The MSNBC debate, my take.

[bklyncowgirl]

Hillary Clinton, as we knew from her battles with Barak Obama, is an awesome one on one debater. She is fierce, fearless and has a deep reservoir of knowledge especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Bernie Sanders, to be honest, surprised me. Though I'm a supporter, I hadn't thought him particularly outstanding in the previous debates but in this mano a mano environment he seemed to thrive, exhibiting passion, humor and a devastating knack for knowing when to pull his punches and let his opponent damage herself. You could even call it "artful"

Her best moments came when the discussion switched to foreign policy. He can't match the knowledge of a former Secretary of State and to be honest he didn't try. He did not disgrace himself, however, and he could and did question her judgment in voting for the Iraq war.

His best moments came when he exhibited righteous indignation at the political corruption rampant on Wall Street and K Street and when he allowed her to dig herself deeper and deeper into a hole on her relationship with Goldman Sachs culminating in her weak "I'll look into it" comment when asked if she would release the transcripts of her speeches and the chorus of boos which erupted when she accused him of conducting an 'artful smear.'

Bottom line, Sanders won this round largely due to Clinton's inability to spin her way out of her Wall Street ties. He also extinguished any doubts that he could stand on the same stage with the likes of Donald Trump, Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz and hold his own. Todd and Maddow did a great job, letting the candidates go at it without letting them get out of control Finally, these debates are good for the Democratic Party. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC may have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this but allowing for an open discussion of Democratic principles and producing a battle tested candidate at the end worked in 2008 and is the best way to move forward.

[kennetha]

1. A single vote 14 years ago

is his sole foreign policy credential. That's pretty sad for a guy who wants to be commander in chief.

[TCJ70]

2. The world stage is a pretty limited place...

...and it's difficult to build credentials unless you've been in those positions. He has the right idea about foreig policy in general, though.

[kennetha]

4. He has no ideas about foreign policy

He sounded completely lost and befuddled on foreign policy. He seems to have devoted almost no thought to it. It was embarrassing.

[TCJ70]

7. I disagree...

...his emphasis on building up the ME to solve their own problems and keep dialogue open with states traditionally seen as enemies is exactly what needs to happen. We can't be the worlds police.

[MrChuck]

45. Your ageist comment is noted.

You think he's befuddled even though he has admitted that the former Secretary exhibits more knowledge.
Judgment is what's called for in terms of serving as Commander in Chief.
Sec'y Clinton's judgment has been a nightmare.
Literally, every single foreign policy situation she has touched has been a complete nightmare.
She has recently called for a no -fly zone over Syria in the midst of Russian sorties in the region.
That policy would undoubtedly cause a chill in relations with Putin and plunge us into another cold war...if we're lucky.

[Enthusiast]

56. "Befuddled and embarrassing" are just partisan spin.

Millions of us know something about Bernie. Bernie doesn't consider troops, bombing and war as the one best answer for everything on the international stage. The American people have had quite enough war.

Foreign policy experience doesn't count for much if the record shows repeated poor decision making.

[secondwind]

73. not true... He did speak about ISIS and about not having American boots on the ground, and about

having Muslims and others get more involved..

[FrostyAusty]

3. You know whats sad?

"Are you willing to release transcripts of the speeches you gave?"

"Well, I'll have to look into that"

That's a pretty sad answer for a gal who wants to be commander in chief.

One is exhibiting good judgment, the other is trying to avoid the question.

[ancianita]

39. She might not own the transcripts; thus, not be authorized. It's pretty straightforward, those

speech contracts. Those who pay generally control the audio, while she can control her own speech words.

Now, if they had asked for her own copies of her speeches, then you might call her response a dodge.

The written content and then what's said off-the-cuff can be different, and so I'd prefer a transcript.

