I Was a Warren Supporter; Was Bernie Hard Done By in the January Debate?

I say I've been supporting Warren because that'll get rid of the Bernie supporters who were never going to shrug off their self-perception as downtrodden underdogs. They aren't going to read this and I'd rather they fuck off and find that one fault they need as a pretext to disregard the rest of this. Adios, morons.

For the rest of you reasonable people, I'm going to go down the questions, see how hard they are and judge in aggregate. I could assign a score from one to five, but ultimately this is all subjective. I have subjective judgement.

And if we can all agree on that, we can all agree that you have subjective judgment as well. People notoriously have a double-standard for what is considered 'fair' for their candidate and the same question can read unfairly to different people. My take is that CNN hosted the debate where everything was said and opted to put the screws to folks just so something would happen. They were hard on everyone last night and everyone will take it personally.

Going off of the transcript from the Des Moines Register, let's get to it:

BLITZER: All right, so let's begin right now. Just this month, the United States and Iran were on the brink of war, which has reignited the debate over America's role in the world and which of you is best prepared to be commander-in-chief. So let's have the debate right now. Sen. Sanders, why are you best prepared — the best prepared person on this stage to be commander-in-chief?

God, CNN should just get off of Bernie's dick already. The presumption! That he would be the best prepared commander in chief! Progressives much, CNN?

BLITZER: Vice President Biden, you talk a lot about your experience, but some of your competitors have taken issue with that experience, questioning your judgment in voting to authorize the Iraq war. Why are you the best prepared person on this stage to be commander-in-chief?

Yes, of course I was just being facetious before. They're going to ask everyone that. The questions ask the candidates to back up their (presumed) assertions.

BLITZER: Sen. Sanders, you have been attacking Vice President Biden's vote on the Iraq war, but you recently acknowledged that your vote to authorize the war in Afghanistan was also a mistake. So you both acknowledged mistakes. Why should the American people trust your judgment more?

So now we're back on Sanders with a prepared question. Not a "response, Senator Sanders" type of volley. Given that Sanders' "I make good votes and could therefore competently execute a war I don't like" answer has been his pat answer since, like, 2003, it is notable that CNN opted to draw that out of him, swing to Biden, and then swing back to Bernie with a rebuttal that Biden failed to make.

BLITZER: Sen. Klobuchar, you've publicly questioned Mayor Buttigieg's experience when it comes to being commander-in-chief. Why is your time as a U.S. senator more valuable than his time as a U.S. naval intelligence officer in Afghanistan and as mayor?

This is a salient question, and if you don't give a shit about Klobuchar or Buttigieg, then you might not notice that it specifically pits them against each other, asking her to define her qualifications in terms of another candidate's flaws. It's not even a tough-but-fair question; it's throwing a dollar between them in the hope they fight.

To her credit, she defers to Buttigieg's military experience, underlies her own, and takes a swing at Trump.

BLITZER: Thank you, Sen. Klobuchar. We're going to continue talking about who's best prepared to be commander-in-chief. Mayor Buttigieg?

I checked the D&D alignment chart and that question is rated True Neutral. Is he getting pass because he's a veteran or because he has no experience upon which to call him out?

BLITZER: Sen. Warren, in our new CNN/Des Moines Register poll, almost a third of your supporters say your ability to lead the military is more of a weakness than a strength of yours. Why are you best prepared to be commander-in-chief?

Blitzer mentioned the poll because without that, it is a sexist question. Because voters are sexist. None of these people are going to get on the front lines, but Warren's voice and stature read as frailty to some folks. That has no bearing on her ability to read reports and make strategic decisions--just like our current president's inability to run for more than five feet without getting winded does--but some voters vote on that.

It's a hard question and an ugly question.

BLITZER: Mr. Steyer, you worked in finance for decades and have never held elected office. Why should voters believe you have the experience or judgment to serve as commander-in-chief?

That's a pretty soft "why the fuck are you here, man", but then I have contempt for vanity runs by billionaires. Almost any Steyer question is going to read as too soft to me.

BLITZER: Sen. Sanders, in the wake of the Iran crisis, Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei has again called for all U.S. troops to be pulled out of the Middle East, something you've called for, as well. Yet when American troops last left Iraq, ISIS emerged and spread terror across the Middle East and, indeed, around the world. How would you prevent that from happening again?

