SUMMARY: On Sunday night in St. Louis, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump meet for their second of three televised 90-minute debates. This time, the debate will follow a town meeting format, with voters joining the moderator in asking questions. As NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Jeff Greenfield reports, that format has tripped up many candidates before.
"Shields and Brooks on ‘anticlimactic' Clinton victory, Trump's ‘moral chasm'"
"Watch the second presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump" (1:56:52)
SUMMARY: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump debated for 94 minutes in their first public face-off Monday night. During that time, the candidates rattled off accusations, numbers and “he said, she said” quotes. But what was true, what wasn't and what needed more context? Lisa Desjardins takes a look at the facts behind their claims.
SUMMARY: “The Choice 2016,” a Frontline documentary, takes an up-close and detailed look at the lives of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Starting their stories when they were children, producer and director Michael Kirk lays everything out on the table. Judy Woodruff speaks with him about the making of the film and what it reveals about the two people vying for the Presidency.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the presidential candidates' performances on NBC's “Commander-in-Chief Forum,” as well as that of the forum moderator, plus possible explanations for a tightening in the presidential polls and more.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): But, first, the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Welcome to you both. It's good to see you again.
Let's talk about the presidential campaign.
David, we saw the two candidates together at the same place this week, but not at the same time, at this televised forum that NBC sponsored. What did you make of it, of their performance and what they had to say?
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:I thought they both lost. I thought America lost. Humanity lost. A little piece of my soul died. I thought they…
JUDY WOODRUFF: That bad?
DAVID BROOKS: I thought they both did poorly.
I thought she was evasive and cross and looked like she was imperious and was angry to be challenged. She had plenty of information, but not a lot of relatability and not a lot of humanity and not a lot of vision for foreign policy.
He (Trump), if anything, was a little worse. He is, and as he has wont to do, said about six ridiculous things. The admiration for Putin is of long standing. But to me, the thing that really made me think was his claim that in Iraq we should have left a core of people to take the oil.
Now, that is — first of all, it's impractical, but it's also moral idiocy. Maybe you're selfish and you think, oh, I got some oil and I got some guns, I should take it. But if you go through any realm of education, which is what we try to do with people, you learn that that's called imperialism, that's called plunder. It's morally wrong. It ruins your credibility.
The idea that a big country is going to go out and send troops into some country to take their resources, and then the rest of the world is going to somehow trust us is just a ridiculous notion.
And so he says things that are just plainly ridiculous. But — so that's why was so depressed.
(LAUGHTER)
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Mark, humanity lost as a result of this encounter or this performance this week?
(LAUGHTER)
MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist: Judy, I wasn't — it wasn't Lincoln-Douglas.
(LAUGHTER)
MARK SHIELDS: And most importantly of all, I think David's point about the oil is well-taken. I think it's valid and I think it's true.
That is not the United States. That is pillaging. That is the worst form of imperialism that he's describing. It would mean leaving thousands of Americans there to protect the oil drilling. I mean, it just is — it's indefensible on logistical, moral and political grounds.
But that aside, I think what it did — and you have moderated debates. I have never moderated a debate, Judy, for good reason. But I think it's raised this — Wednesday night, partially because of the unflattering press reaction to Matt Lauer's performance, has raised the stakes for the moderator, who is now put on notice, all of them, that they are not entitled in 2016 to sit there while somebody makes a statement that is factually untrue and is — can be proven false, as Mr. Trump did when he, in fact, said that he had always opposed the United States' war in Iraq.
And I just think that — it's tough to be a moderator. But I think that, given this campaign and the questions about the integrity and honesty of the candidates, and the great doubts about them, I think that is now part of the job description.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including whether the GOP’s nomination process is rigged, takeaways from Thursday’s contentious Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton’s self-defeating secrecy and Sen. Bernie Sanders’s chances in New York.
SUMMARY: Hari Sreenivasan joins syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks to discuss the week in politics, including takeaways from a surprisingly tranquil GOP debate, what’s at stake for trailing candidates in Ohio and Florida, the chances that a brokered RNC convention could stymie Trump and how Bernie Sanders is still hanging tough against Hillary Clinton.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including Donald Trump’s war of words with Pope Francis, GOP candidates’ strategies in South Carolina, burgeoning support for Bernie Sanders in Nevada and the controversy over the late Antonin Scalia’s Supreme Court successor.
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times Columnist:Everything sacred in our world is being attacked.
I think it’s an accumulation of things for Trump. It’s — you start the week attacking George Bush and the Iraq War. You call everybody a liar. Then you have the Pope thing. Then you have the Apple thing.
