Maddow Forum ups and downs

[thesquanderer]

Last edited Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Overall, it was great. I had been worried it would be disappointing because only one candidate would be up at a time... but Maddow is really good. Knows her stuff, asks good questions, listens to the answers, asks intelligent followups. In that respect, much better than the debate moderator quickies that are used more often to launch a battle than to engage in a real discussion. All in all, she managed to keep it substantive, yet not dry.

I think all three candidates did well. For the first time, I was able to actually get a really good sense of O'Malley, and it was mostly positive. Sanders came across much more personable than he did in the debate. HRC agains proved herself to be the polished pro that she is.

Each one slightly disppointed me somewhere, too.

I don't think O'Malley's attacks on the other candidates served him well. AFAIK, Bernie didn't actually look for someone to try to primary Obama in 2012. The veiled attack on Hillary for "declaring all Republicans as our enemies" wasn't much better.

Sanders stlll did a little too much tap dancing on guns. Maddow specifically tried very hard to get him to describe an area where his position may have "evolved" over the years, and he refused to go there, one way or the other. After he described that his position treated Amtrak the same as an airplance, Maddow pointed out that you can get to your luggage on a train, but not a plane... and again, he ignored the point. Also, when discussing the importance of appealing to AA voters in the south, an acknowledged achilles' heel, he did great as expected on the points relevant to economic justice, but could have spent more time on the social justice aspect. I think Hillary did better there, and this is an area where he needs to do at least as well, and this was the time and place to do it.

I can't believe HRC went back to that ridiculous debate line about how, in 2007, she went to Wall Street and told them to cut it out. Did she not get the memo that that was a laugh line? I think there was a little dancing around the issue of being more hawkish than Obama, though she did it well, even if not (to me) entirely believably (based on her record and past statements). HRC's death penalty answer was interesting... the gist seemed to be that she wouldn't mind if states lost the right to have a death penalty, but she though the federal government should have one. Hmmm.

Edit: updated Amtrak thought in post #9. Updated social justice thought in post #7.

[JaneyVee]

1. Hillary did call for Wall Street regulation.

She was early to call for tougher regulation of financial derivatives and private-equity markets, and in a 2007 speech called for major federal intervention in the market for subprime loans, arguing that “we need to acknowledge that Wall Street has played a significant role in our current problems, and in particular the housing crisis.”

She even brought numerous bills to the floor: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/

[Thinkingabout]

2. Good post.

[thesquanderer]

4. I did not say that she didn't.

I just thought the line about her going to them and saying "you guys have gotta stop it" is silly, and she should realize it. Talking about the other stuff, like what you mentioned, is much better.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. In an earlier OP (in the AA Group) I gave my impression of the forum ...

so I won't repeat it here; but, I will say ... it seemed the HRC took each question, and broadened the discussion, in a way that none of the other candidates did (Note: I missed most of O'Malley's segment ... so, that may be an unfair assessment of his presentation).

She came off very (President) Obama-ish, in that respect.

[thesquanderer]

5. In a way, that's a cup-half-full vs. cup-half-empty scenario

A common complaint is that politicians often use that ploy of barely answering the question they are asked, and then using it as a launching point for what they really want to talk about instead... typically, the related (if you're lucky) areas where they will come off better than if they actually focussed primarily on the exact question at hand. Looked at that way, it's a negative; looked at as "broadening the discussion," it's looked at as a positive! But they all do it, to some extent or another.

[thesquanderer]

7. On second viewing, I'm actually a bit disappointed with HRC on social justice

What I realized watching it again is that I was somewhat successfully bamboozled by Hillary on the social justice issue. She's really good talking about it as a politician. But when you really look at what she said, there was not much there. What she is really good at is showing awareness and empathy. And yes, that's an area where Sanders lags. But while it was effective that she mentioned (for example) Walter Scott and Eric Garner, what did she have to offer?

