The Final Democratic Debate

Last night was the first debate I actually watched in its entirety. Here's my brief analysis to whomever might be interested.

O'Malley

First, I don't know much about Martin O'Malley, but he comes off well. He definitely isn't given his fair share of talking time. Generally he comes off as the most "Presidential", maybe of any candidate running. A few gripes though:

(1) a lot of his comments were of the type "these two are fighting about the issue, but what we need is unity." Shut up hippy! Adults are arguing here. No, we can't always all get along, and you're not contributing with those comments. On the other hand, he did do well at tying the issues to his experience as governor.

(2) He said, "I've never met a hunter who needed an AR-15 to kill a deer." Herp derp, me do sound byte!! Mr. O'Malley, lets review the stances of some of the founding fathers who crafted the 2nd Amendment.

• "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." -Jefferson.
• "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Henry 
• "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." - Washington
• "I needs mah guns to shoots me some deers!!!" - No founding father ever

You're not wrong O'Malley, you just have no frame of reference. (Does that work?) You're arguing the wrong premise. The 2nd Amendment states its purpose in its own text, as "being necessary to the security of a free state", not to "bag more bucks."

I don't mind that he is against gun rights. I think that is fine. I understand given all our problems with gun crime and that times are different. But to try to score a sweet sound bite by completely circumventing the premise of the issue is just more of the same old bullshit polliticking that I can't stand. You're better than that, other guy on the stage!

(3) I think he's laying off Hillary more than he could. He's careful never to get in a position where it seems that he is teaming up with Bernie against her. Why? Because he's angling for a VP seat in the Clinton administration.

Sanders

It's no secret that I'm a Sanders fan, and he's my favorite of the group. I don't agree with a large swathe of his liberal politics, but on a few key issues I really really agree with him (Citizen's United, TPP). I think he's honest and his heart's in the right place, a rare trait in a major politician these days. He has conviction, not just a well-crafted illusion of conviction.

With that said, I can see why some people dislike him. He's certainly the least poised on stage. Constantly fighting to interject or to keep talking past the moderators, ultimately to mostly repeat the same thing: "the system is rigged." I agree, I think the system is, in fact, rigged. One only has to look at the 2008 crisis to see that. Not only was no one prosecuted from what can only be described as a culture of crime and corruption...they got a shitload of money for it. Mind blowing. And yet, I guess most people watching a debate on primetime network TV are going to judge off feels over facts. I think he's right to be frustrated and frazzled, but that won't win the votes he's looking for.

Clinton

If you're careful, you can almost find yourself liking Clinton. She's comfortable on stage, She comes off as informed and sometimes has some pretty good answers to questions. Don't fall for it. She's evil. She's brilliant at crafting an answer to a completely different question than the one asked, and selling it. This is a woman who can be asked about her heavy indebtedness to Wall Street and make it about 9/11 victims!! (from a previous debate). She several times lobbied ridiculous claims against Sanders: that he wants to dismantle healthcare programs; that he is pro-NRA; that he is anti Obama. I, for one, would support him for all those!! But he's not those things. He's just fucking not. No wonder Bernie seems frustrated. And Clinton taking credit for things where it is undeserved, saying the chemical weapons disarmament of Assad was somehow her victory. It wasn't, it was Russia's victory. She's assuming your typical NBC viewer is not informed enough to know the difference.

The woman proves over and over again that she, first and foremost, cannot be trusted. She's a snake. She'll say anything and smear anyone and put on any fake accent to increase her own power. She is a sociopath, no doubt about it.

Conclusion

It should be a bit scary to all of us that the two frontrunners for President, world's soft emperor and key holder to a doomsday nuclear arsenal, are a sociopath and a narcissist. I, for one, am in the Anyone-But-Hillary crowd. I've never voted against a candidate. What I should do is vote for Rand Paul in the Republican primary, because his is my favorite candidate. What I might do is vote for Sanders in the dem side, not just because I like his candidacy (and I do) but to help keep Clinton out.

tl;dr Clinton is a good politician but a bad candidate. Bernie is a bad politician but a good candidate. O'Malley might actually be the most palatable. I'm surprised he doesn't poll higher.