's military industrial complex.
3
I don't see much difference between Democratic candidates, maybe except Webb. What matters is whether the candidate can energize the whole population, and whether he/she is not destroyed by superior right wing propaganda. On those both counts Hillary has an advantage. Bernie has not been fully vetted yet, and I fear he will be easily made into a communist character by the conservative propaganda. Hillary's problems are all known and they are nothing substantial besides being skillfully overblown by conservative noise machine. She can handle that, and even turn this to her advantage.
5
A real political debate, and I thought it had gone the way of the dinosaurs. After watching the 2 Republican debates I forgot what intelligent political discourse looks like and, here's the big news, not once was the name Trump mentioned. I thought Sen. Sanders handled the email question like a champ despite what the talking heads on MSNBC said today, IMO he scored a lot of points with voters.
A hearty "well done" to Mr. Cooper, he asked salient questions that allowed the candidates to engage in intelligent dialogue.
My only question is why are the Republican debate questions so different?
Is it me or were the majority of questions about how the other candidates felt about this or that Trump insult or the really tough one, what woman would you put on the $20 bill?
A hearty "well done" to Mr. Cooper, he asked salient questions that allowed the candidates to engage in intelligent dialogue.
My only question is why are the Republican debate questions so different?
Is it me or were the majority of questions about how the other candidates felt about this or that Trump insult or the really tough one, what woman would you put on the $20 bill?
5
I thought Bernie had a clear message which was that in order to get anything done, the voters need to turn out and take the government back to the people. That's great, it needs to happen, but I think he can go further. Every question's answer can be brought back to this issue: campaign finance reform! Nothing can get done until we fix this problem.
Read Lawrence Lessig's Republic Lost. Speaking of Lessig, why wasn't he at the debate. He is running!
Read Lawrence Lessig's Republic Lost. Speaking of Lessig, why wasn't he at the debate. He is running!
1
The Democratic Party should have a moment of self-congratulation after the style and intelligence its representatives showed last night. Bernie Sanders' email moment showed grace as did Hillary Clinton's acceptance of it as a gift, which was generously given.
If the issues debated are taken seriously by the voters, we may yet get our country back. Good luck to us all.
If the issues debated are taken seriously by the voters, we may yet get our country back. Good luck to us all.
125
It is not just that they are grown-ups compared to the GOP candidates. But consider that all five of the Democratic candidates have something that neither of the current GOP front-runners (Trump, Carson) has: actual experience as an elected official. And the fact that Trump and Carson are leading in the GOP says a great deal - a frightening great deal - about the education (or lack thereof) of the American electorate.
22
I really like Bernie Saunders, but how can he not see that continuing to insist that he's a 'Socialist' is needlessly alienating a large number of potential voters? And I say 'needlessly' because were he really a Socialist in the true sense of the word (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism) he'd be pushing to nationalize every major US corporation and to make it illegal to own private property, which he's obviously NOT recommending however much he might admire the Scandinavians' way of doing things (also not Socialist!).
Which means that he's simply a deeply caring far left Liberal. And while that might be out of step with too many Americans right now to capture the White House, I think it's very helpful for us to explore the socio-political real estate to the left of Hillary that many of us had feared had been crushed underfoot in the disquieting stampede to the right in this land of Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Emma Lazarus (sigh).
Which means that he's simply a deeply caring far left Liberal. And while that might be out of step with too many Americans right now to capture the White House, I think it's very helpful for us to explore the socio-political real estate to the left of Hillary that many of us had feared had been crushed underfoot in the disquieting stampede to the right in this land of Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Emma Lazarus (sigh).
8
Merriam-Webster seems to have its definition for 'socialism' confused with 'communism'. The definition they give is simply wrong for the word. 'Socialism' is NOT government-ownership of production. It is worker/stakeholder ownership of production. Big difference.
Ah, Bruni and the NYTimes, still merrily skipping down their Yellow Brick Road.
Hillary is no sorceress, she’s certainly not magical and her debate “win” is highly dubious. LOL
She’s a ruthless, calculating chameleon, a female Machiavelli of the highest order.
Her “frontrunner” status is tenuous at best.
As Bernie started to skyrocket and now threatens her future coronation, she frantically commanded her focus-groups army to read the populist tea leaves, track the angry public weathervane - then suddenly started tagging behind democratic socialist Bernie Sanders bandwagon, yelling “me, too!”.
Problem is, she’s not a genuine liberal progressive. Ever the cagey centrist, she embraces self-serving expediency.
--> Unlike staunch, ultra-consistent Bernie, she has NO hard convictions, NO incorruptible integrity, NO uncompromising morals, NO true north.
No magic behind the Hillary curtain, just pure performance art - an avaricious, manipulative PLAYER who knows how to pull the levers, game the system - nothing more, nothing less.
Hillary is no sorceress, she’s certainly not magical and her debate “win” is highly dubious. LOL
She’s a ruthless, calculating chameleon, a female Machiavelli of the highest order.
Her “frontrunner” status is tenuous at best.
As Bernie started to skyrocket and now threatens her future coronation, she frantically commanded her focus-groups army to read the populist tea leaves, track the angry public weathervane - then suddenly started tagging behind democratic socialist Bernie Sanders bandwagon, yelling “me, too!”.
Problem is, she’s not a genuine liberal progressive. Ever the cagey centrist, she embraces self-serving expediency.
--> Unlike staunch, ultra-consistent Bernie, she has NO hard convictions, NO incorruptible integrity, NO uncompromising morals, NO true north.
No magic behind the Hillary curtain, just pure performance art - an avaricious, manipulative PLAYER who knows how to pull the levers, game the system - nothing more, nothing less.
5
I like Bernie. With a different Congress, he might make a great president. But absent a massive Dem takeover, I don't see how a President Sanders gets anything done. The GOP certainly won't play ball. The Dems will splinter into a spectrum of coalitions, squabbling amongst themselves, yet none of which will have any loyalty/fealty to Sanders or his platform. Eight years of executive orders? I don't think so.
I definitely preferred the Republican debates. Wasn't it cool to hear Scott Walker talk about the "blood of Christ" or hear Carly Fiorina hold forth on Planned Parenthood harvesting baby's' brains while their arms and legs flailed about! Now that was real political discourse.
7
This editorial is appreciated. In spite of the "corporate media" as Bernie Sanders calls you, voters really know and understand what the country and world think of the clown car full of hilarious Republican candidates. By midsummer the clown car filled up and news reporting JUMPED THE SHARK while clowns yelled racist comments and crackpot antigovernment plans. This Dem debate made the Republican Party look foolish. The "BenGhastly" Committee/Email Lunatic Republicans in Congress look hopeless. Maybe, just maybe, the media will stop the hyper "Trump tweeted!" reporting and show some strength with broader look at issues. Getting ratings by over playing the antics of Donald and the Crazies is bad tabloid journalism. Lately the smirking smiles of the reporters discussing daily Trump boasts show they don’t respect the silly discussions they are expected to have. So NYT and “corporate media”, don’t follow the clown car down the rabbit hole. The Dem debate showed class, now you do the same.
10
When every other candidate on the stage echoes: "I agree with Senator Sanders," and practically every post debate poll places him at 80% how does the NY Times consider Hillary the front runner? Have you forgotten the numbers sequence? 80 is higher than 20 and so on.
5
I believe a Biden - Sanders ticket win would be the best final result the 2016 election could effect. One of the most important disclosures which should be pursued is the the true story behind the defeat of the Glass-Steagle Act in 1998 which gave a green light to past administrations including Reagan/Bush 1/Clinton/ Bush 2/ and Obama and a whole host of economic advisors to these administrations and Wall Street; and the silencing of the one opposed, Brooksley Born, who received a JFK Freedom Medal for her clairvoyance. The defeat of Glass-Steagle enabled the collapse of the bubble market and paved the way to the unjust bail out of those who caused it to happen.
I just hope that this issue does not die because of Lincoln Chafee's bringing it up then being laughed at when he tried to explain why he had voted with the 96-2 majority because he was a new senator and because of a recent death in his family.
I just hope that this issue does not die because of Lincoln Chafee's bringing it up then being laughed at when he tried to explain why he had voted with the 96-2 majority because he was a new senator and because of a recent death in his family.
2
I like and respect Hillary Clinton (as does Bernie), but her corporate donors, including big banks and the company that owns CNN, render as suspect her ability to take the aggressive actions needed in the financial industry. That was made clear in her unwillingness to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and her weak statements on reigning in the big banks.
2
Sanders is popular now because he speaks the way middle america would like their president to speak. He speaks the truth - a concept unknown to Clinton.
He best understands the issues that are many people believe are preventing them from getting ahead. But unlike Clinton, he is not owned by big money which means he will go nowhere. The party will nominate another corporate servant and nothing will change.
He best understands the issues that are many people believe are preventing them from getting ahead. But unlike Clinton, he is not owned by big money which means he will go nowhere. The party will nominate another corporate servant and nothing will change.
3
Clinton did a sterling job, and Sanders held his own. But victory doesn't go to debate winners but vote winners. Sanders is offering something that everyone is missing. If he follows his strategy to its logical conclusion, he still has a substantial chance of winning the whole thing.
He's calling on progressive citizens to not just passively wait to vote but to stand up now and march for their respective issues: climate disruption; unbridled Wall Street/big bank corruption; women’s rights; minority rights; immigrant policy; whatever. The other candidates ask for support—but urging issue advocates to get visibly proactive, no.
He’s cueing us to yell, "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"
So if advocacy groups accept his challenge and take peacefully but loudly to the streets, Sanders needs to get every such action he can schedule and salute their commitment—to say, "Thank you. This election isn't about me; it's about you. Keep marching!"
If there's a demonstration in my area for reducing fossil fuel dependency, I'll try to get there. If he's going to be there, I'll try twice as hard. Same with economic inequality, women's rights, subduing Wall Street corruption. And when he plans campaign stops, he can urge supporters to show up not just as individuals but with signs championing their particular issues.
Guaranteed: Marchers will vote—and more— for the candidate who actively champions their cause; and they will push their friends to vote, too.
He's calling on progressive citizens to not just passively wait to vote but to stand up now and march for their respective issues: climate disruption; unbridled Wall Street/big bank corruption; women’s rights; minority rights; immigrant policy; whatever. The other candidates ask for support—but urging issue advocates to get visibly proactive, no.
He’s cueing us to yell, "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"
So if advocacy groups accept his challenge and take peacefully but loudly to the streets, Sanders needs to get every such action he can schedule and salute their commitment—to say, "Thank you. This election isn't about me; it's about you. Keep marching!"
If there's a demonstration in my area for reducing fossil fuel dependency, I'll try to get there. If he's going to be there, I'll try twice as hard. Same with economic inequality, women's rights, subduing Wall Street corruption. And when he plans campaign stops, he can urge supporters to show up not just as individuals but with signs championing their particular issues.
Guaranteed: Marchers will vote—and more— for the candidate who actively champions their cause; and they will push their friends to vote, too.
5
As for electability, why do we suppose there are so many wannabees in the Republican primary? Because they assumed Hillary Clinton would be the nominee and had already been methodically neutralized by the GOP's relentless, politically-motivated investigations. But they can't neutralize Sanders with anything but the "socialist" label and once he gets enough coverage for ordinary working people to hear what that means in policy and principle, I think they'll say, "Socialist? Well, so what."
4
They are not scary. The GOP candidates are scary. Every word out of their mouths is scary. If I recall, Obama was helped into the White House because Sarah Palin scared enough voters to sway the people who would hesitate about an untested and black Senator.
8
The debaters Made America Great! Passion and substance, respect and forward vision, America's great qualities were on stage for all to see. Hillary, Bernie and a surprise O'Malley did Dem's proud. Webb and Chaffee came across as reasonable GOP'ers; Great American democracy!
9
I don't understand NYT picks sometimes. You just wrote an editorial extolling the Democratic debate and how there was vigorous discussion of issues that matter.
And then a commenter says the debate was boring, and you give that an NYT pick?
And then a commenter says the debate was boring, and you give that an NYT pick?
6
That's the "fair and balanced" side of the Times.
For Senator Sanders to get a shot at the Presidency he will have to announce a youthful-experienced – respected inner circle as tentative cabinet and vice presidential candidates prior to the primaries. Without this team approach he risks coming off as a wild haired idealist.
There is more discussion of the substance of the debate in this, an editorial, than there has been in the so-called news articles, which focused on the "who won" horse race gamesmanship of the debate.
6
Please, Bernie, speak for yourself. The American people are not sick and tired of hearing about those damn e-mails. Only liberal Democrats are, and you hope that by pronouncing it so, Hillary's biggest nightmare will go away. Tell that to the FBI. Tell that to Trey Gowdey. Tell it to the Marines. But, don't try to tell that to clear-thinking, not easily buffaloed conservatives.
2
Trey Goudy... Oh puleese... Another chamber of commerce hack from the Confederacy!
You actually mean that you do not have to be a moron to run for public office?
13
Well, the Republicans have prayer, and that seems to stand in for intelligence in their eyes and the eyes of their supporters.
5
So Hillary continues to lie about the emails and most anything else she touched but Bernie Sanders said it was OK so na na na na. Grownups indeed.
And Mr. Sanders, I thought you at least had some integrity but that surely isn't the case anymore.
And Mr. Sanders, I thought you at least had some integrity but that surely isn't the case anymore.
If you want to fight back for abortion rights, minority voting rights, gay marriage rights, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, accountable police and a panoply of other rights, you have to vote for any of those 5 onstage at the dem debate rather than any of that republican busful of out of touch bozos. For no reason other than the importance of who is nominated for the Supreme Court.
14
It was refreshing to see and hear adults instead of circus barkers, revivalist tent preachers, etc.
Democrats should have more debates and have 3ach one focus on a major challenge - infrastructure investment, tax policy, financial regulation, global warming, etc.
Democrats should have more debates and have 3ach one focus on a major challenge - infrastructure investment, tax policy, financial regulation, global warming, etc.
9
Being someone's wife for most of her life doesn't qualify as "experience". And it certainly doesn't qualify Hillary to be president.
1
Hilary has experience as senator and secretary of state...
She's also been a lawyer, a Senator and Secretary of State! That's as much or more experience than many of the other people running.
Senator and Secretary of State, remember? To whom are you comparing her?
2
Republicans know exactly what to do if they get into the White House and maintain control of Congress as well: Eliminate federal healthcare benefits, condemn 12 million undocumented immigrants to expulsion, reduce Social Security benefits, ramp up the military for a program of continuous warfare and shut down the government if they don't get their way. Except of course that they'll all get their own government-paid salaries and benefits.
10
Whatever the particulars, it was a debate on issues more than the personality appeal to visceral fears that I see in the Republican debates. I so appreciate that. I do not agree 100% with any of these candidates, but when it comes to character and realism, I will vote for the person who has the interest of the whole country in mind, and who has the ability to achieve something in that regard.
3
Dear NYT, yes, relief. Adults have entered the room. The adolescents who feign leadership on the republican side are an embarrassment. The democrats offered maturity and reasonableness. The republicans pandered to their billionaire enablers.
11
After reading the editorials of the major newspapers, I wonder that so little is said about the performance of Marvin O'Malley. I knew nothing of him before the debate, but of the 5 he appeared the most presidential: level-headed, smart, well spoken, and on the correct side of all issues, to my mind. I have much trouble picturing Sanders representing our country in a diplomatic role, and Clinton's decisions on a number of occasions (especially endorsing the war in Iraq) have been highly questionable.
3
He may say that people don't run for the VP nomination, but that's what he's doing.
1
The Democratic debate left a question haning in the air: Why do we even need the Republican party?
13
I was very proud of our potential candidates last night. Especially Mrs. Clinton. I thought they all behaved like lady an gentlemen and still got their points across. If Mrs. Clinton is looking for a vice presidential candidate, I'd suggest Mr. O'Malley. He looks presidential and he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. They'd make a good pair. Compare this classy group against the clowns who have been on under the Republican flag. Intelligence pays off.
7
The democratic debate was certainly civil and substantive as compared to the craziness of the republican debates. One thing that has to be taken into account though is how much of the debate substance is driven by the moderators. They are mostly going to call to account candidates for the things they have said or done that is controversial.
The thing that did stood out to me was the promises the candidates were making without a discussion of how to restructure the spending. Bernie Sanders did mention how much taxes Trump will pay, and Hillary did give a shout out to small business. But I would democrats to also not lose site of the engines of growth.
The thing that did stood out to me was the promises the candidates were making without a discussion of how to restructure the spending. Bernie Sanders did mention how much taxes Trump will pay, and Hillary did give a shout out to small business. But I would democrats to also not lose site of the engines of growth.
1
The words that stood out to me in the opening statements were "Citizens United," "paid sick leave," and "Bush tax cuts." It was confirmation for me that none of them get it. That is not what is on the mind of the average American. We want to hear how we can get good jobs and continue the improvement of lives, so ours can be better than our parents', and our kids can be better than ours. I heard nothing about that last night.
8
Then you weren't listening.
4
I guess you turned the debate off early. Much was said about restoring the middle class.
