Random Friday Thoughts. Iowa Debate. Trump Veterans Show, Iowa Caucus, Flint Water - New Video of the Week Feature

Debate Moderators

Iowa Debate:  I hate to admit this but I missed most of it.  Not because Trump wasn't there but because I was at my daughter's volleyball practice.  I heard about an hour and I've seen a lot of clips.  It seems like Ted Cruz missed Trump the most.  He got a feel of what it's like to be in the hot seat as the frontrunner.   I love what Fox did in playing clips of the candidates taking positions that are polar opposites of their current positions and asking them to explain.   Most debates don't do this because the candidates negotiate that out, but kudos to Fox.  I have a suspicion that the real reason Trump did not attend the debate is that somebody at Fox tipped him off to the format.  Can you imagine with all the crazy stuff he has said?   I heard someone on television say it was like the bully was on vacation and everybody felt it was safe to come outside and  play.  That's certainly what it looked like.  Jeb Bush was a different person without Trump there to beat up on him.   Rubio and Rand Paul both had what by far were their best debates of the campaign.   Everybody except Cruz should hope that Trump skips all the debates.

Trump Veteran's Show:  I'll give Donald Trump one thing, he has balls.  To skip the last debate

before the Iowa caucuses is risky, although I agree with Trump in that I don't think there's anything he can do to lose most of his supporters.  Anyone who is supporting Donald Trump isn't going to be swayed by him discussing policy, he hasn't talked specific policy during his entire campaign.   In lieu of debating Donald decided to throw a benefit for veterans that he claims raised $6 million.   This will be interesting if anyone decides to do some real reporting.  I've been involved in a few fundraisers and anyone who has will tell you getting pledges is the easy part.  The hard work is in collecting those pledges and making sure the money gets distributed where it's supposed to.   Organizations who raise money every year, like the American Red Cross, have issues with this.  If Donald Trump can prove that he actually collected $6 million and most of it ended up helping veterans, I would be shocked.  This event was put together in 24 hours.  There is no way he could have set up a 501 3c tax deductible charitable organization in 24 hours so the contributions will not be tax deductible.   That might not matter to Donald with his $1 million dollar pledge, but my guess is to some of the other pledgees it might.  I do think it was a politically brilliant move.  But it does bring to mind the issue of wealth inequality in our company.  Trump raised $6 million with 24 hours planning while 8,000 kids in Flint Michigan under the age of 6 drank poisonous water to save $36,500 a year.   What were those people doing with that extra $6 million last week?  Why hadn't they already thought of donating that money to veterans' groups or other good causes; cancer research, a cure for AIDS, autism, clean water in Flint?  All in all, a great move for Trump.

Iowa Caucus:   I talk about this every week, and the only thing that has changed this week is I think Bernie is running out of steam.   Unless something happens over the weekend, I think Hillary will win in Iowa on the Democratic side.   At least that's what the polling indicates.   I think Team Clinton's aggressive attacks on Bernie this week have had an effect.  I don't mean Hillary herself, but her surrogates on the ground and in the media.   There has definitely been an increase of negative press on Bernie this week, and if you don't think it was being fueled by Clinton surrogates then you just don't know the Clintons.  This race has been stacked against Sanders from the beginning, from DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's limited debate schedule with horrible time slots to lining up superdelegates for Clinton before the first debate, the Democratic National Committee has been little more than a Clinton SuperPac in the Democratic Primary.  It appears that although Sanders has certainly fought the good fight and brought Hillary a little to the left, he will come up short in Iowa.  If he does that's probably the end of any legitimate chance he has to win the nomination.  To date Sanders has declined to go negative on Clinton, it will be interesting to see if he continues to keep it clean when he's staring at defeat on Monday.

