The press! Why would the writers think that their opinion was worth publishing? I think Sanders stole the show, particularly with his saying he was sick of the constant questioning about Mrs. C's email. He showed not only intelligence and impartiality, but also gentlemanliness.
16
The tone, presence and responses of Governor O'Malley looked the most presidential of the lot. While many of the candidates were regurgitating scripted answers, I thought Hillary provided answers that were deliberately mild at best. Governor Chafee was by far the weakest while Bernie Sanders was pointed, articulate and passionate when he could hear the question. Ironically it is my opinion that it would be Senator Webb that would easily sweep a national election due to his centrist views but he stands no chance with the Democratic Party. Welcome to our divided national politics.
2
In case this reporter hadn't noticed, Mrs. Clinton supports a no fly zone in Syria. Mr. Sanders does not. Enforcing a no fly zone can bring us in direct conflict with the Russians who are supporting Assad. I do not look forward to the day when a Russian plane is shot down by an American supplied missile over a no fly zone. Mrs. Clinton was willing to escalate our involvement in Libya, she voted in favor of the Iraq invasion, and her willingness to escalate raises sharp questions about her ability to manage a crisis when pressured to use military force.
8
One small point: When we invaded Iraq on the basis of their having WMD . . . our administration did not lie. Rather, it relied upon faulty conclusions by the intelligence community. Every nation's intelligence agency believed them to be there; the Russians and the Israelis -- among the most effective intelligence organizations -- along with the French, et al, affirmed having held that conclusion prior to the invasion, even after it proved to not be the case.
Indeed, the story was told by American commanders who interrogated the commanding officers of captured Iraqi forces during the campaign on Baghdad that, when asked where their stockpile of chemical weapons were stored, were told that their force didn't have them but the other defending brigades did. Hussein lied about his advanced weapons to his own commanding generals!
Finally, the post-war inspections confirmed that Iraq had worked covertly to maintain the intellectual and physical capacity to produce WMDs and intended to restart production once sanctions were lifted.
This condemnation of the Bush administration needs to be put to rest. (Right after we find out what Hillary really said in those emails . . .)
Indeed, the story was told by American commanders who interrogated the commanding officers of captured Iraqi forces during the campaign on Baghdad that, when asked where their stockpile of chemical weapons were stored, were told that their force didn't have them but the other defending brigades did. Hussein lied about his advanced weapons to his own commanding generals!
Finally, the post-war inspections confirmed that Iraq had worked covertly to maintain the intellectual and physical capacity to produce WMDs and intended to restart production once sanctions were lifted.
This condemnation of the Bush administration needs to be put to rest. (Right after we find out what Hillary really said in those emails . . .)
3
If electability is the question in most Democrats minds when they vote in the primary, consider that Republicans will continue to tear into Clinton and with more vengeance, if that's possible, when she's the nominee. Not fair, but politics never is. Also consider that most people are in the mood for REAL change, especially after President Obama went soft on Democratic core principles to appease Republicans to no avail. Bernie Sanders would be attacked with the "socialist" label but I think he could throw that back at the "Wall Street capitalists" and flesh out his plans with more details about how to pay for them and who gets their taxes raised. Any of the Republicans nominated would be on the defensive with a Bernie Sanders speaking directly to working and middle class families' economic insecurity. Republicans have nothing for them except "Work harder and longer" and "We won't raise your taxes." Sanders does need to lower his voice a little and not come on so very, very angry though. That makes him sound "radical" and scary.
5
More detail rather than horserace reporting would have been nice. Why was private e-mail server an issuel? It was LEGAL, the NORM for all other Secretaries of State.
Glass-Steagall forbid "banks" (take deposits and loan the money out) from doing investment banking. Hillary noted Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the Bush depression, which accelerated with the collapse of a pure investment bank (Lehman) and a bond insurer (AIG).
I agree with Sanders that there are at least three banks that are "too big to fail" -- no one would be big enough to buy them except federal gov. Hillary says regulate them toughly -- this can be done most easily by forcing them to keep a higher percentage of deposits in reserve (and maybe that alone would reduce their profits and competitive advantage enough for them to break themselves up). Bernie said the banks have a history of regulating Congress, and not the other way around.
Glass-Steagall forbid "banks" (take deposits and loan the money out) from doing investment banking. Hillary noted Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the Bush depression, which accelerated with the collapse of a pure investment bank (Lehman) and a bond insurer (AIG).
I agree with Sanders that there are at least three banks that are "too big to fail" -- no one would be big enough to buy them except federal gov. Hillary says regulate them toughly -- this can be done most easily by forcing them to keep a higher percentage of deposits in reserve (and maybe that alone would reduce their profits and competitive advantage enough for them to break themselves up). Bernie said the banks have a history of regulating Congress, and not the other way around.
3
Yes, were we watching the same debate? It seems that the NYT has such a rigid narrative of Hillary as embattled, on the ropes, and aggressive, that it cannot change course to follow the facts. This debate was remarkably cordial, almost a lovefest for a political debate, with no real attacks despite all of the questioners' efforts. It was notable for the absence of "mocking" or "stinging" retorts, but maybe the writers had this vocabulary all set to go and didn't want to give it up based on what actually occurred. Hillary exuded calm competence and professionalism and Bernie Sanders displayed a lot of passion for many of the concerns that they shared. They were both friendly and warm to each other. It might be worthwhile to try just watching before writing.
7
Clinton looks fully recovered from her fall or accident at the end of her term. All she had to do was smile and refuse answers, although she has no ground anymore deciding who else should be in jail for their "mistakes." Wall Street will be business as usual under Clinton II. 'Said she wasn't playing her surname, but played the gender card shamelessly. Bernie spoke to me more -- a major point being to lift the wage-based SS payroll tax ceiling -- but he looks too old to last four years, and I'm afraid it will really be that simple. O'Malley was excellent, but nobody knows who he is. Webb sounded like a good candidate for SecDef; to me his closing line was his weakness, when I want to know who's going to "fix" our oligarchy. (And maybe Navy reactors are safe, but it was just announced that Entergy's Mass. Pilgrim plant, downgraded by the NRC, is closing.)
2
A quick read finds many commenters calling out the Times for a Hillary bias-and rightly so.
I would add that Hillary played the gender card on several (way too many) occasions. We are looking for the debates to help us choose the right person for President, Female or Male is not one of the factors.
The Times reporting adding to this gender bias is sad .
I would add that Hillary played the gender card on several (way too many) occasions. We are looking for the debates to help us choose the right person for President, Female or Male is not one of the factors.
The Times reporting adding to this gender bias is sad .
10
People are wary after getting fooled by Obama who promised a progressive agenda and delivered a corporate and neocon and administration with a healthcare plan written by insurance companies and a continued "war on terror".
Clinton has shown by her recent conversions to be against the Keystone Pipeline and the TPP that she is not to be trusted. She gave a typical Republican response to the question on whether she is a capitalist. She sounded like a Republican extolling the virtues of small business when they are actually beholden to large corporations.
Then there was the bizarre response to the question on who were her enemies. She said that they were the NRA, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, Iran and the Republicans. Why is Iran her enemy? Have they ever harmed the US? It sounds like she is on the bandwagon of demonizing the victim to justify the next US attack.
Clinton has shown by her recent conversions to be against the Keystone Pipeline and the TPP that she is not to be trusted. She gave a typical Republican response to the question on whether she is a capitalist. She sounded like a Republican extolling the virtues of small business when they are actually beholden to large corporations.
Then there was the bizarre response to the question on who were her enemies. She said that they were the NRA, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, Iran and the Republicans. Why is Iran her enemy? Have they ever harmed the US? It sounds like she is on the bandwagon of demonizing the victim to justify the next US attack.
7
I felt Hillary side-stepped the Glass Steagall question from O'Mailey and she unfortunately proved to me she still represents the bankers and wall street. I truly wanted to vote for her but she is still entrenched with Wall Street and the " too big to fail banks, ". Just telling them they were wrong is unbelievably naive and plain stupid. Bernie gets it .... Hillary still doesn't ! Bernie tried to educate and help the american people understand college today in a globalized world is equivalent to high school in prior years .... Which is free ! Hillary knows or should know by putting a transaction tax on the casino gamblers on Wall Street would pay for our country's education and infrastructure. Bernie also educated the the CNN hosts and others that all we have to do to increase social security is raise the cap ... a no brainer! Hillary's flip flop on TPP says she really didn't do her homework in understanding it would kill America's middle class and turn our democracy into an oligarchy where our laws would be negated by corporate tribunals. No excuse it took her till the debate to see what most of America has been aware of .... Our sovereignty would be handed over to transnationals! Bernie truly understands and speaks to power ! Bernie ' 16 !
12
I want a competent, experienced person as President. I believe Hillary is the most qualified of the contenders. Bernie Sanders is a colorful, passionate one-issue candidate with an old-timey populist message. Break up the banks on Wall street? Sound very 1960's revolutionary but naive. I think efforts by those to discredit Hillary as flipping on the issues is unfair. People's opinions on issue will evolve as time goes on and new information is learned. As Secretary of State she was a member of a team. As President, she will be the captain of the team. I also liked O'Malley, who I had never heard of before. He would make a good VP candidate.
2
Hillary did very well in her performance, and in a sense, probably "won" the debate, but this was not just a show, this was a chance for the candidates to make their positions known and have them compared to the others.
I thought Clinton's positions were pretty good, but Chaffee, O'Malley, and especially Sanders came across as being in favor of progressive change. For me, as I suspect with most voters, the real issue is not style, but substance.
The Times' myopic focus on Clinton as the only hope for the Democrats is transparent favoritism, and not worthy of journalism.
I thought Clinton's positions were pretty good, but Chaffee, O'Malley, and especially Sanders came across as being in favor of progressive change. For me, as I suspect with most voters, the real issue is not style, but substance.
The Times' myopic focus on Clinton as the only hope for the Democrats is transparent favoritism, and not worthy of journalism.
7
She's smug, she's entitled, she invites high unfavorability. I know too many Democrats who will not vote for her even if it means seeing the Republicans win.
She showed her true colors when, after eagerly lapping up Sander's generous take-down of the emails issue, she stuck in the knife and twisted it by basically accusing Bernie of being an NRA dupe for his centrist, well-thought-out, workable approach to gun ownership and legislation.
Coming from a rural state myself, I know everything he says is true, and I know pandering to the extreme anti-Second Amendment faction will bring down any Democrat ticket in flames.
Oh well. Snakes bite, Bernie. No good deed goes unpunished, and taking the high road often means losing the race.
She showed her true colors when, after eagerly lapping up Sander's generous take-down of the emails issue, she stuck in the knife and twisted it by basically accusing Bernie of being an NRA dupe for his centrist, well-thought-out, workable approach to gun ownership and legislation.
Coming from a rural state myself, I know everything he says is true, and I know pandering to the extreme anti-Second Amendment faction will bring down any Democrat ticket in flames.
Oh well. Snakes bite, Bernie. No good deed goes unpunished, and taking the high road often means losing the race.
18
If you like stuff from the government that is paid for by other people the democrats are your kind of people. Then maybe you like the stuff paid for by the US borrowing more money.
3
I don't favor a Republican victory paid for by those 158 families in mega-mansions the Times just wrote about. Like your Scrub Jay though.
8
My God! The democratic debate was pathetic. The panel of hopeless candidates who are the face of the democratic party was irrelevant, banal, boring. The republican party must be delighted. Hillary Clinton - loser. Bernie Sanders - socialist coward conscientious objector coward. Did I mention coward? The other panel members are/were/ non recognizable. In short, these very odd people are the face of incompetence, irrelevant centralized 20th century government, a relic of the confused past. We wish them well, the oblivion they deserve..
1
Is that you Donald?
8
If you think the Democratic candidates are "losers," what must you think of the Republican candidates? If you think they are any better than the Democrats, it's time for you to take off those blinders. BTW, which of the Republican candidates served in the military (other than a "military lawyer" like Senator Graham), or do you call only Democrats "cowards"? Your bias is showing.
10
People who volunteer to kill in wars whose basis they oppose, afraid mainly of being called a coward, are themselves cowards.
2
Just a word for the NYT reporters...this particular article strongly favored Hillary Clinton, and in fact, was almost solely about what she said and how great her demeanor was. It is a biased piece in Hillary Clinton's favor.
However, there were five participants in the debate, and millions in the viewing audience. Fortunately, they were not wearing the rose-colored, Hillary-favoring glasses of the NYT reporters.
The Times' comments about O'Malley were accurate and fair. What was said about Chaffey and Webb was also accurate, if brief.
But the Times burned Bernie Sanders, when in fact, he was the most remarkable of all the candidates by giving specific plans and how they would be paid for, by clearly distinguishing his platform, and by answering all questions honestly, with explanations. He never once finessed his way out of answering a question or stating his ideas.
Hillary was all about the finesse and fake warmth, (she chuckled entirely too loudly and too much, and describing her bathroom habits was not necessary). She hedged on all of her positions to give herself wiggle-room in the future, and just came across as too slick to be trustworthy.
As a favor to the electorate, NYT, please make the effort to not show bias in Presidential election reporting. Leave that to Fox News.
However, there were five participants in the debate, and millions in the viewing audience. Fortunately, they were not wearing the rose-colored, Hillary-favoring glasses of the NYT reporters.
The Times' comments about O'Malley were accurate and fair. What was said about Chaffey and Webb was also accurate, if brief.
But the Times burned Bernie Sanders, when in fact, he was the most remarkable of all the candidates by giving specific plans and how they would be paid for, by clearly distinguishing his platform, and by answering all questions honestly, with explanations. He never once finessed his way out of answering a question or stating his ideas.
Hillary was all about the finesse and fake warmth, (she chuckled entirely too loudly and too much, and describing her bathroom habits was not necessary). She hedged on all of her positions to give herself wiggle-room in the future, and just came across as too slick to be trustworthy.
As a favor to the electorate, NYT, please make the effort to not show bias in Presidential election reporting. Leave that to Fox News.
17
You seem a little bit biased toward Bernie. Is your bias acceptable?
1
From this debate, listeners learned that Webb whines a lot when he doesn't get recognized, and that he was injured in combat. It could be seen that Chaffey is a nice guy with a good record, but perhaps not electable as he lacks dynamism.
O'Malley was very interesting--he made good points, for example, bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act--and he's the youngest contender. He was refreshing to watch, but perhaps a little too deferent to Hillary.
Hillary was too glib. While referring to her "programs" to improve education, healthcare, social security, she hedged on every answer, committing to nothing except--wanting to include big business and big banking in improving the economy, and refusing Glass-Steagall. She insisted that Libya has improved now that Khadafi is dead--huh? She glided around difficult questions--very slickly. With her Super-Pac funding, her false warmth and evasive answers, she appeared like other old school politicians...and untrustworthy.
Bernie did very well. He answered every question, even the difficult ones. He openly advocated tax increases for the rich, and for Wall St. investment houses and banks, free university education (paid for by aforementioned taxes), and war fought by coalition--not just the U.S. He was the only one who acknowledged that the American voter had to help the U.S.--that the future was not just in the hands of the President or Congress.
He seemed credible, experienced, strong and had fresh ideas--and no Super-Pac.
O'Malley was very interesting--he made good points, for example, bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act--and he's the youngest contender. He was refreshing to watch, but perhaps a little too deferent to Hillary.
Hillary was too glib. While referring to her "programs" to improve education, healthcare, social security, she hedged on every answer, committing to nothing except--wanting to include big business and big banking in improving the economy, and refusing Glass-Steagall. She insisted that Libya has improved now that Khadafi is dead--huh? She glided around difficult questions--very slickly. With her Super-Pac funding, her false warmth and evasive answers, she appeared like other old school politicians...and untrustworthy.
Bernie did very well. He answered every question, even the difficult ones. He openly advocated tax increases for the rich, and for Wall St. investment houses and banks, free university education (paid for by aforementioned taxes), and war fought by coalition--not just the U.S. He was the only one who acknowledged that the American voter had to help the U.S.--that the future was not just in the hands of the President or Congress.
He seemed credible, experienced, strong and had fresh ideas--and no Super-Pac.
18
Clinton was clearly the smoothest in her delivery and the most self-confident. She was also the most glib, slick, and in my view least trustworthy. She came across as a well-groomed politician who has studied hard what needs to be said to get elected. Many will surely be snookered by her well rehearsed sound-bites into believing she is sincere. Who knows? Maybe she is. Sanders came across as more sincere and impassioned, if rough-hewn and unpolished. He's a real fighter for what he believes in and you have to respect him for that. Perhaps the most qualified may well be Chafee. Least attention-garnerin, most uncomfortable, possibly least articulate during the debate, I sense he's a person of substance and character, but not of flash and charisma. He may not imbue confidence with his words, but he is also an ingenue. I get the feeling he's the kind of person who, though less flashy and less comfortable communicating in the bold and attention-grabbing away of some of the other candidates, quietly works behind the scenes, like his father before him, John Chafee, to get the work done. In a campaign where glitter and appearance are going to count for more than quiet unpretentious hard work, he can never gain the nomination. He's the anti-Trump.
I'd give the nod to Bernie, overall, because I'm tired of the kind of smooth-talking politicians that Hillary represents. If you want slick and well-spoken, you will vote for her.
I'd give the nod to Bernie, overall, because I'm tired of the kind of smooth-talking politicians that Hillary represents. If you want slick and well-spoken, you will vote for her.
11
With Hillary's dismal record of stretching the truth and selling the White House to the banking industry she will continue to look like the second coming of Bill Clinton with all his character defects and dishonesties. She has an army of Democratic hangers on pushing her in the media, but when it comes to the electorate and ordinary citizens, Bernie Sanders far outdistances her in the public's esteem.
15
I've looked at a lot of websites and a lot of them are saying that Hillary Clinton won the debate last night but I'm watching the debate now and I completely disagree.
Watching the CNN Dem Debate on YouTube, right now, the debates were horribly managed and lopsided, and I agreed with Senator Webb that the debate focused too much on a perceived "prize fight" between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders - forgetting about the rest of the candidates on stage. Both Sen. Webb and Gov. Chafee did not give strong performances and the stage was more than willing to put the spotlight on Sanders and Clinton, but O'Malley gave a surprising strong performance and I believe took a lot of the spotlight from both Clinton and Sanders.
IMO - I believe Martin O'Malley won this debate - unlike Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who have both name recognition and received months of media attention, nobody knew or expected anything from anyone outside of Sanders and Clinton but O'Malley's strong performance got him a lot of that spotlight and social media is now talking about him as a serious contender for POTUS.
Watching the CNN Dem Debate on YouTube, right now, the debates were horribly managed and lopsided, and I agreed with Senator Webb that the debate focused too much on a perceived "prize fight" between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders - forgetting about the rest of the candidates on stage. Both Sen. Webb and Gov. Chafee did not give strong performances and the stage was more than willing to put the spotlight on Sanders and Clinton, but O'Malley gave a surprising strong performance and I believe took a lot of the spotlight from both Clinton and Sanders.
IMO - I believe Martin O'Malley won this debate - unlike Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who have both name recognition and received months of media attention, nobody knew or expected anything from anyone outside of Sanders and Clinton but O'Malley's strong performance got him a lot of that spotlight and social media is now talking about him as a serious contender for POTUS.
2
No matter how mainstream media outlets may try to spin it, Sanders clearly won in all the focus groups and online poll, as all the statistics and charts clearly show.
5
I never go by focus groups or online polls - I go by what I hear and see for myself.
All the stuff that Bernie Sanders has said is pretty much the same thing that got de Blasio to be Mayor of NYC and anyone who voted because it sounds great to have "the rich pay for everything" are pretty much having "Buyer's Remorse" now- so I was not impressed with what Sanders said and the constant arm flapping and stooping didn't make him look like Presidential material to me.
I was impressed with the person who acted and looked like a President to me, not someone who constantly reminded the audience that she will be "The First Female President" (hint - win in November first, Hillary).
And I'm not the only one who was impressed with this unknown Governor from Maryland - some Republicans I know, who just can't believe what they're stuck with for their Party's candidates, were impressed with Martin O'Malley's performance - even if they did not agree with some of his positions, they were just impressed with how he sounded and handled himself in this debate.
IMO - Even if you can not take away the media attention away from the supposed "front runners", if you can impress regular people outside of popular media, focus groups, and polls, and become "water cooler material" - you won the debate.
All the stuff that Bernie Sanders has said is pretty much the same thing that got de Blasio to be Mayor of NYC and anyone who voted because it sounds great to have "the rich pay for everything" are pretty much having "Buyer's Remorse" now- so I was not impressed with what Sanders said and the constant arm flapping and stooping didn't make him look like Presidential material to me.
I was impressed with the person who acted and looked like a President to me, not someone who constantly reminded the audience that she will be "The First Female President" (hint - win in November first, Hillary).
And I'm not the only one who was impressed with this unknown Governor from Maryland - some Republicans I know, who just can't believe what they're stuck with for their Party's candidates, were impressed with Martin O'Malley's performance - even if they did not agree with some of his positions, they were just impressed with how he sounded and handled himself in this debate.
IMO - Even if you can not take away the media attention away from the supposed "front runners", if you can impress regular people outside of popular media, focus groups, and polls, and become "water cooler material" - you won the debate.
1
Such a difference between this debate and the Republican ones. I got the feeling that any one of the people on stage would make a good president. I did not get that feeling with the Republicans who, I felt, would march us backwards. And not turning around and retreating, but marching backwards while facing forwards, which is a whole lot dumber.
6
Just a few short months ago my worst election nightmare was seeing the nation torn down the middle by a dynastic Bush/Clinton fight. Now we may be looking at a Sanders/Trump fight to the death.
Bush/Clinton is suddenly looking rather appealing.
The standard for success in this last debate seems to be based on the fact that the Democrats remained polite. After the impossibly low bar the Republicans set, the Democrats would have had to wrestle topless in pudding to look worse.
I've never been so frightened for my country in my life.
Bush/Clinton is suddenly looking rather appealing.
The standard for success in this last debate seems to be based on the fact that the Democrats remained polite. After the impossibly low bar the Republicans set, the Democrats would have had to wrestle topless in pudding to look worse.
I've never been so frightened for my country in my life.
3
Who won? Who lost? Who came in from the cold?
Who cares! ANY ONE of the Democrats vying for the nomination is lightyears ahead of any of the Republicans, if not all of them added together and divided by 15.
Every one of them made sense last night. Nobody seemed to be beholden to magical thinking. There were no ad hominem attacks.
I love Denmark, too - it's a wonderful place full of wonderful people, and clearly Democratic candidates admire this "happiest place on earth." Bernie hopes the USA can become more like Scandinavia; Hillary thinks it's a nice idea but not possible just because we're the USA, which is a little hard to follow logically, unless she means we are cursed to be the world's cop forever and it doesn't look like we'll ever get out of the money trap the Court pushed us into, meaning a wealthy few are a lot more equal than the rest of us from now on.
Meanwhile, you know the Republicans think the Socialist Scandinavians live in Satan's own waiting room. And, of course, they want to take away our guns and sell baby brains.
The takeaway was clear: vote for the Democrat of your choice, for any number of good and actual reasons and policies, and for temperament, and for experience. Possibly, just for sanity. Just keep those Republican clowns away from the levers of power unless you are eager for Armageddon and believe, as they do, in the impending Rapture.
Who cares! ANY ONE of the Democrats vying for the nomination is lightyears ahead of any of the Republicans, if not all of them added together and divided by 15.
Every one of them made sense last night. Nobody seemed to be beholden to magical thinking. There were no ad hominem attacks.
I love Denmark, too - it's a wonderful place full of wonderful people, and clearly Democratic candidates admire this "happiest place on earth." Bernie hopes the USA can become more like Scandinavia; Hillary thinks it's a nice idea but not possible just because we're the USA, which is a little hard to follow logically, unless she means we are cursed to be the world's cop forever and it doesn't look like we'll ever get out of the money trap the Court pushed us into, meaning a wealthy few are a lot more equal than the rest of us from now on.
Meanwhile, you know the Republicans think the Socialist Scandinavians live in Satan's own waiting room. And, of course, they want to take away our guns and sell baby brains.
The takeaway was clear: vote for the Democrat of your choice, for any number of good and actual reasons and policies, and for temperament, and for experience. Possibly, just for sanity. Just keep those Republican clowns away from the levers of power unless you are eager for Armageddon and believe, as they do, in the impending Rapture.
9
To this viewer, the debate - impressively high-minded, in contrast to the mud-slinging Republican debates - offered some important revelations that this article seems to have missed or downplayed. O'Malley, a virtual unknown, came across as confident, savvy, and constructively left-leaning - good material for a vice-presidential candidate. Clinton showed herself as well-schooled on policy issues but a duck-and-weave artist on her shifting past positions, especially the Iraq war vote. Sanders's past gun control stance, which he is trying to correct, dominated the media coverage - which is a shame, because his positions on oligarchy of the wealthy, climate change, and Citizens United deserved top billing in the press. Bottom line: Sanders so far is this moderate progressive's choice for the ticket, and O'Malley is well worth watching. Clinton is adept and chock full of information and "positions," but not to be relied on for consistently principle-based decision-making.
5
So, even though the drudge poll of over 50,00 people showed Bernie dominate 58% to Clinton's 4%, you were still able to write this giant essay praising her? Your bias is showing.
14
It's also kind of funny in an obliviously hypocritical way that Hillary Clinton cannot see the double standard she allows herself when she accuses Edward Snowden of playing into enemy hands by spilling the beans about NSA spying practices while Hillary herself sashayed around the world as U.S. secretary of state receiving and sending classified emails on her personal cell phone! Hillary expects everybody to forgive her for that stupidity. But of course, rules and punishments are only for the little people, not for powerful millionaires.
3
Chafee and Webb may not have the polling numbers, but their honesty and very worthwhile agendas added immense integrity to the debate. They added a meaningful balance against HRCs overtly vague and scripted presence. I really hope they stay on and continue to change the tide of the Democratic Party. They matter in this ordeal, their statements hit home with the voters, and the media should not write them off as marginalized concepts.
2
To the Editor:
Just as Bernie Sanders was making his point about removing the cap on earnings taxable for Social Security—a major point of difference between Sanders and Hillary Clinton, Anderson Cooper cut him off and changed the subject, thus averting Mrs. Clinton’s having to confront the issue.
Re: the question about Edward Snowden. It was stated he “went to Russia…” but rather, he was traveling through Russia attempting to reach Latin America when the US lifted his passport trapping him in Russia. Don't people remember the weeks Snowden spent in the no-man’s land of the Moscow airport. Yet, Anderson Cooper didn’t correct Mrs. Clinton. He also let her get away with her shifting position on TPP by not challenging her saying she’d said it would be the gold standard when she’d said it was the gold standard.
The question of the Patriot Act: Hillary Clinton was let off the hook by the moderator’s not allowing Bernie Sanders to be heard on the subject.
She ducked the marijuana question by saying she’d leave it to the states—but that wasn’t the question; if a bill landed on her desk would she sign or veto it went unaddressed. She frequently avoided answering questions and was not held to account.
Hillary Clinton far exceeded her allotted time and Anderson Cooper failed to cut her off, but the unfailingly polite, Bernie Sanders, hand raised to get the floor, got short shrift.
Would that John Harwood had been the moderator.
Beatrice Williams-Rude
Just as Bernie Sanders was making his point about removing the cap on earnings taxable for Social Security—a major point of difference between Sanders and Hillary Clinton, Anderson Cooper cut him off and changed the subject, thus averting Mrs. Clinton’s having to confront the issue.
Re: the question about Edward Snowden. It was stated he “went to Russia…” but rather, he was traveling through Russia attempting to reach Latin America when the US lifted his passport trapping him in Russia. Don't people remember the weeks Snowden spent in the no-man’s land of the Moscow airport. Yet, Anderson Cooper didn’t correct Mrs. Clinton. He also let her get away with her shifting position on TPP by not challenging her saying she’d said it would be the gold standard when she’d said it was the gold standard.
The question of the Patriot Act: Hillary Clinton was let off the hook by the moderator’s not allowing Bernie Sanders to be heard on the subject.
She ducked the marijuana question by saying she’d leave it to the states—but that wasn’t the question; if a bill landed on her desk would she sign or veto it went unaddressed. She frequently avoided answering questions and was not held to account.
Hillary Clinton far exceeded her allotted time and Anderson Cooper failed to cut her off, but the unfailingly polite, Bernie Sanders, hand raised to get the floor, got short shrift.
Would that John Harwood had been the moderator.
Beatrice Williams-Rude
12
Bernie won the debate. No contest. Fact is he was right about invading Iraq. He was right about the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Do you want someone to lead who makes the right decision before something profoundly awful happens or do you want someone who made the wrong decision and only after it hit the fan do they change their mind?
12
HOW do you know that Bernie Sanders never intended to keep this nomination away from Hillary Clinton?
Because the one thing the GOP can use against her that will kill her chance - the email scandal and the three serious criminal disqualifiers related to it - are things he decided he would never use against her. That's it.
Without that obvious issue, he has nothing against her except for the issue that any Dem always has against another Dem, the ''I can promise more than you'' theme. THAT will not be enough toget him the nomination and he knows it full well.
Bernie is just here to get the smartphone-addicted tuned in to help HER. He'll probably get a Cabinet position for his trouble.
Because the one thing the GOP can use against her that will kill her chance - the email scandal and the three serious criminal disqualifiers related to it - are things he decided he would never use against her. That's it.
Without that obvious issue, he has nothing against her except for the issue that any Dem always has against another Dem, the ''I can promise more than you'' theme. THAT will not be enough toget him the nomination and he knows it full well.
Bernie is just here to get the smartphone-addicted tuned in to help HER. He'll probably get a Cabinet position for his trouble.
Sanders was not prepared for this big TV show. Clinton was. She hit him hard (on guns) at the only available moment. He did not press Clinton on anything: about her changing positions on various issues and the "mistakes" she herself has admitted. It was politically a bad idea to let her go off the email scandal. Sanders, without being too pushy on this, could at least have cast some doubt on her judgement. Same with Iraq: she never publicly acknowledged her mistake. He did not take her to task, when she said "US is not Denmark". Why not? (In another moment she mentioned about CA having paid leave, though "CA is not USA"...). He could have cast (he still should use this in a TV ad, I believe) this as her lack of empathy for American people. Sanders also did not bring up the superPACs and names of hedge funders backing Clinton. Overall, Sanders lacked focus. Obama ran a grassroots campaign like Sanders but he had smart people in his team. Who is running the Sanders' campaign?.
1
Actually, despite all the mainstream media outleta claiming Hillary won, all the polls and online statistics clearly show that Bernie won this debate. http://time.com/4071956/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/democra...
2
I am a Democrat and I have never been in favor of gun control . I recall all the efforts to limit guns and pistols after the Kennedy assassinations and they did no good. To try and again modify the constitution-this time the Bill Of Rights-will only create a huge rift between gun owners and non owners. Too many Eastern Democrats treat "gun control" as an issue which all must agree upon or be forever be thrust from the party. We already tried modifying human behavior in the 20's with Prohibition, and all we did was make drinking more widespread .
The notion of a society without most of it's guns is nice, but not important enough that we must tear the nation apart,as in 1860 . As most of the crimes committed with guns seem intended to grab headlines, perhaps media outlets should think three times before making national media personalities of these people.
The notion of a society without most of it's guns is nice, but not important enough that we must tear the nation apart,as in 1860 . As most of the crimes committed with guns seem intended to grab headlines, perhaps media outlets should think three times before making national media personalities of these people.
2
As time goes on more and more $$ will enter politics, thanks to Citizen's United. And it is naïve to think the big donors are doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They want a return on their investment. So we should not expect the politicians receiving these donations to do anything about our $$ corrupt system. Enter Bernie Sanders, the country's only hope of saving our democracy.
9
(I'm posting my comments here because there is no comments option on NYT's debate fact-checking article.)
In addition to Clinton's questionable claims already noted by the article, she also made two statements about Snowden that are false:
1. That he would have been covered by the whistle-blower protection and thus should have come forward. As a contractor Snowden did not have full whistle blower protection and probably would have been arrested and thus silenced.
2. Classified documents fell into "the wrong hands." Unless she is referring to the Greenwald and Poitras (and thus the public), there is no evidence that foreign governments got their mitts on these documents.
In addition to Clinton's questionable claims already noted by the article, she also made two statements about Snowden that are false:
1. That he would have been covered by the whistle-blower protection and thus should have come forward. As a contractor Snowden did not have full whistle blower protection and probably would have been arrested and thus silenced.
2. Classified documents fell into "the wrong hands." Unless she is referring to the Greenwald and Poitras (and thus the public), there is no evidence that foreign governments got their mitts on these documents.
9
They needed Trump up there to make it interesting. Bernie was much better than Hillary, though.
2
"I won! I won! All my friends said so!"
Well, Obama proved that you need to make a lot of new friends and not just imagine your old ones can carry you.
Many of us who were fooled by Obama twice--including the now-possibly unemployed grads who were in college during his campaigns--took valuable lessons from his election--that you can beat the predictions if you just get out and vote.
"Democratic socialism" isn't a vile imprecation to us. The unions have already shown they are not all selling their souls to Hillary. Many of us, as at least once commenter has already noted, did notice that Hillary flat-out lied on stage regarding her former support for TPP. Her answer on Keystone was hardly inspiring. Her "representing Wall Street" was, you know, an excruciating admission that none of the swooning reportariat have deigned to remark upon...
No, Hillary didn't win last night, and she cannot win a general election. Sanders can, no matter how often you try to tell us otherwise.
Well, Obama proved that you need to make a lot of new friends and not just imagine your old ones can carry you.
Many of us who were fooled by Obama twice--including the now-possibly unemployed grads who were in college during his campaigns--took valuable lessons from his election--that you can beat the predictions if you just get out and vote.
"Democratic socialism" isn't a vile imprecation to us. The unions have already shown they are not all selling their souls to Hillary. Many of us, as at least once commenter has already noted, did notice that Hillary flat-out lied on stage regarding her former support for TPP. Her answer on Keystone was hardly inspiring. Her "representing Wall Street" was, you know, an excruciating admission that none of the swooning reportariat have deigned to remark upon...
No, Hillary didn't win last night, and she cannot win a general election. Sanders can, no matter how often you try to tell us otherwise.
14
Hillary was debating knowledgeable candidates last night. Had it been Ben Carson next to her, she would have decked him with 2 minutes 50 seconds left on the clock in round 1
2
Current Democrat politics on display. An openly Marxist socialist calling for a "political revolution!," and HRC exclaiming how she is proud to call all Republicans her enemies. Behold the new order where all opposition to a massive controlling government are enemies to be crushed. Scary stuff.
Actually, it's*Democratic* Socialism. Quite a big difference there.
2
Much of what Marx wrote was critique of all kinds of socialists who weren't Marxists. Most socialists couldn't stand him.
I heard a different debate than the Times reporters are telling us. I heard the word "Revolution" used, needed, by Sanders to take back elections from American "billionaires". And this accomplished by inspired voters going to the polls and voting in record numbers to unseat Republicans. It will take more than coat tails to do this, i.e. candidates of a like mind will have to run with him, and if the Democrats have such a strategy to do this, we haven't heard about it yet. Not just glaring inequality and lack of jobs hang in the balance without this, but also crucial action on GW/CC--a carbon tax--and sane gun laws. The democrats are still running scared on gun control and are being "me too" on coal in coal power regions.
Ms Clinton skirted the banking issue, obviously because she has been, still is, on the take from bankers. Contrast her, It's too complicated to talk about here, and it's such a smart plan it must be good, with Mr. O'Malley's simply saying bring back Glass-Steagal and Sander's tax on trader gambling transactions. She sounded like Bill telling everyone how great and how smart NAFTA was going to be.
I also heard several times from Ms Clinton, Vote for me, I'm a Woman, and I'm going to buy "middle class, middle class, middle class (thank God, we don't have poor people, or maybe they're just not expected to vote) votes with tax cuts.
The CNN guy didn't seem at all interested in pressing F.E.C. vs United. They are the ones that get all that money.
Ms Clinton skirted the banking issue, obviously because she has been, still is, on the take from bankers. Contrast her, It's too complicated to talk about here, and it's such a smart plan it must be good, with Mr. O'Malley's simply saying bring back Glass-Steagal and Sander's tax on trader gambling transactions. She sounded like Bill telling everyone how great and how smart NAFTA was going to be.
I also heard several times from Ms Clinton, Vote for me, I'm a Woman, and I'm going to buy "middle class, middle class, middle class (thank God, we don't have poor people, or maybe they're just not expected to vote) votes with tax cuts.
The CNN guy didn't seem at all interested in pressing F.E.C. vs United. They are the ones that get all that money.
6
This coverage is unbelievable... Bernie wins every poll re. debate performance yet mainstream media crowns Hillary the winner?
6
This is an article about Bernie Sanders, the 45th President of the United States.
2
'Mrs. Clinton flashed a wide smile and shook her rival’s hand. “Thank you, Bernie,” she said, setting off huge applause in the auditorium.'
This paragraph suggests that it was Clinton's response to Sanders that set off applause, but it seemed to me that the audience was already clapping for his lines about bringing up the "real issues" and having a democracy instead of an oligarchy.
Kind of misleading, no?
This paragraph suggests that it was Clinton's response to Sanders that set off applause, but it seemed to me that the audience was already clapping for his lines about bringing up the "real issues" and having a democracy instead of an oligarchy.
Kind of misleading, no?
4
I'm not surprised that Hillary won the debate. She's has had plenty of public speaking experience. I was disappointed that Bernie caved in on her email issues since there are three government agencies investigating her. Real integrity is being transparent and not hiding anything. I still don't trust her and I am a Democrat but swing voter.
Fox News wants ratings, CNN wants a Democrat for President.
It was nice debate, but these guys obviously don't want to be President or they'd go after Hillary. Believe me, she won't hesitate to go after them when the time is right.
It was nice debate, but these guys obviously don't want to be President or they'd go after Hillary. Believe me, she won't hesitate to go after them when the time is right.
1
Not sure what the debates will accomplish. The Democratic field is already narrow, and after the first two states, there will be only two candidates left.
And who will vote for Bernie? Very Liberal voters, and young voters. Not minorities.. Sanders is from one of the whitest states in the country.
And who will vote for Bernie? Very Liberal voters, and young voters. Not minorities.. Sanders is from one of the whitest states in the country.
1
No, minorities will vote for Bernie because has a long track record of fighting for them. He has even marched in the historic protest led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
3
Sanders is from Brooklyn. He represents Vermont.
Sanders ain't a crook so Sanders says what he wants.
