BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate

Subject: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 15 - 11:19 PM

I think that tonight's debate made the Democratic Party look very good. The candidates had a rational, spirited discussion - and they were not out to destroy each other. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both were as good as I expected them to be, and I think that Clinton was able to disprove all the flak she's gotten on the non-issues the Republicans have hurled at them.
I was also very impressed with former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. Everything he said, made sense. I think we're going to hear more from him in the future - it's clear he's a good man. Former Senator/Governor Lincoln Chafee seemed to be a nice man with pretty good ideas, but more-or-less forgettable. Former Virginia senator and Vietnam war veteran Jim Webb sounded more Republican than Democrat, but I think he'd be a better Republican candidate than anybody else in the Republican field.
I was surprised that Bernie Sanders was more conservative on gun control than Clinton or O'Malley.

CNN has some interesting video clips from the debate. I especially liked Clinton's non-answer to Chafee.

-Joe-

---

And here's Trump's response: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-tweeting-democratic-debate/story?id=34446300

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 03:45 PM

Joe,

I find it a shame that no one has bothered to respond to your thread.

I well realise that people get turned off by the endless political drivel repeated ad nauseam by a few British posters, but it would be good to hear some American opinions.

Being from the UK, I haven't paid that much attention to the issues, but there was a piece on one of of news programmes (Channel 4) reporting on it.

It concluded that Clinton is, unless she really messes up, pretty much a done deal.

Is that the general opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 15 - 04:44 PM

I only saw parts of the debate...(too much going on)... and I generally agree with Joe and various pundits that the tone and basic competence of the 5 was good. I do, however agree with Chafee & Webb that they got shorted on time & attention. If they were qualified to be on stage, they should have been allowed to say something! I realize that neither has a chance of winning, but that's a not a 'good' reason to treat them as just stage props.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 04:17 PM

I just saw this thread.

I thought Hillary looked and sounded great, and I don't like her. I thought Bernie sounded good and looked awful, and don't like him either. I find it interesting that in internet polls I test as agreeing with him so much more than it seems I actually agree with him.


I'm not sure she won or that it technically was a debate, but the others can all go home now.

Slate has some interesting articles including how stellar Hillary was, and how Bernie may have won the polls but she still won the debate (which brings back my earlier point about the disjunct between face and online Bernie). I'm not lazy, but I'm skipping the individual blickies because when I went to look for those urls, there was a lot of other really good stuff there.

I am sure it was *superbly* run/moderated. Probably helped that all the candidates had manners/acted like grownups. Grups, not Onlies.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 05:37 PM

Seems that US politics are even more inane than ours...:0(

How can anyone seriously consider a "hawk" for president when obviously diplomacy is required in current foreign affairs?

Mrs Clinton's record in the Obama administration is a catalogue of horrific gaffs, so bad that I began to think it was deliberate.

Sanders seems a reasonable man, but has no chance with the media guided public. Perhaps, like Corbyn in the UK, his job will be to educate America into the mysteries of very mild socialism.

Being a woman gives Mrs Clinton a distinct advantage, as the media love a "sensation".....first female president and all that!

It's just too depressing for words, America surely deserves better than these monkeys on both wings of the same bird.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 05:41 PM

I know that I've said it already, but it should not be forgotten that Mrs Clinton was the driving force behind US involvement in Libya, arguably the catalyst for IS expansion in Syria and Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Deb
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:04 PM

Just saw a few minutes of it. Interesting to see the way the US national anthem came into it, and how differently they treat it to the UK.

On comes with solo lady to sing it, pretty badly, and everyone stands around silent with their hands on their chest like Napoleon.

I can't imagine anyone having the national anthem at an equivalent event here. And if they did they'd all be expected to sing it, and of course they'd be crucifiedy if they just stood there looking solemn.

There must be some people over there up to singing that song straigjtforwardly and competently. And how do they stop people joining in? It's a great tune, and its origin was a drinking song meant for a bunch of boozers to sing together.

After that it went down hill. Hilary Clinton is supposed to have made a big hit with it. She must have got a whole lot better than she was in the bits I saw.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 08:19 PM

How can anyone seriously consider a "hawk" for president

As opposed to considering any of the complete fucking idiots on the Republican side?

Jesus wept........

