Even rich Democratic candidates.

we only get a tiny bit of time to discuss issues....the email thing will play out during the fbi investigation

he did clarify that in an interview after the debate

instead of the live debate?

"Congress does not regulate Wall Street, Wall Street regulates Congress. You have got to break up these big banks."



Seems pretty straight forward to me.

of Glass-Steagall.

No worries. Bernie did well anyway. It was his first exposure to a lot of people. And he will learn and modify and be stronger in the next debate.

Remember how AWFUL Obama was in the first debate against Romney? He came back big time in the next one.

to get rid of Glass-Stegall? Clinton didn't (and couldn't) sign an EO to do that and, IIRC, it passed with veto-proof margins.

Clinton had already said it was no longer appropriate. He's recently admitted it was a mistake. From what I understand he was behind it and pushed for it and that's probably why it would have had a veto proof majority voting for it.

I am a firm believer of "you sign it, you own it."

However, Clinton did do that alone, just as he didn't do the crime bill or DOMA by himself either.

The articles cited show that Clinton's advisors pushed GLB on him and he made public statements that Glass-Steagall was no longer appropriate. He pushed for it.

Had he been against it the Dems wouldn't have voted for it like that.

And those articles show he didn't look into it enough, he just believed, or allowed himself to believe, what his advisors and the banksters told him.

Seems to be a pattern in that household when you look at the IWR vote with Hillary. And she's pretty cozy with Wall Street so I don't expect it to be much different if she's president.

I think it was more important to get his name and what he stands for out there. And to reassure people that he's not some nutty professor type.

In the second debate hopefully we'll see more of a contrast drawn.

well positioned for future debates and campaigning.

more debates to go. Plenty of time to start drawing the distinctions.

Unless Hillary had a specific role in deregulation, or made specific statements supporting it, I don't think it's fair to hang Bill's failure there around her neck. She has plenty of failures all her own.

Personally, I would rather he'd left her hanging on her own email rope, but long term it's probably better if that issue is left out of the debates.

The private server issue is not going to go away. She'll be extensively questioned about her server in the next couple weeks, along with her false statements about her emails. More emails will be released at the end of October, November, December, potentially with more damaging contents.

And at some point there will probably be a report from the FBI. Now that Obama has made the investigation look pre-decided and pro forma, they'll be put on the spot.

However sick and tired Democrats may be of the "email scandal," the majority of the country sees it as a legitimate issue and is concerned about security, and her attitude about it.

..about the emails is being glossed over in the post debate coverage.

that they were so happy to 'gloss over' (really, cut out) in the obviously edited tape.

The next 5 debates won't have the email distraction from those issues.

The emails will continue their own life, outside of the debate, in the hearings, the monthly releases and what they reveal, an FBI report, and so on.

This article is most likely written in order to prod Bernie into attacking Hillary in the next debate.

Scheer could have straight out attacked Hill without any mention of Bernie, but then, who would pay attention?

Scheer's forum, Truthdig, is well attended and widely cited. His articles are found widely as well. I think he was expressing his wishes for how the debate strategy of Sanders himself should be conducted.

at the LA Times/UCLA Bookfair. He participated in panel discussions with the likes of Arianna Huffington, Christopher Hitchens, Katrina Vanden Huevel. He was a very personable gentleman and a committed lefty.

I cancelled my Times subscription after they fired him.

I think Senator Sanders conducted himself in a very presidential manner during that debate and hope he continues in the same vein.

If attacks are what interests you, as opposed to stating problems and paths to solutions thereof, perhaps you should just listen to the GOP debates. I think, that , as a first in a series of debates, it all went rather well. I would expect more details, more contrasts, more comparisons will be forthcoming next time.

should reinstate Glass Steagal or break up the banks draws a pretty clear distinction between Bernie and Hillary about Wall Street.

are now interested. Scheer's completely wrong in assuming Bernie would have done better by attacking now. Hillary's going to be snowed under attacks from all directions anyway. As it turned out, Bernie had better things to do this time around.

