Miami Heat from #FeelTheBern

Yes, I do feel that Bernie Sanders missed a clear change, or rather, deliberately chose to bypass a clear chance, to distinguish himself further from Hillary Clinton on foreign as well as domestic policy at last night's Miami debate. It IS a revolution, right?

That said, overall, and especially if we acknowledge once and for all that Bernie wants to remain inside the bipartisan foreign policy establishment box?

I agree with Bloomberg's grades that he won. Matt Yglesias says the same at Vox, while also saying that Univision, in various ways, was a loser, in part from what he calls "faux hardball" questions. And, while I'm not an MSM conspirator, he won despite getting less airtime, and despite not even getting to answer one or two questions himself.

He came prepared to answer the issue from the previous debate, that he'd flip-flopped on an auto industry bailout, and properly said that what he voted against was a Wall Street bailout. With Ohio, Illinois and Missouri up on Tuesday, that could be big. How big? If he can win Illinois, that big.  That said, even with him

He also pinned the tail on Clinton for her trying to lump him with the Minutemen et al on immigration. And, that was a low blow. It's a sign of desperation; it's also something that, if she wins the nomination, many Sandernistas will remember, and use to excuse sitting on the sidelines — or, better yet, do Plan B and vote Green.

That said, there's many white liberals who aren't as liberal on immigration issues as some think. I remember, about a decade ago, The Nation had a cover story on immigration and got a boatload of letters to the editor about it being too "liberal" or whatever word we use. That said, most of those readers are probably older ones, and thus, Clinton backers.

As for the use of the phrase "illegal immigration"? Yes, the Associated Press has officially abandoned the phrase. Yes, it's a civil, not a criminal, law violation to cross the border "without proper authorization." That said, the word "illegal" is used with other civil law violations. And, yes, pre-1924, we didn't have immigration restrictions in general other than health rejections, and current immigration law stems only from 1965. That said, since then, "unauthorized" immigration has been against the law, and therefore, illegal.

I wrote The Nation myself about the piece. I don't believe in "control the border" nuttery, and I know why people are fleeing Mexico and, more and more, places further south — rural agriculture wrecked by NAFTA, followed by thuggish governments, one of them installed by a Hillary Clinton-backed coup.

Nonetheless, we need to have some degree of control over immigration. We also need to have improved enforcement of labor and safety standards for many of the jobs that immigrants do — and pay them a higher minimum wage.

That said, per the fact that "abortion" was raised for the first time in this Democratic cycle at Monday's Fox town hall, neither candidate mentioned the issue of birth rates as a fuel for people wanting to immigrate. The worst countries, on high birth rates, are all sub-Saharan Africa, followed by a few Arab-world nations, but Guatemala and a few others in the New World could probably stand some reduction, too.

That said, Clinton may have won some sympathy points from establishment Democrats after Jorge Ramos asked her not just about her private emails and server, but about Libya, and not just Libya, but specifically Benghazi.

On that issue, I've said many a time before that the GOP doesn't really want to grill her too carefully about that. Both parties know it was really a CIA spook shack there — which Bernie also probably could have mentioned, but didn't.

Anyway, unless Debbie Wasserman (Dancing With The) Schultz agrees otherwise, that's it.  That's the last debate or town hall of the Democratic campaign cycle. Any more momentum for Sanders will have to come from winning primaries on next Tuesday.