Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Voting for Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voting for Hillary. Show all posts

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Voting for Hillary - Part V

Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion
11.05.2016

Voting for Hillary - Part V

In three days I will be casting my vote for President of the United States, I will be voting as a nearly always have, for the nominee of the Democratic Party, Hillary Rodham Clinton; former Secretary of State, Former Senator from the State of New York, Former First Lady of the United States, Former First Lady of Arkansas. 

I have been an active partisan for her candidacy this entire campaign season, as I was in 2008 when she ran against our sitting President Barrack Obama. When she lost the nomination in that year, I turned became an ardent supporter of Obama. I did not hesitate, because eight years of Republican governance got us involved in two major wars, the near destruction of our economy, the housing collapse, Federal budget surpluses transformed into skyrocketing deficit spending, the collapse of the housing market, years of record high gas prices, a further coarsening of public discourse, a retreat into; anti-science, anti-intellectual fundamentalism, an expanded role for private religion in public policy, deep harm done to the reputation of the United States abroad; an abrogation of our duties under the Geneva Convention, the denial of constitutional rights and due process to people held under the aegis of American authority, an embrace of torture, murder, war profiteering, outing intelligence officer who threaten to expose lies being used to support a rationale for war, and the use of overseas/offshore prisons in order to carry out war crimes.

That is what we got with the last Republican administration.

The last Republican administration, the George W. Bush administration was comprised of people who believed, at least a little bit, in the institutions of government; that public policy can make a difference in the lives of citizens, that if you are “caught” committing crimes you need to be held accountable, that there is such a thing as due process, that freedom of religion is as important to our democracy as the right to bear arms, that freedom of speech and freedom of the press must be preserved, that America is a melting pot and a nation of immigrants.

The current Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, does not believe in any of things, apparently. He may not believe in anything at all. He appears to most observers to be a classic narcissist, a megalomaniac, a nihilist, for whom winning is the only thing that matters. He has surrounded himself with the unwise and the unscrupulous, with “yes people”, he buys his own press and he would, if he could, deny the right of others to criticize him.

Hillary Clinton, has her flaws, but they are the ordinary flaws of all politicians. Her flaws may be slightly more magnified in her, or it may be that we are more aware of them because of the intense scrutiny she has endured over the past twenty-five years of her public life. Despite her flaws she is known to be a tireless worker, a dedicated public servant, a close observer of public policy, hyper intelligent, realistic, unflinching. A woman of resolve.

If we are fortunate enough to have her as our president we will have succeeded in electing the first woman to our highest office only a few years short of one hundred, since we gave women the right to vote.  

Hillary is not perfect. Nobody is perfect. She is not dangerous, Donald is.

Donald has been endorsed by the KKK, the American Nazi Party, and every other white supremacist, right wing hate group in the country. They show up at his rallies, they fly confederate flags, they are not “officially encouraged,” but they are not censured. They are not disavowed. They are in fact, a vital part of his constituency, with leaders from that wing of American political deeply embedded in his campaign, in the highest positions of leadership.

I am voting for Hillary because I know that she will be levelheaded, fair minded, and a competent manager of the federal government. The Clintons and their team already presided over one of the most successful administrations of modern times, and they will be joined by veterans of the current administration who are even handed and adept at what they do. That is what we need right now.

A Hillary Clinton administration is what we need right now. She will not advance the most progressive policies that have been proposed, but she will advance the progressive policies that she able to. Her administration will continue the track record of stability that President Obama has managed to engender. Her administration will be a continuance of that steady and calm leadership. In that place, verses a place of chaos and uncertainty, self-aggrandizement and profiteering, we will come away with the best deal possible.

Vote for Hillary if you have not already. Get out there and vote for the first woman to be president. 

Vote against the spiteful, erratic, mean spirited Donald Trump. Vote for clear headed, thoughtful, progressive policies. Vote against, the KKK, the American Nazi Party, do not give them the candidate they desire. Vote for the party that wants to expand the franchise, making it easier to vote. Do not vote for the party seeking to obstruct it. Vote for women’s rights, the freedom of choice, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Vote against those who seek to suppress those freedoms at the point of violence.

The election is in our hands, and we will get what we deserve.

Vote Hillary Rodham Clinton for President!


Bury Trump in a landslide!  

