One won caucus, one lost primary, and some are already announcing the “death” of the Clinton “dynasty?” BTW, what “dynasty?” One president elected twice doth not a “dynasty” make.
All we have to do is toss the magical word “communist” at Bernie so Alan Rickman can come… Slithern… back from the grave and Bernie will be helpless?
I’m rapidly growing so damn tired of how shallow the silly season has become.
All that matters to me between the two main candidates in the Dem party right now is who will win the big one, and when whomever wins actually does ascend to the big White House that floats high in the minds of most politician’s fantasy sky, will they actually be able to achieve anything they promise? My feeling is mostly “no,” because the same obstruct at all costs Congress will continue to, um, obstruct. Indeed it probably will get worse.
“Coattails???” Don’t talk to me of “coattails.” Talk of coattails is way beyond premature. It also conveniently forgets the caucus room conspiracy. “Coattails” turns a blind eye towards caging, shoving votes off to some server in Tennessee to wash them “clean,” inadequate voting machine access in Dem areas, challenges to voters in Dem areas: you know, all crud out “loving” Dem leaders prefer to ignore instead of trying to stop? It disregards how gerrymandering has pretty much negated any coattail effect. It ignores history: even eight years ago any “coattails” were marginal, and temporary, at best: a lot of faux Dems, 60 vote no filibuster, filibusters, meek attempts due to faux Dem factor.
I’ll believe “coattails” when that huge pink rabbit actually pops out of Bernie’s, or Hillary’s, hat. Until then it some left wing, one candidate infatuated, wet dream.
Thinking back to how Obama was going to “change everything” I hear echoes of those overly optimistic claims from some Bernie supporters. Bernie is no Obama, but Bernie will have many of the same problems. No doubt Hillary would too.
My guess is, since legislators have merrily continued doing all they can to destroy actual representative governance in favor of one party control, what the result may be post 2016 is an even worse divide… of not right away, by 2018. So, given that possibility, do we need a president who will stick to his principles despite all that, or one willing to compromise, meet part way?
The answer isn’t as easy as one would think. Either way: a gamble.
I suppose one major factor here is the Supremes. As bad as Hillary’s husband has been on international trade deals, as much as voting for Iraq like damn near every lied to Congressperson did, I don’t want an administration back that will appoint more Scalias, another Thomas, elevate a Roberts. I hear nothing from Bernie advocates about those “horrid” Clinton appointees. And that’s where the major game changer is: the courts, especially the Supremes. Without that nothing Bernie, or Hillary, could do would make a difference, if they’re able to “do” at all.
There are two choices here…
…a candidate whose husband in the past was compromised, and her to a somewhat lesser extent, by pro-corporate, pro-international trade deal, policies. Or we have a candidate who has been very, very consistent. The choice seems obvious.
But is it?
If you truly believe a candidate less willing to compromise on principles will ride in like some super hero and save the day, go for it. If you think four more years of someone willing to shift, to compromise as best they can, might be more likely to hold off the worst savages are so eager to do, go for it.
Is Bernie the next Roosevelt? Maybe. It took a Reagan for the right to head us down this dark path. But is that where we are now?
I have my doubts. So much is so different.
To quote a caller to The Stephanie Miller Show just before we went to publication…
“Presidents don’t get things done by themselves.”
But we have tried the Clinton, the Obama way. Maybe it’s time we try the Bernie way. That’s why I’m marginally a Bernie supporter, but will support Hillary if she is the candidate. And I admit: I’m a skeptic about Bernie Sanders actually having any ultimate Harry Potter magic wand up his whatever.
Please don’t send me any of those opposition research Hillary, or Bernie, conspiracy theories. Do we really need to help the Republicans? No candidate is perfect, and a lot of this junk can easily be kicked to the curb as total bunk, or as far more complex.
Here’s the truth: no matter who ascends on the Dem side there’s little doubt they’ll eventually come back to the same, radicalized, willing to do anything to step in the way even of what they would otherwise want, divided house. If anything a more firm principle-based president may bring us to worse times than Clinton impeachment days.
But, what the %$#@: being nice sure as hell hasn’t worked. Until I see it differently, I’ll vote for him.
And I am also concerned about whatever gains we may get, if any, might be lost in 2020. Whomever wins needs to beat them back again four years later.
They are not giving up. Ever. Not in my lifetime, at least.
So if I seem a weak supporter, I am. I’m looking ahead of the election curve. I’m less concerned with Hillary’s, or Bernie’s, winning the primaries and caucuses, or the general, than what will happen after all the balloons drop and this damn annoying silly season is over.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks, and into the unseen cracks and crevasses, that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved