Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings -- including those of us who run for office -- I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/the-oct-13-democratic-debate-who-said-what-and-what-it-means/

I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans.

- “If Hillary is elected president of the United States, it’s gonna be $500 billion, and that’s fine,” Fine says in interview, referring to Senate Banking Chairman Richard Shelby’s proposal to raise Dodd-Frank asset threshold for designating banks as systemically risky to $500b from $50b

- “She’s gonna all of a sudden become Mrs. Wall Street if she’s elected. So it’s all Bernie theatrics right now. She’s a Clinton, for God’s sake. What do you expect?”: Fine


- Clinton campaign officials didn’t immediately return Morning Consult call seeking comment

- Fine, head of Independent Community Bankers of America, also says he believes Senate Banking Cmte Republicans and Democrats could reach compromise on Shelby’s Dodd-Frank revamp bill, S. 1484, if proposed SIFI threshold for regulating “systemically important” financial firms was lowered to $200b from $500b

- Related: Clinton Shows She ‘Best’ Understands Wall Street: Guggenheim; Shelby Says ‘Got a Shot’ on Dodd-Frank Revamp Bill: WSJ

http://morningconsult.com/2015/10/some-bankers-dont-buy-what-clinton-is-selling/

"...I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard," Clinton said. "It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, ‘this will help raise your wages.’ And I concluded I could not...."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/what-hillary-clinton-really-said-about-tpp-and-gol/

For the non-Hillary Rodham Clinton, non-Bernie Sanders Democrats participating in the first debate on Tuesday night, there was one goal: Get noticed. A look at the candidates being searched on Google during the debate shows that one candidate managed to do that...Bernie Sanders.

….

Sanders repeatedly saw spikes in Google interest after he spoke. After his intro. After he talked about guns. After basically everything else he said.

What’s more, Sanders actually overpowered the long-term king of Google, Donald Trump. During the debate, Sanders continually attracted more Google interest than Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/the-candidate-breaking-through-in-the-democratic-debate-bernie-sanders/

The internationally illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq was “the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country,” Bernie Sanders declared, in a jab at Hillary Clinton, who supported the disastrous war. Sparks were flying Tuesday night in the first 2015 Democratic presidential debate. Foreign policy, the second issue addressed (after guns), was not a big topic of discussion overall, but it was here that large differences between candidates were visible. Hillary Clinton — who supported the Iraq War; previously defended torture; applauded the bombing of Libya, famously remarking “We came, we saw, he died” after Qadhafi was killed; and oversaw the U.S. drone war, in which targets are assassinated without charge or trial — has a reputation of being a war hawk. Although she toned down some of her views in the debate, many of her hawkish foreign policy positions were quite reminiscent of those of mainstream Republicans.



Like most Republicans, Clinton said she wants the U.S. to “take more of a leadership position” in the world militarily. Sanders, on the other hand, explicitly opposed unilateral U.S. military action and called for working with regional coalitions in conflict-ridden areas. Clinton’s right-leaning tendencies were most evident in her discussion of Iran. She reserved particular ire for the country — which was mentioned 14 times in the debate. In the most egregious moment, when she was asked “which enemy are you most proud of,” Clinton proudly replied “the Iranians.” She boasted multiple times about having imposed sanctions on Iran. When asked about Russia, Clinton proudly said that she worked with former President Medvedev to force sanctions on Iran. When her foreign policy positions were later questioned, she again bragged about her work “putting together that coalition to impose sanctions on Iran.”


~snip~

Every candidate on stage save for Jim Webb — a little-known former senator from Virginia with right-wing views — supported the Iran nuclear deal, which will halt U.S. and European sanctions on Iran in return for a series of strict restrictions on its nuclear program. Clinton, however, has only critically supported the agreement, with caveats. Like her Republican counterparts, she has also insisted that the Obama administration has “not done enough” militarily to counter Russian and Iranian influence in the region. Clinton’s ill feelings toward Iran were made very clear. Yet no one in the debate called her out on her fearmongering and defense of sanctions. The other candidates did, however, hold Clinton’s feet to the fire on Iraq. Iraq was mentioned 19 times in the debate — more than any country except for Syria. Lincoln Chafee, a former Rhode Island senator and governor with a small following, agreed with Sanders’ assessment of the illegal U.S. war in Iraq, which he perhaps hyperbolically called “the worst decision in American history.”