Saturday, July 30, 2016

The Democratic National Convention – A First for Women

Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion

07.30.2016

The Democratic National Convention – A First for Women

Over the past year I have unashamedly, and unabashedly supported the candidacy of Secretary Hillary Clinton; even as most of the people in my extended circle of friends through their own voices have given their support to the progressive Senator Bernie Sanders.

I am proud to have done so.

I relentlessly pursued arguments against Bernie Sanders, while at the same time laying out my rationale for promoting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. I even gave money to her campaign. I made a few new friends in the process, I angered, and even alienated more; though I am confident that over time all relationships will be able to be healed.

Now it is done. The primaries are over. The general election is upon us.

Hillary is the nominee of the Democratic Party, and Bernie succeeded in moving the party platform to the left; to where my heart is, and so now I feel as if I have won twice over. We, the collective we, chose the better candidate (in my estimation), and the person who I believe will be a better President. At the same time, we were also able to establish a more progressive agenda for the Democratic Party moving forward.

Beyond being pleased with how things turned out, I see the nomination of Hillary Clinton as a significant cultural victory for America. It is a milestone. With her leading the Democratic Party; there is a very good chance that we will have our first woman as President of the United States. She has gone farther than any woman has gone before. Whether you supported her candidacy, opposed it, or are indifferent to the matter; this is an achievement.

It has been ninety-six years since women were granted the right to vote, and we have our first woman as a major party candidate for president.

It is my belief that we do better as a country, when as a country; we are answerable to the good conscience of our female citizens. We do better when we are answerable to that half of the population. It is good for America to have women as equal partners in government. It has and will promote greater thoughtfulness, we will be less rash, more careful. Of course these changes may be hardly measurable, but over time the measure will be great.

The nomination of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party marks a significant moment in our societal evolution. I am thankful for it.

Many of my friends who were against her, and are now planning to vote for her, albeit reluctantly, they are bemoaning the fact that it is her, with all of her flaws, and her centrist ways, that they have to vote for.

What I would like to tell them, what I would like for them to understand, is this; it could not have been any other woman. It had to be Hillary, she strove for it, she planned for it, she beat down every barrier that stood in her way, and it took her decades, against the most strident opposition.

The first woman to be nominated for the office of President had to be someone positioned exactly as Hillary had positioned herself; at the center of power, with a deep familiarity of the functions of government, a centrist, a compromiser, someone in whom every faction in the halls of power could easily see something to their own advantage if she were elected.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is a flawed and compromised politician, but she is also a brilliant and driven woman. Poised as she is to build on the stabilizing work that President Obama has done over the past eight years; she may be set to become the most effective President, in regards to advancing a progressive social agenda since Lyndon Johnson.

Her nomination, and this election cycle are forcing a dramatic realignment of the parties as we know them, I believe the result of electing this woman as our first female president will be a brighter tomorrow for every American.    



Sunday, February 28, 2016

Voting for Hillary Part IV - Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion

02.27.2016

Voting for Hillary Part IV

As a supporter of Hillary (HRC), I can tell you that it was gratifying to watch the results come in from yesterday primary in South Carolina. Even though I am not anticipating it, I hope my DFL friends who are planning to caucus on Tuesday I hope we can show the same good sense. I am going to be up at Jefferson Elementary Tuesday night, March 1st; making the case.

I support HRC, it is not that I don’t think Senator Sanders (BS), has good ideas; I do. I share his ideals, but I think, as many of you have heard me say, that HRC has a much better chance of advancing the progressive agenda than BS does.

This is why I think HRC will get more traction for her agenda than BS will be able to do:

The republican establishment has been playing a long con, for the past eight years, by refusing to cooperate with Obama. They thought they could keep both social policy, and economic progress stagnant, and that this would do enough damage to the democratic brand that America would abandon both President Obama and his allies in congress. President Obama was able to get some things done, like the ACA, in the first two years, when the democratic party had control of both chambers of congress. However, in 2010 the democrats lost the House of Representatives, and the obstruction set in, and the long con began.