1
Citizen's United was the decision by the Supreme Court that gave more power to the industrialists whose priority is to keep unemployment high and wages low. The Democratic candidates were talking about the actual means of accomplishing the objectives that you cite - Republicans talk about irrelevant matters, about cutting taxes for the rich or just make empty and ignorant promises.
1
What debate? "You're right, but this is why my solution is better."
For a party that talks a lot about the importance of diversity, there wasn't much present on that stage last night -- and I'm not talking about race or gender, although consider that too, I suppose.
Two words: echo chamber.
For a party that talks a lot about the importance of diversity, there wasn't much present on that stage last night -- and I'm not talking about race or gender, although consider that too, I suppose.
Two words: echo chamber.
1
Of course civility reigned. All the others bowed down to Queen Hilary. There was nothing meaningful to debate.
1
Indeed, it was truly refreshing to see the perfectly scripted corporate stooges as opposed to those vile republicans who dare stray from the corporate line. Really? Who paid for Bernie's "ad lib" line about email? There was no debate; there was a well-rehearsed charade in front of a Potemkin village.
1
No wonder the republicans are so afraid of Hillary! She is unbeatable.
Go Hillary!!
Go Hillary!!
9
What I liked was the exposing of politics as being the job of elected politicians.
Yes, Bernie gets some amount of pass for representing his rural hunter constituency.
Chaffee gets a pass for voting with his party when he first got to town. And all politicians ought to get some slack when they vote for or against something that is a landslide one way or the other anyway. And perhaps less credit when they vote contrarian where there is no chance for the vote to alter the outcome..
Hillary gets a pass for voting for the Patriot act for the same reason Bernie does for the guns. Her constituency was just attacked, what? She's supposed to stand there and say "We don't want to stop this from happening again!"? (not that it did or does, but we all live with the political theater if she did oppose it.)
I was very gratified to see the candidates inject this reality into the Memeosphere.
I'm happy that the "Who Won"? discussion is somewhat secondary. There wasn't a person on the stage that I wouldn't choose versus all but maybe ONE of the Republicans.
I was happy that both BS and HC voiced the notion that the election (which is the D's to lose) should become a referendum on the failed policies of the Right (and the NRA). And that the president can't do it alone, and that means that people have to get up, get out and vote! And while you're at it, More Senators, More Congresspeople too please!
Yes, Bernie gets some amount of pass for representing his rural hunter constituency.
Chaffee gets a pass for voting with his party when he first got to town. And all politicians ought to get some slack when they vote for or against something that is a landslide one way or the other anyway. And perhaps less credit when they vote contrarian where there is no chance for the vote to alter the outcome..
Hillary gets a pass for voting for the Patriot act for the same reason Bernie does for the guns. Her constituency was just attacked, what? She's supposed to stand there and say "We don't want to stop this from happening again!"? (not that it did or does, but we all live with the political theater if she did oppose it.)
I was very gratified to see the candidates inject this reality into the Memeosphere.
I'm happy that the "Who Won"? discussion is somewhat secondary. There wasn't a person on the stage that I wouldn't choose versus all but maybe ONE of the Republicans.
I was happy that both BS and HC voiced the notion that the election (which is the D's to lose) should become a referendum on the failed policies of the Right (and the NRA). And that the president can't do it alone, and that means that people have to get up, get out and vote! And while you're at it, More Senators, More Congresspeople too please!
6
Now, THAT was an American political debate by real patriots! Proud to be Democrat.
15
I was leaning toward Hillary before the debate, and her strong performance made it more likely that I will vote for her. I fail to understand the Bernie phenomenon. I was impressed by O'Malley, and he would be my second choice were Hillary's campaign to implode.
4
The trees out my way shed a lot of leaves when so many heaved great sighs of relief.
6
The latest Nobel Prize for economics was awarded to Angus Deaton, who said:
''If the rich can write the rules then we have a real problem.''
Our problem in America is that the theory that making the wealthy wealthier would benefit everyone became national policy in the Reagan years.
It was nonsense when it was first prescribed as ''supply side (or voodoo)'' economics, but dominates current Republican prescriptions for our economy. Those who reach the very top (the 0.1%) see their effective tax rate go down and candidates like Marco Rubio would make them vastly richer by eliminating capital gains taxes altogether.
With the rise of anti-establishment Republicans like Trump, Carson and Cruz, there is a palpable sense that the propaganda that deluded the base has worn thin. Those voters are angry about being left out and/or left behind and it is no longer possible to convince them that more help for those at the top is the best answer.
Most people know this. Democrats know this. Republicans have no chance of winning the presidency in 2016.
''If the rich can write the rules then we have a real problem.''
Our problem in America is that the theory that making the wealthy wealthier would benefit everyone became national policy in the Reagan years.
It was nonsense when it was first prescribed as ''supply side (or voodoo)'' economics, but dominates current Republican prescriptions for our economy. Those who reach the very top (the 0.1%) see their effective tax rate go down and candidates like Marco Rubio would make them vastly richer by eliminating capital gains taxes altogether.
With the rise of anti-establishment Republicans like Trump, Carson and Cruz, there is a palpable sense that the propaganda that deluded the base has worn thin. Those voters are angry about being left out and/or left behind and it is no longer possible to convince them that more help for those at the top is the best answer.
Most people know this. Democrats know this. Republicans have no chance of winning the presidency in 2016.
12
I agree that Sanders gave an opening to criticize him on his response to the gun issue, but I thought his emphasis was that he is trying to thread the needle between helping responsible gun owners in rural areas maintain their access while trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands, a balance not everybody may be as concerned about striking. But I think it is also the case that Sanders had a strong performance in other ways, just as Clinton had responses that could be criticized -- I guess we are not doing the "on the one hand, on the other hand" approach to strengths and weaknesses here.
8
diana, bernie voted against holding gun manufacturers liable in any case whatsoever. how does that square with taking on corporations, or putting people above business interests?
The contrast between the two debates said to me that we were looking at the next President, one of those on that stage, and not somebody from the other stage.
25
There was also a significant difference in the nature of the questions. Anderson Cooper only pushed once or twice. The republicans were pushed hard and pit against each other with every question.
1
The Republicans were suckers for stupid questions.
3
Somehow I am not surprised by this editorial. Mrs. Clinton was spared answering any real probing questions since no one would dare take her on. She will get a pass from the Democratic party which may be a mistake.
5
As a republican watching the debate, I felt relief too.
Bernie Sanders seemed doddering and at times distracted. He has only a single message with several variations that is always conveyed at a high decibel level. Is there anything he doesn't yell about?
Webb was rational, not pandering and didn't feel the need to lie about his military experience, so he was definitely out. Chafee and O'Malley were benign and almost timid in their presentation. Can't see them confronting anyone.
Hillary was, well, Hillary. Intelligent, tough and still a liar. Her nasty side only surfaced when talking about republicans, which belied her "I can work with everyone" narrative. She can work with no one.
Progressives are out of touch. Americans will never elect a socialist (calling him a "democratic socialist" doesn't make it any more appealing). In the end Americans are going to hear what all those nice giveaways (ex., free college) are going to cost, and they are smart enough to know that the costs won't be covered by taxing the rich.
Bernie Sanders seemed doddering and at times distracted. He has only a single message with several variations that is always conveyed at a high decibel level. Is there anything he doesn't yell about?
Webb was rational, not pandering and didn't feel the need to lie about his military experience, so he was definitely out. Chafee and O'Malley were benign and almost timid in their presentation. Can't see them confronting anyone.
Hillary was, well, Hillary. Intelligent, tough and still a liar. Her nasty side only surfaced when talking about republicans, which belied her "I can work with everyone" narrative. She can work with no one.
Progressives are out of touch. Americans will never elect a socialist (calling him a "democratic socialist" doesn't make it any more appealing). In the end Americans are going to hear what all those nice giveaways (ex., free college) are going to cost, and they are smart enough to know that the costs won't be covered by taxing the rich.
13
Webb and Chafee are both exiles from the Republican Party themselves.
3
AAC: Why bother. Living in New York means that your vote won't count.
1
"Bernie Sanders seemed doddering and at times distracted. He has only a single message" - yes, he has one main message (that being the large income inequality, which affects EVERYTHING: The top 1% have too much power; see citizens united - that means they can buy elections, send jobs abroad (in conjunction with poor trade deals), provide meager wages etc.
"Progressives are out of touch" - Are you kidding me? Bernie's ideas poll very well -you should look into it. And at least they have policies, unlike Republicans; I genuinely cannot think of one policy (except for a ridiculous wall around Mexico) that they have gone into substantive detail about. Republicans are living in the dark ages.
"They are smart enough to know that the costs won't be covered by taxing the rich" - well if you're smart enough to research further into these matters, then you'd know that they will also be paid for by a modest tax on Wall Street to pay for tuition free public colleges. Universal Healthcare would be paid for by the taxpayer, but it would be much cheaper overall, than what each person is paying now for their healthcare.
"Progressives are out of touch" - Are you kidding me? Bernie's ideas poll very well -you should look into it. And at least they have policies, unlike Republicans; I genuinely cannot think of one policy (except for a ridiculous wall around Mexico) that they have gone into substantive detail about. Republicans are living in the dark ages.
"They are smart enough to know that the costs won't be covered by taxing the rich" - well if you're smart enough to research further into these matters, then you'd know that they will also be paid for by a modest tax on Wall Street to pay for tuition free public colleges. Universal Healthcare would be paid for by the taxpayer, but it would be much cheaper overall, than what each person is paying now for their healthcare.
3
The reasons for the dysfunctional nature of government are many. To begin with, the constitutional provision that gives a state with less than a million people the same senatorial representation as one having 35 million plus. Moreover, these senators tend to be elected regularly which gives them seniority and powerful chairmanships. They are then able to impose their will on many important issues. But other than this unchangeable reality, there are lesser obstacles that if they were removed would improve considerably the legislative process. The changes could be made easily, if there were the will to make them. First, the House Republicans should jettison the provision that a bill can only advance if there is a Republican majority in favor of it. This means that the Democrats cannot vote on important issues because, say, 51% of Republicans are against it. This means that roughly 25% of representatives control the process. In the Senate, they should jettison the undemocratic privilege that they give themselves by allowing one senator to put a stop on a bill for whatever reason he/she may want and without making his name public. So, Senator Sanders, unless these rules are changed, there will not be a revolution. The system, even without taking into account the power of money and lobbies, is stacked against us.
18
Your points are valid, particularly that only 55% of Americans vote presidential year and 37% in midterms.
Can't have working government with such numbers. Americans have the gridlock because they are stupid...
Can't have working government with such numbers. Americans have the gridlock because they are stupid...
1
Clinton performed well, but she is a fantastic performer and has had a lot of practice. However, this debate needs to be taken in the context of the entire campaign, not the only important part of a campaign. Once the Greek Chorus exits stage left, I look forward to a real and detailed conversation between Sanders and Clinton. That will highlight all the critical differences between them and demonstrate that Clinton will provide more of the same corruption and enabling of the wealthy that has occurred over the past century.
15
You need to have the House and Senate to change anything meaningful. Otherwise your policy details is pure gibberish. The stark difference between Dems and GOPers should be enough to make the judgment. Otherwise it is all futile.
Hillary is part of the 1%. Wall Street and the political class are the same! On the Obama watch, the banks that were too big to fail are all twice as big (BTW, no one involved in the that fiasco got indicted), the big companies have made tons of money while small companies suffered.
Why not a Hillary/Bernie ticket. Really, why not?
47
Why?
Give Bernie more clout in the Senate.
Give Bernie more Senators like him in the Senate. Let them build a strong caucus that keeps the Dems from moving too far to the right again.
We lost a lot of good Senators when Obama was elected, Obama, Biden, Clinton to name three...
Give Bernie more clout in the Senate.
Give Bernie more Senators like him in the Senate. Let them build a strong caucus that keeps the Dems from moving too far to the right again.
We lost a lot of good Senators when Obama was elected, Obama, Biden, Clinton to name three...
Because Bernie is too old. The VP needs to be a younger person.
Not a bad choice !
As a democrat a couple things stood out when comparing the Republican candidates:
In the Republican debate, the candidates were saying “I did ___ and it resulted in ____”. In the Democrat debate, the two candidates were saying “I believe _____” (Sanders) and “I will fight for _____” (Hillary). I did not hear any accomplishments from Hillary or Bernie.
The other thing that really stood out was the consensus on the horrible state of income inequality, guns, race relations, etc. I just kept thinking. Haven’t we been in charge the past 7 years? If it is so bad, what exactly are you going to do differently the Obama?
In the Republican debate, the candidates were saying “I did ___ and it resulted in ____”. In the Democrat debate, the two candidates were saying “I believe _____” (Sanders) and “I will fight for _____” (Hillary). I did not hear any accomplishments from Hillary or Bernie.
The other thing that really stood out was the consensus on the horrible state of income inequality, guns, race relations, etc. I just kept thinking. Haven’t we been in charge the past 7 years? If it is so bad, what exactly are you going to do differently the Obama?
9
Hillary's weak answer on how her term wouldn't be a 3rd Obama term was too clever. She is obviously trying out several possible dodges.
6
No, we haven't "Been in charge" for the past 20 years, since the "Freshman Class of Beta version TEA Party "revolutionaries" led by Newt Gingrich took the hill.
Income inequality is the main product of "Trickle Down" economics which we have been forced to endure since Reagan.
"I did this___" was just about all Mr. O'Malley kept saying. Bernie sanders voted against the Patriot Act (the lone vote). Bernie Sanders voted against gun control, Hillary voted in favor of the Patriot act, She this that and the other thing as SoS, Chaffee did it all without a scandal. Webb intimated that he shot a guy dead. So if you want to say you didn't hear it, that's on you.
Income inequality is the main product of "Trickle Down" economics which we have been forced to endure since Reagan.
"I did this___" was just about all Mr. O'Malley kept saying. Bernie sanders voted against the Patriot Act (the lone vote). Bernie Sanders voted against gun control, Hillary voted in favor of the Patriot act, She this that and the other thing as SoS, Chaffee did it all without a scandal. Webb intimated that he shot a guy dead. So if you want to say you didn't hear it, that's on you.
4
Mrs. Clinton lacks President Obama's illusions about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
1
The debate made me proud to be a Democrat. Here you had four men and one woman who showed their seriousness, their sober understanding of our nation's challenges, and their courtesy both to each other and to the electorate.
If there is any doubt which party is the home of the thinkers, the men and women who are working to improve our country and to live up to our national ideals, the debate should have removed at least some of that confusion. Not that it is easy to understand how anyone who pays even a little bit of attention could possibly be confused on this point.
Unlike the Republican haters, the Democratic candidates spoke respectfully of differences in our people. Unlike the Republican science deniers, the Democratic candidates spoke intelligently of the problem of climate change. Unlike the Republican warmongers, the Democratic candidates spoke thoughtfully about how to address foreign policy problems in a complicated world and in a way that does not drain our treasury and waste American lives.
There is no one on the Republican stage who gives confidence that he or she has the wisdom, the compassion, the courage, or the common decency to handle this country's problems. All of the candidates on the Democratic stage showed that potential very clearly.
So why do the talking heads, political reporters, commentators, and Washington insiders have the certainty that the electorate will choose the Republican clown over the Democratic statesman (or stateswoman)?
If there is any doubt which party is the home of the thinkers, the men and women who are working to improve our country and to live up to our national ideals, the debate should have removed at least some of that confusion. Not that it is easy to understand how anyone who pays even a little bit of attention could possibly be confused on this point.
Unlike the Republican haters, the Democratic candidates spoke respectfully of differences in our people. Unlike the Republican science deniers, the Democratic candidates spoke intelligently of the problem of climate change. Unlike the Republican warmongers, the Democratic candidates spoke thoughtfully about how to address foreign policy problems in a complicated world and in a way that does not drain our treasury and waste American lives.
There is no one on the Republican stage who gives confidence that he or she has the wisdom, the compassion, the courage, or the common decency to handle this country's problems. All of the candidates on the Democratic stage showed that potential very clearly.
So why do the talking heads, political reporters, commentators, and Washington insiders have the certainty that the electorate will choose the Republican clown over the Democratic statesman (or stateswoman)?
108
Because the 1% have decreed it, and have paid for it.
Considering that only old white people were on stage, I find this headline to be ageist and racist
9
Sarcasm. I hope.
2
No, you don't.
I had a similar thought on viewing the picture with regards to the headline, at least. The 'big tent' consists of four old men and one old woman. Where are the african americans, the hispanics, the young to middle aged? There seems to be a much more diverse group of candidates in the GOP than in the 'party of diversity'.
15
I think Cooper, Bash, Lemon and Cuomo along with the CNN team that put it together did a stellar job, and, right, let's not forget the candidates. Sure, some were a little less articulate, but I got one heck of a lot out of watching this. It was like the good ol' days. There was information.
Originally I wasn't going to watch this, having experienced severe neural short-circuting from the GOP debates. But immediately as the debate started, Cooper drew me in. I was getting something out of this.
One aspect I liked was that Anderson Cooper pushed on the hot buttons of all of the candidates. They couldn't get away with vapid one-liners. True, I think Hillary kind of got away with her flip-flopping response, but it was very clear to me what she was saying. The same for all of the other candidates and topics, be it gun control, immigration/race and financial reform.
