We ‘cool kids’ don’t hate Liz; we want an anti-capitalist in the White House

Elizabeth Warren has all the plans.

Getty Images photo

We “cool kids of the left” — we who have no problem calling ourselves democratic socialists — don’t despise Elizabeth Warren, who still calls herself a capitalist. We just don’t trust her to usher in nearly the amount of change necessary to reverse the severe damage that our sociopathic, psychopathic socioeconomic system has been wreaking upon us at home and abroad for the past many decades.

“How the Cool Kids of the Left Turned on Elizabeth Warren” is the title of a Politico hit piece stirring up conflict, since that’s what generates clicks and thus ad revenue.

“The socialists of Jacobin magazine used to treat her like a promising alternative to Bernie Sanders. Now they write as if she’s almost as bad as Joe Biden. What gives?” is the totally non-inflammatory, neutral tagline just under the headline.

For the record, I subscribe to Jacobin. As I’m in my 50s, I don’t consider myself to be a “cool kid of the left,” and, of course, the term “cool kid” is meant to indicate someone who doesn’t really believe what he or she says he or she believes, but just wants to appear to others to be “cool.” It’s entirely dismissive, of course, as is indicating, falsely, that everyone who is not big on Warren is a “kid” — inexperienced and ignorant and immature and unrealistic.

So the Politico hit piece starts out against those who support Bernie Sanders, not exactly a big shock among the corporately owned and controlled mass media that want that gravy train to keep chugging along, no matter what it does to the rest of us (and even to the planet itself).

I don’t know any “cool kid of the left” who thinks that Elizabeth Warren is as bad as is Joe Biden, who, not only being a corporate whore, now has taken to challenging other old men to tests of physical strength, which is beyond pathetic and is yet another symptom of his fast cognitive decline and how utterly stuck he is in the patriarchal past, yet he remains at No. 1 in nationwide polling.

On that note, it is coming down to the wire — the Iowa caucuses are in 57 days (but who’s counting?) — and it’s time to get serious. Most of the so-called Democratic presidential candidates in this contest are going to have to be knocked out.

As I’ve noted, right now it’s Push-ups Biden at No. 1 and it’s Bernie at No. 2 and Liz at No. 3 in the nationwide polling — their nationwide polling averages (per Real Clear Politics) right now are at 27.8 percent, 15.5 percent and 14.2 percent, respectively.

There is no longer any room for Warren in a Democratic presidential contest that mirrors the 2016 contest — the Democratic Party hack who is an awful campaigner and whose please-the-corporations-yet-still-promise-“hope”-and-“change”-to-the-masses “platform” is utter bullshit vs. Bernie Sanders, who, although he has been slammed as not being a “real” Democratic, paradoxically is the only true Democrat, the only true progressive, in the race.

On that note, Warren, as I have noted a million times, was a Repugnican right up through the mid-90s, and she still calls herself a capitalist.

Of course those of us who have socialist leanings aren’t big on capitalist Warren. She won’t repudiate the exploitative socioeconomic system that has not only harmed, but that has killed, millions upon millions of people not only here at home but all over the world and that is making the planet itself more and more inhabitable for all forms of life.

Warren says that this psychopathic, sociopathic economic system can be reformed. No, a sociopath or a psychopath very most often cannot be reformed.

We “cool kids of the left” cannot trust Warren to make the sweeping changes that need to be made after decades of capitalist destruction at home and abroad. We can trust her only to cave in to our capitalist overlords, as have all past “Democratic” presidents during my lifetime, at least.

And at least I personally am not pleased that although party hack Warren didn’t dare to step on Queen Billary’s cape and run for president in 2016, Warren runs now, which is only fucking things up for actual Democrat Bernie Sanders. Her political timing is for shit.

So no, I don’t support Warren for president. She had her chance in 2016 but politically calculated that she’d wait. She cared more about how the Democratic establishment thought of her and how they might retaliate against her than she cared about anyone or anything else, and she hasn’t done or said anything since that indicates that she has changed.

