HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » H2O Man » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 54 Next »

H2O Man

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 08:49 PM
Number of posts: 55,922

Journal Archives

Nobody Told Me

“There’s Nazis in the bathroom just below the stairs.”
-- John Lennon; Nobody Told Me


This past weekend, I was talking with some young adults, who will be eligible to vote for the first time, about presidential campaign history. While I assume that most of them have been aware of “politics” before reaching the age of 18, there is no question in my mind that they are passionately engaged in learning much more about how the system is intended to work …..as well as how it actually works.

Now, in the context of my participation on DU:GDP, community members know that I am a firm supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders. More, that I have been clear that I will definitely vote for our party’s nominee in November. Still, for the sake of conversation, I should acknowledge that the voters that I was speaking with are all supporting the Sanders’s revolution. But I hope that this OP will nevertheless be of interest to everyone on this forum.

A number of events in two of the three Democratic primaries have concerned these young adults. The specific events are being discussed on the internet, and not surprisingly, these young people at a level of using technology far beyond my own; hence, they have more of the specific information than I do -- just as here on DU, younger folks do.

However, one of the few advantages of being old is having experienced previous elections, and remembering previous controversial campaign activities. When people of my generation hear about certain behaviors, for example, we’re likely to look at one another, and say, “Rat-fuckers!” This is in reference to programs such as were made famous by the “Committee to Re-Elect the President” (CREEP) in 1972.

Even as recently as 2004, as I wrote about on this forum at the time, I was contacted the morning following a break-in at a “Kerry for President” Democratic Party headquarters in a suburb outside of Philadelphia, PA. Volunteers from a NYS social workers’ union were assisting in running that office, and they immediately contacted me. I asked if they had called the police and press? They had not. I told them that they needed to do so, They said they were afraid to. Think about that.

Such break-ins were also modus operandi of the Nixon team. There were far, far more than documented in the series of crimes commonly known as “Watergate.” More, the corruption of that era wasn’t limited to break-ins, I told these young adults. To show how obscene the republican party was, I spoke of California businessman Robert J. Walter’s role: he funneled White House campaign funds to the head of the Nazi party, to gain their active support for President Nixon’s re-election (see pages 306-308 of the Senate Watergate Report).

What was the consequence of Walter’s slimy activities? He would be rewarded with influence within the Reagan administration, which actually set the bar higher for corruption than did the Nixon gang. This “businessman” -- a petty mobster with ties to the Nazi party -- would influence our nation’s economic policies under Reagan. You can’t make this shit up, I told these university students.

When they asked about the connections between government and organized crime, I recommended that they research two examples. The first, not surprisingly, was the vice presidency of Richard Nixon, specifically concerning the role of the mob and US policy towards Cuba. But, because that may seem like ancient history, I added a more recent example.

Most people are somewhat aware of the case of Boston mobster James “Whitey” Bulger. He was, of course, a sociopath who ruled the Boston underworld for decades. His legend is that he was assisted by one corrupt FBI agent, who he served as an informant for. A recent CNN documentary tells a far more troubling story. Bulger was never an FBI informant. Rather, he employed numerous FBI agents, including some at high levels, as well as a handful of influential Justice Department employees. These government employees, who “earned” salaries of tax-payers’ money, were also employed by Bulger, who paid them higher salaries.

The number of individuals who worked for Bulger first, and for the government second, was so large, that the US Department of Justice refused to address this in Bulger’s recent trial. Indeed, as CNN documented, the Justice Department withheld, and then altered, official documents that indicated how corrupt their system was.

This is, obviously, an extreme example. But if federal government employees can be bought by organized crime, one can reasonably ask what amount of influence can Wall Street buy? And if men like Mr. Walters, with ties to the Nazi party (as documented by the US Senate) works with the Nixon and Reagan administration in setting economic policy, might we not want to reconsider what defines “organized crime?”

The CNN documentary shows that for decades, Bulger knew that he would not be indicted by the federal government, no matter what crimes he committed. None of the Wall Street gangsters responsible for the 2008 economic melt-down were ever prosecuted. Is that perhaps a pattern? Or merely the long arm of coincidence, wrenching itself out of its socket?

Peace,
H2O Man

"Five to One, Baby ...."

