Bernie hurt himself in the debate.

[This account no longer in use.]

Lol ok "Clinton 2016".

Uh, by your logic your post is equally as irrelevant based on your giant Sanders signature

I think the issue has been "spun" by Clinton. As Sanders pointed out Clinton ran against Obama in 2008.

I thought about this, but while it makes for a nice sound bite, it's not a good comeback logic-wise. A great deal of Democrats didn't support Obama at first, including African Americans. They did after they got to know him and more so after seeing his presidency in action. Likewise, Clinton didn't know him or what his presidency would be like until after. And surely she knows as she went to work with her primary rival.

So the difference here is Sanders is, you could say, "running against Obama" after 8 years of him in office. It's completely different.

However, I do have to say I still think a primary candidate should be able to offer some criticism of their party's sitting president if it is warranted.

I think that was an irrelevant point since Clinton was in that race before Obama. It's not like she set out to oppose him.

Yes, but by March, she had gone full-on raging banshee mode. Even if she didn't set out to oppose Obama, she mercilessly attacked him.

LOL, Sanders advocated a primary challenge against Obama in 2012. He is no position to question anybody else's loyalty to him.

He advocated it once, he thought it would make the president stronger, and he never actually went through with it. What point are you trying to make here?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Lol ok "Clinton 2016".

Uh, by your logic your post is equally as irrelevant based on your giant Sanders signature

I think the issue has been "spun" by Clinton. As Sanders pointed out Clinton ran against Obama in 2008.

I thought about this, but while it makes for a nice sound bite, it's not a good comeback logic-wise. A great deal of Democrats didn't support Obama at first, including African Americans. They did after they got to know him and more so after seeing his presidency in action. Likewise, Clinton didn't know him or what his presidency would be like until after. And surely she knows as she went to work with her primary rival.

So the difference here is Sanders is, you could say, "running against Obama" after 8 years of him in office. It's completely different.

However, I do have to say I still think a primary candidate should be able to offer some criticism of their party's sitting president if it is warranted.

I think that was an irrelevant point since Clinton was in that race before Obama. It's not like she set out to oppose him.

Yes, but by March, she had gone full-on raging banshee mode. Even if she didn't set out to oppose Obama, she mercilessly attacked him.

LOL, Sanders advocated a primary challenge against Obama in 2012. He is no position to question anybody else's loyalty to him.

He advocated it once, he thought it would make the president stronger, and he never actually went through with it. What point are you trying to make here?

Yeah, like Kennedy's challenge made Carter stronger in 1980 or Buchanan's made GHW Bush stronger in 1992.
Learn your history kid.

[This account no longer in use.]

Lol ok "Clinton 2016".

Uh, by your logic your post is equally as irrelevant based on your giant Sanders signature

I think the issue has been "spun" by Clinton. As Sanders pointed out Clinton ran against Obama in 2008.

I thought about this, but while it makes for a nice sound bite, it's not a good comeback logic-wise. A great deal of Democrats didn't support Obama at first, including African Americans. They did after they got to know him and more so after seeing his presidency in action. Likewise, Clinton didn't know him or what his presidency would be like until after. And surely she knows as she went to work with her primary rival.

So the difference here is Sanders is, you could say, "running against Obama" after 8 years of him in office. It's completely different.

However, I do have to say I still think a primary candidate should be able to offer some criticism of their party's sitting president if it is warranted.

I think that was an irrelevant point since Clinton was in that race before Obama. It's not like she set out to oppose him.

Yes, but by March, she had gone full-on raging banshee mode. Even if she didn't set out to oppose Obama, she mercilessly attacked him.

LOL, Sanders advocated a primary challenge against Obama in 2012. He is no position to question anybody else's loyalty to him.

He advocated it once, he thought it would make the president stronger, and he never actually went through with it. What point are you trying to make here?

Yeah, like Kennedy's challenge made Carter stronger in 1980 or Buchanan's made GHW Bush stronger in 1992.
Learn your history kid.

Key word in my previous post: thought. I never said it would.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't think it is disloyal to run in the primary against an incumbent President. Reagan did it in 1976 and later went on to win in 1980. People should have a choice. If you are going to talk about disloyalty, Lieberman and other Dems have supported Republicans in the general election. Of course, I am far from being a "loyal" Democrat since I voted for Nader in 2008 when PA was a safe state. The point I am making, however, is that it shouldn't be wrong to support a democratic primary in the Democratic party. As for Clinton, my current intention is to vote for her if she wins the nomination. She would certainly be better than someone like Trump or Cruz. Sanders is bringing people like me back into the Democratic tent. Although you could say I am more of an independent than a Democrat. You could also say that I am an independent Democrat.

