= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to elleng (Reply #1)
LOL. Cute.
she did herself proud. 
We surrender!
News at 11. 
I just saw MSNBC's little snippets and I have to admit that it didn't look like Bernie was doing all that great. So I'm curious--is that MSNBC and it was actually more balanced in real life? Because they seemed to pick clips that made her look good and Bernie look, frankly, grumpy.
I want to reiterate that I didn't watch the actual debate and am just curious about MSNBC's editing style. However Bernie did in the debate, I'm not changing my mind for the primary 
and would vote for either of them in the general.
because no one in the right mind would ever call Hillary Clinton compassionate. This is the woman who called minority kids superpredators that need to be brought to heel. This is the woman who laughed after gleefully clapping her little hands and saying we came, we saw, he died.
Medicare for all is off the table but she is the compassionate one?
Fuck me. Forget sociology, become a comedian. You have a better future there.
...on the issues. But I'm a Sanders supporter and it's difficult to know what others are thinking--Clinton supporters, voters who haven't made up their minds, voters looking for info, general public, and you, for instance. What do you mean by "Sanders didn't do it"? I don't know what you mean. That's a vague, very personal statement. And if you really think that Clinton came across as "compassionate," we probably don't have enough in common to ever agree on this.
I thought there were 5 or 6 instances when Sanders "hit it out of the park" on major issues--corrupt campaign contribution system, paid speeches to Wall Street, Iraq War, Israel, cost of college and student debt, and more--and other instances when he backed Clinton into a corner that revealed her waffling or weak positions (for a Democrat) on important issues (Social Security, health care, blaming Obama for Libya rather than owning it, releasing the Goldman Sachs transcripts, blaming Vermont for the guns in New York and others).
I don't think she responded well to being backed into a corner. And her inappropriate laughs and rather glaring smile and eyes (not friendly), her smug ("I'm the queen here"
looks and stiff turns of head, and her abrasive voice--her voice more than anything--will turn a lot of people off. They turned me off. And her frequent running over time made her voice even more annoying.
But I admit I wasn't rooting for her. I think she's part of the 1%, a liar, very corrupt, a wearer masks (depending on who she's talking to) and a war hawk who is responsible for terrible suffering in Honduras, Iraq, Libya and Syria, on top of the suffering she's helped cause her to the poor, the unemployed and the imprisoned. I have no doubt about these judgements--I think the evidence is overwhelming--and I held these views before the debate even began.
As to presentation, I think Sanders did well, but did not "hit it out of the park" on voice, speech and ambience. He has a voice problem, too (but not nearly as bad as Clinton's problem). He projected the honesty and integrity that he is well known for. He stumbled over some words. He didn't give as good an answer on some questions as he could have. (The facts were on his side, too, on these missed opportunities.) But overall, he was very sharp and quick on most of the issues and controversies, and nailed her repeatedly.
I WAS, of course, rooting for him.
I do think that using a criterion like "did he hit it out of the park?" or "who 'won' the debate?" are not complex enough questions with which to analyze such a complex debate. I think Sanders succeeded in marking out their sharp differences and making the point that she changes with the wind on many issues and is unforthcoming on others.
