WHEN A CANDIDATE for high office can’t respond to a simple question with an honest answer, attention should be paid. More often than not these days, that kind of behavior is just greeted with a shrug by the members of the elite media, but specific acts of evasion are worth studying. Because if something’s important enough for a candidate that they concoct a ludicrous non-response, there’s probably a sore point under there somewhere.
And when a candidate won’t directly answer the question, it’s also legitimate to speculate why that might be.
I’m not talking here about the positions on the issues that the candidates are taking, and whether they are logically consistent or wise. I’m not fact-checking. I’m just looking at evasive responses, and what they mean.
So here are some of the most glaring evasions of Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Brooklyn.
1. Hillary Clinton dissembling about why she won’t release transcripts of her highly paid speeches to banks.
The first time she was asked to release these transcripts, by my colleague Lee Fang, Clinton’s response was to laugh and keep moving. This exchange with CNN’s Dana Bash shows her answers have not gotten any less evasive over time.
BASH: Secretary Clinton, if I may, Senator Sanders keeping bringing up the speeches that you gave to Goldman Sachs. So I’d like to ask you, so you’ve said that you don’t want to release the transcripts, until everybody does it, but if there’s nothing in those speeches that you think would change voters’ minds, why not just release the transcripts and put this whole issue to bed?
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, first of all — first of all, there isn’t an issue. When I was in public service serving as the senator from New York, I did stand up to the banks. I did make it clear that their behavior would not be excused.
I’m the only one on this stage who did not vote to deregulate swaps and derivatives, as Senator Sanders did, which led to a lot of the problems that we had with Lehman Brothers.
Now, if you’re going to look at the problems that actually caused the Great Recession, you’ve got to look at the whole picture. It was a giant insurance company, AIG. It was an investment bank, Lehman Brothers. It was mortgage companies like Countrywide.
I’m not saying that Senator Sanders did something untoward when he voted to deregulate swaps and derivatives …
BASH: Madam Secretary …
CLINTON: … but the fact is he did.
CLINTON: And that contributed to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and started the cascade …
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: Senator Sanders, one second, please. Secretary Clinton, the question was about the transcripts of the speeches to Goldman Sachs.
(APPLAUSE)
Why not release them?
CLINTON: I have said, look, there are certain — there are certain expectations when you run for president. This is a new one. And I’ve said, if everybody agrees to do it — because there are speeches for money on the other side. I know that.
But I will tell you this, there is — there is a long-standing expectation that everybody running release their tax returns, and you can go — you can go to my website and see eight years of tax returns. And I’ve released 30 years of tax returns. And I think every candidate, including Senator Sanders and Donald Trump, should do the same.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Secretary Clinton, we’re going to get to the tax returns later, but just to put a button on this, you’re running now for the Democratic nomination.
CLINTON: Right.
BASH: And it is your Democratic opponent and many Democratic voters who want to see those transcripts. It’s not about the Republicans …
(CROSSTALK)
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, let’s set the same standard for everybody. When everybody does it, OK, I will do it, but let’s set and expect the same standard on tax returns. Everybody does it, and then we move forward.
Kudos to Dana Bash for pursuing the question. “When everybody does it,” is now right up there with Donald Trump’s “I didn’t start it.” This is flat-out evasion.
Reasonable Surmise: Clinton said embarrassing things during those speeches that belie her tough-on-Wall-Street rhetoric and she doesn’t want them to be public.
2. Bernie Sanders dissembling about why he hasn’t released his tax returns.
Hillary Clinton challenged Sanders to release his tax returns, which is entirely reasonable. When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked him to respond, it went like this:
SANDERS: [O]f course we will release our taxes. Jane does our taxes. We’ve been a little bit busy lately. You’ll excuse us. But we will …
BLITZER: Senator …
SANDERS: We will get them out.
BLITZER: Senator …
CLINTON: Well, you know, there are a lot of copy machines around.
BLITZER: Senator, when are you — when are you — you’ve been asked for weeks and weeks to release your tax returns.
SANDERS: Well, I think we got one that’s coming out tomorrow.
BLITZER: Which one?
SANDERS: Last year’s.
BLITZER: 2014?
SANDERS: Yes.
BLITZER: What about 2013, all the other ones?
SANDERS: You’ll get them, yes. Yeah, look, I don’t want to get anybody very excited. They are very boring tax returns. No big money from speeches, no major investments. Unfortunately — unfortunately, I remain one of the poorer members of the United States Senate. And that’s what that will show.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: So, Senator, just to be clear, tomorrow you will release the 2014 tax returns from you and your family?
SANDERS: Yes.
BLITZER: And what about the earlier ones? What’s the problem …
SANDERS: Yes.
BLITZER: What’s taking so long? Because you just have to go to the filing cabinet, make a copy, and release them.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Wolf, the answer is, you know, what we have always done in my family is, Jane does them. And she’s been out on the campaign trail. We will get them out. We’ll get them out very shortly. It’s not a big deal.
“Jane does them” is a non-answer. He should have released them ages ago. And it sounds like he may be getting ready to blame Jane for something.
Reasonable Surmise: There is something hinky with his taxes, and his campaign staff is scrambling to figure out how to contain the damage.
3. Hillary Clinton dissembling about her position on increasing the wage cap on Social Security taxes.
This was really one for the ages. Clinton appeared to answer the question affirmatively, but then made it clear she was responding affirmatively to another question entirely that hadn’t been asked. Then she assured us she wasn’t actually answering yes or no to the question she had been asked. Maybe Bill could have pulled that off, but not Hillary.
When Hillary Clinton says, “I have supported it,” I guess it depends upon what the meaning of “it” is.
BLITZER: Secretary, let’s talk about Social Security, another critically important issue. Senator Sanders has challenged you to give a clear answer when it comes to extending the life of Social Security and expanding benefits. Are you prepared to lift the cap on taxable income, which currently stands at $118,500? Yes or no, would you lift the cap?
CLINTON: I have said repeatedly, Wolf, I am going to make the wealthy pay into Social Security to extend the Social Security Trust Fund. That is one way. If that is the way that we pursue, I will follow that.
But there are other ways. We should be looking at taxing passive income by wealthy people. We should be looking at taxing all of their investment.
But here’s the real issue, because I — I’ve heard this, I’ve seen the reports of it. I have said from the very beginning, we are going to protect Social Security. I was one of the leaders in the fight against Bush when he was trying to privatize Social Security.
But we also, in addition to extending the Trust Fund, which I am absolutely determined to do, we’ve got to help people who are not being taken care of now. And because Social Security started in the 1930s, a lot of women have been left out and left behind.
And it’s time that we provide more benefits for widows, divorcees, for caregivers, for women who deserve more from the Social Security …
BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.
CLINTON: — system and that will be my highest priority.
BLITZER: Senator?
Go ahead, Senator.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: An interesting comment, but you didn’t answer the question.
CLINTON: I did. If that’s the way we’re …
SANDERS: No, you didn’t. My legi …
CLINTON: — yes, I did.
SANDERS: Can I answer …
CLINTON: I did answer the …
SANDERS: — may I please …
CLINTON: Well, don’t — don’t put words …
SANDERS: — can I have …
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: — into my mouth and say something…
SANDERS: — do I not?
CLINTON: — that’s not accurate.
BLITZER: Go ahead, Senator.
SANDERS: All right. Essentially what you described is my legislation, which includes (INAUDIBLE) …
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Now, we’ve got — here is the issue. Your answer has been the same year after year. In fact, the idea that I’m bringing forth, I have to admit it, you know, it wasn’t my idea. It was Barack Obama’s idea in 2008, the exact same idea.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: He called for lifting the cap, which is now higher — it’s at 118 — and starting at 250 and going on up. If you do that, you’re going to extend the life of Social Security for 58 years. You will significantly expand benefits by 1,300 bucks a year for seniors and disabled vets under $16,000 a year.
What’s wrong with that?
Are you prepared to support it?
CLINTON: I have supported it. You know, we are in vigorous agreement here, Senator.
SANDERS: You have sup …
CLINTON: I think it’s important …
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: — to point out that …
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: — you know, we’re — we’re having a discussion about the best way to raise money from wealthy people to extend the Social Security Trust Fund. Think about what the other side wants to do. They’re calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme. They still want to privatize it.
In fact, their whole idea is to turn over the Social Security Trust Fund to Wall Street, something you and I would never let happen.
SANDERS: All right, so …
CLINTON: So, yes, we both want to make sure …
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Look, Wolf …
CLINTON: — Social Security (INAUDIBLE) …
SANDERS: — I am very glad that …
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: — and well-funded …
SANDERS: I am very glad to …
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Senator, go ahead.
