The first Democratic debate that included Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders as the only two candidates was held February 4, moderated by MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, and Rachel Maddow. The Moderators did an excellent job of focusing on questions that related to the overall critical to quality performance of a Commander and Chief, from Foreign Policy to Wall Street Wealth to Military Tactics, and Healthcare. In addition they injected the ever present smoldering scandals to which the candidates could respond and hopefully snuff out of the voter’s view as something that may derail their campaign. Chuck Todd asked Secretary Clinton about the issue of the emails, and speeches to Goldman Sacs. While Rachel Maddow questioned Sanders about the campaign staffer taking voter data from the Clinton campaign and an implied endorsement that had not been offered.
Hillary has consistently contented that her voting records have never been motivated by her paid speeches, and invites anyone to view those records. The public is now aware that giving speeches when out of office is nothing new. So, should an individual’s ability to command a handsome compensation be a factor for anything other than a level of skill that is in high demand. As a voter, should we be more concerned with retroactive labeling of emails as ‘Classified’ that appears counterintuitive and may impact multiple current and former elected officials. Perhaps a redirected focus to the Compliance Program or lack thereof, consider implementing a go forward plan that allows for a consistent email process that is clearly defined with a monitoring that can be enforced. Make no mistake, a gap in protocol is a serious issue, but in this case, is it an individual issue.
Sanders confirmed his campaign’s intolerance for the actions of the staffer who tampered with voter data and was promptly dismissed. He further explained the ad that appeared to imply an endorsement by a newspaper, as essentially misinterpreted due to the title of the ad in which the content apparently did not support. A bit confusing, but is it a game changer considering the number of staffers on any campaign and no evidence to confirm a candidates knowledge of any malicious intent.
Looking forward to the next substantive debate.
‘Creative Commentary’-ExpressYourselfBlog.com