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 09:30 PM

It is a bit depressing really.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Woodrow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:03 AM

It is clear that someone here hates America.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 09:34 AM

...some Republican pundits dismissed the debate as fluff, and accused Anderson Cooper of pitching "softball" questions at the candidates. What debate were they listening to? The Democrats tried to, at least, offer up some solutions to the issues facing the USA. Others may disagree with those solutions, but what do the Republicans offer in contrast? Repeals of everything Obama has done in the last seven years. So- erase the last seven years and take US citizens back to 2008? That was a disastrous year in American history. At least the Democrats are trying to plod ahead. The Republicans are trying to take us backward. Which direction do the American people want to go? We'll see in about a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 11:05 AM

Nobody hates Americans as much as Americans hate other Americans. At least that's how it looks to a spectator.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Woodrow
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 01:05 PM

It is clear that someone here hates America. Not Americans. Speak for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 01:42 PM

Sheesh. Obviously we all bring ourselves to the table. I liked the debate- which was totally different from the Republican's debates I watched. The Reps' answers and demeanor made me squirm and cringe.

The Democrats' debate made me sit up and take notice of what each candidate was going to say. I was favorably impressed by Sanders, Clinton and O'Malley. Chaffee has some positions I like but I can't imagine him in any public office. Webb came across - to me - as petulant and angry, a man I would not willingly listen to for more than five or at most ten minutes- and that would be out of politeness.

At this point, I still favor Sanders.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 06:23 PM

Why only a handful of posts in what should be a busy and interesting thread?   Does no one wonder why there is not a greater degree of choice amongst candidates?

Why do you let the political dynasties continue to rule such a huge country? Why does money play such a huge part in US politics?
It amazes me that normal folks can be so partisan about two Parties who run the country in more or less the same way.

Mr Obame was supposed to represent "change", when he was elected I offed the thought that, "he will change only what he is allowed to change"
I was roundly condemned for saying it, but after eight years can you say with hand on heart that anything has changed?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:00 PM

"political dynasties?" We don't have any. Look it up.

"It amazes me that normal folks can be so partisan about two Parties who run the country in more or less the same way." ake

The reason our country under either party is run "in more or less the same way" is because both parties operate from the same playbook.

Within that playbook, however, are tremendous differences, both in attitude, approach and means and in outcomes. Take a look at the people with their varying plans and methods over the last 35-40 years and you will see.

Incidentally, you may note that Republicans claim that the main reason that there are people drawn to the Democratic view is "Free Stuff!" That is not true except in a very borderline kind of way: We want the free stuff, yes (which, of course, is not free at all) but we want *everyone* to have it. Things like good, affordable health care, good, clean water, clean air, monitored foodstuffs, regulated industry so that pollutant emitters are kept accountable... There are a host of other issues that we feel strongly about. Liberals want to live well, yes, but they want the same thing for all.

Republicans, on the other hand, focus on the mechanics; they charge that Democrats/liberals try to *force* everyone to our way of thinking, and they , too frequently, don't want any of those things UNLESS and UNTIL they need them. Take a look at the history of recent disasters to see how swiftly they change their views when it is their community, their state that is suffering.

It is pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:11 PM

Yes, but how about answering the questions.
Don't have any dynasties?....surely you jest?
Both Democrats and Republicans have had several in my lifetime. It seems to revolve around huge amounts of MONEY.

Where are all the clever American Mudcats? Have they given up?

I think after the dirty battle between Hillary and Mr Obama, they are ashamed of the "choice" left to the electorate

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 07:25 PM

How are you defining 'dynasty'?

As for the "clever American Mudcats"? I guess they are leaving it to the dumb asses like you and me, ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 10:33 PM

My main argument against Hillary is that she's a hawk - but she still looked and sounded great.

The less hawkish made less sense everywhere else.

But yeah, she is that. I don't want that in the White House at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Oct 15 - 10:37 PM

One troll, and everybody gives the thread away...

So what did you think about the DEBATE, Ake!?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:26 AM

I only saw tiny soundbites jeri.....and who are you referring to as a troll?   I thought the American members could give us some insight into how the public view politics.

People are continually complaining about the two party system on Mudcat......any ideas on how you change the status quo?

I found ALL of the candidates very uninspiring, no new ideas, just the same old divisive "ya boo" stuff. "Look what the "Pubs/Dems are doing"..... Admittedly I did not see all the debate.

