Normally, I would just type out my analysis in a as-concise-as-possible social media post. This will be a bit more comprehensive.

The Moderators

I don’t know if it was the moderators specifically this time around, or that the candidates themselves decided they were going to stick more to the rules, but overall it was a nice change of pace. For the most part, the candidates refrained from talking over each other or disregarding the rules. It still happened… more so toward the end when Harris, Castro, and Biden began blatantly ignoring time limits, but it was an improvement over the previous debates. It was less a reality tv sideshow with moderators picking fights between candidates, though it still had its moments.

Attacks on progressives by the corporate media continue

George Stephanopoulos started off the debate with a question directed at Joe Biden, the obvious neoliberal establishment candidate, asking him if progressives like Warren and Sanders were going too far with their policy platforms. Biden responded well by saying that would be up to the voters to decide. That this question was posed at all, let alone at the very front of the debate, highlights a trend that has occurred in each debate of 2019 thus far – take out the progressives.

In the NBC debate, Savannah Guthrie aimed to paint progressives as ridiculous and unrealistic with her framing of the opening questions. In the CNN debate, Jake Tapper opened the debates firing at progressives by using and thereby validating right wing framing on issues.

One has to wonder, is it the individual moderator asking the question with a certain frame, that does so because of their own personal bias? Or does it come from the front office? Is there a greater motive? There does seem to be a concerted establishment effort to delegitimize and vanquish candidates that are committed to meaningful reform, establishing ethical standards, and challenging corruption, especially in finance.

Medicare for All

Many of the candidates seemed to be on an Obama apology tour last night as if they were scolded about attacking his legacy and were told to make up for it somehow. Nevertheless, I thought it was fine that they gave him credit for paving the way toward a better healthcare system. The one he helped build is far from perfect but it provided insurance to people that previously had none. Sanders, though, should be and was credited for pushing the issue further. Sanders has been advocating for a single payer system for a LONG time, and now it is finally taken seriously.

Unfortunately, it isn’t taken seriously enough. The American public overwhelmingly supports a single payer system, though they don’t seem to understand how it will work, and thus get confused by inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda that seeks to bury all talk of single payer as a system that can or will happen. I found the argument that people like their health care… I.E. exploitation, restriction, price gouging… rule of the system by profiteering private sick care companies… just bizarre.

One has to ask – why? When it boils down to it, why are candidates arguing FOR sick care profiteering by private insurance companies that heavily restrict what kinds of doctors or treatments patients have access to? Why would they defend a predatory industry that seeks to gouge patients for more money than is charged anywhere else in the world? Why wouldn’t a candidate for President, that has the best interests of their people in mind, WANT desperately to end that practice? To liberate their people from the profiteering sick care industry? To expand access to all kinds of medical care for a fraction of the cost? Middle ground on this issue shows a deference to ruthless, careless capitalism that gains at the most sinister of costs. Perhaps it is a political calculation. Or perhaps lobbyists of the private sick care industry have the ear of those candidates.

Individual Debate Performances

Warning: The following is a ruthless, opinionated review of candidate performances in last night’s debate. I try to be fair. You don’t have to agree with my analysis at all, but if you’re looking for feel-good kumbaya, this isn’t going to be your cup of tea.

This is a contest for the nomination of a major party for the President of the United States, who will most likely be running against a savage, ruthless, fascist who will pull no punches and take no prisoners, setting fire to ethics, decorum, and everything people are claiming they want, but I believe will ultimately hurt a timid democratic candidate (see: Marco Rubio & Jeb Bush).

Amy Klobuchar – Opened her debate with a terrible over rehearsed one liner that came off super inauthentic and just off in general. In my opinion she provided little substance and had the worst performance of the night. By the way, did you know she is from the midwest? The middle of the country? That place out west there? In the middle? Of the country? … the middle?

Andrew Yang – Yang opened up his debate performance with a promotion for what seemed like a lottery ticket. He made a good point or two, but he also looked foolish at times. I gasped when he referred to Puerto Rico as a country. He even paused after he said it. If he realized his error, he likely moved on so as to not draw further attention to it. His answer regarding education – eliminating standardized tests and his rationale for why, along with his assertion that the capacity for learning mostly takes place outside of school and using that to advocate for investment in families, neighborhoods, and community bolstering programs – I thought was the best of anyone. That said, having no political experience at all is impractical when running for President of the United States. I would love to see him run for other elected office.