SANDERS: — campaign of challenging, if I hear you correctly, Madam Secretary, you are now coming out finally in favor of lifting the cap on taxable income…
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: — and extending and expanding Social Security. If that is the case, welcome on board. I’m glad you’re here.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: No.
[…]
CLINTON: I — as he said, I’ve said the same thing for years. I didn’t say anything different tonight. We are going to extend the Social Security Trust Fund. There is still something called Congress. Now, I happen to support Democrats and I want to get Democrats to take back the majority in the United States Senate…
[…]
SANDERS: I’ve got to admit …
BLITZER: Go ahead, Senator.
SANDERS: — maybe I’m a little bit confused.
Are you or are you not supporting legislation to lift the cap on taxable income and expand Social Security for 58 years and increase benefits …
CLINTON: I am …
SANDERS: — yes or no?
CLINTON: I have said yes, we are going to pick the best way or combination …
SANDERS: Oh, you — ah.
(APPLAUSE)
(BOOS)
SANDERS: OK.
CLINTON: — or combination of ways …
(BOOS)
CLINTON: — you know …
(BOOS)
CLINTON: — it — it’s all — it’s always a little bit, uh, challenging because, you know, if Senator Sanders doesn’t agree with how you are approaching something, then you are a member of the establishment.
Well, let me say then …
SANDERS: Well, look …
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: — let me say this …
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: — we are going to extend the Social Security Trust Fund. We’ve got some good ideas to do it. Let’s get a Congress elected …
BLITZER: Thank you.
CLINTON: — that will actually agree …
BLITZER: Well, thank you …
CLINTON: — with us in doing it.
Reasonable Surmise: Clinton is against lifting the cap, but doesn’t want to say so because it would infuriate the overwhelming majorities of Democratic (and Republican) voters who support lifting it. Her position is shared by a bipartisan elite in Washington who would rather lower benefits than raise taxes.
4. Hillary Clinton refusing to answer the question about whether or not the Israeli attack on Gaza was disproportionate.
“I will certainly be willing to answer it. I think I did answer it,” Clinton said — while not answering it.
BLITZER: Thank you. Secretary Clinton, do you agree with Senator Sanders that Israel overreacts to Palestinians attacks, and that in order for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel must, quote, end its disproportionate responses?
CLINTON: I negotiated the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in November of 2012. I did it in concert with …
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: President Abbas of the Palestinian authority based in Ramallah, I did it with the then Muslim Brotherhood President, Morsi, based in Cairo, working closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli cabinet. I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages.
(APPLAUSE)
They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel. And, so when it came time after they had taken the incoming rockets, taken the assaults and ambushes on their soldiers and they called and told me, I was in Cambodia, that they were getting ready to have to invade Gaza again because they couldn’t find anybody to talk to tell them to stop it, I flew all night, I got there, I negotiated that.
So, I don’t know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist tact, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself.
(APPLAUSE)
That does not mean — that does not mean that you don’t take appropriate precautions. And, I understand that there’s always second guessing anytime there is a war. It also does not mean that we should not continue to do everything we can to try to reach a two-state solution, which would give the Palestinians the rights and…
BLITZER: … Thank you …
CLINTON: … just let me finish. The rights and the autonomy that they deserve. And, let me say this, if Yasser Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David in the Late 1990s to the offer then Prime Minister Barat put on the table, we would have had a Palestinian state for 15 years.
(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator, go ahead — go ahead, Senator.
SANDERS: I don’t think that anybody would suggest that Israel invites and welcomes missiles flying into their country. That is not the issue.
And, you evaded the answer. You evaded the question. The question is not does Israel have a right to respond, nor does Israel have a right to go after terrorists and destroy terrorism. That’s not the debate. Was their response disproportionate?
I believe that it was, you have not answered that.
(CHEERING)
CLINTON: I will certainly be willing to answer it. I think I did answer it by saying that of course there have to be precautions taken but even the most independent analyst will say the way that Hamas places its weapons, the way that it often has its fighters in civilian garb, it is terrible.
(AUDIENCE REACTION)
I’m not saying it’s anything other than terrible. It would be great — remember, Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people.
CLINTON: And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza.
So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.
[…]
SANDERS: There comes a time — there comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Well …
BLITZER: Secretary.
CLINTON: … you know, I have spoken about and written at some length the very candid conversations I’ve had with him and other Israeli leaders. Nobody is saying that any individual leader is always right, but it is a difficult position.
If you are from whatever perspective trying to seek peace, trying to create the conditions for peace when there is a terrorist group embedded in Gaza that does not want to see you exist, that is a very difficult challenge.
Reasonable Surmise: Clinton does not think Israel did anything wrong (possibly ever) and/or she is unwilling to say anything remotely critical of Israel, for political reasons. But she doesn’t want to say publicly that Gaza was OK with her because of the extraordinary brutality of the Israeli attack, which has been well-documented.
5. Bernie Sanders refusing to describe how he would effectively promote American businesses around the world.
BLITZER: Thank you. Senator, Senator, you’ve slammed companies like General Electric and Verizon for moving jobs outside of the United States. Yesterday, the CEO of Verizon called your views contemptible and said in your home state of Vermont Verizon has invested more than $16 million and pays millions of dollars a year to local businesses. He says you are, quote, “uninformed on this issue” and disconnected from reality. Given your obvious contempt for large American corporations, how would you as president of the United States be able to effectively promote American businesses around the world?
Sanders was clearly not remotely interested in answering the question he was asked.
SANDERS: And this is — this is a perfect example, Wolf, of the kind of corporate greed which is destroying the middle class of this country. This gentleman makes $18 million a year in salary. That’s his — that’s his compensation. This gentleman is now negotiating to take away health care benefits of Verizon workers, outsource call center jobs to the Philippines, and — and trying to create a situation where workers will lose their jobs. He is not investing in the way he should in inner cities in America.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: All right. Senator, but the question was, the question was, given your contempt for large American corporations, as president, how would you be able to promote American business around the world?
SANDERS: First of all, the word contempt is not right. There are some great businesses who treat their workers and the environment with respect.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Verizon happens not to be one of them.
Reasonable Surmise: No doubt to the chagrin of American multinationals, this is apparently not an issue that Sanders is worrying about.
6. Hillary Clinton trying to duck responsibility for what happened in Libya.
BLITZER: — the issue of national security and foreign policy.
Secretary Clinton, President Obama says the worst mistake in office that he made over these past seven and a half years was not preparing for Libya after Moammar Qadafi was removed. You were his secretary of State.
Aren’t you also responsible for that?
CLINTON: Well, let me say I think we did a great deal to help the Libyan people after Qadafi’s demise. And here’s what we did.
We helped them hold two successful elections, something that is not easy, which they did very well because they had a pent up desire to try to chart their own future after 42 years of dictatorship.
I was very proud of that.
We got rid of the chemical weapons stockpile that Qadafi had, getting it out of Libya, getting it away from militias or terrorist groups.
We also worked to help them set up their government. We sent a lot of American experts there. We offered to help them secure their borders, to train a new military.
They, at the end, when it came to security issues, Wolf, did not want troops from any other country, not just us, European or other countries, in Libya.
And so we were caught in a very difficult position. They could not provide security on their own, which we could see and we told them that, but they didn’t want to have others helping to provide that security.
And the result has been a clash between different parts of the country, terrorists taking up some locations in the country.
And we can’t walk away from that. We need to be working with European and Arab partners …
BLITZER: Thank you.
CLINTON: — with the United Nations in order to continue to try to support them.
The Libyan people deserve a chance at democracy and self- government. And I, as president, will keep trying to give that to them.
BLITZER: Senator, go ahead.
SANDERS: According to the New York Times …
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: — for President Obama, this was a pretty tough call, like a 51-49 call, do you overthrow Qaddafi, who, of course, was a horrific dictator?
The New York Times told us it was Secretary Clinton who led the effort for that regime change. And this is the same type of mentality that supported the war in Iraq.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Look …
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: — Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein are brutal, brutal murdering thugs. No debate about that.
But what we have got to do and what the president was saying is we didn’t think thoroughly about what happens the day after you get rid of these dictators.
Regime change often has unintended consequences in Iraq and in Libya right now, where ISIS has a very dangerous foothold. And I think if you studied the whole history of …
BLITZER: Yes.
SANDERS: — American involvement in regime change, you see that quite often.
After refusing to acknowledge that she made a mistake, Clinton then tried to blame Sanders for it.
CLINTON: — I — I would just point out that there was a vote in the Senate as to whether or not the United States should support the efforts by the Libyan people to protect themselves against the threats, the genocidal threats coming from Gadhafi, and whether we should go to the United Nations to seek Security Council support.