Bernie, on the other hand, to a large degree simply doesn’t care what the Democratic Party hacks think of him. The Democratic establishment fucked him over royally in 2016 and he reacted by pushing — successfully — to change the party rules that so unfairly benefited Billary.

Bernie fought the Democratic establishment and won; Warren, on the other hand, simply caves in like a “good” “Democrat” “should.”

All of this is a no-duh no-brainer.

So we “cool kids on the left” don’t, I’d say, hate Elizabeth Warren. We’re just paying attention, and we are going with the presidential candidate whose history has demonstrated that he or she is the candidate most likely to actually fight for our best interests — instead of for the corporations’ best interests — should he or she sit behind that big desk in the Oval Office.

No, Elizabeth Warren apparently is not as bad as is Queen Billary or Push-ups Biden. (I mean, all that we have right now are her campaign promises; we don’t know if she’d be yet another huge disappointment like Barack Obama was were she to win the White House.)

But we “cool kids of the left” do know, for all of our supposed ignorance and vanity, that Warren isn’t close enough to being like Bernie Sanders.

Nor, given her comparatively short history of espousing progressivism — and her lingering cowardly defense of capitalism — do we have any good reason to believe that Warren is interchangeable with Bernie.

And only one candidate can win the presidential nomination, so yes, this might get a little messy — as it should.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

There can be no affirmative-action quotas in electoral politics

Getty Images news photo

Julian Castro and Cory Booker (shown above at the Democratic Party presidential primary debate in June), neither of whom polls at more than 2 percent nationally, have intimated that their race is why they haven’t been more successful as presidential candidates — and they apparently have verged on asserting that affirmative-action quotas should apply in electoral politics (if they didn’t fully go there already).

Perhaps I danced on the grave of toxic identity politics prematurely. But hopefully what we’re witnessing now at least is its death throes.

Many are pointing out that all six of the Democratic Party presidential candidates who thus far have qualified to participate in this month’s debate are white.

This is true, and no, this isn’t a great look for diversity, but I’m intrigued as to what the alternatives are.

“What message is that sending, that we heralded the most diverse field in our history, and now we’re seeing people like her [Kamala Harris] dropping out of this campaign, not because Iowa voters had the voice?” Cory Booker said of Harris’ recent withdrawal, adding, “Voters did not determine her destiny.”

Whined Julian Castro, whose last debate qualification was for the October debate, “I did not expect the DNC [Democratic National Committee] to raise the [debate-qualification] thresholds so close to the Iowa caucus, because when you get that close to the caucus, shouldn’t you just let the people vote? You’re already within a couple months. Just let the folks vote.”

“I’m worried that if we have a debate stage without any … racial or ethnic diversity on it, that we’re putting ourselves at a greater risk for failure in November of 2020,” Castro also said.

“I’m a little angry, I have to say, that we started with one of the most diverse fields in our history, giving people pride,” Booker also said, adding, “I don’t understand how we’ve gotten to this place where there’s more billionaires in the race than there are black people.”

Funny that Booker would make that remark, since he and Harris are the top two so-called Democratic presidential candidates to whom billionaires have donated. Yes, Booker knows a thing or two about billionaires — as does Harris, who, while she lamented that she is not a billionaire herself, sure the fuck courted billionaires.

And that, you see, is one of the things that I use to measure a “Democratic” candidate: whether or not he or she is a corporate whore. I do not support corporate whores. The top four “Democratic” candidates beloved by billionaires are, in order, Harris, Booker, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. This makes all of them, in my book, corporate whores.

Why do I have a problem with billionaire sugar daddies giving to aspiring presidents? I have two problems, actually: One, obviously, most billionaires are going to give money only to candidates whom they deem will maintain the socioeconomic status quo; billionaires’ campaign contributions are investments in their own interests. And two, of course a big campaign donor expects something in return, whether something in return ever is explicitly discussed or not. (Quid pro quos are all the rage these days…)

But no, Cory Booker wants us to believe that Kamala Harris dropped out because she’s another victimized black woman, and surely Booker will explain his own imminent demise (he is not expected to make this month’s debate) as due to the fact that he’s another victimized black man.

