The News Organization Previously Known As NBC

This is not your father's NBC News.

To be clear, Tom Brokaw was not John Chancellor and Brian Williams, with his tortured relationship with the truth (and even before), has never been Tom Brokaw.

When Rachel Maddow hugged Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders after their recent debate, it was viewed- accurately- as unprofessional and giving the appearance of bias.  Howard Kurtz noted "the optics of Rachel Maddow embracing the two Democrats kinda made it look like they are on the same team."  

The "kinda" was actually fairly generous. Still, as Greta van Susteren pointed out, "People hug each other all the time and it is done between casual acquaintances." Unlike ignorance, insincerity, it appears, is a defense.

Maddow for her part tweeted "if/when GOP invites me to host a primary debate, rest assured I am definitely hugging those guys, too."  No one can be certain whether she was sincere (although she would be hard-pressed now to do otherwise) because she might have been issuing the Republicans a challenge: "Go ahead, I dare you to let me question your gang of extremists."

Had Megyn Kelly embraced Donald Trump and Marco Rubio after their recent debate, it likely would have rightly caused an avalanche of derision (no jokes accepted about who would ever hug that candidate from Texas).

Yet, after a day or so of criticism directed at Maddow and defense of her (barely defensible) action, the story disappeared, in part no doubt because she evinced no preference between the candidates. The shallow and superficial social hug, occasionally even in professional circumstances (as in that case), has become a part of the culture, especially on the East Coast, where the likes of Maddow and van Susteren work and live.

Thankfully, the "selfie" (itself a term indicating narcissism) isn't quite there, at least not yet. For this and other reasons, NBC News must suspend Savannah Guthrie.  Suspend her or it if she has no legitimate excuse, fire her (fat chance either will occur). But allowing a journalist, or even a quasi-journalist, to be seen in this context utterly screams bias.  It would be bad enough, and very bad, were she smiling with all the GOP presidential candidates (to draw an analogy to the Maddow hug).

Teachers often are derided for having tenure in their jobs. If a unionized were to do something analogous, however, the best lawyer hired by the National Education Association could not save him or her from punishment.  If the explanation is good enough, let Ms. Guthrie back after losing some of her income. If not, fire her.








Share |

Bad Day For Marco. Good For US.

Over on the Republican side, the news couldn't have been better for the Democratic Party. The nearly-unelectable Donald Trump won big. John Kasich, the establishment candidate merely tolerated by the Establishment, came in second while the favorites of the Big Money Boyz, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio, came in sixth and fifth, respectively.

All is not lost, though, for the Florida senator, whose remarks in defeat were almost as eloquent as were cunning those after the Iowa caucus. "Our disappointment tonight is not on you," Rubio generously told supporters. "It's on me. It's on me. I did not do well on Saturday night, so listen to this: That will never happen again."

We already knew, however, that Rubio gives a great speech. Chris Christie reminded viewers of that Saturnday night, as well as that the Senator gives it over and over again. And again.

It may seem like kicking a man when he's down, but given that Rubio is still viable, let's acknowledge how dangerous this man is.   The same guy who claims President Obama "systematically and habitually violates the Constitution" also maintains(video below)  "We are clearly called to adhere to our civil authorities, But when they are in conflict with biblical teachings, 'God's rules always win.'"










Presumably, it doesn't strike Rubio as hypocritical that he charges Obama with "systematically and habitually" violating the Constitution while he himself  advocates following God's law when it conflicts with the Constitution.

Nonetheless, in a race which includes at least two other wannabe theocrats, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, and every candidate has pledged allegiance to opposing a woman's right to choose, Senator Rubio has stood out (or deserves to stand out) for his unswerving commitment to dishonesty about the military.

Proclaiming "the gutting of our military is not an accident," Rubio on Saturday night claimed

I think the more fundamental challenge we’re now facing is what’s happening to the U.S. military — I’ve said this many times, and I think it’s important to start paying attention to this. Our Air Force is about to be the smallest it’s been in 100 years. I’m sorry, in our history. Our Army is set to be smaller than it’s been since the second World War, and our Navy is about to be the smallest than it’s been in 100 years.

