Bernie Sanders' Lost Opportunity

  At the Democratic Party Primary Debate held last night in Las Vegas, I think I anticipated more of a grudge match between Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley, fueled partly by Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee attempting to make strong use of what was sure to be limited air-time. All of the candidates had something to gain, and some a lot to lose, with good showings. CNN's intro may have hyped up my expectations as it was clearly modeled on a pro-football broadcast, or maybe American Idol. It was a ridiculous way to introduce such an event, yet I may have been subconsciously amped by it.

  Boy, was I disappointed.

  Just to get it out of the way, Webb and Chafee are completely finished. Whatever policy positions they may advance from here on out are irrelevant given the incredibly awkward nature of their delivery and their clear discomfort as public speakers (btw, Jim Webb killed a guy?). So they're done. Gone. Finis. Oh, and Martin O'Malley accepted money from the NRA in 2012. He was also Baltimore's worst mayor and the basis for Littlefinger running that city in The Wire. So his whole performance was just that, a performance.

  Chafee, nonetheless, in spite of sounding like an awkward science teacher, should be given some credit for at least being the only candidate to directly challenge Hillary Clinton's integrity. However, when asked by CNN moderator Anderson Cooper if she had any response, she simply retorted "No." The audience cheered and applauded, and that was that. No further discussion, no further concern.

  Perhaps the crowd reaction can explain Bernie Sanders' decision to emphatically state that he's tired of hearing about Clinton's emails, a decision akin to a poker player knowing he has four aces in his hand but deciding to fold anyway. Anyone on that stage could rail against the rich (and they did) and demand a bigger share of the national wealth for working people (and they did), but only Sanders has a consistent track record of truly working for both of those things. Integrity is the one thing that Bernie Sanders can lord over every other politician in Washington, not just Hillary Clinton, and to so readily dismiss its importance could only have been the product of shrewd political calculus. Yes, he probably thought, I could make this an issue, but it could backfire given the party faithful simply don't seem to care if a Clinton breaks the law.

  On the subject of whistleblowers Clinton was given even more leeway:

"[Snowden] could have been a whistleblower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistleblower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that."

  But as Dan Froomkin of The Intercept pointed out:

Snowden, as a contractor, was not covered by whistleblower protections. He did try going through established channels, but he said his concerns fell on deaf ears.  And the response to his leaks has made abundantly clear that no one in his chain of command was the least bit interested in going public with the information.

  That Clinton could say such a thing with a straight face is demonstrative of how comfortable she is with the double standard she and every Washington insider benefits from: when they break the law, it's at most a political liability, but when people like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden do it for the public benefit their lives are ruined. They, along with journalists like Barrett Brown, were made examples of by the Obama administration, which she was part of, for relaying information to the public that we would never have known about without their sacrifice. In the universe of privilege Clinton exists in, the use of leaks for political advantage are ok, but when they actually force those in power to answer for their actions, then and only then are they considered legitimate breaches of national security.

  It's no wonder, given the free pass she was given last night, that every major liberal periodical in the country, from the Wall-Street-controlled New York Times to the guns-in-America obsessed Guardian, are running headlines declaring the debate a resounding victory for Clinton. She was not challenged on her principal weakness, and she will never be. It is a stark indicator of how little change will be coming to the Democratic Party, and the American Left, anytime soon.