Why Bayh


In 35 day from now, Hoosiers will fan out across the Cornfield to polling locations to cast their vote for whom they want to represent them in the US Senate.

The seat is open due to the retirement of senior Senator Dan Coats.

The two people competing to fill the vacancy are a current Congressman, Todd Young, a Tea Party Republican, and former Governor and Senator, Evan Bayh, representing the Democratic Party.

While I am a former Republican who now considers myself an independent moderate, I will be casting my ballot for Bayh.

Here is why.

Top of the list is that Bayh understands that to govern, one must understand that compromise is not a dirty, four-letter word.

This is something that Young and other Tea Party advocates do not seem to grasp.

Such a position goes against the American idea of representative democracy.

The my way or the highway mentality works – but only in a dictatorship.

Too many times over the last few years, Tea Party adherents have held the government, and thus we, the governed, hostage. This is not in accord with the founding principles of this great nation.

Back in 2011, Bayh joined with other politicians with a new idea – reaching across the aisle and finding ways to work together for the good of the people.

From that meeting came the organization, which has become influential in Washington DC, No Labels.

I worked with Bayh and his wife, Susan, on several projects back in my other life as a reporter for the daily newspaper, The Linton Daily Citizen, before becoming ill.

Bayh  is known for his moderate views and ability to work with others no matter the party affiliation.

In fact in many other states and compared to national party types, Bayh would be considered a Republican rather than a Democrat.

I wrote about No Labels here: http://marksden.com/blog/blog2.php/no-labels-wants-congress-to.

It made sense to me then. It makes sense to me now.

We have had experienced too much partisan gridlock in the halls of Congress over the last eight years. We do not need this pattern to continue.

What Young promises is more stubbornness, more obstruction, cut in the vein of Ted Cruz.

We cannot afford more of this.

What Bayh offers is fiscal conservatism combined with a willingness to give a little to get a little, to govern for all the people – not just some of the people.

From the Cornfield, for this reason, I am casting my vote for Bayh.

This does not mean I always agreed with Bayh in years past. Nor does it mean I will agree on all his votes and views now.

We need a Senator willing to govern, not grandstand.

Cornfield Standings – 65 Days Out


As of today there are 63 days until the November 8th General Election. This election may be one of the most crucial in decades.

Not only do we have a host of local and state elections occurring, but the both the US House of Representatives and US Senate face either retaining Republican control or either or both turning over to the Democrats.

Then there is the change in guard in the nation’s two highest offices – the President and the Vice President. Who wins the election for the Oval Office will also impact the direction of the US Supreme court for generations.

Each Saturday between now and Election Day, I will show where the top state and national candidates rate as far as getting my vote.

From the President to Governor to Senator and Representative, you can see how I am leaning from week to week.


  • Libertarian Gary Johnson – 1 1/2 Ears of Corn
  • Republican Donald Trump 2 1/2 Ears of Corn
  • Democrat Hillary Clinton 0 Ears of Corn
  • Green Party Jill Stein 0 Ears of Corn

US Senator:

  • Democrat Evan Bayh – 3 Ears of Corn
  • Republican Todd Young – 1 Ears of Corn

8th District Congressional Representative:

  • Republican Dr. Larry Buschon – 4 Ears of Corn
  • Democrat Ron Drake – 0 Ears of Corn

Indiana Governor:

  • Democrat John Gregg – 3 Ears of Corn
  • Republican Eric Holcomb – 1 Ears of Corn

This does not mean between now and November my mind can’t be changed. This is just how I am leaning at this point in time.

From the Cornfield, that’s how I view the races.

How are you leaning in your state and national elections?

Hoosiers, Time to Roar


Indiana may be one of the smaller states in the Union in geographic size and population, but Hoosiers have much of which to be proud.

We have our share of Vice Presidents: Schuyler Colfax, Thomas Hendricks, Charles Fairbanks, Thomas Marshall and Dan Quayle.

Ties to Presidents: General William Henry Harrison, whose Grouseland is located in Vincennes and his grandson Benjamin Harrison, born here as well as being Abraham Lincoln’s boyhood home. 