Mayor Pete – Pete did his best to play middle ground. He didn’t really make any points he hasn’t already made – in fact, he made fewer. In this particular debate, he didn’t seem like a strong candidate for President.

His answer on race in the United States seemed hollow as he struggles to respond to institutional racism in the town for which he is Mayor.

I also wasn’t a fan of his interjection between Biden and Castro, attempting to score civility points while throwing a lifeline to Biden, who was being called on what he said about health care. His statement was also factually inaccurate. People have been watching the Democratic Debates. They’ve gotten fairly decent ratings. Based on your understanding of politics, different folks are looking for different things, but it is a debate for the highest office in the land. Debates are inherently contentious.

He’s young, he represents the LGBT community, he served in the military, he has a refreshing take on religion, but his policy and practice are lacking. He doesn’t have experience governing an entire State or serving in / working with Congress. Those are not a necessary qualifications, but first hand experience in either would serve him better. Others have that. In my opinion, he isn’t the best candidate for President going into 2020.

Cory Booker – Booker, I thought, had a pretty decent night. His answers were well rounded. He took a question, addressed it, and illuminated certain key points about an issue that weren’t being discussed, therefore adding value to the topic.

Kamala Harris – Harris was again taken to task about her prior history as a prosecutor. When she began her campaign, she used this aspect of her record to score points. She is now having trouble defending why she was not an advocate for justice in a way she is claiming to be now. She also had an unsatisfying answer to a question about her health care plan. This was probably her weakest performance of the three debates thus far.

Beto ORourke – Beto had a solid debate night. This was his home turf and he had just shown how skillfully he would respond to a tragedy. He was authentic and passionate. He was bold. I don’t think he’ll get the nomination, but last night was his best night by far.

Unfortunately, following the debate, a Texas State Representative made a threat about AR-15s following Beto’s comments about taking away AR-15s and AK-47s. It has allegedly been forwarded to the FBI.

Julian Castro – Julian is someone I didn’t anticipate liking at the outset of the primary. He impressed me in debates one and two. At the end of debate three, he would become a lightening rod for criticism because of his attack on Joe Biden regarding what is seen as an ageist low blow. Perhaps Castro didn’t have to question if Biden was forgetting what he said two minutes ago, but he was right to call Biden out for something he did actually say.

It was actually very difficult for me to find the full unedited video of what Biden said about buying in on his healthcare plan. Joe Biden’s part is edited differently than how he said it last night, but review the best clip I could find here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipdra1p1gDE.

Castro was highlighting a difference between his plan and Biden’s plan, using what Biden had just said about buying in, to illustrate the difference. Biden interjected and refuted Castro. Castro defended his analysis based on what he just heard from Biden. Perhaps the comment about forgetfulness was unnecessary, however he was not wrong. Castro was also right on when he responded to Mayor Pete that this was a debate and this is what happens in a debate. If it were Trump that Biden were sparring with, Trump would not only capitalize, but he would shred him for it. Overall, I liked what Castro had to say in Debate 3. By the way, doesn’t he SOUND like Obama? His voice I mean. … I bet he does one hell of an impression. It would be too easy.

Elizabeth Warren – Warren defended her positions well and did not directly target anyone else. I don’t have any specific criticisms in the context of her debate performance. I liked that she highlighted giant multinational corporations in her explanation of why the United States has had difficulty with good trade deals. Her insistence on bringing troops home from Afghanistan and proceeding to solve problems using a variety of other tools instead of military action was admirable. The United States should lead by its values, I agreed, but I also thought, we should try to lead by them at home first.

Bernie Sanders – Bernie was on the gospel he is on every time he grabs a mic. He is the most boring, yet most consistent candidate in the pack when it comes to arguing his plan. He has been saying what he has been saying, pushing the policies he has been pushing, providing the vision for America he has been preaching… for DECADES.

His voice during the debate last night sounded pretty rough – it was a bit distracting. That’s not an indictment on his candidacy.