On the GOP side, I think Ted Cruz was right in the debate last night.  If Trump wins I don't think there is any way the GOP can stop him from getting the nomination.  And I'm pretty sure he wins Monday night.  Something to think about for the GOP; if Trump or Cruz dropped out of the race I'm almost certain most of their voters would go to the other candidate.  That means something like 60 to 70 percent of Republicans who are being polled in these primary races prefer a buffoon who refuses to discuss specific policy or a guy that virtually everybody in the Republican Party hates.   What does that say about the future of the party?  None of the guys who are supposed to be "legitimate" threats to win the nomination (Rubio, Jeb, Christie), seem to have a chance.  On a personal note, I was glad to see Proof of Life for Ben Carson last night.  I really was worried about him, lol.  

Flint Water:  It's clear now that somebody needs to go to prison behind this colossal foul up.  The latest thing I read this week was that Michigan state officials actually sent clean water to a building with state employees in Flint in January 2015, well before they admitted to the Flint Residents that there was anything wrong with the water.   How Governor Snyder can remain in office in good conscience baffles me.  I think if the Governor really wants to show that he understands the seriousness of the situation in Flint that he should move his office and live in Flint until the water is drinkable again.   That would be leadership.    I won't hold my breath.   I'm still waiting to see what the Federal government will do to make this situation right, and that includes President Obama.   This did occur on his watch.

Video of the Week:  Rachel Maddow shows pipes from a house in Flint, Michigan.

Until next week.  

When Was America "Great"???

Donald Trump

Dumbass Donald's campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" seems to be resonating with a lot of voters in the GOP primaries.  I've asked the question several times of Trump supporters; when was this time when America was "great" that we are going to go back to?   To date I've only received one response.   I'll save that one for last.   It puzzles me that so many want to go back to a time yet so few are willing to articulate exactly when that time was.   Since I can't get many responses, I'll try to guess.

I'm going to start with the "greatest generation", generally regarded as the generation who grew up during the Great Depression and went on to fight in World War II, or as Donald Trump might say, WW2.   Tom Brokaw is generally acknowledged to be an expert on this time frame in U.S. History which began around 1920, also known as the "Roaring Twenties".   Some things to consider about this period:

• Women did not get the right to vote until August 18, 1920. 
• America got it's first commercial radio station on November 2, 1920, KDKA in Pittsburgh.  The fist broadcast was the returns of the Harding-Cox presidential election.  
• The U.S. Congress passed the 18th Amendment on January 16, 1920 which made the production, transport, and sale of alcohol illegal.  (Alcohol consumption or private possession however, was never illegal)
• The stock market Crashed on October 29, 1929, beginning the Great Depression. 
•  Unemployment in the U.S. was about 25% 
• Around half the nation's 2600 banks closed by 1929.  According to Tom Brokaw, Businesses were failing everywhere, sending four and a half million people onto the streets with no safety net. The average American farm family had an annual cash income of four hundred dollars. 
• Also, according to Brokaw, "The majority of black Americans were still living in the states of the former Confederacy, and they remained second-class citizens, or worse, in practice and law.

It's generally accepted that the Great Depression didn't end until the U.S. got involved in the war in 1941, and that it ended mostly due to government spending on the war.    Maybe it's just me, but I think America in 2016 is greater.  

So I'm still searching for that time period when America was "Great".  Let's try the President Reagan years, 1981- 1989.  I graduated in high school from 1987, and I generally remember it being a pretty good time in my life.   I know my conservative friends often talk with great fondness of the President Reagan years.  This was the merger mania decade on Wall Street, the era of Gordon Gekko and "greed is good".  Some things to consider about that time period:

• The minimum wage was frozen at $3.35 an hour for his entire Presidency.  President Reagan thought there should be no minimum wage for children.  
• The country did have economic growth, but most of that growth benefitted those who were already rich.  President Reagan's supply side economics philosophy was the beginning of the dramatic income inequality we see in the country today.
• Hundreds of savings and loans collapsed, costing the federal government $130 billion to bail out the depositors.  
• The federal government's drastic reduction of aid to U.S. Cities put an enormous strain on city budgets which led to increased homelessness and poverty in our nation's largest cities.  Many of our cities still have not recovered.
• The U.S. government secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran in direct violation of U.S. law. 