Celebrities: James Dean, Anne Baxter, Carole Lombard, Karl Malden, Steve McQueen, Sydney Pollack, Clifton Webb, The Jacksons, Florence Henderson, Phil Harris, Red Skelton, Axl Rose, CNN’s Kate Bolduan, Joyce DeWitt, David Letterman, to name a few.

Sports Figures: Larry Bird, Don Mattingly, John Wooden, Jeff Gordon, Tony Stewart, to name a few.

Authors and More: James Whitcomb Riley, General Lew Wallace, Jim Davis, Theodore Dreiser, Phil Dresser, Ernie Pyle, T.C. Steele, Kurt Vonnegut, to name a few.

  Universities: IU, Notre Dame, Purdue, ISU, Ball State, to name a few.

Supreme Court Justices: Chief Justice John Roberts was born and raised here.

Astronauts & Aviators: Amelia Earhart, Gus Grissom, Joseph P. Allen, Frank Borman, to name a few. And of course some we are not so proud of such as John Dillinger, Jimmy Hoffa, Sam Bass and Johnny Ringo.

But this year, the voters in the Cornfield and coal mines of Indiana will have a chance to do something which has never happened in my lifetime – determine who will be a presidential nominee and impact the other party’s selection.

Traditionally, the state’s late-to-the-game May 3 vote is merely lip service to the process. The decision has long been made as to who the presumptive nominees will be for the two major parties.

Not this year.

If all goes as expected tonight in the Atlantic Seaboard Primary of Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland and Delaware, Hoosier voters may well determine whether Donald Trump becomes the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

At the same time, Cornfield ballot-casters could seal the fate of Bernie Sanders and push Hillary Clinton to the presumption for the Democrats.

Never has there been such an important primary season for Hoosiers. We have the power. It is time for Hoosiers to roar.

A week out and Donald Trump leads on the GOP side. Clinton is ahead, but Sanders is closing.

Ted Cruz and John Kasich, Governor of neighbor Ohio, struck a deal to target resources which would be of the most benefit. At the same time, both are calling on supporters to continue to vote for them.

Hoosiers hold in their hands the ability to either confirm or stop Trump’s Sherman’s March to the Sea.

Which way will Hoosier vote?

Indiana is more conservative state – both with Republicans and Democrats. I have often claimed that our Democrats would be Republicans in other states and vice versa.

Hoosiers are rather independent in that we go our own way.

Look at one of our longest serving and most powerful Senators, Dick Lugar. Lugar was the consummate moderate, which is where despite some socially conservative veins, most Hoosiers will identify as being.

It is, therefore, surprising that our next door neighbor’s Governor is not doing so well in the polls. Kasich not committing resources to the state does not serve him well. He could upset the general consensus if only tried.

From the Cornfield, next Tuesday I will be walking across the street to the Ruritan Building and casting my vote.

When I sign in I will declare as either a Republican or Democrat and receive the appropriate ballot. How I will vote I am keeping quiet at this time.

Now is the time for Hoosiers to let the nation hear our voice. This is the primary of our lifetimes.

Come on Hoosiers, let our roar match that of our most famous sporting event – the Indy 500!

More on influential Hoosiers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Indiana


Debate Eve – Does Anyone Care?

cornfieldlogoTomorrow night in Manchester, New Hampshire for the third time Democratic presidential wannabes will square off. Once more the debate is scheduled on a Saturday guaranteed to get a minimal amount of viewers.

Contrast this to the Republican debates which have occurred during prime time in the middle of the work week which are smashing viewership records. The GOP has also had five debates today (10 if you figure there are always two debates – top tier and bottom tier) while this only the third for Democrats. 

Democrats will have one more debate on January 17 before Iowans and New Hampshire voters hit the ballot box. Republicans will conduct two more debates on January 14 and 28.

Question is does anyone care about Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley debating?

Apparently the Democratic National Committee who scheduled and sanctions the debates does not. Then again if Sanders and O’Malley are to be believed, Clinton has the DNC in her pocketbook.

The DNC has resisted calls from Sanders and O’Malley for more debates. This in spite of Clinton publicly stating she has no objection to adding debates to the few scheduled. What she has said in private is debatable.