This gamesmanship did not work out quite the way they planned, President Obama was reelected, but the republicans did gain control of the Senate, and so they doubled down on their strategy for his second term; thinking that if things were held at a standstill the election this year, in 2016, would be viewed as a referendum on the Democratic Party and they would be able to sweep in. It was a big gamble, and the results of the 2014 election indicated that it might be working, the republicans strengthened their hand that year, and yet the con is not complete, and the risks are still risky, because the big money behind the Republican Party establishment, wants more than anything to make money. They want 4% or 5% economic growth, not 1% or 2%. They want the prime lending rate at 1% or 2% not 0%, or 0.25% which it is now.

The way I see the last eight years is that those interests basically accepted the notion of having a weak U.S. economy, one in which they were still making money, still performing better than the rest of the world (by just sitting on their capitol), with the hope that at the end of it they would have both houses of congress, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court all wrapped up. That is the con, but it did not quite work.

The economy performed better than expected. The stock market performed better than expected, the rest of the world did much worse than expected. At the moment, the U.S. economy is benefitting from the global slow down. The recent slowdown in China only benefits us, it hurts the stock market short term, it generated some uncertainty and instability, but it will help us in the longer term, because investment dollars will move away from those markets, into ours due to the long term stability that the United States provides. Furthermore, beyond those economic considerations, that long con that the republican establishment played forced the establishment to coddle the most rightwing elements of their party, and now establishment has been completely undermined by their ideological clowns, and they are on the verge losing control of it to an upstart named Donald Trump.

Here is the deal, those republican economic interests are not going to triple down on that bet. They will not play the con any longer if their gambit does not pay off. Those economic interests who are sitting on (as much or more than) two-trillion dollars in capitol, are going to free up that capitol, and return to investing it in the U.S., in our work force, in technology, in industry and in infrastructure development. Securing that capital investment, cooperatively (not by coercion), is the key to economic development and prosperity in American for the next several decades. But they will only play ball, if they have someone in office that will play ball with them. HRC will work with them.

For many of my friends, the fact that HRC will work with these interest groups is reason enough not to support her. I respect that, but I contend that it is short sighted. We want that capital investment in America, we can get to it much faster if we deal with them, than we can if the plan is to change the tax structure first, and take it from them. HRC will be able to make a deal in the short term, but only if they get some concessions. HRC will be able to cut an infrastructure deal, BS will not. This is true regarding the rest of their proposed agendas; HRC will be able to make deals and get some things done and BS will not. I am not going to put forward a long list of what HRC will be able to do that BS won’t, because that one example (on infrastructure) summarizes my argument and my point of view, and I think you can extrapolate my rationale from there.

I am certain that if Hillary puts out a reasonable plan for growth and the Republican leadership refuses to play ball, there will be some party switching, republicans will defect, and the leadership will get some marching orders from those economic interest groups; they will be told to play ball, those economic powers do not want another four or eight years of weak growth.


BS however, he will not get that consideration, because he either will not compromise, or he will not compromise enough. The strength of his idealism, will become his ideological weakness, he will not compromise enough. His idealism will have him come off looking like the crazy person at the bargaining table, and they will drive him out as a failure in four years, while at the same time holding on to the other channels of power. The republicans will triple down on their bet then, and the great con game will continue.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Voting for Hillary Part III – HRC v BS II - Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion

02.20.2016

Voting for Hillary Part III – HRC v BS II

A couple of days ago I made a comment on the Face Book page of a friend of mine. I said something to the effect of this:

“If Senator Sanders wins the Presidency (and I think he could do it if he wins the nomination of the Democratic Party), it will set back the progressive agenda by a generation.”

This may seem counterintuitive to most people who read it, because Senator Sanders (BS) is clearly the most ardent, and idealistic spokesperson for the progressive agenda in our public life at this time (with the possible exception of Senator Elizabeth Warren).

Why is that the case, why would the torch-bearer of the progressive movement, be the biggest threat to the cause of progressivism?  

This is complicated, and I ask you to allow the whole argument play out in order to arrive at its conclusion.

