The Democratic Debate: Tag Teaming Hillary Clinton

The Democratic debate rolled around again and it was a little more interesting this time because there were only three candidates on stage, the other likely contenders having resigned from the race. While this potentially created the opportunity to just increase the focus on the two ongoing leaders, Clinton and Sanders, it probably provided much more attention for Martin O'Malley, who was practically invisible prior to last night.

Diverse They Ain't

I have mentioned before that the Republican field of candidates is much more diverse than the Democrats' round up of the usual suspects this time around. A picture of the three contenders looks more like a klan rally than anything else.

OK, maybe that's a little unfair. After all, these three are only "white" in the very loose definition of race that exists today. Sanders is, after all, Jewish and O'Malley is Irish. The Irish were not really considered white even a century ago. Remember who was building the railroads alongside blacks and the Chinese in the 19th century?

Nevertheless, the GOP does come off with more points for diversity this time around. They've got multiple hispanics, a very viable black candidate and a woman.

How They Did

Hillary Clinton

• The other Democrats finally took off the gloves and lashed out at Hillary. Many analysts have stated previously that Hillary was going to run away with this nomination unless somebody manned up and started criticizing her. 
• Both Sanders and O'Malley were able to take the high ground diplomatically because neither of them can be tied to voting for the Middle East debacle. Clinton joined with other Democrats to vote for the controversial invasion of Iraq which undeniably led to the present chaos in that region  and in Europe.
• They were also not afraid to bring up her ties to Wall Street. However, most seem to agree that her defense was adequate. Still, it was a defense and it shows that Clinton is no longer untouchable. She is going to have to defend herself if she is going to get this nomination.

Bernie Sanders

• The biggest advance for Sanders came simply with his willingness to attack Clinton's record. Providing this contrast will undoubtedly improve his long-range chances of taking an electoral lead. 
• He failed to utilize the email issue, though, and that is perhaps Clinton's greatest weakness. This sort of cooperation among the candidates stinks and leads me to wonder if the race isn't simply an opportunity for Clinton to air out a lot of issues publicly and make voters bored of them before her cakewalk to the national election.
• Sanders also did not look good when Clinton ridiculed his idea of free college for everybody. She pointed out that this policy would use taxpayer money to pay for Donald Trump's kids to go to school. Hopefully that is the end of that piece of idiocy,

Martin O'Malley

• Martin O'Malley wins big simply for having a lot of face time with the public. This was a great opportunity for voters to hear an option to Sanders and Clinton. He presents a major threat to these other two simply by showing up and potentially leeching off undecided or less fervent voters. 
• He also joined in the attacks on Clinton. He called her a flip-flopper on gun control.
• In particular, he benefits by having had nothing to do with her war record and her participation in regime changes, such as that in Libya which has obviously destabilized the country.

I am not a Democrat but I can say that the democratic race is finally starting to look exciting. It seemed like Clinton was locking up the race when Sanders asked everyone to ignore her email dilemma. She may still run away with this one but there is at least the appearance of a real race at the moment. That will probably improve the ratings and, after all, that is all American culture really has any more: Facebook likes and Twitter hashtags.

The Democratic Debates: Clinton Uber Alles

While the Republicans have been stealing the show for months, thanks to the antics of Donald Trump, the Democrats are finally getting some limelight now that their own debates have begun. Before now, the democratic race certainly stirred interest among democrats themselves but their intrigues did not cross party lines in terms of excitement. Most republicans were entertained enough by their own party's three-ring circus.

The first democratic debate did not get nearly as much press and public attention as the republican debates but that may be due to predictability. In an interesting turn of events, it is the GOP that now holds more diverse views than the Democratic Party. With the exception of the largely-ignored Jim Webb, all democratic contenders hate guns and religion, love illegal immigration, higher taxes and homosexuality and are happy printing money for entitlement programs. Nevertheless, millions of liberal Americans tuned in to watch other people largely agree with them.

And the Winner Is...

