Barack Obama

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 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!

Major Mystery: The Lack Of Traction Of Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s Presidential Candidacy

As we await the beginning of actual voting next week and after that, a major mystery remains.

Why did former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley turn out to be a total dud as a candidate?

O’Malley was one of the best Governors in America during his eight years in that position, and he had the charisma, good looks, and youth, that one would have thought that he would be a serious challenger to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and others of the “older generation.”

After the experience of the “younger generation” backing John F. Kennedy in 1960; Jimmy Carter in 1976; Bill Clinton in 1992; and Barack Obama in 2008, one would have thought that O’Malley would have similar appeal, and without being the first Catholic nominee; the first Southerner since 1848; a flawed candidate with a sex scandal from a small Southern state; and a mixed race African American with little national experience to deal with!

And yet, it was a candidate even older than Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden–Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont—with his declaration that he was a Democratic Socialist; was an Independent who only became a party member when he announced for President; and with a New York Jewish background (not necessarily a plus across the nation), who became the favorite of newer voters, younger voters (under 45), and those who would be thought to prefer someone closer to their age and from a larger and more significant state (Maryland) than Vermont represents.

The lack of traction of O’Malley remains a deep mystery, and one wonders if his run this year will give him an upper hand, despite it being a total flop, if the Democrats lose the Presidency in 2016.

Could it be the beginning of the rise on top of the disaster, if it occurs, of a Democratic defeat this year?

Certainly, no one in their right mind who is a progressive, wishes for failure this year to lead to success later!

But sometimes, repudiation now leads to success later!

The “Low Lifes” Come Out Of The Woodwork To Endorse Donald Trump! An Even “Dirty Dozen” Despicable Public Figures!

Sarah Palin, former Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential nominee in 2008–Willie Robertson of the “Duck Dynasty”–David Duke, former Ku Klux Klan leader–Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio—Jerry Falwell, Jr, evangelical leader of Liberty University–John Rocker, former Atlanta Braves relief pitcher–Ann Coulter, political commentator—Ted Nugent, musician and songwriter who has threatened Barack Obama—Dennis Rodman, former basketball player—Michael Savage, right wing radio talk show host—Phyllis Schlafly, conservative activist—Mike Tyson, former professional boxer.

These are an even dozen of “public figures” who have now endorsed Donald Trump for President, all of them “lowlifes” who no rational, sane person would EVER respect or believe they have ANY legitimacy.

In this group are hypocrites, bigots, racists, nativists, misogynists, abusers of the criminal justice system, religious extremists, right wing political commentators who spew hate, and purely stupid people!

The reader can figure out which categories fit each of this “dirty dozen”, with several having multiple descriptions of those mentioned above.

Anyone who supports Donald Trump after awareness that these disgraces above have endorsed him are people who have lost their minds or never had one, or indeed are people that one is newly learning just how terrible a character they really have!

Sarah Palin Will Be The Achilles Heel For Donald Trump, As She Was For John McCain!

Former half term Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has reared her “ugly head” once again, now openly and vigorously supporting Donald Trump for President, and making a total fool of herself in her public speeches and appearances!

Sarah had been out of the public eye for awhile, other than the fact that her daughter Bristol had a second child out of wedlock, and just before her support of Trump became public, her son Track was arrested for domestic violence against a girlfriend, who he assaulted, threatened with a firearm, and was arrested in a very drunk stupor.

Not only did Sarah make an incoherent speech that made her look her usual STUPID, but she then blamed Barack Obama for her son’s situation, because she claimed that Track had PTSD from service in Iraq! While that is highly speculative, Track was in the military under George W. Bush, not Obama, who ended that war!  And does it mean that anyone with PTSD has a free pass to assault, and that all veterans with that condition, or otherwise, do so?

Veterans groups were outraged by the whole matter, and the idea that Sarah has a dysfunctional family, and spends her time making money spewing divisive comments and hate, is even more outrageous.

Sarah should go home and deal with her family and stop blaming Obama for a new low charge which is preposterous, that every soldier who does criminal activity, can blame it on the President.

Watch as Sarah Palin, who Trump says he admires and respects and might give her a position in his administration, becomes a burden to Trump, an Achilles Heel, as Sarah was to John McCain!