Even though I think it's pretty accurate to say the Reagan years were "great" for the richest 1% of Americans, I'm not sure it was actually great for the rest of us.  I think most economists look at the Reagan years as one big vacation that America took and put on a credit card.   That bill wasn't paid until President Clinton left office.  Looking at the Reagan years versus today, I'm still going to go with today as being greater.

The one actual response I got to the question was 1947.   Right off the bat I recognized that this was before the Voting Rights Act and before integration in the South, so I knew it wasn't necessarily a great time for people that looked like me.  But still I went to look up some facts from 1947.  Consider these:

• Jackie Robinson signed with the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 1st to become the first Black professional baseball player.
• President Truman signed the National Security Act, creating the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Council.
• The Hollywood 10 were blacklisted by Hollywood studios after refusing to co-operate with the House Un-American Activities Committee. 



Jackie Robinson

• The Civil Rights movement had yet to occur, America still operated a de facto apartheid system in almost every respect.  

With all due respect to my conservative friend.  I still prefer today.

I often say that the biggest problem with our politics today is Americans by and large have become selfish and lack empathy.   Whereas previous generations of Americans have generally elected politicians based on the theory that which benefits the most of us benefits us all and makes us a stronger society, there has been a shift where Americans today only vote for self interests.   We now vote for politicians who promise to make life better for me, even if it means doing things that aren't in the best interests of the country.   When I hear Trump supporters say they want to "make America great again" I don't think they're talking about making America great for all Americans.   I think they are talking about making America "great" again only for Americans that look, act and think just like them.   

Random Friday Thoughts: Flint Water Crisis, Hillary & Bernie, Trump, Iowa, Palin

Flint Water Crisis:  This thing stinks to high Heaven.  The government literally poisoned it's children to save money and could have prevented it for $100 a day.  Governor Ryk Snyder has taken the now familiar leadership position of "accepting responsibility" while blaming others (see Chris Christie in Bridgegate and Hillary Clinton in Benghazi).   The President said some nice words but has declined to declare it a federal disaster.   Meanwhile 8,000 children under the age of 6 have been drinking water that is contaminated with lead.   I don't know who but somebody needs to go to jail for this.

Hillary and Bernie:   Bernie Sanders, against all odds, has made it a race in the Democratic Primary contest.  The latest polls actually show him leading in Iowa and New Hampshire 11 days until the Iowa caucuses.  I know I sound like a broken record, but only President Bill Clinton has lost both Iowa and New Hampshire and gone on to win the White House.    A true sign that Camp Clinton is feeling the heat, they stopped being so friendly towards Sanders this week.   All of the Clinton surrogates were out in full force this week and now even the candidate is mentioning Sanders by name.   This has to feel like deja vu for Hillary, this primary has been eerily similar to the campaign she lost for the Democratic Primary eight years ago to then Senator Barrack Obama.  My guess is the campaign gets nasty this week on the Clinton side.  It will be very interesting to see if Sanders turns out to be Barrack Obama or Howard Dean.

Trump:  Dumbass Donald just keeps going and going.   A week ago it looked like Ted Cruz was pulling ahead in Iowa but 11 days out the smart money is still on Trump to get a win there.   If Trump is legitimized by a victory in Iowa, it's hard to see anybody in the GOP stopping him from getting the nomination unless the rest of the party gets behind one candidate.  I don't see that happening because everybody running in this primary seems to really dislike everybody else except for Jeb, and Jeb has no chance of winning (in case you haven't heard, he's a "low energy person".  Just ask Donald).    The only guy who appears to have a chance against Trump is Cruz, and everybody hates Cruz.    Everybody except Sarah Palin, who actually endorsed Trump this week (more on Mama Grizzly later).  With 11 days to go, my money is on Donald in Iowa.

Iowa:  I've covered it a little above but the Iowa caucuses in both parties seem to be going down to the wire.  It could come down to the ground game in Iowa and which campaign plays the caucus game the best.   I won't pretend to know the intricacies of the Iowa caucuses, but my guess is Team Clinton is best prepared to play the game on the Democratic side and Team Cruz is best prepared on the Republican side.   The fly in the ointment is that Sanders and Trump are both redefining how Presidential primaries are run.  This could be the beginning of a new paradigm in Iowa.   The next 11 days will be fascinating.  If I had to call it right now.  I see Trump winning on the GOP side and Sanders winning on the Democratic side.   

