Clinton is being very specific while the other two are very vague in their responses

[hill2016]

Speaks to her depth of experience

[DCBob]

1. My wife just made that same comment.

Hillary is able to speak in such detail about complex foreign policy issues.

[yeoman6987]

8. She is killing it. MOM is embarrassing. Bernie is ok.

[MADem]

11. I agree. She's the one with the specifics and the details. nt

[Hortensis]

18. I agree. HRC positions typically are honorably specific.

And generally considered achievable.

Too honest for most on both the far left, who want far more than can be achieved, and on the right, who have been deluded into believing dismantling is achieving.

[Kentonio]

22. If you want to achieve progress..

Then the last thing you do in this age is start out with the very minimum you think can be achieved. The entire GOP strategy for the last 8 years has been to come to the table demanding the entire meal, and then both sides claiming victory when the GOP only get the main course and dessert.

You go up against the GOP with small demands and they'll make a consession to their ridiculous initial demands and then scream about how the Dems aren't willing to compromise. With this group of GOP crazies you fight big or you accept the inevitable slide to the right we're all sick of.

[Hortensis]

48. The big question for all of us, except those who have no

question of course, is how much can be achieved.

How can we know that now when so much depends on what happens with Congress, who controls the Senate and House? We do know that most red states will stay red and even more determinedly anti- government and anti- progressivism. Hundreds of millions of dollars in private money will continue to be invested in the sabotage of movements for change. We know that too.

If the strategy you describe worked on Congress and the various red state legislatures, though, I'm sure it'd be SOP. We are talking about professionals here, after all, who know going in just how much they may be able to accomplish and how in each individual situation.

BTW, that is one advantage the Democratic Party has. We've won some good ones over the years because the GOP has run off some of their most experienced people in its march to the far right - and because the far right is not where the best minds are found.

[Kentonio]

50. No we don't know that the red states will stay as they are or get worse.

That's the whole point of having elections. If the DNC hadn't basically written off the south and allowed the GOP to completely dominate from the lowest levels up, this stuff wouldn't even be up for discussion right now. it can change, and it will change when we get leadership who thinks that allowing Republicans to run basically uncontested ANYWHERE is completely unacceptable.

As for 'If it was a good idea, they'd be doing it', the Republicans ARE doing it and it's been paying off massively for them. If the Democratic party leaders have a cunning genius strategy, they've done a damn good job of keeping it secret so far. The party need to stop crying about electability and start fighting for things people actually believe in. Because unless you didn't notice, in 8 years we've gone from a completely blue congress to a completely red one.

The GOP aren't anything special, they're a bunch of lying hucksters screaming at the seagulls. Don't be reasonable and try and work with them, fight them, call them out on their lies all day and every day, and make sure the public are hearing Democrat truths as often as they're hearing Republican lies.

[Hortensis]

51. If works for the GOP because we want to accomplish

SOMETHING. It doesn't work against the GOP because they win politically if they accomplish NOTHING.

Half this country has become convinced (to various degrees from misguided to batshit crazy) that the government our founding fathers intended no longer exists, that it has become the enemy of the people, and that its actions are inevitably destructive of the good and natural order that tends to prevail when not interfered with.

This is the reality our politicians have to deal with.

As for your last sentence, I agree we can never overdo that even though most of it's like spitting into the wind. It's not that people aren't told truths constantly, it's that they don't hear them. Some are not interested, some refuse to believe and ardently embrace lies.

I believe we are finally at a point where 30 years of unheard truths are finally making themselves FELT and forcing change, but that doesn't mean a majority of our electorate isn't still clueless about what went wrong. Their fault -- not that of those who've spent decades begging them to examine the truth -- as evidenced by their angry GIGO doubling down with people like Trump and Carson, but this is also reality and shouting louder won't make it just go away.

Quite the opposite -- present a person with indisputable facts that prove a significant belief wrong, and he will embrace the wrong belief twice as strongly. We know that now, because we've been trying to find out WHY truth is worth so little to so many.

[Kentonio]

52. They don't hear them

Because we assume people aren't stupid enough to believe the wildest crap the GOP come out with. So instead of shouting back, we shake our heads and wait for common sense to win through. That isn't working, which is why a shouting Sanders is finally getting peoples attention on both sides of the political divide.