That claim has made almost verbatim by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Politifact, which has found it reasonably accurate, nevertheless asserted after speaking to a consultant "sequestration has hindered military capabilities -- particularly in light of recent developments in Iraq and Syria. The Pentagon has had to make cuts to its day-to-day operations, while carrying out missions in the Middle East that were not budgeted for."

Graham's criticism- which formed the basis of Rubio's- was, Politifact concluded

not a fair comparison because technology and capabilities have grown so much in the past century. The Army and Navy of today are much more capable than they were decades ago, even with fewer soldiers and ships. A better comparison is to look at how the U.S. military stands up relative to other nations.

More insulting is Rubio's vow

to begin to refocus on rebuilding our military because every time we have cut our military in the history of this country we have had to come back later and rebuild it, and it costs more, and it’s a lot more chaotic and dangerous. When I’m president, we are rebuilding the U.S. military.

This is necessary because, the young man says, "It’s about believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet."

He already had informed us that President Obama is "undermining" the country.  But unlike Fred Kaplan, he did not tell us that the current military budget

amounts to $583 billion, a mere 0.4-percent increase over this year’s budget.

However, that’s only the sum requested by the Defense Department. The Office of Management and Budget, which oversees the entire federal government, speaks of appropriations for “national defense,” which also include the Energy Department’s nuclear weapons programs and assorted items in various other agencies, which together total another $25 billion.

All told, then, the budget request for national defense adds up to $608 billion—a 2.1-percent increase over this year’s budget: not enormous, but not trivial either, and certainly not a cut....

Comparing the eight years of George W. Bush’s base budgets and the eight years of Obama’s (including the one proposed today), Obama’s exceed Bush’s by a sum total of $816.7 billion ($4,121.2 billion for Obama’s two terms, $3,304.5 for Bush’s). (See thecomptroller’s document, Pages 1–4. This chart doesn’t adjust these figures for inflation; if it did, the difference would be smaller but not by much.)

Admittedly, Marco Rubio did not say that President Obama had destroyed the military budget or even cut it. He did, however, maintain that Barack Obama does not believe "that the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet." Given the President's defense budgets and the likelihood that someone who touts his knowledge of foreign affairs from his experience on the Foreign Relations Committee would have some clue of this, Rubio likely is lying.

Results from New Hampshire indicate that Chris Chrisite did himself no good by savaging Marco Rubio. However, after six years as governor of a large state and 7+ months as a presidential candidate, he finally has provided a useful service.








Share |

Impeach Him Now

Appearing in person in New Hampshire on Tuesday's Morning Joe, Donald Trump was asked (as had been John Ellis Bush) to give a one word description of each GOP presidential candidate. As to Hillary Clinton, Trump hesitated- considerably- before responding "evil," then clarifying that "in some ways, evil."

Clearly taken aback, Mika Brzezinski emitted an audible "oh," She then asked why he would call the individual most likely to be the next President of the United States "evil."

Just kidding there- that would have provoked an actual conversation approximating an actual interview, which has been all too rare this campaign season.

But that's really not so bad, because Trump was not emphasizing Clinton's alleged evil and had he not been asked to limit his answer to one word, probably would have gone elsewhere.

The same cannot be said for Marco Rubio (about whom Trump said "confused.")  So let's dispel this notion that Marco Rubio doesn't know what he's doing.

If that sounds familiar or vaguely ironic, it's because it's a variant of Rubio's stump speech, delivered over and over when prompted, and battered, by Chris Christie. First, it was "And let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing." Then it was "Let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing," followed by "Those are the facts. Here's the bottom line. This notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he's doing. "  Finally, he stated "We are not facing a president that doesn't know what he's doing. He knows what he is doing. That's why he's done the things he's done."

If the New Jersey governor had been allowed to contunue, the Florida Senator probably would have said it again. Evidently, that's what he does:

... on Monday, Mr. Rubio, the Florida Republican, who has been under relentless criticism for uttering his talking points over and over in Saturday's presidential debate, had another repetitious lapse.

