Sanders performance in the first two Democratic Candidates Debate was better than all the others in both debates by a mile.
Sanders absolutely nailed it, that unless we have the guts to take on the insurance companies, oil companies, drug companies, etc, nothing will change.*
In the first debate, Warren was the winner, though Tulsi Gabbard made the best foreign policy points against considerable pressure, and Tulsi is still my preferred candidate of the two for her anti war positions. Despite not raising her hand regarding Insurance companies, a big mistake IMO, Tulsi has a longer history of endoring Medicare for All than Warren. But it was indicative of the slight hedging that weakened Tulsi's performance, leading me to declare Warren the debate winner. Still, Warren lacked the force, still sounding a bit wonkish (though--it was her best performance in that regards ever) rather than recognizing the identity and strength of the forces arrayed against truly progressive proposals.
*Sanders has also been clear that he alone could not do this. But he has been committed to fighting the corporations since the beginning of his career decades ago. In this regards, he is by far the most trustworthy of all candidates. People who fear a Democratic Socialist becoming President should grow beyond the McCarthy era, and realize the best of this country was built by socialism, but socialism nowadays isn't democratic socialism, it's socialism for the corporate elite.
We need to restore the vision of people like FDR, who proposed the Four Freedoms. If that was conceivable then, it should be more conceivable now.
Sanders is the only one who comes close to showing the vison, the grit, and the incorruptability of FDR, that made the first New Deal possible. And perhaps Sanders seems even more knowledgable, experienced, and capable of helping us get the rest of the job started.
Sanders absolutely nailed it, that unless we have the guts to take on the insurance companies, oil companies, drug companies, etc, nothing will change.*
In the first debate, Warren was the winner, though Tulsi Gabbard made the best foreign policy points against considerable pressure, and Tulsi is still my preferred candidate of the two for her anti war positions. Despite not raising her hand regarding Insurance companies, a big mistake IMO, Tulsi has a longer history of endoring Medicare for All than Warren. But it was indicative of the slight hedging that weakened Tulsi's performance, leading me to declare Warren the debate winner. Still, Warren lacked the force, still sounding a bit wonkish (though--it was her best performance in that regards ever) rather than recognizing the identity and strength of the forces arrayed against truly progressive proposals.
*Sanders has also been clear that he alone could not do this. But he has been committed to fighting the corporations since the beginning of his career decades ago. In this regards, he is by far the most trustworthy of all candidates. People who fear a Democratic Socialist becoming President should grow beyond the McCarthy era, and realize the best of this country was built by socialism, but socialism nowadays isn't democratic socialism, it's socialism for the corporate elite.
We need to restore the vision of people like FDR, who proposed the Four Freedoms. If that was conceivable then, it should be more conceivable now.
Sanders is the only one who comes close to showing the vison, the grit, and the incorruptability of FDR, that made the first New Deal possible. And perhaps Sanders seems even more knowledgable, experienced, and capable of helping us get the rest of the job started.