And since Sarah backed Trump, despite his ridicule of McCain for being a war prisoner in Vietnam, McCain needs to come out and condemn both Sarah and Donald, for their reprehensible behavior, as Sarah again proves she has no regard for the tremendous favor McCain did for her, making her his VP nominee.

McCain will never live down that mistake, unless he admits to it, and kicks Sarah to the curb as garbage not worthy of his respect or admiration anymore!

 

Inauguration Day Plus Seven Years: Imagine The Alternative Of President John McCain And Vice President Sarah Palin!

Seven years ago, Barack Obama became the 44th President, and history was transformed in a positive manner!

Not everything has worked out, and not everything he promised has occurred, but when one thinks about the alternative of President John McCain and Vice President Sarah Palin, one must thank God that he gave us Barack Obama!

McCain, even though he is less extreme than most Republicans, would most certainly have taken us into war more than we were under George W. Bush.

We would have massive involvement still in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and would have engaged in a major war against Iran.

Much of the social change that has occurred would not have had Presidential backing, including gay rights and gay marriage; climate change; criminal justice reform; attention to civil rights controversies; and a national health care system for more Americans.  We also would not have Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court!

We would have had Sarah Palin as Vice President, and have to be constantly thankful that John McCain is still alive and healthy.

 

If Common Sense Reigned, John Kasich Would Be Republican Presidential Nominee! But Will He? Unlikely!

We are in the midst of Republican candidates engaged in mud throwing and character assassination.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are bitterly engaged in this, but so are Marco Rubio with Jeb Bush, Chris Christie with Marco Rubio, and Carly Fiorina showing an ugly personality of arrogance and inability to tell the truth on anything.

Only one candidate, and a very qualified one, is avoiding the bloodbath going on, but will that mean that common sense will reign, and that Ohio Governor John Kasich will be the Republican Presidential nominee?

Kasich has moved up in New Hampshire, and has a chance to do very well there, while having just about zero chance in evangelical Republican Iowa.

No one matches John Kasich in his total government experience, his knowledge of national and state government, and his rational nature.

This is not saying that John Kasich is an ideal candidate, and most certainly, this blogger would not vote for him, but IF the nation should end up with a Republican President following Barack Obama, there is no better choice than John Kasich, of the candidates who are announced for President on the Republican side of the equation!

This blogger predicted on December 31 the likelihood that Marco Rubio would be the Presidential nominee, and that Kasich would be the Vice Presidential nominee.  That still seems to make sense, and Kasich being on the ticket at either end would be a plus for the GOP, as every Republican President who has ever been elected from Lincoln to George W. Bush has won Ohio, and note that Gerald Ford lost the full term for the Presidency in 1976, greatly due to the failure to defeat Jimmy Carter in Ohio.

So if common sense reigned, Kasich would be the nominee with the best chance to win, but will he?  Highly unlikely!

Asian Americans: The Ultimate Swing Vote In Florida, Virginia, Nevada In the Presidential Election Of 2016, And Influence Nationally!

One group that has not gained much attention in the fury of the Presidential Election campaign of 2016 are Asian Americans, the fastest growing group in America.

With a little more than 5 percent of the population, and rapidly growing in Florida, Virginia, and Nevada, and already substantial in New York, California, Illinois, Maryland, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado and other states, Asian Americans are very likely to play a pivotal role in who wins the Presidency.

Asian Americans could also affect Senate and House races, as they are very likely to vote, and the vast majority have tended to vote Democratic in recent years.  The growing numbers of Asian Americans in Central and South Florida, Northern Virginia, and the Las Vegas metropolitan area are likely to insure that those three key swing states should influence the Democratic candidate’s likelihood of winning the Presidency.

Many do not realize how  many different Asian groups are included–including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, as well as those from India, Pakistan and other nations in Asia.  Very accomplished and very dedicated to their civic duty to participate in the electoral battle is a great way to describe Asian Americans.

And the history of Asian Americans is always in the background–particularly the banning of Chinese immigration from 1882-1943, and the mistreatment of Japanese Americans in California early in the 20th century, and the forced internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans in World War II.

Asian Americans know that they must fight against nativism, racism, and religious discrimination, including those of Muslim faith.

So the Republican Party has a major problem in drawing Asian American support, with 73 percent voting for Barack Obama in 2012!