Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) needed a clear victory in Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate in order to erase his double-digit deficit in polls keyed to the New York primary. Unless he wins next Tuesday’s Empire State showdown with rival Hillary Clinton, Sanders will have no plausible chance of capturing the nomination.
Did the Vermont senator “obliterate” the former secretary of state, as he pledged to do to Donald Trump in the November general election?
New York Democrats will make that call. But a critical mass of voters will likely agree that Sanders failed to sink Clinton in the battle waged in the Brooklyn Navy Yard.
Rather than adopting the defensive strategy favored by many front-runners, Clinton regularly took the fight to Sanders and sought to retaliate when he challenged her record and questioned her judgment. Sanders likewise employed aggressive tactics, and the two often continued sparring despite moderators’ attempts to cut them off. Each of the candidates laughed derisively at the other’s comments at various points in the two-hour debate, hosted by CNN and NY1.
As she has throughout the primary, Clinton repeatedly associated herself with President Barack Obama, whose popularity ratings remain high among Democrats. She also cast herself as a realistic progressive, in contrast with Sanders, whom she depicted as an an idealist — strong on rhetoric but weak on policy details and lacking pragmatic political skills.
“When you make proposals, and you’re running for president, you should be held accountable for whether the numbers add up,” Clinton declared. “Describing the problem is a lot easier than trying to solve it,” she said at another point in the debate.
But Sanders did appear to prevail on several points.
Clinton tried to wriggle away as the Vermonter pressed her to say plainly whether she supported increasing Social Security taxes for wealthy Americans. She also dodged his challenge that she release the transcripts of secret speeches made to Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street bank recently fined $5 billion for misleading investors in the run-up to the 2008 financial system meltdown. Sanders also cornered Clinton on the issue of fracking, which she acknowledged supporting on a global basis as secretary of state. And she avoided answering his repeated question of whether she supported a tax on carbon emissions as a means of combating climate change.
Clinton said she favored an array of reforms. And Sanders used that reply to cut to the core of the differences between himself and his opponent: “Incrementalism and those little steps are not enough,” he told her.
But Sanders, for his part, was unable to provide a clear answer when asked to give an example of Clinton’s having demonstrated in her Senate career that she was influenced by Wall Street money. “There is no example,” Clinton triumphantly declared, adding that she had “called out” the financial institutions responsible for the economic devastation arising from subprime mortgage lending.
Sanders offered a pithy, sarcastic sound bite in return: “Secretary Clinton called them out. Oh my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this. And was that before or after you received huge sums of money by speaking engagements?”
Clinton again put the senator from a hunting state on the defensive in regard to gun control. Her attacks on what she described as his pro-gun lobby voting record were likely judged effective by many voters in New York, a state with strong restrictions on access to firearms. Clinton, however, could not parry Sanders’ counter-charge that she had wildly exaggerated the role weapons from Vermont play in violent crimes committed in New York.
A significant portion of the debate was given over to the quandary of Israel and Palestine. Clinton came off as a largely uncritical supporter of Israel — a stand unlikely to hurt her in a primary in which the Jewish vote will be a significant factor. But Sanders, conversely, might be seen as having taken the more politically courageous position in New York by insisting that peace cannot be achieved unless Palestinians are treated with “respect and dignity.”
The two also tussled on the notion of US support for regime change. Clinton defended her advocacy of using US military might to help overthrow Libya’s dictator. And she doubled-down on urging Obama to impose a no-fly zone in Syria.
Sanders took a more cautious position in those cases, warning that “regime change often has unintended consequences.” He pointed to the chaos that has engulfed Libya and referred again to Clinton’s vote to invade Iraq — an action he described as “the worst foreign policy decision in modern history of this country.”
While Sanders may, on balance, have won Thursday’s debate, his performance was probably not sufficiently superior to bring about a victory at the polls next Tuesday.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Hillary Clinton is just vile as a person. I was honestly waiting for her to begin one of her points with, “when I was Barack Obama…” At least Bernie answered the questions, even if you don’t think it did it well or liked what he said. Watching Hillary just makes me want to take a shower. “I would, while it was smiling in my face, Have pluck’d my nipple from his boneless gums, And dash’d the brains out” about sums her up.