Sanders ain't a crook so Sanders says what he wants.
1
On paid maternity leave:
"Of course we can afford it because we'll make the wealthy pay for it!" -Hillary Clinton.
It's very curious that the media keeps leaving this little quote out. I wonder why?
"Of course we can afford it because we'll make the wealthy pay for it!" -Hillary Clinton.
It's very curious that the media keeps leaving this little quote out. I wonder why?
Sanders cannot win the nomination without strong support from black voters. He knows he currently lags far behind her in this respect. What can he do?
His supporters might find hope in two facts. First, Sanders has a strong civil rights record. Second, his campaign centerpiece, the attack on “income and wealth inequality,” should play well among black voters—if only they knew what’s in their best interest! So they might hope that he’ll turn things around in coming months if he “gets the word out” about who he is and what he stands for.
This may be naïve. For the polls also agree: Sanders gets most of his support from “college-educated whites.” This may signal a deeper problem.
Maybe black voters are not ill-informed about Sanders’ civil rights record and his attack on wealth disparity. Maybe he trails among blacks precisely because they rightly perceive him as representing a class they mistrust: the essentially “petit-bourgeois white intelligentsia” whose deepest concerns are for small business owners and middle-income professional and white-collar workers.
Sanders’ passionate stress on the“shrinking middle class” may underlie his failure to connect with blacks, who historically have mistrusted “petit-bourgeois socialism,” perceiving their interests to lie with “machine” Democrats of the mainstream Tammany-Hall type.
It’s not clear that blacks who think this way are wrong.
His supporters might find hope in two facts. First, Sanders has a strong civil rights record. Second, his campaign centerpiece, the attack on “income and wealth inequality,” should play well among black voters—if only they knew what’s in their best interest! So they might hope that he’ll turn things around in coming months if he “gets the word out” about who he is and what he stands for.
This may be naïve. For the polls also agree: Sanders gets most of his support from “college-educated whites.” This may signal a deeper problem.
Maybe black voters are not ill-informed about Sanders’ civil rights record and his attack on wealth disparity. Maybe he trails among blacks precisely because they rightly perceive him as representing a class they mistrust: the essentially “petit-bourgeois white intelligentsia” whose deepest concerns are for small business owners and middle-income professional and white-collar workers.
Sanders’ passionate stress on the“shrinking middle class” may underlie his failure to connect with blacks, who historically have mistrusted “petit-bourgeois socialism,” perceiving their interests to lie with “machine” Democrats of the mainstream Tammany-Hall type.
It’s not clear that blacks who think this way are wrong.
With the good-natured dismissal of HRC's email brouhaha at this event, there is a somber reality that may well emerge from the continuing investigation. So far, we've seen vetted releases from the emails Hillary did turn over. But the forensics experts at the FBI, presumably having the actual disks from the server in their labs, have yet to reveal what of the erased "personal" emails they've been able to recover, if any. (Totally erased? Has anybody reading this ever erased literally every email covering years of their existence without squirreling away a backup? I simply do not believe HRC has done so. Where is it, eh?)
I hope the FBI is successful. We will then know how the Clintons, self-declared as "dead broke" when they left the White House, managed to acquire half a billion dollars in personal wealth.
I hope the FBI is successful. We will then know how the Clintons, self-declared as "dead broke" when they left the White House, managed to acquire half a billion dollars in personal wealth.
2
I think the article misses the point of Las Vegas. It may look like a million bucks but it's where the middle class goes to party. I think it was an excellent choice.
Every single voter poll on the internet shows that Bernie won the debate hands-down last night, yet most media sources claim that Hillary won. I find this discrepancy fascinating!
Clearly, the media are in cahoots to ensure that Hillary wins this race.
Clearly, the media are in cahoots to ensure that Hillary wins this race.
10
One of the more salient differences between Sanders and Clinton, it seems to me, had to do with how much each imagined fundamental change can be effected without substantial involvement of the electorate. Bernie Sanders is seeking a movement aimed at providing the inertial force for change. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, continues to recite the mistaken belief that significant change can occur within the current limiting framework of political involvement. Yes, perhaps she read her lines better than Bernie, but the two roles they read from are from different plays.
3
Sanders' command of evidence , his passion for justice and his record of action demonstrated why the State of Vermont repeatedly elected this man to office even as an Independent. The partisan media from both right and left have tried to portray him as a candidate who cannot win. Countering that propaganda are the swelling ranks of citizens who seek a viable alternative to the heartless antics and duplicity of our current partisan politicians. I saw five candidates espousing good viable priorities. I felt one candidate could be trusted to act on them.
11
My honest assessment is that Clinton did 'win' the debate and she is definitely the better politician but we don't need a good politician (like Obama) who will tell us what we want to hear and then once elected push for minimal reforms so they can check the box on campaign promises. We really do a revolution as Bernie says. I hope he does better next time though he was kind of blind-sided by Cooper when asked to respond to Webb on Syria and I missed some of it but he needs to work on foreign policy and while I think his position on guns is fine and he did fine they are going to keep hitting him on it because it's a winner for Hillary so he needs to be very clear and not let himself get tripped up. His position on guns is very reasonable and I think if brought up for a clean vote would pass but he just needs to be very clear on what he supports and doesn't.
4
Everyone held their own, except L Chafee with "it was my first day" and Bernie on guns. He'll get better on that (probably). Hilary is strongest when discussing actual stuff - most convincing with foreign policy. When she drifts into "so that all Americans can fulfill their dreams" type stuff, she falls flatter than a crepe.
3
Ms. Clinton may win the nomination, but Mr. Sanders is the game-changer. His sharp focus on vital issues and energetic speeches to enthusiastic audiences has forced the Democratic candidates (and occasionally, a Republican who reads the newspapers) to deal with climate change and the impending environmental disaster, mass incarceration and Black Lives Matter, income inequality with so much concentration at the top, and the collapse of the middle class. Clinton and Sanders need to detail their plans to reduce inequality, such as, as one candidate has suggested, adding a new tax level for income over $5 million and sharply penalizing off-shoring. Clinton, at least, needs to say that the very rich cannot be faulted for taking advantage of flawed tax laws, which must be changed. The real victor on this issue is the almost forgotten Occupy Wall Street movement, routed from their little park while gaining the ear of the country. People now hear that a few thousand income earners take home as much income as 50% of all workers in the US. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet know that enormous wealth can't be spent in a lifetime and must be given back: not enough of the wealth elite have gotten the message -- yet.
6
Irony regarding the fear of socialism is directed towards programs thst allow basic needs, Social Security, Medicare, health care. Perhaps Senator Sanders needs to address corporate socialism, tax breaks and training states have given in order to lure business or Walmart advising employees on how to navigate securing food stamps. The NFL is s non profit, are citizens picking up the burden for construction of stadiums but not sharing in the profits? The flippant reply that this is not Denmark did not surprise me since most Americans have no clue the benefits other countries provide their citizens. Best to leave them in the dark rather than learn the quality of life is superior in other developed countries. Perhaps if Senators Sanders did not have that Brooklyn accent people would listen to what he has to say rether then hear and then tune out.
3
The paucity of Democrat candidates reveals a party bereft of ideas that have not already been tried, and discredited, since the OG, Lyndon Johnson, expiated his Vietnam guilt by building a "Great Society" for the Black Panther Lives Matter brigades, ca. 1966. (How'd that work out for ya, Baltimore and Chicago?) And nary a peep in "debate" about the Mideast, or Africa, or (except from Webb, the quitter) the pending confrontation with the Chinese Navy next week when the US Navy challenges their 12-mile boundaries on their reefs-become-islands.
Bernie Sanders fans have my sympathy for the way the old fire-breather meekly cozied up the Queen, lest he be frozen out of the coronation ceremony. In an excess of deference, Bernie even failed to note that Bill and Hillary's only child, and she the parent of an only child, live in a $10 million condo a short walk from the reviled Wall Street ("hissssssss") where her husband, himself the product of parent-politicians, makes Big Buck$.
Those hoping Hillary could be tested, and tweaked, in preparation for the GOP bad boys by a rigorous debate among fellow Democrats, were sorely disappointed. Larry King, king of the softballs, gave tougher interviews than old reliable Hillary faced last night.
Smell the hypocrisy, it's the traditional Democrat ordure wafting on the breeze.
Bernie Sanders fans have my sympathy for the way the old fire-breather meekly cozied up the Queen, lest he be frozen out of the coronation ceremony. In an excess of deference, Bernie even failed to note that Bill and Hillary's only child, and she the parent of an only child, live in a $10 million condo a short walk from the reviled Wall Street ("hissssssss") where her husband, himself the product of parent-politicians, makes Big Buck$.
Those hoping Hillary could be tested, and tweaked, in preparation for the GOP bad boys by a rigorous debate among fellow Democrats, were sorely disappointed. Larry King, king of the softballs, gave tougher interviews than old reliable Hillary faced last night.
Smell the hypocrisy, it's the traditional Democrat ordure wafting on the breeze.
3
The Democrats who support Bernie Sanders of the type that never win. Bernie Sanders couldn't be a wimp like Marco Rubio. These are the same people who supported Nader that God is George W. Bush. Hillary is the only one they could beat the Republicans for certain. And to think that Bernie Sanders could do what he said he would do about the banks is just plain naïve.
I don't know... At the start, I believed that. I thought, no way the US will vote for our impending "soviet state," then I checked on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube comments, etc., and saw how many minorities, mostly black folk who fell for Sanders plot to "say her name" when he implied sandra bland was murdered by cop. Regardless of where one stands on the black lives matter thing, it is apparent that Sanders knew exactly what they wanted to hear, and man he used it. Maybe it wasn't intentional, though I doubt it, because a commie does not go in to anything without thinking it through.
Funny though, most of the Republican candidates beat Clinton in head to head polls now. People are tired of the same old war on...everything that the d's trot out when they don't have a substantive argument. The only play in their playbook is trying to buy the poor and stupid with other people's money....aka more free stuff, on the backs of the middle class. Frankly we are tired of paying for it and the poor and stupid aren't seeing any of the free stuff. It just goes to the leftist elites just like the billions from the Clinton foundation go in Shrillery and Bubba's private accounts. Just say no to Monica Lewinsky's ex boyfriends wife...lol
Why are the tow top stories on the NYT site claiming a sweeping victory by Clinton? Seriously, both Clinton and Sanders did well, and should prove this is a two person race. But to say that Clinton "dominated" as one of these articles states is just flat out wrong.
9
The drudge poll has Bernie 58% to her 4%
3
To me, the best candidate is still a non-candidate: Joe Biden was obviously in absentia. To be fair, HRC is smart, I give her that, but I've had enough of the Clintons and their meticulously calculated political doublespeak to last into the next millennium. I refer anyone interested in a more sobering portrait to the late great Christopher Hitchen's 1999 book about the Clintons, "No One Left To Lie To". Unless you consider Mr. Hitchens a partisan hack, which I do not, you will see a side of both Bill and Hillary in that book that they have over time effectively masked in their public personas, let alone their duplicitous political positions. In golf, my personal passion, you usually toss a blade of grass up in the air before every shot to see which way the wind's blowing. Hillary learned that from Bill, and she's still doing it. She's a double "wonk": policy and polls. Some would argue it's the way the modern, manipulative political process works, and to a degree, I accept that premise, if it didn't involve her Iraq war vote, her unproductive time as SOS, her utter lack of military experience or instincts, in an extremely dangerous and increasingly violent world, and her hyper-focus on "women's issues", which for me and millions of others is the rough equivalent of running a campaign that sounds and feels like daytime network TV. Joe, please get in. It's your time, now or never, and not hers.
7
I see Biden as another Romney, a decent, good man with ideas but who will NOT have the hunger to win that WILL become necessary sooner or later. Romney could have ended Obama in the third debate and the entire GOP knew it, but he reverted to being Grampa. The same will probably happen to Biden.
I was thoroughly entertained by Biden's convention speeches, but even THEN he was never really adamant about any particular thing, place, or issue. I've never really seen him address one thing in a way that made it clear that it was vital to him.
I was thoroughly entertained by Biden's convention speeches, but even THEN he was never really adamant about any particular thing, place, or issue. I've never really seen him address one thing in a way that made it clear that it was vital to him.
The NYT's simpering flattery of Hillary Clinton is embarrassing.
17
I like both Bernie and Hillary, and it is quite obvious the policies are very similar. Frankly, a bit more moderate Hillary platform has a better chance of being implemented. But it all depends on who is in charge in the House and the Senate. With both houses in GOP hands Bernie would be a sitting duck.
Because of the above, my support will be based on which candidate can create a better "voter turnout wave" and which could secure at least the Senate. In this respect Hillary will probably do better by rallying women and minorities. I worry that the conservative propaganda will easily turn Bernie into a communist when they focus solely on him. In contrast to Hillary, he has not yet been vetted yet.
Because of the above, my support will be based on which candidate can create a better "voter turnout wave" and which could secure at least the Senate. In this respect Hillary will probably do better by rallying women and minorities. I worry that the conservative propaganda will easily turn Bernie into a communist when they focus solely on him. In contrast to Hillary, he has not yet been vetted yet.
This on-again Clinton coronation by the press reminds me of the time not so far ago when Huffington Post boss Arianna Huffington huffed that she was putting Trump's stories in the entertainment section because they were not newsworthy "enough". HA!
It amazes me to see practically the entire press fall over their heels so quickly again. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, not to mention Phil Ochs, must be rolling over in their graves. Is the Times now commanded by the likes of investor Carlos Slim?
UGH!
It amazes me to see practically the entire press fall over their heels so quickly again. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, not to mention Phil Ochs, must be rolling over in their graves. Is the Times now commanded by the likes of investor Carlos Slim?
UGH!
9
Maybe the media got such a thrill from Hillary roping them together a few weeks ago that they got one of those secret thrills from it and from her so that all is forgiven.
No, the media knows that she really is all they have and they simply have to sit there and take it. This is their only pony and they'll ride it until it goes away. Party still must come first.
No, the media knows that she really is all they have and they simply have to sit there and take it. This is their only pony and they'll ride it until it goes away. Party still must come first.
CNN touted the debate as a heavyweight championship fight and in a sense it was. To dethrone the champ (Hillary) you have to land a knockout blow or so convincingly batter the champ as to make a unanimous decision inevitable. Sanders did not do that by any measure and the winner and still champion is Hillary Clinton. The other three could serve as her handlers.
1
Nah, despite biased reporting by mainstream media, Bernie clearly won the debate, aa can be seen in all the polls and statistics.http://www.hngn.com/articles/140151/20151014/sanders-wins-first-democrat...
2
Bernie may have fumbled a little on gun control, that I will agree to. but other than that, his performance was spectacular. after all, he did get the loudest cheer of the night with this line: "nobody cares about your damn emails" now I think the times has to stop claiming the only thing fueling his popularity is her emails. frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
10
This article is ridiculous! It's almost as if this writer didn't even watch the debate. Sanders did great and Clinton had many great moments, but definitely had a tendency to get defensive and break into non sequiturs that simply didn't land. The NYTimes should be ashamed for producing such hogwash.
12
Anderson Cooper did a horrible job. Jon Stewart would be many times better.
3
Can we please not eat our own like the Republicans do? Can we have a measured response from the Hillary bashers and concessions from her supporters that Sanders was also substantive and heartfelt? The reality is this: I liked and would vote for at least three of the people on stage last night, whereas I would run screaming from any one of the 13 or more crazies on the Republican side. Let's not make this about attacking each of our candidates. Let's let them go through the nomination process as it is supposed to work--without all the preconceived notions of the press and the wonky numbers of various pollsters and elect one of our Democratic candidates because clearly they have what it takes and the other side does not. Watch and learn Republicans. This is how it is done.
4
@eva lockhart - could not agree more. I notice a lot more over the top anger and acting out against Hillary and it's hard not to see that this has everything to do with her being a woman. Saw the same tendency last election cycle too. Ease up Democrats. Be proud. Candidates did great last night. Don't let the media start a fight by shaking up the ant jar just for ratings. The GOP process has been hijacked by FOX Media and we can all see how the 'highest rated debates of all times'' is working out for the formerly great party of Lincoln.
Hilary acted like Donald Trump, berating the opposition with little more than an insult with no substance. I believe Hilary did well but the notion (in this article) that she beat down Bernie I do not believe to be true. I am happy with Hilary's and Bernie's performance I believe they did very well and touched key issues however the first part of this NYT article can be interpreted as misleading.
7
Really @Eric Hillary#Trump? Ya' think? I missed the tweets. The ugly asides and frontal assaults on personal appearance. Trump: ''Bernie you have lousy breath, that's why I'm leaning away from you.'' (he used that line on Larry King-fact!) Trump: ''With a face like yours I would hope not to have look at it every day'' Trump: ''You know, I wouldn't want my President bleeding from her - whatever.'' That's all Trump talk.
So - Eric - I object to your first line declaration that 'Hilary acted like Trump.'
Nor do I feel she 'beat Bernie.' I think she pointed out reasonably that she's more centrist and prone to compromise to get some of her positions accepted and passed than Bernie is. That's all.
So - Eric - I object to your first line declaration that 'Hilary acted like Trump.'
Nor do I feel she 'beat Bernie.' I think she pointed out reasonably that she's more centrist and prone to compromise to get some of her positions accepted and passed than Bernie is. That's all.
It's only a show on Hillary's part which she is trying to steal from Bernie. This is a turning point in history. Do we go with a true reformer or fall for the act she is putting on in order to get elected? Bernie is old. His hair is unkempt. His choice of tie is whatever is hanging up in the closet, and his suits are rumpled. But he is earnest and sincere. Hillary is studied in every thing she does, but there is not one iota of idealism or substance there, only whatever it takes to win office. We will then find out what she really stands for, but it will be too late.
15
Kind of living that already. And of course they will fall for her act... She shouldn't even be a contender, but the American people care about what they can get from a candidate, and what candidate would be a turning point for U.S.. Hillary will win because she has female privilege. Bernie would be the game changer because he's a commie. Both are equally bad for us right now. We are already too divided, too "bend over and take it," and both our enemies and our "gimmie gimme" citizens have noticed and taken advantage. We need ballsy or we will fall.
For me, the most revealing moment of the debate was Sanders' generous remark to Clinton about her use of private emails. It made clear the generous aspect of his character. Never the like from Clinton: she went for the jugular at every opportunity reflecting a self-serving opportunistic manner. There is no generosity there.
I will take the character that Sanders offers for my President every time, and I hope the very supportive response by the audience at that moment suggests that some might agree.
I will take the character that Sanders offers for my President every time, and I hope the very supportive response by the audience at that moment suggests that some might agree.
12
I didn't find Hillary as you characterize her. And I agree that Bernie was most gracious and earned my respect for that as well - I think both candidates gained from their exchanges and that they have the advantage of moving forward more broadly with less burned bridges than their opponents.
I thought it was a great moment when Lincoln Chafee said he regrets his decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall. He seems to have driven all the pundits crazy with that comment. Unlike most any politician, he admitted he was in grief, confused, new to the job, in over his head and figured at the time well everyone else is doing it so my vote isn't the deciding one anyway. An actual human being thrown into a situation he wasn't prepared for and screwed up. He seemed, and who knows I could very well be wrong, that he can't help himself but be truthful. He seems a bit befuddled (not always a bad trait) so might not know when or how to lie.. So I did have a certain identification with him since I am often more befuddled than not. And I felt anticipation and excitement whenever he started to speak.
2
You can add up all of the experience and policy accomplishments of the entire Republican field and it still wouldn't equal that of any one of the Democratic candidates. The Republican frontrunners can quote chapter and verse, down to the last punctuation mark, of the U.S. bankruptcy code, but probably not a single word of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
4
Your coverage of the debate read like " Hillary in relation to others present ". Its bias was obvious and unbecoming of such an important news paper
5
What I saw were 4 people falling over themselves assuring us that government would be the answer to all our problems. I guess we are not supposed to believe our lying eyes looking at the many well intention-ed government programs that have gone astray yet cannot be done away with. The exception seemed to be Jim Webb who resisted the "free stuff" campaign rhetoric.
It is the same playbook for Democrats past. Promise government fixes to your problems to attract low information voters.
It is the same playbook for Democrats past. Promise government fixes to your problems to attract low information voters.
2
Yep. Gimme gimme folks will always fall for it. They are the biggest threat to the American dream. They have ensured we will fall, and they will be the ones living under a bridge when we do. After being provided for for so long, they don't know how to take care of themselves. They are the 40 year old virgin living in mommy's basement.
The NYT is an outstanding news source... Unless they're covering Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders - Where Hillary is consistently overrated and over-exposed while Bernie is consistently underrated or completely ignored…
It’s very disappointing for regular readers who have come to expect better from this otherwise reliable publication.
It’s very disappointing for regular readers who have come to expect better from this otherwise reliable publication.
14
I'm a little baffled by the media's reaction to the debate. Commenters are certainly right this this was a far more civil and substantive debate than the Republican circuses have been. It's in the clear attempt to dismiss Sanders that I get suspicious.
Clearly Chaffee and Webb were lost. O'Malley had good moments, though he seemed like he was playing the role of president in a prime-time drama (with a closing statement written by Aaron Sorkin).
Clinton demonstrated that she's a professional--though she has flubbed her response to the email "scandal" and needed Sanders to bail her out. And at times her efforts to claim the outsider status came off as rich. Her story about telling Wall Street to "knock it off" was a low point (clearly they didn't heed her) that highlighted how little credibility she has when dealing with the finance industry which provides much of her campaign funding. But she held her own and was generally well prepared.
But Sanders was, for me (and clearly for the online CNN audience), the clear winner. Yes, he fumbled the gun control issue. But he's the one that forced the discussion to be substantive. Rather than take a political pot-shot, he came to the defense of Clinton when the topic veered into tabloid territory. And his points about Syria, global warming, and the finance industry weren't the easy answers the media commentariat tends to like, but they were the smartest answers and the most sincerely and passionately held.
Clearly Chaffee and Webb were lost. O'Malley had good moments, though he seemed like he was playing the role of president in a prime-time drama (with a closing statement written by Aaron Sorkin).
Clinton demonstrated that she's a professional--though she has flubbed her response to the email "scandal" and needed Sanders to bail her out. And at times her efforts to claim the outsider status came off as rich. Her story about telling Wall Street to "knock it off" was a low point (clearly they didn't heed her) that highlighted how little credibility she has when dealing with the finance industry which provides much of her campaign funding. But she held her own and was generally well prepared.
But Sanders was, for me (and clearly for the online CNN audience), the clear winner. Yes, he fumbled the gun control issue. But he's the one that forced the discussion to be substantive. Rather than take a political pot-shot, he came to the defense of Clinton when the topic veered into tabloid territory. And his points about Syria, global warming, and the finance industry weren't the easy answers the media commentariat tends to like, but they were the smartest answers and the most sincerely and passionately held.
3
Have to say that Hillary Clinton's answer about Edward Snowden turned me right off. Her face got all screwed up and angry-looking as she denounced Snowden and accused him of supplying state secrets to enemy agents. Hillary is pretending to be a dove, but deep down she is a right-wing chicken hawk. You can expect even more never-ending wars in the middle east, and evermore illegal (i.e., unconstitutional) spying on U.S. citizens, if Clinton gets elected. After all, Clinton is counting on the support and consent of the military-industrial complex to get elected. I was also disappointed that Bernie Sanders' answer was only marginally better. Edward Snowden is a hero, not a traitor, for exposing the unconstitutional and corrupt spying overreaches of the NSA.
5
What a biased article.
Bernie was articulate, polite, and gracious to Hillary.
Hillary dodged (twice) the question of why she voted for the Iraq war.
Bernie was articulate, polite, and gracious to Hillary.
Hillary dodged (twice) the question of why she voted for the Iraq war.
5
Comparing democratic and republican debates is an exercise in false equivalence. Moderators in republican debates focused much more on personalities instead of issues and seemed to prod for conflict - which improves ratings. In the democratic debate, there was much less of this, perhaps because ratings were already expected to be much less. Also, everyone knows that Hillary will be the candidate, including the other democrats on that stage. This was more about positioning for after Hillary is selected.
2
Still pushing for unlimited immigration,of poor people,who pay much less in taxes than benefits received.Does make for a lot of potential Democrat voters.
Doesn't Sanders' applying for conscientious objector status bother anyone? Nothing wrong with being a CO, but unfortunately you can't be a CO to a particular war, as Sanders is trying to claim by saying that he was against the policies that got us into Vietnam and the war, but is not a pacifist. Unfortunately, the supreme court has ruled that you can't object to a given war.
So something is fishy here. Either Bernie was a CO and shouldn't be trusted to be Commander in Chief -- or he was simply using that as a dodge to get out of Nam. Either way, not good for him.
Being against the Vietnam was perfectly legitimate. Most people I knew were, for legitimate reasons. But most people I knew were ready to serve if drafted (and did).
I'm sure that Hillary would like to avoid talking about her e-mails (and other scandals) and I'm sure Bernie would like not to talk about his attempt to become a CO (or his record on gun control legislation). But -- character matters.
So something is fishy here. Either Bernie was a CO and shouldn't be trusted to be Commander in Chief -- or he was simply using that as a dodge to get out of Nam. Either way, not good for him.
Being against the Vietnam was perfectly legitimate. Most people I knew were, for legitimate reasons. But most people I knew were ready to serve if drafted (and did).
I'm sure that Hillary would like to avoid talking about her e-mails (and other scandals) and I'm sure Bernie would like not to talk about his attempt to become a CO (or his record on gun control legislation). But -- character matters.
So, Ralphie, you would prefer the five deferment strategy of Richard Cheney, or the outright AWOL strategy of George W Bush? Is that the kind of "character" you're referring to?
1
A deferment is ok, and Bush served in the Guard I believe, learned how to fly a jet and was eligible to go on active duty.
A CO, however, brings into question whether they should be commander in chief, if you can't see that, then your biases are showing.
A CO, however, brings into question whether they should be commander in chief, if you can't see that, then your biases are showing.
Funny how the news media says Clinton won the debate but polls show overwhelmingly that Sander's won. I think you're on to something Bernie.
14
I was thinking the same thing even before seeing the poll results. Hillary's performance was smooth, like her hair. But all the self-serving innuendo in her comments was indicative of a politician who will go whichever way the wind is blowing, and there is no way in the world her financial sector/Hamptons financial base will have its feet put to the fire. If she had real class, she would have ignored the fact that there is nothing hanging between her legs. Instead, she tried desperately to capitalize on it, a low class move. I'll vote for a candidate that shows the greatest possibility of moving us in a positive direction, not because of his or her sex.
1
Readers' comments here offer additional robust science proving that no matter what actually transpired, observers of an event bring their pre-conceived expectations and prejudices to their after-the-fact conclusions.
3
Reading some of these comments, I don't recall anyone mentioning Gov. O'Malley. In my opinion, he may be the best Presidential material of them all.
1
This is what stood out for me.
When Hillary stated she represented Wall Street.
And then stated that when she saw what was happening she told them to stop.
Wow, talk about being tough on Wall Street.
When Hillary stated she represented Wall Street.
And then stated that when she saw what was happening she told them to stop.
Wow, talk about being tough on Wall Street.
15
If Mrs. Clinton is so concerned with liability lawsuits, perhaps she should begin with the distillers of alcohol. Why is it that she does not want to break up banks; the 'Wall Street that regulates Congress?' Suddenly, she opposes the Keystone Pipeline. Her remark about being in the 1% was ludicrous. If only the rest of us worked as hard as she and 'Bill,' we could all achieve her status. There is a film on YouTube called "Hillary." Before making any decision to vote for her, I'd recommend watching it. She, with the high check bones, has very low morals. She voted for the war in Iraq.
2
Let us never forget when the vote was going on about the war, along with all the lies from the bush administration, anyone who questioned going to war or spoke against it was attacked viciously by everyone in the bush administration and all their cronies. The attackers called them treasonous for not supporting our wonderful troops. The bush administration et al "loved" our troops so much they had no problem sending them into harms way. And yet none of those war lovers, responsible for the deaths of thousands have been held accountable. They're making millions writing books, drawing pitiful pictures, and speechifying. The only one who voted against the war was barbara Lee and she was vilified. But she was right. When Jeb said his brother "kept us safe" it showed how stupid he thinks the citizens of our country are.
Hillary Clinton proves she is the the calm, intelligent, experienced person to be President of this great country
3
Nah, she voted for the Iraq war and avoided answering questions about it in the debate. Plus, despite mainstream media's attempt to spin the debate, all the polls and statistics clearly show that Bernie garnered the most interest and followers.
Huh? Check every online poll, and Sanders won the night two-to-one over Clinton. And so he did-- he has the calm assurance of a man who knows and says what he thinks, an attractive quality that focus-grouped Clinton can't muster.
12
The takeaway from last night is that the Democrats can have a serious conversation about the issues and conduct themselves like grown-ups in the process. By contrast, the Republicans...well, we've all seen how little of either sense or maturity they bring to a debate.
Any one of the six people on that stage last night would make a decent president, and a couple of them might make a really good president. What Bernie Sanders said was crucial, though: Republicans win when voter turn-out is low. And our next president, who will clearly be a Democrat, has got to have a Democratic Congress to work with. That's the only way we get, eventually, a new SCOTUS to undo the terrible damage done by the present one.
Any one of the six people on that stage last night would make a decent president, and a couple of them might make a really good president. What Bernie Sanders said was crucial, though: Republicans win when voter turn-out is low. And our next president, who will clearly be a Democrat, has got to have a Democratic Congress to work with. That's the only way we get, eventually, a new SCOTUS to undo the terrible damage done by the present one.
7
Of course, I meant any one of the five.
Once Bernie tacitly approved of Clinton's poor judgement regarding her private server he gave up the high ground. Hope he gets a good amassador appointment for committing political hara kiri.
1
FBI will find if an wrong doing went on.
Hillary is still a mean girl. And, a liar
Why doesn't her total lack of character bother the Dems?
Why doesn't her total lack of character bother the Dems?
7
Large parts of this article could have been written by the Clinton campaign staff or someone hoping to secure a communications position in a future administration.
15
Some commenters say Hillary has been in politics too long - we don't need an armature we need someone who has been in the down and dirty and that's Hillary. Nobody's perfect, I love Bernie and would like to see him as VP.The repubs' never-ending vicious attacks on Hillary show that they're afraid of her and that's enough for me GO HILLARY!
3
So do Hillary's never ending vicious attacks on the GOP show she is afraid of them?
1
So you think when someone is viciously attacked they shouldn't return the favor? She should just skulk away? HA!
Uhh, Hillary voted for the Iraq war. Plus she flip-flopped on her stance on marriage. Before gay marriage was legalized, she said marriage should always be between a man and woman, but after it passed she changed her tune all of a sudden. She says whatever is convenient for her at the moment. Plus, despite mainstream media claiming the opposite, all the online polls and statistics clearly show that Bernie dominated the debate.http://www.hngn.com/articles/140151/20151014/sanders-wins-first-democrat...
Well, NY TImes, I must have been out when the mobile lobotomy team came by. I--and, clearly, many of my fellow commenters--know what we saw and what we heard.
Hillary offered up her canned responses and couldn't hide how very, very annoyed she was to have facts about her record recited out loud by Democrats. Bernie showed class and she stuck a shiv in him.
Obama won against every prediction. Ain't it funny that an old Brooklyn Jewish guy can mobilize that same energy?
We can pull this off again--and this time, for the real thing. Get out and vote, kids...
Hillary offered up her canned responses and couldn't hide how very, very annoyed she was to have facts about her record recited out loud by Democrats. Bernie showed class and she stuck a shiv in him.
Obama won against every prediction. Ain't it funny that an old Brooklyn Jewish guy can mobilize that same energy?
We can pull this off again--and this time, for the real thing. Get out and vote, kids...
5
Judging by these comments, I would say Bernie won
10
This debate was a joke.
An FBI investigation into illegal activities by HRC is cast aside.
Four of the five candidates said exactly the same things!!
Wall Street = Bad.... Fee stuff!!! Wall Street is going to pay for it!! We have a special tax on investor/speculative activity!!!!!
This debate was an activity to protect each other - and give the nomination to HRC.
FBI Investigation = Who Cares!!!!
An FBI investigation into illegal activities by HRC is cast aside.
Four of the five candidates said exactly the same things!!
Wall Street = Bad.... Fee stuff!!! Wall Street is going to pay for it!! We have a special tax on investor/speculative activity!!!!!
This debate was an activity to protect each other - and give the nomination to HRC.
FBI Investigation = Who Cares!!!!
3
I have no use for Clinton. She's a liar and a shape shifter. I don't believe anything she says is true or truly felt.
7
I didn't enjoy the debate. No effort to differentiate the policy differences between candidates.
Jim Webb in my view had good substance but came across as the Angry old man in the corner.
Bernie had a great night. His policy positions (most of which I disagree with) are consistent and I respect him and his positions.
Hillary reminded me why I will not vote for her, she will say what will get her elected.
Martin: This was my first real exposure to him / his views. He came across as another career politician who considers his job to say the right things to get elected.
Lincoln: His justification of his first Senate vote was terrible. No scandals ever was his selling point?. I think it is time to go back to Rhode Island. :-)
The biggest challenge with Democrats. No real ideas. Other than income inequality being a problem. I agree. The solution cannot be tax more. But Tax the middle class less. Protect manufacturing jobs. Get out of needless wars. Balance budget. And encourage business to relocate to USA, not out of it. No discussion around those points.
Jim Webb in my view had good substance but came across as the Angry old man in the corner.
Bernie had a great night. His policy positions (most of which I disagree with) are consistent and I respect him and his positions.
Hillary reminded me why I will not vote for her, she will say what will get her elected.
Martin: This was my first real exposure to him / his views. He came across as another career politician who considers his job to say the right things to get elected.
Lincoln: His justification of his first Senate vote was terrible. No scandals ever was his selling point?. I think it is time to go back to Rhode Island. :-)
The biggest challenge with Democrats. No real ideas. Other than income inequality being a problem. I agree. The solution cannot be tax more. But Tax the middle class less. Protect manufacturing jobs. Get out of needless wars. Balance budget. And encourage business to relocate to USA, not out of it. No discussion around those points.
1
the headline skews it incorrectly giving a "gotcha" when there wasn't one, the heat was also turned up on Clinton, but then Sanders came to Clinton's rescue, and everyone was productive and cordial. Also, the headline could have read, Clinton's rivals turn up the heat and gone into the number of attacks on her judgement for authorizing the worst international imbroglio in American History.
it was pretty good overall
it was pretty good overall
2
Clinton-Sanders 2016, anyone?
1
I have supported Bernie from the outset, not so much because I think he can win the nomination, but rather because I saw what the Tea Party was able to accomplish in the GOP: namely, skewing the entire debate on every issue to the right. Regardless of what happens going forward, Bernie has moved the debate in the Democratic party much farther to the left than where it would be without him. Does anyone seriously think that Hillary would call herself a progressive, oppose TPP or talk about reforming Wall Street if Bernie was not getting the support he is ?
28
Hillary was talking progressive before Bernie even got into the arena.
If Bernie Sanders is serious about being President, he made a mistake in implying that he would not support Justice's review of possible security breaches. Why is Hillary Clinton immune for such scrutiny? We actually do care to know.
3
Great debate, but I didn't laugh nearly as often as I did watching the Republicans' dogfight that was held in front of the Air Force One at the Reagan library.
1
Five nearly dead people in a debate. Tiring and boring , all.
1
Eight paragraphs before you say a positive word about Bernie's performance? Please stop putting advertising masquerading as objective journalism on your front page.
32
Let Mrs. Clinton become the president country she loves, Denmark. As Secretary Clinton said, she is "sick and tired...". We,too, are sick and tired of these professional politicians. A quarter century plus of the same old lines.
Enough, more than enough. New, refreshing, thoughtful and creative ideas are so needed. These folks don't have new ideas with the exception of Senator Sanders.
Enough, more than enough. New, refreshing, thoughtful and creative ideas are so needed. These folks don't have new ideas with the exception of Senator Sanders.
5
Boy did you get that Denmark thing all wrong.
New York Times pronouns Clinton the winner . NYT commenters overwhelmingly say Sanders won. Makes you wonder .
23
Because far left Bernie fanatics are much like the right wing fanatics, they are hot and bothered.
Watching the Republican "debate" was embarrassing to our nation in the eyes of the world.
This debate, on the other hand, can make us proud. The sad thing is that the Americans who suffer from income inequality so often go for the clever one-line insult, the simplistic explanation, the aura of smug certainty that folks like Trump present--and vote directly against their own interests.
Who is screaming about no new taxes? The family that makes $40k or the person whose mortgage went bad. So self-destructive.
This debate, on the other hand, can make us proud. The sad thing is that the Americans who suffer from income inequality so often go for the clever one-line insult, the simplistic explanation, the aura of smug certainty that folks like Trump present--and vote directly against their own interests.
Who is screaming about no new taxes? The family that makes $40k or the person whose mortgage went bad. So self-destructive.
3
You seem to think that those suffering from income inequality are stupid and gullible. Do you think the poor must be led by those who are more advantaged, hence wiser than they?
Clinton kept raising the specter of "shadow banking" whenever the issue of too big to fail arose - as if she'd address either if elected. It was strictly smoke and mirrors for the rubes and I wish Sanders had pressed her on it.
6
Allow me to translate this article for everyone:
"Now's the time that we, the New York Times -- aka, the adults -- get to take down Sanders, whose policies are popular and deeply threatening. Not sure we outdid the WaPo, but we gave it the old college try."
"Now's the time that we, the New York Times -- aka, the adults -- get to take down Sanders, whose policies are popular and deeply threatening. Not sure we outdid the WaPo, but we gave it the old college try."
15
This assessment of the debate is very strange to me. Clinton came across to me as a salamander, someone who tries to spin herself into popularity while lacking the historical facts to back up the spin. Sanders seemed magnanimous, kind, and passionate. Plus, he put his finger on the issue that sits underneath all other issues--the oligarchical control of our democracy. Without changing campaign financing and big finance control of our government, we're stuck. We won't make headway on the environment, for instance. O'Malley was kind, pleasant, and very astute in his analyses. O'Malley could likely beat any Republican. Clinton will have trouble due to her issues of integrity. Sanders is likely too socialist, although that might be OK, given the immensity of the problem facing America--the wealthy oligarchs' power over the common citizen.