The question is, will fatigue ever set in? And some of the polls suggest no. In some the polls, he’s still doing solidly. But there are another set of polls. There’s a stream of polls, including the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, which suggest it’s beginning to hurt him and that he’s beginning to slide. There is some exhaustion factor.
So I don’t think it’s one thing that’s — but it’s the accumulation of bombast. And there may be this — we may be getting to the moment — and I thought he was completely unhinged in the debate Saturday night — where that begins to have some telling effect.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Do you see some of the magic maybe dissipating from Donald Trump?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist: Yes, I agree with David, first of all, on the debate.
My only explanation for it is, he was unnerved by the public booing. And the booing was so sustained. And this is a man who feeds off the adulation of his own rallies. There’s no way in the world you planned going into a national debate for Republicans on national television that you were going to suggest — charge, not suggest — charge that the last Republican President of the United States not only knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction, but took the country into war knowing that.
So, it was just — it was really bizarre, beyond. As far as the pope is concerned, it will come as an enormous surprise to Donald Trump that the Pope has probably no idea who he is. The question was, what about someone who advocates building walls, rather than building bridges, and closes off any access or really compassion to those who are suffering from forced migration and the dispossessed?
And the Pope said, that’s un-Christian, and I think by just about any definition. There is an iron rule in American politics about the clergy, whether it’s the Pope or a rabbi, or a minister. And that is, they should never interfere in politics, unless they — the one exception being when they agree with me and my side.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to the discuss the week’s news, including takeaways from Thursday’s PBS NewsHour Democratic debate, Donald Trump’s victory in New Hampshire and how the first primary re-scrambled the GOP field.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): The Democrats faced off on the debate stage last night, and now the focus of the race for the White House turns to South Carolina and Nevada.
With that, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
And welcome, gentlemen. Some of us are back from Milwaukee, and glad to be back.
Mark, Tuesday — it was only three nights ago — Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary big time. How did that change the race, how did it change the dynamics, do you think, in last night’s debate?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Well, it changed the race, Judy, by guaranteeing that we will probably have a race in June, that there will be a Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton competition in California.
It guaranteed Bernie Sanders $6.5 million in the first 19 hours after the polls closed. He’s got a national following. He’s got a national treasury. It puts her at a disadvantage. It gave him credibility.
So, going in last night, Hillary Clinton, on the heels of a thrashing 48 hours earlier, was in a position of trying to bring him back down to earth as they head South. And I thought she arrived, surprisingly, with her poise and confidence intact.
JUDY WOODRUFF: How did you see the dynamics going into the debate last night?
DAVID BROOKS, The New York Times: Well, going into the debate, it was a question of how aggressive she would get, and would she get overly aggressive or not?
I thought her demeanor, especially in the first half-hour, 45 minutes, was quite good. She can be sometimes lecturing. But she was more explaining, because — you were there, Judy, so you might know this.
(LAUGHTER)
JUDY WOODRUFF: I know this.
DAVID BROOKS: That they were — it was a debate over pragmatism vs. vision.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.
DAVID BROOKS: And she was saying, well, you know, that’s not reality. You can’t start the health care system as if we don’t have a health care system; 100 million people have their employer health care. You just can’t do that.
And so she was trying to explain reality to them. And I thought she was quite effective. I think, toward the end, one of have the central facts in the structure of the race, the first is pragmatism vs. his radical vision, but the second is, on what ground is this debate being fought?
And because he has such a strong narrative and his campaign is built around that narrative, his life is built around that narrative, it’s always fought on his ground. And she has no narrative. And she’s trying to create one with Obama, but that’s Obama’s narrative.
And so I think, as the domestic part went on, he sort of gained strength just by the structure of the way the argument is.
Shields and Brooks analyze the PBS NewsHour Democratic debate
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including takeaways from Thursday’s Democratic debate showdown between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, plus how Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio are faring in New Hampshire ahead of the primary.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson join Judy Woodruff to discuss takeaways from the most recent Democratic debate, how Donald Trump’s popularity defies traditional political wisdom, plus special holiday gifts for President Obama and the Republicans.
SUMMARY: At the debate Tuesday night in Las Vegas, Republican presidential candidates competed to prove who would be best prepared as commander in chief to keep the country safe. Angie Holan of PolitiFact joins Gwen Ifill to examine some of the claims made by the candidates on vetting Syrian refugees and boosting border security.
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): But, first, nine candidates made it to the main stage for the final Republican debate of the year. Four others appeared in an earlier undercard face off. The candidates left Las Vegas much as they arrived, jockeying to survive into the new year.