Speaking to a crowd in Nashua, he was lamenting the decline in American family values.

Then he lamented the decline in American values again.

This is what he said verbatim, as his wife and four children looked on:

"We are taking our message to families that are struggling to raise their children in the 21st century because, as you saw, Jeanette and I are raising our four children in the 21st century, and we know how hard it's become to instill our values in our kids instead of the values that they try to ram down our throats in the movies, in music, in popular culture."

“In the 21st century, it’s becoming harder than ever to instill in your children the values they teach in our homes and in our church instead of the values that they try to ram down our throats in the movies, in music, in popular culture.”

Nonetheless, we already knew that Marco Rubio is a cardboard cutout, that there is no "there" there. A more serious problem than repeating the same thing repeating the same thing was highlighted by Charles Pierce, who contended that Rubio at the New Hampshire debate "was accusing the president of monumental and deliberate acts of subersion in office. This is a stunning charge, especially from a one-term pipsqueak whose memory banks jam whenever he steps an inch beyond his actual depth."

It's worse yet, however,et than Rubio's Saturday night accusations that the President "knows what he's done"  and is "undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world," In South Carolina in early January, Rubio (video below) cited "religious liberties" and (specifically) the Second Amendment and remarked "our constituion is being systematically violated and ignored" by the President.

At one recent debate

Marco Rubio chastised Hillary Clinton's call to put Barack Obama on the Supreme Court, framing the presidential election as a fight to defeat Clinton.  

"Hillary Clinton this week said that Barack Obama would make a great Supreme Court justice," the GOP White House hopeful said Thursday at the Fox News primary debate. 

"The guy who systematically and habitually violates the Constitution on the Supreme Court? I don’t think so."

This is a serious charge, one going well beyond arguing that the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution or that authorizing the DEA or the NSA to spy on American citizens is unconstitutional (fat chance Rubio ever suggests that).  It goes beyond even claiming that the President himself in a specific instance knowingly violated the Constitution.

In its report following the Watergate Crisis, in 1974 the Senate Judiciary Committee summarized

It is useful to note three major presidential duties of broad scope that are explicity recited in the Constitution: "to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. The first is directly imposed by the Constitution; the second and third are included in the constitutionally prescribed oath that the President is required to take before he enters upon the execution of his office and are, therefore, also expressly imposed by the Constitution.

There is some disagreement about what constitutes grounds for impeachment, as we learned in the WJ Clinton/M Lewinsky affair.  There is, however, little or no doubt that habitual, knowing violation of the United States Constituion is grounds for impeachment (and even for removal from office).  Marco Rubio has done everything but use the "I" word. It's time that he do so, or he ought to keep his repetitive mouth shut.  And it's time that Mika Brzezinski or some figure in the news media ask him why he doesn't present Articles of Impeachment, a question which might, at least for the moment, give us a welcome reprieve from the usual shock over Donald Trump's foul mouth.

Share |

Looking For Something For Nothing

NBC News reports

A former Mexican president had some tough words when asked about GOP candidate Donald Trump's much-touted plan to build a border wall that he says will be paid for by Mexico.

"We are not going to pay any single cent for such a stupid wall! And it's going to be completely useless," said former Mexican president Felipe Calderón when asked about this at the AmCham Egypt for Business Conference on Sunday.

Calderón had harsh words about the Republican presidential race during his conversation with CNBC's Hadley Gamble, saying it was "incredible" that quite an "admirable society" like the U.S. had candidates like Trump.

"No offense, no offense to America. So Donald Trump … is ambitious but not exactly very well-informed man, I don't want to say ignorant, but he is not very well informed," said Calderón.







Donald Trump is ignorant? Calderon ought to check out a few of the other GOP candidates, including Ben Carson, who believes the Affordable Care Act is "the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery" and "we're living in a Gestapo age.'"   And then there is Carly Fiorina, still trying to produce that tape of Planned Parenthood no one has yet found. We not only have candidates like Trump, we have ones more reprehensible (Fiorina) than him and more divorced from reality (Carson) .
Mexican politicians such as Calderon have to speak out, not only because Trump's vow is a swipe against Mexicans, but the suggestion that the government of Mexico would pay to have its residents blocked from entering the USA is silly.

