progressive involvement

Half-way through the 2016 Democratic Convention

Political conventions are the World Series of politics.  For four days, national delegates are immersed in a matrix of politics and policy, celebrity-gazing and camaraderie, late nights and early mornings.  

The highlights of the convention, the major speeches seen on television, show us each time the centrality and power of the spoken word.  In ancient Greece and Rome, rhetoric and oratory were major subjects of study.  A Roman politician worth his salt had to be able to speak in public.  Julius Caesar and Mark Antony were both noted for their speech-making as well as their war-making.  

Day one got off to a raucous start for the Democrats, but the ship righted itself quickly and the first evening went off without a hitch.  More than that, it inspired, it moved, it united, and it cheered Democrats who (finally) got to tell their story.

The biggest part of that story was the speech by Sen. Bernie Sanders.  The agenda of that first evening was to accent the progressive wing of the party, closing with a speech from the current leader of that wing.  His speech was all that the Clinton campaign could have wanted.  His endorsement was full-throated.  He discouraged his "Bernie or bust" supporters. High marks should also go to Sarah Silverman, who seemed to put the shouters in their place;  anyway, it got a little quieter after she told them they were being "ridiculous".  

Sen. Sanders spent most of his speech pushing for his issues--the banks, free tuition, minimum wage--with which most delegates mostly agree, and which is now written in the party platform.  Hillary and Bernie worked out this out pretty much flawlessly.  He got what he wanted--his biggest issues in the party platform, and respect for his movement--and she got what she wanted:  Bernie on the team 100%.  (If the Democrats take the Senate, Bernie may suddenly become a very prominent Senator, especially in a Democratic administration.)  

The platform was an easy "give" for Hillary.  Nobody pays much attention to party platforms.  I always think of the story about Robert Kennedy who was trying to decide whether or not to run in 1968.  Arthur Schlesinger said that he should not run, and should instead push for an anti-war plank in the party platform.  RFK reportedly said, "Arthur, when was the last time millions of people rallied to a platform?"

Still, party platforms aren't entirely irrelevant.  They signal a direction, and, in this case, the platform is a reflection of the progressive wing of the party being in the ascendant.  In the past, the most progressive candidate would get about one-fourth of the Democratic primary vote.  Bernie pushed that up to 42%.  Plus, Hillary pretty much agrees with Bernie herself.  Bernie's candidacy pushed her to the left, as predicted, but she didn't have to be drug kicking and screaming.  Hillary has been for a "public option" in health care since 1993.  She's a progressive too.

The nation got a preview of a some day presidential candidate in Sen. Cory Booker, one of the Democratic Party's best orators.  His stirring speech riffed on Maya Angelou's poem, "Still I Rise," and set the stage nicely for Michelle Obama.  The First Lady's inspiring and poetic speech included a truly impressive endorsement of Hillary.  She'd trust Hillary with her kids!  Portions of the First Lady's are already oft-quoted on Facebook.  Michelle rocked the house two weeks in a row!   

President Bill Clinton has been a featured speaker at Democratic conventions since 1988.  While his 1988 speech was one of his worst, his 2016 speech was one of his best.  He started off in an unusual way--no paeans to the crowd, no thanking anyone, no mention of distinguished dignitaries--and launched into the story of their relationship.  "In the spring of 1971, I met a girl..."  This story went on for quite awhile.  

Then, just when you were wondering where he was going with all of this, he spoke of "the real Hillary" versus the "made up" one.  The lengthy build-up was necessary to the point:  The person he talked about was the real Hillary, and the person talked about at the GOP convention was a "cartoon." 

Some commentators didn't like the speech--too long, said one;  all that relationship business wasn't feminist, said another.  But Joy Reid called it, almost to her surprise, as "kind of genius."  He submerged his own centrality to the story and made Hillary the center.  He told stories that even long time Clinton supporters didn't know.  He encouraged those on the fence to take a second look at someone they thought they knew, but really didn't.  

He has completely grey hair now, and wrinkles on his face, but when it comes to touching the heart of an issue and relating it to real life, he's still the master.

 

Why Hillary?