The DNC’s process for the entry requirements for the debates has been transparent and fair. Dozens of people have filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for president as a Democrat in 2020. How many of them, exactly, should we allow to participate in nationally televised debates?

Where does the line get drawn? Does it not have to be drawn somewhere?

And yes, the people have spoken. They have been polled by reputable pollsters. They have voted with their dollars.

I refer to the DNC’s debate requirements of a candidate having polled at a certain minimum and having reached a certain number of unique campaign donors, requirements very apparently created to gauge a candidate’s popularity and viability.

I could live with the DNC, the next time around, not making any fundraising benchmarks a requirement for participation in the presidential primary debates, but if we don’t go by at least polling, how else are we going to determine what is a manageable debate stage?

Speaking of polling, right now Castro isn’t pulling even 1.5 percent nationally, and Booker is pulling only 2 percent nationally. When, exactly, were these two bottom-feeders ever magically going to catch on? Whether they want to face it or not, the people just aren’t that into them.

What the likes of Castro and Booker seem to be on the verge of saying is that we should have affirmative-action quotas in our elections (at least our presidential elections, if not all elections) — that is, that members of a certain race or of certain races should have guaranteed spots on the debate stage at all times (Gee, perhaps guaranteed spots on the final general-election ballots, too?), lest the entire process be white supremacist.

How exactly that kind of electoral affirmative action would or could work — and still be democratic — eludes me. If the people get to decide who swims and who sinks, then is it fair to reserve a spot for a black candidate? A Latinx candidate? An Asian candidate? A Native American candidate? (No Pocahontas jokes!) An Arab candidate? A Catholic candidate? A Jewish candidate? A Protestant candidate? An atheist candidate? A gay or lesbian candidate? A transgender candidate? Et. al., et. al., et. al.?

I would love to have our first Latinx president. I’m quite the fan of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Love her. I could see her as president one day. But Julian Castro only has been a mayor and one of Barack Obama’s cabinet members. I like my presidents to at least have been the governor of a state or a U.S. senator (or maybe vice president). I view Castro as unqualified to be president, and I never found him compelling, but to be just yet another milquetoast centrist. But I was supposed to have supported him only because he is Latino?

And Cory Booker has a long history of corporate whoredom. Again, I won’t support a corporate whore for president. That and I’ve always found Booker’s smarmy “Kumbaya” bullshit to be incredibly annoying rehashed Obamanian “hope” and “change” bullshit that stopped working after Obama left the White House, if not before then (yeah, very probably before then…). Was I to have supported Booker only because of his race?

Thing is, to read Booker and Castro whining in the media about their supposed racist mistreatment (and by so doing trying to gaslight the great white masses) — instead of acknowledging that the American people just don’t want them to be president — to me is only yet another sign that neither of them ever should sit behind the big desk in the Oval Office. It’s about the content of their character, not about the color of their skin.

Again, I fully acknowledge that if this month’s Democratic presidential primary debate indeed features all-white candidates — Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer and Elizabeth Warren (Tulsi Gabbard, a Pacific islander, and Andrew Yang, an Asian American, may or may not make the stage) — the optics of that certainly couldn’t be called pro-diversity.

But the DNC’s debate qualifications applied to everyone, not just to the white candidates. Were there to have been differing debate qualifications based upon the candidates’ race?

Again, the American people have been voting, so to speak, via the polls and via their campaign donations. The people may not always vote the way that we think they should vote.

But we can’t call it democracy if at the same time we are demanding specific outcomes — such as affirmative-action quotas in electoral politics — before the voting even begins.

The people decide, even if some of us think (perhaps correctly) that the people aren’t sufficiently “woke.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Kamala, we hardly knew ye; please take some of the other goners with you!

Getty Images news photo

Kamala Harris confronts Joe Biden during the Democratic Party presidential primary debate in June (with poor Bernie Sanders caught in the crossfire). The incident gave Harris a spike in the polls, but her campaign ultimately fizzled, with her announcing the suspension of her campaign today. Biden, meanwhile, is displaying the signs and symptoms of significant cognitive impairment — but he remains No. 1 in the nationwide polling nonetheless, which isn’t scary at all…

I had figured that Kamala Harris would drop out of the race, but not this early; I’d figured that she would exit right before or right after a huge loss in Iowa on February 3.