"A (nominal) enemy of the US has asked for policy X. You support policy X." Is a fucked-up framing. The rest of the question is fair. "What you're asking is dramatic. Dramatic things have consequences. Explain," is a reasonable question.

"Why do you agree with the Ayatollah?" adds zero value.

BLITZER: Vice President Biden?
[Biden answers]
BLITZER: So just to be clear, Vice President Biden, would you leave troops in the Middle East or would you pull them out?

Pushing Vice President Biden to answer the question is fine moderation, but because he wants to keep troops in the middle east, he's backing the status quo and has nothing to explain. Blitzer's clarification question just makes it clear to us that he won't remove troops, the least challenging outcome of this exchange.

BLITZER: Sen. Klobuchar, what's your response?

Pretty simple. Now that these debates are a manageable size, we can go around the table.Pretty

BLITZER: Sen. Warren, leave combat troops, at least some combat troops in the Middle East, or bring them home?

Same question, but with more direction.

BLITZER: Vice President Biden, is Sen. Warren right?  

I can't see what's happening on the stage from the transcript. Maybe Biden put his hand up. Warren talked about alternatives to military force and how troops in foreign countries don't necessarily keep us safer. No direct mention of Biden so I'm not sure why we're looking to him for rebuttal.

He doesn't really address anything specifically about Warren's points. Free turn for Biden.

BLITZER: Mayor Buttigieg, you served in Afghanistan. Who's right? 

Plays on his relevant experience.

BLITZER: Sen. Sanders?

I feel like Sanders already answered this one. They give him a free turn here.

BLITZER: We're going to get to everyone, but, Vice President Biden, you criticized President Trump's decision to kill the Iranian general, Soleimani, without first going to Congress. Are there any circumstances, other than a direct attack on the United States, where you would take military action without congressional approval?
[Biden talks about troop levels in the middle east]
BLITZER: Mr. Vice President, just to be clear, the Obama-Biden administration did not ask Congress for permission multiple times when it took military action. So would the Biden doctrine be different?

Biden gets another free turn, then answers the question that they had a broad authorization to go into Iran. That answer gives us the difference between rogue presidential action against Iran and military operations under Obama.

BLITZER: Mayor Buttigieg?

We're starting another lap on the table on this military authorization question. But the pass is explicitly about the authorization that Obama acted under. Buttigeig answers that question.

BLITZER: Thank you. Sen. Warren — we're going to get to everyone — but, Sen. Warren, what about you? Are there any circumstances, other than a direct attack on the United States, where you would take military action without congressional approval?

This one is a bit t-ed up, to retrain focus on the broader issue of force authorization. But it's not challenging and Blitzer covers the "obviously not in case of a direct attack" ground-level assumptions.

But neither Sanders nor Klobuchar get questions on force authorization, so I don't know what "We're going to get everyone" was supposed to mean. They would have said yes, so I'm not even sure why they were asked.

Wait, why was Warren asked then? All they did was ask her why she looked weak on the military and then set her up to be the only one that said her policy was not to take military action. That's fucked.

BLITZER: Mr. Steyer, would a President Steyer use military force as a deterrent? And if not, under what circumstances would you take military action?

Steyer got skipped on the "troops in the Middle East question" and the "force authorization" question and gets his own question. Presumably one that comes with the premium subscription. He pivots to Austrailian wildfires because the man has a message.

PHILLIP: Mayor Buttigieg, another critical issue you'd face as president is the threat of nuclear weapons. Last week, President Trump said, quote, "As long as I am president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon." Would a President Buttigieg make that same promise?
[Buttigeig responds.]
PHILLIP: Continue.
[Buttigeig continues.]
PHILLIP: Mayor Buttigieg, to be clear, would you allow Iran to become a nuclear power, yes or no?

This is the same shadiness as asking Sanders if he agrees with the Ayatollah and it's a stupid question, because it's asking how much of a priority stopping Iran from having the bomb is. And for Buttigeig, this one is personal for him.

That said that answer is so simple, he feels he doesn't need to say it and talks about joint cooperation and Trump to the point the moderator has to pin him down on a yes/no.

PHILLIP: Thank you, Mayor Buttigieg. Thank you, Mayor Buttigieg. Sen. Klobuchar, if you become president, it's very possible there won't be an Iran nuclear deal for the United States to rejoin. Given that, how would you prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon?