I am 100% pleased with Bernie Sanders’s showing today in Nevada. Obviously, I would have been happier if he had won the contest by a few percentage points. And I’d get out of this chair, and dance an Irish jig if he had won by more than 10%. But he did not. So, on one hand, I congratulate the Clinton supporters; on the other hand, in the context of a political insurgency, I know that we have done much better today than necessary, in terms of continuing this struggle.

An insurgency is, of course, a fight against the an established form of government. While throughout my entire adult life, as a registered member of the Democratic Party, I have voted for the Democratic candidate in literally every presidential election. Yet, in these same years, I have witnessed our party’s leadership move so far to the right, that many Democratic politicians today that they would have been accurately viewed as conservative republicans in the past.

I believe that the insurgency, which is represented by Bernie Sanders today, is the healthy response to the class warfare that the 1% has systematically engaged in over the past fifty years. In this sense, I am reminded of Minister Malcolm X’s saying that the difference between some Democrats and republicans is the difference between a fox and a wolf. The fox smiles to your face, but attacks you from behind; while the wolf always makes it clear that he is your enemy.

I appreciate that many good people on this forum are happy that Hillary Clinton won today’s contest. I know that they are sincere in their belief that Hillary is the better candidate. That they support her does not surprise, nor bother me. We look at pretty much the same facts and circumstances, and come to different conclusions. I like and respect them as much as I did before the 2016 primaries began, last year.

I understand why they assume that today’s results would be discouraging for Bernie’s supporters. Indeed, these results would signify “defeat” for an establishment candidate. But that is a very different metric, than the one used to measure victory for an insurgency. And since by definition, an insurgency always begins as a minority effort, relatively few people understand the on-going goal of the insurgents’ efforts.

As a non-violent, pro-constitutional democracy insurgents, we do not need to “win” every time we engage the opposition. Rather, state-by-state, we are changing the public’s perception of the contest . It’s not the same as what’s happening in the republican primary, for their “rebel” is a billionaire who requires that his followers NOT think. Our insurgency is rooted in people thinking for themselves.

A clear sign of our success is found when the opposition increases its attacks. In every instance, we should be using each attack as an opportunity to engage in a conversation, both with our opposition, and with the greater public. In order to achieve positive results, we need to remain positive. For we are engaged in a historical struggle, part of a long tradition in this country.

It’s related to the great insurgent movements including Gandhi’s in India, and King’s in the USA. It is in the tradition that the democratically-inspired among the Founding Father’s encouraged. And it ties in with Jim Morrison singing, “Five to one, Baby, one in five.”

Peace,
H2O Man

Who We Are

One of the more common rhetorical errors that supporters of Hillary Clinton make is to dismiss the concerns that others express as rehashes of the old, rabid right-wing attacks on her character from the 1990s. This is a debating tactic that attempts to score points while simultaneously distracting attention from valid concerns that many good Democrats have expressed about Ms. Clinton. The use of that tactic, in the context of the current Democratic primary, can only be attributed to one of two factors. Let’s take a moment to consider each of the two.

The first, and most common, is that the Clinton supporter resorting to this technique recognizes that the opposition has valid concerns, but is unwilling to address them. This suggests the Clinton supporter knows the concern is valid, and potentially harmful to their candidate in the primary. Thus, they attempt to divert attention to the issue, by insulting the intelligence and/or integrity of the people who sincerely pose it.

The second is that the Clinton supporter is unfamiliar with the issue, and in their ignorance, assume it is not valid. Thus, they conclude it must be a republican smear. This illustrates the shortcomings of concrete, binary thinking: one must, by definition, be either pro-Hillary, or a victim of republican propaganda. This brings to mind Mark Twain’s saying that the problem in the world today is not so much one of ignorance, as of people knowing so darned much that just isn’t so.

For sake of discussion, I shall offer myself -- DU’s humble H2O Man -- and two of my concerns about Hillary Clinton, as examples. As I have previously stated, I will support either Democratic candidate who wins our party’s nomination. Yet, I am definitely supporting Bernie Sanders. This is because I prefer his political program, and have great respect for his values and integrity. Now, let’s take a brief glance at those two pesky issues, shall we?

