The more Elizabeth Warren speaks in favor of Hillary, the more that it is apparent that she, not Hillary, should be the woman running for the highest office in this country. Hillary Clinton, fairly or not, has been tarred for years with the brush of dishonesty. Her detractors have said that she's a liar long enough for the fiction to become an apparent truth. People believe the slander, and Hillary has no way to show that she is an honest person. Warren, however, is a fresh face, and someone more in tune with the people - and it shows!
Warren has the charisma that Hillary doesn't have, as well as the integrity that Trump lacks. She understands the economy better than many people on Wall Street, and yet, she sides with the common person. This is a rarity...
As much as I wanted to have a Bernie Sanders led ticket, I can accept a Clinton-Warren ticket. Only one problem - Hillary would be overshadowed by Warren, and this is unacceptable for any person wanting to become president - especially a woman. So it is highly unlikely we'll see Elizabeth Warren run for anything other than her Senate seat.
- - - - - -
Warren would be smart NOT to take the offer of the vice presidential slot on the ballot. She is one of the most influential people in the Senate, and would have great power when the Democrats eventually regain control of the chamber. More importantly, her resignation from the Senate would allow a Republican governor to appoint a conservative to take her place.
Does it make sense for Warren to leave the Senate? No. But she may get caught up in this year's crazy presidential campaign. And I'm afraid of that. We need people like her in the Senate until America regains its sanity - and I don't see that happening anytime this year....
Do not interpret this post as an endorsement of Hillary. As much as I am not a fan of any of the GOP candidates so far, I am not a fan of Hillary. At the time of writing this entry, I know more about where the 3 GOP candidates stand than I do of where of where Hillary stands - and that's a big problem. Hillary is a Machiavellian Sphinx.
- - - - - -
The democrats have a big weakness - they have no fallback candidates. Elizabeth Warren does not want to run for president - her power, like Ted Kennedy's power, is to influence the debate from the Senate chamber. She is a true liberal, and has more access to the levers of power as a senator than she ever would as a presidential candidate. If she were to run against Hillary, she would only force Hillary to move to the right, instead of being able to pull Hillary to the left, as she could from the Senate floor.
Next comes Bernie Sanders. I respect him because he's a true, honest liberal. He will likely run for president, even though he can't win. The taint of the "Liberal" brush has made it impossible for him to capture any of the "Red States". Yet, he has ideas which must be included in the presidential debate, although he has no chance against Hillary.
But who is left in the Democratic party to challenge Hillary? If there is anyone, then who is he/she, and what does he/she stand for?
- - - - - -
Let's say that Hillary loses. Who does the Democratic party have on its bench for the 2020 run? I see no one who can capture enough Red states to make a difference. This is very important. Although demographics are favoring the left over the long term, they strongly favor the right in the short term. Gerrymandering, abuses of political powers, stacking of the courts, and other tactics will make it much harder for the left to gain power in the normal cycle of the political pendulum - and this is dangerous, as it will make the stakes even greater each election cycle, and authoritarians tend to abuse power to stay in power.
If we look at the recent problems in Ferguson, MO, we find that there is a political district whose officials are not representative of the community as a whole. A large percent of the community has been disenfranchised (made ineligible to vote) because of minor legal infractions. Even though these people have paid their time for their crimes, their rights have not been restored. Add to this, a government which is financed mostly by predatory law enforcement, and one has a pot ready to boil over.
What happens when the pot boils over? The most recent time it did, we had riots - which makes the people from the community look bad. These riots are disorganized, and do not serve much than to be a collective release of anger. This is inexcusable, as much as it is ineffective. But what would happen if these same people were to get illegal weapons and overthrow the police using selective assassinations? We could see a situation similar to that occurring in Central Europe in the 1920's - where Fascists and Communists fought in the streets, and a relatively unknown Austrian found a voice and a forum to gain power after a short stint in prison. You might have heard of his most famous book - its English title is "My Struggle".
- - - - - -
"My Struggle" is not the name most people associate with this book. They are more familiar with its German title "Mein Kampf". Years ago, I had a conversation with a friend whose political views shifted far to the right, a friend from whom I disconnected to preserve my sanity. And at that time, we both came to the conclusion that the political left decays much more quickly, as it tends to place more emphasis on the rights of the individual than the political right. The political right puts a greater emphasis on the needs of the tribe (its tribe) over that of the individual, though it uses misleading language stressing individual and collective liberty.