Senator Sanders voted for that, and that’s exactly what we did.
Sanders then pointed out:
SANDERS: Yes, 100-0 in the Senate voted for democracy in Libya and I would vote for that again. But that is very different from getting actively involved to overthrow and bring about regime change without fully understanding what the consequence of that regime change would be.
Reasonable Surmise: Clinton’s push for regime change in Libya had disastrous consequences, as even Obama has acknowledged — and Clinton knows it. But she doesn’t want to admit she made a mistake because it would support Sanders’s arguments about her judgment when it comes to foreign intervention.
7. Hillary Clinton refusing to say if she’s for or against a carbon tax.
SANDERS: Are you in favor of a tax on carbon so that we can transition away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy at the level and speed we need to do?
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, I have laid out a set of actions that build on what President Obama was able to accomplish, building on the clean power plan, which is currently under attack by fossil fuels and the right in the Supreme Court, which is one of the reasons why we need to get the Supreme Court justice that President Obama has nominated to be confirmed so that we can actually continue to make progress.
I don’t take a back seat to your legislation that you’ve introduced that you haven’t been able to get passed. I want to do what we can do to actually make progress in dealing with the crisis. That’s exactly what I have proposed.
ERROL LOUIS: OK, thank you, Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: And my approach I think is going to get us there faster without tying us up into political knots with a Congress that still would not support what you are proposing.
(CROSSTALK)
LOUIS: Senator Sanders, you’ve said that climate change is the greatest change to our nation’s security.
SANDERS: Secretary Clinton did not answer one simple question.
LOUIS: Excuse me, Senator, Senator, Senator, Senator, Senator …
SANDERS: Are you for a tax on carbon or not?
Reasonable Surmise: Clinton opposes a carbon tax, although many scientists say that imposing a cost on carbon is the only way to dramatically reduce carbon emissions. A carbon tax is strongly opposed by the fossil-fuel industry.
8. Clinton dissembling about (and unwittingly announcing) her support for a $15 minimum wage.
BLITZER: — if a Democratic Congress put a $15 minimum wage bill on your desk, would you sign it?
CLINTON: Well, of course I would. And I have supported …
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: — I have supported the fight for 15. I am proud to have the endorsement of most of the unions that have led the fight for 15. I was proud to stand on the stage with Governor Cuomo, with SEIU and others who have been leading this battle and I will work as hard as I can to raise the minimum wage. I always have. I supported that when I was in the Senate.
SANDERS: Well, look …
CLINTON: But what I have also said is that we’ve got to be smart about it, just the way Governor Cuomo was here in New York. If you look at it, we moved more quickly to $15 in New York City, more deliberately toward $12, $12.50 upstate then to $15. That is exactly my position. It’s a model for the nation and that’s what I will do as president.
BLITZER: Thank you.
CLINTON: Go as quickly as …
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: — to get to $15.
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: I am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: You know, wait a minute…
SANDERS: (INAUDIBLE).
CLINTON: — wait a minute.
SANDERS: (INAUDIBLE).
CLINTON: — wait, wait …
SANDERS: That’s just not accurate. Well …
CLINTON: Come on, I have stood on the debate stage …
SANDERS: — well and I …
CLINTON: — with Senator Sanders eight …
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: — times.
SANDERS: Excuse me.
CLINTON: I have said the …
SANDERS: Well …
CLINTON: Exact same thing.
BLITZER: Secretary, Senator, please.
CLINTON: If we can …
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: — raise it to $15 in New York…
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: — or Los Angeles or Seattle …
BLITZER: Secretary, the viewers …
CLINTON: — let’s do it.
BLITZER: If you’re both screaming at each other, the viewers won’t be able to hear either of you.
SANDERS: OK.
BLITZER: So please …
SANDERS: I will …
BLITZER: — don’t talk over each other.
SANDERS: I believe I was …
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Go ahead.
SANDERS: — responding.
All right? When this campaign began, I said that we got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let’s raise it to $12. There’s a difference. And, by the way, what has happened is history has outpaced Secretary Clinton, because all over this country, people are standing up and they’re saying $12 is not good enough, we need $15 an hour.
CLINTON: OK.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Go ahead, Secretary. Secretary?
SANDERS: And suddenly …
BLITZER: Secretary, go ahead.
SANDERS: To suddenly …
CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you very much.
SANDERS: To suddenly announce now that you’re for $15, I don’t think is quite accurate.
BLITZER: All right. Secretary?
CLINTON: All right. I have said from the very beginning that I supported the fight for $15. I supported those on the front lines of the fight for — it happens to be true. I also — I supported the $15 effort in L.A. I supported in Seattle. I supported it for the fast food workers in New York.
The minimum wage at the national level right now is $7.25, right? We want to raise it higher than it ever has been, but we also have to recognize some states and some cities will go higher, and I support that. I have taken my cue from the Democrats in the Senate, led by Senator Patty Murray and others, like my good friend Kirsten Gillibrand, who has said we will set a national level of $12 and then urge any place that can go above it to go above it.
Going from $7.25 to $12 is a huge difference. Thirty-five million people will get a raise. One in four working mothers will get a raise. I want to get something done. And I think setting the goal to get to $12 is the way to go, encouraging others to get to $15. But, of course, if we have a Democratic Congress, we will go to $15.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Senator, go ahead.
SANDERS: Well, I think the secretary has confused a lot of people. I don’t know how you’re there for the fight for $15 when you say you want a $12-an-hour national minimum wage.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, in fact — in fact, there is an effort, Patty Murray has introduced legislation for $12 minimum wage. That’s good. I introduced legislation for $15 an hour minimum wage which is better.
(APPLAUSE)
And ultimately what we have got to determine is after massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 0.1 percent, when millions of our people are working longer hours for low wages…
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.
SANDERS: I think we have got to be clear, not equivocate, $15 in minimum wage in 50 states in this country as soon as possible.
Reasonable Surmise: Clinton wishes she had supported the $15 minimum wage earlier, and now wants people to believe she did, even though she didn’t.
Top photo: Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate as Wolf Blitzer moderates during the CNN Democratic Presidential Primary Debate at the Duggal Greenhouse in the Brooklyn Navy Yard on April 14, 2016, in New York City.
Too bad Sanders is always unprepared to debate Hillary. When she mentioned the fact that Obama took millions of dollars from Wall Street in his campaigns and she pressed Sanders to point out a single time where she voted for Wall Street, Sanders should connect the dots and make the point that it is EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS the fact that Obama’s DOJ sent ZERO Wall Street bankers to jail, despite the obvious criminal enterprise they ran leading to the 2008 Financial Crisis. That is the OBVIOUS connection between Wall Street money behind Hillary’s super PACs.
Too bad that Sanders is unprepared and unwilling to say anything bad about Obama, as well.
Bernie released his 2014 taxes. They were BORING.
As for promoting American businesses around the world, I think the next president will have a lot on their plate without worrying about that, too. But okay, here’s the answer Bernie should have given. His infrastructure rebuilding program will generate so many domestic jobs that American businesses will be so busy at home that selling even more stuff around the world will be a mere afterthought.
Hillary won’t release the transcripts of her paid speeches because that would be her “47%” moment.
When Hillary was asked again at a recent debate to release her Goldman Sachs speech transcripts so the issue could be put to bed she said “You know, let’s set the same standard for everybody. When everybody does it, OK, I will do it”.
So rather than be the leader she continually posits she is, has been, and will continue to be, she in fact acts like a spoiled teenager in using a spin on the “everybody else does it” to “when everybody else starts be nice I will too”.
Her evasive answers to so many questions put to her shows that she is only a true leader among the tricky Dicky political phonies, which are champions in showing a lack of frankness and honesty.
They thus serve the status que and the elites with their worthless uttering.
You need to update this – Bernie has shown his 2014. Put it on your site.
I came out of this far more scared of Clinton than I went in. I had hoped her problem was she was too afraid to show her support of liberal policies, but after reading this, it’s clear it’s the opposite. Her “realism” isn’t about improving the chances of slow but progressive change, it’s about ensuring the change doesn’t happen at all.
I wanted to be optimistic for the sake of my Clinton supporting friends, but now I’m starting to think she may be worse than the alternative. With Trump or Cruz the left will gird themselves for what’s coming and fight it while it’s there. With Hillary at best we will be like slow boiled frogs and at worst, willing agents. She looks increasingly like the Manchurian Candidate of the left. Completely against our ideals, but unwilling to show it lest she lose her ticket to the White House.
