Pun intended! That elephant being GOP obstruction. This is why I think Hillary is much more plausible as President rather than just a candidate issuing prophetic jeremiads like the Bern.
It's not that I don't agree with much of what he says. But how do we get there? I think that Bernie is best in just decrying a problem but Hillary is the one who always says Ok but how do we solve it.
I love her slogan: I'm a progressive who wants to get things done.
Like even on his pet issue-the corrupt financial system, she's the one who gets into the weeds and actually comes up with what we might do about it besides just 'breaking up the big banks' which may not be the answer at all.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-hillary-is-actually-better-on.html
I have to admit that one of the pernicious aspects of campaigning is that things get made a lot more simple than they are. Like you're either against Keystone or you are a GOPer who doesn't care about the environment.
You are either against TPP or you hate American workers and don't realize that we have terrible wage stagnation crying out for solutions.
Waldman points out that no matter which Democrat wins they will face the same GOP obstructionism across the board that President Obama has done.
"In 2007, Mark Schmitt called the argument among Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards the “theory of change primary.” As Clinton would describe it in speeches, Edwards thought you demand change, Obama thought you hope for change, and she thought you work for change. Sanders’ theory, as he lays it out here, is essentially that you force change, by making it too politically dangerous for Republicans to resist."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/14/why-the-democratic-candidates-cant-confront-the-real-elephant-in-the-room/
As Waldman suggests, I think a positive thing about this Democratic race is we're past believing in the fallacious dream of bipartisanship. If you want a country that moves forward just vote Democrat across the board.
"So a clear-eyed Democrat must measure Clinton and Sanders against a complex calculus. What candidate has the best chance to win, and to what end. How much does preventing a Republican president matter in itself. When does expedience on one issue promote success on another, and the refusal to compromise morph into comprehensive failure. Who has the skill and temperament to wrest results from a fractious Congress in such divisive times, pushing forward the party's stated agenda. And who can best confront the disparate challenges thrust at an American president."
"For some the hope of seismic change will outweigh its probability, binding them to Bernie Sanders' impassioned crusade. But others who look past November 2016 to envision the difference between victory and defeat may conclude that, in the end, Hillary Clinton's dogged quest is the safest place to be."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/debating-hillary-clinton_b_8288416.html
It's not that I don't agree with much of what he says. But how do we get there? I think that Bernie is best in just decrying a problem but Hillary is the one who always says Ok but how do we solve it.
I love her slogan: I'm a progressive who wants to get things done.
Like even on his pet issue-the corrupt financial system, she's the one who gets into the weeds and actually comes up with what we might do about it besides just 'breaking up the big banks' which may not be the answer at all.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-hillary-is-actually-better-on.html
I have to admit that one of the pernicious aspects of campaigning is that things get made a lot more simple than they are. Like you're either against Keystone or you are a GOPer who doesn't care about the environment.
You are either against TPP or you hate American workers and don't realize that we have terrible wage stagnation crying out for solutions.
Waldman points out that no matter which Democrat wins they will face the same GOP obstructionism across the board that President Obama has done.
"In 2007, Mark Schmitt called the argument among Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards the “theory of change primary.” As Clinton would describe it in speeches, Edwards thought you demand change, Obama thought you hope for change, and she thought you work for change. Sanders’ theory, as he lays it out here, is essentially that you force change, by making it too politically dangerous for Republicans to resist."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/14/why-the-democratic-candidates-cant-confront-the-real-elephant-in-the-room/
As Waldman suggests, I think a positive thing about this Democratic race is we're past believing in the fallacious dream of bipartisanship. If you want a country that moves forward just vote Democrat across the board.
But I take Waldman's point about Bernie and I agree with him it's not realistic. Bernie seems to be arguing that unlike President Obama he will run a permanent campaign.
This is one of the big illusions. Bernie is called the true progressive by his maniacs. The dream of true democracy. Reality always is going to be more messy than this.
Waldman points to a chief problem with Bernie's vision. GOP Congressmen don't worry about anything but their own district where people are often more conservative than they are believe it or not.
"Imagine you’re a Republican representative who hails from a conservative district in Alabama or Idaho or Tennessee; we’ll call him Jim. Jim is right now stopping comprehensive immigration reform, which the GOP as a whole knows it needs to pass in order to have any chance of appealing to the growing Hispanic population. But Jim won’t sign on, because though that might be good for the party, it’s bad for him. His conservative constituents don’t want it, he personally doesn’t want it, and the only political risk he fears is a primary challenge from the right."
