Warren v. Sanders

When, at their private meeting, Elizabeth Warren told Bernie Sanders that she was entering the Democratic primary, his first thought had to be "She'll split the progressive vote, and Biden will get the nomination.  How do I talk her out of this?"

One obvious albeit ill-considered argument: "I don't think a female candidate can beat Trump."  Maybe it slipped out before he had a chance to reconsider: I seriously doubt that Sanders actually believes it.  Almost a year later, it must be hard for him even to believe he said it — but, be that as it may, his denial at the debate did amount to calling Warren a liar.  (I winced.)

I was hoping for something more like this:  "I don't remember saying anything like that, but if I did, I apologize — I certainly don't believe a woman can't be elected."  Then, he could have gone on about Clinton's victory in the 2016 popular vote, et al.

Hopefully, the progressive wing of the party can get its act together in short order, because failure to do so only empowers the Democratic establishment.  Americans wanted change in 2016, and they still want it in 2020. Frankly, I have strong misgivings about Biden (much less Buttigieg) defeating Tr*mp in November.

Notes on the debate

Kudos to the ABC/Univision moderators of Thursday's debate, whose questioning of the Democratic candidates was immeasurably more professional than that of the moderators from MSNBC and, especially, CNN.  As I watched, I wondered if their professionalism reflected the older, more traditional ethos of broadcast news, rather than cable's appetite for drama.  The next debate is back on CNN, in cooperation with the New York Times.  One hopes that the Times will serve as a moderating influence – or that CNN will have learned from its mistakes.

Joe Biden was better rehearsed in his talking points this time around; but by hour two, he seemed to be tossing out talking points at random, shifting subjects midstream.  Why anybody thinks he could hold his own against Tr*mp is a mystery to me.  Contrary to popular (and pundit) opinion, I sincerely believe he is the weakest contender the Democrats possibly could nominate.  It's not his age, necessarily.  Biden's entire political history is replete with gaffes, missteps, and confusion.  Frankly, I think he's just not smart enough to win.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders did better this time at explaining how universal health care can be funded, but they still haven't nailed it.  Sanders correctly observed that US health care is twice as expensive per capita as Canadian health care, and Warren emphasized total cost to families and the profits taken out of the system by private insurers; but neither produced the kinds of sound bites favored by TV – so the message won't go out as it should.

Briefly

What's With Bernie?
"Surely," all the talking heads have been saying, "it's time for Bernie to cede the nomination to Hillary and unite the party!"  It hasn't happened, and if we need a figurehead for Bernie's problem with the Democratic establishment, look no further than Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  She and the DNC were looking forward to a coronation, and set debate schedules, fundraising procedures, and media connections to ensure it happened.  Well, it didn't happen, and Bernie is pissed.  Should anyone be surprised?

What's With Netanyahu?
Bibi is set to replace Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon with a nationalist, religion pandering, totally despicable psychopath by the name of Avigdor Lieberman.  It's not for the good of Israel — it's solely for the sake of maintaining Bibi's hold on power, and any chance for some belated reconciliation with the Palestinians will be destroyed.  The Army opposes the move.  We'll see what happens.

What's With Maduro?
Venezuela is in crisis.  People there can't even buy basic goods like toilet paper, but Nicolás Maduro is stubbornly refusing to accept that his own incompetence is largely responsible.  The only thing that can save the Bolivarian Revolution is a rapid jump in oil prices, and that just ain't happening.  Things have deteriorated so far that one even could justify calling in the IMF — and nobody has ever heard me say that before!

Fear and Loathing

If this has become a battle between fear and loathing, it appears that Republicans who know both candidates are deciding they’d rather be afraid. — Gail Collins

It's true.  Ted Cr*z is making Donald Tr*mp look reasonable by comparison, and that's extremely problematic.  Cr*z, after all, is despicable, genuinely despicable.  Even John Boehner — not the world's cuddliest man — calls Cr*z "Lucifer incarnate."  The danger of a Tr*mp who appears "reasonable," of course, is the possibility of President Tr*mp in 2017.

Hillary is hard to like, even now that Bernie has pulled her far enough to the left to be significantly out of her comfort zone.  She's the consummate politician, and we don't like politicians.  People just don't trust her.  (I don't.  Maybe I'm wrong to tar her with the same brush as that lying, plutocrat pandering husband of hers, but I can't forget Bill promising us "Two for the price of one."  Two of him?  Just kill me now.)

Anyway, I'll be reaching out to any young, idealistic Bernie supporters I encounter, and trying to teach them the hardest lesson of politics: sometimes you just have to hold your nose and swallow.

Oh, yeah... Iowa

Not that it actually matters, but here are some observations:

• Since Iowa is a caucus state, people actually get to see who their friends and neighbors are supporting.  It is possible that a significant number of voters who would happily support Tr*mp in a secret ballot might hesitate to do so in an open caucus for fear of open mockery.
• Cruz put a hell(?) of a lot of faith in Jesus when he opposed the motor fuel ethanol requirement.  One assumes there are many evangelicals with no strong economic reliance on corn farming.
• Rubio's "victory" speech pandered to the pathologically religious with all the vehemence of, say, Ted Cruz.  He didn't mention his support for eliminating the capital gains tax, which constitutes pandering to a much smaller but much wealthier interest group.
• Hillary's camp declaring "victory" while in a dead heat with Sanders and with ten per cent of the vote still out struck me as, shall we say, odd.
• Given that we're talking about Iowa, with its proportional delegate selection and other foibles, it seems absurd that anybody should claim to have "won" — except for the fact that America loves "winners," and politicians are pathologically needy.

So, Iowa leaves us with five candidates claiming "victory" and a few claiming "I wasn't really trying." New Hampshire will receive just as much press attention, and be just as meaningless.

Back when I was young, political conventions actually selected candidates, and it was a lot of fun.  I'm hoping to see that happen again.