My sense is Hillary is a Republican at heart who made the mistake of investing her political career in the left, so even though it’s not her game anymore, she has to ride the pony that she hitched to. At this point, getting elected is so important, she will say whatever the hell it takes.
I’ve long thought most politicians are sociopaths and sadly Hillary isn’t helping me change that view.
Well said, Carl. Clinton is dangerous because of her total lack of honesty and her ruthless willingness to say whatever is expedient. I would rather have Sanders’ occasional stumbling and mistakes, which show he is far more ‘realistic’s and ‘normal’.
The public’s expectation of politicians has become distorted by irresponsible mainstream media reporting that focuses far too much on superficial statements of policy or intent, and creating the impression that the candidates have to be squeaky clean fast talking saints.
Instead, candidates should be praised for admitting their mistakes – it means they are ‘human’ and more likely to learn from the mistakes, and shows a level of maturity lacking in most politicians. No wonder, so many become so good at lying. They rely on the majority of voters being unable to see through their dishonesty – in short they become 3rd rate actors, trying desperately to put in a good show.
“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings”
John F. Kennedy
Release the transcripts of your speeches to Goldman Sachs NOW Mrs. Clinton!
CNN’s so-called debate left very little room for Sanders to speak, and they kept letting Clinton talk over him. I’d have had it as a true debate format and imposed a strict no-interrupting-or-your-mic-is-cut policy. I’d have also called the candidates on any lies or refusals to answer questions, or giving answers to questions different from what was asked, with the promise that any such action would be met with cutting of the mic until such time as the candidates answered truthfully.
good article! thx
The two about Bernie were so weak, he agreed from the beginning about the tax returns -blitzer asked him three different questions about his taxes and he answered all of them, blitzer is a d*ck btw. The question about promoting business’ around the world was sh#t. Sorry, that’s not the president’s job.
Agreed. This felt like a fluff piece article. Really pointless
Sanders released his 2014 taxes the next day ????
It was a loaded question. He asserts Bernie has contempt for all large American companies. He does it twice, so it isn’t just an accident or figure of speech.
Wolf Blitzer, Corporate Tool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OSyrbmLkKA
I have been listening to Bernie fight for the same thing, for years now, and it is just funny to see Hillary trying to catch up with him in an hour or two debate. It isn’t going to happen. Bernie is the real deal!
It is the perception of reality that shapes electoral outcomes. Those who are actually in positions of power (Super delegates) favor Hillary as she genuinely represents the status quo. The common man/woman does little more than read tweets about her performance in the debate; tweets that most reflect their own personal bias are favored over those that challenge their ignorance. Proof of this bias can be garnered from audience reaction throughout the debate; each candidate elicited the largest reaction when parroting the long established talking points that most appealed to their base. Sanders was once again forced to eat shit and openly admit that Hillary is a viable candidate. Sanders will nor risk undermining Hillary’s image in a way that is not salvageable in a general election; Sanders needs the support of the DNC in the general election. Lawsuit aside, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, has been endeavoring to garner the public perception that the DNC has a good working relationship with Bernie.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/wasserman-schultz-dnc-relatively-good-working-relationship-sanders-campaign/
I wonder if mass murderer psycho Clinton’s refusal to explain why she doesn’t think she deserves to be in a federal prison for life regarding the mass murder in Libya has anything to do with her choice not to release the transcripts of her multimillion dollar bank speeches and to pretend that somebody somewhere might be deluded into agreeing with her that just because mass murderer psycho Bibi committed mass murder to a larger degree in Palestine than she did in Libya justifies her doing so because they don’t want to get murdered?
Once again, Froomkin dissects the obfuscation and b.s. and points out what the beltway media will not. Fine work.
On the Clinton line on fossil fuels, this piece by David Sirota is a must-read:
“Hillary Clinton Touted Coal Development As Secretary Of State”, 04/15/16
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-touted-coal-development-secretary-state-2354258
Here’s what she had to say about Pakistan increasing its use of coal:
“So getting the resources to exploit your coal as opposed to being dependent upon imported energy is a choice for you to make, but it is certainly a choice that your neighbors have made. And that’s something that should attract foreign investment and should attract capital investment within your own country.”
Great piece….Interesting to think about how Hillary (war hawk) Clinton is attending a 350,000 dollar a plate dinner put on by George (supporting a war hawk) Clooney which is almost double what the Bernie and Jane Sanders make in a year. You heard the comparison heard here first…just saying…. Boom. Shameful
More on that dinner.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/16/hillary-clinton-protest-george-clooney-fundraiser-bernie-sanders
Impressive how many people (including, apparently, Dan Froomkin) forget that before George W. Bush argued for privatizing Social Security, Bill Clinton did. He didn’t formally announce any such plan, but according to Clinton administration officials, he spent some 18 months studying ways to do so. He surrounded himself with advocates of privatization in one form or another. Specifically, Clinton considered partial privatization via individual accounts that would have been administered through private financial institutions. Many of the Clinton privatization advocates (especially Larry Summers and Robert Rubin, though Rubin opposed individual accounts) later worked for Barack Obama.
The Monica Lewinsky scandal derailed Clinton’s privatization plans. If not for that, tens of millions of Americans would have had significant percentages of retirement savings in the hands of Citigroup, etc., when the financial system collapsed in 2008/09. (The advocates of individual accounts had concluded that market risks were too small to pose a potential threat to retirement savings.)
If that’s the case, then thank you, Monica!
Obama was ready to compromise Social Security in a Grand Bargain, but the Republicans shot themselves in the foot due to ODS. Chained CPI would have been a major cut for seniors moving forward.
Ok Hillary, cut the crap and lift the cap!
Obama was ready to compromise on Social Security of which was not his or their’s to begin with, Bill Clinton was ready to privatize it turning it over to the world’s most formidable thrives, and Hillary cannot even give a straight answer about the subject.
What a fine bunch of Republicans.
Obama was ready to compromise on Social Security of which was not his or their’s to begin with, Bill Clinton was ready to privatize it turning it over to the world’s most formidable thrives, and Hillary cannot even give a straight answer about the subject.
What a fine bunch of Republicans.
Clinton managed to get Citigroup some nice goodies, however, by passing the Glass-Steagall repeal bill in 1999:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/wall-street-deregulation-clinton-advisers-obama
“The Financial Services Modernization Act [aka the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act] was passed by Congress in 1999, giving retrospective clearance to the 1998 merger of Citigroup and Travelers Group and unleashing a wave of Wall Street consolidation that was later blamed for forcing taxpayers to spend billions bailing out the enlarged banks after the sub-prime mortgage crisis.”
He had been pressured to get rid of Glass-Steagall (the 1933 law which banned the merger of investment and commercial banking interests) in 1995 and 1997, so there’s some speculation that the Lewinsky affair increased the pressure on him to be more cooperative. Or maybe just gave him an excuse, who knows.
More on the gutting of Glass-Steagall here with Brooksley Born on Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
You can peruse a list of Hillary’s speeches and amounts received here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001999
Bernie has released his Taxes & Hillary is still avoiding her mistakes & bad judgement!
Hillary Clinton: “…if Senator Sanders doesn’t agree with how you are approaching something, then you are a member of the establishment.”
Twenty-five years as a member of that same establishment has nothing to do with it, huh?
Only Cruz is a bigger threat to democracy in a America than Clinton.
And the grand prize for obfuscation, dissembling and pandering goes to…
HILLARY!!!
Yay!!
Most telling of all, this came just before the last so-called debate.
The other night Charlie Rose interviewed Sanders. Rose asked, “Is it going too far to say she bears responsibility for Iraqi war deaths?’”
Sanders answered, “Of course she doesn’t bear responsibility.She voted for the war in Iraq. That was a very bad vote, in my view. Do I hold her accountable? No.”
Do we really need more proof that Sanders’ entire candidacy is pure Political Theater?
Oh wow, this changes everything. Thanks so much for sharing this incredibly important quote.
Lol
He has released his taxes yesterday as promised. He does not have enough annual income to attend Hillary’s fundraiser tonight. That and the simple fact that he did exactly what he said he would do, speaks volumes.
Concerning Bernie on taxes, he did answer the question. They asked “Will you release your taxes?” Bernie said yes.
Then they asked “When?” Bernie’s answer was basically, “When my wife get around to it.”
The Media aren’t really accustomed to that sort of thing. This sort of thing happens when you have real people running for office. Amongst the Washington elite, taxes are done by professionals or law firms, not wives.
I am sure Hillary will have no problem making our defense contractors (aka Clinton foundation donors) liable for the weapons they create just like she wants to do with the gun industry, and by effectively nullifying the second amendment by squeezing the industry to the breaking point and making it impossible to purchase legally.