I liked that he contrasted his judgment against Biden’s with regard to supporting the Iraq War. Sanders did not trust the Bush administration in its request for Congressional support to go to war with Iraq. He asked all the right questions in his Senate floor speech on why he was voting to oppose it. The video evidence is easily accessible. Biden was all in and even promoted it across the national media. Sanders also highlighted how he was different from every Senator on the debate stage, including Senator Warren, by announcing that he was the only one that had voted against all three of Trump’s military budgets. Sanders has the best political judgement of the pack and has a well recorded, repeatedly demonstrated history of sticking to solid principles.

He continues to provide the best overall vision for the future of America. No doubt, he would be facing formidable foes on the path to making his vision a reality. That didn’t stop any historically revered reformist and it shouldn’t stop anyone who wants to make a difference for the better. We shouldn’t be forfeiting to money and power because it’s just too hard to fight corruption.

Joe Biden – Joe Biden’s debate performances over the last two debates have been particularly poor. Nevertheless, mainstream corporate media continues to spin it positively and cover for him. Last night’s debate performance was probably his worst. I couldn’t hang onto the stream of his ramble. He couldn’t stay on topic and didn’t actually answer questions. (I.E. “Q: Joe Biden, you’ve said some pretty racist things in the past, how do you reconcile that?” “A: …I know teachers.”) Not exaggerating – I would fight off drowsiness and daydreaming to remain attentive to his answers.

In the debate, the topic of the Iraq War and Biden’s support for it came up. Biden did his best to skirt the issue and tell a far from accurate story. I had just seen a Young Turks video earlier that day that took Biden to task over how he’s been rewriting his support for the Iraq War, so I recognized it immediately. https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2310227739287729&id=210277954204&sfns=xmwa

Another particularly irritating response Biden had came when Sanders was describing how egregious it was that in the United States of America we are charged so much more money for health care than compared to Canada and Scandinavian countries. Biden responded, “this is America.” Really, Biden? One can pretty much take that response and what it means to define Biden’s entire campaign. Crony capitalism is fine. It’s okay to exploit people for profit whether it’s the sick care industry or loan sharking, because “this is America.” Is that Joe Biden’s vision for what America should be?

It boggles my mind that so many folks, generally, but especially after last night’s performance, think that Joe Biden is the candidate that is best suited to take on Donald Trump in 2020. He reminds me of John Kerry in 2004, who was selected by Democrats because he was supposed to be a centrist steady hand to take on the allegedly easily beatable, disastrous Presidency of George W Bush – potentially the worst President of the United States pre-trump. Kerry lost not just the electoral college but the popular vote too. In 2016, it was said that Hillary would have an easy time with trump in the general election. There was no way she would lose. She lost the electoral map. I have said it many times before, but I will say it again… if Biden wins the democratic nomination, this country is in serious jeopardy.

Transparently and egregiously biased post-debate media spin

What angered me most of all, because I didn’t turn the television off immediately following the debate, was how transparently obvious it was that the pundits on ABC were spinning positivity for Biden.

I had just witnessed a poor performance on his part and a fairly decent performance by Sanders, but immediately, the punditry summarized the debate by saying that Sanders would likely drop in support after this and that Biden did an excellent job. They offered zero insight or justification for their assertion.

Additionally, it was obvious that everyone was shocked and appalled by Castro’s going after Biden, seemingly their royal highness, because of something he did actually say. They did a desperate job of covering for Biden by saying that Castro was wrong and Biden didn’t say what he did in fact say. I was hoping they would show the video of what Biden said so I could hear it again, because I live-tweeted a reaction to his exact words immediately after he said them. They offered no such video. Instead, a pundit inaccurately quoted what Biden supposedly said.

I couldn’t believe it. A network broadcast station. Perhaps I was more naive than I thought about how pervasive the establishment spin was. I was just so shocked at how blatant it was. Then I opened my browser and saw similar arguments on New York Times, Washington Post… etc. Everyone was falling in line. Crazy.

Final Grades

Klobuchar: D-
Biden: D-
Yang: C
Mayor Pete: C
Harris: B-
Booker B-
Beto: B-
Bernie: B+
Castro: B+
Warren: A