Palin:  Momma Grizzly made her return to the national spotlight this week with her endorsement of

Donald Trump.  The one thing that always crosses my mind now when I see Palin speak is just how incredibly not bright she is.   John McCain should be disqualified from ever holding national office again for putting this idiot on a ticket that would have left her one heartbeat away from being President of the United States.   Nicole Wallace and Steve Schmidt should never be taken seriously as pundits again for recommending her to McCain.  Palin actually blamed her son's arrest on domestic violence charges this week on PTSD he suffered serving in Iraq, and somehow managed to claim that it was all President Obama's fault.  This despite the fact that her son evidently served one year in Iraq basically driving a truck back and forth and was never really put in harm's way.  He also served under President Bush, not President Obama.   Does this mean President Obama is responsible for the rest of her dysfunctional family as well?   I'm glad to have Sarah back though, that first endorsement speech for Trump was the best piece of nonsensical drivel I've heard this campaign season, and I've listened to every Trump speech lol.

Until next week....

What Would You Do If Someone Poisoned Your Children?

Disclaimer:  I still don't feel I have enough information to intelligently write about the Flint Water Crisis, but I am informed enough to have some opinions.

If you don't know anything about the water crisis in Flint, Michigan,  here is a quick synopsis.  In 2014 the City of Flint switched it's water supply from Detroit's water supply to get water from the Flint River.  The move was implemented by the emergency manager for Flint, Darnell Earley, who now runs the Detroit public school system.  (As an aside, the Detroit schools system has had a series of sickouts from teachers this week to protest inadequate infrastructure and inadequate staffing).  Mr.. Earley contends that although he implemented the switch, the decision was made before he began his term as City Manager by Flint's Mayor and the City Council.  That decision resulted in a series of issues with the City's drinking water, with the end result being lead contamination of the water and many of the residents of Flint contracting lead poisoning.  From what I've read it appears that almost all of the 8,000 children in Flint under the age of 6 years old now have some form of lead poisoning as a result of this decision.

Darnell Earley

According to the Mayo Clinic's website, "even small amounts of lead can cause serious health problems. Children under the age of 6 are especially vulnerable to lead poisoning, which can severely affect mental and physical development. At very high levels, lead poisoning can be fatal."  Accordint to the WebMD website, the effects of lead poisoning in children include but are not limited to the following:  

Loss of IQ points

Impairments in language fluency or communication

Memory problems

Trouble paying attention

Lack of concentration

Poor fine-motor skills

Difficulty with planning and organization

Difficulty forming abstract concepts

Poor cognitive flexibility (trying something else if the first thing you try doesn't solve a problem).

Marc Edwards

So it's safe to say, that regardless of who is to blame (I'll get to that later), that the city of Flint Michigan has literally poisoned a generation of it's children, and that the consequences of that poisoning will be felt by these children maybe for the rest of their lives.   One final caveat.  One expert says that the City of Flint could have rectified these issues if they would have been willing to spend an extra $100 per day to have clean water.  That's right, $36,500 a year would probably have eliminated 90% of the problem.   The city of Flint decided that was too much.  Marc Edwards, a professer at Virgina Tech who tested the water in Flint says "There is no question that if the city had followed the minimum requirements under federal law that none of this would have happened."

One theory of this blog is that America has come to a point where we hate poor people.  Of course not every American hates poor people, but when you are on social media as much as I am you realize that a large segment of our country despises the poor.   There appears to be this prevailing opinion that if poor people would just get off their butts and stop being lazy, they would no longer be poor.  I won't debate that point in this post, I reference it because I have not one sliver of doubt that the only reason those 8,000 children under age 6 in Flint Michigan will grow up with possibly severe health issues as a result of being poisoned by their government is because they had the misfortune of being born to poor parents.  The 2010 Census data showed the average per capita income in Flint, Michigan to be $15,733.   My suspicion is had those children lived in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, where the per capita income was $104,920 in the 2010 Census, the government would have been willing to spend an extra $100 a day in order not to poison all of Bloomfield Hill's Children.