The cast of characters has shifted, but there has been one constant this Republican debate season, front-runner Donald Trump center stage.
Last night, the candidates competed to prove who would be best prepared as commander in chief to keep the country safe.
For Trump, it meant defending his plan to ban Muslims, at least temporarily, from entering the U.S.
DONALD TRUMP, Republican Presidential Candidate: We are not talking about isolation. We’re talking about security. We’re not talking about religion. We’re talking about security.
GWEN IFILL: For former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, it meant seizing the opportunity to try to take Trump down a peg.
JEB BUSH, Republican Presidential Candidate: Look, this is not a serious proposal. In fact, it will push the Muslim world, the Arab world away from us, at a time when we need to reengage with them to be able to create a strategy to destroy ISIS. He’s a chaos candidate. And he’d be a chaos President. He wouldn’t be the commander in chief we need to keep our country safe.
GWEN IFILL: And for the rest, the night was spent making the case that they are, in fact, qualified.
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who has stumbled over foreign policy questions of late, said he would take the fight to ISIS, up to and including deploying U.S. ground troops in Syria.
BEN CARSON, Republican Presidential Candidate: You know, we have got a phobia about boots on the ground. If our military experts say we need boots on the ground, we should put boots on the ground and recognize there will be boots on the ground, and they will be over here, and they will be their boots if we don’t get them out of there now.
GWEN IFILL: For two senators recently on the rise, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, the clashes came over the tradeoff between safety and surveillance.
SUMMARY: A number of port cities on the East Coast are taking steps to deepen their harbors, in an effort to attract bigger-than-ever cargo container ships expected to arrive as early as next year with the expansion of the Panama Canal. It's all sparked fierce debate in Jacksonville, Florida, as port officials there fight to remain competitive. NewsHour's Megan Thompson reports.
MEGAN THOMPSON (NewsHour): It’s a typical, busy morning at the port in Jacksonville – Florida’s most populous city. Vincent Cameron has worked on the docks here for 25 years.
VINCENT CAMERON (dock worker): These boxes that are coming off these ships behind you have all types of cargo in them, and they go to all different destinations — from your Pier-1s, your Walmarts, your Targets, to your warehouses, to your factories, the paper mill, you name it.
MEGAN THOMPSON: This massive port imports and exports some 8 million tons of cargo a year, worth around $33 billion dollars…generating almost $170 million in state and local taxes. The Jacksonville port – called Jaxport for short – is a mid-size port, ranking 37th out of the 99 biggest U.S. ports by cargo volume. But it’s also one of the fastest growing U.S. ports for exporting.
It ships more cars out of the U.S. than any other port in the country, and it’s a major import hub for companies like Disney, Bacardi, Maxwell house, and Samsonite. The port is located just off the Atlantic Ocean on the St. Johns River. When cargo comes in…it’s delivered quickly over three interstate highways even more freight train lines across the southeast United States.
VINCENT CAMERON: Jacksonville is a port city. You know, we derive our fruits from the labors that take place right here on these very docks.
MEGAN THOMPSON: Cameron, a third generation longshoreman, is one of nearly 10,000 people employed at the port…which supports thousands of jobs at local businesses, too.
VINCENT CAMERON: It’s a big economic engine for the city of Jacksonville, and it needs to survive if the city is going to continue to thrive.
MEGAN THOMPSON: To thrive in the global economy, Jaxport has spent tens of millions of dollars in the past decade to modernize and to compete with ports to the north, like Savannah, Georgia, and Charleston, South Carolina. In 2009, the port completed a high-tech terminal with 275-foot tall cranes to reach across the decks of the largest ships that dock here.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week’s news, including a look at the Democratic debate, campaign fundraising, and troop withdrawal in Afghanistan.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour): The Democratic candidates for president faced off in their first debate this week, and new fund-raising numbers give a closer look at which contenders are winning the money game.
For all that and more, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
So, you watched the debate, obviously. How was the tone different from this? It seems that perhaps FOX News set the tone in a much more aggressive and sharp way for the questioners in this round. Is that what we’re going to see throughout the cycle?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist: I think that Democrats, generally speaking, felt better about their debates than probably Republicans did about theirs.
There is no question that Donald Trump brought big numbers and brought a certain level of suspense, and you kind of hold your breath at what’s going to happen to it. But Martin O’Malley and — the former governor of Maryland, in one of his rare good moments on Tuesday night, pointed out that the Democrats had gone through an entire debate discussing issues with no personal attacks. Nobody had been accused of being ugly or a loser, and there had been no racial stereotyping or negatives.
So I think, in that sense, there was an entirely — difference in tone.