The first is that Hillary Clinton has been a strong advocate of hydro-fracking. I would note that her high-profile advocacy has been in recent times ….not the 1990s. More, relatively few republican officials -- at a local, state, or national level -- oppose fracking. I’ve yet to see a single republican attack Ms. Clinton on this issue. Nor, for that matter, have I seen any large, multi-national “energy” corporation engage in vicious attacks upon her character due to her pro-fracking positions.

The second would be the money that Hillary Clinton made for speaking to Goldman Sachs. This issue includes her refusal to release the transcripts of the speeches. Again, I think we could all agree that the speeches in question took place after Hillary’s time as First Lady. I will speculate, however, that if Hillary is our nominee, the republicans will seek to exploit her refusal to release the transcripts, for republicans have no shame. None.

These are important “values” issues for me. Fracking poses much the same danger to the water that human beings and other living things consume, as the horrors in Flint. Both involve politicians and business interests who are willing to poison human beings for financial gain. And, far too often, the government’s decisions on this issue have been made behind closed doors, in private, off-the-record conversations between politicians and corporations.

It is an issue that I feel strongly about, and not because of any republican propaganda from the 1990s. Or current republican lies, for that matter. Indeed, it is a value that I take full personal responsibility for. I admit to preferring clean water to toxic sludge.

The manner in which I advocate for clean water, however, has been heavily influenced, not by republicans or energy corporations, but by the decades that I served as the top assistant to Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman. In those many years, I saw Paul serve on the Onondaga Nation’s Council of Chiefs; the Haudenosaunee Grand Council of Chiefs (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy); and as the Gauyesa Toyentha in dealings with the United Nations and the rest of the non-Indian world.

Hence, as a few older DU community members may recall, a few years back, I engaged in a hunger strike, in an attempt to convince a state senator to meet with the environmental community to discuss fracking. This fellow, who received many thousands of dollars from the Koch brothers, had dismissed environmentalists -- including scientists at top universities -- as mere tree-huggers. He has since been convicted of political corruption in federal court. His and my value systems were, and are, distinct.

The people who are supporting Bernie Sanders today are, in my opinion, much the same as those who used to come to hear Chief Waterman’s message when we spoke in small towns and large cities, to students and environmentalists, to people who believed that our society needed to change in order to survive. They are the same people who found it unacceptable when a state senator refused to talk to them, but was comfortable as a lap dog for corporate interests. They are people who think for themselves, and act for others.

Thank you,
H2O Man

Dare to Dream

“Dare to Dream!”
-- Dr. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter


The best supervisor that I had in human services told me a story the first day I went to work with him. In the southwest, he said, there was a type of flea that could be trained. If you kept them in a closed jar for a short time, they would quickly come to recognize the lid as representing the highest they could jump. One could thereafter remove the lid, and those fleas would never attempt to jump to its level.

Your job, he said, is to show people how to remove that lid, and not be trapped in life.

I remember that Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered one of our nation’s greatest in Washington, DC. It was titled, “I Have a Dream.” It remains one of the most rational, yet passionate explanations of what this country can be. King’s speech helped define how we want to see the United States.

King’s later speeches -- including his April 4, 1967 “A Time to Break Silence” (aka “Beyond Vietnam”) and his final message, on April 3, 1968 -- elaborate on how we make this powerful dream into a reality.

Many of us still share in this Dream. Indeed, we have since spent the years of our life working towards it. At times, we’ve won; other times, we’ve lost. But we still believe in that Dream. We are believers in the Power of Ideas.

A few years back, when autographing a book for my son, Rubin wrote: “To the Son of my dear friend and brother, Pat -- Dare to Dream! Always. Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter.”

Now my son’s generation has taken a close look at the world they inhabit, the one we are leaving them with, and they have been given hope by the Bernie Sanders campaign. And this is powerful. These young adults are not dreaming their lives away. They aren't playing some meaningless game. They are serving as the conscience of this country.

It’s said that a people without dreams has no vision. The Sanders campaign sees that too many Americans are living a cruel nightmare. We are not advocating the every-man-for-himself notion of the tea party. We are not hostile and threatening. We believe in the American Dream that has been crushed in recent decades, by the corporate-political corruption that everyone agrees exists. We know that we have better options.

Dare to Dream!

