Sure, this batch of candidates sounded like a bunch of loons. They contended socialism is mostly about standing up to the richest one percent and promoting entrepreneurs and small business; climate change is the biggest national security threat facing the nation; college educations should be free for everyone; all lives don’t matter, black lives do; Obama is simultaneously an enormously successful president in managing the economy and the middle class is collapsing and there’s a need for a “New New Deal” which is in fact an Old Old Idea, considering how FDR called for a Second New Deal in 1935. The audience in Nevada applauded higher taxes, believes that Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to answer any more questions, supports the complete shutdown of the NSA domestic surveillance program, and that Obamacare benefits should be extended to illegal immigrants. There are kindergarten classes with more realistic assessments of cost-benefit tradeoffs than the crowd watching this debate at the Wynn Las Vegas.So yes, the candidates sounded like hard-Left, pie-in-the-sky, free-ice-cream-for-everyone, Socialist pander bears. But they do so because that is what the Democratic Party’s primary voters demand. Don’t blame them; blame the party rank-and-file that craves these promises, rhetoric, and worldview.With that in mind, Hillary Clinton is the class of the field on that stage, and the only real obstacle to the nomination that remains is a Joe Biden bid. Compared with everyone else, she’s polished and knows what she’s doing. Even when she’s being robotic and inauthentic, she’s remembering her talking points, pivoting to her preferred issues. The software upgrades to her personality may look awkward when she’s alone, but she’s still a much, much better candidate than anybody else on that stage.
Sure, she was duplicitous, but she’s a Clinton; that’s baked in the cake — for example Hillary said during the debate she had hoped that the Trans Pacific Partnership would be the gold standard; in her book, she said it was the gold standard.
More at National Review
@RJ: Did even one of the Dems explain how they could pay for ”free” college, repairing our aging infrastructure, expanding government over more? Where did the rest of those in poverty go? Just redefine them as ”not poor” so you can drop care for them???
(Bernie says only 27 million when stats say 46.7 million!)
I did hear that taxing ”the rich” will raise revenues, but that’s not true at the levels these candidates want. At those numbers, ”the rich,” lose incentive OR move out of the USA. (SEE: the Laffer Curve.)
Actually, I support the shutdown of quite a bit of that paranoid pseudo-socialist program also because it has gone far beyond even the KGB’s historical intrusiveness. Under Obama’s leadership it is operating like Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’ on steroids and has virtually completely abrogated our Fourth Amendment rights.
Other than that, I agree.
Since the candidates were threatened not to attack Hillary, none of them could even cast a sarcastic glance at Hillary as she demanded the 1% give up all their riches to pay for the ongoing destruction of the nation.
Anyone with any common sense who watched both the GOP and DNC debates held by CNN, will not be fooled by the completely different treatment of the candidates by the network.