10
political utterings of any kind are as annoying as dogs barking, and have about th same content
1
Clinton did a fine job and those who were waiting to hear her defend her policy positions certainly got what they wanted. If anyone was leaning her way to begin with, they've probably solidified their voting choice with this debate. For those (like myself) who were either in or leaning towards the Sanders camp, it's probably much the same. After the debate, CNN pointed out that their poll placed gun control as the least important topic OF THOSE DEBATED in the minds of those who watched. I'm not saying it IS the least important, but that's how it polled. Thus, for me, Clinton's edge on the gun issue is not equal to Bernie's edge on the Wall Street/income inequality issue. He forced a comparison between two strategies for dealing with Wall Street (neither one is an unreasonable stance). Clinton has faith that she can work with Wall Street entities to come to mutually beneficial solutions for everyone. For those with faith in that process, it's a pragmatic stance to take. On the other hand, those in Bernie's camp are essentially done taking the high road of negotiation with banks. In our view, banks have only ever demonstrated an interest in unilaterally beneficial solutions (i.e., beneficial to itself). Since good faith negotiations have failed, we might as well read them riot act going forward. Which option sounds good is a personal thing. Also, Bernie's handling of the question about "leaving immigrants at the alter" was very well done.
5
In concert with other readers, I am incredulous at the discrepancy between the debate I observed, and the ostensible reportage in your two front-page articles. There is, again to echo other reader's, the impression that the rhetorical thrust of the articles was established in advance of the event, impatiently awaiting the actual debate only for the technicality of attaching quotes, mannerisms and vignettes as snippets to adorn the framework of argument and conclusion already firmly in place. And yes, the debate was vastly more germane and elevated than the Republican circuses, as several candidates announced while patting themselves on the back. But nowhere in these articles was there recognition that the tone of the debate was as substantial and dignified as it was precisely because Sanders has set that bar in his public appearances throughout the nation, drawing crowds who are poignantly appreciative of his insistence in discussing the appallingly urgent real issues we face, and his refusal to focus on the soap-opera pseudo-drama that the media - indeed, the larger culture in general - would prefer to contemplate. I'm about to turn 73, so I can remember a time when the NYTimes, while certainly fallible (one recalls, e.g., Vietnam and Iraq), routinely strove to set a non-partisan stance. These articles not only fail to rise to that level; they indulge repeatedly in the impertinence of presuming motives for both the candidates, and the moderator. SO disappointing!
25
Hillary Clinton won last night's debate. Bernie Sanders kind of held his own, but was not as nimble and persuasive as Hillary, especially on his views of capitalism, gun control healthcare. Martin O'Malley didn't ignite any fires, but didn't hurt himself and answered and responded well. Lincoln Chafee was almost laughable - especially when he truthfully tried explaining his vote on repealing Glass-Steagall - he should withdraw from the race. Jim Webb didn't connect and seemed lost on many points - he would make a good SecDef with his military background, but he won't be president (or even VP).
So it's really down to 3 Democrats - Hillary, Bernie and Martin, with Hillary having a big lead (for now).
And then there's Joe Biden, who's starting to look like Mario Cuomo (the "Hamlet of the Hudson") in late 1991. Will he or won't he?
So it's really down to 3 Democrats - Hillary, Bernie and Martin, with Hillary having a big lead (for now).
And then there's Joe Biden, who's starting to look like Mario Cuomo (the "Hamlet of the Hudson") in late 1991. Will he or won't he?
4
The bill on shielding gun manufacturers from liabilty may indeed have been uncomplicated and straightforward. And Sen. Sanders did vote the wrong way.
But, the congressional authorization to invade Iraq was also uncomplicated and straightforward - at least according to the Defense Intelligence Estimates which were fully available to all members of Congress. They established that the Bush administration's claims as to Iraq's capacity with respect to WMDs were largely false. Then-Sen. Clinton not only voted the wrong way, she was late and reluctant to change her view.
The consequences of Sec'y Clinton's "wrong vote", which are still playing out today, were far more devastating than Sen. Sander's vote.
That being said, Sec'y Clinton is far superior to anything the GOP has to offer.
But, the congressional authorization to invade Iraq was also uncomplicated and straightforward - at least according to the Defense Intelligence Estimates which were fully available to all members of Congress. They established that the Bush administration's claims as to Iraq's capacity with respect to WMDs were largely false. Then-Sen. Clinton not only voted the wrong way, she was late and reluctant to change her view.
The consequences of Sec'y Clinton's "wrong vote", which are still playing out today, were far more devastating than Sen. Sander's vote.
That being said, Sec'y Clinton is far superior to anything the GOP has to offer.
7
Except that mrs Clinton is a LIAR
1
The first Republican debate was watched by twice as many viewers as last night's Democratic debate. Clearly, the Dems need a class clown like Trump in order to get equal exposure. And who better than Stephen Colbert? I'm already on the edge of my seat wondering what he has to say about menstruation.
2
To find an alternative to Hillary Clinton, I was interested to see Martin O'Malley in action because, as much as I love Bernie Sanders, I think Bernie can not win the general election.
But I found Gov. O'Malley to be a bit diffident and lacking in Presidential gravitas. And I found Hillary to have the confidence and "likability" she needs to show voters across the political spectrum in order to win.
So, game over. Hillary just (finally) earned my whole-hearted support. The check is in the mail, although it won't have as many zeroes as a Koch check.
But I found Gov. O'Malley to be a bit diffident and lacking in Presidential gravitas. And I found Hillary to have the confidence and "likability" she needs to show voters across the political spectrum in order to win.
So, game over. Hillary just (finally) earned my whole-hearted support. The check is in the mail, although it won't have as many zeroes as a Koch check.
6
A different report on the debate might've begun with the Clinton-Sanders exchange on the financial crisis. "I told the banks in 2007 to cut it out," said Clinton. Well, we know how that turned out. This viewer thought the crowd roared more enthusiastically at Sanders' response that "Congress doesn't regulate Wall St; Wall St regulates Congress" than it did during the gun control exchange. But that reflects my bias. The reporters for the newspaper of record are, of course, far more objective.
17
This debate was very informative about what the Democratic candidates believe should be done about the challenges which we face because they were not trying to show how formidable and decisive they would be if they were elected. It was a nice situation to witness. These so-called debates are really old fashioned show and tell, nobody actually makes any attempt to argue pro or con on any issues, they state their qualifications as they believe suits their audience, and that's all that they do. But at least the audience gets an idea of what they propose to do if elected. When the Parties have chosen their candidates the Republicans will force the Democrats to play it their way, strictly chest pounding and blowhard posturing, and the issues will disappear from the discussion.
3
So even the "centrist" New York Times continues to run interference for HRC. The media establishment are determined to ignore Bernie Sanders, to marginalize him. Geez, that means he might be on to something.
24
Three of every four questions at the CNN Republican debate were specifically designed to get the xandidates to quarrel with each other. Obviously, the Party-alignment worked for the Dems last night. CNN will never bite the hand that feds it.
All that was missing was the prayer rail and the knee cushions.
All that was missing was the prayer rail and the knee cushions.
6
America's biggest problems were best captured by Sanders' line, "Wall Street regulates Congress." Until we correct the capture of government by the cabal of billionaires, driven ONLY by short-term self-interest (translation: greed), we have no future. These jackals are GUTTING the American Dream.
My issues with Hillary stem from the fact that she and Bill have been in government for decades, and in spite of giving lip service to progressive ideals, have done virtually nothing to oppose the billionaire class. The they've been too busy becoming millionaires, themselves.
Last night Hillary TALKED a good game... but then so did Obama, while campaigning. Sanders has WALKED his talk his whole career. Hillary's values have been questioned for good reason. I couldn't believe it when she characterized her stance toward Wall Street as, "Hey, guys, cut it out!" Seriously??
My issues with Hillary stem from the fact that she and Bill have been in government for decades, and in spite of giving lip service to progressive ideals, have done virtually nothing to oppose the billionaire class. The they've been too busy becoming millionaires, themselves.
Last night Hillary TALKED a good game... but then so did Obama, while campaigning. Sanders has WALKED his talk his whole career. Hillary's values have been questioned for good reason. I couldn't believe it when she characterized her stance toward Wall Street as, "Hey, guys, cut it out!" Seriously??
24
I didn't realize that the purpose of the debate was simply to see how Hilary would perform, but apparently this is what the editors at the NYT thought it to be.
22
Hillary speaks, Times readers fawn. This is news? Plus, the audience was cued to applaud her every answer much like the laugh track of a 1970s sitcom.
7
And the right- wingers were different how? At least last night showed us who the grown ups were - go Hillary!
1
@David Vawter of Kentucky - Times readers were just so starved for complete sentences with nouns, verbs and grammar. And unlike the Republican debates the clapping was not hooting and hollering loudly when a candidate advocated lynching or public execution or lied about 'live babies being aborted with their little beating hearts on the table,' or any of the jaw dropping, libelous and fictional excess that the Conservative Republicans wallow in like the proverbial pigs in a waller.
I too enjoyed the civility of these debates. Hillary? Shrink wrapped and well-prepped. Just pop her in the oven and wait for the button to pop out. Ignoring the time limits to elbow out anyone else's chance to speak. Anderson Cooper was run over and lost the reins several times. The "Book Ends" should save their supporters a lot of money and fold their tents right away. Webb looked sour and Chaffee looked lost. O'Malley had his moments but was straining to look like he belonged up on that stage. Stop striking poses and trying to look "Presidential."
7
The most hilarious comment of the whole night was that of the constantly complaining Jim Webb of not given enough time to speak compared to other, by saying the Sunnis fighting in the Middle East were supported by the both Saudi regime and Iran.
No matter how many of his relatives were members of the military, it doesn't make him a foreign policy expert.
Poor Webb not only declared the the Iran accord between the G5 + 1 would lead to a nuclear armed Iran, he doesn't even know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites and that Iran is a Shiite dominated country.
No matter how many of his relatives were members of the military, it doesn't make him a foreign policy expert.
Poor Webb not only declared the the Iran accord between the G5 + 1 would lead to a nuclear armed Iran, he doesn't even know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites and that Iran is a Shiite dominated country.
5
@Sarah, of Arlington, VA - I think another comment noted that Jim Webb looked as if he had lost his directions to FOX studios. But, Webb was a good deal more subdued than the equally fact challenged Republicans on foreign policy.
1
Watching the Democratic presidential debate, I could not help associating Hillary Clinton with Angela Lansbury in the movie 'The Manchurian Candidate". Obviously bright and articulate but also shrewd and calculating to a fault. Her decisions are as much tied to her assessment of the prevailing political and public opinion winds as it is to her intellect, instinct and judgement.
Former senator Lincoln Chafee was spot on in calling her out with regard to her "Yes" vote to invade Iraq. IIRC, not only did she hop aboard this jingoistic bandwagon but she banged the war drum nearly as loudly as the Republican yahoos once she sensed that the public was overwhelming in favor of the invasion and overthrow of Sadaam Hussein's regime.
Bottom line: she is a superb debater and was clever in skirting thorny issues in last night's debate but her ability to independently make correct and courageous decisions in real time without regard for public opinion and CNN polls is certainly in question.
Former senator Lincoln Chafee was spot on in calling her out with regard to her "Yes" vote to invade Iraq. IIRC, not only did she hop aboard this jingoistic bandwagon but she banged the war drum nearly as loudly as the Republican yahoos once she sensed that the public was overwhelming in favor of the invasion and overthrow of Sadaam Hussein's regime.
Bottom line: she is a superb debater and was clever in skirting thorny issues in last night's debate but her ability to independently make correct and courageous decisions in real time without regard for public opinion and CNN polls is certainly in question.
12
Mrs. Clinton was the predetermined center piece at the upscale gathering, hosted by Anderson Cooper. She called herself a progressive, declared her resolve to bring the party left, with speech nuanced by corporate jargon that cut the core from her recently self declared passions.
Senator Sanders was himself, the social democrat determined not to dilute his long held and much needed call for American reform, no simple task on this first debate stage, while gifting America the most favored quote of the debate regarding Mrs. Clinton's tedious email ineptitudes.
My hope is that everyone on the debate stage learned how to best proceed after this first in six debates where much was left unsaid by all of the candidates. A decent introductory debate, wherein candidates were more interested in presenting themselves politically, and were far more informative than the republican debates wherein tea party republicans, for the most part, present themselves as a flock of hungry seagulls in a fast food parking lot.
Senator Sanders was himself, the social democrat determined not to dilute his long held and much needed call for American reform, no simple task on this first debate stage, while gifting America the most favored quote of the debate regarding Mrs. Clinton's tedious email ineptitudes.
My hope is that everyone on the debate stage learned how to best proceed after this first in six debates where much was left unsaid by all of the candidates. A decent introductory debate, wherein candidates were more interested in presenting themselves politically, and were far more informative than the republican debates wherein tea party republicans, for the most part, present themselves as a flock of hungry seagulls in a fast food parking lot.
5
Last night's event looked more like a debate rather than a bunch of spoiled rich brats throwing tantrums.
While technically Hillary was the strongest debater, Sanders did a great job of turning the conversation back to his issues, again and again. And O'Malley probably created some interest in his campaign by making intelligent comments and emphasizing his experience.
I was proud to be a Democrat last night. I could stand to see any one of these people elected President.
While technically Hillary was the strongest debater, Sanders did a great job of turning the conversation back to his issues, again and again. And O'Malley probably created some interest in his campaign by making intelligent comments and emphasizing his experience.
I was proud to be a Democrat last night. I could stand to see any one of these people elected President.
9
@mc - I agree with your take too - Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley were all presidential material. Heads and shoulders over Bush, Rubio, and God Save Us, Trump or Cruz. Fiorina might even be on the bottom of that list had she not shown her pandering hand so blatantly lying about the Planned Parenthood footage she claims to have see which turned out in fact to be cross-cut footage from an anti-abortion fanatics still-born that she made available expressly to be misrepresented for this 'higher cause.' Even after Fiorina was told this she ignored fact and prefers pander - like the party of her choice.
It's interesting how all the corporate media says Hillary won, but all the polls say Sanders won.
35
Policy-wise both Bernie and Hillary did well, performance-wise both did very well. From the practical standpoint Hillary is just a better candidate more appealing to average voter. Bernie has not been vetted well yet, and I fear he would be an easy target for the conservative propaganda. They would make him into a communist figure without much effort. Hillary, on the other hand, has been relentlessly vetted last 30 years, and very little has been found against her.
The NYTimes obviously wants Hillary to win, so their articles are all slanted. Fox news for moderates. That's why I watch the debate and ignore the commentary and whatever NYT has to say.
22
Bernie won last nights debate by a mile! It's interesting to see the con job being put on by the corporate media.
32
@R Tacoma - I watched the debate and I thought Sanders and Clinton were both excellent. I don't think much is gained by flailing at the 'corporate media' in the form of the NY Times. As compared to what/?/ the Wall Street Journal? FOX? Bright-brat?
I support Hillary Clinton, but I'm surprised that the media is downplaying Bernie Sanders' performance. He was natural, in command of the facts, and charismatic, and I didn't think he seemed ruffled at all.
I was disappointed that no one is defending the Trans-Pacific trade agreement, which seems visionary.
The most emotional moment for me was seeing that Jim Webb, who fought in Vietnam, has a Vietnamese wife.
I was disappointed that no one is defending the Trans-Pacific trade agreement, which seems visionary.
The most emotional moment for me was seeing that Jim Webb, who fought in Vietnam, has a Vietnamese wife.
3
Bernie Sanders = NUMBER ONE MENCH!!
Hillary Clinton = MADAM PRESIDENT!!
Hillary Clinton = MADAM PRESIDENT!!
5
When the intro began, we thought it was a football playoff or something. CNN is awful-! Then Cooper lets certain candidates hog the floor unfairly.
Still, nice to hear talk about critical issues --- compared to GOP debates about “Gods law“ or defunding Planned Parenthood on day one or other hokum.
Still, nice to hear talk about critical issues --- compared to GOP debates about “Gods law“ or defunding Planned Parenthood on day one or other hokum.
9
When the GOPers talk about gov't spending, the only thing in the old media the next day is how those wascally wepublicans hate clean air, clean water, and mommas and babies. They have learned to manage media a bit like Reagan did.
It was sure nice to get a break from the culture wars, which is about all the Republican debaters could talk about.
8
This is how civilized people debate. Bernie was the clear winner. Hillary did very well, but Bernie won on the issues.
29
@Me NYC - I think they were both excellent. Bernie stumbled a bit on the gun issue and needs to make a better case for 'Socialist-Democrat' v. 'Progressive.' Hillary was weakest on how she proposes to control Wall Street beyond offering to put a couple of sacrificial lambs in the clinker. But, both were generally terrific. Sanders slam dunked the Republicans on their email/Benghazi travesty. Clinton was strongest in articulating how she could expand on health care and education to help the most vulnerable economically who are seeking to do better. It was good to see them at ease with one another as colleagues and it would be nice to see that rub off a bit further down their loyalty chains.
I thought many readers’ comments describing the Democratic debate using words such as “civility,” “intelligence,” “respect,” “dignity,” and phrases such as “thoughtful people talked the issues,” “people who are capable of both disagreeing with and respecting each other,” were much more perceptive and relevant and on the mark than the cable-like coverage of the Times: “Clinton Turns Up Heat on Sanders in a Sharp Debate,” “Who Won and Lost the Democratic Debate,” “A Night Goes Clinton’s Way After Months of Difficulties.” And far more important for the conduct of politics in this country going forward as well.
12
As expected everyone rushes to talk of winners and winning strategies. Looking beyond elections as a horserace and a horse wrangler’s tactics, the actual content was interesting. None of the Democratic politicians did what they would have done ten or 20 years ago, and try to sound like a blend of mid-century American progressive politics and Reagan era neo-conservative pro-business politics. Not surprising when you take into account the Republicans are in complete disarray. Boehner’s resignation makes the party more like a fallen parliamentary government that's waiting for an election to form a new coalition. There really is no center possible between the new GOP Freedom Caucus demagoguery and a Clinton and Sanders.
Democratic politicians seem to be relying on established Democratic politics.
Sanders may sound radical to some voters, but all you can accuse him of being is very retro, very post-WWII American social democracy. He’s not a demagogue. Even his radical ideas are policies firmly in place for decades in other stable, wealthy democracies.
Democratic politicians seem to be relying on established Democratic politics.
Sanders may sound radical to some voters, but all you can accuse him of being is very retro, very post-WWII American social democracy. He’s not a demagogue. Even his radical ideas are policies firmly in place for decades in other stable, wealthy democracies.
7
Were we watching the same debate? This article drastically understates the honesty, clarity, and precision with which Mr. Sanders responded to his questions and accusations. This article also fails to mention that on the facebook.com/cnn vote, where people watching the debate could vote on who was "winning" the debate. Users overwhelmingly declared Sanders victorious with percentages in the mid 70%. I am still confused after these polls keep showing up all over how it is that Hillary is declared so invariably dominant?
The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot move this country forward if there are only a few wealthy people paying for all of our politicians. The Democrats all treated each other fairly and kindly. For that we can be proud. But let us look to the people to see who won the debate.
The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot move this country forward if there are only a few wealthy people paying for all of our politicians. The Democrats all treated each other fairly and kindly. For that we can be proud. But let us look to the people to see who won the debate.
28
While I may be a Bernie supporter, I don't think that is a very scientific poll. Bernie is popular among younger voters, and they are more likely to vote on a Facebook poll.
3
So people don't trust Hillary Clinton.
I'm not sure I trust her on everything, but I trust that she will be a much better President for Democrats than any of the Republicans running for the office.
I'd vote for a yellow dog if it were the Democratic candidate in November 2016, but a yellow dog doesn't have the grasp of the issues that Clinton (as well as Sanders, O'Malley, Chaffee and Webb) have.
If there are Sanders supporters who'd rather see a Republican win the White House than vote for Hillary, they are not real progressives or liberals or socialists or Democrats.
I'm not sure I trust her on everything, but I trust that she will be a much better President for Democrats than any of the Republicans running for the office.
I'd vote for a yellow dog if it were the Democratic candidate in November 2016, but a yellow dog doesn't have the grasp of the issues that Clinton (as well as Sanders, O'Malley, Chaffee and Webb) have.
If there are Sanders supporters who'd rather see a Republican win the White House than vote for Hillary, they are not real progressives or liberals or socialists or Democrats.
14
Some of us vote our conscience, and for who really represents us. I dont want to see a Republican elected, but I definitely will not vote for Clinton. The Dems have a choice, and that is to find a candidate who will really work for all Americans, or one who will represent Wall Street, the neocon war mongers and the MIC, and destructive trans national corporations and trade agreements. I will no longer hold my nose and vote for a corrupt, corporate Dem. It is the Dems choice to make, and it should be easy.
7
but sanders in general election pols does just about as well as Hillary. and do note we have yet to see a poll after this debate.
4
Progress is made in small steps, and is lost in small steps. If liberal voter had show up in midterms in 2010 and 2014 we would have had a different country now.
Voting your conscience? What does it mean if House and Senate is controlled by the crazies? Watching Bernie having nothing done and sitting home again in 2018 midterms in total disappointment???
Conscience is not a substitute for brain....
Voting your conscience? What does it mean if House and Senate is controlled by the crazies? Watching Bernie having nothing done and sitting home again in 2018 midterms in total disappointment???
Conscience is not a substitute for brain....
The Republicans have set the bar extremely low when it comes to what an intelligent debate is, so it isn’t surprising that the Democrats looked more thoughtful and intelligent. A Friar’s Roast is more intelligent than a Republican debate. Clinton defended her record; Sanders got his message out, O’Malley attacked Clinton, Webb is in the wrong party and Chafee belongs in a Monty Python sketch. Clinton clearly came out on top.
However, in one respect the GOP and the Democrats did the same thing, spending several hours telling their base what they wanted to here. They pushed all the right buttons, which accounts for much of the gushing here.
One thing is clear the media is completely irresponsible. Cooper thought being a good moderator meant doing everything he could to start a fight between the candidates. There is a line between asking hard questions and baiting people and Cooper crossed it repeatedly, proving that the media is driving a lot of the vitriol in our politics. The candidates wisely refused to take the bait, which made them seem more civil than Republicans.
Now that we know what the Left wants, and we know what the Right wants, and we know the politicians know, I still wonder what the rest, the majority, of the American people want.
However, in one respect the GOP and the Democrats did the same thing, spending several hours telling their base what they wanted to here. They pushed all the right buttons, which accounts for much of the gushing here.
One thing is clear the media is completely irresponsible. Cooper thought being a good moderator meant doing everything he could to start a fight between the candidates. There is a line between asking hard questions and baiting people and Cooper crossed it repeatedly, proving that the media is driving a lot of the vitriol in our politics. The candidates wisely refused to take the bait, which made them seem more civil than Republicans.
Now that we know what the Left wants, and we know what the Right wants, and we know the politicians know, I still wonder what the rest, the majority, of the American people want.
9
It was very disappointing that we could not watch the debate because we don't subscribe to cable TV . The debates should be on all channels, certainly Cspan.
17
@etcalhom of santa rosa - - Bring back Free TV and a pro-active FCC. The Murdochracy killed it along with Sumner Redstone. I look at Murdoch and Redstone and think dark thoughts about how these two Revenants keep tweeting away for all their not-so-clean living.
4
Predictable.
Predictable that the Times would have fawning praise for their favorite, Hilary. This paper has had a daily kissing-up article around this candidate since June. They will do whatever it takes to submarine any Democrat challenger to their adored HC.
Republicans? Forget about it. The Gray Lady last endorsed a GOP Presidential candidate in 1952 - 63 years ago!
Predictable that the Times would have fawning praise for their favorite, Hilary. This paper has had a daily kissing-up article around this candidate since June. They will do whatever it takes to submarine any Democrat challenger to their adored HC.
Republicans? Forget about it. The Gray Lady last endorsed a GOP Presidential candidate in 1952 - 63 years ago!
9
Clinton was definitely poised and ready, but is that a surprise? Now she's calling herself a "progressive"? I don't think so. She continues holding her finger to the wind. She waited on Keystone until it was safe to come out against it, and she thinks we can convince Wall Street to do the right thing.
I'm Feeling the Bern more and more.
I'm Feeling the Bern more and more.
15
I think the NYT was watching a different debate if the think Clinton was the clear winner. She did well but so did the others. Why not a more even-handed report?
16
@David of California --- Newspapers try to make news. That's all the Times is about here. The candidates all did very well. Clinton did extremely well defending a centrist perch that will aid in a general election, because it will make it exceedingly difficult for Republicans to uses her own words against her. But, we all know the Republicans will just make up their script anyway and say 'she can't be trusted, you know!' Look at the right wing fringe blogs, she's called 'witch,' 'Hildebeast' and those are the printable names. Obama fares even worse.
Clinton was shrill, irritable, irritating, insincere, unpresidential.
That she shared the stage with junior leaguers did not cause her to rise and distinguish herself.
A la Donald Trump she did well, but what does that say?
That she shared the stage with junior leaguers did not cause her to rise and distinguish herself.
A la Donald Trump she did well, but what does that say?
7
@Marty O'Toole of LA - Not like Trump at all. Hillary didn't go puffing up like a frigate bird on Midway in mating season - or slander absent third parties on their personal sex lives, call the other candidates ugly old men, or partake in any of the despicable Reality TV Schtick that characterizes Trump. She talked substance. And, so did the other candidates to their credit. Which rather refutes your whole point and leaves the petard clearly in the big Republican tent.
There is more sustance in the comments than in the NYT coverage. WOW, NYT political editors, look at your hands.
It is true that B. Sanders is a Socialist Democrat; is that title really scary enough to get a Republican elected -REALLY? ....Or do we want change?
"...'tis nature's law to change, constancy alone is strange." - Newton
It is true that B. Sanders is a Socialist Democrat; is that title really scary enough to get a Republican elected -REALLY? ....Or do we want change?
"...'tis nature's law to change, constancy alone is strange." - Newton
21
@Lanny - Relax Bernie was swell. Hillary was too. The Times is covering its backside because they've been shivving Hillary for the past year and now they're looking at the polls and seeing a high probable for a Clinton outcome, so there it is. But, Bernie was terrific and I would hope his supporters and Hillary's can lighten up together because their common enemy is really, really an enemy on so many levels - sexist, racist, xenophobic, war mongering, economically retrogressive, fascist and theocratically fanatical.
1
Bernie's admitted socialist philosophy IS enough to not get votes from people aware of world history. Socialism always eliminates the creators and employers one way or anotther. Sometimes socialists get around to just eliminating all the people who went to college, as in Cambodia.
I DK if that would be enough to deny Bernie the presidency. But listen up when Bernie gets to the money side. His Vermont tried for two years to degign a single-payer system but could NOT make the money work out.
But he thinks it would work if simply imposed on America's capitalist people?
I DK if that would be enough to deny Bernie the presidency. But listen up when Bernie gets to the money side. His Vermont tried for two years to degign a single-payer system but could NOT make the money work out.
But he thinks it would work if simply imposed on America's capitalist people?
Sanders won on passion and integrity and is absolutely right about Wall Street's predations, but he also convinced me of his unelectabiity. Hillary won on policy specifics and mastery of detail. It was an impressive performance by her, and I am someone who has never really liked her. Moreover, she looked and acted presidential. I did not find Malley impressive and Chafee was pretty much a disaster. Webb came across as a crank but made many good points. A Clinton-Webb ticket would be formidable, I think. Overall, an incredible contrast with the inanity and mean-spiritedness of the Republican debates. It gives one hope that reason and humanity may yet prevail over fear and loathing.
6
Is a Clinton-O'Malley ticket a possibility?
4
@Katherine - I would certainly vote for Clinton/O'Malley, but also Clinton/Sanders, Sanders/Clinton, Clinton/Franken, and even Clinton/Biden.
Thank you to all the participants in last night's debate. One that featured substance, not stupidity and insults. All five of you gave presidential performances.
America can feel better knowing that there will be one party, the Democrats, who field a real candidate for the American people. Vote Democratic; the country you save may be your own!
America can feel better knowing that there will be one party, the Democrats, who field a real candidate for the American people. Vote Democratic; the country you save may be your own!
7
“We are not Denmark,' Mrs. Clinton said, adding with a sly smile, 'I love Denmark. We are the United States of America.'
The crowd erupted in applause."
I believe that the crowd erupted in applause because it was stacked with Clinton partisans, but if that's what passes for a "stinging assessment" then the bar is set very low for stinging assessments. It sounds to me like a canned, prepared comment that Hillary shoe horned into the debate. It is certainly not any kind of logical put down of Bernie's position. In fact, her comment graphically demonstrates the truth of Bernie's position that we can learn how to do things from other countries if we're just willing to approach issues with an open mind.
The crowd erupted in applause."
I believe that the crowd erupted in applause because it was stacked with Clinton partisans, but if that's what passes for a "stinging assessment" then the bar is set very low for stinging assessments. It sounds to me like a canned, prepared comment that Hillary shoe horned into the debate. It is certainly not any kind of logical put down of Bernie's position. In fact, her comment graphically demonstrates the truth of Bernie's position that we can learn how to do things from other countries if we're just willing to approach issues with an open mind.
32
Were I Bernie, I would have come back with a description of Hillary and Bill's pay-yo-play schemes she made money with in the 1990's and as SecState.
Then I'd have said, ''Hillary, this is the United states. We are NOT a banana republic, either.''
Then I'd have said, ''Hillary, this is the United states. We are NOT a banana republic, either.''
4
I call it a draw between Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton, but I was also impressed by O'Malley. How refreshing to finally hear candidates discussing substantive issues. I do strongly feel this debate should have been available over regular network tv, for all Americans to watch, vs. only streaming over CNN. Not all Americans have cable or high speed internet connections, nor the desire to seek out group viewing parties. It matters.
11
Mrs. Clinton's mocking of Mr. Sanders' admiration for Denmark is disingenuous. And the fact that her statement "we are not Denmark" received applause exacerbates the issue. We should be able to discuss successful political and economic models elsewhere (including the larger social democracies in Europe--all with their versions of capitalism) and not cut such discussions off with populist catch phrases.
21
American may not be Denmark, but that is unfortunate. A friend of mine from Denmark, lives and works a high level job here, said that life in Denmark is too easy, with all the social benefits. But he was not being critical, just humorously ironic. He wouldnt want to be back there on a typical middle class wage now-a-days. If the elite oligarchy gets Clinton elected, well never approach Denmarks level of civilization.
2
Even Chaffey was heads and shoulders above any GOP candidate's anti-American gibberish.
4
Hillary Clinton's performance eliminated the need for the Vice President to do his "savior" run. They can take those silly ads off TV now.
4
The Achilles heal of Clinton is her dishonesty. Sanders for whatever reason not only didn't press that point but defended her by dismissing the email scandal. Sanders looked like a neophyte and she chewed him up. Sanders is an anachronism with his extreme left wing socialist ideology of the 1930's.
1
I was hoping that Bernie would provide simple answers to the masses that were seeing him for the first time. In that respect I think that he did a poor job.
When asked about his Socialism, instead of discussing Scandinavian countries that he's like to learn from, what he could have said was:
"Do you think that government should provide Social Security, Medicare, roads, police, firemen, and public schools"? All of those are examples of Socialism."
When asked about "Black Lives Matter", he should have included the important fact that he marched with MLK.
When asked about his Socialism, instead of discussing Scandinavian countries that he's like to learn from, what he could have said was:
"Do you think that government should provide Social Security, Medicare, roads, police, firemen, and public schools"? All of those are examples of Socialism."
When asked about "Black Lives Matter", he should have included the important fact that he marched with MLK.
8
Hillary's record is what needs a forceful critique!!
4
I was not looking for entertainment and "colorful exchanges", I was looking for intelligent discussion of issues. The Democratic candidates provided that, as opposed to the contentious Republican contenders in their debates.
6
I did not see the debate discussed in this article. In the debate I watched, it appeared that Hillary is now touting all of Bernie Sanders' positions - albeit not so much. Her new positions are part of an "evolving" point of view. Unfortunately, I suspect that if she's successful, her new points of view will "revolve" right back to her old points of view which have always favored trade deals, wars and Wall Street. The same trade deals, wars and Wall Street that have knocked this country's middle class to the ground.
I absolutely do not trust her to maintain the positions she staked out in this debate. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, can be trusted to carry out his promises. His history is unimpeachable.
I absolutely do not trust her to maintain the positions she staked out in this debate. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, can be trusted to carry out his promises. His history is unimpeachable.
14
Americans were the winners last nite. The Democratic field showed us there are still grown ups interested in running this country.
Losers were the talking heads, Webb, Chaffee, and Andersen Cooper. The candidates did not stoop to take his bait and degenerate into the circus of the GOP debates. They had their policy differences and still conducted themselves in a civil manner. Hats off to Mr Sanders, total class act. Cooper seemed to be following his script half the time with follow up questions oddly disjointed from the candidates actually said.
Losers were the talking heads, Webb, Chaffee, and Andersen Cooper. The candidates did not stoop to take his bait and degenerate into the circus of the GOP debates. They had their policy differences and still conducted themselves in a civil manner. Hats off to Mr Sanders, total class act. Cooper seemed to be following his script half the time with follow up questions oddly disjointed from the candidates actually said.
11
Why would anyone expect nothing less of Hillary Clinton other than to be polished, prepared and a professional politician? With 25 years+ under her belt, she isn't necessarily the best candidate, merely the most seasoned one. Not sure which is better - the devil you know vs. the devil you don't know. The best part of the debate was the high road everyone took compared to the GOP where it was anything but professional nor productive. At least this group didn't embarrass the office they are running for nor themselves. That in and of itself is noteworthy.
5
Clinton did very well as did Bernie. I think what voters should focus on is his consistency on the issues over a career of many years.
12
Dem WH, 2009-2025
3
Just a word for the NYT reporters...this particular article strongly favored Hillary Clinton, and in fact, was almost solely about what she said and how great her demeanor was. It is a biased piece in Hillary Clinton's favor.
However, there were five participants in the debate, and millions in the viewing audience. Fortunately, they were not wearing the rose-colored, Hillary-favoring glasses of the NYT reporters.
The Times' comments about O'Malley were accurate and fair. What was said about Chaffey and Webb was also accurate, if brief.
But the Times burned Bernie Sanders, when in fact, he was the most remarkable of all the candidates by giving specific plans and how they would be paid for, by clearly distinguishing his platform, and by answering all questions honestly, with explanations. He never once finessed his way out of answering a question or stating his ideas.
Hillary was all about the finesse and fake warmth, (she chuckled entirely too loudly and too much, and describing about her bathroom habits was not necessary). She hedged on all of her positions to give herself wiggle-room in the future, and just came across as too slick to be trustworthy.
As a favor to the electorate, NYT, please make the effort to not show bias in Presidential election reporting. Leave that to Fox News.
However, there were five participants in the debate, and millions in the viewing audience. Fortunately, they were not wearing the rose-colored, Hillary-favoring glasses of the NYT reporters.
The Times' comments about O'Malley were accurate and fair. What was said about Chaffey and Webb was also accurate, if brief.
But the Times burned Bernie Sanders, when in fact, he was the most remarkable of all the candidates by giving specific plans and how they would be paid for, by clearly distinguishing his platform, and by answering all questions honestly, with explanations. He never once finessed his way out of answering a question or stating his ideas.
Hillary was all about the finesse and fake warmth, (she chuckled entirely too loudly and too much, and describing about her bathroom habits was not necessary). She hedged on all of her positions to give herself wiggle-room in the future, and just came across as too slick to be trustworthy.
As a favor to the electorate, NYT, please make the effort to not show bias in Presidential election reporting. Leave that to Fox News.
30
@Lilou - I am a Hillary supporter and would vote for Bernie if he winds up winning this for the Democrats. I think they were both excellent. But, I don't think Bernie was buried by the Times. I think after slamming Hillary for the past half a year Bruni is trying to stir up what's known as 'click bait' by pumping up Hillary's performance as a 'surprise' - but, I think Bernie came off great!
@ExHP Coder--glad you would vote for Bernie. The NYT did stir up "click bait", but really, she's been grilled so many times, in so many negative situations (and I am not saying she's guilty of anything), she is very practiced at re-directing conversations, guarding herself so she can change her mind later, and being smooth.
She's never really been like-able, so her handlers' re-branding of her into warm, feminine, "it takes me longer (to pee), and over-hearty chuckling, while evading stating a plan and how she would pay for it, was just annoying--at the very least.
People do not have faith in current leadership. At least Bernie has honesty, and no Super-Pac, on his side. Yeah, she called him out for guns, but his answers were sound and gave good reasons. He had plans and how he would have them paid for. She did not.
Every paragraph of this piece featured Clinton, for example, "It was a dominant performance that showcased Mrs; Clinton's arsenal..." Only a couple paragraphs at the very end could be considered neutral.
I actually know Hillary, and am definitely voting for Bernie.
She's never really been like-able, so her handlers' re-branding of her into warm, feminine, "it takes me longer (to pee), and over-hearty chuckling, while evading stating a plan and how she would pay for it, was just annoying--at the very least.
People do not have faith in current leadership. At least Bernie has honesty, and no Super-Pac, on his side. Yeah, she called him out for guns, but his answers were sound and gave good reasons. He had plans and how he would have them paid for. She did not.
Every paragraph of this piece featured Clinton, for example, "It was a dominant performance that showcased Mrs; Clinton's arsenal..." Only a couple paragraphs at the very end could be considered neutral.
I actually know Hillary, and am definitely voting for Bernie.
The largest drawback of the debate format was not allowing the candidates, Jim Webb in particular, suffered from this, sufficient time to develop their ideas with more nuance. How can you elucidate a Syrian foreign policy in 1 minute? Candidates/performers accustomed to this format can sound bite their way to an credible response, but it really doesn't show the character of their thinking.
Of course it was better than the Republican debates, yet it was still more entertainment than true debating.
That said, Hillary was very good. But visible beneath the polish was a lot of soft pedaling. I like her and think she would make a fine president, but it also brought to light the criticisms of her: she's been around a long time and is a first class shifter, which isn't to say she doesn't have integrity. It's just that she's seen so many political battles, she's scarred.
Of course it was better than the Republican debates, yet it was still more entertainment than true debating.
That said, Hillary was very good. But visible beneath the polish was a lot of soft pedaling. I like her and think she would make a fine president, but it also brought to light the criticisms of her: she's been around a long time and is a first class shifter, which isn't to say she doesn't have integrity. It's just that she's seen so many political battles, she's scarred.
5
@audioseach - Jim Webb showed me that he's a sincere, but deeply troubled and not brilliant military mind. Not at all what I want in the White House. I think giving Webb more time just would have given him even more rope to hang himself with.
1
The media machine (NYtimes leading the way) has decided on Hillary-only, just as it did with Obama in 08. How about giving other voices a chance? Constant endorsement manipulates votes.