And there was entertainment. Having a classified email problem? Expensive. Having Bernie Sanders get rid of it for you? Priceless.
Originally I wasn't going to watch this, having experienced severe neural short-circuting from the GOP debates. But immediately as the debate started, Cooper drew me in. I was getting something out of this.
One aspect I liked was that Anderson Cooper pushed on the hot buttons of all of the candidates. They couldn't get away with vapid one-liners. True, I think Hillary kind of got away with her flip-flopping response, but it was very clear to me what she was saying. The same for all of the other candidates and topics, be it gun control, immigration/race and financial reform.
And there was entertainment. Having a classified email problem? Expensive. Having Bernie Sanders get rid of it for you? Priceless.
43
A Hillary-Bernie ticket is a winning combination
29
No, The VP needs to be a younger person. Also, we need Bernie in the Senate.
1
Hillary talked the talk, but Bernie walked the walk.
27
Grown-ups take the stage... thats a laugh... just shows the total biasedness of the NYT. What a disappointment the famous "Grey Lady" has become. Hillary is so grown up she still refuses to own the fact that she dangerously and perhaps illegally had her own email server as Sec of State. What a security nightmare for the one of the top officers of our nation! Then you have Bernie Sanders, who is so grown up that he wants to take us back to Lenin's Russia. Yeah that'll be a step in the right direction. These debates are 9 months too early anyway! Geez lets shorten this season to something realistic shall we?
5
RC, I would take Republican criticism of this a lot more seriously if it were honest, but when I hear no mention of the Bush administration's use of a private account -- not just one person, but dozens of Republicans, *as policy.* When they were caught, they deleted millions of e-mails.
Until I hear Republicans address this issue, clean their own house instead of doubling down on Hillary, I will continue to see this as nothing more than a political smear campaign.
Until I hear Republicans address this issue, clean their own house instead of doubling down on Hillary, I will continue to see this as nothing more than a political smear campaign.
70
Sarah D.:
Which former Administration official deleted all their emails during an ongoing investigation? Whose State Department claimed to have provided information requested all the while not even having access to its Secretary of State's emails?
Sorry, you cannot spin this into an innocent act on Hillary's part. Everyone understands exactly what she did and why it was wrong. The only question is whether people are willing to turn a blind eye toward her actions.
Isn't that just what democrats always do with the Clintons? Turn a blind eye to their unethical actions? Well, the rest of the country doesn't have to do that. We can see it and call it for what it is.
Which former Administration official deleted all their emails during an ongoing investigation? Whose State Department claimed to have provided information requested all the while not even having access to its Secretary of State's emails?
Sorry, you cannot spin this into an innocent act on Hillary's part. Everyone understands exactly what she did and why it was wrong. The only question is whether people are willing to turn a blind eye toward her actions.
Isn't that just what democrats always do with the Clintons? Turn a blind eye to their unethical actions? Well, the rest of the country doesn't have to do that. We can see it and call it for what it is.
5
Your tired GOP attacks are showing as well as your ignorance of social democracy. Look up oligarchy, which is what your unqualified in anything GOP pretenders are trying to take America to.
1
You know.. If Lincoln Chafee can stand up there and try to run for President, then for crying out loud so can I !!!
12
Incisive commentary. Thank you.
6
Proud to be a Democrat, no matter which Democrat wins!
65
Did anyone notice there were no fanatical religious types last night? No one tried to out-Christian anyone else. What a relief.
260
Hillary mentioned "God-given" three times. While of course not fanatical, no other candidate made such a reference.
That might have been a little tough for Bernie, he's Jewish, but I agree that it was a welcomed break from the "holier than thou" crowd.
1
No but good point!! I think it's really become a GOP thing anyhow....but yes is was rather pleasant that religion did not come up...among a few other things.
2
Last night’s debate was in an entirely different league from the Republicans’. The Democrats’ top two contenders, Clinton and Sanders, are both accomplished political figures who take policy academically. The Republicans’ top two contenders, Trump and Carson, have never held office, mistake self-aggrandizement for leadership and consider fear-mongering a platform. In fact, the sheer volume of GOP contenders (three times more than the Dems!), does nothing to enhance their quality – their primary is a contest to outdo the others in the outrageous department, all for attention and without a hint of governing ability.
371
Grown-Ups. They used to be the ones who would say, "Put that back, we can't afford that right now."
6
Are you referring to the Republicans massive tax giveaways to the rich? Those are the things we can't afford right now.
2
Exactly. Perfect. Thank you.
"Put that war and those tax cuts back, we can't afford that right now."
Great. So . . I guess those still are the "adults!"
"Put that war and those tax cuts back, we can't afford that right now."
Great. So . . I guess those still are the "adults!"
1
I always believed Bernie Sanders entered the campaign to ensure the issues of income inequality, campaign finance reform and Wall Street excesses were at least raised. If those were his goals -- mission accomplished. While I support most of his views (with the exception of gun control), I will be voting for Hilary Clinton.
Sanders supporters reject an oft repeated narrative, but the narrative has merit. Democrats must nominate someone who has a chance to win in a general election. For independents and centrists (a crucial part of the electorate), Sanders is too far left on the political spectrum. Still, any nominated Democrat will get my support. The Republican candidates, to a person, scare me.
Sanders supporters reject an oft repeated narrative, but the narrative has merit. Democrats must nominate someone who has a chance to win in a general election. For independents and centrists (a crucial part of the electorate), Sanders is too far left on the political spectrum. Still, any nominated Democrat will get my support. The Republican candidates, to a person, scare me.
66
Kalix1, Bernie actually polls really well against the GOP top running presidential candidates...in fact a bit better then Hillary I will be it not much better then her. Either one of them will take on anyone the Republican party throws at them.
Of course all the polls being done are well iffy at best...but here is one where Hillary wins the primaries, but loses against much of the GOP...and Bernie does slightly better...Of course most polls have both Hillary and Bernie beating everyone in the GOP except Bush whom they tie so anybodies guess on that.
While I know that the GOP will and is going after Bernie for being a Democratic Socialist, I know that once people realize that he isn't a communist they will be on board...besides the fact...he is exciting the base like no one else...getting people to the voting booth something that Hillary isn't doing.
Hillary has so much baggage that she could conceivably loose...and of course we are counting on the fact that she does not get charged over the emails.
I don't trust Hillary at all...she has taken many of Bernie's talking points but I don't actually believe she will follow through as well as Bernie.
Besides she is one of those Bought and paid for politicians Bernie talks about . I will vote for her if she is the winner of the Primaries but will not vote for her in the primaries.
Of course all the polls being done are well iffy at best...but here is one where Hillary wins the primaries, but loses against much of the GOP...and Bernie does slightly better...Of course most polls have both Hillary and Bernie beating everyone in the GOP except Bush whom they tie so anybodies guess on that.
While I know that the GOP will and is going after Bernie for being a Democratic Socialist, I know that once people realize that he isn't a communist they will be on board...besides the fact...he is exciting the base like no one else...getting people to the voting booth something that Hillary isn't doing.
Hillary has so much baggage that she could conceivably loose...and of course we are counting on the fact that she does not get charged over the emails.
I don't trust Hillary at all...she has taken many of Bernie's talking points but I don't actually believe she will follow through as well as Bernie.
Besides she is one of those Bought and paid for politicians Bernie talks about . I will vote for her if she is the winner of the Primaries but will not vote for her in the primaries.
What's really unfortunate is that if a Democratic candidate wins - demographics say that candidate should, but there's Republican-backed voter suppression all over - the new President will have a Republican house to deal with. Can anything at all get done in those circumstances?
13
5 candidates, and just like the rest of the campaign reporting, only 2 candidates are quoted. I saw 2 candidates last night that I would rather see as Democratic nominees than Clinton or Sanders. They have bipartisan accomplishments and have made tough stands in the past, and this editorial, like the rest of the press, takes the easy way out and ignores them. For the 10th time in 24 hours, though, I am subjected to the Bernie Sanders quote about the emails. The response to that statement shows me that sometimes the devotion of the left to its politicians rivals the devotion seen in cults.
3
For clear thinkers last night was a gratuitous display of Political hacks trying to buy votes from unwitting dupes who continually suffer from the unfilled promises of free sh-- made by Sol Alinsky's protege, AKA Community Organizer-in- Chief. The numbers speak for themselves and do not lie as Hillary routinely does without consequence from her acolytes.
Perhaps after 50 years of this blather they, (Reformed Dupes) will find another Pied Piper better equipped to deliver them to the Promised Land of Self Reliance, Achievement and Posperity!
Perhaps after 50 years of this blather they, (Reformed Dupes) will find another Pied Piper better equipped to deliver them to the Promised Land of Self Reliance, Achievement and Posperity!
3
Yo, clear thinker, think about this: at least those who reap the benefit of higher taxes on the 1% will spend the money instead of stashing it in the Cayman Islands. Think of what it will do for the economy that the "clear thinkers" have been throttling ever since Obama was elected.
The promised land-- like GW took us to-- you know, the two unfunded and illegal wars of choice in the mideast, that promised land?
Exactly what free stuff are you talking about?Your generalized rant doesn't explain what you & your ilk say about free stuff &who is getting what;Do you mean Social Security?That's a paid into annuity that works quite well for those who understand it;Medicare?We pay for that as well as supplemental insurance because Medicare doesn't cover everything&doesn't even cover glasses, hearing aides,prescriptions,Oh yeah, prescriptions, we're paying the highest of any country in the world because GOP passed a law that prevents drug companies from negotiating discounts with medicare;Read that again,Do you understand that by doing that the GOP gave pharmacy companies a free pass to charge what they want to the detriment of the elderly?Big Pharma gets free stuff.Do you know all the corporate welfare, tax reductions that big oil gets & has gotten for decades even though their profits have always been astronomical.Big Oil gets free stuff.And big oil killed the first electric car, the EV!, because Big Oil did not want to lose its cash cow;So they prevented the rest of us from living fossil fuel free &helping the environment to protect their wealth;Pollution & climate change are caused by fossil fuel yet the polluters never clean up the water&the air they despoil in the U.S.&around the Globe;Big Polluters get free stuff;You can't possibly mean the poor who get a pittance that could easily be paid for if corporations paid tax;even food banks only give 1 bag of groceries every 2 weeks
More and more"free" stuff offered up by millionaires all but one. Not any addressed the true cost of "free", never mentioning that free means devaluing currency, a cost for all and certainly not "free" and eventually soon true bankruptcy.
Each wants to extend their turn at the trough, saying all the "correct" lines that appeal to the "base". Nothing there for a realist like me.
Each wants to extend their turn at the trough, saying all the "correct" lines that appeal to the "base". Nothing there for a realist like me.
4
Be sure to cast your vote in that case for one of the GOP "candidates" fronting for one or another of the fat cats. Unless you're one of the latter I'm sure you'll enjoy being taken to cleaners by those you obviously think of as higher type of human being. Talk about cutting off your nose...
Hey "realist", were those Bush tax cuts during the war "free?"
Cause, I think we're still payin' for them.
Cause, I think we're still payin' for them.
But it's AOK for the Republicans to constantly offer tax cuts. Free money! It's gonna do you a lotta good when everybody has more money and the price of all the stuff you were going to buy with all that free money the Republicans gave now cost more such that you can only afford to buy the same stuff you could buy before... and the roads are pothole minefields, and the bridges are falling into the river, and the schools are churning out kid who know how to pass the last test they were taught to and nothing else!
But giving out "free money" in the form of tax cuts, that's so much better for society than society getting a free education.
But giving out "free money" in the form of tax cuts, that's so much better for society than society getting a free education.
It should be remembered that when it no longer possible to call President Clinton a left-winger Republicans then suggested that the "evil" left-wing wife was really pulling the strings. It is odd that Hillary Clinton is not seen as somehow particularly right-wing is laughable.
4
I am a Democrat, but I think the reason that this debate seemed at all refreshing was simply a result of how low the bar had been set for a presidential debate by the GOP. There were several moments that made one wonder what truths really underlie the political facade of even these Dem candidates. Chafee: really? You were new to the senate, confused, and mourning your father's loss so you accidentally voted on something you didn't believe in or didn't understand? Are you in elementary school? And Hillary, please, being a woman is not a policy.
13
I can be pretty tough minded after living in New York for many years, but I will always feel affection for the Times for being and siding with intelligent people among us.
Here you finally show a solid leaning towards the Democrats, the party of intellects, and I hope you are rewarded with many more subscribers should a rumor of Democrat leaning spread through the country.
Hey, it worked for right winger Murdoch and Fox.
There is never anything wrong with taking a side, as long as it is right, which of course means "Left". hi hi!
Here you finally show a solid leaning towards the Democrats, the party of intellects, and I hope you are rewarded with many more subscribers should a rumor of Democrat leaning spread through the country.
Hey, it worked for right winger Murdoch and Fox.
There is never anything wrong with taking a side, as long as it is right, which of course means "Left". hi hi!
17
Sanity and reason seem to be lost political arts now, and the grotesque performances of the leading Republican candidates have been jaw dropping. These people actually want to govern the 320.1 citizens of the United States? And think the way to be elected is to constantly insult large swaths of the public? Why would any woman, any member of a minority, any young person vote for a single one of these characters?
The Democratic candidates are intelligent, knowledgable about the issues, experienced, and sane. They have policy differences but ones related to the real world, not some fantasy universe.
The Democratic Party has become a bulwark against lunacy and bigotry, a party that is actually committed to the equal rights of all Americans.
As for the present day Republicans with their fascist ideas about controlling all women's bodies no matter what their individual circumstances, punishing the poor, demolishing healthcare, shutting down the government, and deporting 11 million men, women and children, Yates sums it up -
"Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, ..
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
The Democratic candidates are intelligent, knowledgable about the issues, experienced, and sane. They have policy differences but ones related to the real world, not some fantasy universe.
The Democratic Party has become a bulwark against lunacy and bigotry, a party that is actually committed to the equal rights of all Americans.
As for the present day Republicans with their fascist ideas about controlling all women's bodies no matter what their individual circumstances, punishing the poor, demolishing healthcare, shutting down the government, and deporting 11 million men, women and children, Yates sums it up -
"Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, ..
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
69
Yeats. And let's hope the next lines aren't true ("Surely the second coming is at hand."). Or if they are, only within the Republican Party.
1
The debate was won by the American voting public, who were battered and bruised after losing the two Republican debates.
96
I have never had any real feelings towards Hilary until last night's debate. Her performance was nearly perfect and I was completely inspired. As a progressive, I am thankful for where Bernie has taken the race. He has forced Hilary and the rest of the party to remain true to its liberal beliefs versus sounding like "centrist republicans" trying to get independents and apathetic voters on their side. The democrats message is strong and has a much wider appeal than any of the hate filled, anti-science and anti-common sense beliefs widespread in the GOP. Thanks to the proven and widespread popularity of Bernie, he has helped lay down the perfect foundation for Hilary. I truly believe that if Hilary sticks to these progressive stances, like she did last night, then the strength in numbers of the RATIONAL and PRAGMATIC will come out in support. Moving towards the "center" will only make her sound fake, untrustworthy and uninspiring.
29
Bravo Annie! When I read the headline "big tent" I was curious-- your description of the candidates was apt. While there are some "jokes" in the Republican line-up (see, Trump), and I do not agree with some of their views, their diversity and experience (in something other than government) is enticing.
2
"On guns laws, there was great divergence. Mr. Webb has earned an A rating from the National Rifle Association; Mr. Chafee and Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, have Fs; Mr. Sanders said he had received a D-minus, but had a tough time explaining his vote against the Brady Bill. He seemed so determined to continue pandering to his gun rights constituency in Vermont that he got lost in the odd idea that he is more in touch with rural voters than the governor of Maryland and ended up undermining his image as the righteous truth teller."
The Righteous Truth Teller? Don't we all think we are?
Then explain why the New York Times has changed it's writing from "Gun Control" to "Gun Safety".
I guess it's freedom for me but not for you huh?
The Righteous Truth Teller? Don't we all think we are?
Then explain why the New York Times has changed it's writing from "Gun Control" to "Gun Safety".
I guess it's freedom for me but not for you huh?
2
My soul, what a refreshing debate! Five grownups, as you said, NYT.
I'd love to Have President Bernie, but it was obvious ast night, no one can touch Hillary. Might as well get used to Madame President and First Man Bill. Hey, the mix-up in all our perceptions will be fun.
As for Hillary's flip-flopping, I would prefer to have less finger-to-the-wind, but maybe that isn't so bad. The tide is running in a progressive direction, all over the world, and as good a politician as she is, she will likely run with it.
I'd love to Have President Bernie, but it was obvious ast night, no one can touch Hillary. Might as well get used to Madame President and First Man Bill. Hey, the mix-up in all our perceptions will be fun.
As for Hillary's flip-flopping, I would prefer to have less finger-to-the-wind, but maybe that isn't so bad. The tide is running in a progressive direction, all over the world, and as good a politician as she is, she will likely run with it.
22
Hillary is still in the back pocket of big money. She has refused to consider the breakup of the big banks and still takes mega corporate money for her campaign and she is still a war hawk. She has vacillated too much for me on fossil fuels and global warming and too many other issues. In short, I don't trust her.