Therefore, let us talk about the candidates, and what they would bring to the table if they were President. What are the expectations attaching to each of them

I think I think Secretary Clinton (HRC) will be a least as effective as President Obama in advancing the progressive agenda. Many idealistic progressives will scoff at this; many of the most active liberals I know think that President Obama has accomplished very little in terms of genuine progressivism, and so this claim is not convincing to them. Those people complain that the Affordable Care Act was a giveaway to the insurance agencies, that our armed forces are still far too involved in conflicts around the world, they complain about the rate at which immigrants are being deported, they complain about the sequester, and so on. While they complain the apologists for 

President Obama, of which I am one, will tell you that he got what he was able to get while negotiating with Congress; Congress which actually controls the legislative agenda.
President Obama barely passed the Affordable Care Act, at a time when his party controlled both chambers of congress, when he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. At the same time President Obama could not even close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, which he ran on as a first order of business for his administration. Why was it so difficult to get the one thing done, and impossible to do the other? It is because every little thing that the president wants to do are reduced to negotiating points to be made with hostile actors; hostile Republicans and intractable Democrats alike. A president cannot even rely on members of their own party to support their agenda; if those members discern even a tiny bit of political peril in it for them.

In the current political climate, while Republicans control both chambers of Congress, making some advances on the progressive agenda would be great, even small ones, but holding the line on what has been achieved over the past eight years is even more important. No backsliding!

When we Democratic voters, we liberal progressives are dreaming about raising the minimum wage, universal health care, strengthening unions, breaking up big banks, overturning Citizens United, subsidizing college tuition, major increases in domestic spending, protecting voting rights; we must bear in mind, that roughly half of the electorate will be voting for the other side. The other side already controls the Senate, already controls the House of Representatives, controls the majority of state legislative assemblies, and the majority of gubernatorial chairs throughout the country. The other side wants no minimum wage, no regulation of banking, health care provided through the free market, no right to organize unions, Citizens United affirmed, and the rights of corporations expanded, no support for higher education, and all domestic infrastructure spending made piecemeal through block grants, given to the sates and along to the private sector, they want all of that and the sharp curtailment of voting rights. Throw into the mix their long standing desire to privatize social security, to keep burning fossil fuels, and to ramp up the war footing of the Nation.  

Holding the line will, if that is all we are able to do, that will be a victory for the next President. I believe HRC can do that, and I believe she can do more. I believe she can build on the legacy of President Obama. HRC will able to hold the line precisely because her rhetoric is not calling for revolution. While some may criticize her for setting the bar too low, I believe she is setting the bar realistically. This is vital, because the most important thing about keeping the agenda moving forward is too not lose the support of the base. If you promise what you cannot deliver, they will become disillusioned and fall away. This happened to President Obama, people have written books about how he has “betrayed” the progressive agenda, and it happened to President Jimmy Carter, whose legacy should be a cautionary note for how we can view a possible BS administration.

Because the agenda that HRC has put forward is as tempered as it is, ordinary people on both sides of the political spectrum, everyone in the much maligned-muddy-middle, all of those supposed moderates, they can understand it, and because they understand it, they won’t feel threatened by it, they can support it, even in the face of opposition. Some people on the left might want more progressivism, some on the right might want more conservativism, but when one side or the other wins an election they get the mandate to expand their cause. The majority of Americans understand this, but they do not want, and they do not expect to gyrate wildly from poll to poll, they expect a moderate expansion of the franchise from the margins at the middle.

The majority knows who to hold at fault when the government gets shut down, if one side is being moderate, and the other side is acting from the demands of their ideals. If a BS administration threatens to veto a budget because it lacks some provision he has demanded from the furthest reaches of his idealism, BS will get the blame, and not congress.

Listen to me; progress is progress, even if it is gradual, and incremental.

This is not exciting. I realize that, but it is the truth, and I hope you can realize this too.

This is exactly how we would view it if the conservative side gets a victory. If the republicans win and decide to try and implement a legislative agenda that looks like the most ideal version of their conservative torch-bearers; deport eleven million people, build a giant wall on the border with Mexico, go to war again in Iraq, and in Syria, ban Muslims from entering the country, undermine the separation of church and state etc, etc, etc…we would expect our democrats to muster whatever power they had to block everything. That is what will happen if progressives try to do the same, they will block everything (only the conservatives hold more cards right now).

Here is what will happen in a BS administration. He will either compromise severely, thereby disillusioning his voters (I don't think this is likely), causing them to fall away. Or he will stick to his idealism, and he won't even get democrats to work with him. A BS administration will be a laughing stock either way, and it will ruin the cause of progressivism for at least a couple of decades; ala Jimmy Carter.