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times: There was a difference in tone, a difference in subject matter. I think the Democrats actually have the advantage of subject matter, because they actually did talk about middle-class concerns, whereas Republicans are talking about weird stuff.
But the other factor is, the Republicans are actually arguing and fighting with each other. And what I saw up there was Hillary Clinton performing extremely well, and four other guys lying down and let her, letting her have the nomination. It’s like Bernie Sanders held up the white flag of surrender when he refused to really go after her on the character and moral issue, which is his only way in.
And the other three, I don’t know why they were there. O’Malley was the one who surprised me the most. I thought he would come in and see the Fiorina model and come out with some sort of aggressiveness. He had a little toward the end, but in the beginning, it was just passive.
HARI SREENIVASAN: How do you think Sanders did?
MARK SHIELDS: Well, I thought Hillary Clinton had the best night of her campaign.
I thought that she was in command, she was comfortable, she was spontaneous. She came back from the break and was a little late getting to the stage, having obviously visited the ladies room, and kind of tossed a — gave the lie to the stereotype of the joyless feminist by pointing out it takes women a little bit longer to go to the lavatory.
And I just thought there was — it bordered on the authentic. I thought she did very well. David is right. Campaigns are about differences. And when you’re behind somebody, you better draw the differences with them, whether it’s in style, or substance, or record, or character. And the others didn’t do that.
I thought Bernie had a — Bernie Sanders had a better night than David thinks he did, and I think it was reflected in the dial polls, which viewers watch it and their emotions and reactions are gauged. It’s a very legitimate way of measuring people’s reaction. People use it on speeches, presidential acceptance speeches and so forth. He did well on that. He did well on the focus groups. ----- MARK SHIELDS: You can’t talk at the money, Hari, without talking about the concentration of big money in this campaign.
And The New York Times did a story last Sunday of 158 families in the United States that have given over half the money in this campaign.
HARI SREENIVASAN: So far, yes.
MARK SHIELDS: Citizens United, thank you, Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice(s) Scalia and Thomas and Kennedy. I mean, this is truly oligarchy.
And people who worry about big money having too large a voice, this has given them a megaphone. And the golden rule operates, where who he has the gold rules. And it is truly terrifying for those who care about democracy.
Facing rampant inequality and poverty, a substantive debate on socialism versus capitalism is exactly what the United States needs right now.
Tuesday night’s Democratic debate was largely devoid of the personal swipes and party-line litmus tests that have dominated those on the Republican side. And there was no candidate on stage commanding the star-power of savvy bigot Donald Trump.
One test that was laid out early in the debate, however, has real implications for the future of the Democratic Party, and of the role of the Left in U.S. electoral politics: The question of identifying as a socialist or capitalist.
That a U.S. presidential debate in 2015 would feature any substantive discussion on the merits of socialism versus capitalism is itself astounding, especially when compared to the language of presidential contests in 2008 and 2012, when the socialist label was frequently hurled at Barack Obama as an insult meant to summon images of gulags and work camps. Since at least the Cold War era, a subscription to capitalism has been taken as a given for both major political parties.
But here we are, with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton digging into the virtues of the disparate economic and social models on national television, watched by some 15.3 million viewers.
Debate host Anderson Cooper began his questioning of Bernie Sanders by asking: “How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?” Sanders, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist, answered by making the case for a more egalitarian society where not just income but social services and healthcare are provided democratically, regardless of stature or position:
What democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of 1 percent in this country own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.
That when you look around the world, you see every other major country providing health care to all people as a right, except the United States. You see every other major country saying to moms that, when you have a baby, we're not gonna separate you from your newborn baby, because we are going to have—we are gonna have medical and family paid leave, like every other country on Earth.
Those are some of the principles that I believe in, and I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people.
When Sanders was asked if he considers himself a capitalist, he responded: “Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little, by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don’t. I believe in a society where all people do well. Not just a handful of billionaires.” (This was a particularly ironic moment of the debate: Sanders was lambasting casino capitalism while literally debating inside a Las Vegas casino.)
Cooper then opened the question to the rest of the candidates, asking “Is there anybody else on the stage who is not a capitalist?,” leading Clinton to fire back in defense:
When I think about capitalism, I think about all the small businesses that were started because we have the opportunity and the freedom in our country for people to do that and to make a good living for themselves and their families.
And I don't think we should confuse what we have to do every so often in America, which is save capitalism from itself. And I think what Senator Sanders is saying certainly makes sense in the terms of the inequality that we have.
But we are not Denmark. I love Denmark. We are the United States of America. And it's our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn't run amok and doesn't cause the kind of inequities we're seeing in our economic system.