4
I disagree. If any of the republican candidates entered the White House, they'd know just what to do: remove your hat and wait patiently at the visitors' entrance for your tour guide.
8
If the possibility of the GOP adding more reactionary judges to the Supreme Court scares the daylights out of you, then vote accordingly.
50
I may be the only one watching the debate who feels this way, but I liked Lincoln Chafee, whom i had never heard of prior to last night. We should never forget that the person we elect will have their finger on the trigger of nuclear destruction. I think all of these Democratic candidates could handle that - but in my view, Chafee most of all.
47
I agree with you -- you may be the only one who feels that way.
If Bernie is the wise/crazy uncle from Brooklyn, Licoln Chafee is the creepy cousin. All I heard him say was he is untainted by corruption, and he wasn't prepared for his first vote as a US Senator.
Chafee is a modest, liberal-leaning, decent man. No wonder he left the GOP.
You might enjoy learning that after college at Brown (I believe) he spent time working as a blacksmith. The others on the track had no idea what his background was. Now, that is very interesting for a son of a moderately (by today's standards) wealthy senator. Jeb certainly has never done anything that humble and that likely to put him in touch with average, non-privileged people. Another little fact? He went to a private prep school with Jeb. They used to play ping-pong.
You might enjoy learning that after college at Brown (I believe) he spent time working as a blacksmith. The others on the track had no idea what his background was. Now, that is very interesting for a son of a moderately (by today's standards) wealthy senator. Jeb certainly has never done anything that humble and that likely to put him in touch with average, non-privileged people. Another little fact? He went to a private prep school with Jeb. They used to play ping-pong.
If Americans keep voting how they've voted
They're going to keep getting what they've got.
It comes down to whether they are more afraid of the way things are than they are afraid of change.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
They're going to keep getting what they've got.
It comes down to whether they are more afraid of the way things are than they are afraid of change.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
13
Seriously on the taxes? Raise taxes and make the wealthy pay extra so you can give it to those who haven't earned it? This concept is so boring and outdated. I'm no fool, obviously not all wealthy people deserve everything they've got, but to punish everyone who's rightfully earned their money to make up for the few who haven't, is absurd. There should be an even tax percentage so that everyone pays their fair share. And instead of raising taxes, why don't you try getting money out of all the people aren't paying their taxes, yet still collect all of your handouts!
5
Your regressive and oppressive thinking is what's boring and outdated. A Flat tax is not an equal tax, and a small amount of research would have demonstrated that to you. Even as our tax code is now, the wealthy are unbelievably favored over everyone else, and this has led the country to our current economic precipice.
12
Why is it outdated? This is actually what led to the prosperity of the middle class and corrected the economic disasters of the Gilded Age with the Great Depression.
The fake "fair tax" is actually a way of raising taxes on the middle class and poor, and lowering them significantly on the wealthy who are swimming in unearned prosperity already.
The fake "fair tax" is actually a way of raising taxes on the middle class and poor, and lowering them significantly on the wealthy who are swimming in unearned prosperity already.
21
First, having the wealthy pay more in taxes is not "punishment"; they tend to gain far more in return from public spending than you might think (e.g., infrastructure, security, and more). They also enjoy a disproportionately large amount of political influence. Many wealthy people don't even pay the nominal taxes that they would owe if they hadn't the expensive lawyers and accountants to find loopholes and tax shelters of all forms. Second, many, including me, would dispute your notion of what "fair share" actually means. Finally, the notion that there are masses of people out there living high on the hog off of handouts is a myth.
19
Please don't characterize Senator Sanders' position on gun rights as "pandering." He has a difference of opinion from some of the other candidates on this issue. I don't think Bernie did himself any favors trying to thread that needle, but it that is his position - and it certainly seems to be - then please let him state it. If you don't like it, you can go ahead and say that. Personally, I found the "debate" interesting. I would love to see debates on both sides where the moderators ask difficult, substantive questions. This was a little too easy.
8
I had to turn the debate off about 30 minutes into it as it felt like watching a dinner table discussion at a retirement home. The answers were rehearsed, the positions were poll-tested and focus group approved. We learned nothing new last night but apparently the NYT Editorial Board was enthralled.
BTW, please refrain from using the word 'haters', especially in the opening sentence. It made me wonder if this was written by a high school sophomore.
BTW, please refrain from using the word 'haters', especially in the opening sentence. It made me wonder if this was written by a high school sophomore.
12
The Editorial Board is in desperate need of some grown ups. Its name calling is very childish. It gives progressives a bad name They are known to resort to name calling when they can no longer handle a debate.
1
"Haters" is a factually accurate description of the rascist and xenophobic Republican candidates and Republican base.
YOU turned it off after 30 minutes and somehow you're sure "We" learned nothing new.
That's a cute trick there Michael D.
This Thanksgiving you can do that again as you sit at the kids table and swap stories of Halloween capers and pranks while the boring old adults sit at the other table and have no fun.
That's a cute trick there Michael D.
This Thanksgiving you can do that again as you sit at the kids table and swap stories of Halloween capers and pranks while the boring old adults sit at the other table and have no fun.
The last paragraph of this editorial is absolutely spot on ... and it is chilling to realize how many people don't understand this and will fall sway to voting a Republican into office.
My hope many of the more reasonably thinking conservative voters will do what the Dem's traditionally do, their party's candidate will not appeal to them so they will simply sit it out. But bottom line, the Democratic party must get out there and rally the vote! And not just for President, but House and Senate seats as well.
My hope many of the more reasonably thinking conservative voters will do what the Dem's traditionally do, their party's candidate will not appeal to them so they will simply sit it out. But bottom line, the Democratic party must get out there and rally the vote! And not just for President, but House and Senate seats as well.
38
The fact that the Republican Party cannot put forth a true leader as a candidate is very revealing of the corruption that has taken over the party.
The litmus test for Republican candidates is driven by the NRA and several Christian organizations. Candidates must be anti-gay, anti-abortion and pro-gun. I have no idea what the party's position is on immigration. We toute ourselves as fiscal conservatives but that is no longer part of the litmus test.
Personally, I'd rather vote for a proven leader than someone who wishes to impose their religious values on our entire nation and is completely beholden to the NRA for financial support...
The litmus test for Republican candidates is driven by the NRA and several Christian organizations. Candidates must be anti-gay, anti-abortion and pro-gun. I have no idea what the party's position is on immigration. We toute ourselves as fiscal conservatives but that is no longer part of the litmus test.
Personally, I'd rather vote for a proven leader than someone who wishes to impose their religious values on our entire nation and is completely beholden to the NRA for financial support...
43
I fear Secretary Clinton is too enmeshed in the business-as-usual strain of politics. Clearly her moderate views are appealing to many, but I was disappointed to hear her say she was opposed to legalizing marijuana, as well as her support of the Patriot Act. In her rhetoric I detect a strain of she knows what's best for us, as opposed to Sen. Sanders, who boldly speaks truth to power. I'm weary of half-measures and lukewarm policies. I believe a GOP congress is unlikely to cooperate with any Democratic president, and Secretary Clinton seems all too ready to compromise. I far prefer Sen. Sanders' positions on every issue. He may not win every battle, but I believe his commitment to recreating a true middle class will ultimately get us farther.
15
But - I think that's the problem from both the conservative and liberal bases. They both want all the things that benefit them and fit within their principles and values and will not give an inch in compromise to the other side. I appreciate Senator Sanders effort to remind the Democrats of their progressive history but Hilary is correct in saying "we're not Denmark" or Sweden, or Norway or any other predominantly small and heterogenous population. We won't get very far if the left insists on trying to become a socialist democracy while the right tries to do away with government all together. Getting some of what you want (not all) is the name of the game in American progress. Hilliary is a pragmatist. As is Barack Obama. As was Bill Clinton. They all understand that progress in our democracy comes inches at a time and over years of work and effort and compromise. We need someone who is willing to compromise, is an outstanding manager, has a deep understanding of foreign policy and has a vision for the country as a democratic republic. Hillary fits those requirements most completely out of the choices we have.
Some pundits predicted that last night's debate was going to boring, I assume, compared to the Republican Circus. However, the discussion was lively, intelligent, and informative and great fun. Actually, it was a reminder that Americans are capable of civil political discourse.
I would be comfortable with any of them but I think that Bernie was the most convincing. Yeah, he is a little nerdy but his passion for doing the right thing, based in vision and data, is very impressive. He is very comfortable with sharing his evolution as a political animal, not reticent to draw boundaries when necessary, and nuanced in his positions (particularly regarding rural America). Most important of all, his is the only campaign that stands squarely in ridding the process of Super-PAC's and other grossly distorted sources of funding elections and politics-probably the root of many, many problems.
After I finish this, I am going to write a check!!
I would be comfortable with any of them but I think that Bernie was the most convincing. Yeah, he is a little nerdy but his passion for doing the right thing, based in vision and data, is very impressive. He is very comfortable with sharing his evolution as a political animal, not reticent to draw boundaries when necessary, and nuanced in his positions (particularly regarding rural America). Most important of all, his is the only campaign that stands squarely in ridding the process of Super-PAC's and other grossly distorted sources of funding elections and politics-probably the root of many, many problems.
After I finish this, I am going to write a check!!
26
If you have a medical problem, you look at the record. What has the provider done that has made his patients better? Is the provider's primary goal to heal and make people whole, or to be rich and famous? We have similar questions for every encounter that we have, whether it be in the education we try to get for ourselves and our children, or for who we trust our lives and money with in the marketplace. Why don’t we do the same in choosing our politicians?
The preamble of the United States Constitution reads“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”
What has the Republican party done in the past 40 years in deed and actions to meet these goals for “We the People”?
Their record is well documented--eliminate affordable health care for all, shut down the government to cut spending for the poor and middle class, privatize Social Security and Medicare, reduce Medicaid, oppose regulation for gun use and clean air and water (cut EPA funding), opposing regulation of the big banks, start credit card unfinanced wars, block transportation infrastructure funding, and in general make the government as weak as possible so that in their own words they can “drown the baby in the bathtub”. Vote!!!
The preamble of the United States Constitution reads“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”
What has the Republican party done in the past 40 years in deed and actions to meet these goals for “We the People”?
Their record is well documented--eliminate affordable health care for all, shut down the government to cut spending for the poor and middle class, privatize Social Security and Medicare, reduce Medicaid, oppose regulation for gun use and clean air and water (cut EPA funding), opposing regulation of the big banks, start credit card unfinanced wars, block transportation infrastructure funding, and in general make the government as weak as possible so that in their own words they can “drown the baby in the bathtub”. Vote!!!
52
Wow, Sunny, from that first paragraph, I thought I was going to get some great input on which Democratic candidate to favor. Instead, the second paragraph just unloads on the Republican party.
1
Thank you, Sunny. Your comments are succinct and, unfortunately, painfully easy to support with specific strong evidence.
5
The democatric party has done its share of damage with its "good intentions", most specifically its creation of a welfare state that destroyed the black family and created generation of welfare recipients.
3
It was as if this was the first US debate. The RNC’s disastrous fake “debates” envisaged a third world US I could not recognize - a petty nation run by mindless zealots and buy-masters who boss everyone around without any regard for outcomes. That said Sanders was by far the most ethics oriented candidate I’ve seen in years and I was especially impressed with the genuine warmth of him and his wife. This nation needs to save itself from becoming the third world nation the RNC apparently wants us to become. Vote for character not back room deal making that sells everyone out but their big PAC backers.
48
I like Bernie Sanders.
This routine with the campaign contributions... It's hooey.
What does Bernie Sanders think is going to happen if he is the nominee? Does he think that a $2Mil campaign chest is going to be enough to buy him self ad space on network tv nationwide? Does he think that a group of volunteers are going to go up against an army of paid political organizers, who have worked elections semi constantly for 20 30 40 years?
Does he think that JEB! (assuming) isn't going to unleash the hounds? Look what they did to John Kerry! Look what they did to John McCain!
How is Bernie going fight against that? With around 30 bucks?
It's ludicrous. It says, "I'm not going to win the nomination, so I don't have to worry about that anyway!" (which is rational).
This routine with the campaign contributions... It's hooey.
What does Bernie Sanders think is going to happen if he is the nominee? Does he think that a $2Mil campaign chest is going to be enough to buy him self ad space on network tv nationwide? Does he think that a group of volunteers are going to go up against an army of paid political organizers, who have worked elections semi constantly for 20 30 40 years?
Does he think that JEB! (assuming) isn't going to unleash the hounds? Look what they did to John Kerry! Look what they did to John McCain!
How is Bernie going fight against that? With around 30 bucks?
It's ludicrous. It says, "I'm not going to win the nomination, so I don't have to worry about that anyway!" (which is rational).
The Democrats talked about and wrestled with the substantive issues this nation and we as its people face, and did so in a civil manner.
By contrast, last week the Republicans in Congress and on the debate stage showed a clear inability to govern themselves, much less the nation.
By contrast, last week the Republicans in Congress and on the debate stage showed a clear inability to govern themselves, much less the nation.
80
While I agree, each of the dems demurred when asked how they would get their agendas through a hostile Congress which says no to everything. Positions matter less than getting things done. Of course there is no easy answer to this problem other than taking back the House and Senate. Yet none of them said they would work to see that happen.
On the contrary, the republicans talked about how to pay for all the democrats' spending. Not one democrat on that stage seemed at all concerned about costs.
It seems unlikely that if the Sanders voters turn up to vote they will be checking any Republican boxes.
Ah.. missing "The Trump" and I bet the media and ratings are as well. Is there anyway to invite him as a guest in the next democratic debate?
The main goal of democrats should be to nominate someone who can 1) win general election 2) Doesn't sounds "arrogant" (probably due to their minority status) to at least get the party of NO to listen.
As much as I like Sanders, he might be more polarizing being more to left and not being a smooth talker.
Hillary can win the general election, but she will be called arrogant as well due to her being a woman, and Tea party will have a hard time accepting her as president as they had problem with Obama.
So here is my prediction.. Hillary will win the election, but the grid lock will continue. May be get a lib supreme court judge..
I don't blame Hillary for flip-flopping, as long as it is not polarizing. Its for the greater good.. you can be passionate and see the country go to dogs or be pragmatic and wait for the tide to turn!
The main goal of democrats should be to nominate someone who can 1) win general election 2) Doesn't sounds "arrogant" (probably due to their minority status) to at least get the party of NO to listen.
As much as I like Sanders, he might be more polarizing being more to left and not being a smooth talker.
Hillary can win the general election, but she will be called arrogant as well due to her being a woman, and Tea party will have a hard time accepting her as president as they had problem with Obama.
So here is my prediction.. Hillary will win the election, but the grid lock will continue. May be get a lib supreme court judge..
I don't blame Hillary for flip-flopping, as long as it is not polarizing. Its for the greater good.. you can be passionate and see the country go to dogs or be pragmatic and wait for the tide to turn!
8
Sanders can do well if he truly can get people who normally don't vote to turn out. There is a huge reservoir of untapped voters who will sit home if Hillary is nominated.
The worst thing any Democrat can do next year is to not vote, no matter who wins this nomination. Have you already forgotten what happened just last year, when roughly two thirds of aAmericans sat out the election? If so, find a recording of the last two republican debates.
1
It is worth remembering that Mrs. Clinton is unwilling to re-instate the Glass Steagall Act which had made it illegal for investment banks to play with our money and kept the nation out of bankruptcy from 1933 until the crash of 2008. Dodd-Frank is a pale imitation of that Act, and it is time for Democrats to insist that it be restored to its rightful place in law.
18
I didn't hear her say that.
Glass Steagall was outdated by the time it was killed. LTCM, Enron the Savings and Loan fiasco the Hunt brothers, Latin American debt.
The banking system was a mess. It didn't need deregulation, it needed more regulation. But O'Malley's call for GS reinstatement is exactly as Hillary says, it ignores the much larger problems.
AIG wasn't constrained by GS and it was a big part of the financial crisis.
The banks are only some of the trees in that metaphorical forest.
The banking system was a mess. It didn't need deregulation, it needed more regulation. But O'Malley's call for GS reinstatement is exactly as Hillary says, it ignores the much larger problems.
AIG wasn't constrained by GS and it was a big part of the financial crisis.
The banks are only some of the trees in that metaphorical forest.
The Editorial Board continues the line of Front Runner HRC and skepticism of Senator Sanders appeal. On other pages of NYT Clinton was "Magic" or in another column just wonderful. Here is what the Online Polls showed: Time 77% Sanders, 18% Clinton- MSNBC 83% Sanders 14% Clinton, Fox 76% Sanders 16% Clinton, Slate 74% Sanders 18% Clinton, The Street 77% Sanders 18% Clinton, CNN 81%Sanders 13% Clinton, U.S.News 82% Sanders 12% Clinton. Chicago Tribune declares Sanders the Winner, Slate (see above) declares Clinton the Winner, Wash Post implies Sanders due to whopping Google spikes searching Sanders compared to others. Yes, these candidates were more adult than what Sanders called the Republican debate, "a food fight". But isn't it worthy of mention that Sanders campaign pledge and practice to never attack an opponent personally, to focus on the issues, was adopted by the participants at their peril. His leadership set the tone of the debate and defined the issues.