They presume no one will "let" Iran have a nuclear weapon and give Klobuchar the "mechanics" question instead of the "policy question." It's grittier than what Buttigeig got and makes his question look soft in comparison.

PHILLIP: Vice President Biden, I want to ask you about North Korea. President Trump has met with Kim Jong-un three times. President Obama once said he would meet with North Korea without any preconditions. Would you meet with North Korea without any preconditions?

 And we're back to "policy questions." To Biden's credit he pivots to mechanics, but he doesn't get bonus points because he answered the question he should have been asked. Phillip is doing a Lightning Round here, except it's nowhere near as impactful as lightning.

It's a Marshmallow Bag Opened Clumsily Round.

PHILLIP: Mr. Steyer, would you meet with North Korea without any preconditions?

LOL. I didn't see this one and I haven't read the answer yet, but it's fun to imagine Steyer complimenting North Korea's carbon footprint.

He gives the easy answer to the easy question though.

PFANNENSTIEL: Thank you. [Steyer goes on a bit.] Thank you, Mr. Steyer. Let's stay with the theme of America's role in the world and talk about trade. Tomorrow, President Trump is expected to sign phase one of a trade agreement with China. And the Senate will likely soon approve a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada, Iowa's largest trading partners. Sen. Sanders, you have said that new deal, the USMCA, quote, "makes some modest improvements," yet you are going to vote against it. Aren't modest improvements better than no improvements...[Sanders begins speaking]...for the farmers and manufacturers who have been devastated here in Iowa?

When two men talk over a woman moderator in her first at-bat...c'mon guys.

PFANNENSTIEL: But, Sen. Sanders, to be clear, the AFL-CIO supports this deal. Are you unwilling to compromise?

Sanders spoke about how the bill was expected to cause a loss of jobs and had zero provisions for climate change. The AFL-CIO's support is salient, but Sanders' issues were a lot bigger than that.

I, personally, am worried about Sanders' ability to compromise. His ability to execute on laws that he doesn't feel are right or just. But if you want to engage Sanders on that point, this tack wasn't it, chief. It's not neutral or fair or even a hard question. It's aggressive, especially in light of:

PFANNENSTIEL: We're going to get to climate change, but I'd like to stay on trade. Sen. Warren [Sanders interjects]Sen. Warren, you support the USMCA. Why is Sen. Sanders wrong?

When he follows up on his remarks regarding climate change, we get a dismissal of his climate change concerns of the bill. Maybe this Iowa reporter is garbage, y'all.

The turn to pit Warren versus Sanders is something we saw earlier with Klobuchar and Buttigeig, so I'd expect any combination of "X, why is Y wrong?"

Once.

Twice if it's between frontrunners Biden and Sanders.

PFANNENSTIEL: Thank you. Sen. Sanders, can you please respond to Sen. Warren?

No, this isn't an extension of "X, why is Y wrong?" it's part of the rebuttal process in these debates.

PFANNENSTIEL: Sen. Klobuchar, I'd like to bring you in here.

In a conversation ostensibly about trade and quietly about practicality versus idealism, Klobuchar is your pick to pull in.

PFANNENSTIEL: Thank you. [Klobuchar continues] Thank you, Sen. Klobuchar. [Klobuchar returns] Sen. Klobuchar, your time is up. [Klobuchar: Rise of the Klobuchar] Mayor Buttigieg, do you support the USMCA, yes or no? 

Now we're doing roundtable. To Buttigeig. A "policy question" that lets him fill time however he chooses.

Buttigeig's only "in" here is that he's from the midwest. It matches out sotto voice theme of principles, in that it lets Buttigeig look capable of 'compassionate compromise' or whatever you want to call it.

Biden and Steyer were both better picks. Why were they not roped into this? Maybe Biden was left out so lower-tier candidates could talk. But you and I both know for a damned fact that if Steyer had been called in he woulda brought up climate change.

Imma check his website for his stance on USMCA right quick.

Okay, I couldn't find any positions on his site and according to the articles I found, he supported it up until December and now opposes it completely based on his climate change stance.

So yeah. Shady to call on Sanders, disregard half of his argument, then call on three people who disagree with him.

