I started watching the debate with good intentions \u2014 I didn\u2019t take copious notes but I tweeted a few comments along the way so I\u2019ll reconstruct my impressions by checking twitter. \u00a0These are purely my impressions; I haven\u2019t done any reading yet on what others have to say, and, to be honest, I was folding laundry, and checking in on the kids, and tucking one in along the way, so I missed a lot.<\/p>\n
*******<\/p>\n
Odd \u201cpre-debate\u201d starting point: \u00a0a taped message from Obama, in the nature of a campaign commercial boasting of his time as president and urging election of a Democrat. \u00a0Justified because it was shown to the audience at the debate. \u00a0In fact, the whole debate itself was different than prior ones; instead of the standard injunction to be quiet, the audience was encouraged to cheer for their favorites.<\/p>\n
The debate started with an opening more reminiscent of the start of a sports playoff, then with the national anthem. \u00a0Odd \u2014 I certainly didn\u2019t remember this from the GOP version. \u00a0Is this meant to signal patriotism?<\/p>\n
The opening statements: \u00a0fairly unforgettable but so carefully memorized that, except for Sanders, they seemed to be reading from a directly-in-front-of-them teleprompter.<\/p>\n
The moderator starts off with the premise of asking each candidate about their weakness but I don\u2019t remember Clinton\u2019s question, just Sanders\u2019: \u00a0\u201caren\u2019t you a crackpot socialist?\u201d \u00a0To which he replied that his models are the Scandinavian countries, and he wants the U.S. to be like them. \u00a0(Remind me to blog later on the fact that the progressive image of Sweden is far from the reality \u2014 heck, they and Norway both reformed their Social Security systems.)<\/p>\n
Clinton is asked about her staking a claim, in various venues to being both a \u201cprogressive\u201d and a \u201cmoderate\u201d \u2014 her answer is basically \u201cI am a progressive moderate,\u201d trying to square the circle. \u00a0It was clear that \u201cmoderate\u201d was a dirty word that couldn\u2019t be admitted to.<\/p>\n
O\u2019Malley was asked about his record in Baltimore, to which is replied, basically, \u201cyou think it\u2019s bad now? \u00a0It was a ton worse before I was there!\u201d<\/p>\n
Webb had apparently made a statement expressing skepticism about affirmative action, to which he said, \u201cI support affirmative action for the black community because of the legacy of discrimination; but I doubtful that it makes sense for other groups\u201d \u2014 though he didn\u2019t specify who he meant. \u00a0Presumably he had in mind recent immigrants, or perhaps also women as well.<\/p>\n
On guns: \u00a0the first thing to note is that the stylebook seems to dictate the phrase \u201ccommon sense gun safety legislation\u201d \u2014 over and over again. \u00a0No specifics on what this means, though, except that Sanders was called on to defend his vote against a bill which would have made gun dealers liable for crimes committed with guns they sell. \u00a0His response is partly-reasonable: \u00a0\u201cyou have to understand the bigger picture that this bill, like so many others, contained a mix of reasonable and unreasonable provisions\u201d \u2014 but at the same time, he then moved to \u201cyou have to understand that I come from Vermont and my constituents would have my hide if I voted for a bill like this.\u201d \u00a0He came off, to me at least, as saying \u201cmy constituents are unreasonable and they made me do it,\u201d and he repeated this several times, not revisiting the first bit about the objectionable bits in this particular bill, which Clinton and others either did vote for or affirmed they would have.<\/p>\n
Webb, on the other hand, wasn\u2019t backing down from his support for gun ownership for self-defense. \u00a0 Good luck with that!<\/p>\n
On foreign policy, and Clinton\u2019s infamous \u201creset\u201d: \u00a0her rationale is that Medvedev was a reasonable, moderate fellow who could be worked with. \u00a0The only problem was the subsequently Putin regained control and started to cause trouble. \u00a0Really? \u00a0She\u2019s trying to spin this as if Medvedev wasn\u2019t working together with Putin the whole time?<\/p>\n
The general chorus on Syria was a unanimous: \u00a0\u201cnot our problem.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sanders was asked, \u201cwhen would you use force\u201d and he used the example of fighting ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. \u00a0Now, to be sure, this was some low-hanging fruit, a pretty low-risk intervention, but if your standard is fighting ethnic cleansing, then shouldn\u2019t the genocide of religious minorities in ISIS-controlled territory merit some concern \u2014 or at least some honesty, if what you really mean is \u201cI support use of force to stop injustice when it looks pretty risk-free\u201d?<\/p>\n