24
Notice please, not one of these candidates sounded like a fanatic nut case.
112
Sanders came off as insane; O'Malley and Chafee provided good company in agreeing that Citizens United was causing global warming. It was funny, though hardly the point that they were no doubt trying to make. Hillary's remark on being different from Obama due to her gender was absurdly trite and equally humorous. This is the nuttiest election in recent memory.
2
Yeah, they're all completely sane, live in the real world, have our best interest at heart and aren't in the least bit interested in their careers...
Jim Webb kind of did...
I love Bernie Sanders!!!!! He is genuine, walks the talk and shows the passion that I have been waiting to hear from Democrats in as many years. The right wing has run amock for many decades now, showing not one ounce of embarrassment for their ignorant and hateful ways. Bernie at least knows what the problem is in this country: the inability of people to get ahead no matter how hard they work. This past month I got a raise which simply covered the increases to healthcare costs. It did absolutely nothing to my ability to keep up with increasing cost of food and housing. Meanwhile the guys at the top all get increases in excess of 10% and above. Perhaps Bernie will not get elected because Americans always are good at voting against their own interest, and when they hear the word socialism they freak out and conjure images of the Soviet Union. I like Hillary and would love to see a woman FINALLY win the presidency. However, she needs to add some spunk and be as passionate in her commitment to help all Americans, as the right are in their passion to keep moving the HATE agenda forward. I love Bernie Sanders! Keep talking dude--even if you don't win you are telling it like it has to be said. No one else is speaking the truth with such love.
69
Why does this women say that she would love to "FINALLY" see a woman win the Presidency? You can't win something you don't enter!
Really? Another 4 years of Obama-like disasters? Do Democrats really understand how things are bad in our country and how our world adverseries ridicule us on all fronts, from commercial issues to territorial or maritime positions?
4
Nice talking point, Marcel, but factually untrue. Polls indicate that the U.S. enjoys more positive regard under Obama's stewardship than it did under Bush. I do suspect, however, that when they watch the Republican debates they laugh...and then they panic.
26
Agreed. We need something more like the W. Bush years. The golden years.
7
Marcel, yes Democrats understand what's important. Most of the country does, actually (including independents and former Republicans), which is why President Obama was re-elected for a second time. You are entitled to your opinion, just recognize your POV is in the minority. And the reality is that none of the GOP candidates are remotely qualified to govern in the White House.
7
Well, Mr. Trump has given us one preview of what he plans to do on becoming President. He said he plans to appoint a 79-year old corporate raider (Carl Icahn) to be Secretary of the Treasury.
8
This is why come November 2016, I will be voting Democratic.
Hillary is not my favorite, I still like Bernie.
But any of the Democratic candidates are better than anything the Republicans are offering.
And they behave like grown-ups.
Hillary is not my favorite, I still like Bernie.
But any of the Democratic candidates are better than anything the Republicans are offering.
And they behave like grown-ups.
85
I was hesitant to watch last night after the disturbing debates on the GOP side. Those were terrifying in the display of hatred and willful ignorance. But watch I did-- and it was so great to hear so many well-reasoned responses along with civil behavior. It gave me hope, it made me proud to be a Democrat.
88
Despite being a Bernie supporter, I was impressed by Secretary Clinton's polished performance and clear command of the issues.
However, let us be cautious. She's always been a hawk, and her words about enforcing a Syrian no-fly zone with Putin's planes in the air should give us all pause. The rest of the adults on the stage all disagreed with her, tellingly.
Some are saying that she's just rattling sabres to look stronger than Obama, and tossing out red meat to appeal to the angry populace. I think she's dangerous.
However, let us be cautious. She's always been a hawk, and her words about enforcing a Syrian no-fly zone with Putin's planes in the air should give us all pause. The rest of the adults on the stage all disagreed with her, tellingly.
Some are saying that she's just rattling sabres to look stronger than Obama, and tossing out red meat to appeal to the angry populace. I think she's dangerous.
12
Hillary Clinton looked and sounded presidential. Her command of policy and ability to explain her issue stands was impressive. I will be happy if my vote helps make her the first woman President.
But Bernie's passion owned the night. And his rescue of Hillary on the email issue was a character revealing moment that seldom occurs in the world of scripted campaigning.
Sanders and Clinton are right: enough with the email issue. But the Republicans aren't the only ones to blame for focusing the public on a pseudo-issue. They could not have dragged this out for months and months without the help of the media, and I do not mean only the right wing FOX News of the world. Legitimate news sources, like the NYT, have played their role by publishing countless stories about Hillary's emails, many of them on the front-page.
But Bernie's passion owned the night. And his rescue of Hillary on the email issue was a character revealing moment that seldom occurs in the world of scripted campaigning.
Sanders and Clinton are right: enough with the email issue. But the Republicans aren't the only ones to blame for focusing the public on a pseudo-issue. They could not have dragged this out for months and months without the help of the media, and I do not mean only the right wing FOX News of the world. Legitimate news sources, like the NYT, have played their role by publishing countless stories about Hillary's emails, many of them on the front-page.
697
First, Bernie is a grumpy old man who will never be President. Second, the FBI, as Anderson Cooper pointed out, is investigating the issue of Hillary's use of email, which has nothing to do with either the media or the right, so Hillary's "damn emails" won't go away until a thorough FBI investigation is conducted and if she is found to have done something illegal, grumpy Bernie will look even more foolish than he already does.
1
David Petraeus was punished for simply allowing his trusted mistress to see restricted documents, and you're going to blow off the issue of a whole set of compromised emails, with exposure to who-knows-who? No, the email issue needs to be pursued in a cool, investigative way.
But I do agree with you that Hillary Clinton had a good presentation in general, and put my mind at ease a little about the possibility of a President Clinton. I don't plan to vote for her.
But I do agree with you that Hillary Clinton had a good presentation in general, and put my mind at ease a little about the possibility of a President Clinton. I don't plan to vote for her.
1
. . . and neglecting to mention every single time that the Republicans under Bush used a private email account and deleted millions of emails when they were caught. Why is no one holding *their* feet to the fire over their hypocrisy?
7
I think it is no accident that Donald Trump will be hosting Saturday Night Live on November 7 - a first in American political history, I think, for a presidential candidate. It speaks to the fact that the Republican field is largely interested more in audience entertainment than in substantive discussion of the country's problems.
279
Ha! It WOULD have been a first, had not Hillary Clinton hosted SNL on October 3rd. I wonder what facts about the Democrat field you would say this speaks to.
1
Well, he IS an entertainer. No surprise.
1
Not to defend Trump, but he's by no means the first to host SNL during his candidacy. Other more substantive candidates such as Ralph Nader have done so: http://www.bustle.com/articles/116751-how-many-presidential-candidates-h...
1
It was civil, but this is also just one race (though most likely the "big one.") There are 100 US Senate seats, 435 Congressional ones, plus state races where the discourse is way too often less civil. And those elections arguably have more collective impact on our lives than who is President. Hopefully the big show can lead us back to more civil discourse all around; but I'm afraid that since our primary electorate are intolerant partisans, there is little reward for civility.
7
I didn't hear any of the candidates talk about the importance of taking back the Congress or about the supreme court - this was a disappointment.
It was a real breath of fresh air to see serious people discussing real issues for a change. The debate was in stark contrast to the Republican circuses, which have been taken over by a carnival barker, a surgeon who has little grasp of anything but medicine, and a woman running on a failed business record, none of whom have the slightest idea of governance and all of whom are living in an alternate universe of Republican ignorance. Turning the country over to any of the Republican candidates is a scary proposition, just as it was when the Supreme Court radical Republicans appointed George W. Bush.
Bernie Sanders is making great policy arguments, and he is lending much to the debate. I agree with much of what he has to say, but I seriously doubt he is electable. Where we need a real political revolution is in the Congressional elections so that Republicans are unable to block every Democratic proposal.
Hillary Clinton had a very good debate and was finally able to talk about issues instead of emails. She was the clear winner of the debate.
Martin O'Malley showed he is a serious person and I think he will creep up a little in the polls. Webb and Chafee would make better Republican candidates and if they changed back to the Republican Party, it would make both parties better. Webb especially was just a waste of time.
Bernie Sanders is making great policy arguments, and he is lending much to the debate. I agree with much of what he has to say, but I seriously doubt he is electable. Where we need a real political revolution is in the Congressional elections so that Republicans are unable to block every Democratic proposal.
Hillary Clinton had a very good debate and was finally able to talk about issues instead of emails. She was the clear winner of the debate.
Martin O'Malley showed he is a serious person and I think he will creep up a little in the polls. Webb and Chafee would make better Republican candidates and if they changed back to the Republican Party, it would make both parties better. Webb especially was just a waste of time.
192
Especially notable was Bernie Sanders' comment on the e-mails. It was extremely refreshing to see a candidate aiding another to the betterment of substantive discussion.
That debate was the most staged event in Presidential election history. Anderson and Hillary's opponents dared not mention all of her scandals, her active FBI investigation or the shady corrupt Clinton Foundation which has made Bill and Hillary multi-millionaires. The handshake with Bernie said it all that he did his job like a good little soldier covering her backside...bad political community theater at best. But if you actually thought that was a genuine debate...there is a bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you for a great price.
"Big tent"?
It ran the full spectrum from white to whiter, from progressive to socialist, from near retirement to near death, from 60's burnout to scorched earth.
But you get points for creativity.
Wow.
It ran the full spectrum from white to whiter, from progressive to socialist, from near retirement to near death, from 60's burnout to scorched earth.
But you get points for creativity.
Wow.
10
Perhaps because the diversity being referenced was that of the Democratic Party's base rather than the candidates on stage. Republican "diversity" is often more about tokens i.e. Sarah Palin than actual substance.
22
Bernie is Jewish, Hillary is (obviously) a woman. Webb and Chafee are/were Republicans. All stood up for minorities and minority rights far more than any who stood on the Republican debate stage regardless of the color of their skin. Yes. Democrats represent the big tent.
7
Jim Webb, a progressive? A socialist? What on earth were you watching?
Wow, indeed.
Wow, indeed.
1
Compared to the car full of clowns that are running for President on the GOP ticket and the GOP so called led house which is now the House of Cybil. This Debate gave me hope that just maybe we have Adults that are still in public service and want to engage the American People.
32
The Times Editors welcome "debate" as good for democracy, except on policies they are opposed to! According to this piece, it is good to have debate on how much we should raise taxes or the minimum wage, but don't you dare suggest a position on gun control that is at odds with the liberal one. Sanders is attacked for "pandering" to the very Vermont electorate that put him in office, because he advocates his constituents' views on guns! Is Sanders supposed to go against his own constituents? The editors like democracy except when it gets in the way of what they want to do "for the good of society." Scary.
21
He is supposed to speak for the country as a whole. Urban and Rural, Vermont and the other 49 states. What made Sanders' comments so strange is that he shoe-horned himself into a position based on Vermont, rather than broadening his experiences out the population at large you know, the population he is wanting to represent as POTUS.
Yup, on gun control, absolutely YES, he show his constituents the way. Probably the only issue I disagree with him on, and it didn't look good for him last night.
Sanders is running for President of the whole United States, not Vermont.
The other key difference between last night and any one of the Republican "debates" was that this one was firmly based in reality--something that the GOP candidates seem desperate to avoid. And given the Republican record of intractable opposition to progress over the last eight years, it's probably best that they do.
63
Wow, Jim. So insightful. Please, tell us more about how great your party and how terrible the GOP party is. If only everyone in the world was a Democrat, we would all be so happy and prosperous. One can only wish.
Why can't we also have some progressive moderators asking questions of the Republicans and some conservative moderators asking questions of the Democrats?
These CNN & Fox debates seem like events pre-arranged for entertainment and consumption.
These CNN & Fox debates seem like events pre-arranged for entertainment and consumption.
15
Wow! A debate where nobody whined that the questions were unfair, no one attacked anyone else, nobody pointed fingers implicitly at Those People (whoever Those People are) - it was amazing.
59
Now all that we need is a Republican grown up as a challenger to one of these five adults and it will be a Presidential race that we can be proud of.
8
"Republican grown up" is an oxymoron.
The one thing that could make the Republican debates seem sane occurred last night on CNN. Being both comedy and horror show, there's something mildly affecting about all the "magical thinking", and elementary school economics, but knowing these people actually believe what they say and wish attempt to impose more of it upon us is terrifying.
Usually people learn from their failures, but to Progressives it just means you need more of it. So naturally, the NYT is all for it.
Usually people learn from their failures, but to Progressives it just means you need more of it. So naturally, the NYT is all for it.
6
What failures, for example? Medicare? Medicaid, Social Security, Obamacare, environmental regulation, progressive taxation...?
2
Rather than pivoting to punchlines or pontificating with vague platitudes, these candidates were responsive to the questions and made their positions clear, agree or not.
52
What impressed me is that all of the Democratic candidates showed an interest in governing, even in areas where they disagree. The Republican candidates seem to want to eliminate government, so the concept of governing is of no importance.
64
It reminded me of leaving The Monkey House at The Bronx Zoo with daughter in tow and stopping for a nice relaxing lunch and my daughter said:
"Daddy those Monkeys were fun but it's nice to come back to normal!'
Unfortunately were stuck in The GOP Monkey House for a while longer but what a hopeful and illuminating respite last night was.
"Daddy those Monkeys were fun but it's nice to come back to normal!'
Unfortunately were stuck in The GOP Monkey House for a while longer but what a hopeful and illuminating respite last night was.
458
I have been to the monkey house in the Bronx Zoo, and I can only say that your post is extremely insulting to monkeys. What I observed in the monkey house was loving caring creatures. Not so much in the Republican debates.
And just what free-lunch are you after?
I believe in giving credit where it's due. Hilary Clinton won the debate. She is a seasoned debater with years of experience on the campaign trail. Clinton was able to quell a lot of criticism and gain a bit more trust from viewers.
But I am a bit taken back by how fast voters are quick to forgive her for her track record or maybe they are simply misinformed. Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq, is quick to oust dictators and exacerbate instability, was against marriage equality, laid the groundwork and supported the TPP, advocated for the Keystone pipeline, and wants more support for the NSA. She's as hawkish as the Republicans!
Are we really so turned off by Republicans that we will throw our weight behind Clinton who flip flops back and forth because she can likely win a general election? The fear of Republicans gaining control is real. I think people will vote for the Democrat who is most electable...regardless of inconsistency. And because of that we'll have only ourselves to blame for mediocre and half hearted wins for the American people. That's politics in the US. Vote for the lesser evil.
But I am a bit taken back by how fast voters are quick to forgive her for her track record or maybe they are simply misinformed. Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq, is quick to oust dictators and exacerbate instability, was against marriage equality, laid the groundwork and supported the TPP, advocated for the Keystone pipeline, and wants more support for the NSA. She's as hawkish as the Republicans!
Are we really so turned off by Republicans that we will throw our weight behind Clinton who flip flops back and forth because she can likely win a general election? The fear of Republicans gaining control is real. I think people will vote for the Democrat who is most electable...regardless of inconsistency. And because of that we'll have only ourselves to blame for mediocre and half hearted wins for the American people. That's politics in the US. Vote for the lesser evil.
139
Beg to differ. We have a slavish adherence to the dictates of the Constitution to blame. It was written by men who were reacting to an authoritarian system and trying to arrive at a compact that all 13 states, small and large, slave and free could accept. They way overdid the checks and balances bit, at the same time granting far from universal suffrage. It does not work well as a governing document for our time, see for example the Electoral College and the Senate vis-à-vis one person, one vote. It mitigates drastically against the rise of alternate political parties, a situation the founding parents could not have foreseen as important. Of course the process required to amend is even more slanted towards the states that the EC and Senate composition favor, so forget getting substantive change on those provisions.
2
Hillary will support equal rights including for minorities and women. She will appoint good Supreme Court justices who can start to turn back the corporatist and anti-women and anti-democracy rulings that have been issued in the past few years. She can also consolidate many of the advances of the Obama administration.
Yes, the fear of Republicans is real - There would be constant war mongering and constant attacks on vulnerable Americans as well as continuing attempts to roll back basic civil rights.
Yes, the fear of Republicans is real - There would be constant war mongering and constant attacks on vulnerable Americans as well as continuing attempts to roll back basic civil rights.
9
This coming from a Bernie supporter: As she reminded up on a couple of occasions last night, she has evolved. All politicians pander to a certain extent: Republicans not only pander to the NRA, but they are in bed with them. Her husband was accused of 'flip-flops' all the time, so much so that he had a waffle as a 'Doonesbury' icon.
I was gratified by the quality/substance of the debate. I have a very low tolerance for listening to any politician speak. Including the ones who were considered legendary communicators, such as Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama. Their charms worked for me only the first time I heard them speak.
Last night was refreshing by contrast. They are still politicians, but at least it was a real debate about the substance -- not just competition over whose writers come up with the snappiest zingers.
Furthermore, the overall feeling I got that was that, despite being combatants at this moment, all five candidates were clear that they were ultimately on the same team.
You don't get that feeling in the GOP debates. Each candidate there is basically on his or her own team. The "me" team.