This defense of capitalism by the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination was anything but full-throated. In recognizing that the system was so flawed that it must be “saved from itself,” she sounded more like former Greek finance minister (and self-described “erratic Marxist”) Yanis Varoufakis than a traditional mainstream American politician.
As Elizabeth Bruenig points out at the New Republic, Sanders and Clinton have fundamentally different visions of how our economy should be structured: Sanders’ is an egalitarian “pro-equality platform” advocating a more expansive welfare state, while Clinton’s is a Horatio-Alger style “opportunity-focused approach” emphasizing increasing social-mobility.
This divergence was on full display last night. When asked if Clinton agreed with Sanders that Social Security should be expanded, for example, she refused to give a definitive “yes,” instead advocating defending and “enhancing” the government-run welfare program, rather than across-the-board expansion as Sanders proposes.
While this discussion remains a far cry from the Democratic Party distancing itself from its embrace of capitalism (something that will almost assuredly never happen), the debate—and level of grassroots support behind Sanders—show that this reckoning could have serious effects on how the party positions itself on economic issues in the future.
And the inclusion in the Sanders campaign of leftists generally critical of the electoral political process means the pressure to continue discussing the benefits of socialism and drawbacks of capitalism will likely continue within the campaign as well. The many activists and organizers who are working in the Sanders camp with a robust critique of corporate capitalism will continue to inform how the campaign constructs messaging to voters.
And even if Sanders does not win the nomination or presidency, the political education happening across the country through his campaign around issues of gross economic inequality, climate devastation and social injustice means there will almost certainly be more interrogation of capitalism than at any time in recent memory.
Sanders is the first candidate to bring in one million donations this early in a presidential race. He is leading in multiple polls in the early primary voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. And, as pundits, donors and attendees to his massive rallies will tell you, he is the Democratic candidate with the most energy right now.
As he continues to talk about the benefits of his brand of democratic socialism in contrast to our current capitalist system characterized by massive inequality and poverty, he will have a rapt—and activated—audience.
Hillary Clinton remains the front-runner, and is a defender of capitalism. As her recently taken positions against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Keystone XL pipeline show, she can be moved. But if the kind of commonsense discussion about democratic socialism that Sanders helped lead last night continues to catch on, the Democratic Party itself could be forced to move closer to Bernie.
SUMMARY: The first Democratic debate between five presidential candidates sharpened into a two-person heavyweight match between between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton over capitalism and gun control. Political director Lisa Desjardins reports.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): The Democratic candidates for president got back on the campaign trail today after an issues-packed debate last night.
Political director Lisa Desjardins reports on what we learned from their first five-way face-to-face encounter.
ANDERSON COOPER, Moderator: Please welcome the Democratic candidates for president of the United States.
LISA DESJARDINS (NewsHour): The five-person Las Vegas stage quickly morphed into a two-person heavyweight match, as Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders was asked if he is also a capitalist.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, Democratic Presidential Candidate: Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process, by which so few have so much, and so many have so little, by which Wall Street’s greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don’t.
LISA DESJARDINS: It was a symbolic start to a policy deep-debate, and Hillary Clinton moved to critique, but defend the system.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Democratic Presidential Candidate: It’s our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism, but we would be making a grave mistake to turn our backs on what built the greatest middle class in the history of the world.
ANDERSON COOPER: Senator Sanders?
LISA DESJARDINS: Clinton pointed to her experience.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I’m a progressive. But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done. And I know…
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: … how to find common ground, and I know how to stand my ground, and I have proved that in every position that I have had.
LISA DESJARDINS: She soon went on offense, highlighting Sanders’ vote against a prominent gun control bill.
The Democratic debate in Las Vegas exceeded its expectations in hitting on substance. But as pundits trade thoughts on who was strong (Clinton), who was solid (Sanders) and who else was on stage (O’Malley, Webb, Chafee), we want to point out a few things that you didn’t see on TV.
1. Team Clinton was very happy, then ecstatic. As the debate clock ticked, Hillary Clinton’s team increasingly felt they had a clear win. By the time reporters hit the spin room, in one-on-one conversations they were cautiously very happy. And within minutes — as the reverberating ballroom of opinion seemed to confirm their instinct — they moved to confident campaign joy, which in turn added to the zeitgeist. Which in turn added to this morning’s headlines.