H2O Man

Third-Rate Speeches

One of the most important issues in the 2016 Democratic primary is the relationship between Wall Street and politicians. This includes the large amount of money that large corporations and billionaires contribute to individual political campaigns, either directly or through “Super PACS.” When corporations and billionaires invest in, say, a Willard “Mitt” Romney campaign, we all agree that they are seeking to buy influence, should Romney win.

I will speculate that everyone in the DU community will agree that one of the major differences between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is that Hillary has a much closer relationship to Wall Street than does Bernie, and that her campaign and Super PAC has received significant donations from large corporations and billionaires. This puts Hillary in line with previous Democratic candidates, including Barack Obama. It is Bernie who is offering the public something different.

In a November debate, Hillary justified her close relationship with Wall Street, by pointing out that, as a Senator from New York State, she was simply trying to help people recover from 9/11. This did not go over particularly well with many people.

At a recent CNN candidates’ forum, when asked why she accepted such a massive fee for speaking to Goldman Sachs, Hillary responded, “Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered.” This, too, failed to address people’s concerns.

Last month, while campaigning in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton was asked if she would release the transcripts from her speeches to Goldman Sachs? At the time, Hillary laughed the question off, as if it were too ridiculous to simply ignore. But that did not quell the growing interest in the transcripts. Recently, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd relayed a viewer’s question -- again, would she release the transcripts? -- and was told by the candidate that she would look into it.

By the following day, it became clear that neither the candidate, nor her campaign, had any interest in releasing the transcripts. Joel Benenson, of the Clinton campaign, told reporters that, “I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches.” (NY Times; 2-5-16) Exactly what he bases this on is unclear. But what has become evident is that the Clinton campaign is not willing to release the transcripts.

Brian Fallon, also of the Clinton campaign, told reporters that, “Bernie Sanders, like Karl Rove before him, is trying to impugn Hillary Clinton’s integrity without any basis in fact.” (NYT; 2-5-16) This is curious, since it was grass roots citizens, and journalists, who have asked Hillary to release the transcripts. Sanders has simply -- and accurately -- pointed out that Ms. Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs for enormous sums of money. Such fees, as well as campaign and Super Pac contributions, are most obviously attempts to influence any candidate who gets them.

Hillary Clinton, at her best, has asked for people to identify any one piece of legislation that she was influenced on by such gifts. Many intelligent people recognize that this influence isn’t going to be identified in one changed vote, but rather in her patterns of voting. More, if there’s absolutely no evidence of a close relationship to be found in those transcripts, why not simply release them now?

To be fair, this isn’t in league with Richard Nixon refusing to turn over the Watergate tapes. There is nothing illegal about making $600,000 by talking with Goldman Sachs. Rather, it appears more like Mitt Romney’s refusal to make his financial records public. Or VP Dick Cheney’s insisting on keeping his meeting with energy corporations secret.

I can appreciate that, if the Clinton campaign reviewed the transcripts and found nothing that suggests an all-too-cozy relationship between Hillary and Goldman Sachs, that they might conclude releasing the transcripts would only lead to the opposition -- including the republicans, should Clinton win the nomination -- to attempt to twist anything and everything else she said, to their advantage. For example, Hillary spoke about her impressions, from her time as Secretary of State, of the global community.

Yet, her experience as Secretary of State would seem to be something open to the public. These experiences were the subject of her 2014 book, “Hard Choices.” Having read that book, I can say that it went into great detail …..likely more detail than a speech could address. Hence, intelligent people are questioning what exactly do those transcripts reveal?

Obviously, if Hillary is our party’s nominee, the republicans will use her refusal to release the transcripts against her. The media will definitely highlight this. It will add to the republican talking point that Clinton is secretive, and untrustworthy. Her refusal, and her campaign’s attempts to gloss over the issue, are by definition “unforced errors.” They have already missed the opportunity to get out in front of a character issue.

All Democrats -- be they for Bernie, for Hillary, or undecided -- should want the Clinton campaign to release the transcripts. Now. Not later ….say, during the general election. If one is pro-Hillary, and wants to let the air out of the Sanders revolution, release the transcripts, to prove there is nothing questionable in them. If you are pro-Bernie, and want to do something revolutionary, start contacting the media -- be it letters-to-the-editor of your local newspaper, or e-mailing various shows on MSNBC -- and demand that the transcripts be made public.