[Deuce]

42. Thanks...

[MrChuck]

50. A transcript IS written.

An audio transcript is usually described as such.
You are correct in the sense that we would rather see the third party recording since nothing would prevent the former Secretary from generating new and altered copies, edited for content, of those speeches. She could claim to have read aloud the instructions for the Snoopy Snow Cone Machine for that matter.
That is why it is my opinion that these transcripts are largely irrelevant. Its the sum she was paid that cements her culpability and she has not denied the accuracy with which that has been reported. She's been caught red handed as a paid spokesperson for Wall Street and there's no way out.

[ancianita]

57. Getting paid by some oligarch to talk is neither selling out nor criminal. It's selling knowledge.

Your dark insinuation needs proof. Seriously.

That's exactly what she said to Bernie last night. That he'd better come out and make the accusation you're making.

Know what he had to say? He had nothing.

Insinuating guilt does not make your opponent guilty.

Some of us haven't learned from the Republican play book by now.

[MrChuck]

71. Truly.

Those of us who have understand that actual guilt is only analogous to the erosion of credibility.

We disagree on the issue of fealty.

Hillary Clinton is likely to feel beholden to the source of her private income and to the source of her campaign finance.

Similarly, Senator Sanders could also be expected to exhibit fealty toward the sources of his income and to those who have financed his campaign.

As a member of that group I can tell you that I would consider myself more well represented by Senator Sanders were he the nominee.

[secondwind]

74. I concur wholeheartedly

[ancianita]

80. I would worry about his ability to calculate and guide our geopolitical vision.

Fealty can take many forms -- one of which is to get the untamed moneyed class to discipline its parasitic drive to ensure its own survival.

I would prefer her taking on the issues of equal pay and equal standing before the law. There's as much in her record to commend her toward credibility as there is in Sanders' record.

Masters of force are out to subdue half the planet on many levels. I wouldn't mind that worldwide problem getting a US president's attention for once. In that regard I'm aligned with Jimmy Carter.

I'm good with both so far. I'll be watching future debates.

[MrChuck]

91. That's a solid plan.

At this point I think that the former Secretary has a considerable burden of incredible baggage.

They are so close on the issues that there isn't a homerun for either in the strictest of policy examination. There are important differences but none that would prevent me from voting Dem in November.

What's been ignored and unexploited even by Sanders is the idea that fair domestic social policy and economic reform are our best foreign policy strategy as well. Our constant dalliance in foreign affairs, something that the former Secretary plans to continue in earnest, cost us lives at home and respect abroad not to mention the cost in dollars.
By concentrating on reform domestically and lessening our stranglehold on the rest of the world we will regain the respect of our allies and allow emerging liberty to develop in its own right abroad.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

46. Release the transcripts... or we'll release the Kracken!

If she really took it to Wall Street and threatened to go after those greedy assholes, you would think Hillary would be thrilled to turn over her speeches to demonstrate her progressive chops and win over our votes. I would be SO proud of her... I truly would.

But, you and I know there is a zero chance we'll EVER see those transcripts... hmmm, wonder why?

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[dsc]

53. wow sexist much

calling a nearly 70 year old woman who was a Senator and Sec of State a gal.

[FrostyAusty]

60. Is this serious?

I simply said Gal since the op said Guy...

Hahahaha what a joke!

[angel123]

61. Calling Hillary a gal.

Not only is it sexist, it is also disrespectful. Would you call a man a boy, I don't think so. The level of disrespect for a democrat on this site has become almost unbearable. I believe that it is as bad or worse than 2008 against Obama. Really very sad.

[k8conant]

68. Gal does not equal Girl...

just as Guy does not equal Boy.

I am a 66-year-old gal who does not agree with angel123.

[FrostyAusty]

69. really?

like I said it was a direct response to the first post saying "guy fit to be commander in chief" it was never meant to be disrespectful.... But whiny retorts and trying to act like a victim here are just sad. I could think of plenty of terms/phrases to be disrespectful, gal is hardly one of them. Keep trying to play the victim card though like your establishment idol, it's very fitting of you.