Bernie, as promised, just released his 1040 self-prepared boring tax return (how refreshing – h/t CO), the Brooklyn Dodgers moved Los Angeles in 1957 … and you’re still waiting on Hilary Clinton’s million dollar transcripts? *might be a long wait, Dan
Attn. Sander’s campaign; now would be the time to release Bernie’s transcripts from all speeches given to anything remotely considered a ‘financial institution’ (& to what charity the pitiful proceeds were ‘donated’).
“Something hinky” in Sanders’ Taxes? Come on Dan, I know you are trying to add some balance here, but both examples of Sanders non-answers were in no way comparable to the filibustering and lying of Hillary Clinton.
Nothing “hinky” will be found and his 2014 taxes were released this morning. As a couple, they made $205K and paid 28K in taxes, while giving $8500 to charity. CNN flashed up the Clinton Income Reported for the same period. It was more than 125 times that of Bernie and Jane.
Now which of those two couples, Clinton or Sanders, do you suspect might have something “hinky” in their taxes?
Thank you for your great work in reporting. More and more I hear your news outlet being cited in mainstream outlets.
‘The Greed Ethic.’ Now I know you can’t do everything, but you can make a beginning. You can set a tone. Keep in mind Harry Truman’s words, ‘The Buck Stops Here,’ and you can add something else; ‘Antying for a buck, stops now.’”
Herblock
BLITZER: “Thank you. Secretary Clinton, do you agree with Senator Sanders that Israel overreacts to Palestinians attacks..?”
What a ridiculous question. Firstly, it was the Israeli’s who instigated the attack on Gaza in 2008 by breaking the ceasefire on November 4th of that year. Secondly, it was Israel that instigated the violence in 2014 and attacked Gaza, using as their pretext – in order to disrupt the newly formed Fatah-Hamas unity deal – the kidnapping and murder of two Israeli settlers, and blaming (falsely) that event on Hamas.
So, no, Israel does not ‘react’ to Palestinian attacks. Israel is the aggressor, and illegal occupier, and Israel has no excuse whatsoever to bomb Gazan schools, hospitals, U.N safe houses, and children playing football on a beach. And it also has no excuse for shooting medical personnel and ambulances, and for shooting women and children waving white flags, or for dropping U.S supplied white phosphorous shells on Gaza’s densely populated residential areas, e.t.c.
The Palestinians are fish in a barrel; every aspect of their lives is being closely monitored and managed by the Israelis. The 80/20 division of water resources on the West Bank alone is an impetus for ongoing hostility. Repeated military incursions into Palestinian territory is designed to target infrastructure necessary to attracting foreign investment (this modus operandi is referred to as mowing the lawn by the Israelis). All electronic communications are closely monitored for actionable intelligence – so the Israelis already know where potential pockets of resistance to their violent aggression are located. To suggest that the Palestinians pose an “existential threat” to Israel is akin to the “big lie” espoused by Goebbels.
Israel is the largest recipient of US Foreign Military Financing.
For FY2015, President Barack Obama’s funding request for Israel would account for more than 55% of FMF worldwide.
Annual FMF grants account for up to 25% of Israel’s defense budget.
Israel is allowed to use FMF to purchase weapons produced in Israel. No other country receives this benefit.
In 2010, the US and Israel agreed to allow Israel tol purchase 19 F-35s at a cost of $2.75 billion. Israel will pay for this entirely using FMF grants supplied by the United States.
Under negotiated agreements, Israel may purchase an additional squadron of F-35s, up to 75 aircraft, costing a total of $15.2 billion.
As part of the deal, the U.S. has pledged to spend $4 billion purchasing equipment from Israel’s defense industries.
In the summer of 2012, the Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin finalized a $450 million agreement to modify the baseline F-35 model to accommodate electronic warfare and munitions systems for Israel’s future F-35 squadrons.
For FY2015, the Administration is requesting $3.1 billion in FMF to Israel and $10 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance. The Missile Defense Agency’s FY2015 request for joint U.S.- Israeli programs is $96.8 million. The Administration also is requesting $175.9 million for Iron Dome.
http://www.ampalestine.org/index.php/key-topics/us-aid-to-israel/626-us-aid-to-israel-2015-fact-sheet
Also never any mention of Israel’s nuclear weapons stockpiles, the missiles to deliver them and their “Samson Option” plans to USE THEM:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/1992-03-01/samson-option-israels-nuclear-arsenal-and-american-foreign-policy
Israel refuses any inspections of their nuclear weapons program and refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (Iran has signed and does allow inspections).
It is also very troubling that the U.S. Congress has refused to respect The Symington Amendment when doling out billions in aide to Israel:
http://newobserveronline.com/us-aid-israel-illegal/
Very good point; thx for that insight and the links.
I remember the lead up to the 2014 Gaza war, the 3 Israeli teens that were kidnapped and killed by Hamas which resulted in manhunt for those responsible as any country would do. This then set the wheels in motion for Hamas’ rocket attacks and then Israel responded by bombing rocket launching sites. What version of events do you know about that would suggest it wasn’t Hamas who was the aggressor?
I didn’t know that The Intercept was concerned about promoting the interests of multinational corporations around the world. Thanks for letting us know. Oh wait… eBay is a multinational. I keep forgetting.
Actually, if the U.S. renewable energy industry got the same kind of massive subsidies and government support overseas that the fossil fuel industry has received via Export-Import Bank programs, etc. (we can leave out the military invasion for control of oilfields, approach, though), that would be a good thing for climate and energy, wouldn’t it?
Well, actually, the Ex-Im Bank began to move in that direction in 2013 culminating in a major shift to renewable energy financing by 2015; and then the Republicans in Congress worked overtime to shut the Ex-Im Bank down, which had previously mostly financed fossil fuel deals prior to 2013.
However, notice that Hillary Clinton was a big overseas coal supporter in 2015?
Useful insight. American media (even Intercept) still think only America and its businesses matter. Rest all are garbage.
Those responsible were loosely affilaiated with Hamas, but acted alone, and with no orders from the Hamas hierarchy: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/killed-turning-onslaught/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/world/middleeast/killing-of-3-israeli-teenagers-loosely-tied-to-hamas-court-documents-show.html?_r=0
“…the offer [which] Prime Minister Barat put on the table…”
And just what did that offer consist of? It consisted of an attempt by the Israeli’s to carve up the West bank into two seperate apartheid South African style cantons, seperated from each other and from East Jerusalem and Gaza, all surrounded by military outposts, checkpoints, and settlers, and which had nothing to do with what they were actually entitled to under international law.
We don’t know what it consisted of because no map exists of what the offer was. Lots of people at the conference have released maps , they all look very different and they all say the others are lies.
It is reasonable to assume that the Palestine maps are closer to reality as if the Israeli ones were real then we would have had them officially published during or after the conference.
But we don’t know.
Some people have seen the maps. Google: ‘Noam Chomsky – U.S. “Enhancing Terror”‘.
… and those official maps are as likely to be divulged as the transcripts of her speeches. And for the same reasons.
Scratch the taxes thing, at least for last year — 2014 has been released and thus far, no apparent landmines.
Great piece!!! But surprisingly Obama has been pro-HRC …sigh
No mention of guns-Sanders could have done better on this-and Clinton using Sandy hook is repulsive! Sanders let this go.
Sanders is up against CNN along with Clinton-Clinton would go on and on and on. At one point I thought it would be cool if Sanders pulled a big timer out of his jacket.
Sanders did a great job exposing Clinton on minimum wage and social security.
In closing comments I think Sanders hit it out of the park and Clinton looked speechless.
For me this is the part from the debate that exposes how HC is manipulating the voters and Bernie Sanders is opening our eyes.
Clinton: The free college offer- you know my late father said, if someone promises you something for free, read the fine print. You read the fine print and here’s what it says. The fine print says the federal government will cover 2/3 of the cost, and require the states, even those led by Republican governors to carry the remaining 1/3 of the cost.
Sanders: I know what Secretary Clinton is saying. We are not a country that has the courage to stand up to big money and do what has to be done for the working families of this country.
We the people pay the taxes for our government of, for and by the people programs and Bernie will make sure that corporations will at last pay their taxes for the common good.
Despicable for Clinton to trot out her dead father to obfuscate this live or die issue for our democracy.
As an unabashed true-believer of Bernie, I did not watch or listen to the debate. I just read this and the comments. The question is, when will hrc give it up? She is without question out classed by a very moral and humane person in Bernie. This puff about his taxes; he doesn’t have anything to hide, he could care less, Jane does them because he doesn’t care, he has other more important things to do and think about and Jane gladly does them: whats the big deal? there isn’t any. hrc is way behind the eight ball. She will never get in front of it. It would be wise for her to concede, save some face, go to trail and serve her time now before the convention to preserve the convention, the election and our democratic republic system of governance.