After all, she’s been polling better (at least nationally) than have many who still linger, including Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang.

But Harris has been languishing not only in Iowa, but also in her home state. (Losing her home state, the pundits have agreed, might damage her for any future presidential run.)

Harris rather slimily has posited that perhaps her lack of campaign success is due to the fact that she’s a black woman, but this allegation wholly ignores the fact that Barack Obama was elected president twice and that the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate was a woman. (Nice try, though…)

No, what happened to Harris, among other things, is that no one knows her, since she’s been in the U.S. Senate for not even three full years yet, and she never presented a compelling case as to why she, and not someone else, should be president. (I mean, fuck: As a presidential candidate she had one job…)

Because Harris never presented a convincing case as to why she should be president, she looked like either just another fucking power-mongering egomaniac — or like she expected to be simply coronated with the nomination because she’s a black woman. Or both.

I look at it from another angle: Because Harris could not simply coast on the fact that she’s a black woman, this is good news; it means that race and biological sex alone won’t get you the Democratic presidential nomination. And that is as it should be.

Don’t get me wrong; if Harris were a true progressive, instead of a corporate whore who has had more billionaire donors than anyone else running for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination, I’d be happy to support her. That she is a black woman would be the cherry on top; we’d get a progressive president and another historic expansion of diversity at the same time.

But I won’t support anyone who isn’t progressive — including the center-right Boy Scout Pete Buttigieg (is he an Eagle Scout yet?), who, like I am, is a gay white man, but who, unlike I am, is a soulless political calculator.

Harris’ failure indicates that the era of toxic identity politics — in which your race and/or your biological sex were held up not only as your “qualifications,” but the only fucking “qualifications” that matter — is over. Again, this is good news; it suggests that perhaps we actually can get on with equality (a quaint notion, I know…).

Harris’ failure also indicates that the billionaires can’t buy the next so-called Democratic president. In that sense, it’s no failure at all; it’s great news.

On that note, the presidential campaign of corporate whore Cory Booker, who is second only behind Harris in taking money from billionaire sugar daddies, also is on life support. He is expected to not make this month’s Democratic presidential primary debate. (Politico notes that “Booker is the only candidate who participated in the fifth debate who is not close to making the sixth debate.”*)

What I’m hoping is that Harris’ departure will inspire the other candidates who don’t have a snowball’s chance (that is, minimally, those who have been polling even below Harris) to drop the fuck out already and let the rest of us get on with choosing the challenger to “President” Pussygrabber.

And lest you think that I’m only picking on Harris because she’s a black woman, know that I’m beyond appalled by DINO Joe Biden (he’s No. 3 in taking money from billionaires, by the way) and continued images such as this one:

Yes, it’s Uncle Joe’s wife’s fingers that he is nibbling on like an Alzheimer’s patient who wandered onto the stage, but what the fucking fuck? In what alternate universe is it OK for a presidential candidate of a major party to display this kind of bizarre behavior in public, with cameras rolling?

And how about the creepy video that recently surfaced in which an addled Uncle Joe talks about children rubbing their fingers along his sun-bleached leg hair and bouncing on his lap? (Because that’s not Ewwwww-inducing!)

Really, DINOs? I know you’re DINOs, but really? Joe Biden? This is the candidate that you want to put up against Pussygrabber?

Because what could go wrong?

*Politico reports that six candidates have qualified for this month’s debate thus far: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer and Elizabeth Warren. Politico reports that Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang still have a good shot at qualifying for this month’s debate.

All in all, it’s looking like no more than eight candidates will take the debate stage later this month, at least two fewer than last month. That’s an improvement.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Bernie Sanders is now No. 2 nationally

In this case, No. 2 is pretty good.

Although the corporately owned and controlled “news” media often don’t even mention him at all, Bernie Sanders is at second place for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination in nationwide polls.