Flint Mayor Dayne Walling and
Michigan Governor Ryk Snyder

The worst part is the government knew this was happening.  Michigan Governor Rick Snyder released 274 pages of emails yesterday which show that state, local and federal officials knew that the water had issues.  Not only did they fail to inform the public, they did just the opposite.  They continued to insist the water was safe.   The City made the water switch in April 2014.  In October of 2014 General Motors announced that they would stop using the city of Flint water because it was causing corrosion in their engines.   If you really want to go in depth about the details of the water crisis and the timeline, the Michigan Live website has a great article, that's not really the purpose of this post.

I often say that the biggest problem in our politics is the inability of Americans to feel empathy for others,  the inability to feel that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions, the inability to share someone else's feelings.    That's what I'm trying to do now for the people of Flint.  I'm trying to imagine how I would feel knowing that the people that I elected to govern me deliberately let my children be poisoned.  What would I do?  What would I tell my children?  How would I feel watching the politicians playing the blame game.   What would I think watching my Mayor and my City Council who voted for the switch blame the Emergency Manager and the Governor who appointed him for the problem while they blame the Environmental Protection Agency who in turn points the finger back at the local authorities.   How would I feel that my President declined our Governor's request that this be declared a federal disaster?   How would I feel that my President appeared at the Detroit Auto Show just 70 miles away yesterday, and while he did offer kind words and thoughts, didn't take a 10 minute helicopter ride to come and see firsthand the damage done to our community?  

I've watched almost every Presidential debate.  I have heard a lot of talk about the American middle class.  I've heard talk about the millionaires and the billionaires.   But I've heard very little talk about the American poor.  It's almost as if they don't exist.   Maybe it's because the poor can't afford lobbyists and can't contribute to campaigns.

Those who know me know that my main concern in the upcoming election is the state sanctioned execution of unarmed black males by law enforcement officers.   I know many others whose main concern is ISIL and the threat of terrorist attacks by radical Islamic groups.  There are others whose main concern is the economy and/or the income inequality in the nation.  But does any of those matter if the government poisons our children?  Is a vigilante cop shooting an unarmed kid worse than poisoning 8,000 children?   If ISIL had poisoned the water supply of an American City would we then consider it a federal disaster?   Does income inequality matter if our kids don't have clean water to drink?  How can anyone talk about American Exceptionalism with a straight face when we choose to give our kids poisonous water so we could save $100 a day?

I honestly don't know what I would do if I lived in Flint today.   What would you do?  

The Democrats Have A Black Problem: Black Votes Matter

As I was trying to stay awake during the Democratic debate Sunday night (I so wish they would let Trump participate), I noticed that frontrunner Hillary Clinton was figuratively hugging President Obama like I've never seen her do before.   She went after Bernie Sanders for attacking the President several times and defended President Obama's positions vigorously.   Hillary Clinton is one of the smartest politicians I've ever seen and I personally don't think she says anything publicly without it being carefully planned and tested beforehand, so I was puzzled.  She didn't say Sanders disagreed with the President, as she herself has done on numerous occasions, she said "Senator Sanders called him weak, disappointing.  He even, in 2011, publicly sought someone to run in a primary against President Obama." Then it hit me.  She's playing to black voters.   She knows that black voters overwhelmingly not only support this first Black President, but that we also immediately become leery of those who attack him.  And she knows that black voters will ultimately pick the Democratic Nominee for President.

As much as we all value the ideal of being a society that bases political choices on platforms and ideas, political professionals know that demographics are key.   That's the way political scientists study elections, by evaluating which demographic voted for which candidate.   For example, polling shows that on the Republican side, Donald Trump is surging because of the working class, non college educated, older white voter.   He is dominating that demographic and that's why he's leading in the polls.   Likewise on the Democratic side, Hillary is dominating the black vote.  A Gallup Poll taken in August showed Hillary with an 80% favorable rating among black Americans, while Bernie Sanders only had a 23% favorable rating.   That's huge because after the first two primary contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Democratic primary race moves to states where black voters will determine the winner.  