[AlbertCat]

79. Not only is it sexist, it is also disrespectful.

And pearl clutch-y!

[mountain grammy]

70. You know what's sad?

Calling Hillary Clinton a "gal."

[artislife]

92. How about "that woman"?

Is that acceptable, I think Bill used it so it should fly.

[mountain grammy]

95. As a woman, the same age as Hillary,

I say no. It's not that I'm so politically correct, it's just that women have been disrespected for too long.

[artislife]

96. I find the word gal not as galling as girl

And since we use the words guy, it is the matching word.

I also don't like the word Ladies. I like the word woman best and hate the word female when used in place of the word woman. It sounds like words police us when describing a suspect or prisoner.

So first choice is woman, then gal, then ladies, hen girl and lastly, female (when used in a situation that would be a perfect place for the word woman)

Anything else is pretty derogatory, so I won't even go into those words.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Might want to scrap the sexist language there.

Welcome to DU...

[Hoppy]

78. WhatdafuxamatterU? Gal is a sexist term. You are gonna get a hide.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

[rtracey]

82. you know whats sad

here's whats sad, there is no long any room in the Democrat party for moderates.

[daleanime]

9. ......

[bklyncowgirl]

13. A former Secretary of State is hard to top when it comes to foreign policy.

That being said, the Republican field is not exactly filled with foreign policy heavyweights. Obama was not exactly a pro when it came to this either but he held his own with the expert, John McCain on the debate stage.

[Triana]

16. +1 n/t

[oasis]

15. For GE voters to accept the idea of a perceived pacifist as Commander

in Chief is asking a bit too much.

[k8conant]

86. I think it goes well with the idea of a civilian

Commander-in-Chief. It would mean we'd no longer be "cops of the world".

[JudyM]

17. ... and what were her husband's credentials in that area? And Barak's?

[dorkzilla]

31. It’s a ridiculous argument

How many Presidents had those credentials when they took office?

I’m more concerned about crumbling infrastructure and influence peddling that how much experience he has in foreign policy.

[AlbertCat]

81. This ^

Why does the prez need to be an expert (which Clinton is not) in foreign affairs? That's why we have a SoS. Perhaps Sanders can appoint Clinton to that position again.

[dorkzilla]

87. Oh good GOD NO!

I’m sick to death of war. I’d like to sit out the next few. Maybe Canada would care to take our place? I’m often mistaken for Canadian when I go abroad, so maybe someone will mistake them for the US.

I don’t actually propose isolationism or pacifism, but a real diplomat with no skin in the MIC game.

[KingCharlemagne]

19. Sanders got it right and Hillary got it wrong. Only the most momentous foreign-policy

decision of the past 50 years.

When it mattered, Sanders got it right and Hillary got it wrong.

[winter is coming]

24. And he got it right at a time when there was a lot of pressure to go along to get along.

He wasn't intimidated by the fear-mongering. He made the choice which, at the time, looked like one that would endanger an ambitious politician. Instead of worrying about someone down the road painting him as "weak on defense" or "weak on terror", he did what he thought was best for the country.

[kennetha]

38. So Did Kerry, So did Biden.

Are they disqualified to?

[Javaman]

63. last time I checked, neither of those guys are running for president.

but alas, you tried your jab and it failed.

[kennetha]

66. All those fools

chosen by Obama.

But you disapprove.

Let's see, whose judgment should I trust..... yours or Obama's?

Guess?

[lobodons]

75. +1

Good point. Also, A lot of us also voted for Kerry in 2004 for President.

[Javaman]

83. you're still jabbing.

but alas...

you know the rest.

have a truly spectacular day, because I am.