Last night was refreshing by contrast. They are still politicians, but at least it was a real debate about the substance -- not just competition over whose writers come up with the snappiest zingers.
Furthermore, the overall feeling I got that was that, despite being combatants at this moment, all five candidates were clear that they were ultimately on the same team.
You don't get that feeling in the GOP debates. Each candidate there is basically on his or her own team. The "me" team.
493
Shouting and pointing fingers is not speaking.
Bernie Sanders correctly called out the media as being controlled by corporate interests at just about every level, the media, bowing to their corporate overlords, responds by panning his whole campaign in general and acting as if he didn't deliver an exceptional performance last night. It isn't hard to connect the dots. Luckily, thanks to social media, the establishment media doesn't control information anymore and so Bernie's supporters will continue to grow. Hillary Clinton did fine, and that she would be a incredibly superior president then any republican candidate is obvious, but she came off as disingenuous because she is. She'd have to be to change her mind on a dozen topics right before the debate. Bernie Sanders is still the only candidate who is devoted to changing the system regardless of his personal benefit. Plato would have voted for Bernie, and I will as well.
26
Bernie has singlehandedly created a presidential race in the Democratic party. Bernie will be the badly needed people's president, invigorating a passion amongst the electorate who's reluctant to vote, eroding the congressional and state majorities of conservatives - his " political revolution." This is not politics as usual, as the pundits continually want and expect. Moreover, Bernie is doing this country a great long-term service in another way: he's providing a drastically positive makeover to "social democracy" and "democratic socialism." President Sanders.
26
Dictator Grover Norquist, republican no-new-taxes-pledge king, said that he and his brethren in the ALEC/Koch brothers/Wall Street/u.s.chamber of commerce/radical religious right/nra/major media corporate conglomerate do NOT want operatives who think. The first democratic debate showed the stark difference in quality of candidates and show just how successful Mr. Norquist and his brethren have been. Time to send their knowledge-deficient operatives home from every elected office in the land in the next elections. Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE to be the next President of the United States and she has my vote and support for Senator Bernie Sanders for STRONG Vice President. What a team!
41
In a debate format that features 60 seconds to respond to questions, you could see Secretary Clinton hesitate when trying to explain her nuanced bank policy proposals rather than merely agree to reinstate Glass Steagall. As the Times points out elsewhere the big banks were not alone in creating the speculative bubble that led to the great recession. So merely reinstating Glass Steagall would not resolve the kind of behavior that was engaged in by AIG, the mortgage lenders and the S & Ls. There needs to be more regulation and greater accountability at the top of these financial institutions. More than Glass Steagall would provide. I think that Secretary Clinton nailed it, if you could see her thinking "How do I explain all of this in 60 seconds."
30
Glass Steagall blocked banks from hedging interest rate risks generated by the Federal Reserve Bank. That is why it was repealed.
1
OK. Now we know that some politicians are adults.
The job description is clear: make the aspirations in the Declaration of Independence come true for "all":
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Not just those with more than ten million dollars in assets. (Although we now understand that "men" should be read as "mankind" or "citizens".)
The job description is not "pick the person on the new $10 bill." or "Lie about Planned Parenthood."
What a relief.
The job description is clear: make the aspirations in the Declaration of Independence come true for "all":
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Not just those with more than ten million dollars in assets. (Although we now understand that "men" should be read as "mankind" or "citizens".)
The job description is not "pick the person on the new $10 bill." or "Lie about Planned Parenthood."
What a relief.
71
I am glad to hear you condemn the GOP candidates for their ignorance, misinformation & childish anger. But I wish I could hope that, the next time the Times publishes yet another admiring profile on one of them, or interviews one of them for an investigation, you will actually hold them to account. It is not unethical to contradict someone or ask them to explain themselves when you and most of the world knows they are not telling the truth.
102
Agreed. Particularly when Democratic candidates who are interviewed do seem to be called to account by the same supposed sages of the press.
4
If you watched the Rep. debate(s), you would also know that the mediating was horrendous. They basically directed the candidates to attack each other. I'm not a fan of almost all politicians, but the debates were absolutely atrociously run. The media has a field day and several of the candidates bought right into it. I have not watched the Dem. debate just yet, but I will tonight. And it sounds like CNN wanted to let them talk about the issues rather than instigating arguments (as best they could).
1
Billy, the CNN moderators also directed the candidates to attack each other, but the candidates preferred to focus on the issues. That is why everyone is saying that last night's Democratic debate showcased a group of intelligent adults discussing matters important to the country, in stark contrast to the childish mud-slinging we have seen in the two Republican debates.
6
None of the plans discussed last night by any of the candidates will come to fruition unless Democrats get out to vote for candidates in down ticket races ... the Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures.
125
Most dems will stay home comfortably numb, especially in the 'legalized' states, knowing that all will be given to them by the government.
1
We are working on this. Join us.
Hilarious title that couldn't be further from the truth. The wording is intended to mislead people into forming opinions. The handful of Democrats are unelectable. America will never elect someone who publicly identifies as a socialist. And Hillary Clinton has an active criminal investigation. The Democrats simply saying, "Republicans making it a partisan issue" doesn't end a criminal investigation. Pathetic journalism.
3
I agree, but don't count Hillary out. Most democratic voters will vote for her (when she wins the primary) because they want a woman pres. and she is the best they have to offer. If ANY other woman politico ran, they might defeat her in the primary, but no man will. It does not matter what she says, does or even thinks. She has the vote of at least 50% of dems. On the GOP, who knows? Not sure who she will run against. Trump, doubtful. Carson, too many gaffes. Bush, too boring to win pres. Etc. Etc. No one really stands out as pres. material. Maybe just a bunch of vice-pres. candidates.
Anything goes for Republicans as long as the perpetrator claims to be a Republican. They sure are suckers for Donald Trump.
4
Hillary has an active Republican witch-hunt, the likes of which have wasted too many millions of taxpayers dollars starting early in Bill's first term. Bernie Sanders nailed it: we ARE tired of hearing about Hillary's emails. And I am so, so tired of Republicans using congressional investigations to attempt to smear opponents.
10
It's no surprise to me that the Democratic debate showed how much better the Democratic candidates are than the Republicans. However, it was a travesty of justice that Lawrence Lessig wasn't allowed to debate on a debate stage of only 5 candidates. The Clinton campaign, through Debra Wasserman-Shultz, and CNN, who has a vested interest in making sure campaign financing rules do not change, saw to it that Lawrence Lessig was not allowed to be heard on the debate stage last night.
I'm opposed to Clinton's candidacy because she won't do anything about campaign finance reform, the most important issue facing this country today. And her maneuvering to keep Lessig off the stage, and to limit the number of debates, only hardens my opposition to her candidacy.
It's not that I dislike Hillary Clinton. It's about this country and until we get the money out of our political system we won't be able to get anything done, but at least Hillary will get what she wants. We won't get gun safety legislation; healthcare costs will continue to rise unabated; the military-industrial complex will continue to thrive; the cost of higher education will continue to rise; education in the US will remain sub-par and stagnant; and income inequality will continue. So if we're lucky, Hillary would beat the Republican, and we'd have a very qualified President who does nothing about campaign finance reform and can't get anything done. Where's the victory in that?
I'm opposed to Clinton's candidacy because she won't do anything about campaign finance reform, the most important issue facing this country today. And her maneuvering to keep Lessig off the stage, and to limit the number of debates, only hardens my opposition to her candidacy.
It's not that I dislike Hillary Clinton. It's about this country and until we get the money out of our political system we won't be able to get anything done, but at least Hillary will get what she wants. We won't get gun safety legislation; healthcare costs will continue to rise unabated; the military-industrial complex will continue to thrive; the cost of higher education will continue to rise; education in the US will remain sub-par and stagnant; and income inequality will continue. So if we're lucky, Hillary would beat the Republican, and we'd have a very qualified President who does nothing about campaign finance reform and can't get anything done. Where's the victory in that?
7
With the Supreme Court as presently constituted, there is close to nothing a president can do to get real reform, even with a cooperative Congress. The problem is the Supreme Court, exacerbated by the age of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. Hilary would do as much as any of the other Democratic candidates on this issue: nominating justices would fight to overturn Citizens United.
5
Nobody will get the money out of politics before the 2016 election.
This is true, but if we don't start the fight now, you'll be making the same comment 4 years from now, and again 4 years after that. Why talk about gun safety laws if we can't get them enacted? Why talk about policies that would lower the cost of higher education, or improving free trade deals to better protect American jobs, or legislation that would reduce CO2 emissions, when we know the Republican Congress won't budge on any of these issues? And for that dynamic to change, we need campaign finance reform and to enact a ban on gerrymandering. It's time to start that fight, because nothing else really matters. Lawrence Lessig would have ignited that fight last night had he been allowed to debate. The head of the DNC and CNN stopped that from happening. That was the wrong thing for this country.
Most Republicans do not accept the possibility that their philosophy may not produce the outcomes they're convinced it will. The trajectory of income inequality, whatever one feels about it as a moral issue, is not sustainable politically. What Thomas Piketty says in his book, which no one reads but everyone talks about, demands serious reflection, discussion, and debate. Republicans, however, do not accept that, because it could possibly entail the modification of their views on the very nature of a free-market capitalist system.
If this strikes anyone as akin to "Marxist" ideologues in the USSR, it should. They repeat their slogans; tell you how wonderful their philosophy is, how it must generate such wonderful things; but then ignore the cold reality outside. When someone points out to Republicans that free-market economics is failing the middle class, they simply assert that it is because markets aren't free enough. Or blame Obama. Or Benghazi.
Bernard has a point about the upper crust pulling away, and most Republican candidates' ideas would likely accelerate that. When Republicans block modest tax increases on the wealthiest to aid the poorest, they're seen to be protecting their donors. Even if that is not their intent, that's how it's seen politically. But it is not SEEN at all by Republican base voters, who are entirely unaware of what their own party is up to, other than to believe that they're fighting a Muslim atheist communist in the White House.
If this strikes anyone as akin to "Marxist" ideologues in the USSR, it should. They repeat their slogans; tell you how wonderful their philosophy is, how it must generate such wonderful things; but then ignore the cold reality outside. When someone points out to Republicans that free-market economics is failing the middle class, they simply assert that it is because markets aren't free enough. Or blame Obama. Or Benghazi.
Bernard has a point about the upper crust pulling away, and most Republican candidates' ideas would likely accelerate that. When Republicans block modest tax increases on the wealthiest to aid the poorest, they're seen to be protecting their donors. Even if that is not their intent, that's how it's seen politically. But it is not SEEN at all by Republican base voters, who are entirely unaware of what their own party is up to, other than to believe that they're fighting a Muslim atheist communist in the White House.
35
In our world, there is really no free market. "Free market" implies equal access to an even playing field for whoever builds a better mouse-trap.
You really need to educate yourself on economics a bit more. It is not nearly as cut and dry as you seem to think. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a very Robin Hood-esque and romantic concept, but it does not work. Taking from the rich also entails taking from businesses, and that gets passed straight along to the consumer. So if you tax, for instance, Coca-Cola because they are making money, Coca-Cola increases their prices to pay for the increased taxation and WE end up paying those taxes. That is just a very fundamental example, but if you learn a little more about the field, you will better understand that raising taxes to pay for everything from education to health-care is a great political stance, but it simply does not work in the real world. Trimming gov't waste and putting more $ in the hand of ALL consumers is the proven path to sustained economic growth. As the whole country's economy stabilizes and then flourishes, you can push taxes up and even increase the percentage paid by the wealthy. But if you do it prior to that, you are only contributing to the income disparity, despite the rhetoric. It fools simple minded people and gets fools elected, but it results in a negative impact.
In all fairness to the Republican debates, there were really only two debaters last night- Clinton and Sanders. The other three were just space fillers, on stage to give the appearance of a legitimate political debate. With only two real candidates,of course it was more civil. But compared to the Republican debates it was also very boring. I would guess that the TV ratings will be much lower than those of the Republican debates..
16
The debate was NOT boring. You were not listening either. America might want to pay attention and then maybe our country will be better off. Everything is not an entertanment sound bite.
14
Real debate about real issues is often important and boring. But then we are talking about electing the next leader of the free world, not the leader of a reality TV show dependent on ratings.
13
I suppose you could call it boring. I watched both GOP debates - 2nd one was pretty boring. The 1st one was interesting because of 1 guy & that would be Donald Trump - he makes all this stuff interesting. That said I don't believe he would make a good president. He is a lot of bluster with no substance. Also all of those GOPers were trying for the spotlight - some of them stretching the truth as they are known to do (one in particular was CF).
Re DemDebate I was happy to see a real debate with issues discussed. The GOP is usually too busy complaining about Obama & anything else they can come up with - hard to watch when I don't agree with them. Nonetheless I did watch. :)
Re DemDebate I was happy to see a real debate with issues discussed. The GOP is usually too busy complaining about Obama & anything else they can come up with - hard to watch when I don't agree with them. Nonetheless I did watch. :)
4
Tuesday night’s Democratic debate
was truthful and substantive.
The factual exchange of ideas
was clear and comprehensive.
The candidates all did pretty well
and Bernie was truly great,
but Hillary was the better man
and she did win the debate.
There can’t be any doubt that she
has shown her ability
to overcome huge obstacles
and great adversity.
was truthful and substantive.
The factual exchange of ideas
was clear and comprehensive.
The candidates all did pretty well
and Bernie was truly great,
but Hillary was the better man
and she did win the debate.
There can’t be any doubt that she
has shown her ability
to overcome huge obstacles
and great adversity.
19
Yes, she's a good talker. Let's see her talk her way out of a not so feeble minded investigative panel coming up.
Bernie's not in the realm of reality.
Bernie's not in the realm of reality.
I don't think too much can be made of Sen. Sanders's generosity and gallantry in angrily demanding an end to HRC's "email-gate." Further, I don't think he thought, even for a moment, that by coming to her defense he was yielding a precious weapon with which to attack her later on the long debate trail. Bernie was the true adult calling out the Republican toddlers. All they want to do is destroy her candidacy without otherwise offering anything substantial in the country's greater interest. None of their three poll-leaders, the Falstaffian Donald Trump, the Queen of Hearts Carly Fiorina, or the robotic Ben Carson have presented, for example, the first plan to addressing our accident-waiting to-happen infrastructure. If these wannabes were the genuinely true patriots that they claim (falsely) to be, their debate rhetoric would center on the needful things that require urgent attention. Their set-piece on Planned Parenthood is nothing more than a diversion. The Democrats may be noisy; the GOP/TP is "sound and fury signifying nothing."
47
I'm sorry I missed the civility of your opinion amid the name calling. I guess it is just me.
2
@Lincoln Driver
@Jon Surge
This article is an editorial, such as everything "reported" by Foxnews, therefore, by definition, an opinion and is properly placed in the "The Opinion Pages".
It is important to understand the difference.
@Jon Surge
This article is an editorial, such as everything "reported" by Foxnews, therefore, by definition, an opinion and is properly placed in the "The Opinion Pages".
It is important to understand the difference.
1
I agree that the Democratic debate was less of a circus and more substantive, but much of that can also be blamed on the moderators of the debates. I wonder why CNN chose to ask real questions last evening, but instead chose to pit the republican candidates against one another during their debate. Who was it that asked who should be on the $10 bill and at what debate? That being said, I still have not found a candidate in either party who deserves the vote. Its hard for me to believe that this is the best that both parties have to offer.
1
"but instead chose to pit the republican candidates against one another during their debate"
CNN did the same to the Dems. You didn't watch the debate, huh?
CNN did the same to the Dems. You didn't watch the debate, huh?
1
Watching that gathering of people who actually think a bit, I was struck by a twisted Sci Fi thought: if we could take Bernie's integrity and ideas, put them into O'Malley's "presidential" looking body, and toss in Hillary's icy slickness, then we'd have a worthy and winning President.
7
I thought Hillary looked pretty Presidential on her own. Maybe a Clinton/Sanders ticket?
2
You would have Vladimir Putin.
Well two thirds of that would be a liar and a fool so I don't know of that will work out.
Bernie Sanders is correct when he says for any real substantive change to occur, there has to be a revolution.
For those prone to knee jerk reactions, Sanders was clear that Americans need to come together as a pro-democracy, pro-freedom, pro-America force to stop the corporate ownership of government-- the people need to demand that politicians govern as they people want.
You don't like he current government? Well, We vote them in. Every single politician in office was elected by the people. Bernie's "revolution" is the people making an effort to pay attention and demand that politicians work for the people instead of corporations and super pacs. Sadly, these days, I guess that is pretty revolutionary idea.
For those prone to knee jerk reactions, Sanders was clear that Americans need to come together as a pro-democracy, pro-freedom, pro-America force to stop the corporate ownership of government-- the people need to demand that politicians govern as they people want.
You don't like he current government? Well, We vote them in. Every single politician in office was elected by the people. Bernie's "revolution" is the people making an effort to pay attention and demand that politicians work for the people instead of corporations and super pacs. Sadly, these days, I guess that is pretty revolutionary idea.
466
Pat: "We vote them in. Every single politician in office was elected by the people." True, but in part this is due to extreme gerrymandering in Red states. Electoral districts should be determined by independent, non-partisan bodies.
