News and Politics

Discussion about news and politics

Major Blunders: Bill Clinton’s Denunciation Of Bernie Sanders, And Madeleine Albright And Gloria Steinem Critical Of Young Women Who Support Bernie Sanders Over Hillary Clinton

The Democratic Presidential campaign is getting extremely heated, but the Hillary Clinton campaign is making major blunders that could reverberate on her chances to be the nominee of the party long term.

Husband Bill Clinton unleashing a denunciation of Bernie Sanders is totally unwise, and reminds us of how he helped to ruin his wife’s candidacy in 2008, when he bitterly engaged in what many thought was racism in his attacks on Barack Obama.

The best thing Bill Clinton could do is SHUT UP, and stay out of the campaign, and let his wife fight her own battles, as his involvement is counterproductive.

But also, the decision of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at a Hillary Clinton rally; and of feminist icon Gloria Steinem on Bill Maher’s show, to be critical of young women who are flocking to Bernie Sanders’s campaign, is also extremely counterproductive, as no young woman or young man or anyone has an obligation to support Hillary because she is a woman!

All these new developments are doing is make the chance 0f unity of Democrats for the Fall campaign far less likely, and the end result could be the Democrats could lose the national election to the Republicans, and condemn America to a right wing extremist government, that will have the ability to transform the Supreme Court to the far right, and lose a generation or more of reasonable constitutional law!

Hillary Clinton Campaigning As A “Progressive”, Against Husband Bill Clinton’s “Moderate” Presidency!

Hillary Clinton is campaigning as a “progressive”, but her husband, while in office as the 42nd President, was far from progressive!

Many would say that Bill Clinton (1993-2001) was a “raging moderate” in so many ways.

Despite being attacked by Republicans incessantly, and being impeached by them as well, Bill Clinton actually cooperated with them on many issues, and was also often quite critical of liberals in his own party.

Witness:

He signed into law the end of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1995.

He signed into law the end of the federal guarantee of welfare in 1996, leaving it to the states to decide levels of support of single mothers and children, and the elderly and disabled.

He signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which was a big step back from the idea of gay equality.  Earlier in 1994, he had promoted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the military, backing away from equality for gays.

He signed the Omnibus Crime legislation in 1994, which was a major crackdown on crime, and that allowed the arrest and incarceration of many young people, many of them African American and Latino, on minor drug charges, filling up America’s prisons.

He signed NAFTA into law in 1993, which undermined labor, and caused an influx of foreign goods, due to the low tariffs, now opposed by his wife.

He signed into law a repeal of much of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1998,  which led to bank expansion of loans and mortgages, and much larger banks that helped to lead to the Great Recession of 2008-2009.

He called himself a “New Democrat” in 1992, criticized liberalism often, and was involved in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council group.

This does not mean that Bill Clinton did not have some really positive aspects domestically to his Presidency, but he was certainly considered by many to be a “Republicrat”, rather than a Democrat.

He, along with Jimmy Carter, were the least progressive Democratic Presidents, when compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson, and also Barack Obama, after Carter and Clinton.

This might be because Carter and Clinton were Southern Democrats, but the point is that Bill Clinton, while good on some issues, was not a progressive, as his wife now is campaigning on against Bernie Sanders!

Does it mean that Hillary Clinton cannot have “learned” from the mistakes  of the 1990s, honestly?  NO, but the point is she is very different as a campaigner than her husband was!

Of course, when one thinks about it, Hillary is running for the Presidency a full generation after her husband won his second and last term, the last time he was facing the voters!

 

Small States’ (One House Member And Two Senators) Influence In Congress Since 1945

There are seven states that have had only one member of the House of Representatives, along with two US Senators, in the past 70 years. but despite their small populations, these states have had a massive impact on American politics and history!  In addition, for the first few decades since 1945, Nevada also had one House member until growth caused two, and then, three seats in the House.

The seven states are Vermont, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska!