[Carolina]

98. In my book,

they were... even more so because of their longstanding tenures in the Senate and their awareness of the machinations of the Bush cabal. Kerry had even been part of the investigation into Iran-contra and had been a war vet who questioned useless wars, so he should have known better. But he too was calculating the political winds, and in the end, during the 2004 cycle, it was painful to watch him spin and attempt to justify his vote. And, alas in 2004, there was no alternative to W, so I held my nose and voted for the ticket.

Come 2008, I was frankly disappointed when BHO chose Biden. I had never thought much of him since the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings in 1991 when he was judiciary committee chair. That committee sought Anita out and compelled her testimony, then threw her under the bus. Only Ted Kennedy was gracious to her. When Biden voted aye on IWR, that was the straw.

Because Obama had opposed the war and used his opposition as evidence of the change he embodied, I was disappointed when he chose Biden for VP. But again, I voted for the Dem ticket because of hope and Obama.

I am tired of voting for a ticket that continues to disappoint through repuke-lite/like policies or acquiescence to repukes. Hillary is the personification of everything I loathe about 'new' Democrats. And this time, I will not compromise.

Feel the Bern!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

49. Hillary USUALLY gets it wrong!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[AzDar]

67. ^ This.

End of story.

[Carolina]

97. Touche

Last edited Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:48 PM - Edit history (3)

Candidate weathervane was being her usual calculating self, exhibiting political and moral cowardice.

We are still paying for the consequences of that vote and that war. We continue to pay in terms of Death, Debt, Disorder (in the region, hence ISIS), Distress (of our veterans), Division (in the nation) and Disgrace (on the international front/reputation).

Hillary's judgment was severely lacking in 2002 when she voted for IWR and her experience as SOS has only demonstrated her complete ineptitude. Everything she touches goes from sugar to shit.

Iraq
Libya
Syria

She even wants to reverse all efforts to normalize (de-escalate) tensions with Iran, which BTW, like Iraq, never attacked the US (bombed, waged war). Taking over our embassy was blowback for what the US CIA did to Iraq in 1953!

edited for typos... need to stop posting from iPhone with its wrong autocorrect

[Perogie]

20. please show me

The foreign policy credentials of JFK and explain how the lack of them was detrimental in his handling of the Cuban missile crisis.

The foreign policy credentials FDR and explain how the lack of them was detrimental in his handling of WWII.
OK FDR did serve as Assistant Secretary of the Navy but it didn't included any foreign policy decisions.

What about Hillary's husband Bill. He had zero foreign policy experience. How did he do on the world stage?

[lostnfound]

29. If the Empire is all that really matters

The IWR was a time to stand up and be counted. A lot of us tried to be counted by marching in the streets, but only a few hundred -- members of congress -- had the privilege to vote in the matter.

[LiberalArkie]

30. How much foreign policy experience did Bill have when he ran? He had not even held a federal job

before his run.

[Moostache]

34. When did the title change?

Its still President of the United States of America, right? When the title is officially President of the planet Earth, we can debate how much foreign policy should enhance or discount a candidate...but look ahead to the general election and tell me Sanders is any less qualified than the clown college candidate will be, any less engaged, and certainly anywhere near as insane or out to lunch.

In the meantime, do you have any idea how petty your post sounds?
Its an honest question because I am not sure if you realize how GOP/out of touch with reality your snark sounds in the real world.

[kath]

41. He's been in Congress for 30yrs. How much foreign policy experience did Bill or Obama have when they

were elected?
Hmmmm?

[thereismore]

62. To be fair, candidate Obama did not even vote at the IWR because he wasn't there. His sole claim to

having a better judgment than Hillary was that he wrote an op-ed. And look how he turned out! A great President!

There is no way to predict what future will bring, but I trust the person with a better judgement. Just like I trusted Obama in 2007/8 campaign, I trust Bernie now, for much the same reasons.

[angrychair]

64. This is a very weak refrain

Be realistic.
Did her husband, a two-term president, have ANY significant foreign policy experience coming into office?

Did President Obama, a two-term president, have ANY significant foreign policy experience when he became president?

