Hillary Clinton showed her weak side at the Democratic debate

hillary clinton democratic debate

The Democratic debate on Saturday night pointed out a more defensive tone from Hillary Clinton regarding foreign policy, surprising everybody. Therefore, Bernie Sanders walked up a winner, but Clinton is still in “pole position” to be the Democratic nominee.

One of the debate’s topics was the attacks from Paris

The Democratic debate rounded up on Paris attacks, so it was expected for Hillary Clinton to approach an offensive speech and consolidate her status as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, says The Washington Post, but her tone was too defensive, giving Sanders and even O’Malley a chance to strike back.

The debate lasted two hours and in the first 30 minutes the former Secretary of State was on the defensive about everything from the Obama administration being caught off guard by the rise of the Islamic State to her 13-year-old vote for the Iraq war, according to the same source.

“Regime changes have unintended consequences. On this issue, I’m a little more conservative than the secretary”, said Bernie Sanders. Last time this three meet, in Las Vegas, neither Sanders nor O’Malley were capable to unstand Clinton regarding U.S’ foreign policy, especially the Syrian problem. But on Saturday they both got a chance they weren’t hoping for.

The threat represented by ISIS must be stopped

“We have to look at ISIS as the leading threat of an international terror network. It cannot be contained; it must be defeated”, said Hillary Clinton, distancing herself from President Obama who stated about ISIS “I don’t think they’re gaining strength … and we have contained them”.

Even though Hillary Clinton had a defensive approach, it wasn’t enough, as her main rival, Bernie Sanders, didn’t seem like White House material; although when it came to domestic issues, the debate became more animated, with Sanders and O’Malley criticizing Clinton’s proposals.

  • leslymill

    She couldn’t blame an internet video.

  • donna

    Excuse me! Bernie Sanders, didn’t seem like White House material. Haven’t you read that our President should be OF THE PEOPLE. Bernie lives in our neighborhood, shops in our stores, walks like us, talks like us and thinks like us. Bernie is quintessential White House material.

    We are no longer buying the rhetoric that only the 1% are qualified to rule over us. We are capable of self rule. It is what the constitution intended and it is the government we mean to have.

  • UrbanCamper

    The socialist and the sociopath. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    • edgecase

      Socialists are quite a bit less dangerous.

      • Mike Jones

        Yeah, until they run out of other people’s money!

    • Michael Scott

      The socialists are much less dangerous than the GOP candidates.

      • Here’s Your Sign

        Ignoring history….
        Socialists in large countries have a 100% record of destroying the economy and instituting police states. Socialists are more dangerous than ANYONE.

        • Michael Scott

          Examples? Talk to Scandinavians.

          • Here’s Your Sign
          • Michael Scott

            If you’re counting on the link you added to support you, I feel sorry for you. Try offering support from experts in the field. Don’t believe what some blogger has to say. Besides, if you check the link you gave us, you would also see a very thorough rebuttal of your point.

          • Michael Scott

            Ya, there IS need on YOUR behalf. Please reference a reputable source. Or better still, talk to people who live/have lived in a socialist country. Schedule a field trip or whatever you people do.

        • Michael Scott

          Clueless POS!

    • KansasCityKid

      And what do you call the loonys seeking the Republican nomination? SCARY…That’s what!

  • Cheap pro-Clinton plug about Sanders not being presidential material. At least back it up!

  • fpleti2

    I was very disappointed in the Secretary’s performance, especially with regard to foreign policy questions. On the whole the Secretary seemed evasive on issues that should have been a slam dunk for someone in her position.

    • Mike Jones

      And this surprises you in what way? She has been nothing more then a puppet in her career!

      • JvH

        what makes you say that?

      • fpleti2

        The surprise resides in the Clinton Foundation which is looking out for Hillary’s best interest. Given that clout one would have expected a more thorough vetting of possible answers to tough questions. From the Hillary’s responses there appeared to be no vetting of tough questions. This suggests that, one backer at least, may be taking a wait and see attitude.

  • Mike Jones

    America is tired of the Clintons…she needs to just go away for good!

  • KansasCityKid

    When compared to the Republican candidates Hillary looks good!

    • Dan Richards

      How did she look good? Being a malignant Tumor on stage? Or was it how she cause the deaths in Benghazi? Or maybe how she has no clue as to what is actually going on, that or just does not care.
      The point is, how did she look good compared to who?

    • JvH

      explain how she looked good?

    • Here’s Your Sign

      Liar, hypocrite, traitor. Looking good!

  • Regula

    Bernie Sanders does have a weak spot when it comes to foreign policy. He seems to find his courage to the same courageous standpoints that he has on internal policy only very slowly. Which doesn’t mean that he isn’t strong on foreign policy – but that he is in a delicate position as democrat going against the sitting president. But hopefully he will start to think a bit more about how to formulate his opposing views a bit more forcefully.

    As to Hillary Clinton – well, she isn’t really the frontrunner but for the media pushing her above any other candidate. Were she to oppose Trump, she would lose: on foreign policy. Hillary let an ambassador and 3 American security personnel die essentially because that didn’t interest her. Security is their responsibility, not hers, and if they can’t get what they needed – well, you never get all you want. She may find out that nobody wants to accept risky appointments as ambassador anymore were she president.

    But worse: Hillary was the moving force to get the Libya intervention going. And that intervention is a disaster, which, in no small way, paved the road for the destabilization of Syria: most of the weapons of the militants fighting in Syria were initially moved from Libya to Syria. IS fights with modern American weapons. Which leaves the conclusion that the US arms ISIS. And as I said elsewhere, the undecided bombing of ISIS by the US was intended to control ISIS, not to end it. Which leaves ISIS as proxy force to destabilize Turkey, the North Caucasus, Iran, Pakista and China. Based on her record, Hillary would be for such a holocaust without hesitation. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a failure that will take decades to correct. Hillary’s Libya campaign is a disgrace and utter failure: she transformed a well organized, well to do nation at peace with its neighbors and the world into a failed state which is now the place where militants practice and from where they move to Syria and Iraq and beyond. That is hardly a foreign policy credential, but it is a tragic failure.

    When it comes to credibility, Hillary has none. She talks according to what she thinks people want to hear without any obligation to later live up to her promises. As to Wall St. and the credit card companies: when she had a chance to pass law reigning in their abuses, she voted against it as senator of New York – money, not common sense decided her vote.

    In contrast to her pitch to sell herself as the new war leader (commander in chief), Bernie in his unassuming ways made the most important statement in the foreign policy debate: regime changes have consequences and side effects and really never accomplished anything positive and that he is against regime change. That in short sums up a sane foreign policy.Bernie’s statement had the mark of greatness. People should think about his statement. It is what will change the US course back to sanity and reintegration in the family of nations as an equal partner instead of the worst and most hated terrorist bully that it is now.

  • Pingback: Controversial statement by Hillary Clinton at the Democratic debatewhorunsGov()

  • Brent

    Sanders is a man who believes in taking care of the American working man and woman. He does not take money from the PACs, which is a source of money that taints our political process with the stench of bribery. Political corruption is the number one problem in America today. Voting for a candidate that has been bought with PAC money like Clinton is a vote against your own interests if you are middle class. Wake up America! We can put a stop to this if we select a leader who has not been bought. We can get Citizens United overturned or made irrelevant through legislation or an amendment. We have to do something as the corruption today is at banana republic levels.