"Look what the "Pubs/Dems are doing"

When Mr Obama was promising "change", you couldn't keep the members quiet, hundreds of posts on several threads......what's happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:01 AM

Why is she considered to be a "hawk" ? She seems to me to be A very good candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Woodrow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 04:36 AM

In the few minuites that i watched it all i saw was political posturing and panderinv to the electorate in an effort to be elected. Same old shit that has been going on for 7 years while the us sinks lower and lower into third world status. The biggest threat, the $18 trillion+ national debt was never mentioned. Look at the shiny red ball. It's guns, it's global warming, it's the lack citizenship and full entitlements for illegal aliens. Who is the leader of the free world now? Putin? Iran? Hillary "I dont feel no ways tard" Clinton? il Papa?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 11:16 AM

Ostensibly one could argue there are four party candidates running under two party banners: Democrat and Republican.

Sen. Bernie Sanders' political views align more closely with a Social Democrat (and that's how he refers to himself) than with a traditional Democrat. Republican pundits slammed him after the debate when he referenced Denmark. The pundits cited the tax rate on Denmark's citizens. It all boils down to how much bang those citizens get for their buck. A tax hike on US citizens would not be so bad if it resulted in greater access to health care, education, and other social programs.

Secy. Clinton (in this race) represents a more mainstream view of Democrat values, despite her "hawkish" proclivities, which she earned apparently, for her vote as senator to invade Iraq, and her stance on intervention into Libya as Secretary of State.

Sen. Ted Cruz represents the "Tea Party" faction of the Republican party while Gov. Jeb Bush represents the staid "country club" Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 01:07 PM

Several posters...including a couple who admit they saw only bits of the debate... sure have strong opinions about the candidates- expressed with simplistic labels.. "she's a hawk"

I saw parts live... and much more in replays... and have heard hours of commentary about it, as well as live conversations with all 5 candidates. Whatever you think about the platforms, attitudes and demeanor of them, especially the 3 major ones, it is evident that they are all intelligent, qualified and concerned with the security, finances, environment, class struggles, laws, etc...etc.. in the US.
Ask yourselves what seems to be the concerns and qualifications of the various Republicans. I see narrow special interest issues on abortion, capital punishment-(they're for it) guns, religion, personal wealth and how to sustain it for the few, 'freedom'... as in "I don't like being told what to do."etc... and they feel that almost any tricks (packing the courts, Gerrymandering, buying elections) are fair game in pursuit of **winning**. Almost NONE of the Repubs who have serious education & knowledge are running these days... rather it is narrow-minded, scheming, manipulating, power-hungry, slogan-spouting wannabes who fight with each other as much as with Democrats. The demographics are turning against them, so they are desperate to do as Karl Rove tried to do when he manipulated Bush.... set up a system where they could NOT lose, based on the Gerrymandering, Citizens United fiasco, and court packing. IF the Dems win this time, the Supreme Court will likely lose its hard-right orientation and gradually make the Repubs either become more moderate or fall apart..(if it hasn't already).

I read about British elections, but I confess I have little knowledge of the details of the issues, the quirks & personalities of the candidates, or the complexities of the party structure... but I see Brits here who show that they don't understand OUR system, yet have strong opinions about who, where & what is involved.
... and NO Ake... Clinton & Obama did NOT have a " dirty battle"... they had some disagreements, he won and then appointed HER to Sec. of State! All presidents have slightly different views of the issues... that's why we have these debates. (A few years ago, we a one whose policy was "bring ALL the troops home NOW"... that would have been interesting. Another would have 'solved' everything by 'bombing Iraq back to the stone age'.)

   Like it or not, the USA is a major player in the crazy, complex of global relationships. We need the closest we can get to sane, educated, competent, careful leaders. I can name a dozen Democrats besides those running who I'd trust with the job... whether I agree with all their ideas or not. I can only think of two or three Republicans who don't scare me silly at the idea of them running things- and those are staying way away from this current circus!

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 01:17 PM

And... I have never understood why Hillary has not directly used the obvious defense for her vote on 'war' with Iraq. (I heard ONE pundit refer to it obliquely)

'After 9/11, there was a lot of concern about who was involved and where future dangers were located. George Bush was president, receiving daily briefing from the CIA and other 'experts'. He had access to supposed information that others did not. *HE* said that Iraq was developing 'weapons of mass destruction', based on intelligence gathering. Dick Cheney said it was "a slam dunk" that we'd find them. I voted the best I knew, giving the president the 'benefit of the doubt'. I wish I had known more about his sources.'

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 01:31 PM

It seems to me that no-one hates (some) Americans as much as (some) Americans hate non-Americans - particularly those in or seeking to enter America.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 03:00 PM

I don't think that "(some) Americans hate non-Americans" here but I do get tired of the European-style of argument wherein it seems that one can say anything in any tone of voice and expect others, not born to the culture, to accept and understand the sentiment behind it. To me, it seems that insult and denigration are common tools to Europeans, much more so than to Americans (and I am including Canada- Canadians, I think, have the same view of respecting the speaker).