Most presume that Clinton is already being fitted for her coronation gown and even fitting the Oval Office for new curtains.

It is understandable why, Sanders is still in the race. He is still drawing large crowds. He is getting big union endorsements. He is showing a lead in New Hampshire.

But can anyone explain to me O’Malley’s rationale for continuing to tilt against windmills?

Or could it be he is hoping the Federal Bureau of Investigation will conclude its look at Clinton’s email server and see the US Attorney indicting her?

This would leave him as a clear Democratic choice, being the only life-long Democrat in the race against the independent, Democratic Socialist Sanders.

Is O’Malley hoping to be there to grasp the crown if it falls off Clinton’s head if she is indicted?

What can we expect tomorrow night?

Most likely trying to stay awake and a lot of what we heard during the last debate. For Democratic voters the economy remains the number one issue unlike Republicans where it is national security.

From the Cornfield, with nothing better to watch on a Saturday night, I will tune in and write my take of the Saturday night slumber party.

Wake Up Republican Base

From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield
From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield

As each day passes in the current race for the White House, I find myself shaking my head over and over again. Some of the statements from the wannabes border on the insane.

This is especially true when it comes to Donald Trump. Back in the summer I opined: The Trump Effect Or How to Lose an Election.

That article seems to be more relevant and more on target today than it did back on July 12th. But, I don’t blame Trump for being Trump. I blame the base of voters who determine who will be the GOP nominee for president. No matter how outrageous Trump’s statements, he stays at the top of the polls.

When are the Republican hardliners going to wake up and realize that while it may sound great to hear someone who is so politically incorrect, it will not result in a win on November 8, 2016.

If a candidate cannot win, why keep backing him?

The purpose of an election is to win – not be an also-ran. The strong talk, the ego, the never backing down, the never saying, “sorry”, will not play in Peoria.

It is sort of like a guilty pleasure, instant gratification or eating certain foods. For a moment it feels or tastes so good. Then a short time later, you are left with an empty feeling.

How are GOP primary and caucus voters going to feel if they continue down this ludicrous path of not holding Trump accountable when they wake on November 9 to find Hillary Clinton picking out drapes for the Oval Office?

From the Cornfield, I do not understand why people are throwing reason and logic out the window in a rebellion against political correctness run amok.

Whatever happened to plain old manners?

Yes, too many of our society in the US of A are overly sensitive and need to grow up. But the current path is a path to nowhere.

Presidential Wannabes on Islamic State

From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield
From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield

National Public Radio (NPR) has put out an excellent chart to help American voters to understand where the major parties’ candidates for president stand on dealing with the Islamic State.

Naturally what is in the chart could change depending on how the winds blow for a particular candidate at any time.

1. Bush and Paul both favor declaring war, while Clinton, Cruz, Graham and O’Malley favor or have favored passing a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which has in recent decades supplanted formal war declarations.
2. Christie was in favor of ground troops prior to the Paris attacks, saying they should be an option if arming U.S. allies doesn’t work.
3. On all answers marked “unclear,” unless linked/footnoted otherwise, NPR reached out to campaigns but either has not yet received answers or has received unclear answers.
4. Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler declined to answer questions on the “unclear” responses, writing in an email, “I think it too simplistic to reduce the ongoing ever-changing real-time dynamic situation in Syria in the wake of the Paris attack to yes or no answers.”
5. In September 2014, Cruz said he wanted a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force for fighting ISIS.
6. Fiorina told Fox Business that she doesn’t want to send in U.S. ground forces “yet.”
7. Statement from campaign
8. Huckabee told Breitbart News that a coalition of countries (one that includes the U.S.) should bomb ISIS, then send in troops.
9. Pataki was in favor of ground troops earlier this year, but he has not been clear on his strategy ideas since the Paris attacks.
10. Paul told CNN that he’s not in favor of more troops. However, he also added, “If we went to war and there was a declaration of war, I would put overwhelming force. I wouldn’t mess around.”
11. In an email to NPR, Paul’s campaign said, “If France asks to invoke NATO’s Article 5, President Obama should convene a NATO Summit but even if Article V is invoked, Congress must still authorize any military involvement.”
12. Rubio told ABC and O’Malley’s campaign told NPR that they are in favor of sending special operations troops. However, O’Malley and Rubio draw a distinction between those troops and larger waves of combat troops (Rubio did not respond directly to ABC as to whether he’d send in more combat troops). Similarly, Clinton said there should be more special ops troops, and that the U.S. should “support and equip” local forces.
13. A spokesman from the O’Malley campaign said that if France were to invoke NATO Article 5, then the U.S. would be bound by the treaty and would participate in accordance with NATO’s decision.
Source: Various
Credit: Danielle Kurtzleben/NPR, with research from Barbara Sprunt