I am sure many low-information viewers were confused as to the identities of the people on stage. The competitors really boil down to the First Two and the Other Three. While the latter group showed up, no one was really listening to anything but the presentations of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

In the aftermath, opinions vary as to who won the debate, though the MSM would have you believe that everyone agrees with them in thinking that Hillary Clinton won. Some polls, such as a Facebook vote, gave the victory to Sanders before being erased. The same happened with an early CNN poll. I am not sure why the Founders bothered to put safeguards such as the US Senate in the government to protect against fickle public opinion when they could have just relied on the media to do so.

Essentially, however, I agree with Clinton's victory for one simple reason. No matter how she and Sanders may weigh in the balances, Clinton wins because Sanders is such a hopeless beta-male that he cannot promote himself effectively.

During the debate, he exclaimed how sick he was of hearing about Clinton's emails and basically turned attention away from potential criticisms of her work as Secretary of State. With that possibility eliminated, the other candidates did not have any way to distinguish themselves positively. Remember, none of them have any real distinct ideas about domestic and foreign policy unless they are able to point out Clinton's vote for the war in Iraq and her questionable work as Secretary of State.

This move was classic Sanders. Several weeks ago, he allowed himself to be pushed off the stage by two Black Lives Matters representatives who insulted him and the entire crowd. He was unable to do anything but pump his fist for Black Power like the effete 60's radical that he is. One wonders what Sanders would do on the world stage when Putin or Xi tried to push him around.

The Other Three and the Shadow of Joe

Mention should at least be made of Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee and Martin O.Malley. They are really running for vice-president by now and their chances even for that scrap are slim. Maybe by now they are starting to get realistic and fix their sights on cabinet posts.

The real question at this point regards the possible entrance of Joe Biden. A lot of commentators think that Clinton's showing was strong enough to convince Biden to stay out. Of course, funding and Biden's proclivity for gaffes of all sorts may push him into the race anyway. Now that would make the debates worth watching!

Did You Know That Jim Webb Was Running for President in Election 2016?

When I started this reincarnation of a blog back in August, I did not even know that Jim Webb was running for the Democratic nomination in Election 2016. I think that I remember hearing about it months ago, probably right after he officially declared in July. But I had not retained that memory and was only reminded of the fact last week.

How did he slip under the radar? Well, Jim Webb, along with a handful of other democrats, is maintaining an average polling success somewhere between 0% and 1%. In virtually every poll he comes in behind Joe Biden, who hasn't even decided to run for the Presidency yet.

Perhaps a better question is, why is Jim Webb virtually an unknown at this point?

One could say that being behind in the polls is meaningless at this point anyway. Hell, the first primary is still four months away. Not long ago, candidates were not even on the road at this time. They were at their jobs, still thinking about running for office. These days, you have to declare yourself for one election practically before the prior election is over.

A lot can happen in four months. As I stated with regard to the opponents of Donald Trump several weeks ago, the billionaire can get a lot of free press right now but over the course of this dead period before the primaries, other candidates can generate support simply by hanging on and acting as alternatives whenever a leading candidate makes a gaffe.

Jim Webb stands to gain support whenever Sanders or Clinton begins to hemorrhage support for one reason or another. If Biden comes into the race, I predict that this will do more than turn support the Vice President's way. It will also fragment support for Clinton and send at least some dribbles of support down toward Webb, O'Malley, et al.

None of this answers the question as to why Jim Webb is so far behind. Other candidates might explain that the other campaigns are simply better funded. That is certainly true in the case of Jim Webb. However, I think that Webb is a unique creature these days, something of a last Mohican. He is a conservative democrat.

Jim Webb served as the last Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. He earned the spot not only for his legal and political background but also due to serving in the Marine Corps in Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 70s. He was wounded multiple times and earned a number of decorations for bravery.

And yet, he is a democrat! Not that republican candidates have any claim on military service. Most of those bastards are cowards equal to any democratic candidate. I think, were Jim Webb a republican, he would be able to parlay this background into a superior poll ranking. Democratic voters, however, are much more interested in identity politics and victim worship.