Did she, herself, have ANY significant foreign policy experience when she ran for president in 2008?

Did she, herself, have ANY significant foreign policy experience when was nominated as Secretary of State?

No, the answer is no to all those questions. You would be hard pressed to pin down many presidents that had any real foreign policy experience going into the job.

Stop with this "I have the experience" meme. Its a fruitless tree.

[99th_Monkey]

65. Neither Bill Clinton nor Obama had FP experience either.

But both served as adequate commanders in chief ..

Hillary' way too hawkish for my taste.

[secondwind]

72. how many votes did Sen. Obama have?

[Matariki]

88. A vote the affected the lives and DEATHS of hundreds of thousands of human beings

A vote that to this day affects both this country, our economy, and the mess that middle east has become.

So yeah, it's important and any attempts to minimize the importance of that vote are ignorant or political.

[Carolina]

99. Bingo,

I said much the same upthread. But your response is better because it hits the nail squarely on the head with few words and great impact.

[mhatrw]

101. Unnecessarily and counterproductively killing Muslims in four different countries is

Clinton's big foreign policy selling point.

[onecaliberal]

5. She is owned by the military industrial complex.

[beaglelover]

6. I disagree with your take, but whatever gets you through the day.

[AtomicKitten]

8. I don't think she's a good debater.

She rarely answers the question, instead rambling and filibustering like the bully she is.

Bernie's responses were on point and disciplined.

[bklyncowgirl]

10. I disagree with you on that.

She is very good at getting her point across and has an instant recall of facts and details.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Her voice and demeanor are obnoxious.

She never defers to the moderator, and her recall of facts is dubious because she rarely tells the truth. She exaggerates her record, often taking credit for the accomplishments of others.

[kennetha]

18. Be careful

you're going to be accused of sexism.

Bernie who shouts all the time, looks angry all the time, gestures all the time has a "pleasant" demeanor?????????

[AtomicKitten]

21. Bernie answers on point. You need your passport to follow Hillary's ramblings.

Her debate style is awful and there's nothing sexist about saying so.

[dorkzilla]

33. I agree

I never understood when people said that she was a good debater or this is where she shines. She always seems snide and contemptuous. Sanders may be gruff (hard for me to detect as a New Yorker thought to be honest. This is the way a lot of us are, hence our reputation for being unfriendly), but he answers the questions. She rambles and obfuscates. It is hard to watch.

[BuddhaGirl]

54. Yep, he definitely has the angry old man thing down

And he comes off very strident. I love what Bernie stands for, but Hillary did a great job last night.

Neither candidate is my perfect candidate, but Hillary is more electable and has more experience, imo.

[JudyM]

36. Continually cuts him off and shouts over him. Not a classy demeanor at all. More like

a high school shouting match.

[ancianita]

47. I've seen that, and I listened for that last night; she did not do that last night.

[Carolina]

100. Exactly... K&R

I completely agree about the obnoxious factor.

As a lifelong Democrat who remembers Kennedy (such eloquence, charm and humor), I cannot stand to hear Hillary pontificate on her qualifications, her plans, her this, her that, her, her, her... totally shrill and off-putting. That screaming 'victory' speech in Iowa on Tuesday was just AWFUL. And she's not a good debater. She's defensive, angry and full of bullshit, as you stated exaggerating her record and often taking credit for the accomplishments of others . So when she comes on TV now, I find myself lowering the volume or hitting mute.

Also, she's not a progressive and she doesn't get GOOD things done. Her tenure as SOS was a complete disaster.

[winter is coming]

26. That doesn't contradict what AK said.

Sticking to your talking points doesn't necessarily answer questions.

And I wouldn't brag too loudly about the quality of Secretary Sniper-Fire's recall.