8
In order for that to work we would need 100% public elections, that means getting rid of the electoral college.
1
Bernie's tired Marxist rhetoric is nothing new. What has he ever done other than collect a government paycheck? Ever create a job? Invest his own money in a business?
Sensible thoughts about the abismal difference between reason (the democrats) and magical thinking plus obstructionism (republicans). Also a breath of fresh air, when discussing the issues that affect the U.S. and the world, instead of juvenile attacks on each other's appearance and self-congratulatory nonsense.
17
Wow, no wonder I seldom read newspapers or pay for them.
I'm waiting for the adults in media like the NYT to show they have grown beyond calling names and actually show they can write an entire sentence without bias. Did you really think this piece impresses anyone else but partisans like yourself who already had their minds closed?
It would also be nice to read a news article without spelling and grammatical mistakes. How about striving for excellence and Illuminate us with objective reporting, reasoned argument instead of acting like the mouthpiece of one particular party.
I'm waiting for the adults in media like the NYT to show they have grown beyond calling names and actually show they can write an entire sentence without bias. Did you really think this piece impresses anyone else but partisans like yourself who already had their minds closed?
It would also be nice to read a news article without spelling and grammatical mistakes. How about striving for excellence and Illuminate us with objective reporting, reasoned argument instead of acting like the mouthpiece of one particular party.
6
I guess you get your news from the FOX?
23
"It would also be nice to read a news article without spelling and grammatical mistakes. How about striving for excellence and Illuminate us with objective reporting, reasoned argument instead of acting like the mouthpiece of one particular party."
Can you spot the grammatical errors in the second sentence?
Can you spot the grammatical errors in the second sentence?
2
This was an editorial, not a news report.
10
What stood out for me was Clinton's refusal to reinstate Glass-Steagal, and split regular banks from speculative investment banking. She also didn't agree with Sanders' call for a tax on speculative investment or a tiny tax on each stock trade that would only affect big traders. She proved she's good at debates, but we already knew that. She had a base hit... rate it a single or a double, but don't pretend she hit a home run and think you'll convince everyone. We're not fooled. Hillary is a triangulator like her husband. Bernie is the real deal.
37
Not a big surprise, considering Glass-Steagall was repealed on Bill's watch. Nonetheless, while we can perhaps give him the benefit of the doubt regarding intentions, she gets a zero for apparently nothing learned. Whatever general benefit might have once been expected of that bit of "regulatory reform", the sorry result was that it turned bankers into magicians: Taking other peoples' money and making it disappear.
3
Both as a Democrat and an American, I was riveted by the Debate last night --- the substance, the civility, the intensity and the ideas.
Indeed, the relief was palpable in our household and in those of our friends. After months of stupidity, cruelty, misogyny and race hatred, there were those voices of reason, calm, and flexible ideas in terms of the conversation with one another.
As the debate ended, and even as we maintain our support for Secretary Clinton, we were left with the impression that any one of those candidates has both the intellect and the integrity to be President, and any one of them could stand up beautifully in start contrast to the likes of the endless sea of Republican miscreants, who possess neither ideas, nor compassion, nor apparently, conscience.
Way to go Dems!
Indeed, the relief was palpable in our household and in those of our friends. After months of stupidity, cruelty, misogyny and race hatred, there were those voices of reason, calm, and flexible ideas in terms of the conversation with one another.
As the debate ended, and even as we maintain our support for Secretary Clinton, we were left with the impression that any one of those candidates has both the intellect and the integrity to be President, and any one of them could stand up beautifully in start contrast to the likes of the endless sea of Republican miscreants, who possess neither ideas, nor compassion, nor apparently, conscience.
Way to go Dems!
264
Do black lives matter or all lives matter?
Chafee and Webb are not ready for prime time. It's hard to believe both were US Senators and that one is a sitting governor. I'll note that if Webb were to run on the GOP ticket he'd easily be the most sane and reasonable Republican we've seen in years.
O'Malley seems a bit slick and might make a decent Vice President or cabinet secretary. Bernie Sanders demonstrated considerable passion, and I fully understand why many people support him. He is the real progressive deal. If he gets the nomination he gets my vote.
But Secretary Clinton--so impresssive! My God, I always knew she was brilliant, I always knew she ready to lead, and last night she proved to me again why she is far away the best candidate running this season. I don't care how much calculation or acting went into her performance, it's clear that she is ready to go. Right. Now. There is a not a single Republican running who can hold an intellectual or policy candle to her, nor one who has policies that will help the vast majority of Americans, as hers (or any of the other Democrats') would.
I look forward to casting my ballot for our first women president of the United States, and I'll be very happy if it's for Hillary Rodham Clinton!
O'Malley seems a bit slick and might make a decent Vice President or cabinet secretary. Bernie Sanders demonstrated considerable passion, and I fully understand why many people support him. He is the real progressive deal. If he gets the nomination he gets my vote.
But Secretary Clinton--so impresssive! My God, I always knew she was brilliant, I always knew she ready to lead, and last night she proved to me again why she is far away the best candidate running this season. I don't care how much calculation or acting went into her performance, it's clear that she is ready to go. Right. Now. There is a not a single Republican running who can hold an intellectual or policy candle to her, nor one who has policies that will help the vast majority of Americans, as hers (or any of the other Democrats') would.
I look forward to casting my ballot for our first women president of the United States, and I'll be very happy if it's for Hillary Rodham Clinton!
377
Ha. Clinton is unelectable.
Hey Lincoln Driver...such an incisive critique. So intelligent and nuanced and well-supported by your meticulous research. You need to save these "duh" comments for the Republican debates, where four correctly spelled words in a row are considered a dazzling display of intellectual prowess. The kiddie table awaits you.
10
Both were Webb and Chafee were Republicans until the Republican Party named them Democrats.
1
It was an interesting evening and I look forward to the debates to come. Hopefully more topics will be discussed in a little more depth. Hillary did very well but Bernie is helping to ignite an electorate that has become disenchanted with the process. That is the revolution he speaks of - there is nothing frightening about citizens becoming engaged in their government. After all, it began with We the People ... . It was a great opportunity to see more of O'Malley, as well.
46
Yes I was so proud to see how Democrats lap up Hillary's ostentatious lies.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/hillary-flip-flops-tpp-shuns-ob...
There is no candidate more eatablishment than Hillary - the country will remain in thrall to the banks, the war profiteers, and the Israel Firsters.
Haven't you had enough of expecting different results from people who lie to your face?
Are you that brand loyal to a party that threw you overboard 40 years ago?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/hillary-flip-flops-tpp-shuns-ob...
There is no candidate more eatablishment than Hillary - the country will remain in thrall to the banks, the war profiteers, and the Israel Firsters.
Haven't you had enough of expecting different results from people who lie to your face?
Are you that brand loyal to a party that threw you overboard 40 years ago?
8
So refreshing to see all in the debate disagreeing, but not insulting and attacking each other. Bernie's dismissal of the email nonsense was a highlight.
In contrast, the Republicans insult each other, their stands, their experience, and even their appearance. A highlight for Carly was responding to Trump insulting her appearance with a steely gaze. No issue involved, just a personal confrontation.
It seems clear that the Republicans are a party of hate. They hate immigrants, Blacks, gays, the poor and so on. Of course, they hate liberals, but they also hate their own party leaders, and it seems, each other.
I'm not saying the Democrats are a party of love, but they are a party that respects divergent opinions. Tellingly, two of the five participants were once Republicans and no one held that against them.
So, Republicans for a campaign that has become a reality show like Survivor or the Apprentice, and Democrats for at least a reasonable discussion.
In contrast, the Republicans insult each other, their stands, their experience, and even their appearance. A highlight for Carly was responding to Trump insulting her appearance with a steely gaze. No issue involved, just a personal confrontation.
It seems clear that the Republicans are a party of hate. They hate immigrants, Blacks, gays, the poor and so on. Of course, they hate liberals, but they also hate their own party leaders, and it seems, each other.
I'm not saying the Democrats are a party of love, but they are a party that respects divergent opinions. Tellingly, two of the five participants were once Republicans and no one held that against them.
So, Republicans for a campaign that has become a reality show like Survivor or the Apprentice, and Democrats for at least a reasonable discussion.
210
You forgot women -- they hate us too.
Every candidate performed well compared with the Republicans. Except for
Governor Kasich, they come off as demagogues, xenophobes. and dividers. Their two leading candidates--Trump and Carson--are frightening.
Governor Kasich, they come off as demagogues, xenophobes. and dividers. Their two leading candidates--Trump and Carson--are frightening.
44
I would be comfortable with either Hillary or Bernie as president. However, unless the Democrats regain control of the House and Senate it won't make much difference who the president is. The GOP (especially the Tea Party demagogues) will throw another childish hissy fit and see to it that nothing is accomplished. We will be in for four more years of deadlock.
716
Bob, I agree with you about the Republicans. They will take the imperative to destroy any Democratic president more seriously than they take national security or the economy. But I would expect Clinton to respond differently from Sanders. Clinton will be like her husband, or like Obama, offering compromises only when surrender is impossible. Sanders might be different just because he, unlike Clinton or Biden, has no investment in the status quo of corporate funding, lobbying & governing.
1
Unfortunately, Bob, you are wrong. President Obama has accomplished a great deal in spite of Republican obstructionism--but at the cost weakening the Constitution. Because he is eager put through positive policies, he issues executive orders--on immigration, on drone attacks on U.S. citizens overseas, on taxes--without obtaining the consent from both houses of Congress that is required by the Constitution. This achieves short-term political objectives--at the cost of weakening the Constitution and the rule of law. It also adds to the cynicism of the people
2
Diogenes, On the contrary, Obama has been forced to use executive orders to govern precisely because of the deadlock created by the GOP. If a member of the GOP clown caucus is elected, those achievements will prove ephemeral.
8
Republicans who believe in the evil of government, but take its money, who are out to destroy it at any cost, Who believe in the trickle down from their rich bosses pixie theory, and Ayn Rand of course have nothing to say and must fall back on foolish posturing to make themselves known to their base.
Democrats in contrast believe in the possibilities of government to serve the people as a tool for growth. With this belief they can present solid programs that have the possibility of impacting our citizens positively as it has done with Social Security, Medicare, the ACA, environmental programs and a host of other things.
Democrats of course can look like reasonable adults as they have reasonable things to offer while Republicans often have the only option of puffing themselves up and shouting look at me look at me while offering nothing.
Democrats in contrast believe in the possibilities of government to serve the people as a tool for growth. With this belief they can present solid programs that have the possibility of impacting our citizens positively as it has done with Social Security, Medicare, the ACA, environmental programs and a host of other things.
Democrats of course can look like reasonable adults as they have reasonable things to offer while Republicans often have the only option of puffing themselves up and shouting look at me look at me while offering nothing.
159
Gee...and I thought the Republicans were the party of 'old white guys' from the 'establishment'.
5
Not anymore. They've been taken over by seditious, anarchist clowns. Apparently you're the last to notice.
7
Well, O'Malley isn't old and Clinton (the one on stage) isn't a guy. Problem?
Choosing among these candidates form both parties would be the same as asking me who my favorite Melendez brother is?
3
Or is that Menendez?
1
Phil, were you listening to both debates with the 'mute' button on?
If you think the Democrats were saying the same sort of things said by the entertainment party, you have a serious defect either in hearing or in judgment.
Democrats are imperfect; the Guns and Oil Party is inhuman.
If you think the Democrats were saying the same sort of things said by the entertainment party, you have a serious defect either in hearing or in judgment.
Democrats are imperfect; the Guns and Oil Party is inhuman.
7
Even the weakest wisecrack can be made weaker if you misspell the punchline's name. Congratulations.
12
The contrast between these five sensible and gracious democrats and the ignorant and disingenuous bomb throwers on the republican side could not be more stark. Surely a significant majority of American voters see it, too.
414
Hillary Clinton is the front runner because she has a wealth of experience in governing, both at the domestic and international level. She is intelligent and well-spoken. Her biggest drawback for me is that she is married to Bill Clinton. In general I liked the Bill Clinton presidency. Unfortunately, it smacks of dynasty to also have a wife of a previous president in office.
I liked most of Bernie Sanders responses to questions but I worry he is not pragmatic enough to get all the things done that he proposes. Martin O'Malley came off as presidential, informed, and passionate. I like that we have so many great choices for the Democratic candidacy!
I liked most of Bernie Sanders responses to questions but I worry he is not pragmatic enough to get all the things done that he proposes. Martin O'Malley came off as presidential, informed, and passionate. I like that we have so many great choices for the Democratic candidacy!
26
Yes, exactly what the headline says: Grown-ups. The Democratic candidates were adults and behaved as such. Contrast that with the spoiled children of the Republican party who think nothing of pushing extreme positions, no matter how detrimental they would be to actual U.S. Citizens.
222
that's what they're paid for.
No one brought up Sidney Blumenthal. How convenient.
2
And in the Republican debates, no one brought up Bridgegate, hurricane Sandy, Terry Schiavo, Marco Rubio's alleged misuse of campaign funds, Rand Paul's plagiarism, the fact that Rick Perry had been indicted,
or Scott Walker's alleged corruption. Convenient, indeed.
or Scott Walker's alleged corruption. Convenient, indeed.
1
There aren't any radical, extremists preaching anarchy and destruction of the nation among this crowd. Who's going to cover a group of adults behaving like adults with intelligence?
48
What a hilarious debate, well most knew the liberal CNN would handle them with soft hands and non-confrontational questions, a waste of time.
6
You obviously weren't watching the same debate I was.
27
Correct; no one asked them if they wanted to return to a world lit only by fire.
18
The debate I watched included many important questions and challenges.
26
We can thank Bernie Sanders for making explicit, throughout his campaign, that he will not be mud-slinging or engaging in horse-race speculation, but simply talking about the issues. The other candidates had no choice but to follow suit. We can also thank Bernie for Hillary's hard swing to the left. However, we have to wonder whether this is just a campaign tactic for her, and whether her new progressivism would survive her election. Hillary is being praised by some commentators for delivering a strong "performance." And that's what it was.
112
Completely agree, and well said. Bernie Sanders is almost entirely responsible for raising the Democratic debate bar with his ethical campaigning and refusal to sling mud. This, in effect, opened the door for a debate about real issues-- ergo, enter the adults, please leave your insults at the door.
That, friends, is a leader. Bernie has my vote.
That, friends, is a leader. Bernie has my vote.
16
It's a tactic.
EVERYTHING is simply a campaign tactic for Hillary. ANYTHING to get elected!
1
The GOP as a party, and the individual Presidential candidates, have made it very clear that diverging viewpoints will not be welcome while they are in power. That was the situation during W's two terms - zero accountability for the prefab solutions forced down our collective throats.
Republicans actively embrace the notion that under no circumstances are other people's problems worth anything. You voted D, you get jack squat, a kick in the teeth, your press pass revoked, and demonized on their propaganda channels.
They don't deserve to lead a country, they explicitly do not have solutions for the citizenry. It's sad that their transparent power games actually work.
Republicans actively embrace the notion that under no circumstances are other people's problems worth anything. You voted D, you get jack squat, a kick in the teeth, your press pass revoked, and demonized on their propaganda channels.
They don't deserve to lead a country, they explicitly do not have solutions for the citizenry. It's sad that their transparent power games actually work.
75
The biggest message to the American people is that EVERYONE of the five democrats on stage last night would be a better president than ANYONE of the Repbulican candidates we have seen thus far.
Hooray for adults!
Hooray for adults!
554
adults?
nothing about isis or putin aggression or cubans manning russian tanks in syria or jobs or the economy
but we found out Hillary is a woman who wants to redistribute wealth as does bernie as does obama = adulterism?
nothing about isis or putin aggression or cubans manning russian tanks in syria or jobs or the economy
but we found out Hillary is a woman who wants to redistribute wealth as does bernie as does obama = adulterism?
3
"Supporters of Mr. Sanders embraced his passionate critiques, but his performance may not convert those skeptical of his ability to broaden his appeal."
The more the mainstream news continues to peddle this narrative, the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I continue to hear applause for Hilary about how she pointed out that we are not Denmark, we are the USA. This is true, but Mrs. Clinton misses the point entirely and looked catty and childish while doing it. Clearly, Mr. Sanders was saying that we could learn from the successes of other countries such as Denmark, not that we are in fact Denmark.
I think Hilary would indeed make a great President, but the news media has simply wrote Bernie off before the race began. At least try and make it a fair fight. He is neck and neck with her in the polls and should be treated as such.
The more the mainstream news continues to peddle this narrative, the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I continue to hear applause for Hilary about how she pointed out that we are not Denmark, we are the USA. This is true, but Mrs. Clinton misses the point entirely and looked catty and childish while doing it. Clearly, Mr. Sanders was saying that we could learn from the successes of other countries such as Denmark, not that we are in fact Denmark.
I think Hilary would indeed make a great President, but the news media has simply wrote Bernie off before the race began. At least try and make it a fair fight. He is neck and neck with her in the polls and should be treated as such.
238
The trouble with all these debates is how much they depend on appearances (or what they called deportment in my parents’ day): Republican audiences—so far—have preferred spicy, and Democrats—so far—preferred mild. One of these people will be President, and in our system, whomever the American people elect President is Commander in Chief, so we have to make the best of it, regardless of how much one may despair.
