Osler's Razor

Unfortunately I only was able to watch the last 10 - 15 minutes (the closing statements plus a bit more). Based on that -- and the highlights I watched -- I'd say:

1. I've been a Bernie supporter so far and likely still will be. But he has to quit calling himself a Democratic Socialist, or come up with a more engaging way to explain those views, because he's going to get killed on that if he becomes the nominee; and yes, he needs to modulate his delivery a bit.

2. As much as I like Bernie's ability to be genuine and in the moment (and to want to focus on what he sees as the most important issues), I agree that he, or another candidate, should not have given Hillary a pass about her email situation. I for one am still puzzled by, and annoyed with, the way she has danced around explaining why she used a private server.

3.. Which brings me to my overall observation: From what I saw (at least in their closing statements and other bits), I thought they as a whole presented a unified image as a party. I even wondered if they had agreed ahead of time not to be too tough on each other, in order to heighten the contrast of the Democratic party as a whole to the panoply of personalities on the Republican side . . . to bring in more voters to the Dems in general, i.e. young people, independents, or both.
 

I couldn't disagree more about the emails. I couldn't give a rats patoot about the emails. I also disagree that she has to answer the questions to a broad audience at some point in that she has already done so to the level it will ever be addressed. What do people think they are going to find out? NOTHING! This is the US Gov't we are talking about, and I find it asinine that people are focused on this email situation like it's some great affront to our moral sensibilities with the bucketload of other transgressions committed by our government on a regular basis. WHO CARES? No one cares except to better their own position, none of these people give a crap if Hillary Clinton is honest or not, they only care about themselves! They are ALL HIDING THINGS, and I think its hypocritical beyond reproach for them to keep beating this long dead horse when it is HIGHLY unlikely any new information will surface that says anything new or fresh about the situation. It's political posturing and it is so tired already. And I'm not even a Hillary supporter. I just am so sick of the posturing. Talk to me about what you are going to do about poverty, mass incarceration, jobs, racism, police brutality, our every growing oligarchic situation in this country...I don't care about the emails. I want solutions.
Also:
1. Can we give Benghazi a rest already?
2. Why are we still talking about who did and didn't vote for the Iraq/Afghanistan/Middle East this or that wars? We all know currently that it was an error, and I could give 2 flying hyenas about what someone voted for in 2002. Any person that believes another person (politicians are people) is static in their position on any issue from educational focus to child-rearing to warplay is in deep misunderstanding of the human mind. I would be much more concerned if a politician did remain static in their positions on various issues over time as it would show a serious lack of insight and external engagement with the world.
3. I love Bernie Sanders, and that's the train I'm on. I agree with the above comment point #3. I think it's a smart strategy to show collegiality. Webb and Chaffee (especially Chaffee) were non-starters as far as I'm concerned. O'mally is nice to look at but he talk weird and sounds like he's reading a script and that irritates me. It's going to be Bernie and Hills in the end and I'm looking forward to them duking it out with respect. I think that chivalrous competition will in itself be an attractive pull for voters to either Democratic candidate.
Have a great day!!!
 

Busy night in our house last night--and I missed more than I caught. Having said that, I think I can draw a couple of conclusions from the debate (nothing earth-shattering; nothing everybody did not know already):

1. Hillary wins. Hillary is clearly the class of the league. While the Democratic field is not especially deep or impressive, Hillary is by far the most polished, most presidential option. She is a dreadful candidate when she is fat and happy; she is devastatingly lethal when her back is up against the wall. As for Benghazi and the email imbroglio--no one on this side of Ron Fournier who is at all predisposed to vote for her cares about that stuff in the least. Not an issue. She has the infrastructure. She has the name recognition. She is historic. She has the will to persevere and go the distance. She is back as the prohibitive favorite for the nomination.

2. The Democratic nominee will run in the general election as a true Progressive. Clinton gave us the DLC and the "third way," and Clinton 2016 will complete the project begun by President Obama to transform the Democratic Party into a true-blue Progressive movement. Internal polling says Democrats are smart to run this way. It will be very telling to see who and how Republicans run against this unabashedly liberal campaign.
 

WF-- The problem with the "Progressive" move is that I don't think it fits Hillary Clinton. She is a moderate on most issues, and is hesitant to stake out strong positions. That can be a very good thing, of course, if it leads to outreach and compromise. I am much more comfortable with Clinton as an honest moderate than as a fake progressive.
 

Mark-- You make a good point.

On the other hand, sometimes pragmatism is another word for the art of the possible. Progressives are more and more convinced that the demographic and cultural changes in the electorate make a much more Progressive USA well within the realm of the possible. That is, I am not sure the old Clionton moderation was so heartfelt in terms of really preferring to be in the middle rather than the middle was what was possible. I think both Clintons could sincerely appreciate a much more left-oriented center of gravity on almost every issue important to Progressives. Hillary is evolving on lots of issues, but I am not convinced that she is not happy to move left.
 

I get that progressives and liberals love Bernie Sanders. So many people are turning out to hear him because he speaks to the deep insecurities that many feel. People know that they are getting screwed and have been getting screwed in the global capital world and Bernie speaks to their anger, much like Donald Trump speaks to nativist, and at times racist, anger on the Right. The Donald and Bernie are both drawing upon populist discontent. Here is the rub though, Bernie, though he will push the eventual Democratic nominee, is simply not electable. Much of the country will not vote for a Democratic Socialist or whatever it is that he style himself. If progressives and liberals want to ensure that a Republican, and let's face it all of the boys and girl in the clown car are scary, does not get elected, then they must get behind whoever the eventual Democratic nominee will be. Scott Davis
 

Scott, you might be right about Sanders, but I don't think that you are right about the Republican candidates. There are at least two who seem to be genuine, high-quality candidates for president-- with experience and temperament that fit the job, even if I disagree with them on issues.

WF-- you might be right about the Clintons. My view is skewed, though, by the two issues I care most about: avoiding war and clemency.
 

The e-mails were only a political story that has now run it's course. Hillary and the republicans both botched their roles.

Hillary Clinton has real progressive roots and instincts. She performs more genuinely when she is true to these roots than when she tries to moderate and accommodate, which she does.

Mark I am guessing John Kasich and Jeb Bush are the two republicans that you think could govern.

 

I think Kasich is the only R candidate that is sane enough not to run to the right (of the Nazis!), for pete sake. And his governing is fairly conservative, but not extreme or hateful. As with the D candidates, running to the extreme of your party is a fools errand, which is what Bernie is doing. About 80 percent of the electorate is conservative on some issues, progressive on some issues, and totally unaware of most issues until election time. which means a lot of electorate education has to occur between now and the election.

The biggest issue not being discussed is that we need to change the districting to eliminate any consideration but following existing jurisdictional lines, county and municipal boundaries, and natural and man-made barriers (e.g., interstate hwys) when drawing districts. Compactness should be the goal. And no consideration of party when districts are drawn. It is a voting rights issue. And states that insist on voter ID should have to provide it free, including paying the cost for documentation of citizenship like birth certificates, SSNs, and other documentation, much of which is unavailable to people due to failures of government to protect records from fires and other calamities.

BTW, when younger I voted R often. Now rarely R and mostly vote D, because the R party seems to think that citizenship and residency are earned not natural.
 

Dad! Jeb Bush? Urg. I don't want any more members of that family in the Oval office.

Speaking of which, I get to meet with President Obama next week at the White House, which is exciting.
 

Um.... How 'bout those Cubbies! And I worry that the Mets will have nothing for Greinke tomorrow night.