Tuesday night, over 15 million people tuned into CNN to see what would likely be the debate of the century. With Hillary Clinton front-running, but Bernie Sanders quickly gaining ground behind her, it was sure to be a show.
Oh, was it a show, but not for the reason you might think.
Most expected a clear blowout by Clinton. She's been in the game a long time. She's been taught how to talk, how to debate, and has a handful of advisers, speechwriters, and a few million dollars on her side. She clearly had the upper hand.
Then we have Bernie. He is, as the conservatives have labeled him, an "old white guy." But he's more than that, too. He's a politician who knows what Americans want. They want things like better healthcare, paid family leave; things most developed (and, let me add, economically prospering) countries have that we don't.
We all knew Sanders was a threat to Hillary's campaign. We didn't know how big until last Tuesday. He's relatable; instead of having someone write his answers for him, instead of using the same scripted lines over and over, he gave his honest opinion. He stumbled to find the right words, he was real.
Why would the network take such a low course of action? The answer likely lies in the money. Many people attribute this to CNN's parent company, Time Warner. Time Warner is Clinton's seventh largest donor (Nation of Change), which makes the situation extremely, well, fishy. In Bernie Sanders' attempt to halt the movement of our country into Fahrenheit 451, CNN just became the fireman.
This event could play as a turning event in the election. If a company of this size and importance is willing to hide and manipulate the results, and Clinton is okay with it, what does that mean about her ethical and moral standings? In my opinion, someone who is ignoring a blatant manipulation about the polls and her standings as a candidate is not someone I feel is fit to run our country. On the other hand, this is a HUGE opportunity for her to come forward and to call attention to the wrongs her donors have done. She could be the "stand up guy," and win a lot of voters. It's just a matter of facing the fact that she lost the debate.
The question really isn't, "Who won the debate?" but, "Who is winning the election?" The next debate is in less than a month, and will air on CBS, but the work doesn't stop there. Clinton has been the "shoe-in" for a long time, but it seems like she is losing the title. Sanders is gaining ground in the primary, so it looks like it will be a close race up until the voting closes as late as mid-June 2016 in some states. If Clinton wants a straight shot to the White House, she is going to have to demonstrate something remarkable and change some of her stances, as Sanders is starting to look more and more like the voter favorite due to his progressive policies.