In a jab at Clinton, Chafee said he knew in 2002 “there was no real evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — I know because I did my homework.” Clinton tried to avoid Iraq every time it was brought up, and sought to distance herself from her support for the illegal U.S. invasion. Her support for the catastrophic war — which left at least one millions people dead; destroyed the country; and destabilized the region, creating the chaotic c0nditions in which al-Qaeda rapidly spread and out of which ISIS emerged — was the largest egg on her face. In 2002, when the war was being considered, Sanders was one of its most outspoken opponents. In the debate, Sanders pointed out that much of what he predicted 13 years ago in fact came true. “I say, without any joy in my heart, that much of what I thought would happen about the destabilization, in fact, did happen.” Sanders, who also voted against the 1990 Gulf War, maintained that, from working with veterans, “I learned a very powerful lesson about the cost of war, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that the United States does not get involved in another quagmire like we did in Iraq.” The democratic socialist, whose popularity is rapidly growing and whose anti-corporate grassroots campaign has taken the country by storm, established himself as the most anti-militarist candidate.



cont'

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/hillary_is_still_the_democrat_for_war_she_won_the_debate_but_her_bellicosity_toward_iran_sounded_very_dangerous/

On CNN, which sponsored the debate, a majority in a post-debate focus group said Sanders was the victor. The Vermont senator was the most popular candidate among a group of young registered Democrats in a Fusion focus group. “Bernie was on fire the whole night,” according to a 24-year-old named Chauncey, who told Fusion he went into the debate undecided. And on Fox News, pollster Frank Luntz talked to Democratic voters in Florida who called him “strong” and “straightforward” and “powerful.”

Democrats have a surprisingly competitive race for their presidential nomination, and if you watched their announced candidates debate Tuesday night, you saw why. Not because the candidates, like their Republican counterparts, spent much time and effort attacking one another; they didn't. And not because Hillary Rodham Clinton suffered grievous wounds or damaged her standing; she didn't.


No, what came closest to electrifying the night was a Vermont senator, a self-described democratic socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, and who probably can't get elected president. Bernie Sanders demonstrated time and again Tuesday night why he's the force vector in this race. If you watched, you now know why he attracts the huge crowds, the money, the energy of rank-and-file Democrats — a party to which he doesn't even belong. You also know why he gives Clinton conniptions. While she behaved like the front-runner — confident, competent, comfortable — Sanders was connecting with the audience. He even managed to profit from a Clinton problem while tacitly excusing her from it: "The American people," he said, "are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!" Sanders wanted to talk about issues that trouble Americans.


Clinton surely believes she had a good night. But her answer to the first question — essentially, given her flip-flops, would she say anything to get elected? — betrayed her agenda: the cautious politics of addition. She first pivoted to an earnest non sequitur; she would, she said, heal an America riven by economic inequality, racial divides, gender inequities. Pressed on whether she would commit to being a progressive or a moderate, she straddled: "I'm a progressive, but I'm a progressive who likes to get things done."


Sanders, though, had a better night. Much as Republican debates showcased Donald Trump, this debate showcased Sanders' authenticity. The notion of anyone asking if he would change positions to win votes is preposterous. Sanders is the reason Democrats have a serious primary race. And he came across Tuesday night as a candidate who believes what he believes and won't waffle. He voiced positions that will give some Democrats pause; he isn't a pacifist, he said, and as commander in chief wouldn't hesitate to take America to war. Clinton, meanwhile, answered a challenge to her Senate vote for war in Iraq not with a defense or an apology, but by invoking President Barack Obama: Even after that vote, he chose her as secretary of state. Sorry, but it sounded lame.



cont'

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-democratic-debate-clinton-sanders-edit-1014-20151013-story.html