It now looks like Bernie Sanders could win both Iowa and New Hampshire.  The only person to lose both those states and win the Presidency is President Bill Clinton, and he enjoyed tremendous support in the black community.  The Democratic calendar then moves to Nevada, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, and Georgia.   If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire and can use that momentum to win Nevada, South Carolina, Alabama, and Arkansas, Clinton could be facing a repeat of her race against President Obama eight years ago.   All of those states, unlike the first two, have a large number of black voters.   It looks which candidate does better with black voters will be the single largest factor in deciding the Democratic nominee.  Which brings me back to the debate. 

President Obama

Once President Obama won the Iowa Caucuses eight years ago and black Americans began to believe that he actually might win the nomination, he pretty much had a lock on the black vote.  I'm not saying that black voters voted for him just because he was black (I'm still looking for the black person that supports Ben Carson), but it certainly didn't hurt his cause.  Hillary knows this, and she knows that she and President Bill Clinton have a huge amount of goodwill in the black community.  She also knows that Bernie Sanders does not.  Sanders knows this as well.  What I saw in the debate Sunday night was both candidates acknowledging the importance of that demographic in a way that I don't remember ever seeing before. 

Lester Holt

When NBC host Lester Holt asked during the debate "are black lives being cheap a reality or just perception?" Clinton answered: "Sadly, it's reality."  She specifically said "There needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system."  Bernie Sanders, not to be outdone said that "if anyone dies in police custody, it should automatically trigger an investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice."  Sanders also  said "51 percent of African American young people are either unemployed or underemployed,” and that the U.S. prison population is “disproportionately African American and Latino.”  These are issues that generally don't come up in Presidential debates, and when they do, rarely if ever do I recall any Presidential candidate, including Senator Barrack Obama, speak in such absolute and definitive terms.   It's because both campaigns realize that black voters will probably determine which of them gets the nomination.

As a black voter, I am pleased to see the attention being given to the #blacklivesmatter movement.  Personally it's the biggest issue in the campaign for me.  But the skeptic in me wonders if either candidate is willing to repeat that same message in a future Presidential debate when their opponent is not another Democrat but Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.    Will they speak of the reality of systemic racism in the criminal justice system or federal investigations for those who die in police custody when the debate isn't sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus foundation as it was Sunday night?   Will they be as willing talk about disproportionate incarceration rates for minorities when the debate is on Monday night primetime two weeks before the election and all voters are paying attention as opposed to when they are on Sunday night when most voters are watching the new episode of The Good Wife, and Trump or Cruz or Rubio is on the other side of the stage daring them to try to appeal to black voters?  

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton

The Cook Political Report calculated that black voters accounted for President Obama's entire margin of victory in seven states, including the three most coveted battlegrounds: Florida, Ohio and Virginia.  Neither Sanders nor Clinton can realistically expect to win the White House if they don't win two of those three states, and they probably need to win all three.   I like what both candidates said Sunday night.   I thank Lester Holt for asking the question that's been missing from every Presidential debate that I have watched so far.   But this black voter will be watching to see if they say the same things in places like Mississippi in October that they said in South Carolina Sunday night.  Will they tell Texas voters who elected Ted Cruz to the Senate that there is systemic racism and that black lives being cheap is a reality.   Or will they move to the center in order to not be so offensive to the Trump and Cruz voters who believe we need to "Make America Great Again".   One thing is for certain though, Sunday night showed that both Democratic candidates are fully cognizant of the fact that if they want to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, #BlackVotesMatter.

Random Friday Thoughts: GOP Debate, Hillary, Bernie, Trump, and POTUS

The GOP Debate:

At this point the nomination is Trump's to lose and he did nothing to hurt himself with his voters.  Cruz had a good showing, he was obviously playing to an audience of only Iowa caucus goers.  Kasich had a really good debate.  Jeb is toast.  Christie can't get traction no matter how many times he insults the President.   I'm not even sure Ben Carson was actually there.   Marco Rubio must have been a hell of a debate team partner.   Every word he says seems scripted but he sure knows how to deliver a line.    