13
@C. Noring - Jersey City ----The Times allowed itself to be used by planters for the 'scoop' on 'Hilary's email private server.' They have given terra bite coverage to Benghazi non-stories and empty allegations. Their opinionators are half neo cons and Gail Collins hangs her shingle on a nail that says, ''I hate the Clintons.'' So I have to differ with your take.
If one believes that the main issues are (a) handful of billionaires/zillionaires running this country as they please (b) inequality and urgency to reverse this trend (and not through "rising tide lifts all boats" idea (c) businesses doing their social part without (d) infrastructure rebuilding then I wonder if Ms. Clinton is the person to take her there.
2
Probably the worst that can be said about the Democratic debate was that it was boring. (I will confess that, as a diehard Mets fan, I was far more interested in what was happening on TBS last night than what was happening on CNN.) But in comparison to the Republican circus we've been witnessing, that's probably the best thing that can be said about the debate too. The candidates, though a bit staid at times, all came across as respectful to each other and serious about policy issues.
And I've never been crazy about Hillary Clinton, but she really impressed me last night. She was deft, poised, confident, knowledgeable, and easily the most presidential of the five on that stage. If the Republicans see fit to nominate some buffoon like Trump or Carson, she will absolutely trounce them in the general election.
Wow, I think I just talked myself into voting for Hillary in the primary... over my pro-Bernie wife's protestations.
And I've never been crazy about Hillary Clinton, but she really impressed me last night. She was deft, poised, confident, knowledgeable, and easily the most presidential of the five on that stage. If the Republicans see fit to nominate some buffoon like Trump or Carson, she will absolutely trounce them in the general election.
Wow, I think I just talked myself into voting for Hillary in the primary... over my pro-Bernie wife's protestations.
3
I thought both Hillary and Sanders did quite well. I was particularly enamored with Sanders and his policy positions and convictions. Sanders is the true "straight talker" of all of the candidates, and I am glad this debate provided him with more of a national stage to speak to the general public. To use a trumpism, Bernie has "great energy". The fact that he is doing so well among active democrats gives me hope that we - as a country - will finally address the great elephant in the room of wealth inequality.
20
Clinton's message largely resounded with "Iam woman hear me roar." She is a clever debater and used up the time of other candidates. Anderson Cooper teed her up a softball on gun control which she hit as expected. I remember her statement on answering the phone at 3 in the morning from her 1st run for the presidency and now she has matched it with her going to New York and confronting Wall Street bankers. Her avoidance of a strong response to big money with her weak as water way short of glass-steal proposal only shows that her mastery of economics is steeped in Rubin and Greenspan crookedness. The reference to Bernie 's mastery of capitalism was a subtle attempt to call him red. She is a shill for big money.
8
Regardless what the "cheering press", Sanders and Clinton think....Benghazi and her emails will not go away. The American people have a right to know the facts about both. Benghazi...and the truth behind the deaths of 4 Americans, and her emails....which, one has to believe, have, in fact, been hacked by our enemies putting our nation and our people in danger. Clinton did win the debate., because she's seasoned and smart. But, she's also untrustworthy, has no governance experience, a minipulator and to me, not fit to be President of this country.
2
Bernie was a class act and Hillary outshined everyone. Webb was a cry baby. Way was Chaffee there? O'Malley is looking for a VP spot.
2
Well, after last night, Hillary is still Hillary. I feel the gun control advocates' pain, but mere control of guns needs to be a demonstrated solution. I'll join them around the campfire, but Hillary is going to have to lock horns with the rest of the nation where she can't pal around with her overly confident supporters. If they want to shove gun control righteously down the throats of people in the nation like Vermonters, we'll see how the general election goes.
I think we all know Hillary is going to be the nominee. The only thing she can hope for is that Republicans give her a gift in their selection of a presidential nominee, the way McCarthy did over Benghazi.
Hillary supporters are like other fanatic supporters; they can't see beyond the campfire. Out in the electoral woods, Bernie's policies are disliked, but it is Hillary herself who is reviled. She is still a lightning rod, and it is a question how the undecided voter will view her. Last night she presented nothing new to draw skeptics to her side.
And she did not really counter the problem that she has with changing her views on topics. So if she exclaims confidently to Sanders that she doesn't advocate troops in Syria, what is it in her past that gives any weight to her assertion? We might just as well find ourselves with troops in Syria in 2017 under a Hillary presidency. It's like Jeb's position.
Nevertheless, these five fine candidates made the Republican debates look like a carnival freak show.
I think we all know Hillary is going to be the nominee. The only thing she can hope for is that Republicans give her a gift in their selection of a presidential nominee, the way McCarthy did over Benghazi.
Hillary supporters are like other fanatic supporters; they can't see beyond the campfire. Out in the electoral woods, Bernie's policies are disliked, but it is Hillary herself who is reviled. She is still a lightning rod, and it is a question how the undecided voter will view her. Last night she presented nothing new to draw skeptics to her side.
And she did not really counter the problem that she has with changing her views on topics. So if she exclaims confidently to Sanders that she doesn't advocate troops in Syria, what is it in her past that gives any weight to her assertion? We might just as well find ourselves with troops in Syria in 2017 under a Hillary presidency. It's like Jeb's position.
Nevertheless, these five fine candidates made the Republican debates look like a carnival freak show.
5
The Times thinks that Mrs. Clinton won? What a shocker. Clinton showed herself to be a total opportunist rather than someone with a clear vision, which Sanders clearly has. The Times LOVES the Clinton rehab story so much - she was almost down for the count! but she came roaring back to life in the first debate! - it's not surprising the slant of this coverage.
When Clinton says, "we are not Denmark," what she MEANS is, "we run a for-profit, insurance-driven healthcare system, and I have the financial backers to show you as much." This is one issue in which she has heavily moneyed backers in her corner. Wall Street is another obvious one.
Please, ignore the horse-race version of this coverage and look at what's best for most of the people in the US.
When Clinton says, "we are not Denmark," what she MEANS is, "we run a for-profit, insurance-driven healthcare system, and I have the financial backers to show you as much." This is one issue in which she has heavily moneyed backers in her corner. Wall Street is another obvious one.
Please, ignore the horse-race version of this coverage and look at what's best for most of the people in the US.
16
Thank god for the DNC. If theres one thing that whites' can agree upon, it's that the biggest threat their entitlement, and civil society at large, it's that not enough arabs are dying indiscriminately.
1
I'm a conservative Democrat looking for a candidate to vote for, so I've watched all three of the debates that have taken place so far. There are a few standouts a few embarrassments and a few very-hard-to-take-for-long candidates still in the race.
Lincoln Chafee reminded me of an absentminded professor who got lost on his way to somewhere else, found himself on stage at the Wynn asking "How did I get here?" Jim Webb is a very bright guy, but has been out of it for too long -- policy prescriptions from 2007 might be still viable; at least he thinks they are. Bernie Sanders appears to be out-of-control, naive and way out on the fringe. I thought Hillary Clinton did a fine job -- was definitely in her element and Martin O'Malley was very, very good, and interesting; he's worth taking a closer look.
On the Republican side, I think it's a shame John Kasich can't gain any traction; Rubio sounds good, but lacks experience -- Obama's greatest shortcoming was his lack of experience, and I think it's a mistake we shouldn't repeat. The rest of the republicans are on the lunatic-fringe, or are so hard to listen to for more than a few minutes, I don't think I could stomach them for four years.
As for the debates, so far, so good.
Lincoln Chafee reminded me of an absentminded professor who got lost on his way to somewhere else, found himself on stage at the Wynn asking "How did I get here?" Jim Webb is a very bright guy, but has been out of it for too long -- policy prescriptions from 2007 might be still viable; at least he thinks they are. Bernie Sanders appears to be out-of-control, naive and way out on the fringe. I thought Hillary Clinton did a fine job -- was definitely in her element and Martin O'Malley was very, very good, and interesting; he's worth taking a closer look.
On the Republican side, I think it's a shame John Kasich can't gain any traction; Rubio sounds good, but lacks experience -- Obama's greatest shortcoming was his lack of experience, and I think it's a mistake we shouldn't repeat. The rest of the republicans are on the lunatic-fringe, or are so hard to listen to for more than a few minutes, I don't think I could stomach them for four years.
As for the debates, so far, so good.
2
I am very disappointed with this coverage of the debate last night. Your article is not objective and only contains pro Clinton "sound bites". These televised presidential debates unfortunately have become who performed the best rather than who will be the best leader for our country. What I did find interesting is that you do quote the CBS poll towards the end of the article which indicates that a large percentage of those polled do not trust Hillary.
10
Hillary is good in terms of rhetoric--which we all know, it's the same as fact.
The problem is that these are not real debates. Despite Cooper's donning of professorial-looking glasses, he really should not be running these "debates." If only we could have a real debate, not something akin to the AKC show, so that we could see what a candidate really knows, how he or she surpasses rivals in information and reasoning, then we might have the tools for picking the better candidate. We need an experienced debate moderator. Surely there must be a university around that might provide us one of these. These don-and-pony shows, sponsored by huge for-profit companies, just are not serving the electorate.
PS Anderson is very weak as a moderator. He let Hillary run on and on, and was unable to control the format except to tell Webb that he knew the rules when he signed on. Well so did Hillary but like an experienced debater, she tried every trick for as long as she got away with it, and Anderson didn't know how to cut her off. Please, CNN, if you're going to host these events, please as least give us a moderator who is not also trying to be one of the big boys.
The problem is that these are not real debates. Despite Cooper's donning of professorial-looking glasses, he really should not be running these "debates." If only we could have a real debate, not something akin to the AKC show, so that we could see what a candidate really knows, how he or she surpasses rivals in information and reasoning, then we might have the tools for picking the better candidate. We need an experienced debate moderator. Surely there must be a university around that might provide us one of these. These don-and-pony shows, sponsored by huge for-profit companies, just are not serving the electorate.
PS Anderson is very weak as a moderator. He let Hillary run on and on, and was unable to control the format except to tell Webb that he knew the rules when he signed on. Well so did Hillary but like an experienced debater, she tried every trick for as long as she got away with it, and Anderson didn't know how to cut her off. Please, CNN, if you're going to host these events, please as least give us a moderator who is not also trying to be one of the big boys.
1
The two of them shouldn't be running against one another, they should be working together in concert with one another so as to compliment each other. That's the insanity of these beauty contest presidential races that serve only to achieve crowning glory for one particular person at the expense of what's best for the whole country. Both these democratic and republican races and debates are a shameless examples of personal ego glorification and that's all most politicians and the public seem to care about. All this . . . . "I'm the best at this, I'm the best at that" makes me want to throw up listening to it. Everyone has to struggle in some way to get by in this world and therefore certainly can't be anything as abstractly illogical and indefinable as the "best", and political leaders only do themselves a disservice trying to pretend otherwise about themselves.
Amazing how much time "conscientious objector" Bernie Sanders is given in the debate as opposed to Jim Webb a true American who risked his life to defend such socialist ilk as Bernie. Shame on Anderson Cooper.
And shame on every Democratic candidate who support using taxpayer money to fund illegal aliens with additional Healthcare and educational benefits. As they say Charity Begins at Home. Why not use the money for Americans and not for foreigners who violated US immigration laws. And continue to violate laws (i.e. Identity crimes using faked/stolen Social Security #, driving without insurance). Such foreign economic parasites need to be deported asap, not encouraged as Democrats want to do in order to secure Latino votes.
And shame on every Democratic candidate who support using taxpayer money to fund illegal aliens with additional Healthcare and educational benefits. As they say Charity Begins at Home. Why not use the money for Americans and not for foreigners who violated US immigration laws. And continue to violate laws (i.e. Identity crimes using faked/stolen Social Security #, driving without insurance). Such foreign economic parasites need to be deported asap, not encouraged as Democrats want to do in order to secure Latino votes.
While none of them ever realistically ever had/have a chance of being elected President, there is a line of progressive candidates in my lifetime who have unfailingly exhibited basic traits of honesty, authenticity, decency, and humility that I greatly admire, down through the generations from the 1950s to today: Adlai Stevenson in the 1950s, Eugene McCarthy in the 1960s, Paul Tsongas in the 1980s, Morris Udall in the 1990s, and Bernard Sanders today. They never crafted a position based on polls, focus groups, or donors. They ran honorably and went down to defeat without apology for defending their views, which invariably ran/runs toward a concern for the less powerful and least heard among us. It's a tradition that hearkens back to Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Truman, and we may never again see an occupant of the Oval Office who possesses those qualities. Which is not to say we don't elect excellent Presidents who perform very well and serve our country ably (FDR, JFK, Reagan, Clinton), but who also bend when the prevailing winds blow, a characteristic that has something to do with their electoral successes.
Reagan an excellent prez? You lost me there. He invented voodoo economics, starting the massive transfer of wealth to the already wealthy, and "government is the problem." These two precepts have done more harm to this country than anything during my lifetime.
1
I really like Bernie Sanders, and I’m glad he’s running for President. I think it’s a good thing that he’s making his voice heard.
That said, he did little in the debate to allay my concern that, in a general election, undecided voters won’t naturally gravitate toward him.
It's difficult for the average NYT reader (including me) to imagine what goes on in the mind of an undecided voter. But what we’ve observed in the past is that undecided voters tend to gravitate toward the most personable candidate (compare Bernie, in this respect, to our last three Presidents: Obama, W. Bush, Clinton). Hillary may not be especially personable, but Bernie manages to be even less so.
Bernie can’t hide his indignation. Which is great. But is it too much to ask that present his indignation in a more dignified (dare I say “Presidential”) manner? Obama’s first debate performances against Hillary in 2007 may not have been stellar, but: he bore himself like a future U.S. President.
Bernie’s most ardent supporters may say that I’m focusing on the trivial. They won’t feel this way if Bernie loses the general to President Marco Rubio.
I still think VP Biden might be the strongest general election candidate of all. But I happen to agree with the pundits this time. Of the candidates on the stage last night, Hillary is the one I would trust to run against Rubio or Jeb. The next President might appoint three Supreme Court justices; it can't be Marco Rubio who appoints them.
That said, he did little in the debate to allay my concern that, in a general election, undecided voters won’t naturally gravitate toward him.
It's difficult for the average NYT reader (including me) to imagine what goes on in the mind of an undecided voter. But what we’ve observed in the past is that undecided voters tend to gravitate toward the most personable candidate (compare Bernie, in this respect, to our last three Presidents: Obama, W. Bush, Clinton). Hillary may not be especially personable, but Bernie manages to be even less so.
Bernie can’t hide his indignation. Which is great. But is it too much to ask that present his indignation in a more dignified (dare I say “Presidential”) manner? Obama’s first debate performances against Hillary in 2007 may not have been stellar, but: he bore himself like a future U.S. President.
Bernie’s most ardent supporters may say that I’m focusing on the trivial. They won’t feel this way if Bernie loses the general to President Marco Rubio.
I still think VP Biden might be the strongest general election candidate of all. But I happen to agree with the pundits this time. Of the candidates on the stage last night, Hillary is the one I would trust to run against Rubio or Jeb. The next President might appoint three Supreme Court justices; it can't be Marco Rubio who appoints them.
What a pathetic bunch of old white men and woman from the bluest of blue states. They've been in politics their entire lives, and what difference, at this point, have they really made? The only one who sounds any different from the rest is Bernie Sanders because in over 20 years of serving in Congress nobody paid any attention to him. The only things that may make this Democratic clown car look any good are the rants of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. And as bad as Trumps' hair looks, he has competition from Chafee and Sanders.
Of Course the Times is motor-mouthing its support for the view that "Hillary Won !!!!! What she won was the crown of mega-sleazy narcissist flip-flopper, willing to say anything to look good. You hammer on the gun issue with which she attacked Bernie, who was in fact, thoughtful and very very gracious toward her. Try focusing on the hit she took from 3 of the other 4 participants --- on her vote for the Iraq war, where Chaffee, O'Malley, and to a lesser extent, Bernie took her to task for having extremely poor judgment untenable in a chief executive. That's the key point --- she votes from a sense of expediency, not in the best interests of her 300 million citizens. A chameleon of the first order. Where does she sit on my voting list"? Fourth of five; only Jim Webb with his hyper-militaristic attitude gets lower grades. I easily prefer O'Malley and Chaffee before her. I was moved not a single nanometer away from my support (financial and otherwise) for Bernie Sanders
2
Bravo Vincenzo! And it is telling that yu have not Vinnified your name. President Trump would not be amused -neither shadow Clintonistas
It was clear to me that the issues that Bernie Sanders has represented from the beginning - particularly the issues of wealth disparity and corporate power - dominated the debate. Clinton is a smooth talker but she clearly represents corporate interests. This is a fact that can be gleaned by her record and by those who are funding her campaign (why no mention in this article?). This article seems superficial at best basing the 'winner' on who 'seems more likable'. Also why was there no mention of the environment which Sanders also repeatedly stressed as a fundamental issue at the center of his campaign? Nothing about education or student debt either. It was around these issues that I heard the loudest applause. The Times seems to be no better than any tabloid in this article...sadly pandering to the most mediocre emotional reaction. Meanwhile we are steadily ceding our future to destructive corporate power with no critical analysis from the Times.
1
So, the New York Times has sold itself to Queen Hillary. They must have been watching Cartoon Network at the time because the debate I saw clearly showed Queen Hillary as a plastic, unconvinced, and unconvincing stage prop. Only Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb showed any conviction about their views, with Bernie Sanders being the most consistent and adamant.
If the media is simply going to pander to Queen Hillary, then we're in for a real doosie. The Democrats can't field real candidates nor can the Republicans. All we get are either 'wanna-be' types (Hillary, Cruz, Huckabee, Trump), people with little or no experience (Rubio, Chaffee), people who can't appeal across the country (Christie), or people who try to be somewhat reasonable but the electorate is too partisan or too unthinking to understand (Sanders, Webb, Paul,
If the media is simply going to pander to Queen Hillary, then we're in for a real doosie. The Democrats can't field real candidates nor can the Republicans. All we get are either 'wanna-be' types (Hillary, Cruz, Huckabee, Trump), people with little or no experience (Rubio, Chaffee), people who can't appeal across the country (Christie), or people who try to be somewhat reasonable but the electorate is too partisan or too unthinking to understand (Sanders, Webb, Paul,
2
The debate loser: CNN.
For their cowardly light questioning of the Republicans, and for adopting a right wing talking point in getting a black kid to ask the question "black lives or all lives matters" as if they're mutually exclusive.
For their cowardly light questioning of the Republicans, and for adopting a right wing talking point in getting a black kid to ask the question "black lives or all lives matters" as if they're mutually exclusive.
1
Hillary sidestepped her vote for the Iraq War, the most important vote of her Senate career (which showed she put her career over her country) by changing the subject to her appointment as secretary of state. Lame.
Hillary said, I represented Wall Street as a senator from NY. that sounds like an admission of guilt to me. We don't need another president who represents Wall Street.
Cooper changed the subject for her when it was her turn to answer the question on our greatest security threat, so she never answered that question. (Sanders was spot on when he said our greatest threat is climate change (which is also the opinion of the U.S.military and the CIA, especially if you consider the effects of warning induced droughts like the ones in California, the Amazon, etc.).
Clinton lost.
Hillary said, I represented Wall Street as a senator from NY. that sounds like an admission of guilt to me. We don't need another president who represents Wall Street.
Cooper changed the subject for her when it was her turn to answer the question on our greatest security threat, so she never answered that question. (Sanders was spot on when he said our greatest threat is climate change (which is also the opinion of the U.S.military and the CIA, especially if you consider the effects of warning induced droughts like the ones in California, the Amazon, etc.).
Clinton lost.
2
The Republican debates are about whether a candidate can act like the proper alpha type, so they swagger and concentrate upon zinger sound bytes, while the Democrats are trying to convey the notion that they are on the side of the people, promoting policies which address their concerns and interests. The result is that the Republicans may say stupid things but they convey determination and a willingness to win at any cost, which does not require very much from the audience to achieve entertainment value.
One really must question the commentators and pundits in their assessment that Hilary Clinton was the clear winner of last night's debate. Hillary did a great job, I came away liking her better than I did going into the debate. But to declare her a decisive winner over Bernie Sanders just illustrates the sad state of the media today, even unfortunately the New York Times. Did not you media folks notice that Sanders was the only candidate that did not begin with the usual self-promoting assessment of all his accomplishments? In keeping with what he thinks is important for the country, he began by outlining the issues that plague us. He was honest, loaded with integrity and refused to play the political game of chiming in on the Hilary email attacks. Sanders' campaign and possible win will depend, as he stresses, on a revolution in our thinking about politics and politicians and the political system. His support will come from the people not the media pundits who time and time again have voiced their views that Hilary as already won the nomination. Ditto for the Democratic Party who has chosen to basically pretend Sanders does not exist. The media assessment of last night's debate is corporate media as usual.
2
If you consider that the debates give us the best of each party, contrast the performance last night with the children 'throwing spitballs' as someone else said, during the Republican debate, the country got a good picture of the stark differences between the two. I hope the rest of the country was watching.
I'll bet Jeb Bush is jealous right now. He wishes he had been on the same stage as Hillary, Bernie and Martin (+ the two others) talking real policy and issues of substance. Instead he has to listen to Trump and those other R blowhards in the Republican schoolyard debates.
1
There is no need to disassociate from voting in favour of USA fighting the Iraq war.
George Bush + Richard Cheney + Donald Rumsfeld decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam was the right thing to do. They should be honoured for doing that.
It is about removing a hated dictator who was murdering his own people en mass'e in a genocide. If Saddam was not removed, he would have created more conflict and attacks on USA from 2003 to 2015.
It is not about weapons of mass destruction.
Which by the way, "cannot find yet" does not mean they never existed.
Given the untrustworthiness of Iraq's politicians and army, they may have knowingly not revealed to US troops the locations of these things in the desert - up till today.
In this debate, 5 started and at the end, 3 were left alive. 2 are politically-dead after the debate viz. Webb and Chafee.
George Bush + Richard Cheney + Donald Rumsfeld decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam was the right thing to do. They should be honoured for doing that.
It is about removing a hated dictator who was murdering his own people en mass'e in a genocide. If Saddam was not removed, he would have created more conflict and attacks on USA from 2003 to 2015.
It is not about weapons of mass destruction.
Which by the way, "cannot find yet" does not mean they never existed.
Given the untrustworthiness of Iraq's politicians and army, they may have knowingly not revealed to US troops the locations of these things in the desert - up till today.
In this debate, 5 started and at the end, 3 were left alive. 2 are politically-dead after the debate viz. Webb and Chafee.
The pundits and Times editors may see this as a win for the plutocracy's chosen candidate, Ms. Clinton. Working Americans still understand clearly that there is only one candidate standing up for us-----Bernie Sanders.
15
Reading headlines and articles from news sources across the country, it is incredible to me how mainstream media is spinning this debate performance as a shut-out victory for Hilary Clinton. Were we even watching the same debate?
9
I watched Fox News after this debate of grown-ups and Fox was having kindergarten tantrums and a junior high school gossip-fest. I think they have finally jumped the shark for the adult audience in the room.
2
Why is the news media pushing so hard that Hillary "won" this debate? I watched it and thought Sanders was totally my favorite. It seems there is a bias by the media for Clinton to be the nominee no matter what the truth of it is.
7
So we are tired of hearing about her emails? No, not really. We are not tired of hearing how she violated the laws, lied incessantly about it, and put national security at risk. We are tired of hearing the ridiculous explanations from her defenders, many here, that it was allowed, or that they were retroactively classified. Classified information is born classified; retroactive marking of classified documents does not exonerate you, especially in the mishandling of data that you, as Secretary of State, are supposed to know are always classified: drone data, satellite data, communications from foreign governments unless already in the public sphere, and the identity of CIA assets.
3
There is a massive media spin on the results of this debate. All of the online polls show SANDERS absolutely crushing it. The last screen shot of the the poll up on CNN had SANDERS up 84% to 11% CLINTON. Now they have taken the poll down from their website. Other polls show similar results. So why are all the major corporate news outlets not reporting this? Bernie is challenge the power of Big Money and Corporate Media and apparently this revolution will not be televised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C_lcueFUE8#t=76
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C_lcueFUE8#t=76
5
Wow. Did we see the same debate?
I agree that HRC comported herself very well.
I completely disagree that Bernie looked "sheepish"-- what a dishonest description of a person who actually took a second to think about his answers. He spoke plainly and directly, did not try to make lame excuses for his prior votes.
And why are you ignoring the other 3 men who were up there?
The big take-home message for this voter was that I liked all 5 candidates ,some more than others , but certainly any of them is a ton better than anyone running on the Repub side. These 5 are intelligent grown ups and make me proud to be a registered Democrat.
I agree that HRC comported herself very well.
I completely disagree that Bernie looked "sheepish"-- what a dishonest description of a person who actually took a second to think about his answers. He spoke plainly and directly, did not try to make lame excuses for his prior votes.
And why are you ignoring the other 3 men who were up there?
The big take-home message for this voter was that I liked all 5 candidates ,some more than others , but certainly any of them is a ton better than anyone running on the Repub side. These 5 are intelligent grown ups and make me proud to be a registered Democrat.
5
Hillary is more polished and more comfortable on the debate platform....but that does not negate the importance of the issues nor either candidate's positions on them. Hillary has been on the national stage more than Bernie, and has cut her teeth on the presentation aspect. Bernie is a firebrand who has never wavered in his vision for the great population of Americans. He cuts to the chase and is not afraid to take on the Goliaths. While I do not 100% agree on his perspective on gun control, he gets top marks on all of his other policies which he has promoted in his long political career, and which truly has the best interests of ALL Americans at its core. In my mind, Hillary is a little to expedient in her oratory.
Great debate though, and really shows the public who the grownups in the room are. I am hopeful that the radical Right is losing its momentum as America sees what real candidates are like in comparison.
Great debate though, and really shows the public who the grownups in the room are. I am hopeful that the radical Right is losing its momentum as America sees what real candidates are like in comparison.
2
Wow, guess who's in the tank for Hillary! Why, the NYT, of course. It's corporateness at work.
3
One moment of disgust I had with Hillary, which makes me think she still doesn't get it-- was when pressed to account for her privilege she replied, "Bill and I worked hard." Please. That is an insult to millions of Americans who "worked hard," but didn't happen to have the luck or the position to morph from small town middle class to the Ivy League to access to the splendid little investment deals available to them.
Her inner-Goldwater Girl was showing.
Her inner-Goldwater Girl was showing.
2
Also, can't find anyone among comments who did shout-out to Anderson Cooper. After that dreadful first 30 minutes of intros, etc. he took the ball and ran with it, asking some of the all-around best, most thought-provoking questions of the candidates of any moderator that I have heard in ages.
2
@Blue Heron - I get the sense that Bruni - having been more critical of Clinton until this debate - has disappointed a large fanatical Bernie following who are now blistering Bruni's take and imagining this is all a conspiracy.
In China Hillary is known and many women have a special favor toward her because it is she who first spoke out on our behalf. My family was cheering for her performance last night. But, we also thought Mr. Saunders was excellent too. Why must there be so much bitterness when the feelings toward us from Trump or Rubio are really nasty and hostile to our rights and future? That should be the concentration and focus of our common position.
In China Hillary is known and many women have a special favor toward her because it is she who first spoke out on our behalf. My family was cheering for her performance last night. But, we also thought Mr. Saunders was excellent too. Why must there be so much bitterness when the feelings toward us from Trump or Rubio are really nasty and hostile to our rights and future? That should be the concentration and focus of our common position.
1
The debate--no pun intended--as to who "won" last night really takes a back seat to a much bigger story. The sheer civility of the candidates last night towards one another, and their desire to talk about issues in a cogent and articulate manner, marks in dramatically stark contrast the nonsensical depths to which the GOP debates sunk. If the voting population sees the two main political parties at opposite ends of the spectrum, then last night's debate lengthened that spectrum and makes the differences even more notable.
2
On a side note, the reality show theme music and lead up before the broadcast and during breaks, was just over the top and insulting to viewers with an IQ above 50 ... seriously, this may work for the Republican nut show, but please for gods sakes lets get a dose of reality here and tone it down. I think cable news networks are a big reason our populace is tone deaf and ill informed. That lead in, "who's going to make it to the White House!" as if it was the final episodes of the Bachelor, if I ran the network I'd pull a Donald and say "your FIred!" to the brains behind that nonsense.
12
I agree. Presidential primary and general election debates should be broadcast on network TV (preferably Public Broadcasting System with no commercials). I don't have cable and, even though CNN streamed the debate, this made it more difficult to access. Listening on radio isn't the same. Just the fact that Las Vegas was chosen as the venue says a lot about the tackiness of the producers. America needs to clean up every facet of its electoral process and then, perhaps, it can approach the debates with the gravitas they deserve.
2
So trump said there was no "star" last night - no there wasn't - only grown ups - unlike the republican kindergarten.
6
Beginning to lose trust in the NYT coverage of Bernie Sanders. I still remember what now seems your lack of courage and objectivity on the George W Bush rush to Iraqi war. That went well didn't it? Now we have a person of remarkable integrity and experience like Bernie Sanders in the midst of an increasingly dangerous insanity on the part of the extremist TPers and you get all "cautious" and skittish about helping the 99% if we inch back towards the 50s tax levels on the rich.
9
The current talk about electability is understandable but fear-based and unhelpful. Electability is what a democracy demands and the reality is that change will not happen until we move on from denial. We are not exceptional. We need evolved leadership through a paradigm shift not the subterfuge of special interests and bandaids. This can only come from the electorate not polished, scripted and passionless "political arsenal" of the status quo.
However scary and implausible it may seem, we can have a revolution now that educates our nation without crippling debt, that puts people to work rebuilding infrastructure, that sees the wisdom of supporting the health of all its citizens as well as the planet, and that re-imagines who we are in unity and embraces our interconnectedness. That would be exceptional.
However scary and implausible it may seem, we can have a revolution now that educates our nation without crippling debt, that puts people to work rebuilding infrastructure, that sees the wisdom of supporting the health of all its citizens as well as the planet, and that re-imagines who we are in unity and embraces our interconnectedness. That would be exceptional.
4
The Times treatment of Bernie Sanders has not changed since the day he announced his candidacy: giving him little chance, little space, and little credit.
11
The Democratic Party won big last night. And the country should be the better for it. Five sane people stood on a stage and could have done even better without a moderator. For they were civil and knowledgeable, showed compassion toward the populace as well as each other, and the two most able candidates are exactly the ones who are polling best.
All this is in stark contrast to GOP disarray, both on stage and off. GOP voters seem unable to select their top candidates on any basis except Psychopathology, where Illogic, delusional thinking, and frank incitement of bigotry & xenophobia rule the day. The GOP Congress is no better. GOP debates and congressional infighting have reduced their caucus to little more than a fraternity food fight or bar room brawl. Voters, elected officials and candidates have gone so far round the bend that the US would do well to empty most prisons immediately, so that they could be turned into mental hospitals for the GOP.
Let us all pray fervently that there will be a huge Dem turnout at the polls in 2016. And we can hope and prat as well that any sane republicans vote Dem as well.
Never in my lifetime have I seen so much mass insanity, calling itself a political party. Versus, thank God! for Democratic Sanity!
All this is in stark contrast to GOP disarray, both on stage and off. GOP voters seem unable to select their top candidates on any basis except Psychopathology, where Illogic, delusional thinking, and frank incitement of bigotry & xenophobia rule the day. The GOP Congress is no better. GOP debates and congressional infighting have reduced their caucus to little more than a fraternity food fight or bar room brawl. Voters, elected officials and candidates have gone so far round the bend that the US would do well to empty most prisons immediately, so that they could be turned into mental hospitals for the GOP.
Let us all pray fervently that there will be a huge Dem turnout at the polls in 2016. And we can hope and prat as well that any sane republicans vote Dem as well.
Never in my lifetime have I seen so much mass insanity, calling itself a political party. Versus, thank God! for Democratic Sanity!
5
Watching the Democratic debate last night, and contrast it with the last two bombastic GOP circuses, I could not help but scratch my head and Wonder: How in Heaven's name can the Republican Party identify itself as a viable alternative?
Rank and file Republicans should be downright embarrassed by the clown-like reality show their candidates have displayed twice. It was like comparing razzlin' with a boxing match, the New York Post to the New York Times, People magazine with The New Yorker.
Everyone loves a clown, we all love a good laugh now and then, but must this current obsession for constant stimulation by society also include the seriousness of electing someone to the most powerful office in the world? Please, Sweet Jesus, if that be so, then we are a lost generation.
DD
Manhattan
Rank and file Republicans should be downright embarrassed by the clown-like reality show their candidates have displayed twice. It was like comparing razzlin' with a boxing match, the New York Post to the New York Times, People magazine with The New Yorker.
Everyone loves a clown, we all love a good laugh now and then, but must this current obsession for constant stimulation by society also include the seriousness of electing someone to the most powerful office in the world? Please, Sweet Jesus, if that be so, then we are a lost generation.
DD
Manhattan
3
Bernie is darn right, we are all tired of hearing about her emails.
5
It was nice to see the actual issues debated by mature adults. For my 2 cents, I did not know much about Martin O'Malley and thought he did a fine job. I was especially impressed by his final remarks which pretty much summed up what I was thinking in my head. That being said, even the least qualified democratic candidate is light years ahead of any republican running for president.
4
The NY Times is beating the Hillary Clinton drum: in this article, in the live blog yesterday, and in other articles today.
But only Bernie Sanders passionately confronted the elephants in the room (metaphor intended) of income inequality, climate change, and money corrupting politics. He spoke with real conviction about the country's real problems and what must be done to solve them.
There is another mega-elephant in the room. We are doomed to repeat the last 8 years of legislative paralysis if Republicans control Congress. So please do all you can to help elect Democratic Senators and Representatives in your state, no matter who you support.
But only Bernie Sanders passionately confronted the elephants in the room (metaphor intended) of income inequality, climate change, and money corrupting politics. He spoke with real conviction about the country's real problems and what must be done to solve them.
There is another mega-elephant in the room. We are doomed to repeat the last 8 years of legislative paralysis if Republicans control Congress. So please do all you can to help elect Democratic Senators and Representatives in your state, no matter who you support.
3
I respect Bernie Sanders. I think he would be a fine President. When I was young and idealistic, I also thought that George McGovern, John Anderson, and Ralph Nader would make great Presidents, and I worked and voted for them. That got me Nixon and Reagan.
3
Senator Bernie Sanders did great; the only candidates that I consider to be our president.
1
oh the shrill Sanders supporters today. To even acknowledge Hillary could walk and chew gum at the same time brings on a deadly slew of verbal slings and arrows from team Sanders. Keep it up and you may get what you wish for, Sanders being nominated, just to find out that a socialist running for President in this country today could not beat a ham sandwich nominated by the Republicans. And any suggestion that Hillary will not kow tow to her Wall Street masters if elected is laughable.
1
Sanders showed up on a poll of republican candidates. His honesty, integrity, actual support for the troops, and laser like focus on the real problems. to all people who looking to make this country more perfect, not elect a lesser evil.
When names and labels are left out, a majority of republicans agree with his actual platform.
When names and labels are left out, a majority of republicans agree with his actual platform.
Take-a-ways from the debate:
1. Votes can be bought and paid for with government giveaways.
2. Honesty, integrity and values mean nothing.
3. Democrats want a big socialist government controlling their lives.
1. Votes can be bought and paid for with government giveaways.
2. Honesty, integrity and values mean nothing.
3. Democrats want a big socialist government controlling their lives.
1
Sanders wants the People to fight the global corporate revolution that is right now creating a global "state" that uses countries liked the U.S.for raw materials and a military.
The way the NYT continues to preference Hillary Clinton's candidacy over that of Bernie Sanders is not only revolting, but questionable reporting.
9
Political posturing as usual. Issues of leadership were glossed over by their recollections, not what direction the country needs to go. Not a clear victory for any of the candidates in my opinion.
1
Even if Sanders loses, his supporters should be proud that they managed to get a Socialist the opportunity to present his ideas on a national stage like this.
3
Sen. Sanders won't lose. That's what NYTimes and you just aren't getting.
Refreshing contrast to the Republican Dog and Pony show the country was recently treated to. Issues of substance and obvious importance to the welfare of the nation (and the world) were offered up by the Democrats. The normal sometimes rough and tumble of the Democratic tradition was in clear evidence Tuesday night, without the obsiquiousness to doctrine, or the coded racial slander the GOP has recently sunk to.
1
It seems to me the question of whether Sanders could win is irrelevant. Could he be a successful president? Obama was full of hope, but aside from managing to get the ACA through congress, a considerable accomplishment, his presidency has been pretty lackluster. Clinton had the ability to make things happen, and that's what our country most desperately needs.
I don't agree with your analysis of the debate. The writers of this article, and Frank Bruni in his opinion piece, emphasize the strength of Hillary and the weakness of Sanders, and the combative nature of their exchanges. All wrong. But Wall Street was insulted by Mr. Sanders, and I guess the NYT has to establish its priorities to focus on "dealing with Bernie".
This was an amicable debate with greatness shown almost across the board.
This was an amicable debate with greatness shown almost across the board.
2
From this debate, listeners learned that Webb whines a lot when he doesn't get recognized, and that he was injured in combat. It could be seen that Chaffey is a nice guy with a good record, but perhaps not electable as he lacks dynamism.
O'Malley was very interesting--he made good points, for example, bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act--and he's the youngest contender. He was refreshing to watch, but perhaps a little too deferent to Hillary.
Hillary was too glib. While referring to her "programs" to improve education, healthcare, social security, she hedged on every answer, committing to nothing except--wanting to include big business and big banking in improving the economy, and refusing Glass-Steagall. She insisted that Libya has improved now that Khadafi is dead--huh? She glided around difficult questions--very slickly. With her Super-Pac funding, her false warmth and evasive answers, she appeared like other old school politicians...and untrustworthy.
Bernie did very well. He answered every question, even the difficult ones. He openly advocated tax increases for the rich, and for Wall St. investment houses and banks, free university education (paid for by aforementioned taxes), and war fought by coalition--not just the U.S. He was the only one who acknowledged that the American voter had to help the U.S.--that the future was not just in the hands of the President or Congress.
He seemed credible, experienced, strong and had fresh ideas--and no Super-Pac.
O'Malley was very interesting--he made good points, for example, bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act--and he's the youngest contender. He was refreshing to watch, but perhaps a little too deferent to Hillary.