From the Cornfield, in light of threat from terrorism becoming more and more reality and not just threat, it will be interesting to see the impact this may have on the 2016 Presidential Election.

For more information: http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart

‘Ask Not…’

From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield
From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield

As the 52th anniversary of John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s death at the hands of an assassin in Dallas, Texas on November 22 approaches, across the Cornfield and across the nation, many people are remembering the years of Camelot, when a young, charismatic politician stole the hearts of Americans.

At the time, though many throughout the nation still were at odds with the President on policy issues, he had managed to capture the people’s hearts as had his wife, Jackie, and children, Caroline and John-John. Speeches would denounce his politics and yes, even his religion, but would in the next breath extol what a determined, caring man and war hero JFK was.

A phrase which has become synonymous with the Kennedy years and the course of a nation was his appeal during his inaugural address on January 20, 1961: “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

Today that concept, that idea, seems to be alien to many Americans and especially lost on most of our national elected officials.

The concept and its origin is steeped in debate. Some arguing it goes back a thousand years or more to Plato or Juvenal. Others cite President Warren G. Harding who made a similar statement to the Republican National Convention decades before. Others cite JFK’s former school headmaster.

No matter the origin, the sentiment of the line is rooted in a belief shared since the foundation of this great nation – the idea of individual responsibility, individual fortitude, individual enterprise and individual ingenuity to build and sustain a nation unlike any other before it.

Ronald Reagan voiced a similar sentiment with his quip that government is the problem and not the answer. Kennedy recognized this. Kennedy knew government was only as effective as the people and what the people were willing to do for themselves and for country.

While JFK in his “New Frontier” speech to the 1960 Democratic National Convention made known his desire to expand on the more social platform instituted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he also was a pragmatist who understood the need for the individual doing his or her part and not relying solely on taking from or asking for government to provide the solutions and answers.

That concept, that sentiment, appears so lost in the political climate of today. It is lost not just with the Democratic Party of which JFK is a legacy, but also with Republicans who are far afield of either Abraham Lincoln or Reagan.

From the Cornfield, as we remember Kennedy, let us once more look inward and say with him, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.

And let it begin in the halls of Congress and in the White House.

Candidates Versus Moderators

From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield
From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield

So much for the hope that the prime time debate of Republican presidential candidates would be as substantial as the earlier 2nd tier debate.

In the first hour or so, what we got was a lot of back and forth between the wannabes and the moderators, with the crowd lapping it up like a dog going after water.

Most notably was Ted Cruz stopping everything to have a “come to Jesus” moment with the CNBC mods. Cruz accused the panel of trying to pit the candidates against each other rather than asking questions of substance. He noted that the Democratic wannabes faced softball questions during the love fest with moderators from CNN, who would never vote in a Republican primary.

That is not to say there has not been some meat put on the table.

There was not much applause, a few giggles, but Mike Huckabee had a great analogy on the government involved in the lives of Americans. The Huck compared the government to the blimp which got loose from the proving grounds in Maryland today. Huck noted that it was full of gas and cost too much to get rid of – so the government had to keep it.

Time again the GOP hopefuls would throw in the difference with both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders taking the country farther down the wrong road. They also claimed a continuation in electing either Democrat as a third term for President Barack Obama.

All of the candidates were adamant about less federal government. All the candidates focused on securing the borders, keeping America safe and taking care of its citizens. All of the candidates were for reducing taxes and revamping the current tax code.

Carly Fiorina noted that the parties have been talking reform for years and nothing ever happens. She said we needed someone who could get the job done.