PFANNENSTIEL: Thank you, Mayor Buttigieg. [Buttigeig continues] Vice President Biden, Sen. Sanders has said that Donald Trump will, quote, “eat your lunch” for voting yes on what he calls terrible trade agreements. When it comes to trade, why are you the best candidate to take on President Trump?

Now we're back to the questions that work on the assumptions of the candidates. But "we" aren't "Pfannenstiel." She lead with her own conclusions with Sanders, "Aren't modest improvements better than no improvements for the farmers and manufacturers who have been devastated here in Iowa?"

See, if you pick one of those "Why are you the best..." or "Isn't X better than your position?" Then you've got an editorial voice, a principled approach to the questions you're asking. When you switch between both, you've got an agenda.

Biden backtracks to answer that question he wasn't roped into, but barely talks about Sanders.

PFANNENSTIEL: Sen. Sanders?

PFANNENSTIEL: Mr. Vice president, what's your response?

We're getting volleyed back to Biden. Maybe he raised his hand. I don't know.

No one is addressing the Trump question. It's a general conversation on trade and Pfannenstiel doesn't seem to care.

PFANNENSTIEL: Sen. Warren?

I'm not sure if this is our third Biden/Sanders exchange as it's now a brawl.

PFANNENSTIEL: Thank you, Sen. Warren. [Warren continues] (CROSSTALK) I would like to bring in Mr. Steyer here.

Will anyone not interrupt this woman?

PFANNENSTIEL: Mayor Buttigieg, your response?

Is anything not a personal issue for this guy? Klobuchar gets left out, but it's starting to feel like a rehash of the first round of Pfannenstiel's questions so it's a wash.

PHILLIP: Let's now turn to — let's now turn to an issue that's come up in the last 48 hours. Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday that — and Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?

Yeah, of course we're going to talk about this. If only because there's nothing else a debate can teach us about these candidates at this point.

But also because it's a serious accusation, and if you think it's not a serious accusation just because it's so wrong, please exit the door to your right for your MAGA hat and "partisan impeachment" talking points.

Everything I've said, about pushing candidates on facts and using their assumptions, gets shucked out of the window here. If other questions had been asked this way, they would have been, "Vice President Biden, Senator Sanders said Trump would 'eat your lunch on trade.' Why are you so garbage at trade?" or "Senator Sanders, why do you refuse to compromise?"

The only reasonable line of logic on this is the simple mantra to "believe women." I think there's a general cultural bias that makes us value things women say less. I mean, look at the interruptions from earlier. I think it's important to model that belief at the highest levels. As a guy, I don't think I get to say when we stop doing it.

But absent that line of logic, it's way out of line in general and counter to the tone and style of this specific debate to ask Sanders why he did something he has categorically refused. Blatantly unacceptable.

I could stop this right here, mostly because this has taken too long already and I'm only about a third done, but I'll do one more.

PHILLIP: So Sen. Sanders — Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you're saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?

SANDERS: That is correct.

PHILLIP: Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?

This is a bad question not because it assumes Warren is telling the truth--that's fair game--but because how Warren feels about that isn't relevant. The alternatives though, "Senator Warren, can a woman win the election?" or "Senator Warren, is Senator Sanders correct? Can a woman not win the election?", have the same contradictions as asking Sanders why he said something he didn't say; you can't ask someone running for president if they can win. Of course they believe can win; that's why they're running.

The question is meaningless and only gives a pretext to put the mic in front of Warren while the crowd screams "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!"

Spectacle aside, "Senator Warren, what do you say to people who believe women can't win?" or "Senator Warren, how important is the concept of 'electability' in our elections?" would have been better questions.

The issue is that we should have used the debate as a tool to challenge both candidates on this issue, but--for good reasons--we don't want to interrogate women harshly over issues of sexism. Someone with a history of advocating for women and womens' issues could have pushed Warren on this and provided value to the nation instead of setting her up for a talking point on women winning elections.

It's embarassing that this debate couldn't competently handle the primary's most important political clash because they didn't have anyone with the feminist credibility to push Warren on her side.

In closing, Sanders is proposing a self-described political revolution. He's going to get pushback. That's why Nazis pretend to not be Nazis, so that they don't get pushback. Bernie's honest so he gets pushback. I don't know if the beatings he gets--and he gets beatings more than the rest--are disproportionate for the changes he wants to make. But from where I'm sitting, he gets the worst of it.