Real Clear Politics’ nationwide polling averages right now have Joe Biden at No. 1 with 27 percent, Bernie at No. 2 with 18.3 percent, Elizabeth Warren at No. 3 with 15.8 percent, and Pete Buttigieg at No. 4 with 11 percent. (At a distant No. 5 is the toasty Kamala Harris, with only 3.8 percent.)

Of course, it’s the early-voting states that are going to decide this thing, most likely.

RCP’s average of the polls of first-to-vote Iowa puts Buttigieg at No. 1, with 24 percent, Bernie at No. 2, with 18.3 percent, Warren at No. 3, with 17.7 percent, and Biden at No. 4, with 16.3 percent. (No other candidate breaks double digits in RCP’s average of the Iowa polls.)

RCP’s average of the polls of second-voting New Hampshire puts Buttigieg at No. 1, with 20 percent, Bernie at No. 2, with 17 percent, Warren at No. 3, with 14.3 percent, and Biden at No. 4, with 13.7 percent. (And again, no other candidate breaks double digit in RCP’s average of the New Hampshire polls.)

My analysis is that Boy Scout Pete has peaked, and that once caucusing and voting actually begin, and it becomes very real to the caucus-goers and voters that a Buttigieg nomination would mean putting the milquetoast mayor of a medium-sized city up against “President” Pussygrabber, Pete will plummet, a la Howard Dean, who was “supposed” to win Iowa in January 2004, but who instead imploded spectacularly as John Kerry came from behind and won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and then most of the following states fell to Kerry like fucking dominoes.

Once the probable Pete Buttigieg implosion happens, who’s at No. 2 in both Iowa and New Hampshire right now? Uncle Bernie.

Hopefully, Elizabeth Warren will continue her downward trajectory. She’s only splitting the progressive vote when she still calls herself a capitalist (capitalism can be reformed, she says quite incorrectly) and when she was a Repugnican as late as the mid-1990s — and thus she hardly is a time-tested progressive.

Hopefully, the progressive caucus-goers and voters will realize that they need to rally behind one, true, time-tested progressive, and of course that only could be Bernie.

And Uncle Joe… If he doesn’t place in the top three in Iowa or in New Hampshire, I don’t give a flying fuck what his center-right sycophants say: It will be all over for him except for the crying; no, backasswards South Carolina, which is the fourth state to vote (on February 29, which is some time after Iowa caucuses on February 3 and New Hampshire votes on February 11), will not save him.*

Of course, since Biden lost the nomination in both 1988 and in 2008, I expect him to lose the nominatoin again. He doesn’t learn. At least we finally should be rid of him within a few months.

Finally, Morning Consult also currently shows Bernie at No. 2 nationally and at No. 2 in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Nationally Morning Consult puts Biden at 30 percent and Bernie at 21 percent, and in the four early states it puts Biden at 26 percent and Bernie at 23 percent — but again, Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada all come before South Carolina; a win for Bernie in Iowa could mean a win for him in New Hampshire, and then a win for him in Nevada, and then…

In a nutshell, Bernie very well could win this thing.

The corporately owned and controlled media won’t tell you that because, well, they’re corporately owned and controlled; best for them and their continued support for corporate pillaging and plundering to pretend that the democratic socialist candidate has no chance at all.

Again, though, perhaps there is a silver lining in the corporately owned and controlled media to such a degree ignoring Bernie: If you are ignored, then you’re not considered to be a threat, and if you’re not considered to be a threat, then you aren’t attacked mercilessly.

The attention that she garnered made Warren a target, and now she has sunk in the polls. And now it’s Petey Boy’s turn.

Waiting in the wings is Bernie Sanders.

*No, I haven’t forgotten the third voting state, Nevada, which caucuses on February 22. I believe that the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire will have a huge effect on how Nevadans caucus.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

My undebatable thoughts on last night’s Democratic Party presidential debate

Image: US-POLITICS-VOTE-2020-DEMOCRATS-DEBATE

AFP/Getty Images photo

There still are too many candidates, but as the Iowa caucuses approach, the Democratic Party presidential debates are gaining importance. I’d say that in last night’s debate in Atlanta, the inarticulate, often-addled Joe Biden did the worst, hands down.