Except that it's not, because it was a spectacular tactic on the part of the real estate mogul. It combines fear of The Other with the principle most securely binding the Republican popular base with the donor base: not paying for anything that doesn't involve weapons.

Imagine that- we keep Mexicans out and do it for free!( In previous decades, it was "cut taxes and balance the budget..)  As Bill Maher has pointed out endlessly, we simply will not pay for anything anymore. We send our youth off to war, but then refuse to devote sufficient resources to treat them when they come back wounded, broken physically and emotionally. President Obama proposes a $10 per barrel tax on oil to be phased in over five years, creating jobs, promoting clean vehicle research and deployment, replenishing the Highway Trust Fund, and providing improved public transportation. House Speaker Paul Ryan declares it "dead on arrival"... until the next bridge collapses- and maybe even then.

Increasingly, Trump and other GOP candidates, intimidated by attention to their Hispanic phobia while aware that terrorism sells, have cleverly framed their opposition to immigration reform in the context of terrorism.  Fail to secure the (southern) border, they suggest, and ISIS will practically be in our bedrooms.

"As someone who has access to very sensitive information, I can tell you for a fact that ISIS understands our legal immigration system and is seeking to exploit it," claims one GOP presidential aspirant, one somewhat acquainted with reality, if somewhat repetitive and frightened of the governor of New Jersey. So it's not only Donald Trump who is irrational, and not only Mexicans Republicans dislike. They won't pay for anything worth paying for, and Donald Trump is only the loudest voice among them.








Share |

Playing Out Nicely

That was wonderful.

The other day, conservative  Republican talk-show host Hugh Hewitt was interviewed by MSNBC's Chris Matthews and speculated there would be an open convention when his guys (and gals) convene in Cleveland.

It was a bold prediction.  With Marco Rubio- one of the GOP establishment's favorites along with Chris Christie and John Ellis Bush- on the rise after the Iowa caucuses, the media was ready to proclaim a second-round (and perhaps even a third-round) finish in New Hampshire by the Florida senator as clear evidence he was on his way to nomination.

Rubio had finished only third in Iowa, but with a nearly unparalleled ability to deliver a rehearsed stump speech and make it sound almost original, had succeeded in turning a concession speech after the caucuses into what sounded like a victory speech.  And presently he had only John Kasich to present a viable challenge to a likely second place finish in New Hampshire behind only Donald Trump, a foul-mouthed authoritarian the Party's establishment prefers only to the uniquely unlikable and unliked Ted Cruz.

But there always was a chink or two in the Senator's armor. One has been that he appears fully as inexperienced as he is, the flip side of his youthful good looks. Additionally, there always has been suspicion that he is slow on his feet and cannot adjust quicky when thrown off his talking points. Following the previous GOP debate (after which I suggested that Donald Trump would melt down if he didn't come in first in Iowa, which does not appear to be occurring), I wrote 

But there is Something, though. But he ignored the entire question because Marco Rubio is scared of Chris Christie, as have some Democratic, and many Republican, politicians in New Jersey have been so for a few years now. Yet, in a campaign in which fear of frontrunner Donald Trump has become a significant theme, no notice is taken that there is one major, viable candidate who has demonstrated that he wants to steer clear of the New Jersey governor.

Well, if Marco Rubio wasn't having nightmares of Chris Christie, he is now.  Salon's Elias Isquith, who deserves a read if only for his spot-on evaluation of Ben Carson, summarized even before Saturday night's debate in New Hampshire ended



Things got started when Rubio was asked to respond to Christie’s allegation that, after experiencing the presidency of Barack Obama, who was elected as a first-term U.S. senator, it would be especially unfortunate if the Republican Party were itself to nominate Marco Rubio, a first term U.S. senator, for the White House. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” Christie had said (bettering his former benefactor, George).