On Medicare and Social Security, all agreed on saving and reforming both systems. All seemed to come down on keeping the system in tact for current recipients, but for younger workers a new program must be implemented.

Chris Christie, with good applause, came down on the moderators when the question was asked about fantasy football. Christie berated the moderators for asking such a question when the nation is at war with ISIS and Al Qaeda and other major concerns while the candidates were talking fantasy football.

Dr. Ben Carson stayed steady throughout. He skillfully rebutted questions that seemed to be more “gotcha” than substance. At one point when asked about a company putting is image below its logo on its website and if that was indicative of his judgment, the crowd erupted in a loud “boo”.

Rand Paul attempted to elicit his ties to the Liberty Movement during questioning. He answered many questions well.

There was a moment when Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio got in a tiff over Rubio’s lack of votes in the Senate this year. In fact, Bush told Rubio, his Senator, to either resign or show up for votes.

Donald Trump was not the loud mouthed, braggart he normally is on the campaign trail. He was more subdued and even complimentary of the other candidates, including Carson who has toppled him from the #1 spot in a recent national poll.

John Kasich pointed out over and over his record in Ohio. Kasich also noted he helped to get the nation to a balanced budget while in Congress.

I have to say tonight, no one candidate was a major standout outdistancing the other. All 10 of the GOP wannabes came across as thoughtful, on target and versed on the issues facing the nation.

If I have to choose a winner, I would be hard pressed. They pretty much all stood out to me. There were no major or even minor gaffes.

Supporters of each of the candidates will be crowing about how well their candidate did.

Detractors are still going to look down their noses.

For the undecided, most, like me, will remain undecided.

From the Cornfield, the question now is who will drop out before the next debate?

Did Bush do a good enough job to satisfy the big donors? 

Did Trump’s more laid back mannerisms reverse his downward slump and get Iowans to change their minds again? 

Will Carson momentum continue?

Will Paul see his fortune change?

Will Paul and Rubio break their tie in the polls? If so, which will get the biggest bump?

Did Kasich or Christie finally catch fire?

Will Fiorina get her wish to debate Clinton in a woman-to-woman face-to-face?

Pluck the Political Tares

From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield
From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield

How appropriate that the number of people seeking to be President of the United States continues to shrink this October night.

It is fall when the wind begins to winnow the chaff.

Earlier this week, Jim Webb pulled out of the Democratic race. Today, it was Lincoln Chafee.

A couple of weeks ago it was Scott Walker pulling out of Republican consideration after Rick Perry led the way a couple of weeks before that.

Growing in the field along with the sturdy, maturing crops are weeds and tares as of tonight which need to be pulled up and cast on the burn pile.

Last evening it was reported that one-time presumed Republican shoo-in, Jeb Bush, has begun to cut staff pay. Rather than sprouting, Bush has become a tumbleweed unable to get root.

Time for this Bush to be mowed down.

The field is quickly being pruned for the final four. This year, on the GOP side, it will be the last man standing.

Sorry, but Carly Fiorina has seen her time come and go. She did strong in the debates. She got a short-lived bump.

Then she did a Michelle Bachman with her grasping hold and not letting go of an abortion video. Turned out, she was in error about that video.

Her numbers are now sinking like a concrete block.

I cannot see her recovering. Time for the pruning shears.

The bottom five: Jim Gilmore, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Linsey Graham and Bobby Jindal; are blowing in the wind. Time to become riders on the storm into the sunset.

This brings us to Rand Paul and Chris Christie, who like seed planted in stony, shallow dirt sprouted quickly. They both are now withering in the autumn sun.

Time to dig up and replant in the next growing season.

Mike Huckabee, who has managed to stay in the middle of the tilled ground, has been revealed to be more of a mutant grain, leaving a bitter taste. Like a crab apple, except to bake in pie, he has no wide appeal.

Huckabee fell from the tree never to rise again. Time to turn to mash before the rot begins to stink.

Finally we come to the four, I believe, will be the contenders for the Republican top spot: Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Even with these four, we are starting to see blemishes marring the fruit. The occasional bug is burrowing in the pulp.