“I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years”
When did Clinton rack up her “more than 25 years experience” (with Israeli officials)?
The woman has only had two government jobs – Senator and SecState…Nowhere near 25 years.
Wolf Blitzer? Say no more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html?_r=0
I think the NYT has somewhat redeemed itself with this news item.
So, 6-2 in favor of Bernie, and he released his 2014 tax returns today, as promise… Let’s call it 6-1 in favor of Bernie now?
Yeah, that sounds about right, considering.
I listened to the debate last night on the radio. It is different than watching it on TV. I am sure you can pick up on little things that happen at the time in way that more reflects the way the debaters are really feeling. Which more often than not, is different from what they are saying.
I sort of watched it on CNN. I kept the video window normal size, and situated another window over top so I could only see Bernie. I hate seeing HRC.
Excellent analysis and summary. thank you
Those transcripts were full of non- sensical bullsh*t. Weird. And these are the best & brightest we have to choose from? Disappointed!
Thanks Dan Froomkin, that’s actually helpful to me. I can’t tell when people are lying by their mannerisms, so I usually rely on the shortcut method of checking to see if they are 1) a politician, or 2) on TV. There’s no point in watching the “debate” spectacle if there is no one to unravel the obfuscations.
I would also propose, regarding Hillary’s transcripts, that perhaps she mentioned running for the presidency.
This would be an FEC rule violation and end her campaign, literally and legally.
It’s the only plausible reason I can think of to dissemble so much and choose to look like a tool rather than give your opponent that doesn’t run attack ads something to make more oblique references to.
That sounds like the best reason for her being so adamant about not releasing them I’ve heard yet. I think you nailed it, if that’s true about it being illegal to mention you’d be running for president
According to the contracts made with Goldman Sachs for the speeches she gave it is detailed that she would be the sole owner of the transcripts.
What is to stop her from “editing” those transcripts and releasing them?
The fear that someone there taped the speech and could then prove she is a LIAR?
This is what I am trying to understand. WHY is she so afraid to let the public read what she said to those in attendance at those speeches?
One attendee said, “She came off more as a managing director of Goldman Sachs”:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969
I would also be very interested to see the 30,000 emails her “staff” (no security clearances!) “deleted” for her that she claims all related to yoga sessions (yeah, she looks like she is busy every day doing yoga…cough…), wedding flowers etc.
How could it possibly have been LEGAL for her to allow staffers to review and delete emails out of the entire cache and deem them to be “personal” with no members of The State Departments FOIA teams being in the room reviewing the emails??
Since when do presidents have to be advertising billboards for US companies? It should not be the president’s job to promote GE and Verizon unless he is shilling for them.
Anyone else notice when trying to get info on the debate from the top google hits that it is so heavily edited as to be complete tripe. This is magnified more then with most stories because its a debate and you don’t need a story you need the damn text from the debate. Its no surprise to me Dan’s article has some critical points against Bernie because this is the Intercept and its investigative journalism not a propaganda machine for this or that persons. So once again as the Intercept has done some many times before, it demonstrates its desire to put out material with substance. Reality is disagreement so thanks Dan for being a professional (and by the way we’ll know soon if Dans opinion about Bernie’s tax return was right making his opinion all the more fun). If only next time you can stay up a little later so we can get this like asap and avoid CNN’s garbage filled website. =P
Utter bullshit. Balanced stenography assuages the weak-minded and perpetuates a status quo. Guess who wins when that happens?
This site used to do a pretty good job of not just describing Clinton’s lies but exposing the true impact of her lies with in-depth reporting.
The site was swamped with people claiming that Glenn’s secret desire to help Bernie was blatant. The criticism of Clinton’s lies is seen as unfair or biased. How child-like her supporters are.
Now we get bullshit fair and balanced headlines (courtesy Betsy). Does Betsy want a woman in the White House? Apparently someone in charge here does.
Huh?
You must be new here.
There has been a sudden shift in the quality of work at this site.
This piece is an example of such poor quality.
Right. Shillary and Bill are worth 9 figures yet Froomkin hints at financial impropriety because Sanders has a sloppy tax return with “a combined income of $205,271, $174,000 of which came from Sanders’s Senate salary and Social Security benefits.”
The only other critique of Sanders involves “Sanders refusing to describe how he would effectively promote American businesses around the world.” Since when does a presidential candidate propose a plan to help American business abroad? WHEN?
Froomkin has zero on Bernie yet both candidates are painted equally in the headline. That is pathetic. It is propaganda. It began soon after Betsy Reed became editor and it has blossomed with a perfume reminiscent of Amorphophallus …
Sanders is actually more on the record rampaging against “corporate welfare” particularly related to the sweetheart deals the U.S. government gave them protecting them “from revolutions in third world countries”.
Here is an interesting exchange Sanders had with Kasich back in 1995 regarding “corporate welfare” after Kasich’s committee managed to cut fuel subsidies for the elderly in places like Vermont where it goes down to 30 degrees below zero in the winter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmijFEF5Fk8
Just released, as discussed during yesterday’s debate.
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/-/Bernie%20Taxes%20Full.pdf
I support Bernie Sanders for President.
I am also Feeling the Bern! :)
I trust Bernie Sanders to get things right for the dispossessed Palestinians in Palestine because he knows that America’s reputation and respect are on the line since Israel has contributed so much to the deaths of so many it looks like slow motion genocide and destabilises the region relationships on the planet. (cough BDS).
Thanks for the transcript report. Didn’t see the debate.
Dan, I am surprised this article made the cut at Intercept. You risked nothing here.
This is the new standard at TI. (h/t Betsy)
Dan, I am surprised this article made the cut. You risked nothing here.
Isn’t this the DNC’s big charade to draw in more votes for their veep? Then they’ll get their bluedog portion of Corporate Hollywood (QVC news, HSN talk shows, etc…) to tell us to hold our noses and vote for The Hillary, and then the bluedog drone media will follow suit. Globalization marches on.
I agree that both candidates failed to answer EVERY question 100% directly, but clearly, one candidate failed more than the other by orders of magnitude. Looking at this debate, and concluding that both are typical dishonest politicians, is simply an unsubstantiated position. Quality article, but puzzling title and conclusion.
I do agree, however, with Bernie’s poor judgement in not releasing the taxes. My own theory is that the taxes show very little charitable giving (something the super rich do in order to reduce tax liabilities, which comes across as charitable, even though it’s rarely very generous). His team is probably just trying to avoid the NYDN headline: “SANDERS SAYS TO CHARITIES: F#$@ OFF”
Good outline. I disagree about the Tax Returns but we shall see :) As far as promoting American Businesses, that’s not his focus. I’m sure now that the question has come up, he’ll address it.
Sanders,with his foreign policy flaws,still kicked her likud ass.
An evil woman.
What if i might ask in your opinion are Sanders’ Foreign Policy flaws? I ask this as someone who has always found Foreign Policy to be Hillary Clinton’s Achilles heel, i.e a subject area where she has had a significant public record that has been demonstrably wrongheaded on every count, yet strangely Sanders has throughout most of the campaign been loathe to talk about it, which is a pity and does a great disservice to Senator Sanders knowledge and insights, which on this subject are quite profound.
Yeah, her replies were the worst kind of imbecile bullshit one hears on the “conflict.” (The Israelis “handed over the keys” to the Palestinians in Gaza? Sweet Lord.) That this and the rest of it were applauded is disturbing but not surprising.
Any ideas where we could find forensic analysis of the debate?
Basically a score according to the rules that were established and announced.
My impressions:
Hillary wasn’t in compliance with most of her responses (over time and asked repeatedly to yield)
Hillary was given more opportunities for direct rebuttal, while Bernie was asked to incorporate his rebuttal into the next question.
Wolf Blitzer failed to maintain control of the debate. Bernie was seen repeatedly signaling to Wolf for him to do something about the failure to enforce the rules.
I was technically disappointed with the format, but enjoyed the content.
It was par for the course. HRC is entitled to everything you know? /sarc
One thing that bothered me was that in both the opening and closing statements, Bernie had to go first putting Clinton in a better position both times. CNN should have split that up.
Yep, I noticed those debate transgression by HRC and was strongly suspicious she was allowed to directly rebut at will in contrast to Bernie. I doubt many of her supporters would have made similar observations (this might be because they are wise and pragmatic).