Rubio’s comeback was pretty good, if a little obvious in its intent: He argued that experience was overrated; if it mattered, Vice President Joe Biden would be a good candidate for commander-in-chief. He then argued that an unspoken premise of the criticism — that Obama has failed in part due to his inexperience — is faulty. Obama knows exactly what he’s doing, Rubio said. The president is not a fool; he’s a menace.

Christie wasn’t having it, dismissing Rubio’s Biden straw man and recommitting to his initial attack. Rubio’s a nice guy, a smart guy, Christie said; but the simple fact is that he’s never had to make an important decision. This got a noticeable round of applause from the audience. And perhaps that’s why Rubio then proceeded to self-destruct.

What Rubio’s next five or so minutes such a disaster wasn’t really what he said — but the fact that he had already just said it. Looking mighty flummoxed, Rubio tried to parry Christie’s second attack by pivoting once again to Obama, hoping to bring the crowd around to his side by using generous helpings of ideological red meat to help their tribal identification overwhelm their intellect. It had already failed, but he was doing it again. Worse still, his second answer was almost a verbatim repeat of his first.

Remember: The knock on Rubio has always been, essentially, that he’s a lightweight. He’s young, pretty good-looking, and he exudes the kind of Kennedy-esque earnest, “idealistic” machismo that seems to send a thrill up the legs of the Republican Party’s aged voter base (as well the aging ranks of the elite political press). As they once said of that cherubic whippersnapper Al Gore, Rubio is an older person’s idea of a young person. There may not be much there there, in short.

Well, it’s hard to imagine anything Rubio could have possibly done that would more immediately, and humorously, affirm the caricature. Here he was, really being challenged for the first time  — and by Christie, a world-class bully, no less — and he was wilting. He was like an artificially intelligent robot confronted with a logical question his programming couldn’t handle. I worried for a moment that my stream of the debate had begun to skip.

Whether due to incompetence or pity, the moderators tried to move on. But like a really big, mean, and sadistic shark, Christie was all over it. He mocked Rubio for falling back on his talking points — something all politicians do, but rarely so conspicuously — and continued to shred the senator’s (lack of a) record, as well as tout his own hands-on experience governing New Jersey.

Rubio tried to tu quoque Christie, noting that the governor had only grudgingly returned to the Garden State during a recent snowstorm. Christie all but rolled his eyes and laughed it off while the audience booed — at Rubio. And then, unbelievably, Rubio started to fall back into repeating the talking point (let’s not pretend Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing…) yet again. “There it is!” Christie interjected. The crowd was with him. Rubio’s emasculation was all but complete.

And, I swear to God, about 40 minutes later, he used the same line again.



And that's where John Kasich comes in. Questioned by NBC's Kasie Hunt in the "spin room," the Ohio Governor pointedly refused to make any predictions, but exuded confidence when he smiled broadly and remarked he had done "very well."  Mark Halperin, a consummate Washington insider among reporters with his finger perpetually in the wind, surmised Kasich would come in second in New Hampshire. (Trump has long been expected to win.)

That is no small thing.  Following Trump's victory in Iowa, the crew on Morning Joe, the insiders' insiders, asserted that the billionaire was the candidate of "joy."   You had to see it to believe it- the candidate who made "you're fired" a buzz phrase, called out by name a disabled reporter, snarled about Megyn Kelly's "blood coming out of her wherever," and recently publicly swore promiscuously, had become the living embodiment of Ronald Reagan's sunny disposition, no doubt because he was leading the pack.

As of Monday morning, that candidate no longer will be Trump- or Rubio, as was once expected and really, really desired by many Republicans and the media.

Moreover, when correspondent Hunt suggested he is one of the Establishment candidates, Kasich- as he has been doing- asserted that there are not two, but three, lanes- the inside, the outside, and the Kasich.

It is campaign propaganda, but contains within it a shred or two of truth.  Kasich is very conservative ("severely conservative," as Mitt Romney would put it) and would be acceptable to the donor class of  the GOP.  However, unlike Rubio, he is not the wonder boy, and Chris Christie or John Ells Bush also would do quite fine, thank you very much.  The former House Budget Committee chairperson would pursue policies the 1% favor, but would not be quite the puppet Rubio or Bush would be, nor would he pursue them with the relentless vigor as would Christie.