"Is Jim really going to be scared and/or persuaded when a bunch of young people in America’s cities — even if there are millions of them — create a movement behind President Sanders’ plan for free college tuition? Don’t bet on it."
Waldman points out that this problem of GOP obstructionism will be present for any Democratic President.
Yes, but I think Hillary's work for change makes a lot of sense. It recognizes that lofty talk of hope and change aren't enough-while Bernie's approach is basically Edwards' demanding it once again.
Don't get me wrong, those of you who have read me over time know I am second to know one as a loyal Obamabot. But I can buy that he came in 2009 way too optimistic of the chance of having a reasoned chat with Republicans and both sides meeting in the middle.
Simply declaring it a post-partisan world doesn't get it done. At least a President Hillary Clinton would be under no illusions that the GOP is gong to help her do anything.
Then too, she has the kind of party insider contacts that she could really work and help build up the party at the state level to get Dems back in the various statehouses across the country that Bernie clearly lacks-not being a Democrat.
At the end of the day, though, this Huffington Post piece gets it right: we need a Democratic President to avoid total GOP dominance.
This may not please the Emoprogs that piously sniff The lesser of evils is still evil, but it's the reality. Can you imagine a President Jeb who not only finally empowers the GOP to destroy the Obama agenda, but in addition is able to increase the SJC slant from 5-4 to 6-3 or 7-2?
This is one of the big illusions. Bernie is called the true progressive by his maniacs. The dream of true democracy. Reality always is going to be more messy than this.
Waldman points to a chief problem with Bernie's vision. GOP Congressmen don't worry about anything but their own district where people are often more conservative than they are believe it or not.
"Imagine you’re a Republican representative who hails from a conservative district in Alabama or Idaho or Tennessee; we’ll call him Jim. Jim is right now stopping comprehensive immigration reform, which the GOP as a whole knows it needs to pass in order to have any chance of appealing to the growing Hispanic population. But Jim won’t sign on, because though that might be good for the party, it’s bad for him. His conservative constituents don’t want it, he personally doesn’t want it, and the only political risk he fears is a primary challenge from the right."
"Is Jim really going to be scared and/or persuaded when a bunch of young people in America’s cities — even if there are millions of them — create a movement behind President Sanders’ plan for free college tuition? Don’t bet on it."
Waldman points out that this problem of GOP obstructionism will be present for any Democratic President.
Yes, but I think Hillary's work for change makes a lot of sense. It recognizes that lofty talk of hope and change aren't enough-while Bernie's approach is basically Edwards' demanding it once again.
Don't get me wrong, those of you who have read me over time know I am second to know one as a loyal Obamabot. But I can buy that he came in 2009 way too optimistic of the chance of having a reasoned chat with Republicans and both sides meeting in the middle.
Simply declaring it a post-partisan world doesn't get it done. At least a President Hillary Clinton would be under no illusions that the GOP is gong to help her do anything.
Then too, she has the kind of party insider contacts that she could really work and help build up the party at the state level to get Dems back in the various statehouses across the country that Bernie clearly lacks-not being a Democrat.
At the end of the day, though, this Huffington Post piece gets it right: we need a Democratic President to avoid total GOP dominance.
This may not please the Emoprogs that piously sniff The lesser of evils is still evil, but it's the reality. Can you imagine a President Jeb who not only finally empowers the GOP to destroy the Obama agenda, but in addition is able to increase the SJC slant from 5-4 to 6-3 or 7-2?
"So a clear-eyed Democrat must measure Clinton and Sanders against a complex calculus. What candidate has the best chance to win, and to what end. How much does preventing a Republican president matter in itself. When does expedience on one issue promote success on another, and the refusal to compromise morph into comprehensive failure. Who has the skill and temperament to wrest results from a fractious Congress in such divisive times, pushing forward the party's stated agenda. And who can best confront the disparate challenges thrust at an American president."
"For some the hope of seismic change will outweigh its probability, binding them to Bernie Sanders' impassioned crusade. But others who look past November 2016 to envision the difference between victory and defeat may conclude that, in the end, Hillary Clinton's dogged quest is the safest place to be."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/debating-hillary-clinton_b_8288416.html
I think preventing a Republican President has to be the animating goal right now rather than making sur ethe most progressive Dem candidate gets the nomination.
No comments:
Post a Comment