[HillOfANight]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/who-won-the-debate.html?ref=politics

“This is as good as Hillary gets. Calm, in command, not patronizing, armed with facts. Best debate performance yet?” — Doug Heye, former spokesman for Eric Cantor

“Hillary won tonight’s debate by closely aligning herself with Obama.” — Frank Luntz, conservative pollster

“Clinton demonstrated her mastery of public policy.” — Jamelle Bouie, chief political correspondent for Slate

“If Bernie was directing traffic, there’d be car accidents everywhere. If he was conducting an orchestra, the tempo would be nuts.” — Matt Viser, political reporter for The Boston Globe


“I can’t shake the feeling that everything Bernie Sanders knows about foreign policy came from the world politics section of a used bookstore.” — Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at Tufts University

[°Leprechaun]

Using Palin logic, Bernie should be an expert on foreign policy since Vermont shares a border with Canada. Right?

[Panhandle Progressive]

It's important to remember that Sanders is not a Democrat and is only running in the Democratic primary as a convenience. He would had to build a database from scratch running as an independent. He can't stand Obama and has made that clear a long time ago.

Worth repeating.

[Beet]

Perhaps the Democratic Party can rebrand itself the Democratic Socialist party. Is the socialist international still open? Why isn't our party affiliated?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Perhaps the Democratic Party can rebrand itself the Democratic Socialist party. Is the socialist international still open? Why isn't our party affiliated?

Goldman Sachs wouldn't like it.

[RaphaelDLG]

“I can’t shake the feeling that everything Bernie Sanders knows about foreign policy came from the world politics section of a used bookstore.” — Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at Tufts University

Knows enough not to be one of the gutless idiots that supported the immoral, profoundly wasteful and counterproductive War in Iraq

[DrScholl]

“I can’t shake the feeling that everything Bernie Sanders knows about foreign policy came from the world politics section of a used bookstore.” — Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at Tufts University

Knows enough not to be one of the gutless idiots that supported the immoral, profoundly wasteful and counterproductive War in Iraq

I was against the War in Iraq too, but that doesn't qualify me to be President. Lots of people opposed it, but it doesn't qualify them to be President.

[Virginiá]

I was against the War in Iraq too, but that doesn't qualify me to be President. Lots of people opposed it, but it doesn't qualify them to be President.

Obviously a single mistaken vote based on false evidence is the new litmus test for POTUS, even if the alternative is a guy who appears to know, and seemingly has a desire to know virtually nothing about foreign affairs.

[Mike Thick]

If Bernie was directing traffic, there'd be car accidents everywhere. If he was conducting an orchestra, the tempo would be nuts.” — Matt Viser, political reporter for The Boston Globe

I know this isn't his point, but if I had to pick a Presidential Candidate to conduct my orchestra, Bernie would be up there. John Kasich's raucous hand motions would make him an interesting conductor as well, though. I could see him being kind of like the one in this vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpU7dFz5oGM

[/bandnerdery]

Seriously, I didn't think his foreign policy answers were that great.

[RaphaelDLG]

I was against the War in Iraq too, but that doesn't qualify me to be President. Lots of people opposed it, but it doesn't qualify them to be President.

Obviously a single mistaken vote based on false evidence is the new litmus test for POTUS, even if the alternative is a guy who appears to know, and seemingly has a desire to know virtually nothing about foreign affairs.

Let's all agree that Bernie's knowledge of foreign affairs is clearly weaker than Hillary's, which is not a great thing, because knowledge is important.

But, as his campaign argues (I believe quite logically), knowledge is less important than judgment.  Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have between them like eight decades of foreign affairs experience and knowledge, yet have abysmal judgement guided by an underlying bankrupt ideology that makes them horrible people to put in charge of foreign affairs.  I have no doubt that I'd prefer Stephen Colbert to be my Secretary of Defense over those guys, because he would be inept and slow but would have some sort of conscience when he actually did finish processing all of the relevant information.

Of course, Hillary is no Dick Cheney, and the calculus of experience vs judgment is a lot closer between them, because Hillary has gotten a fair amount of stuff right.  But I unabashedly value judgment and underlying worldview as the proximate characteristic from which good foreign policy flows.

[RaphaelDLG]

Really, I think the problem is that Hillary is still an instinctively hawkish person.  It's not her genius, but her instincts, that are the problem.

[Virginiá]

Let's all agree that Bernie's knowledge of foreign affairs is clearly weaker than Hillary's, which is not a great thing, because knowledge is important.