This throws the GOP race into disarray, much as Hewitt thought, although for obvious reasonshe did not place it in those terms  The Big Money Boyz currently have to hold off anointing Wonder Boy Rubio and must contemplate the possibility that John Kasich will be their only alternative to the barely tolerable Ted Cruz or the slightly better than barely tolerable Donad Trump.  Thatmay not hold once the campaign turns south. For now, however, it portends a wide open race and in all its confusion and disappointment for the GOP powers, is surely a wondrous sight to behold.
















Share |

A Little Insight Is Not To Much To Ask For

David Ferguson reports in Raw Story

In an appearance on Sunday in Iowa, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said that the ongoing lead contamination of city water in Flint, Michigan is “a civil rights issue.”

According to Bloomberg Politics, Clinton said she views the negligence leading to the lead poisoning as “not just as an environmental disaster and a health crisis,” but that “(t)his is a civil rights issue.”

“If it had been a rich white suburb where the water was brown and smelly, people would have come immediately to the rescue of those families,” the former Secretary of State said.

Left behind and needing to catch up, at Thursday's debate Senator Sanders remarked

What we are talking about are children being poisoned. That's what we're talking about. We don't know, no one knows for sure because they haven't done the appropriate studies, but there's no question that kids' intellectual development may have been impacted. We don't know how many thousands.

The idea that there has not been a dramatic response is beyond comprehension. And when you have one of the, I think, significant public health crises of recent years, of course the federal government comes in.

And of course the federal government says, you're not going to be poisoning little kids and impacting their entire lives.

Last point on this. And I suspect the secretary agrees. One wonders if this were a white suburban community what kind of response there would have been.

This is where the Democratic Party is today and where it's going.  When Clinton refers to "a civil rights issue" and Sanders to "white suburban community," it is a shout-out on race. If nominated, Sanders may be able to draw a few more white working class voters into the Democratic  coalition and Clinton more non-young women, but they're both dependent on minorities, and well aware of it.

That's probably good strategy. But as explanation, it is bogus.  If Flint had a declining tax base, dwindling resources, and majority-white population, an emergency manager still would have been sent in to take over municipal government.   Throw in a poor electorate (as in the case of Flint), with individuals less likely to vote and less well-connected, it would have been a slam dunk for the Republican establishment in Lansing.

This is not about race.  Recently, the Journal Sentinel of Milwaukee (photograph from Rick Wood) found

A bill quickly moving through the Legislature that would ease restrictions on the private purchase of municipal water systems is being pushed by a Pennsylvania company whose aggressive growth strategy has resulted in nearly 200 acquisitions in the last decade.

Aqua America Inc. operates water systems in eight states, including Illinois.

The company is now eyeing Wisconsin — a potential market where virtually all water and sewer systems are owned and operated by municipalities.

The proposal could chip away at public ownership of water and sewer utilities by lowering legal barriers to private ownership. The measure passed the Assembly by voice vote on Jan. 12 — normally a sign the legislation is not controversial — and now goes to the full Senate.

This bill, which would be happily signed by Governor Walker, is not about race. Charlie Peters (who, admittedly, would not be so definitive about that) writes "If privatizing local water systems works out as well as private prisons, private parking meters, and private highways, Wisconsin ought to look like the Gobi Desert within a decade. Naturally, there are out of state players involved here."

Peters compares it to "the market-based solution forced on the city of Flint by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder." It is of, by, and for profit and in the words of the terrible old cliche (repeated here, nonetheless), it is not about black and white but about green.

Whether in Michigan or Wisconsin, it is about privatization, and it's astounding that someone who labels herself  a "progressive" doesn't understand that. It's even more astounding that a democratic socialist hasn't figured it out. That is: unless they have, and that would say a lot about today's Democratic Party, and none of it good.








Share |

A Pleasant Evening

We've all had the experience- watching a political debate (photo from Reuters/Mike Segar), listening to the "color analyst" for an athletic event, even reading a review of a favorite television program or movie- and wondering: did she watch the same thing I did?