Here's some of what she said (with bracketed comments inserted by me):

I just think we all need to take a very big collective breath, and ask ourselves, what is happening? And what is motivating the kind of violence we're seeing? And it's particularly troubling when it's from a position of authority, whether it's in a school, or a police officer on the street. But that is not the only place this is happening. It's happening in our streets. {then talked about gang violence}

and

Guns don't have to be the only tools we give our officers to deal with difficult situations. {They're not.} We've got to do a better job, working with people in positions of authority to deal with the run of the mill disciplinary issues or the problems on the street -- {talked about Eric Garner, being killed over selling loose cigarettes}-- we all need to say, wait a minute, time out, let's work on making this fair, reasonable, and peaceful in so far as possible.

As far as I'm aware, I'm not cherry picking the "I feel your pain" parts to the exclusion of policy... there was no real policy. Just this kind of stuff... need to be aware, need to talk about it, need to find better solutions. Well, sure. Any idea what those better solutions might be?

Her answer was also peppered with things like "This has to end" and "People need to stop and think." It's kinda like telling Wall Street to cut it out. Where are the actual ideas? It all sounded good, but in terms of what she would do about it, it seems to me that there was no "there" there.

Apart from economic issues, Sanders spoke, for example, about his strong civil rights record in congress, his personal experiences fighting segregation in Chicago, the intent to work on legislation or a constitutional amendment that guarantees voting rights. Hillary was strong at making it personal, but she seemingly could point neither to things she had done nor things she would try to do. Or at least did not take the opportunity here to do so.

Now admittedly, they did not get the same questions, and not being a debate format, neither could pick up from what the other had discussed. So in that sense, it's not a fair comparison of their comments on the topic. But my point is, while on first viewing, I thought HRC was stronger on the issue, when I looked a second time, it seemed more like we got more platitudes from HRC, and more substance from BS. That said, almost nobody is going to watch it twice. If HRC comes across stronger on this issue even if saying less of substance, she still wins.

Getting back to your comment about HRC being good at "broadening the discussion" and my point that often, that is a dodge, it happened again here. Maddow asked about whether it is appropriate to have police in school available to deal with disciplinary actions, and if so, should it be done in all schools so as not to create another source of discrmination in the criminal justice system. HRC did not directly answer. Maddow--as she does--eventually circled back to try to get her to actually answer the question. Then finally Hilary answered it in part, but quickly pivoted to "a larger issue" which neatly still avoided the most difficult part of the question.

[longship]

6. I will support all respectful threads on this topic.

I found last night's Democratic forum a fairly great thing. It really highlights a difference between the parties. And Rachel was nearly universally wonderful. I really did like the select an envelope thing. All three candidates willingly embraced it and it provided an opportunity for some levity. O'Malley had the best answer of the night from that: a kilt!

I am proud to be a yellow dog Democrat after viewing this.

[thesquanderer]

12. Thanks

and I (obviously) agree about Maddow. If there are going to be other forums, I have a hard time thinking of who else could do as well. She's going to be a tough act to follow.

[bullwinkle428]

8. Re: guns on Amtrak - President Obama signed that bill, which didn't earn him

lots of friends in the gun-control community.

Ten months later, as part of an omnibus spending bill, Obama reversed a decade-long ban on transporting firearms by train. Amtrak travelers can now carry unloaded, locked weapons in their checked baggage.

These actions, and others, are what earned Obama an "F" from the Brady Center for Gun Violence in 2010 for "extraordinary silence and passivity" on gun control. But Obama saw the moves differently.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/flashback-obama-i-have-expanded-rights-of-gun-owners/

[thesquanderer]

9. And it turns out, Sanders was right, it's just like airplanes

You can't take firearms in carry-on luggage. You can have it in checked luggage on those trains that offer checked luggage (not all of them do)... and (according to what I've seen online) you can't access checked luggage en route. So Maddow actually was wrong about that, and it's a shame BS didn't make that point.

Amtrak's policy:

http://www.amtrak.com/prohibited-items

http://www.amtrak.com/firearms-in-checked-baggage

[cantbeserious]

10. Yes - Good Format - Good Interviewer

eom

[yuiyoshida]

11. K&R