I appreciate how focused this analysis is on the facts and on what the candidates actually said.
Excellent coverage, this is the first article on the debate I’ve been able to read all the way through without once thinking that the author was trying to spin it one way or the other, great analysis.
There were a whole lot of questions that should have been asked that were not asked, though – like what was the candidate’s views on Obama’s $1 trillion nuclear weapons ‘modernization’ program? What about the Obama plan to quadruple NATO spending in Europe? Although, on that, Clinton sounds a lot like Condoleeza Rice:
CLINTON: “With Russia being more aggressive, making all kinds of intimidating moves toward the Baltic countries, we’ve seen what they’ve done in Eastern Ukraine, we know how they want to rewrite the map of Europe, it is not in our interests. Think of how much it would cost if Russia’s aggression were not deterred because NATO was there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward.”
Oh joy, more Cold War spending for the military-industrial complex. Hillary “Thatcher” Clinton?
Obama’s $1 trillion nuclear weapons ‘modernization’ program?
HUH?
that’s it. instead of spending $1T on infrastructure we pay for weapons we will never use. And btw, if we do use them, it’s not a win, not a gain, not a glad we spent the money. What a dumass good for nothing manical criminal minded con game. i mean wtf is going on in barack’s head? TPP? What is left to defend in the u.s.a. ?
Here is a list of the possible collateral damage to a war the u.s. loses…
STUDENT LOANS GO TO $0.00
OLD BUILDINGS & BAD BRIDGES ARE DEMOLISHED
ENCROACHING BUILDING ON FARMABLE LAND IS ELIMINATED
REBUILDING OF MILITARY WILL BE OUTLAWED
BEACHFRONT MANSIONS WILL BE FLATTENED AND RETURNE TO PUBLIC ACCESS
WALLSTREET WONT BE A PROBLEM
CONGRESS WILL NOT BE AN EXPENSE
CORPORATIONS WILL BE DOWNSIZED
NSA WILL BE GONE BYE-BYE, AS WILL CIA
MURDER BY THE SCORE FROM AMERICAN 0N AMERICAN GUN VIOLENCE DROPS
PRIVITISATION IS OUT THE WINDOW
What’s left? Eat Drink and be Merry?
When Berie is asked how he will funderstand his social programs his misses the opportunity to mention the largest source of funds: Cutting Corporate Welfare via our perpetual war machine.
I know, Sanders could have pointed out that cutting the NATO budget in Europe and relying on diplomacy instead of military intervention in the Middle East would together free up billions in funds for education improvements and domestic infrastructure rebuilding, both of which are sorely needed in every state in the US.
And Obama has been quietly dumping billions every year into the nuclear weapons program, and that’s supposed to accelerate over the next 30 years, at over $30 billion a year – can you think of a worse use for all that money?
You won the Internet today, Dan, for the best commentary of the debate.
Why facts matter:
It always amazes how deft politicians can be at scrambling words into mind-numbing narratives – rather than just coming clean with the truth, as awful and humiliating as it may be! lol
Why is Bernie at the Vatican, by invitation and not Hillary? (Just a thought.) Or could it be? Times are drastically unraveling into REAL chaos this time around? Only known about, for reals, perhaps by a relatively few billionaires, scientists and religious leaders (including Islam)? …And maybe a few commenters here, lol
Could it be that Senator Sanders’ love of and caring for the poor, his entire political career? His “call to arms” to a global alarm, unfortunately heard only by a few in power who really get it?
It’s becoming crystal clear – dancing around the truth by corporate media continues to be permitted despite the FACT that the respective media owners KNOW, the bone-chilling matters of fact!
OUR “golden goose” of creation is dying before our eyes, while not “Rome burns”, again, but OUR Planet Earth, once a livable wonder of creation, unravels into greed and decadence.
I enjoyed this, your post. I read the comments often and this is the only one that has sent chills down my spine.
Milquetoast fraud Bernie just fired Simone Zimmerman for not being deferential to Netanyahu. His campaign, by design, is nothing more than a warm-up act for Clinton.
Caspar Milquetoast was a comic strip character created by H. T. Webster for his cartoon series The Timid Soul. Webster described Caspar Milquetoast as “the man who speaks softly and gets hit with a big stick”. Wikipedia
The day he endorses Hillary Clinton will be the END of his “political revolution”.
And if by some miracles (like a win in New York or a nail-biter finish, Hillary being indicted or if not a Comey Saturday Night Massacre, her “speeches” being leaked etc.) Sanders pulls out a victory in Philly this summer, I honestly cannot imagine Hillary Clinton endorsing Sanders and working for him to raise money etc.
We may all actually witness a bigger disintegration of the Democrat Party this summer than the Republican Party.
Is it Qadafi, Qaddafi, or Gadhafi? Sheesh!
The funniest thing about that discussion is this line:
CLINTON: “We got rid of the chemical weapons stockpile that Qadafi had, getting it out of Libya, getting it away from militias or terrorist groups.”
So she admits that Libya, who had been declared WMD-free by GW Bush in 2003, after giving US & British oil majors preferential access to oil deals, actually retained such weapons (and some tons of yellowcake uranium, as well). While Iraq had none . . . that makes her cheerleading for the Iraq war vote look even worse.
It’s as if everyone has forgotten that Gaddafi was close with Bush, Blair, Sarkozy, Condi Rice, Berlusconi, etc. – it was only the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings that threw him out of power, likely to Washington’s great dismay. Then Clinton & Obama tried to put their preferred puppet in power, Mahmoud Jibril – it was an effort to determine the succession such that a U.S.-British friendly ruler would end up in power; he lasted seven whole months.
This article points out that Mahmoud Jibril was just another Ahmed Chalabi – who Rumsfeld & Cheney thought would be a good puppet for their interests, despite the fact that most of Iraq wanted nothing to do with him:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-williams2/hillary-clinton-libya-and_b_9353176.html
Either. The problem is that Arabic is difficult to romanize, and different publications use different methods, and individuals picks and choose often at random because most people don’t even understand romanization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Arabic
The title of this story leads one to believe that the candidates were both delivering non-answers, when the facts seems to indicate that the vast majority of deflections on especially important topics were coming from Clinton. The two that you cite for Sanders are rather weak cases considering the weakness of the questions themselves.
Is it really so vital that we see multiple years of Sanders’ tax returns? You surmise that there are fishy things on his taxes and that’s why he’s lagging on releasing them. Yeah– that, or he’s getting them together and releasing them now. April 20 is still a few days away, so he still has time to finish his 2015 documents. Why he should make these public before filing them makes no sense to me. Did he not submit any returns when he ran for senate? Can we not look into the records from his senate campaigns to at least get an idea of what the guy is earning and doing with his money? More importantly, is this factor even remotely important for choosing the next leader of our country?
The question regarding Sanders’ support of multinational corporations, on the other hand, was manufactured and worded in such a way to draw attention away from his support of unions and the domestic manufacturing sector as exemplified by his his support of the Verizon picket line earlier in the week and paint him as an enemy of American prosperity. Those poor, defenseless multinational corporations and their boards of directors can rest easy knowing Wolf Blitzer has their backs.
“Those poor, defenseless multinational corporations “.
No kidding. Since when does a Presidential candidate need a plan for helping US businesses around the globe?
I agree, the most dissembling came from Hillary by far.
The fair and balanced approach is Betsy’s plan. The Intercept has become as bland as my local news. There seems to have been a sudden shift away from portraying Hillary in a negative light; now we get candlelight with elevator music …
“The title of this story leads one to believe that the candidates were both delivering non-answers, when the facts seems to indicate that the vast majority of deflections on especially important topics were coming from Clinton.”
I think that was the whole point of the article.
I’ll save everyone sometime and re-post this succinct comment:
Sam to Baby Gerald
Yeah, Bernie’s response on his tax returns was – and I say this as an enthusiastic Bernie supporter – really worrying to me. It’s rather pathetic that he threw that one to his wife; surely there are enough people working with his campaign that he can enlist a few of them to dig through the family records and publish the returns. As you say, the reasonable takeaway from that is that there’s something iffy in those returns that the campaign is desperate not to let out. And while I’m sure Bernie has fewer skeletons in his closet than Hillary does, it’s disappointing, to be sure.
Still, I took plenty of perverse pleasure in seeing Hillary trying to worm her way out of something so many times last night. Besides the obvious Wall Street transcripts matter, it just blows me away that twice – twice! – last night you had almost the exact same exchange: Hillary is asked if she supports something, she says she supports it and has always supported it, Bernie expresses mock surprise over this, they talk over each other for a bit, and then Hillary has to clarify her position, in the process stringing just enough rope to hang herself with.