Hillary was too glib. While referring to her "programs" to improve education, healthcare, social security, she hedged on every answer, committing to nothing except--wanting to include big business and big banking in improving the economy, and refusing Glass-Steagall. She insisted that Libya has improved now that Khadafi is dead--huh? She glided around difficult questions--very slickly. With her Super-Pac funding, her false warmth and evasive answers, she appeared like other old school politicians...and untrustworthy.
Bernie did very well. He answered every question, even the difficult ones. He openly advocated tax increases for the rich, and for Wall St. investment houses and banks, free university education (paid for by aforementioned taxes), and war fought by coalition--not just the U.S. He was the only one who acknowledged that the American voter had to help the U.S.--that the future was not just in the hands of the President or Congress.
He seemed credible, experienced, strong and had fresh ideas--and no Super-Pac.
2
So, Sanders-O'Malley ticket? Sounds very interesting!
Bernie Sanders is the only one who forcefully talked about the real threats to the People of the United States.
But the NY Times, for all that it printed is still a protector of the status quo and dismiss all mention of their looting of this country to talk about emails and gun control.
But the NY Times, for all that it printed is still a protector of the status quo and dismiss all mention of their looting of this country to talk about emails and gun control.
2
When is the primary again, because I can't take much more of the NYT fawning over Clinton despite her lackluster performance and mealymouthed responses. Sanders gave honest, direct answers. O'Malley was the surprise breakout contender. Clinton dodged hard questions, as usual, while smugly referencing the fact that she's a woman, as if that's a qualification for president. If she is nominated, it will be because the editorial board of one of the only respected newspapers left has decided it should be so. Shame on the NYT for abusing their clout. Shame on all of us Democrats if buy the argument that "Bernie isn't electable" and ignore what we see and hear at the debates.
3
The least polished person on stage that night was Anderson Cooper. Droning on about Clinton's emails, asking each candidate for their comments about Clinton's emails. Ridiculous. When he seemed to goad Sanders about his use of the word 'revolution,' as if Sanders meant it literally, I almost threw something at the TV. His primary concern seemed to be to agitate the debaters instead of probing to get to the heart of important issues.
1
That is how the corporate media operates. It's function is to distract you from the global billionaires' hand in your pocket.
Amazing that the Democratic Party has devolved from the Kennedy era, when people embraced his admonition to "ask not what my country can do for me, but what can I do for my country..."
The primary candidate couldn't promise enough free stuff last night. Never once has Bernie ask for anything from Americans, other than their vote. Hillary is jumping through his hoops now. Her modest suggestion that a college education cannot be free, but people should be given the opportunity to work for it fell flat as a pancake when it should have been the applause line of the night. All she asked for was a ten hour a week commitment to work study in exchange for college tuition, but the applause came for Bernie's free tuition pie-in-the-sky promise.
The primary candidate couldn't promise enough free stuff last night. Never once has Bernie ask for anything from Americans, other than their vote. Hillary is jumping through his hoops now. Her modest suggestion that a college education cannot be free, but people should be given the opportunity to work for it fell flat as a pancake when it should have been the applause line of the night. All she asked for was a ten hour a week commitment to work study in exchange for college tuition, but the applause came for Bernie's free tuition pie-in-the-sky promise.
What the media doesn't seem to be focusing on about Hillary Clinton's debate performance is her responses to many questions about policy and how she would handle particular issues as President. She gave knowledgeable and detailed answers several levels above the bromides we hear from most of the other candidates and clearly grounded in a level of experience that none of the rest share to her degree. Forget the "authenticity" meme (and its veiled sexism); Mrs. Clinton showed herself to be clearly the best candidate for an office which requires a lot more than the ability to sell an image of oneself.
The Times seems mainly interested in declaring a winner, as if this was a boxing match.
But, it wasn't.
It was a chance to hear from candidates for the Democratic party nomination for the Presidency to present their vision and support there record.
I'm a supporter of Senator Sanders, and to me he stood out above the others. I think his presence in the "race" has greatly shaped it for the better.
However, the major message for me from this debate was that it is gratifying to hear a group speaking reasonably and sensibly about what's wrong with our nation and offering worthwhile proposal to reverse this.
The big problem, as Bernie emphasized is reversing the excessive role of special interests on our governance (corporate and fundamentalist ideologues) on our elections and government policies.
The repeated advertisements against so-called anchor babies, between debate segments was a hateful reminders of the harmful activities of these groups.
We do need to reclaim our government - and our society. As Bernie said, we the people, need to speak to each other and develop a common platform that we support as ordinary citizens to blow away the effects of Citizens (dis)United.
If we don't learn to hang together, as Benjamin Franklin said, we will hang separately. That is still true today.
But, it wasn't.
It was a chance to hear from candidates for the Democratic party nomination for the Presidency to present their vision and support there record.
I'm a supporter of Senator Sanders, and to me he stood out above the others. I think his presence in the "race" has greatly shaped it for the better.
However, the major message for me from this debate was that it is gratifying to hear a group speaking reasonably and sensibly about what's wrong with our nation and offering worthwhile proposal to reverse this.
The big problem, as Bernie emphasized is reversing the excessive role of special interests on our governance (corporate and fundamentalist ideologues) on our elections and government policies.
The repeated advertisements against so-called anchor babies, between debate segments was a hateful reminders of the harmful activities of these groups.
We do need to reclaim our government - and our society. As Bernie said, we the people, need to speak to each other and develop a common platform that we support as ordinary citizens to blow away the effects of Citizens (dis)United.
If we don't learn to hang together, as Benjamin Franklin said, we will hang separately. That is still true today.
3
Are you kidding me? Hillary Clinton questions Bernie Sanders past voting record and stands? Let's look at a few of her and "Slick Willie's" actions: In 1992 Bill and Hillary Clinton campaigned forcefully against NAFTA and the WTO while running for president. After he was elected suddenly "Billary" went presto, chango and supported and signed NAFTA and WTO against the overwhelming opposition of his own party! Millions of American jobs have been lost to these acts of perfidy. What about the repeal of Glass Stegall Act in 1999 that kept banking, insurance, and credit cards totally separate and allowed Wall Street to literally run wild, leading directly to the near financial meltdown of 2008. What about Hillary's votes for invading Iraq and Afghanistan? Now she says she was wrong. Two years ago she was supporting the infamous mis-named Trans Pacific Free Trade Pact but now says she is against it. I could go on and on but the Times has to limit the number of letters. Suffice it to say that Bill and Hillary Clinton are utterly corrupt, care nothing about anyone or anything but themselves, and have been the puppets of the special interests for decades going back to his governorship of Arkansas in the 1970s. It would be an outrage and a betrayal of long standing Democratic principles if Hillary were to get the Democratic Presidential nomination. She would be soundly defeated on her record and the issues by any GOP candidate except Bush. Democrats need to wake up and smell the coffee!
3
Sanders will have some explaining to do regarding his gun control stance, his 'rural states look at things differently' defense was rather feeble. Clinton did well, there was none of the grandma-in-chief posturing that characterized her campaign up until now (her 'we are not Denmark - I love Denmark' was rather Trumpesque). The caveat remains that moderate pressure from the moderators aside, it was a largely amicable setting. A more realistic test will come in how she faces open hostility in the upcoming Benghazi committee hearing. Fairly or not, the question remains how she will fare when facing a GOP opponent who will not play by the rules, interrupting her allotted time and maybe invading her space as Gore tried with Bush.
With a fake smile and reigning in her usual hostile demeanor, former Secretary Clinton was avoiding direct answers to each question and demonstrated a razor thin knowledge of each topic. With her only claim to her coronation being the first female, this is a complete charade with a cast of clowns given short airtime aside from the buffoon from Vermont. It appeared to be a game show and I was waiting for the gong to sound.
In 2008 I initially supported Hillary but then listened to Obama and was convinced that he was the better candidate. I've supported him ever since.
With last night's debate, I was prepared for the possibility of a similar shift -- from Hillary to Bernie. It didn't happen. Instead, I found Hillary to be thoughtful, knowledgeable, confident, and personal. She has come far in the past eight years. While I appreciate Bernie's ideals and passion, I don't think he has what it takes to lead a superpower.
People should stop and think about how Hillary is criticized for traits that a man would never be criticized for: "not warm enough"; "not authentic enough"; "too polished". I don't want a best friend in the White House. I want someone with the knowledge and political skill to advance a democratic agenda, even if it's not as progressive as I might wish.
With last night's debate, I was prepared for the possibility of a similar shift -- from Hillary to Bernie. It didn't happen. Instead, I found Hillary to be thoughtful, knowledgeable, confident, and personal. She has come far in the past eight years. While I appreciate Bernie's ideals and passion, I don't think he has what it takes to lead a superpower.
People should stop and think about how Hillary is criticized for traits that a man would never be criticized for: "not warm enough"; "not authentic enough"; "too polished". I don't want a best friend in the White House. I want someone with the knowledge and political skill to advance a democratic agenda, even if it's not as progressive as I might wish.
1
There are really only two candidates left after last night, Sanders and Clinton. Jim Webb's comment in insinuating that he killed the guy who threw the grenade was simply unnecessary and juvenile. I wish I could have asked if that guy was defending his country and why was Webb there? I'm a Viet nam vet btw but I admit mistakes and don't use them for pandering. I will say that compared to the republican debates, this one was refreshing and much more mature.
Hillary tries the old adage if you say anything with strong conviction it will be taken as truth. It was a grand performance but we need more than a performance, we need character and morality and ethics in a president. Her "what difference does it make" approach was full of half truths. Of course, the main issue was not fully address. Her history going all the way back to Arkansas of involvement in questionable deals like the Whitewater affair and commodity trading, her dismissal from the Watergate committee for unethical behavior, etc etc. The thread of character deficiencies runs up to and through her foundation contributions while secretary of state, Bill's overseas exorbitant speaking fees, Benghazi and the death of four Americans, her failure to secure classified documentation (like Petraeus who was actually charged), again, etc. etc. etc. It would be a step down for the country to have her as president. She would be another Obama, breaking the law, causing numerous court cases as she follows his path of violating the Constitution. The campaign would be bloody as there is so much to put in ads and so little time to cover it all.
1
It has got to be Clinton. More debates will hone her message, give her best media qualities--determination, strength, experience--time to spread in the form of impressions and sound bites. Poo-pooing the Republicans antics and attacks on her publically are also beneficial just to get the info out there. I prefer Saunders too but it is like the UK, no-one too left will ever be elected without some immediate crisis (and even then Nixon's conduct in the Vietnam War made no difference in 1972) or a massive culture shift towards Danish furniture. Saunders supporters will need at some point to get behind her. Like it or not she is Obama's natural successor and this cup is a little more than half full.
We must have been watching different events. The three TImes reporters saw a debate in which Clinton bested Sanders on every issue; that wasn't what I saw. None of the three reporters seemed to notice that, as always, Clinton asserted what the moment demanded--most hypocritical of all were her attacks on the 1%, her pretense of having been an effective Secretary of State, and her touting of an almost non-existent record in the Senate. Sanders has walked the walk for thirty years (you can look it up) while Clinton has gone where her ambition has led. But the Times has its own agenda--never question establishment values--and if you do, as Sanders does, you're relegated to the fringes, ignored, or, as in this article, simply misrepresented.
2
I think the title of this article is a little bit misleading. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both have their weak points, and both of them performed well last night. My other side of the story is that I don't think Hillary addressed well the issue of her inconsistency in front of different people, her Wall Street involvement, and her being the 1%. She kept bringing back the topic of letting every child live up to his/her god-given potential, and how herself came from a lower-middle class family. It seems to me that she's selling a dream to a more ambitious crowd, who believes that everyone can be successful if they work hard enough. The reality is that not everyone is naturally suitable to climb up the social ladder. Some need to work extra hard and force themselves to betray who they are in order to fit in the system. And not everyone is lucky enough in the real world to always go upwards. Bernie Sanders is surely more empathetic to a larger group who are not in a "dream mode", who witnessed the downward movement of American's middle class, and realized the real-life barriers to live up to their potentials.
5
The debate told me one thing; anyone of the people sharing that stage last night would be better for the American people than any of the people on the republican stage.
Clinton did look sharp, amiable and charismatic; and of those three attributes she is not really known for two of them. She would be a good president, maybe even great.
Sanders looked less practiced on the national stage but he is by far the most passionate about his message and his record, even on gun control.
O'Malley should rise in the polls as a result of his performance.
Webb should go home and Chaffee, I don't know.
The show biz glitz used by CNN was overblown, the questions were as often as not about what one candidate thought of the other, bogus.
Cooper was ok.
The NYT, though with these two articles on the front page seem more interested in the horse race instead of the details. I had hoped for more than just a dose of rah rah for Clinton.
Clinton did look sharp, amiable and charismatic; and of those three attributes she is not really known for two of them. She would be a good president, maybe even great.
Sanders looked less practiced on the national stage but he is by far the most passionate about his message and his record, even on gun control.
O'Malley should rise in the polls as a result of his performance.
Webb should go home and Chaffee, I don't know.
The show biz glitz used by CNN was overblown, the questions were as often as not about what one candidate thought of the other, bogus.
Cooper was ok.
The NYT, though with these two articles on the front page seem more interested in the horse race instead of the details. I had hoped for more than just a dose of rah rah for Clinton.
1
Like many other commenters, I wonder if the NYTIMES and I were watching the same debate. I've seen Hillary debate many times. This is the first time I have seen Mr. Sanders. He came across as passionate, informed, and most importantly, consistent. I was particularly impressed with his explanation to one of the CNN moderators as to why he had not supported a poorly conceived guest worker program. It was a phrased as a "gotcha" question. Sanders replied that he didn't vote for it because the Southern Poverty Law Center had called the program "close to slavery" in its lack of basic worker protections. He was nuanced and thoughtful.
At the end of the day do we really need another Clinton? Don't we have a viable alternative? Is she really ALREADY president? Should I just go back to bed and call it a day? C'mon people.
At the end of the day do we really need another Clinton? Don't we have a viable alternative? Is she really ALREADY president? Should I just go back to bed and call it a day? C'mon people.
3
For the Sanders supporters who are complaining about the Times' coverage of the debate and its seemingly pro-HRC prejudice, one "poll" to look at to get a sense of reality among the Dem/liberal share of the electorate, is to look at the "Readers' Picks" of comments. Most of the comments with the largest number of "Recommendeds" are in support of HRC.
I was impressed by O'Malley who I think would make an ideal VP candidate on a Clinton ticket...
1
This country is in serious trouble, and has been for a long time, with the problems continuing to get worse. We do NOT (now, nor in the past) have a REAL leader from any "Party" seeking to be the president of this country, and anyone who believes differently has never been around a REAL leader in their life. The SERIOUS problems, as always, are going to continue to be avoided, and get worse, unless the people of this country get SERIOUSLY involved and put an end to this farce we go through every four years. REAL leaders exist, find them yourselves, elect them, and support them. Serious change is needed in politics, get actively involved and you will make it happen. The power of the people is far more powerful than money - don't let yourselves be so easily fooled and manipulated by the greedy few.
2
There were lots of winners, including Anderson Cooper, Hillary and Bernie, the Democratic Party and the American people.
Hillary Clinton certainly was poised & polished, but the question was clearly presented to Democratic primary voters:
Do you want for your nominee an experienced, tough mainstream politician who will defend progressive achievements of the past and achieve incremental change, OR do you want an experienced, principled progressive populist who will use the bully pulpit to energize the American people behind revolutionary change?
While preferences may have been solidified, I suspect that there isn't a Democratic primary voter would wouldn't enthusiastically support either against any Republican nominee in the general election.
As for electability, political scientists understand that the true swing vote are those voters with preferences who may or may not be energized to go and actually vote on election day. So while Hillary may be more attractive to that vanishingly small percentage of reliable voters who don't have a real preference for one party over the other, the real issue is which of these 2 candidates will energize more unreliable voters to go to the polls (either to vote for or against them). I suspect Hillary would energize less voters than Bernie both positively and negatively, but the overall difference is uncertain at this point.
Hillary Clinton certainly was poised & polished, but the question was clearly presented to Democratic primary voters:
Do you want for your nominee an experienced, tough mainstream politician who will defend progressive achievements of the past and achieve incremental change, OR do you want an experienced, principled progressive populist who will use the bully pulpit to energize the American people behind revolutionary change?
While preferences may have been solidified, I suspect that there isn't a Democratic primary voter would wouldn't enthusiastically support either against any Republican nominee in the general election.
As for electability, political scientists understand that the true swing vote are those voters with preferences who may or may not be energized to go and actually vote on election day. So while Hillary may be more attractive to that vanishingly small percentage of reliable voters who don't have a real preference for one party over the other, the real issue is which of these 2 candidates will energize more unreliable voters to go to the polls (either to vote for or against them). I suspect Hillary would energize less voters than Bernie both positively and negatively, but the overall difference is uncertain at this point.
1
Hillary's every word showed her for what she is - a calculating politician with no center other than herself.
On the other hand, Bernie was Bernie - true to his positions as always.
While Hillary was clearly coached to the max, and looked more "polished" than Bernie (which she should, having been on so many national stages and in so many debates over the years), Bernie has the authenticity needed to turn our country around. He, unlike she, will be true to his word.
Here's hoping the American voter discerns the substance, not the style, this time.
On the other hand, Bernie was Bernie - true to his positions as always.
While Hillary was clearly coached to the max, and looked more "polished" than Bernie (which she should, having been on so many national stages and in so many debates over the years), Bernie has the authenticity needed to turn our country around. He, unlike she, will be true to his word.
Here's hoping the American voter discerns the substance, not the style, this time.
3
Hillary failed to make her case by attacking Bernie. Hillary's seamless flip-flopping to adopt Bernie's issues revealed her as a ruthless candidate who defended Wall Street with happy-talk about regulations while Bernie wants to break up the banks supporting Hillary's campaign.
Will Wall Street win or will Bernie win for the Middle Class?
Will Wall Street win or will Bernie win for the Middle Class?
2
Had the roles been reversed and Bernie had the email problem, Hillary Clinton would have gone in for the kill and dismantled him. That's why she's going to win the nomination and Bernie will not.
Sad but true.
Sad but true.
1
As befits the conventional, establishment, thinking of the NYT editorial Junta, this is a publicity piece for the Clinton Campaign, and a derision of Bernie Sanders.
4
I knew the only moment the media would run with was when Bernie said "damn emails." I knew you would ignore all the substance. And what does AP choose to fact-check without giving any facts? Ridiculous speculations about the 1% receiving 96% of the wealth and not 100%. The media fails in every way, every time. People magazine is outpacing the major papers. At least they came out for action on climate change.
3
That's because they are the "corporate" media, run by corporate types and manned by careerist journalists who don't want to risk their livelihoods by rocking the corporate boat too hard.
1
After last night, does anyone truly believe that Carly Fiorina could take on Hillary in a debate and win? I mean, really?
1
Fiorina would have the advantage of being completely unmoored to mere facts.
1
I don't know what debate the NYT was watching but this article seems to make believe Clinton looked best and "won" the debate. Bernie looked and sounded great, stood up to Hillary's attacks well and articulated his positions clearly. In my opinion he looked fantastic and definitely outshone Clinton. Maybe you should have called this an op-ed piece instead?
2
None of the candidates were interested in giving Clinton heat about "the emails." Bernie was right, "the American people are sick and tired of hearing about the damned emails!" Once again, it's clear that Democrats know what's important and what's nonsense. In other words, a whole lot smarter than any of the Republican doo-fusses.
2
Last night's debate continues to confirm my believe that I voted for the wrong candidate during the 2008 primary and that our nation would have been a lot better off with an experienced, pragmatic and iron-willed Hillary Clinton at the helm rather than any GOP loon or our "hope and change" neophyte in the White House who has pitiably floundered for most of his presidency.
Well folks, we can correct that mistake - vote for Hillary!
Because, idealism and fine words are fine, but doesn't get you to first base in Washington - just ask Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama.
Well folks, we can correct that mistake - vote for Hillary!
Because, idealism and fine words are fine, but doesn't get you to first base in Washington - just ask Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama.
1
Sanders is the only candidate with the courage to bring back Glass-Steagall.
#BRINGBACKGLASS-STEAGALL
#BRINGBACKGLASS-STEAGALL
5
Um, O'Malley said the same thing...
hillary questions bernie's values
how droll
how droll
2
Let's get some official polls on people's reactions to the debate. The NYT's pre-written article about how great Hillary is has a touch of bias, and hasn't referenced any polls yet. Why? Because every single poll online this AM is showing a resounding win for Sanders. Hillary has some polish to her, which she's been working on for at least a decade, but is just "more of the same" for the democrats. We've got a lot of problems facing this country and nothing she says seems to fight them.
6
To use a baseball analogy, I feel like O'Malley is the hot shot prospect in Double-A who just can't seem to put it all together. Here is guy who had good command last night, answered questions thoughtfully, and, frankly, looked the part. For some reason Americans view him as the third (or fourth if you count Biden) best choice and it's on him to figure it out and explain why he is the best choice for the party. But similar to can't miss prospects, it doesn't matter what the analysts say, you have to go out and prove it on the field.
1
For god's sake NYT. We know you support Hillary. Just as the right go after trump (FOX) to ensure the establishment while the 'left' go after the only chance for change for the better Bernie Sanders.
The Elite give money and the media know it's just their job to behave like spokesman for the wealthy oligarchs. WE NEED change. please at least go back to being a NEWSPAPER! And report on all candidates to allow Democracy to function!
The Elite give money and the media know it's just their job to behave like spokesman for the wealthy oligarchs. WE NEED change. please at least go back to being a NEWSPAPER! And report on all candidates to allow Democracy to function!
4
Clinton on national economics: "I went to Wall Street and told them to Cut It Out."
But don't worry, folks, she's a woman, and according to her, that alone is going to matter.
But don't worry, folks, she's a woman, and according to her, that alone is going to matter.
3
A sharp debate? Are you serious? It wasn't a debate at all, it was a love fest. I can't imagine why anyone bothered to shop up at all. Why not just say Hillary is the nominee and save everyone a lot of time money and effort?
yes, at least they were civil. But Clinton avoided accountability, denied her true identity as the democratic corporate sponsor, tried to pretend she is progressive, but is clearly a fence rider, she even showed her war mongering mentality. Her claim that "parts of nukes "? Or nuclear weapons are the biggest threat to USA made me wonder if I'm living in the same country as her. Clinton survived it by trying to divide the population using gun control, and the fact that she is a woman to distinguish herself. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders calmly stuck to issues that REALLY matter. Gun control is NOT an issue that should be defining our president, not with all the corruption and greed destroying this country. Nukes are not the biggest threat to USA, and wall Street will not stop trying to make an easy buck on the backs of American's working for near slave wages. Only Bernie Sanders said "climate change" is the biggest threat to the country. That should be profound to most educated Americans. He is right! The dying middle class and poverty wages are expected to pay for all the damage a storm can do? Pay attention America, there is only one real candidate on that stage with the guts to take on Wall Street! Begin clean energy policy that cuts deep into the oil industry bottom line. And lift the working class out of poverty. Bernie Sanders Needs to be noticed, researched, and elected to get this country back from the greedy , war mongering institutions of big money.
6
The moderators and other debaters should not have given Hillary a pass on the email situation. The federal gov't and the State Dept. have legit interest in secure communications. Hers wasn't. Her saying Snowden deserves to pay for mishandling gov't info is ironic. That said, her best defense on the issue, I think, is that many republicans, democrats, diplomats and her boss received email from her private account and never mentioned it during her tenure. Shame on them and her. We deserve better. We citizens also deserve secure communications - secure from sale, theft and the machinations of our IT providers and spies.
1
What pass? There's no evidence that classified info was compromised. If there is, and the media ignores it, you can whine then.
Hillary's performance in the debate was outstanding. Her responses were on point and thoughtful. She has executive presence and came across as a strong leader. Though he is my favorite, I thought Bernie stumbled a bit in the beginning, but picked up steam in the end. Clearly, two minute sound bites aren't his strength.
I am not comfortable with Hillary's stance on reining in the banks and her reluctance to re-instate Glass-Steagal. If she is the candidate in 2016, I hope Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, and others push her to get tough on the banks.
Overall, the diaglogue at the debate last night was far superior to the "food fight" we witnessed at the two GOP "debates".
I am not comfortable with Hillary's stance on reining in the banks and her reluctance to re-instate Glass-Steagal. If she is the candidate in 2016, I hope Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, and others push her to get tough on the banks.
Overall, the diaglogue at the debate last night was far superior to the "food fight" we witnessed at the two GOP "debates".
2
It is obvious having listened to the pundits and reading the columns, that no one in the corporate world (which included the media) wants to see Sanders get the nomination. It is equally obvious, that most Americans of all stripes knows who is pulling the political strings. "Congress doesn't regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress." This is a fact that not even the most polished or clever politician can dance around. Millions of lives have been dramatically affected in the last 35 years. Opportunity and hope has been ripped out from under us. The vast majority of people have seen their wages have stagnated while the real cost of living (not the preposterous government's confabulation) has skyrocketed. These are some of the real-life "issues" that people expect politicians to address. Clinton's approach is status quo - tweak the capitalistic system here and there but not take the drastic actions required to reign in the financial, medical, and energy sectors of the economy. That is what came out in this debate. Clinton's Denmark line was catchy but dodged the substance of the inequality issue. If Democrats go for Clinton, I promise you it will be business as usual in Washington.
Yes, the contrast between the Republican and Democratic candidates could not be more stark. But after 20 years of brainwashing by the conservative media, I'm positive not a single conservative would be able to discern reality from FAUX World.
Yes, the contrast between the Republican and Democratic candidates could not be more stark. But after 20 years of brainwashing by the conservative media, I'm positive not a single conservative would be able to discern reality from FAUX World.
8
I am not buying what the NYT is selling on Clinton v. Sanders, highlighting the exchange on gun control and her cheap shot on Denmark as high points. The truth is, Ms. Clinton was as evasive as ever on the specifics, where Bernie took bold positions for $15 an hour, legalization of marijuana in Nevada, and breaking up the big banks that Hillary wouldn't touch. Next time, let's see what Hillary says on the impending crucifixion of a 17 year old in Saudi Arabia. I suspect she'll be silent, while Bernie will condemn it.
4
I wonder if the Times can fact-check Secretary Clinton's statement that "my plan is a tough and comprehensive plan... it's the toughest plan".
Whose Wall Street plan is really tougher, Sen. Sanders's or Secretary Clinton's?
And why might that be? Maybe stick that up along with a graphic of their top 10 donors. One of the lists has JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Citi Group. The other, has unions and workers. Guess which is which.
Follow the money, and you'll always know the answer
Whose Wall Street plan is really tougher, Sen. Sanders's or Secretary Clinton's?
And why might that be? Maybe stick that up along with a graphic of their top 10 donors. One of the lists has JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Citi Group. The other, has unions and workers. Guess which is which.
Follow the money, and you'll always know the answer
5
Bernie was great! I think there is a lot of confusion about the meaning of the word "socialism" -- and he could have pointed out, better at first, or later in the exchange with Hillary, that Denmark is a free enterprise country with a strong sense that a society should be fair to its members and also provide a strong safety net for those who are less lucky than others.
5
Very glad you made this point Susan. I thought Anderson Cooper was unnecessarily reigning in responses. Half the time he was cutting people off midway in their answers. It was rude and distracting. Five people for 2 hours - you would have thought there would be enough time for all of them to get their views/positions out there for people to understand.
I agree. I love Bernie, but he has been terrible at explaining what socialism is, using examples of successful and popular socialist programs we already have in America. Our government fights wildfires and builds levees and flies planes into hurricanes to monitor storms, and holds VW responsible for cheating consumers. That's socialism and it works.
I guess the reason this newspaper disparages Bernie Sanders is that it is "the corporate media" who Bernie Sanders rails against. Too Bad! I enjoy my subscription for the broad worldly news the NYT offers...but I have come to realize that it is indeed slanted to the coverage of the news and articles it publishes. Yes, NYT, you are liberal, but still behaving like a republican! Offering your readers Your Candidate the positive coverage only, which I have concluded long ago...She has been bought and paid for like all other politicians!
4
Please tell me there is a Third Party debate scheduled. There has to be some alternative to the GOP clown car and last night's painful amateur hour.
Green Party
What a fabulous debate. I am so proud of these five great individuals. They all had a big, great moment or two.
Very good and surprisingly fair article by Michael Barbaro and Amy Chosik. Nice work guys, since there are hundreds of us breakfast bloggers ready to take your heads off. Now that I have finally met Bernie Sanders, I am very impressed. He would make an excellent Vice President for my candidate Hillary Clinton, if he were only from Texas or California or Georgia.
Regarding the excellent comments to the article, I do not agree that Hillary and Bernie were the only two viable contenders. I was deeply impressed by Lincoln Chaffee and Marty O'Mally. While over anxious, Jim Web had one stunning answer to what he would do differently in redirecting American Foreign Policy. It had four points, and showed his military intelligence. Unfortunately, he was the only one of the five to not mention Climate Change as a major challenge facing America, which has become a ltimas test of sorts for yours truly. He would be better than any of the Republicans we have met in their embarrassing debate. Both Chaffee and O'Malley want to stop making war in the middle east, and make war on green house gases to prevent climate change. Both should be invited to join the next presidents team of rivals, and both could do the job themselves. Lincoln Chaffee deserves to be proud of the fact that he got nis vote to not war with Iraq right.
Very good and surprisingly fair article by Michael Barbaro and Amy Chosik. Nice work guys, since there are hundreds of us breakfast bloggers ready to take your heads off. Now that I have finally met Bernie Sanders, I am very impressed. He would make an excellent Vice President for my candidate Hillary Clinton, if he were only from Texas or California or Georgia.
Regarding the excellent comments to the article, I do not agree that Hillary and Bernie were the only two viable contenders. I was deeply impressed by Lincoln Chaffee and Marty O'Mally. While over anxious, Jim Web had one stunning answer to what he would do differently in redirecting American Foreign Policy. It had four points, and showed his military intelligence. Unfortunately, he was the only one of the five to not mention Climate Change as a major challenge facing America, which has become a ltimas test of sorts for yours truly. He would be better than any of the Republicans we have met in their embarrassing debate. Both Chaffee and O'Malley want to stop making war in the middle east, and make war on green house gases to prevent climate change. Both should be invited to join the next presidents team of rivals, and both could do the job themselves. Lincoln Chaffee deserves to be proud of the fact that he got nis vote to not war with Iraq right.
1
Brief impressions:
1) The article here is too encumbered by the emotional. For example, use of such words as "turns heat up", "showdown", "stinging assessment", "sharp reply", "regained his footing", etc. My view is that the debate was gentlepersonly, courteous, and adult. Disagreement is not the same as "attack".
2) The general emphasis on policy stood in stark contrast to the Republican debates, now commonly and widely characterized as "food fights".
3) Clinton and Sanders stood out over the others. Clinton displayed the greater spectrum of knowledge; Sanders made his points while appearing utterly candid and upfront (apolitical).
4) It was a relief to hear discussion of issues, one largely devoid of PR and personal attack. It appears there will be at least one adult in the coming national election.
5) I'm hopeful that future debates will help draw clear distinctions between these candidates and those on the other side (e.g. foreign policy, health care, Social Security, Medicare, etc.).
1) The article here is too encumbered by the emotional. For example, use of such words as "turns heat up", "showdown", "stinging assessment", "sharp reply", "regained his footing", etc. My view is that the debate was gentlepersonly, courteous, and adult. Disagreement is not the same as "attack".
2) The general emphasis on policy stood in stark contrast to the Republican debates, now commonly and widely characterized as "food fights".
3) Clinton and Sanders stood out over the others. Clinton displayed the greater spectrum of knowledge; Sanders made his points while appearing utterly candid and upfront (apolitical).
4) It was a relief to hear discussion of issues, one largely devoid of PR and personal attack. It appears there will be at least one adult in the coming national election.
5) I'm hopeful that future debates will help draw clear distinctions between these candidates and those on the other side (e.g. foreign policy, health care, Social Security, Medicare, etc.).
2
Finally Hillary Clinton demonstrates the depth and breadth of her experience, knowledge, pragmatism, savvy, compassion, and strength that will make her a remarkable President! And people noticed! Now can we stop debating whether she is likable, a good girl, sweet enough, and all the rest of that sexist claptrap, and give her the opportunity to roll out all her proposals for all of our country's problems?!
3
Couldn't get CNN to work for me--kept freezing.
Why are the debates in the hands of private broadcasters? Why aren't they available to EVERYONE via public broadcasting? It seems that our national election has now become privatized (like the baseball playoffs!--nothing broadcast).
So much for "democracy".
:(
Why are the debates in the hands of private broadcasters? Why aren't they available to EVERYONE via public broadcasting? It seems that our national election has now become privatized (like the baseball playoffs!--nothing broadcast).
So much for "democracy".
:(
8
What I watched last night was a bunch of job seekers and their likely boss. Lots of compliments for Hillary, graciousness for her answers - all in the hope that if and when she wins, she will think of these guys for cabinet or other positions. This was not a theme in the Republican debate because there is no clear winner yet and the individuals are engaged in a good ol' American slugfest to get to the top - no toadying, no artificial niceness. And it must be said that Jake Tapper's questions were intended to stir up more animosity among the R candidates than Anderson Cooper's questions last night.
I thought the most interesting question was when Cooper asked if the candidates felt that black lives matter or all lives matter. Not a single Democrat had the guts to say that all lives matter. Rather obvious why many FOP groups support Republicans.
I thought the most interesting question was when Cooper asked if the candidates felt that black lives matter or all lives matter. Not a single Democrat had the guts to say that all lives matter. Rather obvious why many FOP groups support Republicans.
Insulting people and going after cheap gotchas is not a debate. Putting fourth different understandings of the problems and proposing different solutions is a debate.
I missed the last few minutes of the debate, so maybe it happened then, but I found it interesting (and somewhat baffling) that Bernie did not call out Hillary in regard to her Super PAC when discussing Wall Street reform.
To me, that's *the* key point of differentiation between Bernie and the other major candidates.
Maybe he's waiting until it gets closer to the election before going on the offensive, lest he force Hillary's Super PAC to unleash an anti-Bernie monsoon, but he needs to make sure the public knows he is the only candidate actually representing the people.
To me, that's *the* key point of differentiation between Bernie and the other major candidates.
Maybe he's waiting until it gets closer to the election before going on the offensive, lest he force Hillary's Super PAC to unleash an anti-Bernie monsoon, but he needs to make sure the public knows he is the only candidate actually representing the people.
7
This New York Times title is bogus, it is Bernie Sanders that took the day with logic, passion, accuracy and consistency. Is the New York Times owned by corporate interests? Is it afraid of the Social Democracy that we must become and once were? Show some integrity, please.
8
Depth of field. No question about that after last night.
2
"But it was thick with foreign and domestic policy concerns, rather than the personal insults and colorful exchanges that have characterized the Republican forums."
Maybe because there was no Trump?
Maybe because there was no Trump?
Hilary finally relaxed enough to appear in command but waffling positions and comfort without passion on fundamental issues left her wanting in my view. I could not disagree more with corporate NYT's Hillary love fest; the "winner" for substance was Bernie.
6
To Bernie supporters: I agree wholeheartedly with Sanders that inequality is a major issue that must be tackled head on.
I just agree with Clinton more on the solution. Hers is more nuanced and informed than Sanders'.
Taxing the rich to strengthen the social net structure makes sense only to a degree (It will not be hard for the richest to move their wealth elsewhere).
In parallel, the government must ensure just labor practices, invest in infrastructure, research and development, while promoting small businesses.
I just agree with Clinton more on the solution. Hers is more nuanced and informed than Sanders'.
Taxing the rich to strengthen the social net structure makes sense only to a degree (It will not be hard for the richest to move their wealth elsewhere).
In parallel, the government must ensure just labor practices, invest in infrastructure, research and development, while promoting small businesses.
This Time article is slanted to Hillary, sounds more like what you here on the cable so-called news shows. Both Hillary and Sanders had good a bad moments.
3
The Democrats agreed more than they disagreed, they did not dwell on personal attacks nor upon the fitness of each other to serve, and it ended up being a good discussion of what is likely to be the platform of the Party. It lacked the chest thumping and raspberries of the Republican debates, where the goal is to strut and to intimidate like barnyard alpha types. The effect was to show more respect for everyone, but without the blood on the floor it will not attract the constituencies who tuned into the Republican debates in such large numbers.
I'm not sure what debate this reporter was watching but, Bernie was the clear winner by a long shot!
4
Who would have thunk. A contrived, forced and thoroughly planned format and Clinton "has a great night"!
Put her in a real time moment and she'll fold like a bad poker hand. Seriously, its like watching a villain in comparison to Bernie Sanders. How anyone can stand this woman is beyond me, then again, based on the overall social atmosphere and mental health in this country, those afforded to the wealthy Democrats, it's really no surprise. Like I said, I vote for Sanders or the complete opposite and a solid Republican, but god, how I loathe Hillary Clinton.
Put her in a real time moment and she'll fold like a bad poker hand. Seriously, its like watching a villain in comparison to Bernie Sanders. How anyone can stand this woman is beyond me, then again, based on the overall social atmosphere and mental health in this country, those afforded to the wealthy Democrats, it's really no surprise. Like I said, I vote for Sanders or the complete opposite and a solid Republican, but god, how I loathe Hillary Clinton.
3
I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter and am thrilled by her performance last night, which could not have been faked, and is the compilation of a lifetime of hard work, of experience, of governing.
But I was also moved to tears by the beauty of Bernie Sanders' utter integrity, his almost inability to play up himself, to the point of his now famous e-mail remark, delivered in the classic style of someone who cares more about the greater good than himself. Very rare. He is not presidential, but he is an incredible human being, who has been - from what I understand - a remarkably fine senator. He gave Hilary a gift for the good of the country.
But I was also moved to tears by the beauty of Bernie Sanders' utter integrity, his almost inability to play up himself, to the point of his now famous e-mail remark, delivered in the classic style of someone who cares more about the greater good than himself. Very rare. He is not presidential, but he is an incredible human being, who has been - from what I understand - a remarkably fine senator. He gave Hilary a gift for the good of the country.
5
The only candidate on either side of the isle that will tell the billionaires to shove it when they match into his office and start giving orders is Bernie Sanders.
That makes him the only candidate who is presidential.
That makes him the only candidate who is presidential.