[Hortensis]

53. No, that was our position for the first 20 years -- our

conservative friends are smart and decent in other areas of life and they will come to their senses. THEY DID NOT. They got lost in Fox-world, becoming even less connected with reality, and we now know most may never find their way back.

Bernie is extra popular now, not because his views didn't always reflect those of many on the left, but because a critical mass of additional people has finally gotten unhappy enough to be angry and want change. For many, any change will do as long as it screws over those they've belatedly decided were betraying them (while they weren't paying attention).

It's not "shouting" that drew their attention to Bernie, it's that Bernie presents his message with absolute certitude in very few words. Like Trump, in fact, who is appealing to similarly angry voters on the right. Angry people like these don't want to think, they want a strong-sounding leader who promises in simple terms to kick establishment ass, or Jewish ass, or whatever it is they've decided to blame for all their problems.

[madaboutharry]

2. She has a big advantage from having been Sec. Of State.

O'Malley is doing well.

[JonLeibowitz]

3. And yet she is wrong so very often.

At least she is specifically wrong.

[AgingAmerican]

4. She sounds word salady to me

Rambling

[hill2016]

6. yup

it can be hard to keep up with her quick thinking and grasp of facts as many opponents have found.

[AgingAmerican]

7. lol

[Hortensis]

19. It seems to me like you have chosen not to hear the words.

HRC has chosen to battle accusations of dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness from the RIGHT and the ANTI-DEMOCRATS by offering very specific proposals, filled with explanations and details.

I've been impressed by the specificity of those careful explanations of what she wants and feels she can do and am, frankly, disgusted at hearing that called "word salad," an interpretation I believe is frankly dishonest.

And I don't mean "I believe" the way the tobacco executives used it. I do believe you should adjust your attitudes and re-read all the candidates' positions -- for their true meanings. After all, one of them is going to be your president and set much of this nation's course for the rest of your lives.

[NurseJackie]

25. +1

Well stated.

[AgingAmerican]

44. To me she sounded like someone without expert knowlege

Trying to sound like an expert by being overly wordy. The result was word salady.

[Hortensis]

47. "Overly wordy" is an interesting description of specificity.

(I'll do you the kindness of assuming you weren't suggesting HRC was schizophrenic. That would be very bad.)

You're not alone in your dislike of complex sentences. Donald Trump's followers appreciate his lack of over-wordiness: I'll beat ISIS and it'll be beautiful.

If that's what you want too, Aging, I agree HRC's positions on a long list of issues (very clearly stated on her official website) are not for you. My guess, though, is you just wanted to complain about someone you don't like. After all, those who hang at DU plunge repeatedly into unending word salad, wallow in it even.

[Scuba]

5. Her experience of being wrong over and over again? No thanks.

[putitinD]

9. Maybe President Sanders should make Hillary Sec. of Staate again.

[scscholar]

17. I hope

I so hope. So hope.

[bigtree]

10. she's also filibustering a bit

...basically defending and repeating administration policy.

Speaks to her experience, yes.

[azmom]

12. She's was specifically wrong on that Iraq vote.

[mcar]

13. That's my take too

[DURHAM D]

14. One of the candidates is speaking to us like we are

adults and can understand complicated issues. The other two are just pandering.

[Codeine]

15. +1

[bkkyosemite]

16. She is wordy to take up time.

She is called on more frequently. Obvious.

[Beacool]

20. Of course she knows more about foreign policy.

She was the SOS, for goodness sakes!!! The opposition may try to beef up on the subject, but she had four years of being in charge of the nation's foreign policy, they can't compete with that level of knowledge.

[Kentonio]

23. I'm sure she does know more

But knowledge and policy creation are very different things. I actually thought she did pretty well as SOS, but I still wouldn't like her to be leading the countries foreign policy making rather than implementing it.

[Beacool]

24. Hillary will do fine.

All this hand wringing and hyperbole (by some) is just ridiculous. She's a level headed and thoughtful individual.

[peacebird]

29. Who was fooled into supporting the IWR by Bush? And laughingly said "we came, we saw, he died"?

Level headed? Thoughtful? Sniper fire at the airport? Knowing there was video coverage of the greeting ceremony?