[Goblinmonger]

23. I'm solidly in Sanders' camp, but I thought she did a good job.

With the exception of the "I'll look into it," I thought she handled Wall Street portion well and went more specifically to her policy than Sanders did. I think, in the end, he came out ahead in this debate, but that, admittedly, could be my bias. She did well. She knows what she's doing in the debate realm.

[AtomicKitten]

28. I find her evasive, scattered, and off-putting in debates.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

[Goblinmonger]

51. She had some obvious evasive moments.

I would agree that at points she was off-putting.

I competed in and coached college debate and I didn't think she was all that scattered. She was on point and pushed her position pretty well. At times, I thought she stayed to the "this is my specific policy" more than Sanders. She's good at this. If she gets the nomination (which I'm not hoping for), she'll ream Trump/Cruz/Rubio a new asshole in the debates.

[ancianita]

48. I totally agree with you. She did an excellent job last night. But more difficult issues are coming.

[HereSince1628]

11. Personally, I think we know very little of State Dept accomplishments

during her time as secretary.

There are considerable questions about what are outstanding appearances of conflicts of interest regarding international business/governments and Clinton Foundation.

There is the muddle mess of disobeying Obama administration directives, and the cloud she created around establishing her private email system.

She traveled -a lot-, yes, an historical -lot-. What came of it?

Let's get the record of her State Department projects and accomplishments out on the table where it can be examined.

I think the must be a lot more there than "We came, we saw, he's dead" for us to examine.

[Glitterati]

12. I didn't watch this debate, and I don't have a candidate, but......

from the clips I've seen, I think one thing bears discussion.

We're tired of having to fight every day, for every penny, just to SURVIVE.

Hillary is about more years of "surviving" and nothing else.

I don't want to hear "it can't be done" no matter what the suggestion/idea is. I want HOPE.

Hillary offers no hope. Hillary offers more of what we have today and have had.

Bernie speaks for me. He speaks DIRECTLY to the issues I deal with every day.

Hillary represents more gridlock, more scandals, more government NOT working for ME.

Bernie does not represent those things.

I'm leaning very heavily for Bernie.

[Cosmocat]

25. Yeah

I get what you are saying, and am voting Bernie because he is 1) the most right on the issues 2) Has the spine to stake his flag and go at republican bullshit, unlike 99% of other elected democrats.

That said, except on the margins where he could operate with executive powers like BHO is now, Bernie is going to face the same exact gridlock, faux scandals that BHO faces and Hillary would ...

Neither are going to change much because they are going to be stuck with at best a republican majority in the house, and at best 50/50 a republican majority in the senate, which will do what they are doing now, absolutely nothing other than put 100 percent of the ir energy into destroying him.

[Gary 50]

85. Neither are going to change much because they are going to be stuck with a Republican majority...

But there is a difference. Hillary will get things done. Republican things. She will steal the Republicans thunder by giving in to their demands and pretending what they want is what she wanted all along. Kill regulations and lower taxes for corporations and the one percent, check. Bomb here, invade there, massively increase military spending, check. Do something, anything for the poor or middle class. Ha Ha. Don't hold your breath. The "turd way" politician talks liberal, campaigns liberal but governs Republican.

[mikehiggins]

43. If we made a movie about "Battling Bernie" we'd need Jimmy Cagney to play him.

(See what I did there? Put the "battling Bernie" meme out in front. Lets see if it'll catch on. To me, it sure seems to fit what he has done)

[dreamnightwind]

22. Personally I thought he crushed her

The deeper she pushed, the worse it got for her, because on the facts, at the heart of the matter, Bernie's campaign is right on the issues. It isn't even close, and all she's left with is attempts to divert and spin.

Her calling the attacks on her Wall St. ties an artful smear is nothing but disingenuous desperation. It isn't a smear, it isn't even personal, it's a fact, and it's the absolute heart of what's wrong in this country. We want politicians who represent us, not Wall St., nor MIC interests, not big insurance and pharmaceutical interests, and Hillary is the favorite Democrat (actually the favorite politician of any party) for those forces.