I have not heard BS say this himself, but I have heard Tad Devine, his campaign manager say it. He has admitted that the endeavor the BS campaign is engaged in is going to take a generation to develop. He is an experienced operator, and it is obviously true. They know that they have not only to win the presidency, and hold it, but that they also have to win a majority in congress, and keep it for at least one or two cycles. If liberal progressives are going to have a lasting chance, and the BS revolution succeed, they need to control congress in 2020 when the entire legislative map is up for redistricting. Unless they can do that; liberal progressives will continue to be at a significant disadvantage, and the BS revolution, even if he wins the presidency, will never materialize.

BS does not talk this way on the stump, but his more candid spokespeople do. They are talking behind the scenes about the realities of gradualism, the necessity of incrementalism, in this way they are indistinguishable from HRC. There is a difference however; HRC is leveling with people, and BS is trying to get people caught up in his romantic revolution.

HRC’s approach asks people up-front to sign on for the long haul, wherein progress (no matter how small) will be hailed for what it is progress. BS is asking people to “Feel the Bern,” to light the match, but as we all know the flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long.

What will happen to all of that passion when the cold water gets thrown on it. Will people be writing books about how BS betrayed the progressive movement? I don’t think so, BS is not the type to compromise, at least not on the big things. He will stand his ground, and the ground will fall out from under him, progressives may not blame him for standing his ground while giving voice to their ideals, but as the ground falls out from under him; because he is unable to compromise, it will fall out from under the progressive movement as well; creating the opportunity for a nearly completely discredited conservative movement to come roaring back

Remember Jimmy Carter; arguably one of the smartest, most rationale, most authentic, and most sincere of our modern presidents. He did not lack for good ideas, he behaved like a leader and put those ideas forward, but his inability to accomplish those goals turned his legacy into a subject of ridicule. I am not saying that his administration deserves the ridicule, but they suffered under it anyway, and continue to suffer from that ridicule thirty-six years later. The failures of the Carter administration set the stage for the so-called Reagan Revolution. A BS administration threatens to set that stage again.  

It was under President Reagan that the nation began to move to the rightwing in a way that has been; anti-intellectual, anti-science, religiously fundamental, ahistorical and absolutely irrational. We risk that happening again, unless we are able to demonstrate in an irrefutable way that the leadership of Democratic presidents, championing liberal ideal, while implementing progressive policies is the key stability for the nation; and that will set the stage for economic growth, economic justice, and prosperity for all.

I believe that HRC can do this, and I have no faith that BS can. I believe this because Hillary speaks directly, and honestly to these points, while Bernie continues to dream the revolutionary dream.


More to follow…

Sunday, February 7, 2016

Voting for Hillary, Part Two – HRC v BS - Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion

02.06.2016

Voting for Hillary, Part Two – HRC v BS

There is an election coming on Tuesday, people are voting in the State of New Hampshire, and the election matters.

The choices the voters face is not between republican and democrat, that choice is coming. The choice is between former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and sitting Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders.

There is a lot of talk going around about which of these candidates best represents the Democratic Party; its values, and aspirations, even though only one of them, Hillary, is actually a democrat. Nevertheless, there is a lot of momentum behind the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, and that needs to be addressed.

In politics there are many vectors of concern.

On the one hand our politics are about the future, our ideals, and where we want to see the country move to. Politics are aspirational.

On the other hand, politics, and voting are about the practical reality of governing.

Politics are just as much about the public policies we would like to see enacted, as they are about the public policies that can be enacted, practically, in a nation that is ideologically divided between left and right.

As we listen to our candidates propose the policies they would like to implement, it is vital that they articulate more than the goal of their policies (though the end game is important), they must also be able to articulate the path they will take to get there, the specific strategies, strategies that demonstrate an appreciation for the past efforts to move us toward those goals, as well as realistic appraisal of the political world, with its ideological divisions, that we live in at the present time.

Let us not pretend that if Bernie Sanders is elected, like magic, Citizens United will be overturned; wave a wand and will have a new federal minimum wage, blink and there will be a trillion dollar package of new domestic spending, wiggle his nose, and we will have universal health care.
That would be revolutionary, and sober minds know that the likelihood of any of that happening in America today, is very remote. Yes, we must move toward those goals, but any such movement is aspirational, can only be aspirational, as it always has been.