But, as his campaign argues (I believe quite logically), knowledge is less important than judgment.  Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have between them like eight decades of foreign affairs experience and knowledge, yet have abysmal judgement guided by an underlying bankrupt ideology that makes them horrible people to put in charge of foreign affairs.  I have no doubt that I'd prefer Stephen Colbert to be my Secretary of Defense over those guys, because he would be inept and slow but would have some sort of conscience when he actually did finish processing all of the relevant information.

Of course, Hillary is no Dick Cheney, and the calculus of experience vs judgment is a lot closer between them, because Hillary has gotten a fair amount of stuff right.  But I unabashedly value judgment and underlying worldview as the proximate characteristic from which good foreign policy flows.

You have some fair points there. I just get peeved when people, and Sanders even, act like one mistaken vote makes her unfit for that office. Especially when Sanders, who has had a lot of time to seriously educate himself on foreign affairs, seems to have done little of that, yet wants to take the top job of foreign affairs. It's insanely reckless. Hillary does her homework and has put in a lot of work with those things, while Sanders just tries to change the subject.

I actually do think Sanders would be a better choice IF he knew a lot more about FP, considering Hillary is somewhat hawkish and I really don't like that... But Sanders in charge of America's relations makes me a bit worrisome. I think he's great with a lot of things, but perhaps not international relations.

[Bull Moose Base]

It's important to remember that Sanders is not a Democrat and is only running in the Democratic primary as a convenience. He would had to build a database from scratch running as an independent. He can't stand Obama and has made that clear a long time ago.

Worth repeating.

It's wrong. Sanders was explicit about his reasoning to run as a Democrat instead of as an Independent: he was worried about being a spoiler a la Nader. This is the same reason he has been careful about not damaging Hillary for a general election. I realize he's not refraining from any attacks now that he's surprised to find himself in such a competitive position but he hasn't exactly been going for the jugular. For example, as many people have observed long before this thread, Hillary has been trying to hug Obama and secure her advantage with black voters by highlighting Sanders's criticisms of Obama. Sanders has defended himself and pointed out Hillary running against Obama but he easily could have quoted some of her and Bill's more racially inflammatory attacks against him which could weaken her firewall with black voters. Instead he stops short saying things like, "either one of us on our worst day is 100 times better than the Republicans". He's clearly a good dude.

Anyway, as some pundit pointed out, Hillary instead used Obama as a sort of human shield, suggesting any attack on Wall Streer-funded candidates is an attack on Obama's integrity. It was a smart move that I think will probably be the difference in the primary.

[Ebowed]

Really, I think the problem is that Hillary is still an instinctively hawkish person.  It's not her genius, but her instincts, that are the problem.

Yes.  She is instinctively hawkish and for her to pretend she is some great friend of Obama after dog whistling through the entire 2008 primary is beyond absurd.  It really is a disgrace to the Democratic party that we would be considering a standard bearer who thinks it "sends a message" to deport children, that we will "never ever" have single payer because it's too hard (?), that it's okay to lie and bet against the American people by assuming they will never vote for a black candidate.  There's a reason Republicans are okay with Hillary Clinton.  They have plenty in common.

[The Last Northerner]

Sanders should make it absolutely clear on where he stands with Obama's FP. He can't just focus on Clinton's record as a Senator while ignoring her as SoS. While his supporters dislike Clinton, they still approve of Obama as a whole so attacking Clinton's tenure would be an indictment of Obama's record as well.

If Sanders focuses on Clinton's Iraq Vote (which SHOULD be a major consideration of any commander-in-chief), Clinton could bring up Sanders' record too. None of these would work in a general election but could bring doubt to his political base (or rather than anti-Clinton base):

-Supported the bombing of Yugoslavia in the 90s, causing one of his aides to resign
-Supported the expensively questionable F-35 project, showing he is not willing to stand up to the military-industrial complex with the same vigour he claims against big banks
-Cosponsored a resolution condemining human rights by Gadaffi, a tatic approval of Obama's Libyan Blitz
-Still a very pretty strong supporter of Israel, like almost every US politician.

He isn't Ron Paul nor Jermey Corbyn, who both have a long voting history of rebelling against party line on foreign policy. There's going to be a GOP Congress blocking his legislation and he should clarify his stances as commander-in-chief, where he does have A LOT of leeway.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Really, I think the problem is that Hillary is still an instinctively hawkish person.  It's not her genius, but her instincts, that are the problem.

Yes.  She is instinctively hawkish and for her to pretend she is some great friend of Obama after dog whistling through the entire 2008 primary is beyond absurd.  It really is a disgrace to the Democratic party that we would be considering a standard bearer who thinks it "sends a message" to deport children, that we will "never ever" have single payer because it's too hard (?), that it's okay to lie and bet against the American people by assuming they will never vote for a black candidate.  There's a reason Republicans are okay with Hillary Clinton.  They have plenty in common.