Someone asked me not long ago, “Why are you for HIllary?”  Off the top of my head, I responded with this: “Because I think her husband did a good job, and she’s smarter and tougher than he is.”  As I’ve thought it over since, I’ll stick with that assessment.

One could tout the many accomplishments of Hillary on behalf of children and working families.  One could add her tenure as Secretary of State, advocating for the United States on the world stage, with in-depth knowledge of virtually every world issue.  One could also note that she’s on a first name basis with most of the leaders of the world. 

One could run down her stalwart history of moderate progressivism, her long history of support for and support from working people and minority communities, and her decades-long support of equal rights for every person. 

One could even toss in the history-making, and “establishment”-busting, effect of being the first woman president.  All that, and much more, could be fairly said about her, and any one of them is reason enough to vote for her.

What sets Hillary apart even further is the determination, energy, intelligence, consistency, and courage she’s shown over the years.  Nobody in modern political life has worked harder for progressive principles, and done more, and suffered more slings and arrows for it, than Hillary Clinton.

Yet, despite the 20 year-long smear campaign against her, she became, and remains, one of the most liked and admired people in the world, and is one of the most popular politicians in the United States.  (46% “favorability” sounds low, until you compare it to every other political figure in the country.  Do that and it’s right at the top.) 

 

Why not Bernie?

 

One.  He has no record of accomplishment.  He’s been in office for 25 years and can’t point to any achievement.

Two.  He’s not a Democrat, and has repeatedly said so over the years.  You have to admire the sheer gall of a person who regularly trashes the Democratic Party, yet would condescend to accept that party’s nomination.

For many of his followers, Bernie’s not being a Democrat is a plus, not a minus.  They don’t like the Democratic Party anyway, and Bernie’s not being a Democrat only makes him more “pure” in their eyes.

Some of us, however, are Democrats.  We recognize that the only thing standing in the way of President Cruz and a GOP Congress doing just about anything they want is the Democratic Party.  This is not a time for the indulging of fantasies, but cold-eyed realism.  Which leads to:

Three.  Bernie can’t win.  As John Kasich said, if Bernie were the nominee, the Republicans would win all 50 states.  Give Karl Rove two weeks and $100,000,000 and the American people will be convinced that Bernie Sanders is Leon Trotsky. 

Bernie would be made into a political leper.  Any Democrat on the ballot would run for cover.  When Bernie came to campaign, they’d be off somewhere doing whatever they could to avoid being photographed with him.  Only Congresspeople in the bluest districts would survive.  Democrats would be devastated.

The Bernie wing argues that they will bring in many new people, and these new people will overwhelm the Republicans.  The McGovern campaign said that very same thing, and he got shellacked.  Personally, I liked George McGovern, happily worked for him, and happily voted for him.  His candidacy, however, was a disaster at all levels.  Some of us have seen this movie and know that it doesn’t end well.

Four.  Bernie’s nomination would be a rejection of the presidency of Barack Obama.  Bernie doesn’t like the president much more than he likes the Democrats.  He pronounces rather grandly that he would be better at pretty much everything than President Obama has been.

Besides, the President took contributions from the financial sector and is “corrupt,” just like pretty much everybody who is not named Bernie Sanders.  Does the Democratic Party really want to sabotage the legacy of the first African-American president?

Five.  Even if, by some fluke, he should be elected, Bernie would be a powerless president who wouldn’t get anything done.  The GOP still controls Congress, and that fact is unlikely to change any time soon. 

Bernie’s answer to this is not to elect more Democrats and take control of Congress.  No, he expects to “have millions of people” descend on Congress and pressure them to pass his program. 

Suddenly, masses of people are going to take to the streets on behalf of socialism?  That’s not going to happen, and, even if it did, you can bet they would be met by an equal or greater number of well-armed teabaggers.  We already have a divided electorate.  Moving beyond our divisions will not be accomplished by dueling mobs pressuring Congress.

Six.  If, again by some fluke, Bernie’s program were actually enacted, it doesn’t have a prayer of working.  For one thing, the numbers are way off.  Economists of a liberal bent have said Bernie’s economic plan is somewhere between 1 and 3 trillion dollars short.  Austan Goulsbee says Bernie’s plan started with “puppies and rainbows” and “evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”

 

Why Hillary again?