Hillary:

Hillary Clinton

The nomination is still hers to lose but she's starting to feel the Bern.  This is the point in Clinton campaigns where they start to play dirty and I've sensed it already with Chelsea Clinton in New Hampshire this week.   If she loses Iowa and New Hampshire the Democratic race gets real interesting real quick.

Bernie:

What Bernie is doing on the Democratic side is just as impressive as what Trump is doing on the GOP side.  The guy is raising tons of money with $27 average donations.   He's drawing crowds almost as big as Trumps.  He's even with her in the polls in Iowa now and he's probably going to win New Hampshire.   He doesn't have Hillary's negatives.    What he's doing is very similar to what Barrack Obama did 8 years ago.  Writing Bernie off could prove to be a huge mistake, especially if he ever gets a stylist, lol.

Trump:

He has redefined American Presidential politics, at least for this campaign.  It's no secret I think he's a narcissistic egomaniacal ass, but numbers don't lie and he has found an audience.   He plays to the fears of a part of the electorate and it's working.  James Carville said this week that his supporters aren't happy with the way their lives have turned out and Trump gives them someone to blame.   I think there's a lot of truth in that statement.  At this point I'm not sure there is anything Trump can do to NOT win the GOP nomination.    He is the reason this Presidential race will be studied by political scientists for the next hundred years.

Donald Trump

POTUS:

The final Sate of the Union marks the beginning of the end for Presidential administrations.   This President looked to me like a man who is secure that history will remember him well.   I think he realizes what a great deal he has accomplished in the face of enormous GOP opposition, and I think he realizes the things that he didn't accomplish.   To me he had the look of an athlete nearing the end of a game when he realizes that he gave it everything he had.  This last year will be interesting.  

DeJa Vu? Hillary's felling the Bern

Hillary Clinton

I know what Hillary Clinton is feeling.  I've played sports pretty much my entire life.  There are times in a sporting event when you are winning comfortably and you just know that you are the better team. You have better coaches, you have more talent, and you have prepared better than the team you're playing against. You expect to win.   But the team you are playing against didn't get the memo.  They keep fighting.  They are scrappy.   The dive for every loose ball.   They fight for every point.   And you look up at the scoreboard at halftime and the score is tied.   When that happens, especially if you lost your last game in very similar circumstances, the thought goes through your mind, "here we go again".  Sometimes you can get it together and go on to victory, but sometimes, the other guy wins.

Two of my daughters play competitive volleyball, and both have had some success.  The last thing I always say to them before they go out on the court is "remember, the other team wants to win too".  That's the lesson the Clinton campaign is finding out this week, and I know somewhere in the back of her mind Hillary is hearing that voice saying "here we go again".   Eight years ago Hillary Clinton was in a much stronger position against then Senator Barrack Obama than she is today against Bernie Sanders.   Her lead in the polls was larger, her gap in fundraising was larger, and she had much more momentum 3 weeks out from the Iowa Caucuses.  And she still lost.  I've noticed this week several signs that she may be headed for another defeat in Iowa, and she almost certainly won't win New Hampshire.   The conventional political wisdom is that Hillary will get on a roll once they reach the Southern States and the African American support will carry her to victory.   That was also the conventional political wisdom when she lost eight years ago.

Here are some reasons I think Hillary is now feeling the Bern:

1.  Sanders is now tied with her in Iowa.   This is huge.  The latest Real Clear Politics Average of polling data has Hillary and Sanders virtually tied, 45.5% to 45.3% with 5% for Martin O'Malley.   Since O'Malley is pretty much a male version of Clinton on policy, it's safe to say that most of his voters, for whatever reason, just don't want to support Hillary.  Should he drop out, I think most of those votes go to Sanders.

2.  Sanders will win New Hampshire.  The same Real Clear Politics Average of polling data shows Sanders ahead of Hillary 48.8% to 42.6% wth O'Malley polling at 3%.   Sanders has represented the neighboring state of Vermont in Congress since 1991.   He has the home field advantage.  In our current political system, only one other candidate for President has lost both Iowa and New Hampshire and gone on to become President.   His name is William Jefferson Clinton.