I’ve noted several times on this forum that I support Bernie Sanders, though if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I will campaign and vote for her. My ability to do so effectively will depend upon how the candidate and her campaign handle issues such as this. Thank you for reading this, and I will be interested in responses from people, no matter if they agree or disagree with me on this.

Peace,
H2O Man

The Good Fight

One of the most interesting dynamics of election contests -- be they primaries or general elections -- is how campaigns adjust their tactics. Being the “front-runner” is very different from being at the back of a pack. When we look at the current republican primary, we see shifts in who will attack who, in hopes of gaining a strategic advantage. And in the Democratic primary, we have witnessed a change in tactics, for a reason that was highlighted by a recent poll.

Attacking your opponent’s strength can be a winning campaign technique. In recent times, of course, Karl Rove attempted to claim this tactic as his original brain-child. The republican Pillsbury doughboy’s lack of any meaningful success since 2004 suggests that Karl understood “how,” but not “why,” this tactic can succeed. Indeed, it can also fail.

A Quinnipiac poll from the recent Iowa primary contest showed that 93% of Democrats view Bernie Sanders as “honest and trustworthy.” While Hillary Clinton won the Iowa contest, it was so close as to be a virtual tie. Hence, the “honest and trustworthy” character traits associated in the public’s mind were identified as the strength that needed to be attacked.

In a general election for the Oval Office, it frequently falls upon the vice presidential candidate to be the attack dog. This has been best illustrated, over the decades, by some of the republican VP candidates -- Nixon in the 1950s, Agnew under Nixon, Bob Dole, and Sarah Palin all come to mind. But, in a primary contest, it is usually better to have the campaign, rather than the candidate, go on the offensive. (Donald Trump is clearly an exception to this rule, which serves as an accurate measure of how dysfunctional the republican party is in 2016.)

To a small extent, both Sanders and Clinton have confronted one another during their debates. Bernie has spoken of Hillary’s “Super Pac,” in the context of it being evidence that she is part of the political establishment that is corrupted by Wall Street. Hillary has attempted to frame this as a smear campaign. Another debate topic came from a non-debate question a journalist asked Bernie: Is Hillary a progressive? Sanders’s answer was based upon Clinton’s telling certain audiences that she is a moderate, centrist Democrat. Her response was to falsely claim that Sanders had appointed himself “keeper of the gate” for defining who is progressive -- something that is pure fiction.

Going into New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton was gaining the endorsements of numerous good, high-profile Democrats. However, while this is effective in some circles, it cemented her image of being an establishment candidate in other circles. More, the fact that Bernie identifies as a Democratic Socialist -- which had been considered his greatest weakness -- was proving to be a strength, when the public learned what that actually implies.

Hence, we are seeing the Clinton campaign go after Sanders on issues relating to his honesty and trustworthiness. This comes as no surprise, as it was easily anticipated. A first step in attacking a person’s character is to attempt to make them appear “different.” Like the infamous “Dean scream” made Howard seem a bit odd. Thus, part of the recent post-debate spin includes “did you see how often Bernie waves a hand while Hillary is answering a question?” Or, the focus on Bernie’s attempt to get in “the last word” on certain questions. Gosh! You’d think he was running for office, or something.

The new low-point that the Clinton campaign has plunged to has been its attempt to discredit Sanders’s history with the Civil Rights movement. Sanders, of course, has never claimed that he was a leader in the movement. Rather, he was one of the thousands of people who put himself on the line -- even getting arrested -- during the struggle.

This Clinton campaign tactic is as unethical as anything the 2000 Bush campaign employed against McCain in South Carolina. Even when exposed, it did not hurt Bush back then, because their party values a good lie over ethics every time. But it may not play as well within the 2016 Democratic primaries. As the public learns that the Clinton campaign will stoop to low blows about an issue as important as Civil Rights, it just might backfire.

Keep on fighting the Good Fight!
H2O Man

Deal Us In


Years ago, I attended a wedding of a cousin-in-law. He was, at the time, an attorney in an area prosecutor’s office. Hence, at both the ceremony and reception, there were numerous lawyers. I noticed, at the reception, that they had gathered in one room -- some who practiced civil law, some defense lawyers, some prosecutors, and even a couple of judges. I thought it was interesting that they had secluded themselves in one room, and that no one who hadn’t passed the bar ventured in there.