I’m significantly less concerned over Bernie dodging the “how would you effectively promote American businesses around the world” question. Yes he dodged the question, but like you say, it seems to be something he just doesn’t care about. Promoting international trade has never been part of his platform, nor his appeal.
What I found remarkable about last night’s debate was that the script got flipped in terms of the candidates’ strengths. Bernie sounded at his weakest and most general and vague when talking about the banks and the economy; Clinton supporters are going to get a lot of mileage out of that to bolster their argument that he doesn’t have a specific plan (not that their candidate sounds any more specific, but when has that mattered?) and Hillary got in that solid line about Bernie not being able to point out any specific examples of Hillary’s corruption. But when the debate turned to foreign policy – supposedly Hillary’s strong suit – Bernie looked much stronger, and of course that’s when you got to his stance on the Israel/Palestine matter that’s really got people excited.
All in all, I found it to be a solid and entertaining debate, and Bernie seemed to come out of it stronger, his fumbles notwithstanding.
John, I didn’t not have the chance to watch it, but I enjoyed your wrap up. Thanks.
I too am a Bernie supporter and felt the same about the tax thing. I was really worried about what would happen if he missed the self-imposed deadline of releasing 2014 today, but happily, it happened. Maybe this diversion can now be put to rest.
I’d say Bernie’s miscalculation was that his boring tax return was going to be an issue, hence the low priority to release them earlier. It would have been delightful if HRC had one less item to use to prevaricate on the transcript matter.
I could not even finish reading all of this. She strikes me as such an evil person. Do people really aspire to become politicians as such?
I get up every morning, look at myself in the mirror, and while I am far from perfect, there’s an honest person looking back at me. I can talk straight and stand behind it; all.day.long.
God damn.
My husband and I watched the debates before bed- and we both had Hillary nightmares!
Hillary constantly mentions “her experience”, regarding foreign affairs- why doesn’t Bernie burn her more on just how awful, and what a tyrant of a War Hawk, she really is? Let’s hear more about Honduras, etc.
To those Hillary supporters: why aren’t you demanding more of your candidate? Why let her slide on one thing? Make her earn your vote. Demand she release her Wall Street speech transcripts, before you waste your vote. Blind loyalty is extremely dangerous- and oh-so un-American.
Yes, would be nice to have a woman (with all her caring, maternal glory) in the White House. JUST NOT THAT ONE.
There comes a time, as evidence has piled up through the decades when blind loyalty is needed, and there is no danger in such a passion. The Clintons are a nightmare, as you seem to be indicating. Bernie Sanders is the better choice for POTUS. Not a perfect choice but earth has yet produced utopias. He is more on the right track. I agree it is sad the best choice is not a woman, but in this case, it’s not! However, I believe we should vote for her over the GOP, who are more like the Living Dead, than a nightmare. I could be wrong, but Cruz or Trump? C’mon. I hope Sanders wins NY on Tuesday. We can never put too much trust in our leaders. They can be assassinated, betray us, or be ineffective. We need to lead ourselves, as best we can. But a candidate like Bernie Sanders does not come along every day, and we might as well give him the benefit of the doubt.
I think HRC supporters simply aren’t liberals by any standard definition of the word. They know her violent history and approve. It’s things like this coupled with the demographic changes coming in the form of increased liberalism amongst millenials, that signal a coming crisis in the DNC.
It would be interesting if we ended up with three simultaneous viable parties — Liberals represented by something new (Pirate Party? Green explosion?), a NewGOP comprised of establishment-DNC and socially liberal GOP members, and an evangelical-GOP splinter from the GOP.
It probably wouldn’t be a stable system, but the chaos could be good for neutering the power of money (or the opposite?). Maybe it’s all pipe dream.
I couldn’t answer about the feasibility of a three party system in the USA, I am not knowledgeable enough: if he loses, this movement will go on, but at this point, we want to think about him winning.
I don’t believe many Hillary supporters see the violence of her foreign policy nor domestic policy (for example, as was implemented in the Clinton White House in regards to incarceration). A lot of people don’t think it through that far. Scads of people don’t vote in a country of 330 million. People who have been really hurt by the 2008 crash tend to see the truth in Bernie’s stances, as well as progressives not tied to special interests. If all the millennials vote (where the voting rights have not been stymied) it will help a lot to get Sanders in office, where he should be. Excellent article.
There is actually a new political party ripe for being joined and groomed for a Progressive future:
votecitizens.org
I wish Bernie would point out that there is a difference between holding a position, and performing well in that position. And that experience in a position is worthless without success in that position. By her own definition, George W. Bush is more qualified to be president than any of the current candidates simply because he has been there.
So 6 examples from Hilary and 2 from Bernie (that I think are qualitatively different, but whatever) and the title of the article implies they BOTH dodge questions – like they are just both the same. Even your own article has the vast majority of non-answers coming from Clinton. I hate this type of ‘oh, its a wash – they are all jsut the same’ type of journalism. I expect much more from the Intercept – which I love.
2. “There is something hinky with his taxes, and his campaign staff is scrambling to figure out how to contain the damage.”
When was this asked of him? That night? I’ve never heard anyone discuss this and so this is bullshit Froomkin.
5. “Given your obvious contempt for large American corporations, how would you as president of the United States be able to effectively promote American businesses around the world?”
CNN really screwed up on these questions. “How many times do you beat your wife?” Bernie Sanders does not hold American Corporations in contempt, but american TAX DODGERS in contempt. Blitzer is an idiot mouthpiece for the corporate shills that own CNN.
Then he answered the question, but was interrupted many many times by the ever more obnoxious HRC and CNN.
I guess you really had to push to come up with dodgy issues around Sanders. Poor coverage, Froomkin.
I just want to mention that Sanders did release the first few pages of his 2014 tax return in 2015. Apparently, he made 200,000 in income.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/30/on-tax-returns-sanders-and-wife-report-200000-in-income-mostly-from-his-senate-post/
1. Hillary Clinton dissembling about why she won’t release transcripts of her highly-paid speeches to banks.
Reasonable Surmise:
Clinton said embarrassing things during those speeches that belie her tough-on-Wall-Street rhetoric and she doesn’t want them to be public.
Or… what if she DIDN’T say anything substantial, really nothing at all. If she released the transcripts, people might discover that those $225k speaking fees were paid for basically NOTHING AT ALL.
More like what we call a PAYOFF.
Everybody assumes she doesn’t deliver value. But as Secretary of State, she had access to top secret NSA surveillance of banks. For example, she might advise a bank to close its accounts in Panama due to an upcoming event. If so, the $225k was a bargain.
Or perhaps she’s more old school and simply jokes, “you know, I’m so busy giving speeches to banks that I have no time to work on my draft legislation to reinstate Glass-Steagall”.
Either way, the banks gladly pay.
Here is an article that looks at one of Hillary Clinton’s legal cases that gives us an inside look at the “real Hillary”:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/04/hillary-clinton-children-and-law.html
While Ms. Clinton keeps reassuring the American public that she has “evolved”, one has to wonder whether her “evolution” has been bred by political desperation.
That’s how evolution works. Changes are slow during low stress times, but when that big rock smashes into the earth, big changes happen fast as those species who cannot adapt die off. Clinton is under high stress from Sanders, a fact just as surprising as that big rock. Clinton does not want to die off, and she is willing to change in a big hurry. But as in biological evolution, fast political evolution carries along some unwanted baggage.
I hate all this “evolution” talk because, if I may be a little pedantic, evolution doesn’t happen in any individual’s lifetime, it happens between death and birth to groups of beings as a whole. As older generations die, newer generations acquire differences, but no specific individual evolves in that space from birth to death. Entire populations instead, evolve in the space between the death of the previous generation, and the birth of the next.
I think Bernie’s philosophy represents a genetic thread that has been present but repressed for decades, and it only requires the current generation of tired ideas to fade away, and the greater level of liberalism seen in the younger generations to out-compete it. That’s how we will see evolution in American politics.
I completely agree with your basic point that refusal to answer a straightforward question is embarrassing and alarming. But at the risk of being labelled a Bernie booster (or worse, a Bernie Bro), I have to say the headline and specific content of the article seem a little unfair. Five of your seven points are examples of Clinton evading, and more importantly, it seems to me the issues she’s refusing to address are much more consequential.
Sanders’ evasions: tax returns; plans to promote American businesses globally.
Clinton’s evasions: Wall Street transcripts; Israel’s attacks against Palestinians; American “intervention” in Libya; environmental policies.
The presentation of these as equivalent examples of evasion strikes me as pretty obtuse.
Perhaps it was subtle satire? Hard to tell.