Bottom-line: It's not what you say, it's how you say it and how you look when you say it that matters most in televised debates. The Nixon/Kennedy debate of 1960 established that golden rule. Hillary's team correctly prepared for this debate around that golden rule. She projected confidence and command. She skillfully delivered canned one-liners naturally. Bernie's lack of preparation coupled with Hillary's practiced style and performance allowed her to escape accountability on a number issues especially the fact she was the only candidate on the stage that did not call for systematic change on how Wall Street and Banks conduct business. Advice to Bernie: As much as you hate it and feel it's below a person of substance, you better learn some basic acting skills, practice how to look in command, and practice how to effectively deliver canned one liners on the critical issues...especially those issues that set you apart from Hillary. If you don't, you most likely will not be our next president.
1
I thought Hillary liked nervous and defensive.
Hillary is backed by Super PACS-enough said-
4
The average donation for Sanders is $24. And he was only behind Hillary in fund raising by about 5%, even though she has unlimited super Pac donations from billionaires.
Let's get Elizabeth Warren into the race. No Democrat wants to debate her, no Republican wants to debate her, the notion she is too far left or liberal is nonsense. She would be a slam dunk winner.
1
Sanders and Warren. Then Warren.
I like the Bernie. Too bad he is out there in the stratosphere screaming about the wonders of socialism and a "political revolution!" It's amazing how the liberals are in denial of how far left they have shifted. As an abhorrent bloodthirsty evil regulated capitalistic conservative, I would go with HRC and Webb of the 5. Nice to see my MOM making a fool of himself.
The grass roots of the Tea Party knows we need a political revolution. Socialism just means that the economy is driven by social relations, and therefore you must make sure that the vast majority of people are able to take crass of themselves and their families.
We need a revolution, which Sanders describes as the mobilization of the poor and middle class to take back our government and the media from the global billionaires who are now treating the United States of America as a banana republic to plunder.
We need a revolution, which Sanders describes as the mobilization of the poor and middle class to take back our government and the media from the global billionaires who are now treating the United States of America as a banana republic to plunder.
"Hillary Clinton Turns Up Heat on Bernie Sanders" and " turning a showdown that had been expected to scrutinize her character into a forceful critique of his record"
That's not the debate that I saw. Outside of the gun control issue, Bernie presented himself very well to a much larger audience.
The NYTs exposes its bias once again. Absolutely horribly skewed writing.
That's not the debate that I saw. Outside of the gun control issue, Bernie presented himself very well to a much larger audience.
The NYTs exposes its bias once again. Absolutely horribly skewed writing.
5
Bernie on guns http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
Note Bernie did not vote on the Brady Bill He wasn’t n the Senate.
Vermont: Jeffords (R-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Nay
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
So the next time anyone says he voted against the Brady Bill
doesn't know what they are talking about.
Note Bernie did not vote on the Brady Bill He wasn’t n the Senate.
Vermont: Jeffords (R-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Nay
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
So the next time anyone says he voted against the Brady Bill
doesn't know what they are talking about.
3
Bernie is only in the race to add a little presentation to the campaign, like that green stuff they put on your plate in fancy restaurants.
Sanders was successful and Clinton was conniving. The Iraq war vote should be the ultimate test. Voting for war is always the easy decision. Voting against war is always difficult since it seems you are leaving the country "undefended". Clinton took the easy decision (with other mothers' children) and voted for war while Sanders stood by principle and voted against the worst foreign policy decision in American history. Need we say more.
5
Bernie Sanders won the debate with his opening statement. While the other candidates talked about their families and their resumes, Sanders talked about the middle class disappearing because our wealth has been transferred to the billionaires.(By the way, Clinton said that during the Great Recession $13 trillion "disappeared" from the U.S. economy, but it didn't disappear, it ended up in the offshore bank accounts of global billionaires, Clinton's donors.
The NY Times coverage jumps straight to gun control, but, mass shootings are a symptom not a cause of the crushing of the poor and middle class in this country, and Bernie' stance on the issue is the more popular stance in the country anyway.
The NY Times coverage jumps straight to gun control, but, mass shootings are a symptom not a cause of the crushing of the poor and middle class in this country, and Bernie' stance on the issue is the more popular stance in the country anyway.
5
Bernie Sanders is the persona of humanism both by his integral & ethical record of voting which aligns with his fundamental beliefs. This record is in sharp contrast to the flip flopping media darling Clinton dynamic. While Bernie Sanders refuses to accept campaign donations from wealthy benefactors representing pharmaceutical, fossil fuels, health care insurers, NRA, Wall St special interests, big banks, military contractors, etc., Hillary Clinton is more than happy to accept their huge bribes. Further, it was a low pandering dig to label Iran as one of Clinton's biggest enemies since she was responsible as Secretary of State for orchestrating the Iran nuclear deal along with P+5 countries. Further her pandering to popular opinion for TV viewers is remarkable considering she criticized Sanders for his foot dragging on gun control although is a known war hawk who not only advocated for committing troops into Syria but also was an advocate for the Iraq War & military intervention in Ukraine. Bernie Sanders was far too cordial in being defensive about his gun control position while refusing to counter punch her overly wreckless track record on military intervention, the environment, Wall St. speculation (deregulation of Glass Steagall) & coziness with the financial sector. She is the Democratic lite version of Republican financial policies much as she packages herself as a "progressive".
3
Clinton's values include using dishonest and misleading statements to reach her goal of more political power.
For her to question Sander's values is ironic.
For her to question Sander's values is ironic.
4
Bernie did not defend Clinton on emails if you carefully understand his point. All he was saying was the email server issue being investigated by FBI will play its course so let us not waste time talking about that. Instead talk about the issues that matter to 99%. But will the corporate media explain that? I don't think so. I see CNN and Clinton machinery in full force backed by superpacs extolling Clintons performance forgetting all her etch a sketch approaches to policies on trade deals, keystone etc. People should see through these attempts to buy elections by big money.
4
I didn't have the opportunity to watch the debate last night. Maybe I can pick up the replay. In the meantime, I don't know if I can trust or believe the assessments of the corporate media, since their "narratives" and "memes" were undoubtedly written before the debate began. Hillary is a great debater, Bernie Sanders lost, etc. It's a sad commentary on the state of our commentariat.
2
After watching the debate, I am even more for Sanders. The first question to Clinton hit the bull's eye: She will say anything and change into anything to get elected.
Of course Clinton showed the eloquence that comes with practice. Sanders is genuine and his position are what he believes in - which for the most part coincides with what I believe in.
If I have to choose between eloquence and honesty, I go with honesty all the time.
Of course Clinton showed the eloquence that comes with practice. Sanders is genuine and his position are what he believes in - which for the most part coincides with what I believe in.
If I have to choose between eloquence and honesty, I go with honesty all the time.
4
I did not read this article, but I saw the debate. Impressed by Bernie. Will take a closer look.
2
As a Hillary Clinton supporter I was proud to be a Democrat watching Bernie Sanders make his case and was even more impressed by his class in stepping up to the plate and blasting the Bang-a-Gassy Republican Defamation and Fake Inference False Leak Committee.
I too was disappointed when Hillary went with what seemed suspiciously 'neat but vague' evidence of nuclear or chemical weapons in Iraq. But, remember Judith Miller and the journalistic authority of the New York Times vetting it. It turned out that she was fooled by highly orchestrated fraud along with most of us. I believe she will be a tougher and more skeptical as a Commander in Chief for that experience, especially with the caution and principal of good people like Sanders on her left flank.
Webb, by contrast, seemed to have lost his map to the Fox chatroom. But, to his credit, he too stayed on the high road.
All told, it was the first such debate in a long time that didn't sound like one barking laugh line after another at the conclusion of which the urge to take a shower to wash away the slime would accompany incredulity only surmounted by Donald Trump's next tweet.
I tell you one thing this nation does not need. And that is a president whose Secret Service code name will be ''Tweety Bird''. Go Hillary! & Go Bernie! I am glad to have you both running on the Democratic side of the divide that one of you, Hillary I am betting, will have to bring back together for our nation to prosper.
I too was disappointed when Hillary went with what seemed suspiciously 'neat but vague' evidence of nuclear or chemical weapons in Iraq. But, remember Judith Miller and the journalistic authority of the New York Times vetting it. It turned out that she was fooled by highly orchestrated fraud along with most of us. I believe she will be a tougher and more skeptical as a Commander in Chief for that experience, especially with the caution and principal of good people like Sanders on her left flank.
Webb, by contrast, seemed to have lost his map to the Fox chatroom. But, to his credit, he too stayed on the high road.
All told, it was the first such debate in a long time that didn't sound like one barking laugh line after another at the conclusion of which the urge to take a shower to wash away the slime would accompany incredulity only surmounted by Donald Trump's next tweet.
I tell you one thing this nation does not need. And that is a president whose Secret Service code name will be ''Tweety Bird''. Go Hillary! & Go Bernie! I am glad to have you both running on the Democratic side of the divide that one of you, Hillary I am betting, will have to bring back together for our nation to prosper.
16
It's is a long, long road to next November. It's too early for the coronation. But she was so impressive last night (in stark contrast with the GOP candidates), we may well have seen the first woman president in the history of the United States on the Las Vegas stage.
Hillary vs. Donald in a debate would be the equivalent of Muhammad Ali fighting your uncle Bob. No contest.
Hillary vs. Donald in a debate would be the equivalent of Muhammad Ali fighting your uncle Bob. No contest.
1
From another article in the paper:
"Even Mrs. Clinton’s greatest vulnerability worked to her advantage."
No, Hillary's greatest vulnerability is *not* the e-mails.
It is the massive donations from big donors, and the fear that she will not fight hard enough against the wishes of her banker friends once elected.
And it is that fact, that could dampen enthusiasm, and lower Democratic turnout, for the very necessary congress wins that we will need for a Democratic president to help raise wages and build the economy - once elected.
"Even Mrs. Clinton’s greatest vulnerability worked to her advantage."
No, Hillary's greatest vulnerability is *not* the e-mails.
It is the massive donations from big donors, and the fear that she will not fight hard enough against the wishes of her banker friends once elected.
And it is that fact, that could dampen enthusiasm, and lower Democratic turnout, for the very necessary congress wins that we will need for a Democratic president to help raise wages and build the economy - once elected.
4
Frequently during the debate I wanted the candidates to refuse to take the bait. To reject the premise(s) of the question.
It is so annoying when moderators try to insert propaganda in to a question. So, please, Dems, stop and think whether you agree with the question itself. And refuse to be pushed around by a question whose premise itself should be ruled propaganda.
From the candidates the sanity was most welcome. Indeed for me that was what stood out. After the disorientation of two GOP debates, full of nonsense, this one was such a relief!
As a clinical psychologist I honestly think that it is risky for your mental health to watch GOP TV debates, full of deranged thinking and policies. Last night made this so clear!
Pundits, I fear for your sanity if you are obliged to subject yourself to GOP "thinking" - seek sanity at every turn! But for the rest of us, change that channel next time there's a GOP debate.
Sanity! Sanity! Sanity! That was my reaction last night.
It is so annoying when moderators try to insert propaganda in to a question. So, please, Dems, stop and think whether you agree with the question itself. And refuse to be pushed around by a question whose premise itself should be ruled propaganda.
From the candidates the sanity was most welcome. Indeed for me that was what stood out. After the disorientation of two GOP debates, full of nonsense, this one was such a relief!
As a clinical psychologist I honestly think that it is risky for your mental health to watch GOP TV debates, full of deranged thinking and policies. Last night made this so clear!
Pundits, I fear for your sanity if you are obliged to subject yourself to GOP "thinking" - seek sanity at every turn! But for the rest of us, change that channel next time there's a GOP debate.
Sanity! Sanity! Sanity! That was my reaction last night.
3
Seems commentators lose sight of the issue of Clinton in the White House is endorsing dynasty politics in place of an more open democratic process. This danger is only enhanced if Jeb ends up the Republican candidate. Do we really want to have to chose between a Bush and a Clinton in 2016, the two candidates who represents the biggest PACs we have ever had in US history?
Are we really going to nominate candidates that have the most billionaires behind them and expect a fresh challenge to the problems caused by the status quo?
Are we really going to nominate candidates that have the most billionaires behind them and expect a fresh challenge to the problems caused by the status quo?
2
A better headline for this article may have been: The NYT Endorses Hillary Clinton (If You Didn't Already Know That)
5
Hillary Clinton's knowledge and experience with foreign policy were on strong display last night.
That being said, I can't for the life of me imagine we would ever see the universal, single-payer healthcare most Americans want under a Clinton administration. Nor would we see a legitimate regulation and reigning in of Wall Street or income inequality. Just more wink and nod corporatist "Centrism" and edge-nibbling.
Clinton is very intelligent and definitely knows her stuff, but I am still feeling the Bern.
That being said, I can't for the life of me imagine we would ever see the universal, single-payer healthcare most Americans want under a Clinton administration. Nor would we see a legitimate regulation and reigning in of Wall Street or income inequality. Just more wink and nod corporatist "Centrism" and edge-nibbling.
Clinton is very intelligent and definitely knows her stuff, but I am still feeling the Bern.
4
Some candidates debate better than others. But it is important to remember that Senator Sanders and the other candidates are not being investigated by the FBI like Hillary Clinton is. Furthermore, they do not have polls indicating that they are not trust worthy. Recall Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, stealing furniture and other items from the White House and there is way too much baggage associated with Hillary Clinton. Her ridiculous reset button with Russia was embarrassing. The Middle East spiraled out of control and on and on.
5
Sanders lost my vote and respect when he said illegals will get health care.
This man has lost his mind.
This man has lost his mind.
1
if "illegals" don't have access to health insurance, we all pay for their health care. Sick or injured people get health care in this country -- they don't just die by the side of road regardless of what your ilk would like. The question is; do we allow them to have insurance so it is paid for or do we all pay when they can't? Your biases are a form of cutting off the nose to spite the face.
I preferred the rough honesty of Bernie Sanders to Hillary's Clinton's polished smoothness, and HE has not changed his positions.
4
As the article notes, there seems to be a consensus in the Democratic Party "that urgent action is needed to address the subject of income inequality." This ignores that the value of a person's services, can be highly subjective. For example, why do we pay some professional athletes such large amounts? Why is the CEO of a major NYSE company worth so much more than the owner of a dry cleaning store? There will probably never be good answers to many questions like these, but, at the end of the day, the concept is that services are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Whether the government has a role in that decision making process is debatable, and I am not sure that many of us would want that sort of interference in our daily lives.
If "income inequality" are code words for "redistribution of income," and many of us suspect that to be the case, we are dealing with a very different matter. Most of us understand the need to pay a reasonable portion of our income in taxes. However, most of us would strongly resent having our government tell us that we have too much and that we must give the excess to people of the government's choosing.
If "income inequality" are code words for "redistribution of income," and many of us suspect that to be the case, we are dealing with a very different matter. Most of us understand the need to pay a reasonable portion of our income in taxes. However, most of us would strongly resent having our government tell us that we have too much and that we must give the excess to people of the government's choosing.
I think it is pretty easy to answer some of those questions actually. The CEO of the major NYSE Company makes as much as he can rake in because of the company culture of overpaying their executives to the detriment of the average person working for the company. They control the purse strings and take an ever increasing amount of the coin within. This has nothing to do with any "value" they add to the company nor any objective "earning" standard.
Some companies, i.e. Wal-Mart for example, have a corporate policy that the public will help support employees through food stamps and other public services because of poor pay. I think it is pretty reasonable to expect a profitable company to pay its full time employees enough money to be able to support themselves without public subsidies. If Wal-Mart can't afford to be a responsible corporate citizen, let it die. Other corporations will step in.
Some companies, i.e. Wal-Mart for example, have a corporate policy that the public will help support employees through food stamps and other public services because of poor pay. I think it is pretty reasonable to expect a profitable company to pay its full time employees enough money to be able to support themselves without public subsidies. If Wal-Mart can't afford to be a responsible corporate citizen, let it die. Other corporations will step in.
Hilary's main opponents, and real threats to her candidacy, were not on stage. They were Joe Biden and Bad Hillary. Joe Biden may run and undermine Clinton's lead - Sanders has peaked, because there are only so many one-issue progressives (go ahead and post, Sanders protesters; he's still going to lose). However, Bad Hillary, created by the right-wing media (and some of the progressive media, hello MSNBC) was Hillary's worst threat.
Bad Hillary was defeated last evening by Real Hillary, and the victory of the real Hillary will cause Biden to have second thoughts about entering the race. I like Biden, but he has broken 10% when running for President. Clearly, however, "authenticity" is key issue this season: hence the Bernie Sanders phenomenon and calls for Biden to run.
Clinton was articulare, funny, and real. The bathroom comment was a bit lame -- TMI -- but on the whole she did a great job of defeating Bad Hillary. She handled the difficult questions well; she could easily have said, re the Pacific Treaty, 'What do you want? I was Secretary of State; I couldn't depart from the administration's position," but that answer, the true one, would have fed the story that she takes expedient positions. In other words, she couldn't admit that she is what all of them are -- a politician. So that was a Catch-22, and I think she made the right choice.
HRC - winner. Bad Hillary - defeated. Biden - discouraged from running. Not a bad outcome for the Clinton campaign.
Bad Hillary was defeated last evening by Real Hillary, and the victory of the real Hillary will cause Biden to have second thoughts about entering the race. I like Biden, but he has broken 10% when running for President. Clearly, however, "authenticity" is key issue this season: hence the Bernie Sanders phenomenon and calls for Biden to run.
Clinton was articulare, funny, and real. The bathroom comment was a bit lame -- TMI -- but on the whole she did a great job of defeating Bad Hillary. She handled the difficult questions well; she could easily have said, re the Pacific Treaty, 'What do you want? I was Secretary of State; I couldn't depart from the administration's position," but that answer, the true one, would have fed the story that she takes expedient positions. In other words, she couldn't admit that she is what all of them are -- a politician. So that was a Catch-22, and I think she made the right choice.
HRC - winner. Bad Hillary - defeated. Biden - discouraged from running. Not a bad outcome for the Clinton campaign.
I have been betting for sometime that Hillary Clinton will be our next president. Now I find myself actually favoring her at least to the other democrats.
I'll give her points for style. She didn't flub her words. She radiated confidence and appeared presidential. Her comments about opportunity tell me she is at least in touch with the democratic capitalism upon which our Country is founded and provided a refreshing contrast to the Robbin Hood economics of the other contenders.
My only contention with her performance last night was her cheap use of the gender card. Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, and Michelle Bachman never suggested anyone vote for them because they are female. Herman Cane, Ben Carson, and Barrack Obama never suggested anyone vote for them because they are black. Other than that, Hillary Clinton had a great night.
I'll give her points for style. She didn't flub her words. She radiated confidence and appeared presidential. Her comments about opportunity tell me she is at least in touch with the democratic capitalism upon which our Country is founded and provided a refreshing contrast to the Robbin Hood economics of the other contenders.
My only contention with her performance last night was her cheap use of the gender card. Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, and Michelle Bachman never suggested anyone vote for them because they are female. Herman Cane, Ben Carson, and Barrack Obama never suggested anyone vote for them because they are black. Other than that, Hillary Clinton had a great night.
2
On this "Morning After", which side, do we think, is enjoying their coffee more?
I don't think I was watching the same debate. I thought it was very civilized and each candidate was able to make their positions clearly known without insult, despite the badgering by the moderator. Too bad CNN wasn't as direct or as confrontational in the moderation of the Republican debate. I guess they were afraid of Donald Trump and the others, or maybe of just being attacked or shot by one of their followers.
So far, the debates have been broadcast on stations that people have to pay for to see, so naturally, a lot of people couldn't see it if they had a mere antenna. That, right off the bat, tells us something of the state of the country.
Hillary Clinton is a warmonger, favoring Israel's might makes right over any reasonable behavior in the Middle East. She voted with Bush to drag us into two horrible - and undeclared - failures in war, and pushed for American involvement in Syria. She is a Wall Street darling and a flip flopper on any issue that may impede her progress to the White House should she be espousing the wrong side. She is short on ethics, short on good judgment, and long on trumped up accolades. She did virtually nothing of note as Secretary of State. And last night, she got away with treating her competition with disdain by virtue of a kind of reverse sexism. She was allowed to aggressively to attack; that was socially acceptable. But the men felt compelled to behave like gentlemen lest they look like they were verbally socking her, which frankly, they could have.
Clinton would be the worst thing that could happen to this country short of a purebred Republican because she's a crossbreed. Looks like a Democrat, but has all the unfortunate behavioral traits of a real Republican: including the use of the American public as fodder for global power. Bernie Sanders is a decent man and deserves the presidency. We desperately need him.
Hillary Clinton is a warmonger, favoring Israel's might makes right over any reasonable behavior in the Middle East. She voted with Bush to drag us into two horrible - and undeclared - failures in war, and pushed for American involvement in Syria. She is a Wall Street darling and a flip flopper on any issue that may impede her progress to the White House should she be espousing the wrong side. She is short on ethics, short on good judgment, and long on trumped up accolades. She did virtually nothing of note as Secretary of State. And last night, she got away with treating her competition with disdain by virtue of a kind of reverse sexism. She was allowed to aggressively to attack; that was socially acceptable. But the men felt compelled to behave like gentlemen lest they look like they were verbally socking her, which frankly, they could have.
Clinton would be the worst thing that could happen to this country short of a purebred Republican because she's a crossbreed. Looks like a Democrat, but has all the unfortunate behavioral traits of a real Republican: including the use of the American public as fodder for global power. Bernie Sanders is a decent man and deserves the presidency. We desperately need him.
2
The tone of this article - who won, who lost - misses the main point, which is the difference between the Democratic candidates and the Republican Presidential contenders. The Democrats all had positive messages: even if their proposals - free university tuition, etc. - might be pie-in-the sky, they proposed things which are attractive. The Republican debates are hatefests against Mexicans, insults to women, strings of putdowns candidate-against-candidate - many viewers must find these Republican hatefests repulsive and disgusting.
The Democrats have triumphed in presenting a positive messaqge.
The Democrats have triumphed in presenting a positive messaqge.
Hillary Clinton did well. It was clear she has a better grasp and knowledge of nearly all the issues. Bernie and her make a good team. He should be her VP.
If Clinton's biggest vulnerability in 2016 is her authenticity & whether she cares about the problems of ordinary people, the question to the voters may be only if she is more authentic than her opponent, and will she care for the "ordinary people" (households < $150,000/year) more than her opponent. Not voting is not an option. People who do not vote have no right to complain about the political processes and direction of the USA, and have not fulfilled heir obligation as members of a participatory democracy
It was like watching the big leagues after having to watch inept bush leaguers!
Reality check im not convinced democrat party represent democratic ideals of usa it once did . Last great democrat president was jimmy carter who truly represented working people an still to this day working with habit for humanity. I cant say either present canidates can say same for working people
From this lead article I assume the Times took to heart the Clinton criticism of the Times coverage of her and her husband ---- I watched the same debate, and came to a very different conclusion --- Clinton was a simmering boil, while Sanders was who he is, honest, straightforward, and consistent. Not that I thought Hillary did poorly, she didn't, but Sanders was hardly the loser on the other end of the exchanges.
5
The most sobering moment in last night's debate came to me when I realized how many of my fellow citizens actually take Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina seriously.
7
Clearly Mrs. Clinton doesn't understand the difference between Investment Banks and Retail Consumer banks. The vapor policy she tauted was just gibberish. At best it was tie between her and Bernie Sanders. The whole affair was pretty much a love-fest.
3
Looks like Bernie sanders clearly won the debate based on all the polls I have seen. Why isn't that the story? Does who won only apply to GOP debates that is unless Hillary who lost wins? After the GOP debates all the news outlets reported on who won based on polls.
9
The only people watching must have been progressives, then. Independents were probably watching the Mets game, which isn't a bad thing because they would have been frightened off by Sanders' proposals.
To which polls do you refer? The only one I've seen presented was the Facebook poll.
'turns up the heat' & 'clash' are applicable to the Republican debate and not to the Democratic one.
The debate yesterday seemed to be a rehearsed affair: no sharp jabs jut pretend to debate!
The debate yesterday seemed to be a rehearsed affair: no sharp jabs jut pretend to debate!
Hillary was calm, competent and presidential. For me, her highpoint was her smiling "No" when asked if she wanted to respond to a Lincoln Chaffee attack.
I love Bernie. But IMHO, he doesn't stand a chance with an Electoral College that has states like Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. He declared his socialism, he spoke of a revolutionary getting together, and his record on the Brady Bill is a barrier. Yet he had the honesty to say that the only way to get real change was to pressure Congressional Republicans--or throw them out. Contrast that with Trump's carnie-barker assertion that he'll do this, that ,and the other, without reference to Congress, other than the sly "I'll do great deals."
This debate confounded me. It really was a debate, not a petty food-fight. Cooper deserves kudos.
I love Bernie. But IMHO, he doesn't stand a chance with an Electoral College that has states like Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. He declared his socialism, he spoke of a revolutionary getting together, and his record on the Brady Bill is a barrier. Yet he had the honesty to say that the only way to get real change was to pressure Congressional Republicans--or throw them out. Contrast that with Trump's carnie-barker assertion that he'll do this, that ,and the other, without reference to Congress, other than the sly "I'll do great deals."
This debate confounded me. It really was a debate, not a petty food-fight. Cooper deserves kudos.
If that is what Democrats call a "debate," then cancel the rest of them before they find other "freebees" (this time for illegals) with which to further bankrupt the nation.
We've lost 5% of our American middle class while racking up another 10 TRILLION in debt just under Obama's watch.
We've lost 5% of our American middle class while racking up another 10 TRILLION in debt just under Obama's watch.
1
It was interesting to me how Hillary tried to make the difference between herself and Bernie about HIS voting record. Hillary came off to me as a well produced product using all the technical knowledge and expertise around and ultimately just to good to be true. The media is giving her high marks for her "performance." Bernie was gracious, thoughtful, and honest. That is his stock and trade. Hillary has to make it up as she goes along. That is her strong suit. Small wonders she has the "authenticity" question dogging her around.
3
NYT thinks Hillarys response to Bernies about healthcare was a great response. NYT is pits here. Reps make the same arguments everyday that US is a great nation and that justifies any policy however crazy it might be - whether about health care or torture. This and the fact that Dems are still married to the moneyed interest - look at all the lavish settings for the debate -why not just vote for Reps
?
?
3
I was so proud of the substance shown by all the candidates on the stage. I hope people across the globe watch some or part of the debate on CNN International -hopefully last night's debate will erase some of the bombast, bigotry and mendacity the Republicans displayed at their two debates.
1
I am one of the "independent" voters that both parties need to woo if they expect to win the general election. Bernie Sanders clearly won this initial democratic debate with his strong performance. While Hillary appeared less "cold and calculating" than in her interviews and speeches...many of her responses came across as "scripted" and lacking in authenticity
9
Hilary reminds me of Tracy Flick (Election), who will do or say anything to get elected. She's all about politics, not vision. Her optics last night were better than Sanders and I hope he improves them in the coming debates.
3
Hillary? No matter what you say or do, you will never change my mind. Bernie Sanders is the only one that will receive my vote. Period.
9
And of course the NYT Picks are a series of partisan praise or attacks, all coming from the left.
No non-liberal voices allowed at the NYT. Ever.
No non-liberal voices allowed at the NYT. Ever.
What debate? This was a see who could spend the most, tax the most and grow the government crowd. There was no debate at all and the entire group looked weak and ridiculous. The NYT is in the tank for the DNC.
It's interesting how much more substantial the questions were last night vs the Repub debates a few weeks ago. It's hard to look presidential with such foolish questions asked.. What female should be on the $10? CNN should be embarrassed. Clinton News Network, indeed.
Michael and Amy must have watched a different debate. Yes, Hillary smiled and tried to look authentic, but she didn't convince this geezer a whit she REALLY understands middle-class issues and problems (beyond what's focus grouped and poll tested). Nor did she come across as trustworthy. Her debate performance was practiced and polished, but I find it difficult to believe that two veteran NYT reporters and their editors completely failed to see through the obvious -- it was a PERFORMANCE honed and perfected through practice to make sure she stayed on message. By contrast, Sanders with his rumpled appearance and raw emotions came across as authentic and credible.
Hillary tried really hard to claim during the night she is in tune with the concerns of real American and that Republicans have no solutions, but it's a hard sell to the average struggling American family. As a candidate, she has raised boatloads of money from Super PACS, gone to bed with Wall Street financiers until focus groups showed it'd be politically expedient to "divorce" them and position herself as a populist, tainted by so many ethical lapses (Rosewater, Travelgate, commodity futures trades), and is secretive and paranoid -- private e-mail server to conduct the country's business as the nation's top diplomat.
It was indeed gracious of Sanders -- and Clinton eagerly grabbed the lifebelt -- to defend her on the e-mails. If the scenario was reversed, Hillary would've in a heartbeat slashed Sanders' jugular.
Hillary tried really hard to claim during the night she is in tune with the concerns of real American and that Republicans have no solutions, but it's a hard sell to the average struggling American family. As a candidate, she has raised boatloads of money from Super PACS, gone to bed with Wall Street financiers until focus groups showed it'd be politically expedient to "divorce" them and position herself as a populist, tainted by so many ethical lapses (Rosewater, Travelgate, commodity futures trades), and is secretive and paranoid -- private e-mail server to conduct the country's business as the nation's top diplomat.
It was indeed gracious of Sanders -- and Clinton eagerly grabbed the lifebelt -- to defend her on the e-mails. If the scenario was reversed, Hillary would've in a heartbeat slashed Sanders' jugular.
7
Sad to say, it appears the NY Times has been bought and sold by the Clinton machine and its big money connections. Anderson Cooper was an embarrassment. Hillary was slick. Bernie was heroic. If she "turned up the heat", he was on fire.
5
Who is afraid of Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders? Have you ever met either one, in a manner of speaking? Both these Democrats are recognizable to this American's eye and mind, and I could learn from both of them, which I am trying now.
Mr. Sanders brings recollections of a late uncle, the patriarch of an American family, a highly moral humanitarian, with an astute vision of the present entrenched in reality, the first we would call on when an alarm bell went off overseas, or here our Country of birth.
When Ross Perot announced that he was interested in running for the Presidency, Edmund for the first time, wavered from being on the Democratic ticket and started asking questions. A highlight in his political life was attending the inauguration of F.D.R. He would have been distressed and not amused by the corrosion of the Republican Party, he would have reacted vehemently, and writing to Congress about this State of Affairs.
Now. I am going to stand strong for Mrs. Clinton. Enough already with the email fiasco, preventing her from getting to the heart of this Nation. She has style, a rare commodity these days, and endurance. Measured, seasoned and tried, with plenty of character and tough as they make them, I will place my faith in her knowledge of Wall Street, the direction our Country is taking, National Security, her sensibility and fervor to continue to restore the United States and its People, the future of our Children, a goal and Vision United.
Mr. Sanders brings recollections of a late uncle, the patriarch of an American family, a highly moral humanitarian, with an astute vision of the present entrenched in reality, the first we would call on when an alarm bell went off overseas, or here our Country of birth.
When Ross Perot announced that he was interested in running for the Presidency, Edmund for the first time, wavered from being on the Democratic ticket and started asking questions. A highlight in his political life was attending the inauguration of F.D.R. He would have been distressed and not amused by the corrosion of the Republican Party, he would have reacted vehemently, and writing to Congress about this State of Affairs.
Now. I am going to stand strong for Mrs. Clinton. Enough already with the email fiasco, preventing her from getting to the heart of this Nation. She has style, a rare commodity these days, and endurance. Measured, seasoned and tried, with plenty of character and tough as they make them, I will place my faith in her knowledge of Wall Street, the direction our Country is taking, National Security, her sensibility and fervor to continue to restore the United States and its People, the future of our Children, a goal and Vision United.
Once again a bunch of softball questions thrown to a bunch of candidates who will say anything to get elected. I'm amazed that anyone actually watches this kabuki that passes for campaigning. How anyone could actually support these people with no workable ideas and little grasp of what's really going on in the USA or what needs to be done is beyond me. Where are the specific policies that these people stand for and what would they mean to out society if enacted? We'll never know if we let people like Cooper ask the questions --- nice looking man though.
Rgrds-Ross
Rgrds-Ross
All the candidates, from all the parties, need to take their 'Scripts ... and then take a nap. The nap should last until one second after election day, 2016.
Hillary turned in a great performance of rather remarkable alchemy . She accomplished the near - impossible by demonstrating her deep knowledge of every facet of government without sounding like a robotic wonk , but rather sounding and looking relaxed , fluid and happy to be in the moment .
Bernie is so passionate about our shameful skewed distribution of wealth that you have to love him . But tonight , standing next to Hillary , it became clear that he is a one - trick pony . If Hillary wins , she should give him an important cabinet post if she has not already put him on the ticket as her running mate .
Bernie is so passionate about our shameful skewed distribution of wealth that you have to love him . But tonight , standing next to Hillary , it became clear that he is a one - trick pony . If Hillary wins , she should give him an important cabinet post if she has not already put him on the ticket as her running mate .
1
I am not an American citizen but have deeply studied American presidential politics since the times of Carter-Reagan.
I am shocked that a large number of Americans even consider it a viable notion that Donald Trump (or many others on the Republican slate) could be a leader of ANYTHING at all!
Have also been a fan of Hillary Clinton since long. For all her faults, she does hold a promise of leadership from strength. But have been watching with increasing concern how much polarizing a figure she is and the heavy baggage of disapproval she carries. I think she did well today to shed some of that load. I still hope she goes all the way.
My fear - what if she sees a repeat of 2008 and there is no one of Obama's stature to prevent a Donald Trump(!) presidency?
So the best take away from the debate is - Bernie Sanders. I had a pre-conceived notion of him as a far-Left unelectable Socialist maverick. I was wrong! He is good. If Hillary doesn't make the cut, he will do very well. He is as good as Hillary, if not better. And certainly miles above anyone in the Republivan circus set.
There is still hope for the US of A. Fortunately or unfortunately, what the USA does and who its president is, matters....far beyond its shores.
I am shocked that a large number of Americans even consider it a viable notion that Donald Trump (or many others on the Republican slate) could be a leader of ANYTHING at all!
Have also been a fan of Hillary Clinton since long. For all her faults, she does hold a promise of leadership from strength. But have been watching with increasing concern how much polarizing a figure she is and the heavy baggage of disapproval she carries. I think she did well today to shed some of that load. I still hope she goes all the way.
My fear - what if she sees a repeat of 2008 and there is no one of Obama's stature to prevent a Donald Trump(!) presidency?
So the best take away from the debate is - Bernie Sanders. I had a pre-conceived notion of him as a far-Left unelectable Socialist maverick. I was wrong! He is good. If Hillary doesn't make the cut, he will do very well. He is as good as Hillary, if not better. And certainly miles above anyone in the Republivan circus set.
There is still hope for the US of A. Fortunately or unfortunately, what the USA does and who its president is, matters....far beyond its shores.
2
During the debate there was a live poll by CNN and Sanders had 80-85% of the vote as to who was winning the debate. This article attempts to distort the reality of how the debate went down by highlighting the one issue that Sanders had to be reasonable on, coming from a big hunting state with a large rural voting base - that he managed to win over as a democrat. Hillary came across as extremely insincere and lacking depth in her beliefs, adding a few trivially true sound bites that sites like this could use post debate in this very dishonest manner.
I wonder how much this article cost Hillary?
I wonder how much this article cost Hillary?
2
Et tu, New York Times?
Your "analysis" suggests Clinton did much better than her performance merits. She was polished but evasive, forceful but phony. The real winner - as so many comments here, and so many poll results elsewhere, show by overwhelming margins - is that the real winner was Sanders, who towered over Clinton in substance and consistency and foresight and passion.
Could it be that your "opinion" is influenced by the zillionaires who own you and buy your ads? I can't escape that conclusion, after the great divide between what happened in the debate and your coverage of it.
My only wonder is whether you'll have the courage to make a critique like this one of your precious "picks." If not, perhaps you should consider actually selling out to Murdoch, instead of just being a subtler version of him.
Your "analysis" suggests Clinton did much better than her performance merits. She was polished but evasive, forceful but phony. The real winner - as so many comments here, and so many poll results elsewhere, show by overwhelming margins - is that the real winner was Sanders, who towered over Clinton in substance and consistency and foresight and passion.
Could it be that your "opinion" is influenced by the zillionaires who own you and buy your ads? I can't escape that conclusion, after the great divide between what happened in the debate and your coverage of it.
My only wonder is whether you'll have the courage to make a critique like this one of your precious "picks." If not, perhaps you should consider actually selling out to Murdoch, instead of just being a subtler version of him.
7
A star is rising, this time in the west!
#Feel The Bern.
#Feel The Bern.
4
The word you're looking for is glib. Hillary was, as she often is when not peevish and dismissive, glib. The perfect candidate for teevee and social media.
2
Many commenters compared the Democratic debate with the Republicans'.
Please use a higher bar than the Clown Car Review.
Please use a higher bar than the Clown Car Review.
How refreshing no one called another a loser.
1
A candidate who calls the Republicans her biggest enemy (ranking them with Iran) does not inspire confidence that she will, as she otherwise stated, work with them to get things done.
We do not need further antagonism within our government.
We do not need further antagonism within our government.
2
In case it was unclear, Hillary Clinton is, and always has been, the NYT's candidate. It should come as no surprise when the Time's view of her appears unreasonably sunny while its view of her opponents is remarkably dower and dismissive.
3
As a Democrat I couldn't be prouder of the five folks that stood on that stage. All of them spoke with passion for the people of this country and addressed meaningful, and important issues. It was a spirited, intelligent debate with a great cross-section of candidates. Also, the moment when Bernie came to Hillary's defense on the e-mails was classic. Well done.
The one thing that surprised me was that Sanders didn't go after Clinton on the subject of Wall Street and other big money contributions to her campaign, which provides perhaps the starkest contrast between the two of them. I get that Sanders, even though not officially a Democrat, is loyal to the cause of promoting a Democratic victory next year, even to the point of pre-emptively ruling out a third-party run. But if he's serious about competing for the party nomination, he should go after her on this issue because (i) it is the one area where he, and only he, can credibly go on the offensive, (ii) no Republican can use that line of attack because every Republican with a realistic shot at the nomination (except, perhaps, for Cruz) is in just as deep in big-money contributions and (iii) he can frame it as an attack on Republicans in general as well.
Hillary outshone everyone. The woman is so competent that even the Fox news haters are having a hard time putting her down, this morning.
1
Bizarre. The fix is in, clearly . . . the NYT has decided to sell a fake story about Hillary finally snuffing out the Sanders "insurgency." At least in the debate that I watched, Sanders was without any question the center of energy and moral gravity in the field. Anyone who denies that is engaged in spin.
2
Not Mark.
Come on NYT. Your bias is showing. Were you guys watching the same debate?