Then I went o get some more laundry to sort and all the sudden they were back to Iraq and squabbling over who opposed military action there most strongly, and reiterating the (since-disproven) claim that \u201cBush lied!\u201d<\/p>\n
The closest to a zinger of the night: \u00a0Clinton was apparently prattling on about no-fly zones, and O\u2019Malley said something to the effect of \u201chey, you have to enforce a no-fly zone, Senator Clinton, not just declare one.\u201d \u00a0If memory serves, Clinton\u2019s reply was that we would pawn off the work onto our allies.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s Clinton\u2019s defense of what happened in Libya: \u00a01) Qadaffi was threatening to do bad things to people, 2) our allies really wanted us to intervene, and 3) hey! they held free elections before things went to pot. \u00a0Of course, 1) the same was true of Saddam, 2) we don\u2019t (or shouldn\u2019t) be making decisions based on allies in this fashion and 3) Iraq also had free elections \u2014 remember the purple-finger celebrations?<\/p>\n
Then the candidates were asked about the greatest national security threat: \u00a0Clinton said something about keeping nukes away from terrorists. \u00a0Sanders says climate change. \u00a0Really?<\/p>\n
Somewhere along the way there seems to have been discussion about what appear to be the Health Care Reform agenda items for 2016: \u00a0free college, and paid parental leave. \u00a0(Not free child care?) \u00a0No real disputes among the candidates except for who\u2019d be most successful, with one or another of the candidates reminding the others, and the audience, that you have to work with a likely-GOP congress to get any such thing passed. \u00a0It seems to me that Clinton touted her ability to do so, while at the same time, being proud that they hated her guts.<\/p>\n
The high point of the debate: \u00a0some discussion about the e-mail issue, and I came back to the TV just in time to hear Bernie Sanders defending Clinton: \u00a0\u201cno one cares about the e-mails.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the end, it\u2019s game over \u2014 does Sanders really want to be president? \u00a0No. \u00a0It\u2019s been long speculated that his objective, and the objective of his supporters, is to push Clinton to the left. \u00a0But here it is: \u00a0Democrats don\u2019t care about the e-mail issue; perhaps in other circumstances, they would, but they don\u2019t see themselves as having a good alternative to Clinton and winning the White House is key, so they\u2019re willing to discard questions of whether she put national security at risk, or used her office for personal advantage, or is failing to disclose correspondence. \u00a0And Sanders\u2019 response here makes it clear: \u00a0he doesn\u2019t want Clinton to be damaged, because he knows she\u2019s the nominee. \u00a0Fundamentally, he\u2019s protecting her. \u00a0If we had a multiparty coalition-building system, he\u2019s be the minor party trying to get enough votes to put him in a position to start making demands in a\u00a0coalition agreement.<\/p>\n
And that was about as much as I could stand, and I started watching the Big Bang Theory (on On Demand), until my husband came back from his meeting and the show ended, and we resumed watching. \u00a0\u201cWho\u2019s your greatest enemy?\u201d or something like that was answered variously as \u201cthe GOP\u201d by Clinton, and \u201cthe guy on the battlefield who lobbed a grenade at me, but he didn\u2019t survive!\u201d by Webb. \u00a0Then closing statements with nothing memorable and it was finally over.<\/p>\n
Now, I know I\u2019m not the target audience. \u00a0I liked Webb, but for reasons that make him completely unelectable as a Democrat. \u00a0Fundamentally, it seems like what\u2019s going on is a bidding war, of who can promised to turn us in to the most caricatured version of (pre-reform) Sweden, which speaks to their audience.<\/p>\n
And, to reiterate, there are just my impressions. \u00a0I haven\u2019t read further commentary, from the left or right. \u00a0For those who also watched it, what did you think?<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I started watching the debate with good intentions \u2014 I didn\u2019t take copious notes but I tweeted a few comments along the way so I\u2019ll reconstruct my impressions by checking twitter. \u00a0These are purely my impressions; I haven\u2019t done any reading yet on what others have to say, and, to be honest, I was folding […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n