But North Dakota, South Dakota,and Montana had two members of the House until recent decades when reapportionment caused them to lose a second seat.

So only Vermont, Delaware, Wyoming, and Alaska (since 1959) stand alone as consistently having one House member and two Senators per state.

But look at their influence:

Vermont had George Aiken (R) (1941-1975) and has Patrick Leahy (D) for 41 years (1975 to Present) and counting now, and Bernie Sanders since 1990,  who  was the lone House member for 16 years before election to the Senate in 2006,making him the longest serving Independent in the history of both houses of Congress.  Also, Howard Dean, former Governor of the state, was a leading contender for the Democratic nomination in 2004, and then became head of the Democratic National Committee, and helped the rise of Barack Obama with a “50 state” strategy between 2004-2008.

Delaware had Joe Biden as Senator for six terms from 1973-2009, and now as Vice President.  He became one of the longest serving Senators of all time, and sought the Presidency in 1988 and 2008.

Wyoming had Dick Cheney as its lone Congressman for ten years from 1979-1989, before he ended up as Secretary of Defense under the first Bush Presidency, and Vice President in the second Bush Presidency.  Also, Alan Simpson served in the Senate from 1979-1997 as  a Republican, and Gale McGree from 1959-1977 as a Democrat.

Alaska had Ted Stevens in the Senate for 40 years from 1968 to 2009, the longest serving Republican Senator in American history.  Also, Sarah Palin , while Governor, was the Vice Presidential nominee for the Republicans in 2008.

And if one looks at the other states which had one Congressman at least for the last few decades, we have South Dakota and Senator George McGovern (1963-1981), the 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee; Montana, with Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D) (1953-1977) from 1961-1977; Nevada with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) (1987-Present) from 2007-2015; and North Dakota Senators Kent Conrad (1987-2013) and Bryan Dorgan (1992-2011).

So the “small” states have really had a major role in American politics, despite their small populations!

The Young (Under 45) Challenge To “Baby Boomers” Control Over Politics! Is It For Real?

If one goes by public opinion polls and turnout at rallies, the “young”, defined as those under 45, born after 1970, are rebelling against the “establishment”, the “Baby Boomers” in this upcoming Presidential Election of 2016.

They seem to want a complete  overhaul of government, and many of them are gravitating, ironically, to the OLDEST Presidential candidate of all, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a democratic Socialist, who has been in office for 25 years in Congress, plus eight years as Mayor of Burlington!

One would think that Sanders was an “outsider”, but he has been in government positions for more years than anyone else running, including John Kasich and Hillary Clinton!

But he is seen as a dramatic change because of his attacks on Wall Street, and his non-interventionist foreign policy, including his votes against the Persian Gulf War and Iraq War.

But the question arises whether one can be sure that the young, particularly those under 29, and even more, those who are teenagers or early 20s, can be relied on to show up in the primaries and caucuses, and actually vote in November for the change they say they want.

Many observers are skeptical, and wonder if the youngest “new” voters really even understand politics, foreign policy, and major complicated issues, or are just “along for the ride”, the excitement of being involved now, but losing interest as the months go by.

We shall see just how the young among us will transform American politics, and if it leads, somehow, to the election of a democratic Socialist President, it will be historic, even more so, than the election of the first African American President!

The Age Issue’s Effect On Hillary Clinton, But Also Possibly On Bernie Sanders, Against Younger Republicans in November!

The Iowa Caucuses results demonstrate a major problem that Hillary Clinton faces–the age issue.

A vast majority of young voters, those under 45, but even more so those under 29, supported Bernie Sanders, the oldest candidate ever to seek the nomination of a major political party.

Even John McCain (age 72)and Bob Dole (age 73) were not the same age at the time of the election campaign as Bernie Sanders.

Even Ronald Reagan (age 73) was “younger” when seeking reelection in 1984!

How is it that young voters, who flocked to Barack Obama, age 47 in 2008, now love Bernie Sanders, age 75 by the time of the election?