She's says she's never changed anything because of that money? That's absurd and nobody with any sense will ever believe that. Bernie doesn't have to demonstrate any specific change she's made, it's quite obvious what the game is, why they give money to candidates, and why wealthy corporations and the MIC own Washington D.C.

This recent study blew the lid off the whole fraudulent system, and why we can't get what we want, even when what we want is the majority opinion:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy

In their conclusion, Gilens and Page go even further, asserting that “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”

...

The issue is what happens when some income groups, particularly the rich, support or oppose certain things, and other groups in society don’t share their views. To tackle this issue, Gilens and Page constructed a multivariate statistical model, which includes three causal variables: the views of Americans in the ninetieth percentile of the income distribution (the rich), the views of Americans in the fiftieth percentile (the middle class), and the opinions of various interest groups, such as business lobbies and trade unions. In setting up their analysis this way, the two political scientists were able to measure the impact that the groups have independent of each other.

One of the study’s other interesting findings is that, beyond a certain level, the opinions of the public at large have little impact on the chances a proposal has of being enacted. As I said, policy proposals that have the support of the majority fare better than proposals which are favored only by a minority. But, in the words of Gilens and Page, “The probability of policy change is nearly the same (around 0.3) whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favor a proposed policy change.”

Hillary wants to frame Sanders' points re this issue as an artful smear. It's more of an artful schmear on the bagel he hangs around the necks of politicians representing corporations. It's not a smear at all, it's the rot at the heart of both parties that has been destroying our lives and our planet.

Finally, regarding her saying, in response to Sanders' point that he got Iraq war right while she did not (Hillary said that was in 2002 and instead of focusing on that we need to figure out how to deal with ISIS now), the Iraq war is quite literally what CREATED ISIS, and what led to the destabilization of the entire region. All of the experience Hillary is so happy to trot out as to why she is the one qualified in foreign policy is based on her buy-in to the destabilization of an entire region, per the PNAC list of countries to do regime change in. Her "experience" is the problem, not the solution.

I could go on and on. Sanders is a force, and a perfectly focused and targeted one. He comes at this with an accurate radical analysis of our systemic issues and how they translate to individual and ecological ruin. There is just no spinning that away, and it's something I've been waiting all my life for a candidate to articulate and fight against.

Unbelievable debate last night, the most substantive one I've ever seen, thanks to Bernie being in the race this election.

[C_U_L8R]

27. I'm so glad we have two wonderful candidates

sure beats being Republican -whose choice is which one is less bad.

[ancianita]

32. As a Bernie supporter, I have to say Hillary sounded pretty damned good to me last night.

Her specifics were clear and her focus on their differences was sharp.

She got his respect and challenged any shade casting he's done about her doing the bidding of her donors. She did that because he used no historical evidence and can prove nothing. Yet.

Hillary shows more knowledge of the geopolitical landscape than Bernie, which is her main favorable strength to me. And knowing what I'm learning about the Putin and Islamic worlds, her experience is valuable for this country.

Even as I respect Bernie's ideals, Hillary has forged a path for winning me over.

[kennetha]

35. keep listening and weighing all factors.

[BuddhaGirl]

55. +1

n/t

[NoMoreRepugs]

37. for me the debate was a win-win for voters - candidates who can actually

articulate their ideas and beliefs - reality show elements weren't any part of it - unlike
those other guys

[randr]

40. What I hope comes out of these debates

is a positive direction for our Party to follow. A hit list of important changes that will make our world a better place.
We have two candidates with enough ideas for a good start. We need to coalesce this force into a winning Presidential candidate.

[Uponthegears]

44. I know this is sacrilege

but is US foreign policy during the time Hillary was Secretary of State anything we should be writing home about?

What countries have benefitted from the "Arab Spring" (except, of course, Israel which has seen strong Arab rivals descend into chaos)? What is "good" about what has happened in the Balkans? How about Central America . . . with tens of thousands fleeing . . . what "good" did she do there?

