Last night saw Democrat candidates, including former First Lady Hillary Clinton and new left firebrand Bernie Sanders, vying to to win their party’s presidential nomination.
The debate was a relative turning point in the campaign for the Democrats, who until now had very much opposed each other from a quiet distance.
Clinton began the race as frontrunner, but has since caused concerns with the now-infamous email scandal, which her Democrat rivals were quick to support her on throughout the debate, with Bernie Sanders going so far as to exclaim “nobody cares about your emails – the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your emails!”.
And so to the debate itself. Sanders put in a strong performance, staying true to the promise he made beforehand not to use direct attacks, but rather win on the merit of his message. Although often criticised for being too far left for an American presidential candidate, Sanders found himself outdone by Clinton on issues such as gun crime: where Sanders began strongly emphasising the need to curtail gun laws in America, Clinton rebuffed with a bold and direct attack on the National Rifle Association, who carry immense campaign and lobbying power on Capitol Hill.
When asked if Sanders is “tough enough” on guns, Clinton abruptly responds “No.”
“Not at all. We have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence. This has gone on too long, and it’s time the entire country stood up against the NRA.”
Despite being outdone on guns, however, Sanders gave a very strong showing when asked about his stance against capitalism as a ‘democratic socialist’ – with socialism of course existing as a dirty word in American politics. Sanders responded:
“First we’re gonna explain what democratic socialism is. And what democratic socialism’s about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one tenth of the top 1% in this country own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%.”
The state senator for Vermont then went on to outline the case for a National Health Service as a right, citing the Scandinavian model of welfare, including a right to paid maternity leave. He also launched an attack on the financial sector, arguing that “congress doesn’t regulate Wall Street; Wall street regulates congress“.
Sanders put in a very strong performance in defence of his socialist leanings, but failed to adequately establish himself as fully in control, in part down to not having a consistent audience support. One wonders if he might have fared better had this debate taken place in front of a British or European audience.
Clinton, then, emerged victorious, with a strong presidential showing and a distinct comfortability throughout. Of course, this can be at least partially attributed to her opponents’ lack of scrutiny on matters such as sanctioning the war in Iraq and her failings as secretary of state, which still cause concern among the wider Democrat membership.
There were others on the stage – Virginia senator Jim Webb, former Rhode Island governor Leon Chaffee and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley. Although O’Malley did land a few cutting and notable interventions, none of the other three candidates really gave the kind of showing needed to ignite their campaigns.
Ultimately, this was a night for Clinton. But they won’t all be this easy – a Republican candidate like Trump or Bush won’t brush over Benghazi quite as casually as her Democrat compeers did.
Image courtesy of the Independent
Categories: America, Politics, Presidency 2016
The Lighthouse 