Posts Tagged ‘Clinton’

the Next New Big Thing

March 6, 2019

When it comes to politics, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and I freely admit it.

Yes, I personally thought Trump was campaigning in the same way that Ross Perot did in 1992 and for the same reason: to put a Clinton in the White House.

And I am still wiping that egg off my face.

Now, I have an insight to share about the new class of Democratic members of Congress, specifically freshman Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

These two women are spunky and edgy in their opinions and viewed by many people as “offensive” and “out there”, but isn’t that sort of how Trump was described when he began his campaign?

So, I was thinking, what if these two are nothing more than prototypes of a new wave of Democratic candidate to ignite the voters in a manner similar to how Trump ignited the Republicans?

Neither of these two may appear in the final product line-up but doesn’t the experience as a whole simply scream “test marketing” to you?

It certainly seems that way to me.

Let the Soul-Searching Begin

November 9, 2016

Well, the political follies of 2016 are over (finally!) and will probably go down in history as one of the strangest election cycles ever. I awoke this morning to check the results and almost fell down laughing.

The Republican party fielded a candidate that as recently as ten days ago, the party heads were pressuring the candidate to resign from the race. Many pundits have said the Republicans will have to do a lot of soul-searching to re-make themselves in the coming days… and that was before the results came in.

Meanwhile, the Democrats ignored the dismay felt by so many that Sanders was shafted and Hillary crowned without consent of the populace; she was the choice of the party machine. But now that Clinton has stumbled and apparently many of the party have voted for Trump in order to oust Hillary. Who knows? Either way, the party now has some soul-searching to do as well.

In both cases, we see political parties that have gotten completely out-of-touch with their membership. Both parties have tried to distance themselves from what their people wanted, preferring what their political machines wanted.

And in both cases it has turned out rather badly.

Now, it seems, both parties have got to reconfigure what they are really about. There seems a vast chasm between the people of the left and right and the party machines that hold sway over those antipodes.

Perhaps, in the future, the parties would listen to the electorate rather than trying to force some “correct” political model on the party faithful. Many are saying that if the Democrats had fielded Sanders, they would now be the ones celebrating… but who knows, really?

Still, ever the skeptic, I figure neither party will really learn much from the debacle and will simply regroup the next election cycle and try again with the same ol’ same ol’; status quo feels so much safer than going out for a radical change.

Which is what we have at the present.

It is going to be an interesting four years, to say the least.

A Trumpence For Your Thoughts?

November 7, 2016

Tomorrow’s the big day we have waited most of an eternity for: election day!!

Yes, we can finally put the excruciating anguish behind us int time to compose ourselves and have something, hopefully, to be thankful for as that holiday approaches. Most people seem to just want this painful extraction to be over with.

As an historian, I looked back through the years and – though there have been a few rather nasty campaigns in the past – this one is by far the most bizarre and bewildering event I have ever seen.

We have the outsider who acts as though he is in some reality popularity contest and then the ultimate insider who assumes to have the victory nailed down already… and judging from the treatment Bernie Sanders got, I think Hillary may be right about that. The fix may already be in.

One pundit I heard claimed that Hillary should not be elected for another term as she already ran the Presidency for two terms at the end of the last century – “who do you think ran the country while Bill was busy chasing skirts?” But that is just a minor technicality.

A friend in England – the “old” one across the pond, not the “new” one still nursing the grudge from Deflategate – asked me quite seriously, “Are you telling me that you have three-hundred-million people there and these two clowns are the best you can field?”

My reply, with a straight face, was, “Apparently so.”

The outcome would not be the travesty it certainly appears or the generalized CF it also appears to be were it not for one small, teensy little problem:

The candidate who will be elected will not be voted for.

Yes, you heard that right: the candidate who wins this election will not do so because the majority of the voters want him/her. They will only win because the vast majority of the electorate is voting against the other candidate.

A friend of mine said he was voting for Johnson, the Libertarian. Someone piped up immediately with “A vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump.” I overheard someone else claim “A vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary.”

No one seems to get it: a vote for Johnson is a vote FOR Johnson. The same for those voting for Stein. The people with the “voting against” mentality cannot conceive of someone actually voting for a candidate because they are better. No, they would rather let evil win, even if it be the lesser of the two.

Yes, there are people who really, really support Hillary, and many who really, really support Trump, but the vast majority this year are voting against someone. When did the system get so broken?

And on Wednesday, two days from now, we can hear the people asking their friends: “So, who did you vote against?”

And that seems to be the only thing of importance this year: being against what you don’t want it the White House.

Imagine what might happen if everyone who really did not want either Hillary or Trump actually voted FOR someone?

Or would that make a little too much sense?

Another Snow Job

March 22, 2010

Spring has finally arrived in the Nation’s Capital and the last of the traces of the snownami that hit the city during Snowmageddon 2010 have disappeared… well, mostly.

Obama has been working long and hard to rid this country of its biggest problem.

No, not the ridiculous war we’ve been involved in for the past eight years that he promised to get us out of quickly – he lied, of course – that problem is minor by comparison.

The problem was the electorate’s aversion to universal healthcare coverage. Ted Kennedy tried for decades to get it passed… it was Bill Clinton’s main thrust – politically, as he did not deal in snow – for his two terms… and now Obama has finally gotten it to pass.

No longer will people have the choices they had in the past as the government tentacles reach ever deeper into our private lives, as well as our pocket books.

Obama could truly be the Lincoln of his age. He makes slaves of the citizenry, not just the states.

Heck, he might even win a Nobel Peace Prize for this.

Divide and Conquer

January 11, 2010

Joe Lieberman had lost his place in the race for the Senate. The Democrats had chosen his opponent, Ned Lamont. So, did Lieberman bow out gracefully? Hell, no! He was going to remain in the running “for the good of the people of the great state of Connecticut”.

Who the heck does he think he’s kidding?

Let’s journey back in time for a moment, back to 1992. The free-wheeling billionaire, Ross Perot, throws his hat in the ring and runs for President as an “independent”. Not that anyone noticed, but Ross ran hot and heavy in the beginning, when George Bush was ahead in the polls, but when Clinton closed the gap… well, Ross had to take a little ‘family time’. And he was not heard from again until about two weeks before the election when Bush pulled ahead in the polls again. Suddenly, Ross was back in the fray slugging it out at every opportunity.

What was happening was clear to see, although I don’t recall any news organization mentioning the fact: Perot appealed to Republicans more than Democrats and was able to ‘draw off’ Bush supporters, so Clinton could win.

One of Clinton’s first acts was to invite Perot to the White House for a celebratory dinner.

So, Lieberman will draw Democratic votes away from Lamont in the general election and give another Senate seat to a Republican. (I am surprised the Democratic Party leadership has not stepped in to prevent such a thing.)

I knew Lieberman was a staunch supporter of the Republican Administration, but didn’t that make it a little too obvious? Today he is sort of a parttime Democrat and parttime Republican. It does rather blur the whole concept of it being a two-party system anymore, doesn’t it?

(As if it ever was.)