At this point in time, the only good thing that seems to have happened is the Iran nuclear deal and Hillary couldn't close the deal on that one . . . well, not at least before she left to start campaigning.

People criticize her for her Iraq war vote (and there is no doubt but that her vote distinguishes her from Senator Sanders), but seriously, what did she accomplish as SOS?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. I just heard the clip of Clinton surrounding the 'artful smear' line.

And what struck me was that Clinton did not say 'I did not change any votes based on money I got'. She said 'You will not find that I changed any votes...'

ie, not that she didn't actually do something, but that she is pretty sure she didn't leave any proof around that she did it.

[Bonhomme Richard]

58. So many miss the point about Foreign Policy

Our foreign policy is based on putting out fires and not dealing with the symptoms. Yes, Hillary would be the perfect President to continue that path. The fact of the matter is that foreign policy and economic policy are linked at the hip. I can't think of many major issues in the world today that do not have economic desperation as their root cause, especially in the third world. Would any terrorist organization gain any traction in a society that could feed their families and educate their children? Of course not. If we really want to address the issues that plague the world we first need to address the current state of capitalism and a tendency to protect certain interest.
What we really need is a President that is willing to address the core problem and, unfortunately, I don't think we, as a nation, are mature enough to do that.

[WiffenPoof]

59. I watched it twice...

And I was amazed how much Bernie impressed me on the second viewing. I would suggest watching the debates more than once... It might give you a deeper understanding of what is at stake.

[lobodons]

76. My Conspiracy Theory take

Hillary and Bernie have a pact. For the good of the Party, they both wanted a contested primary and not a perceived coronation. Both agree/believe that Hillary will win, but they will put on a show for us. Notice how they both go negative to a point, but do not go over the line and then pull back and compliment the other. Its a win/win because as Bernie runs he excites the progressive left which will be needed in general to not only win the White House, but also take back the Senate and pick up seats in the House.

caveat: Bernie went into this with above belief, but now he might be getting the bug as he see's his numbers skyrocket.

(will be interesting to see how this pans out. BUT regardless, the Dems win in the big picture!!)

[bklyncowgirl]

90. I think Sanders is too straight a shooter for that.

He's in it to win it but he is not going to sell his soul to the devil to do so. That may or not be a mistake.

I just watched him on CSPAN at a small event in New Hampshire an hour or so ago and what struck me was what a soft-spoken, thoughtful guy he is. I'd formerly seen him speak at these giant rallies in stadium rocker mode or in debates.

My guess is he had a good idea that there was an audience for his ideas and that he may be just a little surprised at just how large that audience is.

[lobodons]

93. berie is a soft spoken guy

Agree, and you could see this last night in the debate it was very hard for him to go negative. And his reaction to Hillary when she went negative was I can't believe you're going to make me go there. You could tell he did not want to but he did in his own way.

[k8conant]

84. Hillary: "I'm not going to make promises I can't keep" =

"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.
“I don’t much care where–” said Alice.
“Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat.
“–so long as I get SOMEWHERE,” Alice added as an explanation.
“Oh, you’re sure to do that,” said the Cat, “if you only walk long enough.”

(Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter 6)

[TCJ70]

89. Bernie really needs to follow that up...

...with something. He's not promised anything either. His focus is changing out politics from the ground up in order to enact domestic policy change. That statement also completely ignores the difficulty she herself would face getting anything past this congress. I don't see her pushing for the kinds of radical changes Sanders is in order to actually start progressing forward. So much for her commitment to getting things done. Sanders at least sees what needs to happen.

[k8conant]

94. That's what I think...

Hillary wants baby steps. Bernie wants strides.

[Kentonio]

102. I just watched the debate

On the question of would she pick Bernie as her VP, it was so clear she wanted to say something like "Sure, right after I rub glass shards in my own eyes".