Being a man of few social graces, and no sense of boundaries, I walked in and found a seat. All discussion in the room came to an abrupt halt upon my entering the room. It remained silent for a moment after I sat down. I noticed that all of “the boys” were looking at me. Hence, I considered the possibility that it was my presence that resulted in the deafening silence.

I had been looking at a house and property that was going for sale. The previous inhabitant had moved to Florida. The bank that held the mortgage was looking to make their money back. I knew that in upstate New York, lawyers frequently purchased such properties for a large discount, and either turned them into rental properties, or re-sold them for a hefty profit. That was the way the game was played. Indeed, in discussing this property, there were a couple of gentlemen who were aware of it.

Thus, I said that I wanted to be dealt in on this one hand. I said that I wanted to raise my children in that house. I wasn’t interest in becoming a land lord, or in selling property. So I politely requested that they not compete against me on this one place. I said that I wanted to be dealt in on this one hand, and this hand only. They all were good with that.

When I bought the house -- which I’ve called “home” ever since -- I got a loan through HUD. At the time, HUD had a well-deserved reputation for corruption. The lawyers from HUD actually did attempt to strong-arm me for additional cash for the closing, literally the night before we were set to sign the paper work. I knew they were full of shit, and called them on it the next morning.

While I don’t mistake myself for an ”expert,” I knew the rules of the game. For example, I didn’t need to hire my own attorney on the closing; the attorney for the bank could represent my interests, without any conflict of interests. By the time the closing ended, the attorney for the bank -- who had been in that room at the reception -- offered me a job as a para-legal at his law office. But that’s not why I’ve told this true story.

Lawyers, even if they oppose each other in a criminal trial, are all officers of the court. They are loyal to the court system. They identify with that status -- even when socializing at wedding receptions, for example. I remember talking about this with a good friend and co-worker at the mental health clinic. He told me about how, after lunch-time basketball games at the YMCA, he would overhear different lawyers cutting deals on cases in the locker room.

Many, though not all, of our elected representatives in Washington, DC, are lawyers. But, they are usually loyal to a different club, the House and/or Senate. They may be opposed to one another at work -- both before and after lunch -- but they all recognize that they belong to an elite institution. (It is true, however, that many reject the wining-and-dining that used to be common after the sun goes down. But, I suppose, you can’t really blame anyone for not wanting to hang out with Ted Cruz, right?)

Now, please don’t get me wrong here. I know that this social dynamic isn’t limited to lawyers and politicians. Law enforcement, for example, seems to encourage socializing with others in the same field. But limiting your social circle in such a manner can lead to equally limited thinking. More, it can impact behaviors, due to an “us vs. them” mentality.

This may be pure speculation upon my part, but I think that some of the hostility that we see on the part of establishment Democrats towards Bernie Sanders is related to this type of socialization. And that includes the behaviors of some of the very good people who are part of the establishment. Does that make sense?

A lot of our elder statesmen and stateswomen have had long, solid, and respectable careers -- often including their histories before they became politicians. And that’s a good thing, and honorable. We need more good people to, like them, enter politics, and to become part of the establishment. That’s essential, including for minority communities, and really for all of us. For example, while I identify as a white male, I benefit from having diverse people in government, obviously included both non-whites and females. It surely isn’t the same benefits that advocates of all-white, all-male government were (and are) after. For social justice has never been on their agenda.

Yet, even at his age, Bernie is still fighting for social justice, and looking for our country to accomplish those goals he had identified in his early adulthood. And he’s a man of the common people, rather than a member of an elitist social club. As he recently noted, he is not good friends with Henry Kissinger, or his ilk, people who are members ingood standing within that club.

We want the good cops to prevent the bad cops from having a badge and gun. Likewise, we want good politicians to identify the ethically diseased ones within their ranks. The scum intheir club.

More, Bernie is vocal about the corruption in politics. That corruption includes large sums of money. As a common citizen, I understand why people both need and like money. And that big money has, unfortunately, been connected with getting elected and re-elected. And that the circle of government, lobbying, and the corporate world provides temptations ….and if one is looking to earn real money, it can be easy to justify cozy relationships with those advocating deals that profit everyone -- in the club. I get that.