Not sure what self mutilation has to do with Hillary but I must being missing something. In the beginning of this contest nobody gave Bernie a snowball’s chance. My hope was that his following would influence Hillary’s position to something more in line with, there is a lost generation or two out there are waiting for someone to notice before revolution becomes the only response. I don’t watch this everyday but hear there has been some movement but probably won’t last longer than the oath of office. Bottom line is that Hillary is the only answer when the alternatives are Frump and Bruz. We need to let Hillary know that status quo is unacceptable. Banks and the military need to be reined in and a more public debate over the pluses and minuses of immigration. Trying to understand situations before jumping in is not a bad idea either and I think she is smart enough and been around long enough to not want to plague her legacy with more of the same. We need to be accepting the inevitable and letting her know she needs to listen to the ordinary citizen. Just because you are paid a lot doesn’t mean your decisions are right
She criticizes Sanders’ foreign policy experience when Obama had far less, yet she allies herself with Obama’s popularity every chance she can get. Just one example of shenanigans I don’t think the people of New York are very enchanted with.
Sanders was expected to lose MI by 20%. Come next Tuesday, we may have the biggest surprise/upset of the nominating campaign yet.
A few quotes from this editorial:
“While Sanders may, on balance, have won Thursday’s debate, his performance was probably not sufficiently superior to bring about a victory at the polls next Tuesday.”
“But a critical mass of voters will likely agree that Sanders failed to sink Clinton in the battle waged in the Brooklyn Navy Yard.”
Prophecies. “But Sanders did appear to prevail on several points.” Oh?
You don’t know how it will turn out. I’d say that it does pay to be glib and overconfident (see how far it’s gotten Trump?) but for me, what matters is genuine feeling, a good heart, a good head, and authenticity. You may be surprised next Tuesday.
As “an adjunct professor of Journalism at Saint Michael’s College,” I would think that Michael J. Kelley could “analyze” outside of the mainstream media biases that “frame” to an “inevitable” Clinton win and undermine the plausibility of your “analyses.” One recent article highlighted, that “Bernie Sanders … stood up for Palestinians’ humanity,” “something previously unheard of.”
“As somebody who is 100 percent pro-Israel, in the long run,” Sanders said, “we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity.” Other reports highlight the risks he took in doing so given the high concentration of Jewish people in NYC and the power of AIPAC in polarizing the Jewish community on this very topic.
A “a critical mass of voters” felt strongly that Sanders made superlative and important points, a few of which you concisely list in one paragraph before you discount their value in your final sentence– a typical media ploy. Multiple polls identified that Sanders did win Thursday’s debate–by 85-90% depending on which poll and when one looked.
Share this with your students: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3566… and then please discuss conventions of journalism that omit and infer towards an inaccurate narrative. Many times throughout NY Sanders drew out tens of thousands of supporters who stood in lines miles long and remained outside a venue too packed for their entry. In one example, media reported 27,000 who attended the Greenwich Village talk—and omitted that at least that same number were packed in the streets feeding into Washington Square Park. Who in U.S. history other than rock stars and winning professional athletic teams draws such a crowd nationwide? Meanwhile, Clinton draws a few hundred to exclusive events where she blasts white noise at reporters so they can’t hear to report. What does this tell you?
A “Professor of Journalism” that is unable to correctly identify the name of the reporter, even though it is printed at the top and bottom of the article right in front of her. That explains a lot why Vermont reporters are so lazy and sloppy.
Sorry, Stacy, to offend…. I’m not the journalist or professor … I like “Michael” better than “Kevin” … and had to run to my “real work” … mistakes do happen. In any case, do you know how to edit once something is posted? I didn’t.
That aside (and I found a more serious editorial error–a contraction from editing down to 300 words or less–that I missed in my haste), the content of what I wrote stands. Kevin J. Kelley had at least one, likely two, editors to catch his grammatical and other errors. (I wonder if Seven Days even pays him?!) Thanks for catching mine. Now I’ll remember the guy’s name. (He’s probably a nice fellow… we all need to learn and grow, don’t you think?)
Sanders is a liar and a fraud. Hypocritical too. He takes money from PACs but demonizes Hillary for it. He is only a Democrat for money. He spent his entire career vilifying the Democratic party. He vilifies Hillary for making money for other Democrats. He said he would have to see if he would be able to help other Dems, in spite of his big campaign account.
Where did this Charles Erickson come from? Now he thinks Bernie is everything bad, and what he says isn’t true. I didn’t think trolls came this far north! I expect now he’ll demonize me. Oh well. There goes my rep, eh?
What part of Mr. Erickson’s comment isn’t true?