They are actually embarrassed by people like Jim Webb, who support the 1st and 2nd amendments and believe in supporting the armed forces of the country. Democrats will take a community organizer over a decorated hero any day. Unfortunately, Republicans will adhere to a loud-mouth blowhards when all other options fail to muster any sign of manhood.

Jim Webb is still hanging on and he hopes to participate in Election 2016 as the democratic candidate for President of the United States. I fear, though, that any day could bring news of his capitulation. Good luck, Jim.

Who Is Marco Rubio?

After the second GOP debate, three top candidates were reconfirmed in their positions: Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson. An additional member of the pack stepped into the foreground: Marco Rubio.

Some Biographical Data

Marco Rubio is one of the younger republicans running for national office this year. As of this writing, he is just 44 years old. If elected, he would be one of the youngest men to ever hold the highest office in the land.

Youth is not the only thing that distinguishes Rubio from past and present GOP candidates. He is a Cuban-American from Florida, one of three serving in the US Senate. His youth and ethnicity single him out at a time when liberals are more likely than ever to depict the Republican Party as a party of old, white men.

Furthermore, Rubio is a Roman Catholic. Only one Roman Catholic, the democrat John Kennedy, has ever served as US President, though the US population is more than 20% Catholic.

Political Background

Marco Rubio won his first election in 1999, when he narrowly defeated an opponent for the Florida State House of Representatives. In just three years, he became the Majority leader in that representative body. By 2009 he was ready for bigger things and ran for the US Senate seat that had been opened by resignation. He defeated the governor of that state, Charlie Crist, in that election.

As junior Senator from Florida, Rubio has represented ideas that have become fairly typical for Republicans today. He won his seat with strong Tea Party support. He has since distinguished himself somewhat from that political group with his stance on immigration reform (rather than enforcement) and his call for strengthening the military.

He takes a strong anti-abortion stance and received a B+ from the NRA on the issue of gun control. He is less republican on climate change, essentially taking an agnostic stance.

It remains to be seen whether Rubio will have the organization behind him to manage this sudden limelight. However, if his past is any indicator, he has been aiming for greater things since the very beginning.

Cultural Issues: A Broad Outline

For a long time, culture has been the elephant in the room during American political discussions. That is, whenever actual political discussions have been held. I feel sorry for the younger generation today because they seem to have grown up in a period much more sharply divided than I remember. There does not seem to be any room for dissent anymore and therefore political discussion has largely been replaced by shouting matches or, to avoid the shouting match, an unspoken taboo has been attached to all political issues at social gatherings.

Cultural may not be the appropriate word for the substance of this division but it may have to suffice. The matter is simply that people argue about surface political issues when, actually, there are geographic fault lines dividing them which no one is addressing.

Thinking about this division, I initially determined that it goes all the way back to the Roe v Wade decision of 1973. After all, if one side of the discussion thinks that they are discussing murder and the other side doesn't, each is attaching a very distinct level of importance to the topic. Anyone who has been married knows how much damage can occur when one half of the couple does not take a disputed issue as seriously as the other.

Perhaps, though, this issue goes much farther back. I thought, for some time, that there was good reason to believe that the matter had its origin in the Civil War. Now, I am thinking that perhaps we are reaping what we sowed in the American Revolution.

I will speculate more about that issue in later articles. For now, it should be enough to outline the primary matters which are causing such turmoil in today's political forums.

Religion

Has the Sun set on American religion?

Religion has always divided America to some extent. Today, the source of the division is unusual in that having a religion or adhering to one makes you stand out against the general American background in many places.

Before World War II, the US was a staunchly Protestant country. While Catholics had been slowly gaining popular acceptance since the US Civil War (in which thousands of Irish and other immigrants fought for the North), it was really the Second World War which erased some of the cultural division.

During the war, men of all faiths found themselves fighting side by side. They had access to one another's pastors when it was necessary to consult about spiritual matters. After the war, these men went to work in factories together, lived in the suburbs together and so on. There was definitely a sentiment abroad that one should attend the church of his choice so long as you went to church.