While Hillary spoke with confidence, clarity and at times specificity...she was extremely coy, evasive and obtuse on three issues:
1) Her comments on monitoring, regulating and reigning in Wall Street rogue elements, and the bad guys within the financial sector were obtuse and almost favoring the irresponsible guys. She made a statement that she once went in and said to them, "Cut it out!", like a big momma wagging her finger at guys who are going to bankroll her future campaigns. Whoa, they are scared! NOT
2) Her vote for Iraq invasion where she is ambiguous on whether it was a mistake, bad judgment or some cover up that she will never admit to. She avoided and side stepped that question like it was Ebola, and she was a well prepared visitor who went around it.
3) Foreign policy issue where she is proud her top enemy are the "Iranians". Iranians??? All the people of Iran??? She considers all of them her enemy and she is proud of that? It is bizarre someone who claims to be a progressive, supporting social programs, wanting to increase help for the poor and the middle class, etc....wants to be a militant interventionist in the ME - that could include Iran or Iranians (her top enemies, whose enmity she is proud of).
Nobody in the press picked up on this militant provocative comment? Even Bernie, who used the right word for ME mess: "quagmire", did not pick this up? Strange.
Come on NYT. Your bias is showing. Were you guys watching the same debate?
While Hillary spoke with confidence, clarity and at times specificity...she was extremely coy, evasive and obtuse on three issues:
1) Her comments on monitoring, regulating and reigning in Wall Street rogue elements, and the bad guys within the financial sector were obtuse and almost favoring the irresponsible guys. She made a statement that she once went in and said to them, "Cut it out!", like a big momma wagging her finger at guys who are going to bankroll her future campaigns. Whoa, they are scared! NOT
2) Her vote for Iraq invasion where she is ambiguous on whether it was a mistake, bad judgment or some cover up that she will never admit to. She avoided and side stepped that question like it was Ebola, and she was a well prepared visitor who went around it.
3) Foreign policy issue where she is proud her top enemy are the "Iranians". Iranians??? All the people of Iran??? She considers all of them her enemy and she is proud of that? It is bizarre someone who claims to be a progressive, supporting social programs, wanting to increase help for the poor and the middle class, etc....wants to be a militant interventionist in the ME - that could include Iran or Iranians (her top enemies, whose enmity she is proud of).
Nobody in the press picked up on this militant provocative comment? Even Bernie, who used the right word for ME mess: "quagmire", did not pick this up? Strange.
1
It was so fun to watch Hillary Clinton in action last night. She is an amazing woman! I have been voting for over 4 decades and I have never seen a more qualified candidate for the presidency. Her vast knowledge, powerful presence, thoughtful responses, sincere understanding and compassion for those struggling day to day in America make her uniquely qualified to lead. After listening to Americans and the other candidates it was evident that Hillary has an well thought out agenda but is open to new ideas and is flexible in how we go about getting it done. She is eager to get started and truly enjoys and understands how government works. Her love for people, compassion for helping make their lives better and shear fortitude make me confident in her ability to make America work again for the struggling middle class. She will be an amazing president.
Interesting to me that Clinton was constantly criticized for changing her mind on issues - as if that was unusual for someone to do over the course of a long career. At the same time, we really want Bernie to change his stance on gun control. Bit of a double standard?
I'm not surprised with the NYT Hillary lovefest... but I honestly think Bernie Sanders is the best choice for the middle class and the democrats after tonight!
3
Like many readers, I'm wondering which alternate debate the authors watched. Sanders was concise, articulate, forceful, respectful. He seems to want the job because he wants to fix things. His record in the Senate backs that up. Clinton seemed like she wants the job because, she wants the job. 5 point plan this, experts tell me that, flipping on the TPP, flopping on same-sex marriage.
My view on the "damn emails" comment is different than most -- I think he was chastising not only the Republicans, and the media, but also Clinton. He was saying, enough with the witch hunt but also enough with the bad judgment calls (personal/work email server, vote for Iraq war, etc).
Like many I love what he says but wondered if he really could win a general election. I was convinced last night. He can and should.
My view on the "damn emails" comment is different than most -- I think he was chastising not only the Republicans, and the media, but also Clinton. He was saying, enough with the witch hunt but also enough with the bad judgment calls (personal/work email server, vote for Iraq war, etc).
Like many I love what he says but wondered if he really could win a general election. I was convinced last night. He can and should.
2
"Hillary Rodham Clinton, seeking to halt the momentum of her insurgent challenger..." Insurgent? Sanders has been in Congress since 1990 and in the Senate since 2007. In 1990, Hillary had "accomplished" absolutely nothing. Her sole claim to fame was being married to someone famous.
If anyone's a newcomer, it's Hillary. In the proud tradition of RFK, she became a carpetbagger, moved to NY, and defeated a complete unknown after Rudy Guiliani withdrew to battle cancer. Losing badly to Obama in 2008, she extracted a cabinet position in return for a pledge to actually support his candidacy, instead of sulking on the sidelines.
There you have it- wife of a successful politician, carpet-bagger and lifelong opportunist. Who kept her own e-mail server as Sec of State so she could delete e-mails as necessary as she prepared to run, again, always.(Why else would she have done such a foolish thing?) And we are told she's the best candidate for President?
But I guess she "won" the debate because she got a laugh on dismissing Denmark in favor of Americanism. Because clearly we Americans can't learn anything from anyone else.
Lest anyone think the NYT isn't completely biased about all this, read the following: "Mrs. Clinton benefited for much of the night from the tentativeness of her rivals, who appeared wary of directly attacking the figure who represents their party’s best chance at electing a woman president." Woman President? Don't you mean "President?" Apparently not.
If anyone's a newcomer, it's Hillary. In the proud tradition of RFK, she became a carpetbagger, moved to NY, and defeated a complete unknown after Rudy Guiliani withdrew to battle cancer. Losing badly to Obama in 2008, she extracted a cabinet position in return for a pledge to actually support his candidacy, instead of sulking on the sidelines.
There you have it- wife of a successful politician, carpet-bagger and lifelong opportunist. Who kept her own e-mail server as Sec of State so she could delete e-mails as necessary as she prepared to run, again, always.(Why else would she have done such a foolish thing?) And we are told she's the best candidate for President?
But I guess she "won" the debate because she got a laugh on dismissing Denmark in favor of Americanism. Because clearly we Americans can't learn anything from anyone else.
Lest anyone think the NYT isn't completely biased about all this, read the following: "Mrs. Clinton benefited for much of the night from the tentativeness of her rivals, who appeared wary of directly attacking the figure who represents their party’s best chance at electing a woman president." Woman President? Don't you mean "President?" Apparently not.
3
The debate was interesting but we might ask "Where is the beef?" Many Americans yearned for specifics about the changes they would make and moreover --- what's to keep them from selling the same bill of goods as before. How about a simple checklist of changes that will occur in the first 90 days. Words don't magically turn into deeds!
Dear NYT, are you kidding?
HRC's comment on Denmark was simultaneously hegemonic, ignorant and foolish. "We are America" was more fit for a Fox News audience. Perhaps she was playing to the GOP base. Sanders was simply showing by example how a progressive agenda can exist in 1st-world economies. Would she have sneered at Canada? HRC simply proves that she is no progressive, and makes herself suspect when she declares she is.
HRC lost the debate when she said she went to Wall Street in 2007 and told them to "Cut it out" (Which you conveniently omit). Really? Perhaps the NYT can do some thorough reportage to see when and where this occured. It may be another tarmac moment for her.
Sanders won the debate on that point, stating that Wall Street regulates Congress. He spared her by calling her merely naive, though. He should ahve said, "There's only one person on this stage who truly wants reform. I won't tell them to 'Cut it out'. I'll send them to prison". Which he will.I doubt he will miss that opportunity in the next debate.
HRC's comment on Denmark was simultaneously hegemonic, ignorant and foolish. "We are America" was more fit for a Fox News audience. Perhaps she was playing to the GOP base. Sanders was simply showing by example how a progressive agenda can exist in 1st-world economies. Would she have sneered at Canada? HRC simply proves that she is no progressive, and makes herself suspect when she declares she is.
HRC lost the debate when she said she went to Wall Street in 2007 and told them to "Cut it out" (Which you conveniently omit). Really? Perhaps the NYT can do some thorough reportage to see when and where this occured. It may be another tarmac moment for her.
Sanders won the debate on that point, stating that Wall Street regulates Congress. He spared her by calling her merely naive, though. He should ahve said, "There's only one person on this stage who truly wants reform. I won't tell them to 'Cut it out'. I'll send them to prison". Which he will.I doubt he will miss that opportunity in the next debate.
1
She cajoled them. Next is the election and a democratic loss that won't be understood since McGovern.
I'm sorry to see the NYT calling wins and losses between the candidates when the real winner is clear: the Democratic Party. This was a rational, intelligent debate by well-informed people who focused on the major challenges to our nation. They proposed practical solutions and initiatives. They disagreed with each other respectfully. It was a class act all around. The contrast with the Republican party could not have been more stark.
1
the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.
---------------
Well, Bernie missed a good chance to question Clinton on her JUDGMENT and her appearance of trying to cover up. It is not the emails that anyone is worried about; it is about HER PRIVATE SERVER in her basement, that was not secure and not protected.
The debate was a joke, with Lincoln C smiling awkwardly most of the time. Martin O'Malley was disappointing, and it was the night to anoint Clinton.
Aggressive questioning of Clinton on her private server, which Obama characterized a mistake, would have prepared her for the onslaught she is bound to get from her Republican opponent, if she were to be nominated.
Bernie is a joke too. He should know that Denmark is a country that has a little over half the population of NYC, and what works there will not work in a union of fifty sovereign states.
Boring.
---------------
Well, Bernie missed a good chance to question Clinton on her JUDGMENT and her appearance of trying to cover up. It is not the emails that anyone is worried about; it is about HER PRIVATE SERVER in her basement, that was not secure and not protected.
The debate was a joke, with Lincoln C smiling awkwardly most of the time. Martin O'Malley was disappointing, and it was the night to anoint Clinton.
Aggressive questioning of Clinton on her private server, which Obama characterized a mistake, would have prepared her for the onslaught she is bound to get from her Republican opponent, if she were to be nominated.
Bernie is a joke too. He should know that Denmark is a country that has a little over half the population of NYC, and what works there will not work in a union of fifty sovereign states.
Boring.
2
Boring. And terrifying.
Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON to be the next President of the United States and it clearly showed last night. Thanks to Senator Sanders for calling out the sophomoric e-mail drivel when WE average Americans are concerned about real issues like our standard of living sliding backward every day, our homes being seized through foreclosure, our food being contaminated, our children taking on huge college debt to enrich "investors" and a general feeling of financial and social inequity. We now know the democratic platform is one to restore democracy in America and each of us should do as Senator Sanders calls for - help create mass grassroots support for the things we want changed. If every American selects one thing most important to them and dedicates one hour a month to helping make it happen we can restore democracy in America in the next four years.
2
An absolutely commanding appearance by Hillary, rooted in a lifetime of experience. She towers over all of the competition in the Democratic party, let alone the array of candidates the Republicans are putting forth, and unquestionably would make a strong, knowledgeable and forceful leader. It's hard to understand why she would not win in landslide in the general election, but of course many voters are either not informed or misinformed (thank you Fox, Limbaugh et al.). Ultimately, I guess we'll get the president we deserve.
1
I support Bernie. The "Shield" law for US gun manufacturing companies was entirely necessary to prevent the "Left" from circumventing the Second Amendment and American's civil rights with frivolous and costly lawsuits. Hillary Clinton broke US law with her e-mail usage and thus needs to suffer the same consequences others have faced.
1
Barbaro and Chozick are doing a hatchet job on Sanders without any reality to support their point of view in this biased writing. I repeat what Ryan Clapp said, "Were we watching the Tsame debate? the NY Times must be for Clinton. Sanders answered all of the attacks by Cooper logically and strongly, was not ill at ease at all as the piece says. When asked if he was electable, he said he could explain what a Democratic Socialist actually is, not the pejorative meaning that Cooper put on it. When Clinton talked about small business owners as capitalists, Sanders praised the entrepreneur tradition, he is not against ethical making money. Rigged debate host --implying anyone who doesn't call themselves a capitalist is suspect as a "good" American,. Sanders said if by capitalism you mean the conscienceless abuses of corporations, then he is not a capitalist . He is not against regulated fair capitalism. he's against all the profit going to a few. This is a disgraceful piece. Sanders wasn't anything like it said, and Clinton was not so wonderful like the piece said. Shame on you!!!!!!
4
I read the NYT every morning, and this is the worst article I've ever read. The writer is obviously pro-Hillary, and totally misrepresents the tone of the debate.
4
Here we go.. A bunch of Liars on Stage. .No love for their Country..
Refreshing to watch five adults debate in an adult fashion over the issues versus the GOP debate. Tells you something about the quality of the candidates on the Democratic side.
1
I guess Hillary's thumbs up vote on the disastrous Bush Iraq Invasion and recent finger-in-the-wind position shifts on the Keystone pipeline and TPP don't matter to the NYT. Bernie was right on all three from the beginning.
It appears to be Hillary, Wall Street Billionaires, and the Corporate Main Stream Media against Bernie.
I'll take Bernie.
It appears to be Hillary, Wall Street Billionaires, and the Corporate Main Stream Media against Bernie.
I'll take Bernie.
8
Mrs. Clinton did a nice job in that debate. Good moves by her
1
No mention of Hillary Clinton dodging the question on bringing back Glass-Steagall? Hello, New York Times? I get it that we all want a candidate who can win, but that doesn't mean we shut off our brains.
11
Smart comment Susan.
Finally,an intelligent debate about the issues without all the mudslinging. After the GOP debates I felt as if there was no hope for the political process. What a great pool of candidates.
4
Like the last Republican debate, I was disappointed to see Anderson Cooper keep the spotlight on Sanders and Clinton, constantly giving them time to respond. There should be enough debates that the first one should at least attempt to give equal time to all the candidates. Unlike the Republicans, there are only 5, it shouldn't be that difficult.
I was unfamiliar with Webb, Chaffee and O'Malley and wanted to see what they had to say, regardless of what the polls are saying. Chaffee seemed sincere but lost. O'Malley seemed very insincere and trying his best not to offend Clinton while still getting in the occasional light jab. I'm a little baffled that anyone thought he did anything last night that was impressive other than look good.
Webb on the other hand, was the one person up there that had a very different perspective on several issues and seemed to get tongue tied because he was so angry at being ignored. I'm still firmly in Sanders' camp, but am disappointed that we lost a moment to give candidates that will inevitably drop out a chance to expand the conversation.
I was unfamiliar with Webb, Chaffee and O'Malley and wanted to see what they had to say, regardless of what the polls are saying. Chaffee seemed sincere but lost. O'Malley seemed very insincere and trying his best not to offend Clinton while still getting in the occasional light jab. I'm a little baffled that anyone thought he did anything last night that was impressive other than look good.
Webb on the other hand, was the one person up there that had a very different perspective on several issues and seemed to get tongue tied because he was so angry at being ignored. I'm still firmly in Sanders' camp, but am disappointed that we lost a moment to give candidates that will inevitably drop out a chance to expand the conversation.
2
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party won this debate. Hillary won because she appeared knowledgeable, experienced, and willing to look toward the future. The Party won because this was a debate on issues, not the misogynist, racist, religious assault on personalities that the Republicans have presented in their debates.
The Democratic Party won, because everyone on the stage was prepared and enthusiastic about discussing the issues. Bernie Sanders's supporters must feel good about his performance, because even with his hair cut, he still had the heat. Martin O'Malley also did an excellent job of presenting himself to the national audience.
Instant non scientific polls, will go to the candidate with the most members willing to click in and I suspect Bernie Sanders will be shown as victorious today, but next week as more scientific polls come out, I believe most people would want Hillary Clinton at the helm. Of all the candidates, she is the one I would trust the most to meet with foreign leaders to create policy, to fight with Congress to get programs and to stand up to the inevitable criticisms every President eventually evokes. Hillary is the most qualified candidate of either party.
The Democratic Party won, because everyone on the stage was prepared and enthusiastic about discussing the issues. Bernie Sanders's supporters must feel good about his performance, because even with his hair cut, he still had the heat. Martin O'Malley also did an excellent job of presenting himself to the national audience.
Instant non scientific polls, will go to the candidate with the most members willing to click in and I suspect Bernie Sanders will be shown as victorious today, but next week as more scientific polls come out, I believe most people would want Hillary Clinton at the helm. Of all the candidates, she is the one I would trust the most to meet with foreign leaders to create policy, to fight with Congress to get programs and to stand up to the inevitable criticisms every President eventually evokes. Hillary is the most qualified candidate of either party.
2
Cooper was a poor moderator who clearly thinks he should be the star of any show. Interrupting the candidates to argue with them was very unprofessional. If he would just let them finish their sentences he might get some very surprising results.
4
Anderson Cooper was a terrible moderator.He talked too much , interrupted too often, and was unfair in delegating time (too little to Webb in particular) The 2 questions I saw asked by the audience were a stupid trick. I never watch CNN news and never will.
Your coverage of the Democratic race has been very disappointing. From the beginning there has been very little, if any, coverage of the candidates in this race, other than HRC. HRC is certainly well rehearsed to debate, but remains basically unlikeable and smug. Isn't it time to be fair? The public is not as enamored with her, as you and your staff are.
1
During this hyper-polarized period in American life I am very grateful for the Times's rigorous and steady voice -- which I often defend from the usual charges of bias. But the first few paragraphs of this overview depict a debate unlike that seen by most viewers. The fact is, this was an okay night for everyone -- no great surprises, nothing to significantly move the dial, and each candidate basically got across his or her themes. The Clinton triumph that is depicted here was not at all evident. She had some good early moments, and Sanders got the most applause. There was never a time, at least more than momentarily, when he seemed exasperated. This article is tendentious. The Times has an obligation -- and this particular coverage does not meet it.
3
I am actually a little shocked at how blatantly the establishment press is spinning for Hillary this morning. Hillary was smooth and relaxed, but had no answers, other than evasions, to the questions asked about her questionable past votes and positions. It is clear that Bernie is quite correct about the corporate media.
Obviously, Bernie is the only candidate with the potential to rock the corporate boat. He was able to state his arguments loudly and clearly last night. And those of us who are not wedded to the DNC status quo most certainly heard him.
Obviously, Bernie is the only candidate with the potential to rock the corporate boat. He was able to state his arguments loudly and clearly last night. And those of us who are not wedded to the DNC status quo most certainly heard him.
19
I thought Bernie did a great job. I still think that the e- mail server with weak security, set up in her home ( as the AP is reporting right now) is a potential nightmare for Hillary. They can not want to talk about it all they want, but you can bet the Republicans are going to make sure everyone in the country knows that sensitive national security info is being sent through a server with minimal protections set up in a house for her convenience. Please stop telling us how great Hillary is. Her negatives are sky high. Remember how we snached defeat from the jaws of victory with AL Gore and what happened to our nation because of it.
4
The whole debate was a breath of fresh air and an antidote to the crass offerings of the Republican Party. Thank you for giving me hope!
2
It now remains for Joe Biden to throw his full support to Hillary Clinton, thus averting any chance for any of the vision-impaired and mostly bigoted Republican presidential candidates to have any chance at the presidency. It should have become obvious to friend and foe alike, and to independents like me, that after these three debates Hillary is the only viable and plausible candidate to lead the country in an intelligent manner.
1
Thank you candidates! I am so proud to be a Democrat. Informative, respectful, mostly on point questions and answers, what a contrast to the GOP debates! It's like being on a different planet! Just like Bernie said, if we ALL go out and vote, we will win 2016 hands down.
Good lord, New York Times, I realize that as part of the Corporate Media that Bernie Sanders attacks, you don't have the self interest to report honestly on the debate, but truly? You chose two of the weakest moments in the debate to highlight as evidence of what you'd like to claim. Fortunately there is now social media and so you guys can spin this in Hillary's direction all you want. We know what we saw. We saw a man who voted against the Patriot Act, who did not, like your own newspaper did, get sucked into the deadly lies and war mongering of the Bush Administration and voted agains the War in Iraq, a man who carefully an accurately assesses the economic injustices and racial injustices in this country, and did not, like Hillary, have to spend week working on come backs and zingers so that they sounded polished prove his integrity and his honesty on a national stage. This one was Bernie Sanders' debate. He even had the class to defend Hillary, despite it not being politically expedient. Sorry you guys were trying so hard to boost Hillary. You missed the real action.
5
Four losers and an elitist con-artist. And HRC trails the top Repub candidates in the general election polls. So much for the Dem brand. Both sides are freak shows. Worst group of candidates I've seen in my 65 years. Disturbing.
1
Ah the Cheshire cat, the lovable barking dog, and the tall praying mantis. An interesting night.
For the voters that see Corporate influence on our government for what it really is the hijacking of our democracy, Though Hillary did well, Sanders held his own and didn't lose composure. Comparing Vermont's gun culture with the rest of the country's is ridiculous. Vermont actually has hunters who use their guns the way they are supposed to, responsibly.
2
What struck me is that the Democratic candidates all seemed like such decent people- in sharp contrast to Republicans. They seemed like adults.
I was particularly taken by the fact that Bernie did not serve up a laundry list of how I overcame my poor (insert poverty story here) start in life, my wonderful long suffering, (I couldn't do it without them family) and what big deals I have accomplished. Yada, yada, yada. He went right to the core of what he is about. How refreshing- indeed how surprizing!
I was particularly taken by the fact that Bernie did not serve up a laundry list of how I overcame my poor (insert poverty story here) start in life, my wonderful long suffering, (I couldn't do it without them family) and what big deals I have accomplished. Yada, yada, yada. He went right to the core of what he is about. How refreshing- indeed how surprizing!
7
Time and again it had become clear that Hillary took many ideas from Bernie and presented them as her own. Her spinning of the fact that she changes her position more frequently than one changes socks was rather obvious. She had been more "presidential" but the American people needs a principled president with an administration that would not ask every morning what is today's position. But most importantly, I am convinced that only Bernie can get votes in red states, and data shows that his support among young Republicans has been underestimated, or more bluntly said not reported by the liberal media that has an agenda. The Ametican people does not need another president who knows how to give speeches - we have one in the Oval Office - and whose policies have had devastating results. From race relations, to TPP, to giving health care to big companies, to the Middle East, to Israel, Obama has been a huge disappointment, and for this Democrat Hillary's policies are not expected to be different. With her super PAC and the Clinton Foundation there is serious potential for conflict of interest and the American people should vote for the one whose ideas will truly make this a more perfect union. Bernie is a breath of fresh air in the American political landscape that has been bought by big money and had become a show of empty promises, indifference, and deceit. We need a president who is moral, compassionate, and who will work for the people and not for Wall Street.
5
Well, there she goes again. When asked how she would differ from the Obama administration, Hillary gives the "optical" answer: "I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents who had up until this point." Well, that's true, but is being the first woman president enough?
Her answer on Edward Snowden was also disingenuous. He has to come home and "face the music." Which means, in plainspeak, possible execution for treason.
For the self-styled grandmotherly Clinton, that was a harsh sentence indeed.
Her answer on Edward Snowden was also disingenuous. He has to come home and "face the music." Which means, in plainspeak, possible execution for treason.
For the self-styled grandmotherly Clinton, that was a harsh sentence indeed.
3
It's not the candidates that scare me as much as it is the voting public. Way to many comments about who was most "personable" etc. It's not a personality contest. But in a world consumed by social media, sports, and reality shoes what is one to expect? The debates are even presented like some form of a Jerry Springer talk show just to get ratings. I made up my mind I'm voti.g republican as soon as I heard the candidates stance on holding gun manufacturers liable for what is done with their guns. It's not that republicans are any less stupid than democrats. They are just less stupid about the things that matter to me.
1
"Mrs. Clinton benefited for much of the night from the tentativeness of her rivals, who appeared wary of directly attacking the figure who represents their party’s best chance at electing a woman president."
I do not agree with the reporter's supposition that the other candidates were wary of attacking Mrs. Clinton because she's a woman.
What leads the reporter to suggest this? Did he interview the other candidates or their staff on this point?
Or is this statement just more of the soft supposition that riddles political reporting in the NY Times and other media? The reporter's opinion, disguised as news?
How about some solid reporting on the candidates' policy positions? Their large areas of agreement as well as their differences?
As Mrs., Clinton said, she and Mr. Sanders agree generally on goals. They differ mostly on how to accomplish them.
Like other commenters, I didn't hear the "sharp" and "bitter" disagreements that the Times reports. I heard mainly broad areas of agreement among all candidates except Senator Webb. And some differences within that broad consensus. I heard civil, courteous, thoughtful debate.
What a relief to be reminded that intelligent, qualified adults are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
I do not agree with the reporter's supposition that the other candidates were wary of attacking Mrs. Clinton because she's a woman.
What leads the reporter to suggest this? Did he interview the other candidates or their staff on this point?
Or is this statement just more of the soft supposition that riddles political reporting in the NY Times and other media? The reporter's opinion, disguised as news?
How about some solid reporting on the candidates' policy positions? Their large areas of agreement as well as their differences?
As Mrs., Clinton said, she and Mr. Sanders agree generally on goals. They differ mostly on how to accomplish them.
Like other commenters, I didn't hear the "sharp" and "bitter" disagreements that the Times reports. I heard mainly broad areas of agreement among all candidates except Senator Webb. And some differences within that broad consensus. I heard civil, courteous, thoughtful debate.
What a relief to be reminded that intelligent, qualified adults are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
3
What was clear last night during the debate is that not only is Hillary Clinton by far the most credible and knowledgeable candidate on that stage, she's the most credible and prepared candidate to be President of either party.
Unlike the carnival sideshow of the GOP this debate stuck to substantive issues and not repetitive personal attacks or a Trump ego-fest.
Unlike the carnival sideshow of the GOP this debate stuck to substantive issues and not repetitive personal attacks or a Trump ego-fest.
2
Hillary is a skilled politician and well should be as she has been political center stage for years. Bernie is authentic and passionate. Many of the hot topics posed to the candidates would not have been used had Bernie Sanders not brought them to the forefront during his campaign. We need to stop judging candidates by their smoothness on the stage and align ourselves with substance and authenticity.
4
Agree 100%.
Clinton's remark about "we are not Denmark" was Thrumpish. Of course we are not Denmark, but we have much more resources then Denmark to take care of all our citizenry. I found that Clinton couldn't move past her normal ideology to deal with the current state of affairs our nation and world faces. Sanders seemed more genuine then stock come backs on behalf of the same old same old.
8
Sanders kept saying that Wall Street has too much power. He reminds me of Sarah Palin, who spoke in favor of Main Street as opposed to Wall Street. Palin and Sanders both dislike the government of the United States.
I had not known that Sanders had voted against the Brady Act. I am reminded of ultra-leftist Bernardine Dohrn, who said, "Guns and grass are united in the youth underground."
Extremes meet. the Left is the Right.
I had not known that Sanders had voted against the Brady Act. I am reminded of ultra-leftist Bernardine Dohrn, who said, "Guns and grass are united in the youth underground."
Extremes meet. the Left is the Right.
What an odd assortment of angry birds--all trying to out-promise each other with new benefits they want to deliver to the American people. Imagine that...buying us off--with out own money. What we didn't see--was a single affirmation of this country's greatness--and not a single patriotic moment--or an idea for improving the economy--supporting the business community in creating new jobs.
Without class warfare--the politics of envy, these 5 candidates would have been virtual statues--mute--standing before us with nothing to say. Is that it folks? Is that the entire message of the Democrat Party these days--build on jealousy anger and vengeance? It's as if the overriding message of Liberals is, "please trust us--you CAN have it all, because we'll force the wealthy--and Wall Street, to pay for it all". I'm not sure this will sell.
Without class warfare--the politics of envy, these 5 candidates would have been virtual statues--mute--standing before us with nothing to say. Is that it folks? Is that the entire message of the Democrat Party these days--build on jealousy anger and vengeance? It's as if the overriding message of Liberals is, "please trust us--you CAN have it all, because we'll force the wealthy--and Wall Street, to pay for it all". I'm not sure this will sell.
1
This only tells me Hillary will probably win because she's more a friend of The Establishment than Bernie. But Bernie should be the winner for obvious reasons.
1
Secretary Clinton was well prepared for the debate. For example, she deftly responded to a question about her judgement on foreign policy by saying President Obama respected her enough to make her his secretary of state. My recollection is that candidate Obama agreed to include candidate Clinton in his administration in order to keep her from taking the fight for the nomination to the 2008 convention, when her supporters refused to accept the fact that he had the majority of delegates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/31/dnc-meeting-to-determine_n_1044...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/31/dnc-meeting-to-determine_n_1044...
1
I like Bernie Sanders, but not a SINGLE Democratic candidate had the guts to mention the 2nd Amendment. Just more dancing around the issue. Background checks, gun show loopholes, mental illness, etc. But none of those would have prevented a majority of the mass shootings.
Every country has the mentally ill. Most have far better access to mental health services than in the US. Other countries have people who just have bad intentions. But the single difference is access to guns. The guns are the difference. Guns don't kill people. But crazy/evil people with easy access to guns kill people.
We need at least on candidate who has the guts to propose that it is time to reconsider the 2nd Amendment.
Every country has the mentally ill. Most have far better access to mental health services than in the US. Other countries have people who just have bad intentions. But the single difference is access to guns. The guns are the difference. Guns don't kill people. But crazy/evil people with easy access to guns kill people.
We need at least on candidate who has the guts to propose that it is time to reconsider the 2nd Amendment.
It appears group-think seems to overtake the media pundits. The Democrats on stage made more sense compared to the Republican candidates in their debates. But Bernie Sanders seemed to best reflect the sense of urgency for change the country needs. He did it in the most civil of ways, never personally attacking anyone. His plans reflect his deep understanding of the hold that corporations have on politics and the country. He is the biggest threat to the status quo, which is most likely why the mainstream "centrist, right-of-center" pundits, like Axelrod on CNN, and a few on the NYT are touting H.C. Hillary Clinton had low expectations going in. She bragged about what others did, like being picked by Obama, without saying what she has accomplished. At best she sounds like a reformer of a structurally unsound system. She may be progressive but maybe it is a progressive of 20 years ago. Her worst comment was to put down Sanders by putting down Denmark; maybe because we are so "exceptional". But to say that she wants to help small business people so they can become millionaires like she and B.C. did is more far-fetched than trying to achieve national health care like some of the other "foreign" countries have. At times she sounded like some of the Republicans who believe in the "free market". This is first time heard Sanders debate. He most likely will do better than the pundits are saying. He appears to be the only one to have fully thought out how to make real change happen.
11
HC's remark about Denmark was spot on. The whole country is smaller than Chicago.
1
She was not referring to size; and she spoke about wanting to help small business people. What is more pie in the sky, helping obtain a single payer/national health care system like in the more advanced societies or helping small business people become millionaires like the Clintons have, as H.C. stated. At least on economic issues, she seems about 20-30 years behind, with respect to calling herself "progressive". Further, she sounds more like Republican lite, mimicking the approach of some of the candidates on that side.
If this was a "sharp debate" what does a dull debate look like? People in a coma?
Hillary played the incumbent and kept herself calm. The rest of the candidates, with the exception of Sanders, apparently are not seriously running for the nomination because they did nothing to advance a reason why they should be in front of Hillary. Sanders may have hit on the reason as he said that everyone on the platform was rich except himself. The end result is that campaign funding is going to go to Hillary and Sanders and the rest of these guys can quit now or just hope that Hillary's email problems bring her down. That's a pretty weak strategy.
Hillary came off as a member of the 1% with close connections to Wall Street and TBTF banks. It was ridiculous when she said she was worried about her granddaughter's opportunities and even more ridiculous none of the other candidates did not call her out. Bill and Hillary have made 10's of millions selling political connections Chelsea has benefited from and so will their granddaughter. Chelsea worked for a hedge fund and married an investment banker and now has a cushy job and board positions in a number of companies. That's corruption at its finest.
Sanders was brilliant in his convictions and insight. He is an evangelist. He does not want to beat Hillary. He wants material change not Hillary incrementalism and that is a much higher goal than beating Hillary.
This is Hillary vs Sanders from here. It's the rich Dems vs the poor Dems.
Hillary played the incumbent and kept herself calm. The rest of the candidates, with the exception of Sanders, apparently are not seriously running for the nomination because they did nothing to advance a reason why they should be in front of Hillary. Sanders may have hit on the reason as he said that everyone on the platform was rich except himself. The end result is that campaign funding is going to go to Hillary and Sanders and the rest of these guys can quit now or just hope that Hillary's email problems bring her down. That's a pretty weak strategy.
Hillary came off as a member of the 1% with close connections to Wall Street and TBTF banks. It was ridiculous when she said she was worried about her granddaughter's opportunities and even more ridiculous none of the other candidates did not call her out. Bill and Hillary have made 10's of millions selling political connections Chelsea has benefited from and so will their granddaughter. Chelsea worked for a hedge fund and married an investment banker and now has a cushy job and board positions in a number of companies. That's corruption at its finest.
Sanders was brilliant in his convictions and insight. He is an evangelist. He does not want to beat Hillary. He wants material change not Hillary incrementalism and that is a much higher goal than beating Hillary.
This is Hillary vs Sanders from here. It's the rich Dems vs the poor Dems.
1
Of course this was a good debate. It is what happens when adults are on the stage for a change.
1
Clinton was by far the best, head and shoulders over the other four candidates on the stage. She is an expert politician, one who isn't afraid to stick her finger in the air and bend the changing winds of national conversation. Who cares if she supported the TPP in her book? What matters is what her position is right now... or what it will be in 2 weeks' time... or 6 weeks' time.
Frankly, I expected more from Bernie Sanders. For someone who couldn't afford any kind of misstep, he came in woefully unprepared. His non-response regarding Putin was cringeworthy.
Lincoln "It was my first day!" Chaffee, aka the Block of Granite, probably wished he could have left the stage early for a drink or three.
Martin O'Malley had some very decent responses, but really has to work on his delivery. I know Ben Carson has great poll numbers but that doesn't mean his rhetorical style should be emulated by anyone.
The most interesting candidate, in my opinion, is Jim Webb. He has a background that would be well suited to serve as Commander-in-Chief, but his inexperience on the national stage did not allow for a great debate performance. He's probably the biggest missed opportunity the Democrats have.
I eagerly await to see what kind of wrench Joe Biden will throw into this atmosphere.
Frankly, I expected more from Bernie Sanders. For someone who couldn't afford any kind of misstep, he came in woefully unprepared. His non-response regarding Putin was cringeworthy.
Lincoln "It was my first day!" Chaffee, aka the Block of Granite, probably wished he could have left the stage early for a drink or three.
Martin O'Malley had some very decent responses, but really has to work on his delivery. I know Ben Carson has great poll numbers but that doesn't mean his rhetorical style should be emulated by anyone.
The most interesting candidate, in my opinion, is Jim Webb. He has a background that would be well suited to serve as Commander-in-Chief, but his inexperience on the national stage did not allow for a great debate performance. He's probably the biggest missed opportunity the Democrats have.
I eagerly await to see what kind of wrench Joe Biden will throw into this atmosphere.
1
I too am puzzled by the two opinion pieces in today's Times that claim Mrs. Clinton's was the stand-out performance. To me, all of the candidates acquitted themselves admirably: Bernie Sanders' weak moment on the gun control issue is not likely to be of any consequence whatsoever to voters familiar with his overall history; and his great achievement in last night's debate was that he appears plausible to many candidates who are otherwise frightened by our irrationally inculcated fear of the word "socialism".
Hillary Clinton offers a clear distinction between her cautious approach to progress and the more transformational "dare-to-dream" ideas of Mr. Sanders. This may appeal to quite a few voters who have a rather tepid view, post-Obama, of daring to dream; on the other hand, it might fall flat with voters who feel, in this age of rapidly rising inequality, that boldness, not incrementalism, is the right way to go about things. Indeed, this contrast was most evident when Mr. O'Malley pointed out Clinton's unwillingness to support a return of Glass-Steagall, and she answered that she recognizes the importance (intransigence?) of the Financial Sector, having "worked with Wall Street" in the past.
In short, it's not clear who won the debate. I doubt highly that Clinton has suddenly gained new traction from her performance, even though she did well. If anyone did gain ground, it was O'Malley, whose dimeanor and articulation of the issues was certainly presidential.
Hillary Clinton offers a clear distinction between her cautious approach to progress and the more transformational "dare-to-dream" ideas of Mr. Sanders. This may appeal to quite a few voters who have a rather tepid view, post-Obama, of daring to dream; on the other hand, it might fall flat with voters who feel, in this age of rapidly rising inequality, that boldness, not incrementalism, is the right way to go about things. Indeed, this contrast was most evident when Mr. O'Malley pointed out Clinton's unwillingness to support a return of Glass-Steagall, and she answered that she recognizes the importance (intransigence?) of the Financial Sector, having "worked with Wall Street" in the past.
In short, it's not clear who won the debate. I doubt highly that Clinton has suddenly gained new traction from her performance, even though she did well. If anyone did gain ground, it was O'Malley, whose dimeanor and articulation of the issues was certainly presidential.
2
Thank you, Bernie, for your gracious & principled comment about the country being tired of hearing about her damned emails. I remain a staunch Hillary supporter - have been for a very long time - and will remain so, esp. after her terrific job last night. But we are all in your debt for the choice you made in that moment. And I hope your followers will follow your example so we can all get back to the issues & leave the trash & innuendo behind us.
1
I agree with some of the commenters here. The real win tonight is for the democratic party as a whole. How refreshing to see mature, passionate adults discuss real issues. It made me proud to be a democrat and hopeful (yikes) for the future.
1
This was Hillary's best night ever. Not only was she smart and thoughtful (everyone knew that), but she showed warmth and humor and charm. I loved her tonight. I hope she doesn't change one thing going forward.
2
I'm not sure the NYT saw the same debate I saw last night. But judging from the NYT and major liberal media outlets, shows you where to follow the money. Hillary Clinton sounded more of the same. It looks like this may very well be the election where "The People" have a revolution and stand up against big banks and corporations in the name of inequality. Bernie Sanders is for the people.
3
Like many, I was not only surprised but delighted with the quality of the debate. Reading about it this morning, I'm almost ready to conclude that many reporters and talking heads are in the tank for Hillary. No doubt, she did well. But so too did Bernie, who is MUCH less of a political waffler. Many more ordinary people put their money on Sanders, and the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune argued that he won. Strange.
2
This article does not do any justice to this debate. I don't like how this article tries to create drama out of nothing with the way it describes the debate. This was a phenomenal debate. I think every candidate shined in their own way, some more than others, namely Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley not too far behind. Their conduct was so respectable and admirable. No one attacked any one else. So beautiful.