But for those who follow this well-worn path, it must sting to see Bernie campaigning for president in the way he does ….exposing that corruption. Especially because when the public hears Bernie speak, they know he is telling the truth, and if enough people really listen to him, it will mean serious changes in the game. there are going to be a lot of registered voters, saying that they want to be dealt in on this hand in the game of politics.

A lot of people don’t want the rules of the game to change. And why would they? For they are comfortable with things being just the way that they are.

But there are more of us, than of them. It’s as simple as that.

Today's Meeting

I attended an afternoon meeting with a handful of people from the Democratic Party and the Democratic Left. As might be expected, part of the discussion centered upon the Democratic primary contest. Of particular interest, of course, was last night’s debate.

One gentleman -- who is of my generation -- began discussing the outfit that Hillary Clinton wore last night. A young man, who is a college student, cut that discussion off quickly. He supports Bernie Sanders, he said, but not because he didn’t respect Hillary Clinton. In fact, he said that he hoped everyone would be respectful enough to not think of outfits and the like as campaign issues.

Everyone agreed that he was correct.

This young generation! There are a lot of powerful agents of change there!

Peace,
H2O Man

Adlai Shakespeare

“I’m not an old, experienced hand at politics. But I am now seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.”
-- Adlai Stevenson


Throughout the day, and especially during last night’s debate, I found myself thinking of Adlai Stevenson. Older forum members will recall Adlai as a good man, an intellectual Democrat who twice was our party’s nominee for president. Unfortunately for him, those runs were in 1952 and ‘56, when he opposed Dwight Eisenhower, a symbol of American strength. For Adlai and his strong supporters, this was frustrating, for surely he had the background and experience to make him superior in qualifications to serve as Chief Executive.

However, in both elections, people voted with their hearts, not their minds, and twice put Ike in office. Adding insult to injury, this placed Richard Nixon a heart-beat away from the Oval Office. Indeed, Nixon was a central theme in Adlai’s 1956 campaign.

Early in the 2008 Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton was positioned as the party’s inevitable nominee. As 2007 turned to 2008, there were a couple capable candidates running against her, that her campaign took seriously. But Senator Barack Obama was not considered a real threat. In a relatively short time, however, it was evident that the Clinton campaign had underestimated Obama.

The Clinton campaign and its strongest supporters believed that people were voting with their hearts, and not their heads, and thus were going to nominate a candidate who could not possibly win the general election.

When Bernie Sanders entered the 2016 Democratic primaries last year, the Clinton campaign did not view him as a serious threat. Again, they believed her securing our party’s nomination was inevitable. Those few candidates who might have provided more serious primary competition had opted to not run. For a variety of reasons, it was assumed that Sanders was intent upon making a symbolic run, in an attempt to bring Hillary a little to the left.

By now, it is clear that the Sanders campaign has the potential to defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. There is a Shakespearean flavor to the primary dynamics. First, while she was First Lady, Hillary was viciously attacked by rabid republicans as a Marxist; now, a self-identified socialist virtually ties her in Iowa, then wins in a New Hampshire landslide. More, Sanders campaign is fueled not only by passionate young adults -- vital to the Obama coalition’s victories -- but also by women.

The frustrated response to this has been given voice by a couple of high-profile Hillary supporters, who speak of things such as “the hottest places in hell,” and “where the boys are.” The bitterness was also expressed, in an article that was featured in a DU:GDP OP recently, by a university professor with very real political experience. She spoke of the betrayal of women who would vote for Bernie, noting that this was the second time a charismatic male threatened to defeat Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

I do not doubt that Hillary Clinton can win the nomination. But I am concerned that her campaign is being run by people who are intent upon winning, even if in doing so, they show they are not worthy of winning.

Peace,
H2O Man

Thank you, Bernie!

I really enjoyed tonight's debate. I think that Bernie Sanders had his best performance to date. It seems to be that he is becoming a stronger candidate, and the timing couldn't be better.

My favorite part was when he talked about Henry Kissinger. That was wonderful. The second-best thing was when he said that we shouldn't insult the American public's intelligence, by pretending that campaign contributions from billionaires and multi-national corporations are anything but influence-buying.

I hope that everyone enjoyed the debate!
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 54 Next »