it seems like an appropriate time and distance from then to offer a few assessments and reactions.
I note that I was at the request of my Advanced Placement Government students live tweeting for most of the debate, and that probably shapes part of my reaction.
I also remind people that I am a Clinton supporter, although I think my reactions both in real time and in retrospect were formed independently of that fact.
So for whatever it is worth, here are my current thoughts on last night.
First on the moderators. While I agree in general it was a very well moderated debate, with some decent followup questions, and with the moderators giving the candidates enough room to fully debate, I thought there were some areas worthy of criticism.
First, I think the amount of time spent on Wall Street and related, and who is a progressive and who is not, was overdone. My understanding is that the original intent was that the debate was supposed to go 90 minutes. After the first 30, we had really not heard anything of substance on other topics.
I thought there were occasions rather than asking another question on the topic, even if it came from a voter, could have been omitted and other topics moved on to.
Second, what the moderators did not do was make sure the time was managed equitably — while I did not have a chess clock to keep track, my sense is that Clinton got substantially more time than did Sanders. In part it was because she was aggressive, and sought it out. On several occasions she talked well beyond the allotted time, with little attempt by the moderators to reign her in.
Still, compared to most of the other occasions, whether debates or town halls, I thought this was fairly well done.
I thought, especially at the beginning, both candidates were depending too much on regular talking points. I saw many occasions when each candidate tried to cram in points that were not related to the question at hand, and/or to pivot from an uncomfortable area to one more central to the argument for the candidacies of each. Yes, there were cases when the moderators called them on it, but my disappointment on this is with the candidates. As a Clinton supporter, I think it somewhat undercut her ability to demonstrate FULLY how well prepared she is: had she focused on the question at hand, addressed that, and not felt impelled to cram in as much as she could in the allotted time, I think the response both of the audience in the hall and watching on tv would have been more positive.
That said, there clearly was one time when she understood she did not need to speak. Tweeting I called it her Joe Biden moment. I was thinking back to the debate some 7 years ago where Biden was challenged about his sometimes loose verbal expressions and asked if he could be disciplined and focused, and he answered with the one word “Yes.” Clinton was asked if she wanted to respond to something Sanders had said, in what seemed a clear invitation to a food fight, and her response was crisp and to the point — “no.”
For me, besides at times being rambling and off-topic, one big problem for Sanders is that he did not seem to realize that with only two candidates on the stage he would almost always be on camera. Some of his facial expressions and body language I think diminished his standing. In tweeting I said it reminded me of Gore’s sighing and facial expressions in the first debate against Bush. Already I have seen a LOT of imagery online of a picture with Sanders with what could almost be described as a Michelle Bachmann facial expression. People do have to be comfortable with watching you on tv — after all, a President will be coming into their living rooms for the next 4-8 years, and even more than whether or not one might want to have a beer with them, this is somewhat of a sub rosa test of how many will react to the possibility of one’s becoming President, even beyond the labels and soundbites. Visual images and be permanent . . . .
When Clinton was asked about releasing the transcripts, my immediate reaction was that she may not own the rights. My wife pointed out if that were the case, she should have said so. Certainly she can request whoever holds the rights to release them, and she should. But unlike some commentators, I do not put this in the same category as Romney and his tax returns. I suspect she said some complimentary things — after all, she was their guest — and thus she may be worried about things being taken out of context. For me, that she would “consider” releasing them was her weakest moment.
I’m sorry. I do like Sanders’ passion. But he is out of his depth on foreign affairs. It seems too often that he wants only one issue to be used to demonstrate judgment — the vote on Iran. There are other votes for which each of them can be criticized — and Clinton brought up Sanders and the Brady bill as an illustration. I would hope partisans on both sides would acknowledge that politicians, as human beings, will make mistakes. That if one is looking for a purist you will not find someone who will ultimately be an effective politician in a liberal democracy.
This is a point on which I think someone could have nailed Sanders, either Clinton or the moderators. On the one hand he advocates forcefully for what he considers radical change, the revolution in our politics and economics. And yet, when he is challenged on whether he is therefore offering promises that cannot be kept, that he will not be able to make the changes he seeks, he pivots and talks about how he got a piece of veterans’ legislation through by admitting failure (only 56 votes, not enough to get by the threatened filibuster, which perhaps could have used some explanation), he went back and compromised on a bill weaker than he wanted.
UMM, BERNIE? Is not that what Obama did on the Affordable Care Act? Is not that in part what happened with Dodd-Frank? Is not that what became necessary to get the CFPB through Congress? Does his acceptance of something far less than a purely progressive legislative package mean at that moment he was not a Progressive?