2. Democrats had fewer heavyweights in their spin room than the GOP. Sure, this is partially due to the 5 to 16 ratio of candidates between the parties, but even so, one might expect candidates of Clinton’s and Sanders’s clout (as well as O’Malley’s, Webb’s and Chafee’s experience) to have a few more ringers in the spin room. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., working the room for Team Clinton may have been the most well-known national figure with a bias. Republicans, in addition to their platoon of formers running for the White House, saw more faces like that of former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and current House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Raul Labrador in the mix.
3. Message at odds with venue. Democrats wisely chose Las Vegas as a way to shore up their strength in the purplish state. It played to their union base in one of the American labor movement’s most concentrated cities. But those same dynamics also exposed a seemingly less-intended contrast. As Democrats prepared to debate, staff and press were surrounded by both opulence and struggle. Hotel wait staff brought rounds of beautiful cake pops on trays to journalists, some of whom gazed at the treats as though they were being shown tiny magic tricks. With every step through over-the-top Vegas and the $600-a-night Wynn hotel, it was hard to miss the contrast between an elite talking about, and writing about, inequality and those struggling and not seeming to reap many direct benefits from the debate’s presence. (Though overtime hours may count.)
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week’s news, including how the second Republican debate helped or hurt the candidates, why Donald Trump didn’t contradict bigoted remarks at a campaign rally and the significance of Pope Francis’ upcoming visit to the U.S.
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist: To me, this is — Barack Obama is a Christian who was born in Hawaii.Barack Obama is a Christian who was born in Hawaii. I mean, what we have is feeding paranoia. Right now, 43 percent of Republicans, according to CNN’s latest poll, believe Barack Obama is a Muslim; 54 percent of Trump supporters in the same survey believe he is. ----- MARK SHIELDS: Well, the pope, Pope Francis, is coming to Washington. He’s never been to Washington, never been to the United States before. We know we’re the center of the universe (toung-in-cheek). Somehow, it has escaped him in his entire life.
But several things. One is, he’s the antithesis to big-money politics. I mean, this is somebody who spends his time with — he listens to the voiceless. He remembers the forgotten. He sees the overlooked, whether it’s the immigrant, or the refugee, as we saw, or the day worker, or the sick, the handicapped, or the lonely.
I mean, he really does — he does embody — I fear he’s going to make both parties — I know he’s going to make both parties very uncomfortable, because his message is not trimmed for politics. He’s going to make the Republicans quite uncomfortable on the question of poverty and the obligation that we have to act collectively. He’s very pro-politics. He believes in politics.
He’s very strong on the environment and on climate change, contrary to many Republicans, including Marco Rubio. But, at the same time, he speaks fondly and well and consistently about protecting the unborn and those in the late stages of life who face death. He is — really, it’s going to be remarkable to watch Joe Biden and John Boehner, both Catholics, the Vice President and The Speaker, sitting behind him, and applauding different passengers and kind of pretending they didn’t hear others.
So — but I hope it doesn’t become political, because this truly is a remarkable spiritual moment in a very secular city.
HARI SREENIVASAN: David?
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times: Yes, I just want to underline that last comment. I hope we don’t overpoliticize this visit.
The first thing we’re going to see is our countrymen, thousands, millions of them moved by faith, their eyes looking to heaven, their heart warmed by God’s love. And we’re going to see that in public. And we’re going to see that in tens of millions of people. And that will be a moment of seeing faith in a way we rarely see it in this country in public.
And, secondly, we will see the example of the man. The message is the person. It’s the way he conducts himself. His love for the poor is not out of any self-congratulatory. He — whether you’re Jewish, Muslim, atheist, whatever, he is the embodiment of the Christian virtues that I think we all admire, the — seeing the meekest, seeing the poorest, seeing the lowest, and lifting them up, and seeing the brokenness in people, and then lifting them up with joy.
And so, to me, it will be a theater of spiritual — a spiritual theater more than a political theater. And I suspect tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people’s lives will be changed, in the way that politics can never change them, from within. Their lives will be transformed because they will be at this visit. And they will be moved by something they had never felt or only have felt weakly before.
And to me, that’s just a seismic event, whatever happens to our political culture.
HARI SREENIVASAN: David, so what about — how does that translate when that spiritual theater is finished? Does that translate into any sort of policy action or rethinking something that might be in the works in Congress that’s stalled?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, I hope it transforms hearts. And I hope it transforms hearts in the ways Mark just suggested.
The pope is not going to visit the homeless or the prisoners once in his visit. He’s doing it six, seven, eight times in the visit. So, the constant focus will be there on those who are hurting the most. And I think that enlivened attention will carry over into people’s eyes, both in their private lives and their private giving, but also in their public lives.
