Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe PBS Democratic Debate Was a Tie, but a Tie Goes to Bernie at the Moment
My tie break, though, came not from a candidate's answer but from a question asked to Clinton by moderator Judy Woodruff toward the middle of the debate:
Secretary Clinton, your campaign has recently ramped up criticism of Senator Sanders for attending Democratic Party fundraisers from which you say he benefited. But nearly half of your financial sector donations appear to come from just two wealthy financiers, George Soros and Donald Sussman, for a total of about $10 million. You have said that there is no quid pro quo involved. But is that also true of the donations that wealthy Republicans give to Republican candidates, contributors including the Koch brothers?
Hillary responded first with the (absurd!) claim that she had nothing to do with the super PAC in question and then, shortly after, went from touting her own small-dollar network to hyping her opponents. I am proud of Senator Sanders, and his supporters, she said. I think it's great that, you know, Senator Sanders, President Obama, and I have more donors than any three people who have ever run. The answer was badthough nowhere near her worst on the topicand allowed Sanders to make his own case. But it was the question that packed the biggest punch. Millions of voters had just watched as a candidate who is promising to reform our campaign finance system dodged a question that made an implied comparison of her donors to the Koch brothers. Thats hardly an image any candidate wants, let alone one who is running against an opponent who promises to break Wall Streets hold on Washington. For his part, Sanders capitalized on that tough question for Clinton with a series of snark bombs:
Let's not insult the intelligence of the American people. People aren't dumb. Why In god's name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions? I guess just for the fun of it. They want to throw money around.
After nearly a year of campaigningand after six debatesthat moment is unlikely to significantly move the needle one way or the other. Nonetheless, it was a stark reminder that Sanders couldnt have been handed a better candidate to challenge with his promise to upend the system.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/12/bernie_sanders_won_the_pbs_debate_thanks_to_a_tie.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 618 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The PBS Democratic Debate Was a Tie, but a Tie Goes to Bernie at the Moment (Original Post)
Uncle Joe
Feb 2016
OP
Bernie evoking the name Henry Kissinger, another MIC Angel, should put it in to
orpupilofnature57
Feb 2016
#1
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)1. Bernie evoking the name Henry Kissinger, another MIC Angel, should put it in to
perspective for thinking people .
Donkees
(31,452 posts)2. "A Sanders victory would be of some historic importance as well"