By Robert A. Vella

Last night, the three remaining Democratic Party candidates for president debated in New Hampshire.  This was their third debate leading up to the 2016 election.  It was moderated by ABC News.  Here’s what I learned:

For the first third of the debate, ABC’s moderators exhibited a quite obvious conservative bias in its line of questioning and in its citing dubious polls regarding Americans’ attitudes on terrorism and gun control.

The candidates were very animated, and they performed very well.

The debate covered a broad range of topics, and each candidate gave – for the most part – substantive and informative answers.

The most enlightening discussion covered the turmoil in the Middle East.  Of particular note were two Hillary Clinton responses which firmly convinced me that the U.S.’s highest priority in the region is not the destruction of the Sunni Muslim Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS, ISIL), but to oppose the Shiite Muslim regimes in Iran and Syria – as well as the Hezbollah militant organization in Lebanon – to which Israel is most fearful.  Listen to her answers very carefully and judge for yourself.

Further reading and videos of the debate:  Why Bernie Sanders Is Running for President


7 thoughts on “What I learned from the third Democratic Party presidential debate

  1. I know that it sounds like an echo from the candidates on Saturday, but any objective viewer should conclude that the substance of the discussion exceeds anything we get from hours on end of the R’s TV shows. I so badly want the R’s to actually start discussing the issues rather than themselves or the others on the stage.


  2. I was hoping you’d say something about Martin O’Malley 🙂 (You’re no doubt among the few Americans who realize Canadians (like everyone else in the ‘western world’) will be profoundly impacted by whoever is chosen!)


    • My apologies, I just didn’t have the time to explore this debate as comprehensively as I did for the earlier two. However, I can predict with reasonable certainty that Sanders has little chance to win the nomination, and O’Malley even less so.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I had watched an O’Malley talk and he seemed smart, rational, and ‘on the right side of history’… It’ll be interesting (if sometimes scary) to watch things evolve over the next few months!


    • It’s interesting that a Canadian such as yourself is focusing on O’Malley when he is getting little attention from Americans, and I think it reveals how polarized politics has become in the U.S.

      The centrist, status quo candidate in Clinton versus the socialist reformer, Sanders – King Kong vs Godzilla. Oh, the humanity!

      If it’s any consolation, I’ve changed my mind about O’Malley. Initially, I suspected he might have been an agent provocateur for the Clinton campaign. But after these three debates, I’m beginning to see him as the best Democratic candidate for president.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s