What is it about Hillary Clinton age 69) that makes young Democratic voters dislike her that much, when young voters back in 1992 liked her husband, Bill Clinton, age 46?

This is a serious issue, as it looks more likely that Hillary, the likely Democratic nominee, will face a much younger Republican candidate in Ted Cruz, age  45, or more likely, Marco Rubio, also 45 but five months younger than Cruz.  It means that the age difference would be almost 24 years.

The argument that either Cruz or Rubio are not “old” enough or experienced enough to be President is an argument that will not work, as John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and particularly Barack Obama, were accused of the same “weakness”, but all became President.

To have the Democratic nominee, either Hillary or Bernie (six years older) as the “old” candidate, against a young Republican such as Cruz or Rubio, is unprecedented in American history.

A difference of 24 years is not the all time difference, as John McCain was 25 years older than Barack Obama in 2008; Bob Dole was 23 years older than Bill Clinton in 1996; and George H. W. Bush was 22 years older than Bill Clinton in 1992, but in each case the Democrat was the younger nominee.

But if it was Bernie Sanders against Cruz or Rubio, the difference would be nearly 30 years!

This time, it will be the opposite, with the Democrat much younger than the Republican, and one has to wonder how it might affect the election results, particularly with younger voters in the Democratic Party gravitating to Bernie instead of Hillary, and possibly younger voters in general going for Cruz or Rubio due to youthfulness!

Bernie Sanders Finally Gains Secret Service Protection: Long Overdue And Essential With Extremist Rhetoric Circulating About Sanders!

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a democratic Socialist, not Communist in any fashion, is now receiving Secret Service protection, due to his rise in the polls; his basic tie with Hillary Clinton in the Iowa Caucuses; and his large crowds, second only to Donald Trump.

This has been long needed to do, as Sanders has already been labeled a Communist, a Marxist, a believer in social revolution; and is a major critic of Wall Street, who says what he thinks.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and others are starting the character assassination and smearing of a good man, who is no threat to America, but only to those who have no problem with the top one percent having total control of the American economy, as the middle class shrinks, and the “American Dream” is lost for future generations.

It is right wing hysteria, mixed in with Christian extremism, and anti Semitism and racism, that threatens Sanders, who would be the first Jewish Presidential nominee. were he to defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination.

Let us hope that whatever happens to the Sanders candidacy, that Bernie comes out of it hale and hearty, with a continued good public image, whether one supports him or not for the White House!

The Comeuppance Of Donald Trump; And Hillary Clinton Barely Survives!

So the voters  in Iowa, the small percentage who actually voted, have made their judgment!

It is true that more Iowans participated in the caucuses than ever before, but still less than a quarter of eligible people voted.

But what they have wrought is stunning beyond belief!

Donald Trump got his comeuppance, and it will be interesting to see his public reaction and behavior during this week before the New Hampshire Primary.

Ted Cruz may have won, but he will be bitterly opposed by mainstream Republicans, who are likely to converge around Marco Rubio after New Hampshire, with only John Kasich seen as a possible challenger to Kasich for the mainstream, depending on what happens next week!

Hillary Clinton barely survived, and Bernie Sanders now has a direct challenge to her in New Hampshire, which he is favored to win easily, but the question is whether he can survive beyond that as a viable Democratic candidate.

The odds of Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton as the party nominees, which this blogger predicted on December 31 on here, seems more likely than ever, with Ohio as the crucial battleground, and the reason why this blogger believes John Kasich and Sherrod Brown will be the Vice Presidential choices of the nominees this summer!

If Hillary Clinton Loses Iowa Caucuses, Full Panic Mode Is In Effect, And Joe Biden, John Kerry, Or Al Gore Might Enter Presidential Race!

If Hillary Clinton loses the Iowa Caucuses tonight, full panic mode is in effect, and one of the following might enter the Presidential race belatedly:

Vice President Joe Biden; Secretary of State John Kerry; Former Vice President Al Gore

It is claimed that Hillary will not be in panic mode if she loses tonight, but to lose tonight AND New Hampshire next week, if it happens, will be a major blow no matter what future states might do!