It would be foolish to pretend that atheism is entirely new to the US culture. There have been atheist s since the beginning and Jefferson's Bible is certainly proof that the Founding Fathers had different ideas about faith than many continue to think.

However, since the 1960s, the impulse toward atheism has grown. Whereas one once had to be convinced to become an atheist, now one must be convinced to believe in spiritual matters. The default spiritual mindset has now become one of disregard for religion rather than disbelief.

There is no question that this movement away from the ancestral faiths of previous generations has made a huge impact on politics. It is what we are really talking about when we talk about some of the major issues in front of the populace today.

Sexuality

What is really going on in our minds when we talk politics.

The sexuality issue is really almost a sub-category of the religion issue. While acceptance of gay people has grown in the last few decades, the fact of the matter remains that many Americans are just not comfortable with the thought. Furthermore, a growing number of people may have voted for gay marriage and related issues but are increasingly turned off by the activism of many gay groups.

In addition, due to the way that the Internet interface allows people to escape immediate public rebuke or even violence for expressing unpopular opinions, you see many people coming out and declaring their open disgust with homosexuals and homosexuality. I think that a lot of revulsion was apparently dormant during previous decades when communications technology was less developed. People are now able to express their opinions on these matters in public rather than simply stating them at the dinner table.

I am not simply saying that sexuality issues affect how people vote on topics such as gay marriage. I am saying that this matter and others are driving how people vote on a spectrum of issues. People are conflating apparently distinct issues with this one. Your view on gay marriage can probably tell me a lot about your view on the environment, foreign policy, etc.

Race

Each of us feels something different looking at this picture.

As I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s. there was definitely the perceptible sentiment that we were achieving racial equality and that, soon, race would not matter. That dream never really came true. Seven years after electing the first black POTUS, it is almost as if we have decided to review the last 150 years of racial issues and legal decisions with a critical eye.

Certainly, the Internet has made it easier for people with less accepting views on race to express themselves safely. Furthermore, there seems to be a growing and vocal concern that cultural divisions between blacks and whites may be more real than was previously thought. No one can deny that crime rates are distinctly higher among black populations and the excuse of systemic oppression or the legacy of slavery is getting harder for many people to accept.

Again, an opinion on this issue often tells you a lot about the holder of that opinion. You would have to dig deep to find someone willing to say that they do not think that the races are equal these days. But it is not so hard to find someone that thinks that the people in Ferguson are self-destructive thugs or that Trayvon Martin got what he had coming.

Very recent events have stirred the pot even more. While the media glosses over the racial identity of the latest murders related in the press, at the grassroots level people are upset. The Virginia reporter shooting just last week caused an eruption of articles and comments about race. The vitriol unleashed on comment boards beneath news articles online should be enough to disturb anyone.

Other Issues

There are many other issues which the reader could easily associate with these as far as their ability to divide the public into warring factions. Climate change is another issue. Again, your view on climate change is likely to be a guide to your other opinions on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, gun control, the Ferguson riots and so on.

While the media circus ramps up the excitement about the upcoming election, it is important to remember that there is much more than politics at stake here. This is not just about social security or the war on terror. There are issues here at home which Americans have still not decided, though history books may make it seem that such issues were resolved decades ago.

Donald Trump: Reactionary, Liberal or Loose Cannon?

Whenever Trump flirted with the idea of running for president in the past, I was always appalled by the idea. The last thing we needed, I thought, was a rich, political outsider coming in to mess everything up.

How strange, then, that today I see him as the most promising candidate in the field. Maybe that is because there is nothing that I would like more than to see everything in Washington overturned. But I am starting to let my anarchist leanings show and this post is about Trump, not me.

I think that Trump fascinates the public not only with his candor but also with his unusual set of stances on a variety of issues. He at once appears both reactionary and radical to a public brainwashed over the last few decades to only see political issues in terms of conservative republican vs liberal democrat.