That is because our country is deeply divided, and it will take cooperation from those on the opposing side of the divide to make those political aspirations a reality. It will require consensus, and it will require compromising with people who believe in their heart that corporations are people, who believe in their hearts that there should be no minimum wage, who believe in their hearts that the government should be dissolved and that there should be no public spending on infrastructure; because the private sector can do it better.

Hillary and Bernie Sanders both want those things for America. What differentiates them from one another is that Hillary talks straight about these aspirational goals, and Bernie Sanders is pretending that he can get it all done with a wink and a nod. I value Hillary’s practicality on this matter, and I am offended that the Sander’s campaign will not address these political realities.

The answer that Bernie Sander’s has settle on, in response to this line of questioning, is that he intends to lead a political revolution, a revolution that will sweep aside the old way of doing things, and sweep in a mandate for his agenda.

The language of revolution is unfortunate, it touches on the romantic notion of radicalism while leaving unspoken the violent realities of conflict. For a revolution to be swift and sweeping it must be supported by an overwhelming percentage of the people, people who are united in their ideology and their aspirations. That is not where we are as Americans. We are deeply divided, we are a 50/50 nation, we are left and right. That is not the fermentation bed for a revolution, it is the fermentation bed for deep civil unrest.

Set this aside for a moment, because I do not wish to be gloomy in the face of hope and optimism. I am both hopeful and optimistic that our collected aspirations can be achieved.
Let us discuss the qualifications of our candidates, who is best able to carry on the work of fulfilling our liberal and progressive ideals.  

Some think it is a significant qualification that Bernie Sanders was chief executive (Mayor) of Burlington Vermont, a city with a population of 200,000 people. I think Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State, speaks to a wider degree of executive experience.

Some have suggested that because Hillary was merely appointed Secretary of State, not elected to it, this does not count as a political achievement, but are talking about is political experience; individual accomplishments and experience managing government, in that context it does not matter if you are elected, appointed (and confirmed), or if you are a career bureaucrat; experience is experience.
Some have suggested that Bernie Sanders’ 25 years in congress, as a Representative and a Senator means that he has the institutional knowledge and relationships to aid him in accomplishing his agenda. I think they are an indictment of his ineffectiveness. He has been making the same speeches for his entire life, and has failed to advance his agenda, failed to grow a grass roots movement to do anything.

To be clear, I don’t think that Hillary has a stunning record of legislative accomplishment either, but I value her experience as First Lady, as Senator, and as Secretary of State more than Bernie Sanders’ time as an “outsider” in congress.

They are both smart people, but you need more than smarts to succeed as President. You need relationships. Hillary has those relationships, and Bernie Sanders is still an outsider, as evidenced by the overwhelming number of endorsements Hillary has from: sitting and former members of congress, as well as private organizations, unions and newspapers, not to mention the count of super delegates who have committed to her.

As we are talking about their respective legislative records and success rates, let us appreciate a few salient facts. During the time that Hillary and Bernie Sanders both served in the Senate, they voted the same 93% of the time.


This article from the New York Times tells the tale. On the very few things where they differed from one another; I would suggest the outcome is mixed, with each of them demonstrating wisdom in some things and a lack of wisdom in others. Some votes had tragic consequences, like the war in Iraq, but Bernie Sanders would have let the entire economy sink in 2008 – 2009, because the TARP bill and other economic stimulus bills, that were put in place to stem the economic disaster that was taking, were not “perfect.” That also would have been tragic.

Let us dwell for a moment longer on their general records of success in congress, remembering that they voted the same 93% of the time.

In all of Bernie Sanders’ time in congress he has only sponsored 5 bills that became law, while Hillary, in her much shorter tenure sponsored three bills that became law. Hillary co-sponsored 74 bills which became law (100% success rate). Bernie has co-sponsored over 5,000 bills, only about 200 became law (5% success rate). Please be mindful, I am not talking about the merits of these bills, I am just speaking to their success rate as legislators.

