Other Voices Weigh In On The Democratic Debates

Scenes from the first (left) and second nights of the Democratic debates.

Once again, the Dem debates - with so many contending voices - and so little time (on that account) to properly address questions-  ended up more helter skelter than focused.  Tuesday night, it turned out, became a battle of the 'moderates' vs. liberals, with a few solid points scored by both sides, but we didn't stay around long enough to be able to expatiate on any particular aspects. We ended out CNN viewing barely an hour into the fracas.

Same on night two, with many of the same complaints, too many debaters,  not enough time for each candidate to deal with the questions.  Because of the number of debaters you also had the desperation factor inducing a number of 'cage matches' - such as Biden vs, Kamala Harris, and Tulsi Gabbard vs, Harris, as well as Booker vs. Biden.   Let's be clear none of these mutual sniper shots redounds to the Dems' benefit,  so the sooner the field is narrowed the better. Fortunately that will occur with the September debate with the much higher threshold for entry: 130,000 different donors, and at least a 2 percent poll rating and in four different polls. That will automatically nullify 13 of the current contenders so we can expect more  time for thoughtful answers, fewer spontaneous cage matehes and also less biased questions.

That there was too much framing, also, by the moderators of both MSNBC and CNN was evident. And one hopes they get their act together by the September debate.   They were, however, right to press the candidates on whether taxes will be raised on the middle class. This is given we already know Bernie  Sanders has conceded $32 trillion will be needed to implement his 'Medicare for All' plan and he has admitted middle class taxes would have to be increased, The bill can't be paid only by the billionaires.   The fact that none of the candidates - save Michael Bennett- was honest about financing (raising middle class taxes)  doesn't bode well for any  Dem in debates vs. Trump.  As MSNBC commentator Ezra Klein put it in the post-debate analysis, they all need to be "more honest about financing."

 Anyway, here are the takes of other voices:

2020 Elections | Democrats

Here Are 9 of the Best Moments and 7 of the Worst from Tuesday’s 2020 Democratic Primary Debate

2020 Elections | Democrats

Here Are 7 of the Best Moments and 4 of the Worst from the Second CNN Democratic Primary Debate

Biden Did Fine. That Might Have Been Enough

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/debate-joe-biden.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage


Winners and Losers of the Democratic Debate, Night 2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/01/opinion/debate-winners-losers.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

2020 Elections | Democrats

Debating Democrats, Please, No Fighting in the War Room

Excerpt:

 "My teeth grind when I see a flurry of post-debate articles headlined, “Winners and Losers.” They reduce this most important presidential campaign of our lives to a game where a single swing or a miss matters more than the heinous presidency we’re enduring or any of the issues vital to all of us terrified about the future for our families and ourselves.

I’m also annoyed by the debate format perpetrated by cable news networks more interested in creating conflict and melodrama than a legitimate discussion. The feigned gladiatorial confrontations CNN hyped in its promotion and then attempted to foment during the actual event serve no one."

The Cold, Hard Truth: It's Game Over For Bernie

There comes a time when the most pie-eyed optimist must face reality and concede the battle is lost, and even the war. Since I am not,  nor ever have been an optimist, I have no problem now calling a spade a spade and acknowledging it is game over for Bernie Sanders.  He fought a valiant, uphill battle for the American left - even when its darling (Elizabeth Warren) refused to run - or even endorse him (opting to remain neutral)  But it was  insufficient to conquer the well-oiled Clinton Machine. Not only that, but he had to go against that machine plus the DNC's rigged system of superdelegates. A shadow system in which lobbyists and party bosses could trump the will of actual voters.

This   hidden system alone, which had ratcheted up over 582 total delegates even before Super Tuesday commenced (after Hillary's SC win)  meant that to keep pace Bernie would have had to have taken at least 9 of the 11 states in play, including the biggest - Texas- as well as his neighbor state, Vermont.  

But this he could not do, winning only four states (VT, CO, OK and MN),  and thereby falling so far behind that it is now impossible to catch up - given Hillary's delegate lead- to even compete in a realistic way. Though some might be deluded at what appeared to be about a couple hundred delegate count difference after last night, the actual count (with superdelegates),  is Hillary 1033 and Bernie 387.

Yes, with a $40m haul from February, Sanders can technically battle on until the convention, but it is a total losing wicket and only spells more humiliation as more and more state super delegates follow suit and tilt to Hillary as "Savior" from "the Donald". In Colorado, for example, despite Sanders carrying 51 of 64 counties and winning overall by 19 percent over Hillary, she will likely end up with two more delegates, 40-38.

It is clear from the way this has turned out that Americans, Democrats in particular, are not prepared to give up Neoliberalism and its version of rigged capitalism-  despite the fact it hasn't delivered duck squat to them. Polls also show they are not as angry as Republican voters, but they should be -given how they've been tricked so often.  They are, in turn, the ultimate suckers - especially African-Americans -   who've tilted to HRC in such absurd proportions. (See previous post)

But this was all predictable as the campaign carried on,  with the neolib pundit class interjecting and sowing its doubts on Sanders (including multiple utterances of the s-word)  at every turn despite my skewering them one after the other. At some point, like it or not, the negative PR began to stick as well as the gender card played with good effect by Hillary and her surrogates.

The biggest disappointment for me was Elizabeth Warren - who might have helped enormously in the struggle - but didn't even have the courage to endorse Bernie, despite the fact he sounded the same notes that she had always embraced. That she wouldn't run because of believing she might wield more effective influence in the Senate was one thing, but not to even endorse him was plain cowardice in the service of crass political calculation. (That she'd be less damaged if she kept her mouth shut).

