Bill De Blasio was the unexpected Russia hawk of the first Democratic debate

[DonViejo]

By Joseph Marks
June 27 at 7:35 AM

Russian hacking and disinformation represents the single greatest threat to U.S. security, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said during Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate.

Link to tweet

But de Blasio was alone among 10 candidates on the debate stage in calling out the Russian threat. Other candidates cited climate change, China’s economic growth, conflict with Iran and nuclear proliferation.

That’s a startling breakdown as candidates square off in the first presidential debate since 2016 when Russian hackers probed election systems, compromised voter rolls and leaked hacked information in an effort to help Donald Trump’s electoral chances and damage Hillary Clinton.

And it produced some dropped jaws among cybersecurity and national security pros on Twitter – including Susan Rice, who was President Obama’s national security adviser during the Russian interference operation.

Link to tweet

And here’s Molly McKew, who advised President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili:

Link to tweet

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2019/06/27/the-cybersecurity-202-bill-de-blasio-was-the-unexpected-russia-hawk-of-the-first-democratic-debate/5d13bf281ad2e552a21d512d/

[Perseus]

1. de Blasio was very good, he took his opportunities

I have to say that the moderators were very unfair, O’Rourke who I think was a total disappointment was asked a lot of direct questions, he only answered one of them, and de Blasio was very eloquent, knowledgeable and he did not allow the moderators to ignore him.

In my opinion, Delaney was the worst, but he too was not asked enough direct questions, in 2nd to worst was Tim Ryan, then Gabbard. Those three should move on at this time.

I believe that Warren was taken off her momentum because they stopped asking her questions, I believe the moderators focused too much on Booker, Castro and O'Rourke.

I feel O'Rourke demonstrated he is full of rhetoric, he did not answer any questions directly, he just run around the bush, I think he needs to focus on taking the Senate away from Ted Cruz, I don't feel he is presidential material. I understand that any of those candidates are better than the buffoon, but we need to pick the best.

I loved Inslee's answer about the most dangerous thing to the USA today...The buffoon! I believe that Inslee did well, I think he is aggressive enough to take on the buffoon, same with de Blasio.

I believe Klobuchar has been very good as a congresswoman, and I would like her to stay there, she is good, I like her, but I believe her current position is of most value to the country.

Warren did well, but she needed to be more aggressive getting in when ignored, she was too polite in that sense.

Julian Castro was also very good, and he challenged O'Rourke who did not respond to the challenge.

Booker spoke with passion every chance he had, but did not say much either, he was less rhetorical than O'Rourke, by a mile, but nonetheless very political.

When Gabbard spoke about things that are close to her expertise she did very well, and she challenged Ryan who did not respond, although I understand where Ryan is coming from, it is not an easy decision.

[LuvNewcastle]

2. Yes, I liked Inslee and De Blasio the best.

I didn't really expect to like De Blasio, but I was pleasantly surprised. Honestly, though, I didn't see anybody who really impressed me. I hope to see more talent in tonight's debate.