A Vigorous Foreign-Policy Debate Between Clinton and Sanders

A Vigorous Foreign-Policy Debate Between Clinton and Sanders

A Vigorous Foreign-Policy Debate Between Clinton and Sanders

A long-overdue debate has opened.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Saturday’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire provided stark contrast to the Republican “fear and loathing in Las Vegas” imbroglio last Tuesday. Republicans dished out bombast and bluster, while the three Democratic candidates offered policy and purpose, reminding Americans that we are strengthened when we abide by our values rather than trample them in panic.

Sadly, far fewer voters watched the Democratic debate than the Republican invective. This failure was the perverse design of Democratic National Committee head Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL). As she must have known, scheduling a debate on the Saturday night before Christmas across from an NFL game would discourage viewers, not attract them. Democrats drew a little over 8 million viewers; Republicans an estimated 18 million. Wasserman Schultz has scheduled a limited number of debates at obscure times—a disservice to the country and to Democratic voters—in what appears to be an effort to protect the front-runner, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Wasserman Schultz compounded this disgrace last week by going nuclear over a breach of Clinton voter data by some staffers for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), cutting the Sanders campaign off from access to its own lists. Sanders had to file suit to regain access. Wasserman Schultz would do the party and the country a great service if she resigned and formally joined the Clinton campaign. That may be the only course of action that would keep the young activists whom Sanders has inspired from concluding in disgust that the party apparatus was rigging the rules to favor Clinton.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x