I have two other points on Sanders on which I would be critical. I do NOT remember him playing a significant role in the creation (helping write) the Affordable Care Act. Perhaps I imagined all the complaints here at Daily Kos at how the major shape of the bill was under the oversight not of HELP but of Finance and thus of Max Baucus and a woman who worked for him who had major ties to the insurance industry. Also, now in several settings where he has talked about his role in addressing issues for veterans, he has failed to give any credit to Jim Webb since he dropped out of the Dem race — and it was Webb who was the one most responsible for the new GI Bill, and Webb who had to fight John McCain who thought the educational benefits were too generous and would thus lead to people leaving the military. It is nice to reference working with McCain and with Rep. Jeff Miller, but what about with fellow Democrats.
I have noted a number of criticisms of Clinton already. But I was pleased that in her opening she clearly made the point that there are issues of importance beyond those of economic inequity and the distortion of money on our political system.
For me there were other disappointments with the debate. There was almost no discussion of anything related to the environment or global warming, although there were criticisms of oil companies and the Koch Brothers, and Clinton’s wanting half a billion solar panels — although that thought was in itself incomplete unless it also includes net metering. We are already seeing power companies pushing back, as we have with recent legislation in Nevada.
Given how important it is, I would have thought at least one question on aspects of immigration would have been relevant.
And while I understand the need to address the cost and financing of post-secondary education, there was yet again NOTHING on prek-12 education. It is not just that this is where I work, but we are at a point where public education is under severe attack.
Nor did we hear about the attacks on unions, especially but not only public unions, currently underway in this country.
Having said all that, my overall sense of the debate, independently arrived at, ignoring any commentary last night or this morning from pundits.
I think Clinton demonstrated several things. First, she is NOT the natural politician that her husband is, but she can at times be very effective. I think she was somewhat overprepared, and did better when she responded with more of a personal element. Second, there is absolutely no doubt that she has thought deeply on implications of policy choices. That clearly comes across in the question on foreign affairs, but it also does on a number of domestic issues, perhaps because she has dealt with some issues (particularly where discrimination is involved) since she was in her 20s.
Second, Sanders has yet to demonstrate to me that he is prepared to lead in matters of national security. I recognize it is not his passion. Yet by now he should be better prepared for questions like the one Chuck Todd asked about three nations and Ash Carter’s assessment. It is still not clear to whom he talks about such matters, but it is a real issue not merely for the general election, but in deciding who is the better candidate now in the primary.
For better or worse, during the 2000 campaign there was the famous get-together in Crawford where Bush had Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld with him, indicating to the media and the public how even though he had never held federal office he was already working with people who had some degree of stature (rightly or wrongly) in the eyes of many Americans.
On Tuesday we will have another primary. In the meantime we will be inundated with commentary both here at Daily Kos and from pundits and politicians across the landscape. After Tuesday’s vote we will have further commentary and observations. So be it.
We can agree/disagree as to whom we as Democrats will support.
For me, last night’s debate reaffirmed what I already believe. One key reason I chose to support Clinton is because she is ready to IMMEDIATELY address whatever issues may arise in our relations with other nations and on matters of national security. I am still waiting to be convinced that Sanders is. To be certain, when I look at the bloviations of the candidates of the other party, I would still be more comfortable about our national security with Sanders than with any of them. But that is a very low bar. I would probably feel more comfortable with about half the senior students in my AP Government classes than I would with Trump, or Rubio, or Cruz, for example. I see Bush surrounding himself with the same neocons upon whom his brother relied, and that disturbs me. And I do not think either Kasich or Christie has yet demonstrated a real understanding of what is involved in managing international relations.
Debates can help us gain a better understanding of candidates.
Quite frankly, even with the criticisms I offer about Clinton, I have no doubt she is prepared to be President right now.
Sanders could be prepared. Until he has thought more deeply about the role of the US in the world, and implications of what he says, I do not think he is. Let me offer one key illustration — he keeps saying the troops combatting ISIS (Daesh) should be Muslim. That is NOT specific enough. They need to be Sunni Muslim, there cannot be troop[s from Iran (except as a blocking force to keep fighters from ISIS from retreating to the east) — to include Shia military forces would truly make things worse. Someone who would be commander in chief has to know precision of words matters.
I think both candidates did themselves some good. Sanders gains merely from being on the stage as a putative equal with Clinton.
But I saw nothing last night to change my mind. If anything, I am now even more firm in my support of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Peace.