Trump the Liberal 

Trump confuses modern voters because he glibly promotes opinions and viewpoints which, as a set, Americans have been taught to see as irreconcilable. Here are some of the "traditionally" liberal political stances to which Trump allegedly adheres:

• He is, essentially, pro-choice. He is not a big fan of it but he does not breathe fire on the issue. He has come out and called himself pro-life in some remarks but he is not really that strong on the issue. In fact. I think that his is a pretty common view among republicans but, in order to win their socially conservative base, they must take a strong pro-life stance in public. 
• He is, at least, content with the present progressive tax system applied by the IRS. I am sure that, like most people, he would love for the IRS to be unnecessary but, as long as there is income tax he thinks that it makes sense to take more from the rich. This is anathema to fiscal conservatives.
• Apparently Trump does not want to make cuts to Social Security or Medicare.
• He has expressed open support for the idea of a single-payer health care system.
• Trump promotes the Second Amendment but has stated acceptance of things such as background checks and even bans on certain types of weapons. For Second Amendment republicans, this type of thing is a shibboleth to aid in culling the weak from the electoral herd. 
• Trump has a pretty relaxed stance on gays. I would guess that he is essentially a live-and-let live kind of guy. I have not heard , though, how he stands on issues such as the well-known wedding-cake business which got sued out of existence just because it refused to make a gay-themed wedding cake.

More than Trump's political stances, his actions mark him out as a liberal. He doesn't mind hanging out with Bill Clinton, for example. I have to think, though, that most men wouldn't mind hanging out with Bill Clinton. It's pretty obvious that guy would be fun at parties.

I think that Donald's wives are actually getting hotter as he gets older.

Most egregious among his sins, though, are Trump's sexual relationships. Not only has he been married three times but his affairs and his trophy wives could certainly be considered scandalous among conservatives. But, then again, old school feminist liberals would also be appalled by these shenanigans.

Trump Conservative

Simultaneously, Trump loudly proclaims allegiance to many traditionally conservative ideas. In fact, his approach in some cases is so conservative that he makes conservatives blush. Here are a few of his more well-known conservative political themes:

• IMMIGRATION. The all-caps presentation was intentional. On this issue, Trump makes Pat Buchanan look reticent when he talks about immigration. He seems quite serious about building a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean while deporting somewhere on the order of 10 or 20 million people.
• ISIS - Trump apparently wants to reinvade Iraq to handle this problem. That is a much bolder stance than any republican has publicly taken, though it may be that many of them incline toward that solution.
• Climate - Trump has publicly stated that the climate change issue is built on a hoax.
• Drugs - Trump's last known stance on the issue is in favor of legalization and taxation.
• Capital Punishment - Trump sees no problem with sending violent monster's to the chair or to the lethal injection gurney, anyway.

Trump Loose Cannon

A number of people believe that Trump is simply a man with no filter. He says what he is thinking at the moment and is not thinking about which source of financial support an errant remark may cost him.

For his detractors, that is a weakness. The 25% to 30% of republican voters who support him, though, seem enamored of his penchant for calling a spade a spade. Either they are showing a willingness to overlook the other issues on which he is less conservative due to this appealing trait or they themselves have never been that devoted to those issues.

What I like about Trump is the possibility that he presents for breaking down the two-party system. I am less interested in his views than I am in the way that many supporters openly admit that he offends them on one or more points but they forgive him for one reason or another. Some excuse his faults because he so fervently supports their favorite issue, which is often immigration. Others are just angry and simply want somebody to kick some ass in Washington.

Anyone my age or older, though, knows that this opportunity has presented itself before. Ross Perot tried something similar in 1992 and there are other examples in American history before him. Some people do not take him seriously simply because those prior efforts failed.

I think though, that hope springs eternal and that the Internet age may make possible a paradigm shift in American politics. Perot made his venture when his access to the public was almost entirely controlled by three television networks. No one can stop an interested public from hearing what Trump has to say between now and election day 2016.