Mark has said this many times over the years. We have a political culture focused on the middle class. We have lost some of the contact with the poor, some of the contact with the needy, and not only — and not from high to low, and, frankly, some of the compassionate conservatism and some of progressivism has been from high to low, but treating the poor as those closest to God and worthy of respect maybe even more than everybody else.
And that’s an attention that has been absent from our political culture or in short supply, and maybe it will be in slightly bigger supply.
MARK SHIELDS: I think David said it very, very well, just that wherever he goes, he brings the cameras with him, and an incredible number of cameras, as we know.
But as soon as he finishes Congress — and it’s the hottest ticket in the history of Capitol Hill. I mean, people are fighting to get in. Former members and senators can’t even get into the gallery to hear him. They have set up a JumboTron outside.
He’s going to have lunch with the poorest of the poor in the Center City in Washington sponsored by Catholic Charities. I mean, these are the addicted. These are people with alcohol problems, with psychological problems, the homeless. And he doesn’t allow us to look away. He forces us to examine those who are living on the outskirts of hope.
Of course 34% of Republicans believe the trash on Obama's birth. They live in an alternate universe, wear aluminum-foil hats, and believe that the strip in our bills is a tracking device.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the first Republican presidential debate, whether Vice President Joe Biden is considering a 2016 run and Sen. Chuck Schumer’s announcement that he won’t support the Iran nuclear deal.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): He’s (Trump) not a real candidate?
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times: No. He doesn’t have an ideology. He doesn’t have a belief system.
He has himself. And they went after him, the three excellent moderators. And he defended himself and I think he did fine. Probably 70 percent of Republicans disapprove of him. A lot of the things he said were astonishingly inappropriate, that he wouldn’t support the Republican Party nominee. That’s kind of a big one. He likes single-payer health system. That’s the first Republican that sort of likes that.
He is outside of all the categories, but he is a lord of self-esteem. And his main message is society is filled with losers, and they happen to be running it, and society has some winners who are being ignored. And if you’re a winner like me, we got to get rid of those losers.
And that’s an ideology that is not a political ideology. It is a narcissistic ideology. But I suspect the 20 percent who like him will continue to like him and like him even more. And so he will be hanging around there.
Among the real candidates, I thought Rubio did quite well. Carly Fiorina in the underdebate card did quite well. And John Kasich did quite well. And so I think those three helped themselves and they actually are viable candidates and make us rethink the race.
JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you size it up, Mark?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist: I don’t know where to agree and where — no.
(LAUGHTER)
MARK SHIELDS: I agree. Donald Trump fills up the hall. There were 24 million people who watched. That’s more people than had ever watched a cable event, other than a sports event.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Huge numbers.
MARK SHIELDS: And this was a sports event. (IMHO, a boxing event)
Donald Trump indicated right at the outset he is going to run as Donald Trump. And I thought it was an indication of the magic he has established, the chemistry he has with Republican voters, that the only person on the stage, candidate who would even take a shot at him was Rand Paul.
All the others ducked him, John Kasich included, Jeb Bush included, when given opportunities. Who went after him? The three FOX moderators, who were tough. They really did. And I really think he made a serious mistake by going, retaliating, attacking Megyn Kelly. First of all…
JUDY WOODRUFF: When she asked him about his comments about women.
MARK SHIELDS: Asked him about women, his misogynist comments.
First of all, FOX News is the validator, it’s the gatekeeper for Republican, particularly conservative voters. And you don’t go after — it is not like you’re attacking Chuck Todd or Judy Woodruff or some of the liberal elite establishment. You’re attacking the mother church when you go after FOX.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let’s make a distinction here, please. I’m not part of the liberal media.
MARK SHIELDS: No, but I’m talking about by the definition of conservative America, where FOX really is the gatekeeper — I think you would agree, the gatekeeper and the validator.
And when he went after her, I think he made a serious mistake. I thought, as far as the others were concerned…
JUDY WOODRUFF: You don’t think he helped himself?
MARK SHIELDS: I think he hurt himself. I really do.
He’s a combination quite unlike anything I have ever seen before. I agree partially with David that it is sort of egotism and cynicism. Everybody is transactional. You believe nothing. Why do you give money to Democrats? You give money to Democrats because you are going to give them a call and they’re going to do what you want.
Everything. There’s no ideal. John Kennedy said he was an idealist without illusions. Donald Trump is a cynic without illusions. Nothing is on the level. You go into bankruptcy four times. You screw the investors. Hey, that’s the way it’s done now.
I just — I thought he came across really, by having taken on FOX News, and particularly Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, and particularly Megyn Kelly, I think he made a mistake.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the indictment of a white police officer for killing a black motorist in Cincinnati, the upcoming first presidential debate among the GOP candidates, plus the ultimate anti-Washington candidate Donald Trump and the populist popularity of Sen. Bernie Sanders.