Last edited Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:28 PM - Edit history (1)

According to his Campaign Managers, Bernie did not want to Prep for this Debate. That may have not been a wise decision. On the other hand, this Debate gave Bernie a chance to see how Hillary would position herself in the coming months. A bit of "Know your Enemy and their Battle Plan" before you make a proper, well thought out, plan to deal with them. That's more Bernie's style.

Anderson Cooper's "attack style" of questioning visibly threw Bernie off in the beginning. Which is why he should have Prepped to be ready for the questions from Cooper. Hopefully he has learned from this and will allow some intense Prepping which will prepare him to be aware of the interview background and questioning style of whomever he is going to face in the next debate.

I still thought Bernie did very well in the debate as a first introduction to a broad audience. His graciousness to Hillary about her E-Mails showed character and gave him a great sound byte that got played everywhere. Also, makes it harder for her to go on a full vicious attack later on in the next debate.

Don't know the rule of debating, but that sounds like a good idea if he can reframe the questions.

But it puts him in the bad position of looking like he's attacking her when she simply lies to get a more progressive looking veneer on what she is selling.

IMO, his best course would be to highlight actions she's taken that have negatively impacted the country and how he can do better. Team Hillary's declaration that only what happened today matters is pretty hollow, so it would be a good way of showing how she should not be selected without making it look personal.

Also: Dismissing the emails was cute, but if she broke the law, she broke the law. She should not get a pass on that.

Usually, if you are a candidate, you can be nice or you can win.

The one exception to this was Barack Obama. And one of the reasons that he could decide to be soft spoken and nice was that the media was quite friendly to him. He wa mentioned by Mainstream Media as often as Hillary Clinton ws.

And the media even played up his popularity.

Whereas with Bernie, the Mainstream Media is ignoring him.

Occasionally they will have to mention his candidacy, but then the Talking Heads come in and equivocate.

For instance, several weeks back, when it was first coming to the Mainstream M's attention that Bernie's polling numbers were clobbering Clinton, they then made a concession: they started mentioning that Bernie's numbers were very good. But in the very next breath, they would say, "All this might change if Biden gets into the race."

Anyway, I like Bernie. I would like to contribute my time to someone other than a middle-class-F***er Corporatist. (The middle class has seen enough pain and humiliation in the last few years - we need someone who will protect us and not keep screwing us over.)

But if Bernie won't make a bigger play and emphasize his attributes and act with fiercer determination in the debates, the media will see to it that he loses by the lack of publicity and lack of mention. And I am tired of getting involved in politics and putting in time for a candidate that is not in it to win.

In the 90s he was a pretty good LA Times political columnist writing about local Dem events. Then he got cashiered in one of the paper's Bush-era ownership changes and wound up as a pundit on a local NPR show called Left Right and Center, where he represented the "left." Arienna Huffington was center and a guy from New Republic was right, but they were all more or less Clinton liberals. Haven't heard it lately but when Scheer took up with Truthdig he went all in for ODS and evidently he's ready to give Hillary the same treatment. So now he raves about Libertarian culture heroes like Greenwald and Snowden and has nothing kind to say about Barack or Hillary.

But berating Bernie for not kicking Clinton hard enough is carrying the lefty gig waaay too far IMHO. For one thing it says that Sanders' usefulness is strictly as a Clinton bludgeon, and for another, that Scheer is going deaf in his little echo chamber, which is kind of sad.

I think you're confusing "libertarian" and "civil libertarian".

On a political level they're more or less identical, and that includes Libertarians, pedantic allusions to Ricardo etc notwithstanding. And it will come as a surprise to no one that whatever their degree of self-awareness these crusaders are maneuvered like clockwork into our national consciousness by the same predictable noise machine which for the sake of brevity let's call the VRWC.

Excellent points by Scheer. Bernie needs to hire him or someone like him, maybe Reich too if Reich would sign up, to work on his messaging. It isn't enough to be right on the issues and assume the public will figure it all out. Many people are just looking for convenient "outs" to go along to get along with the Clinton inevitability train, and if they see her as mostly on the same side of the issues as Bernie (which she is not), they will vote for her.