Bernie Sanders has great ideas, but despite polls that show him beating Donald Trump and other Republicans, it is hard to believe that will happen, as Sanders’ background as a democratic Socialist will be made to look as if he is a Communist, with the hammer and sickle emblem to be planted on all commercials and in all speeches by Trump or any other GOP Presidential nominee!

Sanders is, sadly, reminiscent of South Dakota Senator George McGovern, a wonderful human being with great ideas, who defeated Establishment favorite Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine in 1972, and then was smashed by a landslide of epic proportions, 49 states, by flawed President Richard Nixon, soon forced out of the Presidency due to the Watergate scandal.  But the Nixon campaign was able to make McGovern out to be an extreme leftist, and the Democrats went into eclipse, and moderation took over with Jimmy Carter in 1976.

It is very sad, but already Trump is labeling Sanders a Communist, and for the ignorant population of much of America, that will be enough to make it impossible for Sanders to win the White House!

And as said before many times, the Supreme Court future is at stake, so we may yet see other Democrats enter the race in the near future, IF Hillary has major troubles in the next eight days!

Time Has Arrived For Americans To Show They Will NOT Tolerate Donald Trump, Even If They Like Being At Rallies Of A Reality Star!

Finally, the beginning of voting for President has arrived, with the Iowa Caucuses tomorrow, and the New Hampshire Primary a week from Tuesday the first indications of what the American people, or at least those who vote, are thinking.

Who would have thought that, seven and a half months since Reality Start Donald Trump announced for President, that he would be leading in Republican polls for the Presidency?

This reality is against the record of Donald Trump, which shows he has no principles at all, except his own aggrandizement!

He thinks the Presidency is a Reality TV show, and it is time for the American people, and particularly the Republicans, to show that they have not totally self destructed, and given in to the appeal of a racist, nativist, misogynist, and an immoral, unethical, ignorant person who would be a total disaster for the party and the nation, were he to win the nomination and occupy the Oval Office next January 20!

If Trump were to win the White House, we would have a full fledged Fascist in office, endangering the Constitution and American democratic values, so he must be prevented from making us wish for George W. Bush or Richard Nixon as an alternative!

Being at a campaign rally for a Reality TV star is one thing, but electing such a despicable human being as Donald Trump to the Presidency is something totally different!

Wipe Out Memory and Statues Of Thomas Jefferson, John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Woodrow Wilson? NO WAY!

A major campaign has been mounted to “cleanse” America’s history of political leaders who were racists, people who advocated and owned slaves, and those who promoted segregation and “Jim Crow” after slavery ended 150 years ago.

So the move is on to wipe the name of various major figures off of buildings, and the removal of statues and monuments erected in their honor.

The biggest “villains” in this quest to “correct” the past are President Thomas Jefferson, Vice President and Senator John C. Calhoun, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and President Woodrow Wilson.

There is no question that all four, and others, can be condemned for their beliefs and behaviors.

But if we are to “discipline” them, then should we NOT add eight of the other nine pre Civil War Presidents who owned slaves; and the multitude of political leaders since the end of the Civil War who promoted segregation and racist views in the century and a half since 1865?

So while we are at it, why  not wipe out all American history, instead of recognizing the sins and shortcomings  that exist, as any good history professor will do in class, including this blogger, and also point out the major contributions that these leaders had on the totality of American history?

We cannot wipe out the past, and the move to sanitize it is a massive mistake!  We need to TEACH and LEARN about it, and draw attention to it for present day political leaders, not try to make believe it never occurred in the first place!  The goal should be to demand that today’s leaders stop promoting racism, nativism, and misogyny by exposing their transgressions!

So NO, to the attempt to reconstruct history, and wipe out the past, too common, ironically, to what happens in left wing and right wing dictatorships!