But bravo to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii who had such courage of her convictions that she left the compromised DNC and came out foursquare for Sanders. She had to leave the DNC in order to escape the shadow of Debbie Wasserman  Schultz (a Hillary surrogate) and do that.

It is clear to this Sanders supporter that Americans simply lack the courage and conviction to change the system they have. Given that, they are in no position to complain about it as it screws them over and over and over again with more bailouts of banks, more corporate mischief (including the TPP), more invasions and occupations and ever higher health care/drug costs and exploding student debt.

If you as a serious voter lack the balls (or conscience)  to change the system - out of fear - then  you lack any claim or basis to complain about it, especially if you approve of those committed to preserving the status quo. Clearly, Trump supporters-voters are determined to change the system however they can, probably in a bad way. (Tom Brokaw said last night on NBC they will 'sadly learn Trump is not a dictator in our system of dispersed power''). But the Dems who settled for Hillary out of a sense of false security and complacency will now have to try to ensure the Trump nightmare -  spawned by a misplaced demand for change- doesn't overtake their own aspirations, e.g. of "the first woman president". Enough said!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/thanks_america_our_broken_political_system_is_about_to_give_us_a_terrifying_campaign_between_a_vapid_huckster_and_a_war_hawk/


Excerpt:


Thanks for not really paying attention and for misunderstanding pretty much everything and for voting out of fear and incoherent emotion, and for permitting and enabling an engineered, anti-democratic political system. 

 

Look For Russian Ground Forces In Syria IF Bombing Is Proven

First, let's get a couple of niggling little items out of the way: 1) The U.S. does not "own" the Middle East, including Syria, 2) The U.S. has no sphere of influence in the Middle East apart from trying to grab as much of its oil as it can to supplement its own fracked oil, 3) The U.S. is not an "exceptional" nation - other than perhaps having a certain middle-aged demographic dying before its time.

I write all this as a preface to what is likely about to unfold, if - as many fear - the diabolical bombing of the Russian Metrojet Airbus - killing all 224 on board -- turns out to be proven by spectrographic analysis of some of the residue on the wreckage.  Right now Vladimir Putin and the Russians are just biding their time, and also waiting for 79,000 still stranded Russian tourists and others to be transported out of harm's way at the Sharm-el-Sheikh airport and the Sinai Peninsula.

But after all that, and proving the bombing was done by an ISIS adjunct, watch out - because Russian ground troops will be dispatched into Syria to wipe these vermin out and I estimate the number to be at least 100,000. Further, Vladimir Putin knows he has to do this to vindicate his nation's honor as well as to exact retribution for the hundreds of lives lost - the most since 9/11. Oh, one more thing, those ground troops will not make any distinction with "moderate rebels" - which Putin and most of the Free world knows is a fantasy - any more than he's doing now with the bombing.

The "moderate rebels" theme is a bunch of horse pockey cooked up by the Obama State Dept.  and U.S. security interests as daft and egregious in its own way as the "Oswald worked for the KGB" fantasies that were spewed out in certain quarters after the assassination of JFK. (And which diligent researchers like Peter Dale Scott, James Di Eugenio and John Newman proved were untrue.. )

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D- Hawaii), appearing on Bill Maher's 'Real Time' two weeks ago, nailed it when she skewered the notion of "moderate Syrian rebels", telling Bill:

"And these groups, all of them, they go by all these different names and they always change their names. But what is at the heart of each of them that same (jihadi) ideology. They're all working towards the same goal but in slightly different manners. And they're projecting it very clearly. What their goal is - it's not like they're trying to hide it. "

This was all in the context of accurately identifying our enemies starting - but not ending - with ISIS. Thus, Gabbard's point is that we can't trust any of those posing as "moderates" to advance any of our interests because they are all working to gain power - to overthrow Assad - like the U.S. and Bushies helped do in Iraq (with Saddam) to later pave the way for al Qaeda and ISIS.

As Bill also pointed out at the end, Americans have to understand it's not "good against bad" but "bad against less bad" - which is why as I noted before, the U.S. needs to cooperate with Russia to go after all these bottom feeders, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/09/obama-ites-need-to-grow-up-and-work.html

Indeed, there may be little or no choice, if as I predict, Putin does send Russian ground troops into Syria to root out the vermin and exterminate them. What? Will the U.S. fight them to preserve its own imagined interests? I seriously doubt it because Obama isn't fool enough to risk WWIII , nor (I hope) is Defense Secretary Ash Carter, now making noises in various venues about "standing up to Russia".  No, dunderhead, you and the Russians have to stand up to ISIS! Stop this foolish meme about "moderate rebels" cooked up in some back rooms at the State Dept. and Pentagon.

Today, Russian inspectors are now at Sharm-el-Sheikh, examining security at the airport as reported this a.m. on CBS. They will be looking especially at how that security may have been breached, i.e. by an Egyptian baggage handler putting the bomb on board in luggage - or attached to luggage put in the cargo hold.

Make no mistake that Putin will not let it go at the point of evacuating all Russian citizens - he will then exact serious vengeance and he knows by now the only way will be to send in enough ground forces to snuff out all the jihadist bugs. According to former CIA Director.Michael Morrell :

"Putin's reaction is to go after ISIS in a very big way. To show them the costs of doing this to his country."

The best thing the U.S. can do? Stay the hell out of the way and let Putin launch the cleanup operations the U.S. wouldn't.