1
I did watch the debate and I am pretty sure if it is about the number of votes not about "style points" then Bernie Sanders won it by far. Of course my opinion doesn't count. That of the voters does.
4
Irrespective of who won, who lost this was a real debate. Real issues concerning the citizens and the country. There was an adult discussion of issues as opposed to a *freak* show, name calling and commenting about their hair. Sure there were disagreements but the criticisms were civil.
After tonight I felt the republicans have lost their change they need to get their act together.
After tonight I felt the republicans have lost their change they need to get their act together.
1
Clinton turned up heat on Sanders and he removed it from her: they are a team. I see a vice presidential roll for one, but only if Sanders is the nominee.
Hillary was great, she has the chops and is an astute political player ... and lord knows we need that given the state of our congress. And Bernie, bless Bernie, he was fabulous, he's weak on some fronts, but ah the conviction, principles and Chutpah! Was so affirming listening to him call out the absurdity of Citizen United and our fast track to an oligarchy. I wish he could be president, but I think even he knows in his heart of hearts it's not possible, but how he's rallying people to pay attention, VOTE and participate in our country democracy (or we will surely lose it) will hopefully give him a seat somewhere prominent in her administration. Bernie has been great for Hillary, and as a supposed socialist, is salvaging the Democratic party for this election.
2
Times tilts toward Clinton- the headline says it all - "Hillary Clinton turns heat on Sanders in sharp debate." Turn the heat on as exposing someone. But HC didn't best Clinton, at best her answers were vague and usually alluded to policy positions somewhere on her server. Sanders was specific, especially on Wall Street. Follow the money in this case, Clinton gets it from Wall Street , Sanders everyday folks.
2
What worries me about a Hillary presidency is Bill. How can we be sure that he would not step out of the shadows to become the unelected president?
Only a guy would say that.
I saw someone who was coached and practiced on every nuance, gesture and facial expression and someone who spoke from the heart.
Neither is necessarily bad, just a different style.
One feels more "truthful", one seems artful.
Well done everyone on a respectful, thoughtful debate.
Neither is necessarily bad, just a different style.
One feels more "truthful", one seems artful.
Well done everyone on a respectful, thoughtful debate.
2
After the GOP offerings, last night felt like graduating to the grownup's table at Thanksgiving.
7
Some real-world topics at least, and a fine, lively debate. Meanwhile the GOP, as a replacement for Mr Boehner, seeks for their lowest common denominator.
1
In my opinion Bernie Sanders was the hands down winner of the first Democratic Debate. I liked his comments on Wall Street, the Clinton Email issue and on The Second Amendment and Snowdon. Sanders represents my values far better than any other candidate running for POTUS in 2016.
3
Those who wrote this article are biased in favor of Hilary Clinton. They failed to mention much of what Bernie Sanders said that was important.
Hang in there Bernie. The press continues to underestimate your appeal and misrepresent your message, but the voters increasingly hear you!
Hang in there Bernie. The press continues to underestimate your appeal and misrepresent your message, but the voters increasingly hear you!
2
My favorite moment was when Bernie Sanders replied to the question about what he meant by saying that we need a political revolution. I don't recall his exact words, but he basically said that no matter the good intentions of all the candidates on stage, given the outsize influence of big money in politics, we the people have to stand up. Not just vote, but hold our elected officials accountable. He is 100% correct there.
5
I agree with the writer who asked, were you watching the same debate...?"
While I think that there were some points made on all sides, the tone of the first part of the article would have you believe that Hillary walked away with the debate and Bernie was flat footed. It certainly isn't what I call fair coverage.
Also, am I the only person who felt that Anderson Cooper had his best Fox hat on? He was constantly badgering and annoying seeing what he could do to get under everyone's skin. PB
While I think that there were some points made on all sides, the tone of the first part of the article would have you believe that Hillary walked away with the debate and Bernie was flat footed. It certainly isn't what I call fair coverage.
Also, am I the only person who felt that Anderson Cooper had his best Fox hat on? He was constantly badgering and annoying seeing what he could do to get under everyone's skin. PB
Bernie has secured his Vice Presidency, should Clinton win the election! You read this here, first.
There was a president on that stage last night. She clearly is ready to be president.
Needless to say but everyone will say it, the comparison between the snarling, angry, sniveling, ignorance of the Republicans in their debates and the measured, informed, decent and on point conversation between the Democrats reveals the night and day differences between the two parties.
Needless to say but everyone will say it, the comparison between the snarling, angry, sniveling, ignorance of the Republicans in their debates and the measured, informed, decent and on point conversation between the Democrats reveals the night and day differences between the two parties.
2
What a vast difference between last night's debate and the GOP reality shows featuring the the huckster in chief, the weirdo surgeon who would have taken on the German army with a handgun and all the rest of the pathetic and downright strange republicans! All I can say at this point is I am grateful that Hillary, Bernie etc., are willing to do whatever it takes to win. They are, despite their flaws, two terrific candidates and I am happy to report that was no misogyny, racism, climate change denial, hateful anti-immigrants rants or anything else said by the candidates which was remotely cringe-worthy. I look forward to the next debate. Not a bad first go round with Anderson Cooper doing a fine job as well.
2
This article is a joke. To say that Clinton was the clear victor simply isn't true. Yes, I am a Sanders fan. I'll also admit that Sanders could have done a better job at crtain moments, and that Clinton has some good moments. But this article makes it seem like Clinton recorded a knockout win. Simply. Not. True. But what criteria is this report evaluating the debate?
1
hillary prez bernie vp
slamdunk win
slamdunk win
1
This was a very interesting contrast with the GOP. The Democrats, for the most part, discussed and debated policy; the GOP discusses and debates personality. But in the end personality will probably elect a president in this low information, low attention span society. But I'd like to know one thing, how will any Democratic president deal with what will still be a totally crazy and obstructionist GOP Congress, surely the House, maybe the Senate? And I wonder, nay fear, a Hillary presidency for one reason. She is the only Democrat the GOP hates more than Barack Obama. In fact, I'd be surprised if a GOP House doesn't bring impeachment proceedings against her in her first year in office.
So the Democrats have two serious candidates, and the Republicans have zero.
2
“Iranians, probably the Republicans."
On a basis of "enemies" who wish America harm, or who have actually harmed the nation?
On a basis of "enemies" who wish America harm, or who have actually harmed the nation?
The candidate quality is just so low these days. Quality must have better things to do. Hilary is the best of the bad bunch and most of that is brand recognition and being female. The Republicans have got nothing yet again. Jeb is blundering softly so far. Democracy is pale. The GOP Congress should be un- gerrymandered some day!
When Hillary reached over to shake Bernie's hand, my husband and I both said, "Now there's the winning ticket." Clinton/Sanders 2016!
1
Bernie Sanders does a remarkable and unprecedented thing in American politics: he comes to a defense of his rival, and the NYT goes with the headline "Hillary Clinton Turns Up on Heat on Bernie in a Sharp Debate." The News Analysis, penned by Patrick Healy, and Frank Bruni's column all follow suit, where the former claims that the night went to her, while the latter assesses her performance as magical.
I am very much looking forward to reading a dissenting voice at the NYT, as I am certain one must exist.
I am very much looking forward to reading a dissenting voice at the NYT, as I am certain one must exist.
11
Do not be surprised by the ability of Mrs. Clinton to put Mr. Sanders on the defensive. However, do not be surprised when the Clinton Think-tank stumbles in a web of its own making, as they will promise anything, say anything to be back in office. Principles. Who has them? Mr. Sanders or the Clintons?
3
The Hillary Brand® succinctly summed everything up in words uttered callously a few years back: "What difference does it make." Now a true statement of fact.
Declared the "clear winner" by those numbed into nepenthe by a gushing media, The Brand® can now take the winner's lap around the track to the White House - undaunted by any previous criticism. Add to that, the blessing she received months ago by Wall Street, Corporate America, Big Pharma, the Bloated Insurance Raptors, and the Military Industrial Complex (who is salivating over the potential profiteering to be made from her Neo-Con-light aggressive military posturing) her faux-populist agenda can now be shrugged off and relegated to the Bernie Sanders' dustbin of failed liberal possibilities. The rest of the crew were pure window dressing, to give the numbed populace the illusion of choice.
All of this is unfortunate for America. On policies alone, Jim Webb would clearly make a better President than The Brand® - but was coaxed out of his cloak of invisibility to stand on the stage and suffer through Bernie's whining and Hillary's gestures. The other guy - who might as well remain nameless - was obviously put up for some semblance of numerological balance, and nothing more. Bernie can say he tried - and I'd have willingly given him my vote.
But The Brand® "won" her first debate, and now can take on all republican challengers, who, like the deposed democrats surrounding her last night, will wilt right before our eyes…
Declared the "clear winner" by those numbed into nepenthe by a gushing media, The Brand® can now take the winner's lap around the track to the White House - undaunted by any previous criticism. Add to that, the blessing she received months ago by Wall Street, Corporate America, Big Pharma, the Bloated Insurance Raptors, and the Military Industrial Complex (who is salivating over the potential profiteering to be made from her Neo-Con-light aggressive military posturing) her faux-populist agenda can now be shrugged off and relegated to the Bernie Sanders' dustbin of failed liberal possibilities. The rest of the crew were pure window dressing, to give the numbed populace the illusion of choice.
All of this is unfortunate for America. On policies alone, Jim Webb would clearly make a better President than The Brand® - but was coaxed out of his cloak of invisibility to stand on the stage and suffer through Bernie's whining and Hillary's gestures. The other guy - who might as well remain nameless - was obviously put up for some semblance of numerological balance, and nothing more. Bernie can say he tried - and I'd have willingly given him my vote.
But The Brand® "won" her first debate, and now can take on all republican challengers, who, like the deposed democrats surrounding her last night, will wilt right before our eyes…
1
Guns are an important issue but there are others.
2
The coverage as of late by this news organization on a variety of matters seems single -minded and thoughtless, not to mention uninspired and often poorly written. The slew of pro Hillary articles since last night's debate makes me wonder how discerning and nuanced the the staff here really is, and if they really have an ability to do critical thinking. I'm appalled that there is no concession to how well other candidates did, nor a real breakdown of Hillary (or other's) downfall. If every article is an endorsement, it's not reporting.
5
The trust of the story: Hillary won because she got the most applause from the audience! A Hillarystas-chosen crowd determining the winner. A self-reinforcing game.
Did the NYT bother to check the very composition of the audience, how it was chosen? The ostentatious, yet buried by the NYT feud between the DNC chair Debby from FL, a Hillarysta to the chore and one of the vice-chairs, the more beautiful both in looks and in democratic heart and mind Tulsi from HI?
The "Hon" Rep from Florida -if by honorable you mean big money's hand- had been doing the bid of the Clintons with threats. Like in Chavez' Venezuela, Vlado's Russia, Erdogan's Turkey, Evo's Bolivia. Threatening to throw the 'small guys" out of the debates if they dare to take their message out of the officially-or should I say corporate-sponsored five-only, made-for-entertainment debates.For all the Berniemania he is still the David taking on the Clintons' Goliath.
& you can see the heavy hand of political hacks "a la Carville" behind Hillary's well orchestrated attack against the Vermontean -what the reporters do not mention is Bernie's convincing counterargument, even to this rabidly anti-gun guy that rural states/swaths are an altogether different game ref gun ownership: the state is not as omnipresent as in the Chicagos, L Rocks, NY, and D.C.s of Hillary's life experience.
As for the Denmark line: people do yourselves a favor, read Clinton Inc.
Debbi, celebrity reporters,lesser cel reporters:do a better job!
Did the NYT bother to check the very composition of the audience, how it was chosen? The ostentatious, yet buried by the NYT feud between the DNC chair Debby from FL, a Hillarysta to the chore and one of the vice-chairs, the more beautiful both in looks and in democratic heart and mind Tulsi from HI?
The "Hon" Rep from Florida -if by honorable you mean big money's hand- had been doing the bid of the Clintons with threats. Like in Chavez' Venezuela, Vlado's Russia, Erdogan's Turkey, Evo's Bolivia. Threatening to throw the 'small guys" out of the debates if they dare to take their message out of the officially-or should I say corporate-sponsored five-only, made-for-entertainment debates.For all the Berniemania he is still the David taking on the Clintons' Goliath.
& you can see the heavy hand of political hacks "a la Carville" behind Hillary's well orchestrated attack against the Vermontean -what the reporters do not mention is Bernie's convincing counterargument, even to this rabidly anti-gun guy that rural states/swaths are an altogether different game ref gun ownership: the state is not as omnipresent as in the Chicagos, L Rocks, NY, and D.C.s of Hillary's life experience.
As for the Denmark line: people do yourselves a favor, read Clinton Inc.
Debbi, celebrity reporters,lesser cel reporters:do a better job!
3
A debate is a formal discussion on a particular topic in which opposing arguments are put forward. This CNN sponsored event failed to achieve even the minimum definition of a debate. This so called debate gave the appearance of a teenage party where four boys vie for the attention of one girl, who plays them all like fiddles. Hillary clearly owned the stage, while at the same time, evading all the issues that questioned her past performance. If a person smiles and tells a falsehood enough times, then the uninformed will believe that person.
1
what a contrast of civility between GOP candidates and the democratic candidates? No attack of women face, no attack on blood coming from wherever, no boasting of how rich each candidate is, no talk of witch hunts, no attack of personal career - all issues. Even candidates complemented each other on their strengths and criticized weak points. I am proud to be American and watch such debate where we can achieve great. The country cannot duel on one person and one event such as Benghazi and e-mail server to achieve greater things as GOP has done on Obama and Clinton in their debate. This debate was uplifting the country's moral and we need more of those. Thanks to CNN and Mr. Cooper.
1
NYT is usually spot on in their analyses, but not this time. I don't think you understand what a great many people understand about Bernie Sanders: he's the real deal. It was a good "performance" by Hillary last night, but Bernie Sanders doesn't perform: he's just Bernie Sanders.
8
Finally we hear substance and see leadership. The general election will be like pitting a winner of Survivor against the winner of a chess tournament. I'll take the one with brains.
1
Clinton is absolutely right on guns and Bernie is wrong, but I can see what he's doing and I respect it.
Bernie is trying to make sure he has a few tools to use in working across the aisle and he is actually telling us about them.
This is something we aren't used to. We're used to politicians pandering to their base, getting elected, and voting contrary to the platforms upon which they were elected.
On the other hand, Bernie is being upfront about positions he holds that will displease his base, but that need to be held as political chips in order to obtain bigger wins.
We're seeing a politician honestly disclosing his strategy to the voters, and Bernie said that last night.
Bernie is trying to make sure he has a few tools to use in working across the aisle and he is actually telling us about them.
This is something we aren't used to. We're used to politicians pandering to their base, getting elected, and voting contrary to the platforms upon which they were elected.
On the other hand, Bernie is being upfront about positions he holds that will displease his base, but that need to be held as political chips in order to obtain bigger wins.
We're seeing a politician honestly disclosing his strategy to the voters, and Bernie said that last night.
5
Democrats called this a debate. In reality it was another example of liberal left pandering to Clinton, who was not challenged on her repeated lies and position reversals. Clinton's opponents were obviously scared of her, and afraid to challenge her outright revisionist political recollections. The political correctness practiced by the left prevented them from getting tough with the only woman on the stage. Nominate her at your own peril. You will only get more of the same.
1
The biggest winner last night was former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley. He showed the country that he is intelligent, focused, and has created a tremendous record of accomplishment as the leader of a major state.
O'Malley's numbers are about to take off!
O'Malley's numbers are about to take off!
1
Clinton is by no means a progressive, she is a center right candidate comparable to Merkel in Germany. It's just preposterous and slimy that she would now come out and call herself progressive!
4
I couldn't agree more with Bernie's line, "we are tired of hearing about your damn emails." But, he should have followed up -- "a private server?"
2
The overwhelming impression I had at the conclusion of the first Democratic presidential debate is that ANY of the five Democratic candidates would be vastly superior to any of the Republican presidential nominees as POTUS.
6
I will vote for Hillary but if Sanders had offered a plan on HOW to achieve this revolution he proposes as the solution, I might campaign for him instead.
He has a plan. Go to People for Bernie, where the movement to reclaim democracy is run by movement volunteers not high paid political operatives believing their own push polls.
The plan is to mobilize the People to overpower the rule of money. Even Bernie says the presidency is second to the people.
Hillary doesn't have a movement. She has a super Pac funded by billionaires.
The plan is to mobilize the People to overpower the rule of money. Even Bernie says the presidency is second to the people.
Hillary doesn't have a movement. She has a super Pac funded by billionaires.
Please report the truth. The debate exposed the Democratic Party as nothing but a bunch of thieves and socialists. But I repeat myself.
1
The thieves and socialists are the billionaires, but they only socialize their losses, but privatize profits. The government blames the corporations and the corporations blame the government, but we are in the midst of a global corporate revolution that pays countries like fiddles while it connects a global oligarchy answerable to no one.
We are describing the same problem with different language. Bernie is on your side.
We are describing the same problem with different language. Bernie is on your side.
Bernie Sanders was the clear winner in last night's debate!
5
Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE to be the next President of the United States of America and she proved it last night. Senator Sanders was his usual excellent, honest, honorable self. Clinton/Sanders 2016!
2
She "represented Wall Street", and voted for the Iraq War. How big do your mistakes have to be to disqualify you for president?
Hillary Clinton turns up the heat on Bernie Sanders. It is amazing the lengths to which this paper will go to portray Hillary as something she's not; engaging, warm, tough
Hillary of course mocked the Oversight Committee which I expected but failed to mention that 2 independent investigators recommended to the FBI that they investigate. And correct me if I am wrong but the Oversight Committee has no control over the FBI do they?
Hillary also said she requested to appear.That is not true. In fact, they requested she would appear 2 days. She refused, saying she would only do one.
She also said that she turned over 55,000 pages of emails. What she fails to mention is that she was forced to turn them over due to a Judicial Watch lawsuit which she lost. So while Hillary can try and portray himself as going willingly and cooperating she has gone kicking and screaming. And I guarantee you the Democrats on the committee will portray Hillary as the poor victim and not ask one legitimate question.
There was also no mention of the controversy surrounding the Clinton Foundation. Why did they fail to list 1,000 donors? Why did they resubmit their last 2 years income taxes? Why are they taking money from foreign governments that have pathetic human rights records?
Cooper was right. She changes her positions for political expediency. I dislike Sanders but to his credit he is consistent and does have core beliefs. Hillary's beliefs are poll driven and change depending on Sanders position
Hillary of course mocked the Oversight Committee which I expected but failed to mention that 2 independent investigators recommended to the FBI that they investigate. And correct me if I am wrong but the Oversight Committee has no control over the FBI do they?
Hillary also said she requested to appear.That is not true. In fact, they requested she would appear 2 days. She refused, saying she would only do one.
She also said that she turned over 55,000 pages of emails. What she fails to mention is that she was forced to turn them over due to a Judicial Watch lawsuit which she lost. So while Hillary can try and portray himself as going willingly and cooperating she has gone kicking and screaming. And I guarantee you the Democrats on the committee will portray Hillary as the poor victim and not ask one legitimate question.
There was also no mention of the controversy surrounding the Clinton Foundation. Why did they fail to list 1,000 donors? Why did they resubmit their last 2 years income taxes? Why are they taking money from foreign governments that have pathetic human rights records?
Cooper was right. She changes her positions for political expediency. I dislike Sanders but to his credit he is consistent and does have core beliefs. Hillary's beliefs are poll driven and change depending on Sanders position
5
Hillary was led to believe she was The Anointed One in 2008, but was blindsided by a unknown Junior Senator with the middle name "Hussein".
Now, when she thought the path was finally clear to an easy victory....who comes along but an old white dude from Vermont.
Like you, I actually like Bernie Sanders and I respect his integrity. That doesn't mean he should be President. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy with integrity and one of the worst POTUSES in History.
The takedown is this: Hillary is like the Queen Bee in high school, who is only "nice" when she has the field all to herself and her minions kowtow to her every word. When another, prettier girl comes along....she turns into a bee-yotch. Then she flounders. Then she fails. That's what happened with Barack,and that's what will happen with Bernie.
Now, when she thought the path was finally clear to an easy victory....who comes along but an old white dude from Vermont.
Like you, I actually like Bernie Sanders and I respect his integrity. That doesn't mean he should be President. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy with integrity and one of the worst POTUSES in History.
The takedown is this: Hillary is like the Queen Bee in high school, who is only "nice" when she has the field all to herself and her minions kowtow to her every word. When another, prettier girl comes along....she turns into a bee-yotch. Then she flounders. Then she fails. That's what happened with Barack,and that's what will happen with Bernie.
As Ms. Clinton says, 'we are in the United States of America'. All the candidates were, of course, born here - there were some presidents not actually born in the USA but of American parents.
In any case, I never watch the primaries, the US presidential campaign is about ten times longer than, for instance, the UK campaign. Especially primaries. Very often the other party uses verbatim the mutual accusations in the general election.
But that is just me. No 'Ladislavs' are born in America and, as I was told several times, naturalized Americans are not REAL Americans...
In any case, I never watch the primaries, the US presidential campaign is about ten times longer than, for instance, the UK campaign. Especially primaries. Very often the other party uses verbatim the mutual accusations in the general election.
But that is just me. No 'Ladislavs' are born in America and, as I was told several times, naturalized Americans are not REAL Americans...
"We are not Denmark", is a stinging assessment of Bernie's logic? Really? It sounds like the authors of this article wrote the first half sitting in Hillary's strategy meeting before the debate started. I guess we know who the NYTs is backing.
5
Did we see the same debate?
9
Bernie Sanders is the man the US needs. The US has become a vulture capitalist society and probably, out of all the candidates, Sanders is the one that is the most willing and maybe the most able to make the radical shift towards a more socialist US.
US policies effect not only it's citizens but also the majority of its partnering countries. That is why I want give my two cents regarding the topic.
Go Bernie - from a supporter in Norway
US policies effect not only it's citizens but also the majority of its partnering countries. That is why I want give my two cents regarding the topic.
Go Bernie - from a supporter in Norway
5
A comment about Hillary's vow to 'fight for the people" blah blah. Sander's comment about free public college - Hillary interjected she thought everyone should have to be employed while in college - at least 10 hours a week - because she had to work while she attended an elite private college (where her father paid her tuition, then attended Yale Law School) - this insistence that people she knows nothing about should be employed a certain minimum number of hours a week while in college - whose business is that? Some parents don't want - or need - their children to be employed during college. Some people are raising their kids while attending college. This is the same greedy Hillary who made $12 million in speaking fees after leaving the State Department - who w/ Bill has made $100+ million giving 'speeches' at Goldman Sachs and at public colleges where she should have spoken for a minimal fee.
I was stunned when she brought this up - like she's worried college students might get something for nothing. No wonder she dislikes socialism. Hillary's a spoiled hypocrite. She's the last person who should be worrying that struggling students aren't working hard enough to deserve free public education. This is typical of her harsh but entitled view of the world - spoiling herself helicoptering from one home to another, vacationing in the Hamptons and 'helping' her daughter buy a $10 million Tribeca loft - and why many people think she's a phony.
HRC - still a conservative.
I was stunned when she brought this up - like she's worried college students might get something for nothing. No wonder she dislikes socialism. Hillary's a spoiled hypocrite. She's the last person who should be worrying that struggling students aren't working hard enough to deserve free public education. This is typical of her harsh but entitled view of the world - spoiling herself helicoptering from one home to another, vacationing in the Hamptons and 'helping' her daughter buy a $10 million Tribeca loft - and why many people think she's a phony.
HRC - still a conservative.
3
Oh, she's not a conservative. She is a typical hypocritical rich lefty liberal from an affluent coastal city (yeah, once she lived in Arkansas, a long time ago, but I'll bet she hardly remembers that!).
It's fine for her daughter to work for a hedge fund, or move into a $10 million Tribeca loft, but YOUR kid had better work his/her way through college.
That people believe Mrs. Clinton has the skills or ability to serve in the White House is amazing. She was a lousy Senator who was handed her position (because of her husband) and then a lousy Secretary of State, who quit half way, after the President she ran against gave her a job to shut her up.
I'm hoping the voters are too smart to put her on the ticket. Again.
It's fine for her daughter to work for a hedge fund, or move into a $10 million Tribeca loft, but YOUR kid had better work his/her way through college.
That people believe Mrs. Clinton has the skills or ability to serve in the White House is amazing. She was a lousy Senator who was handed her position (because of her husband) and then a lousy Secretary of State, who quit half way, after the President she ran against gave her a job to shut her up.
I'm hoping the voters are too smart to put her on the ticket. Again.
I get a sense that the general thrust of this debate analysis was decided before the debate began. It seems the idea was to paint the corporate favorite, Hillary Clinton, as the winner and then fill in with a few realistic details. No wonder so many commenters ask if the authors saw the same debate that they did. The authors paint sharp exchanges where none existed and report loud cheering and applause for only one candidate, while the rest of us heard it for several, with Sanders’ often more enthusiastic than Clinton’s.
It appears the New York Times may have tipped its hand early. It also appears that the only things Bernie Sanders has going for him are principles, convictions, honesty, and a concern for the American people that is enthusiastically returned by the people themselves. I guess the game from here on out would be to deny him adequate coverage?
It is heartening to see how many Sanders supporters there are among NYTimes readers – and among the tens of thousands who show up for his rallies. The nomination isn’t over yet. Not by a long shot.
It appears the New York Times may have tipped its hand early. It also appears that the only things Bernie Sanders has going for him are principles, convictions, honesty, and a concern for the American people that is enthusiastically returned by the people themselves. I guess the game from here on out would be to deny him adequate coverage?
It is heartening to see how many Sanders supporters there are among NYTimes readers – and among the tens of thousands who show up for his rallies. The nomination isn’t over yet. Not by a long shot.
6
A clear victory for Sanders! The democratic candidates seem like intelligent, decent people, unlike the zoo of republican candidates. I'm guessing this comment will not be allowed.
3
It is expected that the viewer audience for the first Dem debate will be about one third that of the first Republican debate. I confess, I am still waiting for some young, charismatic candidate to step from the wings and put some spark into the Democratic primaries. While I'm sure your candidate is the charismatic one, I think they're all charisma challenged and the viewing public apparently agrees. To those who say charisma is unimportant, remember that your ideas are just ideas unless you can sell them.
1
Hillary said 90 Americans died by gunshot every day. The true number is closer to 30.
Hillary was for the Iraq war, was in favor of our disastrous destruction of Libya, and now wants us to impose a no-fly zone in Syria. She's a dangerous woman, She will risk war, even war with Russia, to prove that she's tough.
I love Bernie.
Hillary was for the Iraq war, was in favor of our disastrous destruction of Libya, and now wants us to impose a no-fly zone in Syria. She's a dangerous woman, She will risk war, even war with Russia, to prove that she's tough.
I love Bernie.
4
Anderson Cooper, the rest of CNN and virtually all the "cable news" stations are more interested in creating friction, tension and conflict. Soberly discussing positions and trying to discuss both problems and solutions isn't at all what they are interested in despite their lip service to serving the electorate. Anderson, is also not the sharpest pencil in the pack, sorry Coop, but its true.
4
The media should be analyzing whose policies are best for America. Instead, they are analyzing who won the debate.
Shame on the NYT and the rest of our useless media.
Shame on the NYT and the rest of our useless media.
6
Hillary sounded and looked presidential, and must say it restored some faith I had lost in her over the last year. I thought Sanders was also quite strong. Those two are so far ahead of the other candidates that were on the stage that it seemed pointless for anyone else to be there. That said, the intelligence and behavior level by all participating during the Democratic debate was a stark contrast to the Republican debates. It leaves me shaking my head on how it's even possible for the Republicans get away acting the way they do and have anybody actually support them. For the sake of our country, it's 100% clear that the Democratic candidate needs to win the next presidency, or we will suffer dire consequences.
4
I love Bernie's ideals, but I'm not convinced that he will be able to reach his goals as president. You don't reach goals by ranting. Hillary seems to have the necessary skills and experience to make it happen.
I was unsure about Hillary until I watched a video of her having a conversation backstage with a young black man from the Black Lives Matter group who had been disruptive at one of her events. She listened intently to his views. He wanted the world to empathize with black people and believed that this would lead to fairer treatment and equality. Her response to him was genuine and frank: If you want real systemic change, you've got to get off the streets and get involved in your community, in your government. Ranting out on the streets won't change anything, and years from now you'll still be ranting about the same things.
She showed respect and understanding towards him, even after he disrupted her event. It was impressive.
I was unsure about Hillary until I watched a video of her having a conversation backstage with a young black man from the Black Lives Matter group who had been disruptive at one of her events. She listened intently to his views. He wanted the world to empathize with black people and believed that this would lead to fairer treatment and equality. Her response to him was genuine and frank: If you want real systemic change, you've got to get off the streets and get involved in your community, in your government. Ranting out on the streets won't change anything, and years from now you'll still be ranting about the same things.
She showed respect and understanding towards him, even after he disrupted her event. It was impressive.
2
You should check out Bernie's record of legislation, he's got a lot more done for the people than Hillary.
Like most politicians, Hillary will say anything to get elected -- and then change back to her real allegiances. As we found out with Obama, there's no way to hold these guys to their campaign promises once they take office. She had a great performance, but she is still untrustworthy. Sanders, on the other hand, is consistent with his record.
3
It seems strange that with all of the money out there in politics the Democrats agreed to hold a debate that could only be watched or listened to by subscribers to cable or CNN. When my morning Times arrived at my door today, there was not one word about the debate in a print version that should be giving me the latest news. (As a subscriber, am I getting my money's worth?) I don't like reading the Times through an electric device, but I turned on the computer anyway and found this as the only article about the debate—not direct quotes or a transcript of the debates, but the debate interpreted, edited and filtered by the Times, leaving me with a fuzzy picture of what was really said, and how. If the Democratic Party is going to make it so difficult for voters to listen to their candidates debate—I'll only go out of my way so far—why care? And what about many, many people without computer or digital phone access to electronic journalism or cable? Do their votes not count?
4
Time for the media and American pubic to call out the false equivalence between GOP so-called "debates" and what Dems delivered last night. Teeth gnashing paid right-wing trolls will continue in these and other pages to decry ginned up ethics charges against Hillary. What is however evident is the bankruptcy of the notion that Republicans offer anything than spewing a toxic brew of bigotry, hate, xenophobia, and warmed out trickle down economics which have failed miserably to help the American middle class. Americans are hungry for facts, real debate and plausible actionable plans for deliverance against decades of immiserizing politics. Hopefully, last night proved that politics does not always have to be tasteless entertainment in the vein of Trumpesque and Carsonite demagoguery.
3
After watching the disaster that was the republican debate, I was relieved to see the Democratic debate conducted with maturity, intelligence and civility.
4
On gun control, a euphemism for people control because guns can't be forced to obey laws, these candidates are quite wrong. The proof: every time the control freaks beat the drums for stricter control (viz., less freedom), the American people hear them and run for the store to buy a gun or stock up on ammo before they can be prevented, As a result, the number of guns in the hands of Americans has exploded during Obama's administration. It is almost as though he is an agent provocateur working under the cover of the presidency for the arms & ammo industries. With more guns than people, gun control is no longer politically possible. Americans will not allow their government to deprive them of the ability to defend themselves. Clearly, the government cannot keep them safe from loonies with guns. They are far safer ensuring their own security by whatever means they choose and not be foreclosed from having a gun--even an AK47.
Regarding the combined promises of all of the candidates for more or larger freebies, not a chance. Americans will never allow their rulers to take as much of their money as is needed to pay for all those many promises. They must think Americans seek government dependency as an alcoholic seeking free beer, which I'm sure one of them will eventually get around to promising.
Regarding the combined promises of all of the candidates for more or larger freebies, not a chance. Americans will never allow their rulers to take as much of their money as is needed to pay for all those many promises. They must think Americans seek government dependency as an alcoholic seeking free beer, which I'm sure one of them will eventually get around to promising.
1
It's true. You don't hear about it in the media, but immediately following the massacre in Sandy Hook, police departments in neighboring towns actually ran out of applications for pistol permits. They had to print more.
Connecticut has strict, common-sense restrictions on gun ownership including a background check, mandatory training, proficiency test and prohibition on any sale of guns without a permit/background check. The reason people gave for applying for their permit was that they were afraid that the laws would soon change so law abiding people could no longer have a gun and they wanted to make sure they were approved before this happened.
Connecticut has strict, common-sense restrictions on gun ownership including a background check, mandatory training, proficiency test and prohibition on any sale of guns without a permit/background check. The reason people gave for applying for their permit was that they were afraid that the laws would soon change so law abiding people could no longer have a gun and they wanted to make sure they were approved before this happened.
My heart is with Bernie, my mind, Hillary.
3
Bernie Sander's views on gun control are actually going to win over a lot of rural voters. There are many single issue voters who abhor gun control on constitutional grounds (or at least, gun control as packaged by liberals with the confiscation end game). Many simply do not trust politicians who wish to disarm them. This is part of what makes Sanders such a strong candidate.
3
If you believe the half truths that Hillary keeps schilling, then I really have to question your ability to engage in deductive reasoning. I would rather trust Sanders with the presidency than be subject to 4 years of scandal and thinly veiled attempts to dismantle personal liberty under another Clinton presidency. Hillary like Obama gives good speeches but as her lack of a track record as either a senator or as secretary of state indicate, she is not well qualified to be president and would only serve to further divide our nation.
3
The one person who came out looking really bad last night was Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, who did not want Americans to have the benefit of these kinds of robust debates.
Turns out her candidate, Hillary Clinton, did just fine. So did America's, Bernie Sanders. Enough of the damn emails! Let's get on to real debates of what the candidates propose to do for America!
Turns out her candidate, Hillary Clinton, did just fine. So did America's, Bernie Sanders. Enough of the damn emails! Let's get on to real debates of what the candidates propose to do for America!
6
What an embarrassing group of candidates.
3
Red or blue. It's true. I didn't hear a single substantive plan for building a strong economy again, and helping small businesses, other than "tax the rich."
I wish someone had asked Hilary about The Clinton Foundation and if it really did much good or was just a lot of show that employed her daughter and aids, gifts from the mega rich, etc. I wish someone had asked her when she spoke of hard work, how she possibly thought she was worth 350 thousand for a speech and if that constituted work. I wish that she had been attacked even harder over her vote for the Iraq war. Was her vote a politically expedient vote by a frightened democrat or the vote of a warmonger? I otherwise I found the candidates uplifting. I felt they actually cared about our nation, something I question with Hilary. But I will not vote for Hilary no matter what she says, as I do not trust her motives to be president. I fear she see the campaign for president as the quest of Hilary, as opposed to a quest to save the nation.
6
As the article states, Mr. Sanders called for Americans to “take back our government from a handful of billionaires.” While this sounds like a good stump speech phrase, what is the proof that a handful of billionaires actually control the government of the US? There is considerable proof that our government is controlled by a small number of career politicians, but, they number more than a handful. And, in case no one has noticed, a substantial number of our career politicians have considerably more than the average amount of wealth. I do note that Mr. Sanders does seem to be opposed to career politicians as well.
2
Looking for the word "Obama" in this thoughtful overview of the debate. Sobering how irrelevant he seems in many important discussions of the future. How difficult for anyone to embrace fully anything he has brought about. This is the problem on both sides and especially Biden's if he jumps in. To thunder hope for the future without any real assessment of the present.
I liked most of Bernie's positions except on gun control. But the media are saying that Hillary won and as we know, the race is won by the person who the judges say won the race, not necessarily by the person who first crosses the finishing line.
I wonder if Carly will be Hillary's opponent in the inter party debates. They both know how to state their positions clearly (even when they are wrong) and so the firefight might be interesting.
But in either case, one of the two women would then be Putin's opponent in 2017 and they are both hawks.
I realized recently that there HAVE to be female hawks or else the species would have died out. :)
I wonder if Carly will be Hillary's opponent in the inter party debates. They both know how to state their positions clearly (even when they are wrong) and so the firefight might be interesting.
But in either case, one of the two women would then be Putin's opponent in 2017 and they are both hawks.
I realized recently that there HAVE to be female hawks or else the species would have died out. :)
2
Required reading for this election: Clinton Cash. This book traces the influence of donations to the Clinton Foundation on US foreign policy.
Mrs. Clinton is truly our Imelda Marcos.
Mrs. Clinton is truly our Imelda Marcos.
3
The way I saw it, Hillary was well prepared but transparent. Is there any issue for which she is truly passionate? Bernie Sanders stands in stark contrast to Clinton's staginess. His alarm at the way big money interests are working for themselves and bleeding the middle class, his conviction that going to war should always be the last resort and his vision that free college eduction will enhance our nation spring from deep within him. I can see that those issues are as important to him as they are to me.
4
Since the POTUS election of 1964 blacks have voted 90+% for the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. As the most loyal long suffering part of the Democratic base the civil rights legislative victories of the 1960's have led to the exalted Age of Obama where and when there are more blacks than ever before on welfare, in prison and unemployed.
Black unemployment was 8.1% in 1995 and it is 8.9% in 2015. Still double the white unemployment rate. In 1995 the incarceration rate for black men was 8x the white make rate. In 2015 the rate of black male incarceration is 6x the rate of white men. In 1995 the black poverty rate was 29.3% and in 2013 it was 27.6 %.
Do black lives matter to the allegedly liberal progressive Democrats? Or not?
From the reign of the alleged 1st black POTUS to the rule of the 1st real black POTUS the evidence points to not valuing black life. Taking black support for granted safe in the presumption of consistent conservative libertarian evangelical Republican hostile antipathy blacks are left with a choice between staying home or the lesser evil.
Black unemployment was 8.1% in 1995 and it is 8.9% in 2015. Still double the white unemployment rate. In 1995 the incarceration rate for black men was 8x the white make rate. In 2015 the rate of black male incarceration is 6x the rate of white men. In 1995 the black poverty rate was 29.3% and in 2013 it was 27.6 %.
Do black lives matter to the allegedly liberal progressive Democrats? Or not?
From the reign of the alleged 1st black POTUS to the rule of the 1st real black POTUS the evidence points to not valuing black life. Taking black support for granted safe in the presumption of consistent conservative libertarian evangelical Republican hostile antipathy blacks are left with a choice between staying home or the lesser evil.
2
Similar to the obituaries that the NY Times prepares in advance the Times has apparently pre-written its debate coverage.
7
This puts the question of Bernie's chances of winning the nomination to rest - that is, rest assured that he won't win it.