Everything is still Bush's fault

Who knew that a 2016 Democrat debate would be nothing but Bush-bashing?  We are in year 7 of the Obama administration, and Democrats are still blaming Bush.

On the economy, we heard over and over about the lousy state of the middle class and income inequality.  No one said a word about the $800-billion stimulus that was supposed to fix all of that back in 2009!

On foreign policy, we heard a lot about the decision to invade Iraq.  Unfortunately, no one on the CNN panel reminded the candidates that it happened 12 years ago.  We did not get a simple question about the 2011 decision to leave Iraq or the line in Syria that President Obama did not enforce.

Overall, it was hard to watch.  Thank God for the Dodgers-Mets game.  My guess is that many people in LA and New York were a lot more interested in the game than another round of Bush derangement syndrome.

Who won?  It's hard to say.  The experts are saying that Mrs. Clinton won, but I disagree.   

First, Mrs. Clinton has legal rather than electoral problems.  The server issue is not going away, regardless of whether Senator Sanders is tired of hearing about it.

Second, the media, crazy for another Clinton comeback kid story, may want to check out what Nate Silver wrote about this:

She gave ambiguous or evasive answers on several questions, such as on marijuana legalization and health care benefits for children of immigrants who entered the country illegally. On other questions, she gave answers that might have played well to liberal Democrats but which might not be received as favorably by general election voters (such as saying she’d “make the wealthy pay” for paid family leave and other welfare programs). Sanders gained more Twitter followers during the debate than Clinton, meanwhile, and got considerably more Google search traffic.

Put another way, Clinton gave about the performance that might reasonably have been expected from a frontrunner who gained a ton of experience as a debater during the 2008 Democratic primary: pretty good. Poised, polished and highly competent at appealing to various segments of the Democratic electorate. But also risk-averse and without all that many high notes.

Overall, Mrs. Clinton made a lot of statements Tuesday night that won't play in a general election.  It's hard to see how she could repeat these liberal talking points in a debate with any of the current GOP candidates.  

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Who knew that a 2016 Democrat debate would be nothing but Bush-bashing?  We are in year 7 of the Obama administration, and Democrats are still blaming Bush.

On the economy, we heard over and over about the lousy state of the middle class and income inequality.  No one said a word about the $800-billion stimulus that was supposed to fix all of that back in 2009!

On foreign policy, we heard a lot about the decision to invade Iraq.  Unfortunately, no one on the CNN panel reminded the candidates that it happened 12 years ago.  We did not get a simple question about the 2011 decision to leave Iraq or the line in Syria that President Obama did not enforce.

Overall, it was hard to watch.  Thank God for the Dodgers-Mets game.  My guess is that many people in LA and New York were a lot more interested in the game than another round of Bush derangement syndrome.

Who won?  It's hard to say.  The experts are saying that Mrs. Clinton won, but I disagree.   

First, Mrs. Clinton has legal rather than electoral problems.  The server issue is not going away, regardless of whether Senator Sanders is tired of hearing about it.

Second, the media, crazy for another Clinton comeback kid story, may want to check out what Nate Silver wrote about this:

She gave ambiguous or evasive answers on several questions, such as on marijuana legalization and health care benefits for children of immigrants who entered the country illegally. On other questions, she gave answers that might have played well to liberal Democrats but which might not be received as favorably by general election voters (such as saying she’d “make the wealthy pay” for paid family leave and other welfare programs). Sanders gained more Twitter followers during the debate than Clinton, meanwhile, and got considerably more Google search traffic.

Put another way, Clinton gave about the performance that might reasonably have been expected from a frontrunner who gained a ton of experience as a debater during the 2008 Democratic primary: pretty good. Poised, polished and highly competent at appealing to various segments of the Democratic electorate. But also risk-averse and without all that many high notes.

Overall, Mrs. Clinton made a lot of statements Tuesday night that won't play in a general election.  It's hard to see how she could repeat these liberal talking points in a debate with any of the current GOP candidates.  

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.