The two most palpable to the general public are Carson and Rubio.

Trump and Cruz both appeal to more selective palates.

Over at the Democratic farm, Martin O’Malley needs pulled up by the roots. Clinton and Bernie Sanders are the crops getting voters hungry and licking their lips.

From the Cornfield, we are near the 100-day mark before Iowans gather in groups in barns, farmhouses, churches and halls to make their voice heard.

Both parties and the candidates need to reassess the field.

Time to harvest the best to feed to voters starting in February.

Iron Cage Free-for-All – Dems Debate

From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield
From the Desert with feet planted firmly in the Cornfield

The expected yawn turned out to be more like a mixed martial arts iron cage free-for-all as the five presidential wannabes took to the stage for the first Democratic presidential debate.

Right from the start Lincoln Chafee came out swinging with a sly insinuation about front runner Hillary Clinton noting that he had been around in politics for over 30 years without any hint or accusation of scandal.

From there the fists and the kicks kept coming.

Most of the punches thrown were at Clinton, who kept trying to deflect by swinging at her long-time foil, the Republican Party.

All five, Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Webb and Lincoln Chafee all acquitted themselves well.

The weakest of the lot, to me, was Chafee. He also, I believe, had the least amount of speaking time. But when he spoke, he did not inspire any desire to follow him down the yellow brick road.

Clinton time and again seemed to base her right to be the next president because she is a woman. In fact that was what she noted would make sure if she won it would not be a third term for President Barack Obama.

Sanders was Sanders, He came across knowledgeable of the issues and attempted to lessen people’s concern about him being a democratic socialist. Sanders even came to the aid of Clinton saying that the American people are tired of hearing about the email server which has the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigating her and the use of the private server.

O’Malley tried, but failed in my opinion, to jump the questions raised about his term as mayor of Baltimore. He did his best to justify his policy of no-tolerance on criminals and jailing 100,000 people in one year. O’Malley denied his policies were to blame for the riots and unrest that erupted following the death of Freddie Gray.

To me, Webb was the most centrist and moderate of those on the stage. He seemed to have a better grip on foreign policy and the dangers America is facing around the world. However, Webb seemed out of step with the Democrats in the hall and the other candidates on the stage.

Except for Webb, there seemed to be a jockeying going on to see who could be the most liberal and the farthest to the left.

Who won?

Personally, I was more enamored with Webb’s responses.

But for the room, I would say a toss-up between Sanders and O’Malley. Yet for the pundits and media, Hillary is still the darling.

The clear loser was Chafee. Do not expect him to be around for the next debate November 4 in Des Moines, Iowa.

Due to his more moderate positions, Webb may not be there as well. He is not where the Democratic Party is at now.

The differences between the candidates, except Webb, were paper thin.

Except that both Sanders and especially O’Malley are very much for a return to the Glass-Steagall Act which would separate commercial banks from the more free-willing, more risky investment banking. Clinton, on the other hand, is not for a return to the bill that was rescinded and allowed to expire in 1999.

The biggest refrain at the debate was on income inequality. Over and over the wannabes talked of taxing the rich more and spreading the wealth around through profit sharing, higher wages with a minimum of $15 per hour, free college, lower student loan debt.

Neither Sanders nor O’Malley wanted to repeat the mistakes on the campaign trail when asked if black lives matter or do all lives matter. Both focused on the lives of blacks and ignored the last part of the question. If you recall O’Malley had to apologize for saying all lives matter earlier this year.

But don’t think because Sanders was nice enough to say no one wanted to hear any more about Clinton’s email scandal, the gloves were off. Several times punches landed on Clinton, who smiled, ignored and shook it off as if saying, “You can’t touch this.”

From the Cornfield, while I did not hear much I can agree with on the way the Democratic candidates want to take the country, the discussion was lively and informative.

Of the five, I could vote for Webb, but he will never make it to the convention and maybe not even to Iowa or New Hampshire.

Clinton in her responses actually answered the question posed by moderator Anderson Cooper, which she deftly batted away, on whether she changed her responses and stands on issues for political expediency.

The revelation – yes, she does.

What I will say about Sanders is you know what you are getting and where you stand with him. That is a plus.