Chelsea Clinton in New Hampshire

3.  Chelsea Clinton is lying on the campaign trail about Sanders' positions.  To be fair, Chelsea isn't technically lying, but she is being misleading. She said yesterday at a campaign stop in New Hampshire that "Sen. Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance.... I worry if we give Republicans Democratic permission to do that, we’ll go back to an era—before we had the Affordable Care Act—that would strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance."  While it's technically true that Sanders wants to replace Obamacare, what he wants to replace it with is a universal healthcare system that would actually guarantee all Americans health insurance.   And the Clinton campaign knows this.   That statement is simply an attempt to play on the fears of Americans who don't know better, a tactic used successfully in President Bill Clinton's campaigns for President.   When politicians start lying about their opponents positions, you know they're getting nervous.

Bernie Sanders

4.  Bernie Sanders is a white male.  Hillary Clinton lost 8 years ago to a one term African American Senator from Chicago whose father was from Kenya and whose name was Barrack Hussein Obama.  Read that sentence again out loud.   How could she not be nervous about losing to a white male Senator from Vermont who has served in the United States Congress since 1991?   Let's face it, there are still people in this country who will not be comfortable voting for a woman for President.   It's not an insurmountable obstacle but it's there.  If you don't think people in this country are more comfortable with white male leadership, go take a look at the list of CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies then come back and talk to me.   Sanders won't enjoy the advantage that President Obama had with African Americans and Latinos, but he also won't have to fight nearly as hard to win the white vote.

Back to my sports days.  Some of those games I referenced earlier my teams have managed to win.  We did it by staying focused, by continuing to work hard, and concentrating on our game plan.  Some we managed to win because of a lucky bounce or a referee's call, things we did not control.  My advice to Hillary at this point would be to continue to play your game.   You can't count on Bernie going away, team Sanders is too scrappy.   But you don't have to start bending the rules.   Sometimes when you grab the other guy's jersey the referee sees you and calls a foul.  Then you get penalized.   Chelsea got away with a foul yesterday but the referees don't miss all the calls.  Play a hard, clean game and let the best team win.  And don't forget, you have one of the best closers of all time, President Clinton, sitting on your bench.  I know you're getting that deja vu feeling, I've had it too.  Now is the time to go out and compete.  If you want it, go get it.  But remember, the other guy wants to win too.

President Bill Clinton

What if the Oregon "Militia" Were Muslims?

Websters Dictionary defines the word "militia" as:

1 a :  a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
   b :  a body of citizens organized for military service
2:  the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

Oregon "Militia"

I had to look up the definition of the word because I keep seeing the group of 150 or so men who took over a federal building at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in a remote part of the Oregon desert referred to as a militia in the news media.  That led me to look up the word terrorist.  Webster's defines terrorist as:

One who uses violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.

As I understand it, these armed men have taken control of a federal building and are prepared to use their weapons against federal law enforcement officials if law enforcement attempts to remove them. According to an interview with The Oregonian, Ryan Bundy, one of the group's leaders, laid out their demands:  the release of two federal prisoners and for the federal government to release control of federal lands.  Bundy is quoted as saying "The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area... will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control".    How is this not considered terrorism?

Imagine for a moment that 150 armed Muslim Americans took control of this same government building and government property, demanded the release of two Muslim American prisoners, and threatened to use their weapons against federal law enforcement officials if there was any attempt by law enforcement to remove them.  Would they be referred to as a militia?  Would it not be the lead story on every news station in America?   Would the federal government be content to sit back and wait the Muslim group out in hopes of bringing the standoff to a "peaceful end" as they are doing with this group?  

Just for the record, I'm not sure the government isn't handling this correctly.   It's quite possible that this situation will be resolved peacefully without the loss of human life, which is the way law enforcement should attempt to resolve all conflict.  But it once again goes back to a common theme on this blog, the American criminal justice system usually seems to work to preserve human life when white men are involved.   Is there anybody who believes that this situation would be handled in the same manner if this "militia" were Muslim?   Anybody?