1
Ed,
Rather than contrast spicy and mild, I'd call it the difference between those who like to throw their food and sit on the table to those who use silverware and sit on chairs.
Rather than contrast spicy and mild, I'd call it the difference between those who like to throw their food and sit on the table to those who use silverware and sit on chairs.
Civility was a big winner among the debaters, but the moderator was not civil. There was no need for him to be rude, dismissive and arrogant.
21
Out fox Fox?
2
"The Republican candidates may have a lot of fun campaigning for office, but they haven’t a prayer of knowing what to do if they ever entered the White House."
----------
Wrong, NYT.
Any Republican elected to the Presidency knows exactly what to do once in the White House.
Turn on all the Voodoo Economics faucets and let them run, let the war sprinkler run on the South Lawn, let the deregulatory sprinkler run on the North Lawn, put on the Explode The Deficit Ventilation system, hand out free guns to everyone on the White House tour and rename the Lincoln bedroom as the Charles and David Koch Bribe Room.
I'll be voting Democratic early and often.
----------
Wrong, NYT.
Any Republican elected to the Presidency knows exactly what to do once in the White House.
Turn on all the Voodoo Economics faucets and let them run, let the war sprinkler run on the South Lawn, let the deregulatory sprinkler run on the North Lawn, put on the Explode The Deficit Ventilation system, hand out free guns to everyone on the White House tour and rename the Lincoln bedroom as the Charles and David Koch Bribe Room.
I'll be voting Democratic early and often.
674
Wrong, NYT editorialists.
NYT editorialists continue to miss the main issue of the e-mail server -- the public's right to know, which NYT claims to support. While WashPost and WSJ and 35 others have sued HRC, to get those records.
In a normal workplace, HRC would have been fired immediately for what she did. So much for reality, in the political world.
HRC has proven she is unqualified to be president.
Are you listening, NYT editorialists?
NYT editorialists continue to miss the main issue of the e-mail server -- the public's right to know, which NYT claims to support. While WashPost and WSJ and 35 others have sued HRC, to get those records.
In a normal workplace, HRC would have been fired immediately for what she did. So much for reality, in the political world.
HRC has proven she is unqualified to be president.
Are you listening, NYT editorialists?
1
Hey Russ, Perhaps you need to pay more attention.
Keeping and maintaining a private server while Sect. of State was not illegal or even prohibited by Gov't rules. What she did with it may be another story but we still haven't heard anything about the actual emails to be determined as irregular or illegal.
Keeping and maintaining a private server while Sect. of State was not illegal or even prohibited by Gov't rules. What she did with it may be another story but we still haven't heard anything about the actual emails to be determined as irregular or illegal.
2
I would think that anyone with at least a particle of a brain would see the vast differerences between parties. I would gladly take the lowest polling Democrat over any of the maroons the opposition is offering.
173
Hillary was Hillary,
Nimble and composed
Bernie was Bernie
Tax-the-Rich disposed
The others were respectable
No one off the wall,
Not a sign of anyone
Wise voters would appall.
Nimble and composed
Bernie was Bernie
Tax-the-Rich disposed
The others were respectable
No one off the wall,
Not a sign of anyone
Wise voters would appall.
230
A very good poem indeed.
Crises after crisis, our nation in need,
While the color of Donald Trumps hair
Captivates audiences everywhere.
Democrats try real problem solving,
Debating economics and foreign policy.
Republicans want to build a wall,
Something the Russians did, as I recall.
Crises after crisis, our nation in need,
While the color of Donald Trumps hair
Captivates audiences everywhere.
Democrats try real problem solving,
Debating economics and foreign policy.
Republicans want to build a wall,
Something the Russians did, as I recall.
9
Great one Larry! You always hit the spot.
4
Larry, you are unbelievable! In just 3 short lines you pretty much tell it like it is.
Hillary Clinton is the front runner largely because many of those who support her are low-information voters, who are unfamiliar with the other candidates.
She's also been acting like she's the forgone candidate for several years, and the media has helped to foster this belief, e.g., the NYT embedding a reporter in her campaign as far back as 2013.
She's also been acting like she's the forgone candidate for several years, and the media has helped to foster this belief, e.g., the NYT embedding a reporter in her campaign as far back as 2013.
35
Do you know the other candidates?
5
That's ridiculous. I'm very sure her voters are highly informed and well accustomed to critical thinking. If you want to see low information voters, go to any public republican gathering. I say "public" because all important republican party decisions are made in private, behind closed doors, by the party elite.
Clinton is hardly forgotten. Her name recognition for better or worse exceeds that of anyone else in either party.
Clinton is hardly forgotten. Her name recognition for better or worse exceeds that of anyone else in either party.
77
According to all the polls, Bernie is the front-runner.
14
On foreign affairs, there was disagreement over the American role in the war in Syria and against the Islamic State. Mrs. Clinton supports a no-fly zone in Syria, an idea opposed by Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Malley. Likewise on surveillance and security issues, Mrs. Clinton defended her support for the Patriot Act, which allowed the National Security Agency to create a vast secret surveillance program, while Mr. Sanders opposed the act and said he would shut down the program....
[ Perfect summary and contrast, but for Ms. Clinton and President Obama a no-fly zone over Libya was a rationale for bombing Libya and deposing the government leaving only tragedy for the Libyan people in the wake. ]
[ Perfect summary and contrast, but for Ms. Clinton and President Obama a no-fly zone over Libya was a rationale for bombing Libya and deposing the government leaving only tragedy for the Libyan people in the wake. ]
16
on the no-fly zone, who is going to keep Russia from not flying?
5
No, the UN Security Council resolution was the rationale for establishing a no-fly zone in Libya.
Ghaddafi's threat to massacre his people was the reason for the bombing by NATO.
You're really uninformed.
Ghaddafi's threat to massacre his people was the reason for the bombing by NATO.
You're really uninformed.
4
I thought I detected in the debate an end to the sneaky, snivelling, intellectually empty doctrine of "centrism" that Bill and Hillary and their professional political operatives foist on us back in the 90's, of which Obama is the last benighted practitioner. Even Hillary comfortably talked openly about all subjects including income inequality, capitalism, and gun control. There wasn't any need listen to statements with all the politically risky key words replaced with camouflaged code words forcing the listener to wonder what they were talking about; here were people who weren't afraid to say what they think, a refreshing sign that the paid operatives aren't ruling the roost at the expense of the public this time around...
79
So, let me count -- two terms for President Clinton, two terms for President Obama. I hate to burst your bubble, but getting elected counts.
5
We probably have Bernie to thank for that. He has forced "progressive" issues to the top of the agenda, and rightly so.
13
Rich, do you honestly think President Obama could have been elected or re-elected if he had gone hard to the left?
1
I was one of those skeptical of Sec. Clinton. I am relieved and I think if anyone can stand up to the thugs on the right it would be her....as long as Bill behaves of course.
I love what Bernie has to say, however, I am not so sure he will be able to win the general election and with the SCOTUS in mind, I want to vote for someone who will not appoint right wing activists like the ones there appointed by Bush father and son. Remember the Nader voters in Fl in 2000.
I love what Bernie has to say, however, I am not so sure he will be able to win the general election and with the SCOTUS in mind, I want to vote for someone who will not appoint right wing activists like the ones there appointed by Bush father and son. Remember the Nader voters in Fl in 2000.
239
Comparing Sanders to Nader is a red herring and a totally false comparison. Nader ran as an independent in the general election, siphoning off votes from Gore. Sanders is running as a Democrat, in the primary. If he doesn't win the primary, he will throw his support behind the nominee. There's just no comparison whatsoever.
43
Smath
It's an urban legend that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the Presidency.
The real unvarnished truth is that massive Jeb! and Company voter suppression handed the Presidency to the right-wing Supreme Court and George W Bush.
You can look it up in the United States Commission on Civil Rights official report.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm
When all the 2000 Florida votes are counted, Al Gore won Florida and the 2000 Presidency.
Blame Jeb !, not the American hero who's saved thousands of American lives with seat belts.
Nader's advocacy of automobile safety and the publicity generated by the publication of his book 'Unsafe at Any Speed' contributed to Congress' unanimous passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and established the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, marking a historic shift in responsibility for automobile safety from the consumer to the government.
It's an urban legend that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the Presidency.
The real unvarnished truth is that massive Jeb! and Company voter suppression handed the Presidency to the right-wing Supreme Court and George W Bush.
You can look it up in the United States Commission on Civil Rights official report.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm
When all the 2000 Florida votes are counted, Al Gore won Florida and the 2000 Presidency.
Blame Jeb !, not the American hero who's saved thousands of American lives with seat belts.
Nader's advocacy of automobile safety and the publicity generated by the publication of his book 'Unsafe at Any Speed' contributed to Congress' unanimous passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and established the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, marking a historic shift in responsibility for automobile safety from the consumer to the government.
20
Nice comment, Socrates.
3
Forget policy, forget party affiliation. Look at this through the eyes of your grandmother, with wisdom and common sense.
One team, inflated in number, falls over themselves to attack their colleagues, launch into self righteous diatribes of self aggrandizement, all ready to destroy each other to get the prize. Why ? Their behavior is void of altruism or patriotism, a ruse to self enrichment.
The other team has the ability to actually articulate plans of action, are not that far apart in their overall assessment of the nation's needs, and remain deferential and respectful of each other ... the epitome of consensus builders.
Grandmother, which team has members with real leadership qualities, the caring, the grace under fire ? Which team is almost all filled with selfish bullies without one viable idea in their collective heads ?
Common sense tells all.
One team, inflated in number, falls over themselves to attack their colleagues, launch into self righteous diatribes of self aggrandizement, all ready to destroy each other to get the prize. Why ? Their behavior is void of altruism or patriotism, a ruse to self enrichment.
The other team has the ability to actually articulate plans of action, are not that far apart in their overall assessment of the nation's needs, and remain deferential and respectful of each other ... the epitome of consensus builders.
Grandmother, which team has members with real leadership qualities, the caring, the grace under fire ? Which team is almost all filled with selfish bullies without one viable idea in their collective heads ?
Common sense tells all.
504
Sanders' espoused policies are mostly good, but it's not clear that he would know what to do if he ever gained the White House. Calling for a revolution (in my mind a scary thing in any case) will not rid Republican extremists from their comfortable gerrymandered positions.
So yes, Hillary won the day. She knows all about fighting Republicans.
Even the most liberal of Democrats would get behind her if we were faced with the possibility of a Bush, Rubio, or - OMG - Cruz winning the general election.
So yes, Hillary won the day. She knows all about fighting Republicans.
Even the most liberal of Democrats would get behind her if we were faced with the possibility of a Bush, Rubio, or - OMG - Cruz winning the general election.
156
Bernie is correct to call for a revolution~meaning a revolution in taking back our govt., our America from corporate behemoths. The corporate control of the economy is far more scary than Bernie calling for a revolution in thinking and action to overthrow heinous corporate rule! Bernie, 2016!!
17
pkformes, when Senator Sanders called for a revolution he's talking about a BALLOT BOX and grassroots citizens' movements to demand the changes we want. That IS what we need. If every American took action on one thing they want to see changed and spend one hour per month (or week or day) promoting that idea WE can restore sanity, civility, financial equity and democracy in America within four years. Let's Do It.
16
Though I am a 100% supporter of Hillary Clinton, in his defense, Bernie was cut off and his words were misconstrued. The revolution he envisions is one in which the American people rise up, educate themselves and, quite simply, VOTE!
8
We have a moribund, intellectually dead form of government. Participating in this charade by choosing among these people would be fatiguing and voting is a pointless exercise. I'll never do it again.
3
Thank you for helping to put the GOP into power.
29
Chalk up one vote from Phil for Trump or any of his other GOP clones leading the chase for that nomination. Same goes for all others so stupid as to think of themselves as too brilliant to vote. What hubris!
34
How childish! Let's see what you think if one of the GOP clown caucus is elected. As bad as things are, it could get worse.
34
I wish Bernie Sanders had said "I had good reasons then for voting as I did on gun control but the horrible series of events since then have convinced me that I was wrong and I now support expanded background checks and a ban on assault weapons." It would have immediately shut down the criticism and I'm pretty sure that Vermont voters and other gun owners around the country would be smart enough to accept it as an eminently reasonable human reaction to events and an eminently sensible policy.
It is pretty inexcusable and surprising, though, that Sanders did not anticipate this attack and have a better answer for it.
It is pretty inexcusable and surprising, though, that Sanders did not anticipate this attack and have a better answer for it.
99
A presidential candidate has a responsibility to the entire country, not to his or her own state. Bernie's policies on most issues are national in character - he doesn't distinguish between the wealthy and poor in one state or region than another.
Gun control is a very serious issue for me. It has been blocked for too long, and the NRA has gained far too much control of the conversation. I will never support a candidate who doesn't advocate for universal background checks, ending the legal protections for gun and ammunition manufacturers, closing the loopholes for gun dealers, and other steps.
Gun control is a very serious issue for me. It has been blocked for too long, and the NRA has gained far too much control of the conversation. I will never support a candidate who doesn't advocate for universal background checks, ending the legal protections for gun and ammunition manufacturers, closing the loopholes for gun dealers, and other steps.
10
Surprising, he sounded silly.
Well, he may still want to run in his home state again as he is not likely to become president.
"Hillary Rodham Clinton reminded us why she’s the front-runner, with her experience, command of the issues and strength in communicating ideas."
Let me fix that for you:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton reminded us why she’s the front-runner, with her war chest of corrupt Wall Street PAC money, her last name and her ability to change her policy stances to pander to voters more pathetically than anyone since Mitt Romney."
Let me fix that for you:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton reminded us why she’s the front-runner, with her war chest of corrupt Wall Street PAC money, her last name and her ability to change her policy stances to pander to voters more pathetically than anyone since Mitt Romney."
39
Last night, the five Democratic candidates for the Presidency debated. As Martin O'Malley said, there was no one who said anything that denigrated women, no one who uttered anything racist or against the religion of anyone else - in fact, it was a thoughtful debate on the big issues.
Any one of these candidates is head-and-shoulders above ANY of the Republican candidates - better than that scary and dangerously ignorant Ben Carson, better than that liar and anti-worker Carly Fiorina, better than that criminal Chris Christie, better than that weak and incompetent Jeb Bush, better than Marco Rubio who can't manage his own family's finances much less the country's, better than failed Governor Bobby Jindal, better than radically insane Ted Cruz, and light-years ahead of that racist fool Trump.
Any one of these candidates is head-and-shoulders above ANY of the Republican candidates - better than that scary and dangerously ignorant Ben Carson, better than that liar and anti-worker Carly Fiorina, better than that criminal Chris Christie, better than that weak and incompetent Jeb Bush, better than Marco Rubio who can't manage his own family's finances much less the country's, better than failed Governor Bobby Jindal, better than radically insane Ted Cruz, and light-years ahead of that racist fool Trump.
848
I wish I could recommend this comment more than once.
1
"...better than that criminal Chris Christie, ..."
Alan -
Does the public "give a damn" about Bridgegate when there are so many more important issues affecting their lives? Isn't Bridgegate "old news"? Haven't there been X number of investigations already on this matter? Isn't it time to move on and focus on what's important to the American people? Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Alan -
Does the public "give a damn" about Bridgegate when there are so many more important issues affecting their lives? Isn't Bridgegate "old news"? Haven't there been X number of investigations already on this matter? Isn't it time to move on and focus on what's important to the American people? Live by the sword, die by the sword.
What a contrast to the
G-ross
O-ld
P-arty debates
G-ross
O-ld
P-arty debates
46
Yes, it was clear the Democrats welcome everyone from the slightly to the far left.
5
It was clear that Democrats care about America and Americans. Compare that with a TP/GOP who ONLY answer to the ones that brung 'em and the far right, uber-religious, anti-women electorate. The rest of us simply don't count. I prefer a Democrat.
55
What a contrast between the two party's candidates. The Democrats have an agenda to govern America, the republicans only have hate.
614
"Hillary Rodham Clinton reminded us why she’s the front-runner, with her experience, command of the issues and strength in communicating ideas."
... or she'll just take money from anyone and say anything.
It's disappointing the Sanders did not play up more the fact that he is representing the people and not big business, and that people are getting hurt in very personal ways by big business. The game is rigged!
... or she'll just take money from anyone and say anything.
It's disappointing the Sanders did not play up more the fact that he is representing the people and not big business, and that people are getting hurt in very personal ways by big business. The game is rigged!
25
I watched the debate and thought that Sanders did a good job conveying that he's not funded by a super pac or big business, and sticking to his talking points of inequality of income and opportunity. I thought HRC was much stronger on foreign policy, as you would expect from a former Secretary of State.
23
I'm not sure you were listening. I thought I heard him say that over, and over and over again.
17
Bernie did a superb job 'playing up' that he is representing people. He did that repeatedly. Not sure what debate you watched.
17
Wouldn't it be nice if NY Times political reporters did that? Instead, reporters give us story after story of opining, interpreting, and prognosticating, while factual reporting is left for the editorial page.
Something wrong with this picture.