We've seen this problem before. Leaders (from the right) stir up hatred for selected minorities who do not have the power to fight back - and the average person follows, as a herd mentality takes over. In 1934, it was hard to believe how quickly a free Germany changed into an authoritarian state. People got tired of the political battles, and surrendered power to an authoritarian government simply to end the fighting - and instead, got war. We have that same danger in today's America - give those authoritarians power, and they will keep us poor and in forever wars. So it is extremely important for the political left to again have a strong back bench of people who know how to use the levers of power - if only to check and balance the political right.....
It seems like the GOP establishment is taking the 2016 election seriously. The two most electable contenders recently had a "social meeting", and if I read between the lines properly, they discussed how they could avoid bloodying each other before the main event", the 2016 election.
Romney's departure from the race only makes sense for the GOP establishment. He is damaged goods. Not only did he have to disavow his greatest achievement as the Governor of Massachusetts, but he had to take on relatively extreme positions (due to the Tea Party and other GOP wingnuts) that alienated him from the moderates he needed to be elected.
Jeb was the Bush brother who should have been elected president in 2000. Instead, we got George W. and his neo-con friends, and a "Forever War" that no average American really wants. To give Jeb credit, he did not pursue higher office when the establishment may have wanted him to do so - he seems to have followed his own path. He was smart enough to know that his brother damaged his chances of running for president. And even more so, waiting until 2016 when Hillary Clinton would likely run again.
- - - - - -
Hillary has some baggage which may be able to become assets. She was working on healthcare long before Obama became a US Senator. The question is - can she turn her prior failed efforts in this arena into an asset among the Democratic base, while separating herself from Obamacare to attract a small number of independents.
Although Hillary seems to be the Democratic candidate in all but name, the question is: How far to the left will she need to steer to keep the loyalty of the base, before tacking to the right to pick up independent votes? If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, she'll need to cut a big deal with Elizabeth Warren in order to keep the loyalty of the base.
- - - - - -
We're seeing the GOP hopefuls say strange things to the base. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that legalizing "gay marriage" would trigger the end of civilization. Even more so, I find it amazing that anyone would believe this malarkey. But they do.
In another forum, I had a discussion about a controversial issue with some die-hard supporters of a certain status quo. I stated I supported the status quo, but didn't give a reason why I did so. And then I asked, religion aside, why should we support this position? A person responded not with a reason, but with an echo taught to the loyalists of a political party. I then said that "I believe that group loyalty trumps the need to examine why its causes should be supported." Then, I noted that I always test ideas presented by any leader to see if I'm being lied to, or are earning my respect. And what did I get? A middle class version of the "Whatever" one would hear from someone who couldn't support his/her position on Jerry Springer.
- - - - - -
Sadly, this fatalistic inability to articulate support for a position is not limited to GOP loyalists - it is present in the Democratic party as well. It is not that I want to agree with people. Instead, I want to understand where they come from - they are not sure themselves, and are unable to say much than to regurgitate 2 second sound bites such as "defending marriage". What makes things worse is history and its marriage with politics. Deciding to slowly normalize relations with Iran should be a no-brainer, as well as negotiating a halt to the weaponization of their nuclear stockpile. But some say that this betrays Israel. Others say that Obama is being this generation's Chamberlain. Maybe, just maybe, there is a multidimensional game going on which is influenced by many things:
- America's relationship with Israel
- America's and Iran's desire to end their cold war
- Stabilization of the Middle-East (shut down ISIS)
- Sunni Islam vs. Shiite Islam (an ongoing battle to legitimize one group of mullahs)
- Arab hatred of Jews
- The GOP Congress and its wish to emasculate Obama for the last 2 years of his term
- Israel's vulnerability in a hostile neighborhood
- Israel vs. Palestine
- Israel's nuclear stockpile (estimated at 150+ warheads)
- Iran's nuclear stockpile (not enough pure "yellow cake" for 1 warhead)
- Israel's lobby and its effect on both the GOP and the Democrats
- Christian Fundamentalists and the litmus test they use on GOP hopefuls
- Christian Fundamentalists and a desire to speed up Christ's second coming
- Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia - which Muslim nation dominates the Middle-East
The above is only a short list of the factors which are influencing what is going on in the Middle-East, and few people have a clue as to how any of these factors relate to each other on a given day. I'd bet that only Obama's cabinet and a handful of Republicans in the House and Senate have enough information to read between all of these lines. And as such, any noises we make and opinions we have are those of "armchair quarterbacks" - meaningless, as we are only spectators to the main event.