Bernie is admirably reluctant to go after Hillary, he doesn't want to damage her candidacy in any way. I think he made that decision before running, when he was given little chance of even waging a competitive campaign.

Things have change, the U.S. is Berning, and he needs to step up and play to win. He can't ddo that unless he's willing to directly call out and illuminate the stark differences betweeen himself and Hillary. The policies of Bill's presidecy should absolutely be part of the mix, let her refute them and show how she disagrees with those policies if she wants. We all know a Hillary presidency would involve basically the same neoliberal economic agenda as Bill's presidency, and on foreign policy she is at least as hawkish as Bill, much more so in my opinion.

The establishment plays to win. They'll use every weapon at their disposal to maintain their grip on the U.S. economy and military. Time to take off the gloves and do this. The people will respond, Bernie's on the correct side of the issues, but he must also make it cear that Hillary is not.

how Bill Clinton is the one who repealed Glass-Stegall and caused our 2008 meltdown.

<snip>
Sanders remains proud of his opposition to the Patriot Act—still supported by Clinton—which authorized mass surveillance by the National Security Agency. So why didn’t he point out the hypocrisy of a Cabinet member not trusting the government with her personal emails but feeling perfectly fine about the most intimate private data of the rest of us being subject to a vast and secret system of government spying?<snip>

GREAT POINT and hopefully Bernie will mention it during the next debate. He's certainly not shy about speaking truth to her face.

so I'm happy about that.

Plus, everyone on that stage was nervous, that was the warm up game, we can guarantee that there will be fewer on stage next time, and Bernie will already have his feet wet from the first debate.

it'll get alot more exciting next time round.

He said the FBI was investigating and to leave it to the investigators. He was making a point about MSM being overly obsessed with the prospect of scandal while ignoring the critical issues facing America today. Robert Sheer is either an idiot or is intent on obfuscating Bernie's correct criticism of the news media in this country. I vote he is both.

... is that he cannot grasp Bernie's long game.

I've met Bernie Sanders. I've spoken with him a few times. I've followed his career closely since he was elected mayor of Burlington. He answered my request for assistance in a critical matter regarding a combat veteran immediately and got results. He is an honorable man. That may baffle people that have been hanging around the Beltway a little too long.

He has to establish his positions for a broader audience than he has ever faced before. There is plenty of time to challenge Hillary on specific issues. He knew exactly what he was doing, and how to go about doing it, and he succeeded masterfully.

So Mr. Scheer, how 'bout you sit down and be quiet for a minute before you jump the gun. You might learn something.

Excellent piece from Scheer- this is the analysis that the bought and paid for mainstream media will never perform. At least someone is willing to say what must be said.

From the comments

Sanders supports US interventionism not only in many specific incidents but also as a general practice and an acceptable foreign policy maneuver.

Sanders supports the US Military Complex not only through his voting record but also ardently in many other policy actions- the most notable (but not only by a long shot) one being his support of the F-35 which is the poster child of military waste.

Sanders supports the use of drones- only says (as have many others including Obama) he would use them more "selectively."

Sanders has supported what are without question war crimes in Kosovo. Did then and does now.

Sanders supports Israel's slaughter of Palestine and uses the mythological "moral equivalence" to rationalize his support.

Sanders accepts the overall narrative of the phony "war on terror" and supports Obama on this.

Sanders believes the Saudis should be more aggressive against the Yemenis.

Sanders offered his unequivocal support to Nazis in Kiev.

Sanders is a national chauvinist and imperialist. His record is clear on this.

I could go on...

This is not a "right-wing" bent on foreign policy?

Either you don't know any of this, are in denial or don't understand what any of this means

...Sanders role is to "energize" the disenchanted Lib/Prog and Youth base which the Dem Party relies on (it can't rely on any actual platform and track record). Not only this but Sanders is also a political dog tasked with herding those needy suburbanite supporters of White-Picket Fence Imperialism back into the cesspool of the Dem Party apparatus and siphoning energy into the meaningless vortex of presidential politics
-Maxwell

i am surprised at you dissing the only politician to ever bring any transparency to the fed

He won't give the Republicans fodder.