You may had that same feeling if you watched Thursday night's Democratic debate in New Hampshire and then read the Associated Press story by Nancy Benac and Lisa Lerer, who write

Fireworks flying in their first one-on-one debate...it was Clinton who was the main aggressor, saying Sanders could never achieve his ambitious and costly proposals. Then she took after the Vermont senator for his efforts to cast her as beholden to Wall Street interests because of the campaign donations and speaking fees she's accepted from the financial sector.

"It's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out," she said.

"Artful smear" was, admittedly, a smear, something of a cheap shot.   And when Clinton charged "So I think it's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out...," some cross-talk followed, after which Sanders shot back with the vicious  "Let's talk -- let's talk about issues, all right? "

Devastating,just devastating.

Benac and Lerer note

Sanders, for his part, suggested Clinton's loyalties were colored by a reliance on big corporate donors.

"Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment," he said. "I represent - I hope - ordinary Americans."

Clinton may say the right things, he suggested, but "one of the things we should do is not only talk the talk but walk the walk."

Sanders added that he is "very proud to have people like Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva in the House, the co-chairmen of the House Progressive Caucus" (supporting him). Clinton thus was handed the opportunity to suggest that Sanders has garnered the support of only two of the 188 Democratic members of the US House of Representatives, zero (0) Senators, and zero (0) governors because he is out of the mainstream or that the governors and members of Congress, from nearly every other state, who have endorsed her are afraid Sanders cannot carry their state in November.

Instead, she insisted "Well, look, I've got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment. And I've got to tell you that it is... " It was a positive statement, albeit one that does not mean she does not represent the Establishment.

For his part, Sanders could have laid into Clinton about her ties to the financial industry, or at least to Goldman Sachs.  Yet, when he cited Goldman for helping to "destroy our economy and runin the lives of millions of Americans," he said nothing about Clinton, instead turning to something no national Democrat would contest:

Kid gets caught with marijuana, that kid has a police record. A Wall Street executive destroys the economy, $5 billion settlement with the government, no criminal record. That is what power is about. That is what corruption is about. And that is what has to change in the United States of America.

Consider that Sanders has assiduously avoided the e-mail scandal, the nexus between Clinton's service as Secretary of State and the Clinton Global Initiative, or her response to her husband's philandering, which the GOP recently tried to exploit. Instead, he has criticized his opponent for: a bias toward "free" trade; an ambiguous relationship to Wall Street; not being a "progressive;" voting to give President Bush a blank check in Iraq; insufficient enthusiasm for universal health care. If Clinton is the nominee, the GOP- with its ideological bent- would be hard pressed to turn any of that into a sound bite or a damaging video.

The "fireworks" in the debate presumably did not include the following remarks by Sanders: "Secretary Clinton is absolutely right, there ar people, Koch brothers among others..."; "O.K. Let me argue with much of what the Secretary said..."' And I would say if I might, Madame Secretary- and you can correct me if I'm wrong"; "I fully, fully concede that Secretary Clinton, who was Secretary of State for four years, has more experience- that is not arguable- in foreign affairs."

In return (sort of), when Mrs. Clinton was asked if she wished to respond to Sanders' claim that an ad implying a New Hampshire newspaper (which had taken no position) had endorsed him, and which was entitled "Endorsement," Clinton replied "no."    It was a response as generous as it was brief, which  is itself  a welcome departure from the norm for a politican (or a celebrity).

Admittedly, Clinton must- not strategically, but from a sense of decency- drop the claim that the Vermont Senator proposes that as President he would rescind the Affordable Care Act while endeavoring to institute single payer.   It is a preposterous claim, intended to raise the hair on the back of the head of Obama Stepfords unaware that a President Sanders would maintain the current system while trying to improve or replace it.

Still, Clinton was civil to her opponent, at one point acknowledging "I have great great respect for Senator Sanders' commitment to trying to restore Glass-Steagall." And when the debate ended and Rachel Maddow, exhibiting a remarkable lack of professionalism and inferring a bias toward the Democratic candidates, hugged both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, it was a fitting end to a relatively informative and cordial encounter.

 

Share |