Well said.

Hillary Clinton:  The real conservative choice for president.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Really, I think the problem is that Hillary is still an instinctively hawkish person.  It's not her genius, but her instincts, that are the problem.

Yes.  She is instinctively hawkish and for her to pretend she is some great friend of Obama after dog whistling through the entire 2008 primary is beyond absurd.  It really is a disgrace to the Democratic party that we would be considering a standard bearer who thinks it "sends a message" to deport children, that we will "never ever" have single payer because it's too hard (?), that it's okay to lie and bet against the American people by assuming they will never vote for a black candidate.  There's a reason Republicans are okay with Hillary Clinton.  They have plenty in common.

Well said.

Hillary Clinton:  The real conservative choice for president.

Jesus effing Christ! That's exactly what America needs. A Democratic Tea Party on a DINO hunt.

[MM876]

It's important to remember that Sanders is not a Democrat and is only running in the Democratic primary as a convenience. He would had to build a database from scratch running as an independent. He can't stand Obama and has made that clear a long time ago.

He didn't make that clear and who the hell cares what his opinion of Obama is? A primary is not going:
"Who loves the current president more?" To make the primary about how much we love our president instead of the candidates is ridiculous.

The people who try to pick a candidate based on who's more loyal to the party confuse me, I don't care that Bernie is an independent and I don't care that Hillary is a Democrat. If you're just fascinated by the color blue then that's not a particularly convincing reason to pick Hillary as the president.

[Famous Mortimer]

Sanders should make it absolutely clear on where he stands with Obama's FP. He can't just focus on Clinton's record as a Senator while ignoring her as SoS. While his supporters dislike Clinton, they still approve of Obama as a whole so attacking Clinton's tenure would be an indictment of Obama's record as well.

If Sanders focuses on Clinton's Iraq Vote (which SHOULD be a major consideration of any commander-in-chief), Clinton could bring up Sanders' record too. None of these would work in a general election but could bring doubt to his political base (or rather than anti-Clinton base):

-Supported the bombing of Yugoslavia in the 90s, causing one of his aides to resign
-Supported the expensively questionable F-35 project, showing he is not willing to stand up to the military-industrial complex with the same vigour he claims against big banks
-Cosponsored a resolution condemining human rights by Gadaffi, a tatic approval of Obama's Libyan Blitz
-Still a very pretty strong supporter of Israel, like almost every US politician.

He isn't Ron Paul nor Jermey Corbyn, who both have a long voting history of rebelling against party line on foreign policy. There's going to be a GOP Congress blocking his legislation and he should clarify his stances as commander-in-chief, where he does have A LOT of leeway.

People definitely bring up the Libya and Israel thing. Most of Bernie's supporters are too young to remember Yugoslavia, plus even if they could, it's hard for them to be mad about the one time we bombed some White Christians as a favor to Muslims. Anyway, I don't know if it's Hillary's doing, it might just be typical holier than thou leftists. Obviously Clinton can't bring it up directly, since she supported all those things as well. She's even trying to out Israel him now. It would be a good (if dishonorable) strategy to get his voters simply not to turn out though.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Really, I think the problem is that Hillary is still an instinctively hawkish person.  It's not her genius, but her instincts, that are the problem.

Yes.  She is instinctively hawkish and for her to pretend she is some great friend of Obama after dog whistling through the entire 2008 primary is beyond absurd.  It really is a disgrace to the Democratic party that we would be considering a standard bearer who thinks it "sends a message" to deport children, that we will "never ever" have single payer because it's too hard (?), that it's okay to lie and bet against the American people by assuming they will never vote for a black candidate.  There's a reason Republicans are okay with Hillary Clinton.  They have plenty in common.

Well said.

Hillary Clinton:  The real conservative choice for president.

It would serve America better in the long run than eight more years of Republican-Lite (and "lite" only on the social agenda front - it's crystal clear that neither Hillary nor Obama has or had any intent of bringing the vampire squid capitalism in financial or military sectors under anything beyond token restraint).

[Adam Griffin]

If this new and empty narrative works ("if you disagree with Obama on anything or don't like the guy, then you are a feckless traitor and not a real Democrat"), then the GOP narrative that Democrats are nothing but a chimera coalition of ill-informed people voting based on personality, personal attributes and other components of identity politics will be vindicated. It's fine if you support one candidate or another based on the actual ideological positions taken by that candidate, but if you actually flip your support based on something like this, then you are an idiot and this "Majority Coalition" is a fycking joke. We'll see, I guess!