In my judgement, Bernie Sanders, if elected, would be a disaster as president, and a disaster for the progressive causes you and I care about. Ineffectuality will quickly turn into a referendum against him, and the party he represents. I point to the Carter administration, as evidence for this claim. Jimmy was a smart and capable leader, if we had followed his plans for domestic energy consumption (among other things) the world would be a different place. But Jimmy Carter was an outsider, he had zero ability to execute his agenda because he had no relationships with anyone in congress, no relationships among the career people in the federal government.

We know how history has treated him (even though he doesn’t deserve it). We do not want to set up a right wing reaction against that kind of failure, as happened with Ronald Reagan.

Hillary has those relationships. The Clinton team will come to the job with those relationships in place, they have already managed the government, have been managing the government, and they are good at it.

I must reiterate; the excitement for Bernie Sanders fails to acknowledge the political reality that the right-wing controls congress, controls the Supreme Court, controls the majority of gubernatorial seats, and the majority of statehouses across the country. The people who elected them do not even want the things Bernie and Hillary are talking about. They think the liberal agenda is un-godly. They don’t want a minimum wage (at all), they don’t want the federal government…they are not going to help. They will actively obstruct. We on the left will do a disservice to our cause if we put people in power who will meet their obstruction with obstruction.

If we desire the liberal and progressive agenda to move forward we will work toward fostering political and economic stability in our country. We are only ever able to expand the franchise of citizenship and social empowerment when the people at large, feel secure; when they are frightened (for real or imagined reasons), when there is chaos, they will move the other way.

In my work as a manger of systems and people I have come to understand the following things:

It is always easier to point out problems than it is to find solutions.

It is always easier to imagine solutions than to form the plans to put them in place.

It is always easier to make plans, than to actually implement them.

It is always easier to begin an endeavor than it is to keep it moving forward.

I believe that Hillary, not Bernie Sanders has what it takes to carry us all the way through these steps.

That belief is based in part on the fact that Hillary is being honest about these challenges, while Bernie Sanders is pretending otherwise.


If you believe that Bernie Sanders is in reality an aspirational candidate, just like Hillary, and not a revolutionary; if you believe he is not made of magic and his agenda will take a generation (or more) to take effect, then you should get behind the person who shares the same aspirations, but is willing and able to negotiate the political resolutions, to cut the deals that will take us there. 

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Voting for Hillary, Part One - Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion

01.30.2015

Voting for Hillary, Part One

I did a couple of things this week that I have never done before.

      1.      I made a financial contribution to a political campaign.
      2.      I committed to caucus for a candidate.

I took these steps in support of Hillary Clinton. I have been a vocal supporter of hers for many years, since I was first introduced to her, in her role as First Lady of the United States.

I favored the high profile role she played in the first Clinton administration. I was both disturbed and amused by the reaction the conservative talkers had toward her in those early years. Rush Limbaugh coined the term “feminazi,” in relation to her; in order to spread paranoia, and mistrust of her agenda, but not just of her agenda...they were afraid of her.

The conservative movement in American politics is afraid of women, of a woman’s independence, of a woman’s intelligence, and of a woman’s perspective on the world. This is not to overlook the fact that there are women in positions of leadership in the conservative movement, both in and apart from public office, but those women only succeed insofar as they are willing to undermine efforts to strengthen and support the role of women in our society, to undermine public policy in regards, to pay, health, privacy and self-determination.

In the twenty-four years since she became First Lady, through her eight years as Senator from New York, and her term as Secretary of State; those conservative talkers have relentlessly kept up their attacks on Hillary, and have succeeded in shaping the public perception of her in such a negative light, that the majority of the country sees her as “dishonest,” without being able to say exactly why (or exactly why she differs from any other politician for this quality). This is true even among those who support her candidacy for President of the United States.

I reject the efforts of conservative talkers to shape my view of this strong, intelligent, powerful, intellectual woman.

I support Hillary’s candidacy because I believe that she, and the team she will bring with her to the White House, have a better chance to advance the liberal and progressive vision for the future of our country than any other candidate. I believe she will protect the advances made by President Obama, and she will add to them. This belief is rooted in the notion that it requires more than talking points, more than speech making to enact the kinds of legislation that will be required to advance that vision. It requires a President that is not only willing to compromise, but able to do so in a manner that is adept.

On a more fundamental level I support her candidacy because I believe that it is time for a woman to hold the highest office in the land


Hillary is the right woman, at this time, to take on that burden.