That said, I *don't* respect the random non-sequitur thrown into a conversation- "I don't feel no-ways tard"- Really? Did you look at that link, ake? It is from the 2008 presidential race and quotes a line from a 'black' hymn.

And Richard Bridge, the USA does not hate those immigrants "in or seeking to enter America". That applies an awfully broad brush and most of us don't deserve that smear. This country is a nation of immigrants; many, many of us have parents or grandparents from the 'old country'. The current controversy addresses the under-the-barbed wire approach to immigration, worries about our economy, and the future of the country. For the record, I don't share those worries but many do, in all sincerity. As far as I can see, differing views have made our country what it is and I am for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:10 PM

Ebbie "I don't feel no ways tard"......haven't a clue what it means and I certainly never wrote it.

I always read "links" and appreciate other members taking the time to post them.

I still feel that although well intentioned President Obama's tenure was a bit of a damp squib.......and much of the reason must be laid at his own door for the mistake of appointing Mrs Clinton to his administration.

The Clintons had their eyes on the Presidency from day one and Mrs Clinton tried very hard to steal the Presidents thunder in foreign Affairs......The fact that she created an almighty mess in the process does not seem to have sunk in to the US electorate.

Not only did she create a mess, but spoiled any chance of an honest and respectable man being able to leave a recognisable legacy to posterity.

Oh and Ebbie, my remark was not intended as a comment of our lack of education, though mine was very basic :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:44 PM

I am sorry, ake. It was not you who posted this: "Who is the leader of the free world now? Putin? Iran? Hillary "I dont feel no ways tard" Clinton? il Papa?"

I have no idea of what Guest/Woodrow had/has in mind in throwing that in.

You, ake, do say this, however:
"The Clintons had their eyes on the Presidency from day one and Mrs Clinton tried very hard to steal the Presidents thunder in foreign Affairs......The fact that she created an almighty mess in the process does not seem to have sunk in to the US electorate.

Not only did she create a mess, but spoiled any chance of an honest and respectable man being able to leave a recognisable legacy to posterity."

Your opinion on this matter doesn't carry much weight with me. It is your opinion, evidently, but in my view you formed that opinion based on your own interpretation of events and facts. Many - myself included - may not hold that view.

I especially don't understand your believing that Mrs. Clinton "tried very hard to steal the Presidents (sic) thunder..."

What?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:00 PM

No, aken - "no ways tard" wasn't you, it was Guest Woodrow playing with a quote from Hilary Clinton, to bring in an abbreviation of "retard", an insult word that fortunately we don't hear that often over here. We've got nasty little equivalents, of course.

I think the reason people in the UK get involved in these kind of political grudge fights more than the other way, is that it actually matters to us what happens over there, and our national media probably gives about as much attention to it as it does to what happens here. In fact generally a lot more attention than it does to what happens here outside London.

As to whether political discourse is nastier here or in the States, it probably varies - but we've never to my memory had anything remotely comparable to the kind of hate directed at Obama over the years, that birther/muslim stuff aimed at a clearly decent man, albeit with politics straight out of our Conservative party.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:03 PM

Joe is right about the relative sincerity and sobriety and sanity of the particpants as contrasted with the Trump/FIona/etal debacle.

I wish Bernie was a woman.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 07:49 PM

Amos! He would look weird. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 03:44 AM

It shouldn't matter Amos, though it does illustrate the hold the media has over how we vote and what we are prepared to accept socially.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 15 - 05:52 PM

I get a vision of some overly ambitious candidate faced with that comment from the focus groups. "Well, if that's what it takes..."

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 12:35 AM

The reason I think she's a hawk is that she keep talking about being "tough+ --especially in ways Obama wasn't (in her take) - see here for a simple google search. Including an article that calls her tough stance a scam.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 04:38 PM

ake, I recognize that many people, Americans included, don't like or trust Hillary Clinton, and they make all kinds of statements about it. Rarely, however, do they specify what misdeeds she has committed. You make the same statements here and I would like an itemization of your generalizations. Who knows- maybe you'll make me a believer. So how about it?

akenaton - PM
Date: 15 Oct 15 - 05:37 PM Mrs Clinton's record in the Obama administration is a catalogue of horrific gaffs, so bad that I began to think it was deliberate.