911/woman/WallStreet as her explanation for why the bankers give so much money to her campaign? Level headed? Thoughtful?

The marines wouldn't take me?

In the end "we came, we saw, he died" she said LAUGHING.... Thoughtful? No.

[Beacool]

32. I don't feel like arguing with you.

Vote for Sanders, I'll vote for Hilary and let the chips fall where they may.

[Armstead]

30. And the world is such a happy peaceful place right now

[Beacool]

33. Yes, because if Sanders was in the WH, peace would reign in the world.

[Armstead]

34. No, but at the moment things are not going real well

And if you're running on the record...you look at where we are.

Not saying she's solely to blame....but being there and being effective are not the same thing

[Beacool]

35. I trust Hillary on foreign policy a lot more than I trust Sanders.

It's matter of opinion.

[Armstead]

38. True, true. A matter of opinion.

Me, I would trust Bernie to bring on experts who have not been enmeshed in neo-con policies for all these decades.

But you trust your candidate and I'll trust mine. Ain't democracy grand?

[AtomicKitten]

21. She evades the questions posed & goes off on what she wants to talk about.

[Juicy_Bellows]

26. I really don't like that often used tactic no matter who does it.

When I was a kid it used to piss me off to no end when anyone (parents, teachers etc.) tried to pull that shit - now it's mostly politicians.

[R B Garr]

31. No. It's the other way around. Sanders only answers

and engages based on his stump speech. That was evident from the start when he rushed through an opening question about the Paris bombings and started talking about billionaires.

His continuous loop of Wall Street ramblings after Hillary had just finished a complete answer about influence from her donors also comes to mind. Good for her that she finally put a stop to his stream of vague accusations and ramblings about her entire career and stood up for herself.

Twice now, his stump speech and standard talking points are his crutch.

He has a limited range on the national stage. Hillary is masterful.

[AtomicKitten]

37. nine

eleven

[R B Garr]

39. I guess I'm a big fan of taking things in context.

She had just answered completely a question about influence from donors, and Bernie started in with vague accusations and ramblings about donations from Wall Street over her "entire career" which began in early 2000s. Why can he talk about her entire career, but she can't.

I had to listen to it in the car first on a long drive home without the visuals of body language, she really came off as in command of the situation. Very strong compared to her rivals.

[AtomicKitten]

40. uh huh

She was asked about all the $$$ she gets from Wall Street and how that influences her, and her response was women, 9/11.

eom

[R B Garr]

41. She already answered that completely, amd

then Sanders started in with his ramblings about her "entire career" (his words). So she answered.

It is around the 1:01 to 1:03 hour mark if you have it recorded.

[AtomicKitten]

42. Nope.

[Hepburn]

36. I have to totally agree with that...

...and it is irritating as all heck. She talks and talks and avoids answering...or goes into a rehearsed speech.

JMHO

[winter is coming]

43. +1. She rarely gives a straight answer.

Usually, she completely dodges the question. The rest of the time, her answers are chock full of weasel words. She talks a lot to take up space but doesn't actually say much.

[MaggieD]

27. Yes, and it is obvious in the debates

[Armstead]

28. Honestly? IMO she says a lot, and at the end I scatch my head because there is no "there" there.

I'll concede, Bernie is too much "on message." He needs to put more specifics and blarney in his speeches and debates and interviews.

But I'm not much impressed by Clinton. Sure she says a lot, and tosses out facts and figures. But there's very little connective tissue holding it all together. It begins to sound like word salad.

She says a lot of stuff that no one (at least not any non-hardcore Republicans) can really disagree with. But not much substance when you analyze it after it's over.

And a lot of "this is an issue that requires further study" and "this is a very complex issue and there are no easy answers" and "I intend to give full consideration to this matter and weigh all of the options and develop solutions..."

Or things that might not mean as they sound. "I do not envision having to do that, but if circumstances warrent it I will not leave anything off the table..."

[Cha]

45. Yes, it does, hill. Hillary is absolutely the best all around candidate we have in 2016.

[joeybee12]

46. knr..the bile from the sanders side

is getting worse. ..desperation is sinking in

[NCTraveler]

49. There is a stark difference....

in the knowledge of Clinton and O'Malley when compared to Sanders of foreign issues. Sanders is simply uneducated with respect to affairs outside of our borders.