 

She understands that the first priority is defeating the Republicans.  You can’t take on the 1% until you defeat their “political action wing”.  So far, Hillary has raised $32,000,000 for Democrats and the Democratic Party.  (Bernie has raised $1000.)

Her supporters know that Hillary Clinton has been one of the most lied-about politicians in American history.  Her opponents gone through her entire life--every check she ever wrote, every phone call she ever made--and they have come up with precisely nothing every single time.  Bernie calls her “corrupt.”  Her supporters know that Hillary Clinton is one of the most ethical people in public life.

Yes, her husband did a good job--22 million jobs in the longest sustained period of prosperity in our nation’s history.  And Hillary is smarter and tougher than he is.

 

Hillary's closing statement in last night's debate

“You know, we agree that we’ve got to get unaccountable money out of politics. We agree that Wall Street should never be allowed to wreck Main Street again. But here’s the point I want to make tonight. I am not a single-issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it’s poison in the water of the children of Flint, or whether it’s the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and oppressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the LGBT community, against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that’s what I want to take on.

 

“And here in Wisconsin, I want to reiterate: We’ve got to stand up for unions and working people who have done it before, the American middle class, and who are being attacked by ideologues, by demagogues. Yes, does Wall Street and big financial interests, along with drug companies, insurance companies, big oil, all of it, have too much influence? You’re right.

 

“But if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday. And we would still have governors like Scott Walker and others trying to rip out the heart of the middle class by making it impossible to organize and stand up for better wages and working conditions. So I’m going to keep talking about tearing down all the barriers that stand in the way of Americans fulfilling their potential, because I don’t think our country can live up to its potential unless we give a chance to every single American to live up to theirs.”

 

 

eGhazi!

Hillary Clinton is more popular in this year than last.  So much for the so-called "email scandal."  

The number of Americans who said that Clinton is someone that they would be proud to have as president has increased from 50% in March 2014 to 57% in March 2015.

Naturally, there will be additional investigations.

No takers

Dick Morris' Just Say No to Hillary PAC reported no donors during 2014, not even one.

Hillary stumps Aurora for Hickenlooper, Udall, and Romanoff

Hillary Clinton drew about 1000 party faithful to the ballroom of the Radisson Hotel.  People who wanted to see the next President had to sign up to work phones or canvass in order to get in.

In a pointed reference to GOP Senate candidate, Cory Gardner (and also Romanoff's opponent, Mike Coffman), Clinton said:  “This election is important to everybody, but it’s especially important to women of Colorado.  These Democrats will never shame or judge a woman for decisions that are deeply complex and personal.  They won’t tell voters of Colorado one thing about personhood and tell their colleagues in Washington the opposite about personhood.”

What Hickenlooper, Udall, and Romanoff are for:  raising the minimum wage, womens' reproductive health, Social Security and Medicare, equal pay for equal work, affordable student loans, immigration reform, clean energy and a clean environment.

Report from Clinton Global Initiative 2014

This is Hillary en route from a working group to the CGI first plenary session where she announced a new effort to raise awareness among parents about early language development.

The problem in a nutshell: Children from deprived backgrounds have heard 3 million fewer words by the time they start kindergarten--"and they never catch up," as a teacher friend of mine put it.

The program is collaborative and involves the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Scholastic Inc. the world's largest publisher of children's books, and Too Small to Fail, an organization that promotes early reading to children.

At the mention of Too Small to Fail, a titter ran through the crowd as they recalled the similar expression "too big to fail". Hillary gave a wry smile, said simply "yeah, I know," and continued on.

She announced that the American Academy of Pediatrics will recruit all 60,000 pediatricians in the country to promote early reading to children, and Scholastics will donate 500,000 books.

At least three times, she used the expression "read and sing" to children. I consider this a reflection of Ms. Clinton's Methodist background. It was John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who encouraged Methodists to "sing lustily and with good courage."

Plus, as a pastor, I've noticed a general decline in public singing, or even the ability to sin. I was cheered that Mrs. Clinton included the importance of singing as well as reading.