: akenaton - PM
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 05:10 PM
The Clintons had their eyes on the Presidency from day one and Mrs Clinton tried very hard to steal the Presidents thunder in foreign Affairs......The fact that she created an almighty mess in the process does not seem to have sunk in to the US electorate.

Ebbie - PM
Date: 17 Oct 15 - 06:44 PM
I especially don't understand your believing that Mrs. Clinton "tried very hard to steal the Presidents (sic) thunder..."

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 15 - 06:50 PM

Larry David came in 1st.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Oct 15 - 04:30 PM

OK, I posted this, and it vanished, do we suspect a conspiracy? Not really.

Anyway, Clinton used to throw lamps when she was mad, per people I know in the State Department whose names I shall not use. That is unpresidential to me.

And she does keep talking about how she would be "tougher" on terrorists and all, which sounds a lot like "I would send in troops" - which is hawkish, which I am against. I already posted a link to a lot of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 01:37 AM

I have read in various places that Clinton swears at people and has thrown stuff at her husband, etc.

Given all the stuff that her husband put her through - and publicly- I may well have sworn at him and thrown things at him too.

As for whether such conduct is presidential I would submit that we have no way of knowing what presidents do and have done in the privacy of their own home.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 08:10 AM

I would submit that we have no way of knowing what presidents do and have done in the privacy of their own home.

And I would submit that its reall none of our business, just as it is none of theirs to know what we do in ours.

Nor does it have any necessary impact on what sort of president they will be.

Now, what the Republican candidates have done and are currently doing IN PUBLIC is an entirely different story.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Airymouse
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:46 AM

Three candidates had serious baggage: Sander's vote against the Brady bill, Clinton's e-mails and her sudden switch to cuddling up to Wall Street after she became Senator of NY, and O'Malley's one-strike-and- you're-out policy which contributed to the problems in Baltimore. Only Clinton escaped unscathed, mostly because of Sander's policy of sticking to issues and not making ad hominem attacks. As others have observed only Clinton and perhaps Sanders and Biden remain serious contenders, but you could see from the debate that O'Malley is aiming for the vice-presidency: his attack of Sander's record on gun control let Clinton stay above the fray. In effect O'Malley did Clinton's dirty work for her.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:14 AM

Sander's vote against the Brady bill

Not so serious at all. That as 1993. This is now. Read his more current statements on firearms.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Airymouse
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 11:40 AM

I agree with the view of the last post, but my point was that O'Malley made Sanders look bad. Sanders's vote on the Brady bill was something Sanders had to deal with and the defense that Sanders gave, that he had to vote against the bill because he came from a rural state, was torpedoed by O'Malley, to the benefit mainly of Clinton. Meanwhile Clinton never had to deal with her support of the big banks or with her e-mails. It is true that in his campaign speeches O'Malley pointed out the huge speaking fees that Clinton received from the major Wall Street banks (and the major campaign contributions from this source for both her Senate and Presidential campaigns,) but there was not a peep from him about this during the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 02:30 AM

Well, Joe Biden has made his decision, so that's that. And O'Malley has sunk really deeply into the nether regions, so that may be that for him too.

On the other hand, it is still so early in the campaign season I doubt any real conclusions can be drawn.

But oh my god- what if Trump gets their nomination??

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 10:22 AM

..then the pundits claim he will be easy to beat in the General Election. Trump's depth of understanding on any substantive issue is sorely lacking. He has about as much profundity as Kim Kardashian. All he knows is how to look good for the camera (debatable) and speak in simple terms the third-grade mentality of the voters who like him can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 10:55 AM

Dr. Batshit Crazy is now leading Trump in the polls. Abandon hope.....

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 11:36 AM

...just a guess but neither one of these two yay-hoos is going to be the Rebublican nominee for President ..the country-club faction of the 'Pubs won't allow it. It will be Bush vs Clinton ..again. Wait for the dirt on Carson (it's already started...a mother claims he botched a brain surgery on her child)...and Trump will self-destruct. A reporter somewhere is thinking up a question right now that will sink Trump so badly he won't be able to dig himself out of it ...maybe goading him into using a racial slur or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 01:11 PM

It's a sad state of affairs that you are saddled with.
"The devil and the deep blue sea".

I don't see one credible candidate in either party. Perhaps Sanders, but he seems half hearted......not an inspirational leader and why does he refer to himself as a "Socialist Democrat"? Does he mean "Social Democrat"......someone should explain the difference to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 01:13 PM

I think the American people deserve much better than this shower of shysters and psychopaths.