The Last Democratic Debate

.
A blogger describes the Last Democrat Debate, held last Friday.

This commentator is clearly favorably disposed towards Bernie Sanders, but also positively disposed towards all three candidates, very evidently.  But Bernie Sanders has got his vote.  He analyzes the debate on gun safety, on the banks, and Wall Street, made a side run into Bill Clinton's past behavior, President Obama, and the water crisis in Flint, Michigan.

Bernie Sanders ("has only one volume: yelling,") but he continues to be the highly credible (to us) angry old man, passionately critical about all the things liberals and progressives are angry about.

Hillary Clinton is described as highly knowledgeable and very experienced in almost every area.  But the author quotes a NYT columnist, Nicholas Kristof as saying that Hillary Clinton stands for continuity at a time when lots of people want discontinuity.

Martin O'Malley has approval ratings in the single digits, but he is reported as actually having gained some ground during this debate, even if not enough to be a serious contender for President.

It looks to me as if Hillary Clinton, despite all the reasons why she's too much of an insider for any liberal to be happy with her, is going to be president.  Despite also the fact that she is a woman, and it seems as if the vast American unwashed is less happy with a woman than it is with a man of minority race.  There are women heads of state in half a dozen countries already, and there have been even more: Germany and India included.  (The example of Britain is not one we're happy to count among the successes for women.)

Continuity is bad for this one big reason: that some really gigantic businesses (e.g. Exxon and G.E.) have received government subsidies almost forever.  The US bails out failing banks.  I guess the reason we ordinary people do not know the economic reasons why these subsidies are necessary or even desirable is because we're not rich enough to have the wisdom of the highly affluent.  (I'm guessing that according to current law and circumstances, if Exxon were to declare bankruptcy, be partitioned into smaller companies and sold by the Government, they would be bought up by Chinese and other foreign buyers, which we cannot stop.  I'm not a member of the Dark Side of the Force, namely Business and Economics people, so I have to speculate, very nervously.)  However, a recent commentator (Paul Krugman) gave the opinion that all the frightened talk that any little scratch that Big Business is given could lead to fatal bleeding is highly exaggerated.  Taxes have been raised, with no ill effects.  Regulations have been put into effect, and the economy has grown stronger.  We need someone who will not buy into the scare tactics of Big Money.  Hillary Clinton is more likely to take baby steps than Bernie Sanders.  This is why it would make much more sense to have a sort of presidium, in this case consisting of Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley, Elizabeth Warren, say, and maybe some moderate Republican or two.  This would permit a limited sort of continuity, which our massive economy might need, but also give the executive some courage to undertake massive legislative initiatives that are needed to put a stop to the enormous mass of exploitation of the poor that continues.

If Hillary Clinton is elected, there is just a minute possibility that she will have the courage and the confidence to adopt some of the policies that Bernie Sanders has espoused, and keeps pushing.  She is a remarkable woman: intelligent, wise, compassionate, and patient.  Sometimes a little too patient; I think the patience might be actually a weakness here.  We don't want her being patient with her bank buddies.  She is quick to forgive.  We don't want her being too quick to forgive her banker buddies.  She is too much of an insider.  Even if Bernie Sanders is elected President, you just know that incredible forces are going to come into play to intimidate him into playing the inside game.  Looking back on how far President Obama retreated from his pre-election rhetoric, we know that this sort of thing must happen.

[Added Later]: P.S.  Since I wrote the above, I'm seeing new information about the debate, specifically that Hillary Clinton's  performance was disappointing in a number of dimensions.  I wish I had watched the debate; I'm responding to second-hand information.

Some people have accused Hillary Clinton as taking mean shots at Bernie Sanders, especially in regard to his single-payer health care plan.  To be honest, this is the plan that those who had thought about health care reform had hoped for.  The reason that Obama did not pursue that route is manifold: the public had to see that that route was logically necessary; the health insurance industry needed time to sufficiently discredit itself, and finally, the people had to test out the planned health insurance system set up by the ACA to believe that such a system was possible.  It is more possible with a single-payer plan, but significant planning has to take place that such a system would not get bogged down by government bureaucracy.  It has to be possible to progress in that direction, but progress will be incremental.  It is disingenuous for Hillary Clinton to ridicule such a proposal, and to claim that it was hostile to the ACA (and Obama), which is not true, and which is what she is supposed to have said during the debate.

Given time to react to the debate, I imagine Hillary Clinton might have been more moderate in her responses.  But it is disappointing that she feels the need to shoot from the hip during these debates, because it could be a weakness of her administration, if she gains the White House.  The last thing we want is a President with knee-jerk reactions.  

So, it's not the end of the world, but the fun times are definitely coming to a close.

Arch