SUMMARY: The new documentary "Best of Enemies" pinpoints a key moment in broadcasting: a series of debates during the 1968 political conventions between two intellectual giants. William F. Buckley on the right and Gore Vidal on the left attracted a high national audience with intelligence and wit, as well as putdowns and insults. Filmmakers Morgan Neville and Robert Gordon join Jeffrey Brown.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Now to political commentary still steeped in intellect, but far less civil than Shields and Brooks.
Jeffrey Brown has the story.
MAN: To help us extract meaning from these conventions, two of America’s most eloquent commentators, William Buckley and Gore Vidal.
JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour): Hard to imagine now, a time before political pundits dominated cable and broadcast news programs.
The documentary “Best of Enemies” pinpoints a key moment of change, when two intellectual giants William F. Buckley on the right, Gore Vidal on the left, attracted a huge national audience with intelligence and wit, but also put-downs and insults.
Filmmakers Morgan Neville and Robert Gordon explored a series of debates the two held during the 1968 political conventions that, for a variety of reasons, would alter the future of political discourse on television.
You set this up as both a personal and a kind of national epic. Why do you think it rose to that level?
MORGAN NEVILLE, Director, “Best of Enemies”: Gore Vidal and William Buckley represented the polar opposites of the left and the right at a time when America was kind of coming apart at the seams a little bit. This is 1968. There’s rioting in the streets. And they’re representing those poles there on national TV.
But what I think what makes it such a dramatic story for us is that it was deeply personal. It was under the veneer of politics, but I think they saw in the other person somebody who could detect their own insecurities and expose those to the world.
SUMMARY: "American Sniper" has been nominated for six Academy Awards and is on track to be the biggest box-office war film ever. But the drama based on the life of a late Navy Seal, said to be the most lethal sharpshooter in U.S. military history, has rekindled debate about the Iraq war and the glorification of killing, as well as the veracity of Chris Kyle's own account. Jeffrey Brown reports.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Now a look at a movie that has been at the top of the box office for the past two weekends, as well as generating a lot of conversation and controversy.
Jeffrey Brown has that.
It’s part of our occasional series we’re calling "NewsHour Goes to the Movies."
BRADLEY COOPER, Actor: Don’t pick it up. Drop it.
JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour): “American Sniper” is a drama based on the real story of Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL said to be the most lethal sharpshooter in U.S. military history, credited with killing more than 160 people in Iraq.
ACTOR: Do you ever think that you might have seen things or done some things over there that you wish you hadn’t?
BRADLEY COOPER: Oh, that’s not me, no.
ACTOR: What’s not you?
BRADLEY COOPER: I was just protecting my guys. They were killing our soldiers. And I’m willing to meet my creator and answer for every shot that I took.
JEFFREY BROWN: Kyle himself told the story of his multiple tours from 1999 to 2009 and difficult adjustment to civilian life in a bestselling memoir.
Now the film, directed by Clint Eastwood, has become a huge commercial success, on path to becoming the biggest box-office war film ever, overtaking Steven Spielberg’s World War II classic “Saving Private Ryan,” with $200 million in ticket sales and counting. And it’s received six Oscar nominations, including for best picture.
HARI SREENIVASAN (Newshour): One of the new regulations in California centers on the effort to limit the amount of flame retardants in furniture. This is an issue of particular concern to parents of young children.
ADRIENNE CLEM, mother: Oink, oink.
MAN: Oink, oink.
MAN: That's right.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Silicon Valley tech workers Adrienne and Jeremy Clem are the proud parents of 18-month-old Vivienne and expecting their second child next month. They have spent a lot of time researching baby gear, and one of their main concerns was finding products without flame retardants, chemicals which slow the ignition of potentially flammable materials like textiles and plastics.
ADRIENNE CLEM: This is a nursing pillow without flame retardants. I did find it online just after doing a lot of searching. I was very actually surprised that it was hard to find products without them.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Flame retardants were added to upholstered furniture and other household products starting in the mid-1970s to prevent house fires. But what seemed like a good idea came with a downside.
A number of studies have linked flame retardants to human health concerns such as cancer, neurological impairments and fertility problems. Some flame retardants have been banned by the federal government for health concerns. Others have been phased out voluntarily by manufacturers. But many remain in use today.
Worried about the possible health risks, the Clems recently purchased a $2,700 flame-retardant-free sofa from Ekla Home, one of the few manufacturers in the U.S. which makes naturally flame-resistant furniture using materials like wool.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