I watched the Democratic presidential debate last night. I knew that so much of it would be rehashed stuff, but I figured that because the Iowa caucuses are only two and a half months away, I could spend two hours-ish watching.

Some thoughts on it as I think of them:

Joe Biden has lost it. Let’s see: Apparently forgetting that a black female U.S. senator was standing very close to him. Saying that we need to keep punching away (he used that term) at violence against women. His bizarre, antiquated, suddenly gung-ho closing statement, ripped from a time capsule from the 1950s or before, that clearly was rehearsed but was not delivered with any real feeling.

Strike three, Biden’s out, but his supporters, like “President” Pussygrabber’s supporters, blindly ignore his flaws, so no, he’s not out. Depressingly, he remains the front-runner, at least in the nationwide polling. (He’s hardly been coronated already, however; he’s at around 30 percent, which he could build upon — or could hemorrhage.)

I have lived in California for more than two decades. I can tell you that Kamala Harris’ relaxed jive talking is a cynical contrivance apparently meant to appeal to black voters. As California’s attorney general for six years, she never talked like that. Do with that information what you will.

It was interesting watching the Kamala Harris-Tulsi Gabbard catfight, though. Funny that two candidates who are polling so low — Harris is around only 4 percent nationally and Gabbard is around only 2 percent — would pull each other’s hair out like that on live national television when neither of them is going to be the presidential nominee. Whatever. We needed some entertainment, I suppose.

Cory Booker wasn’t as annoyingly ingratiating and cloying as he usually is, but he’s still toast (he’s around 1 percent nationally), and “Uncle Joe” did need to be accosted over his incredibly backwards, outdated, wholly out-of-touch recent assertion that marijuana is or may be a “gateway drug.”

All that Pete Buttigieg had to do was to Look Serious (that is, Presidential). He succeeded. I cannot support such a blank-slate centrist who’s only been the mayor of a relatively small city, but he sure looked the part. (Polling at only around 8 percent nationally, I don’t see Boy Scout Pete actually getting the part, however.)

Shrill centrist Amy Klobuchar I just don’t understand — why she still is even polling enough and taking in enough cash to still make these debates, I mean (she’s around 2 percent nationally). I hear the well-rehearsed words that Klobuchar says, but I don’t feel any feeling behind them. I see why she’s at 2 percent.

Tom Steyer to me is kind of like a ghost. He talks, but as we have no history with him nationally, I can’t think of why I should invest in anything he says. I’m not saying that I disagree with him on a shitload of stuff — I’m just saying that I’m not willing to invest in a candidate who joined the race fairly late and who polls only at around 1 percent. (Also, of course, I’m not at all big on billionaires running for office.)

Andrew Yang can be funny, even though his laugh lines seem rehearsed, and he strikes me as smart and quite knowledgeable in some areas, but I’ve never understood his appeal. And like with Steyer, I’m not saying that I disagree with a shitload of what Yang puts forth; it’s just that I’m not going to invest in a candidate who’s polling at only around 3 percent. Yang has done well for a rather complete and total outsider, but we won’t be saying “President Yang.”

Elizabeth Warren was lackluster (for her, anyway), but she did not make any big mistakes or suffer any big body blows. That said, recently she has dipped below 20 percent in nationwide polling, so her moment might have come and gone. Last night’s adequate-but-not-impressive debate performance probably won’t give her any appreciable bump in the polls.

Bernie Sanders was Bernie Sanders. While I agree with pretty much every word that he says, I’ve been following him since 2015, so it’s not like he says anything new.

But with Bernie that’s not a bug — that’s a feature. I quite like that he is consistent and that what you see and hear is what you get. He is solid. You know where he stands and you know that he has stood there for decades, very most likely.

Bernie doesn’t change his speaking style or his political stances to match what he or his advisers consider to be the political mood of the day. (That said, he does seem to have gotten his fly-away hair under control, which was a reasonable change for the better…)

Bernie made no notable flubs and was not savaged on stage last night. In a way he’s kind of ignored — not only by his fellow candidates but also by the corporately owned and controlled mainstream media, which often omit mention of him entirely when the Democratic presidential front-runners are discussed (and yes, he is one of those front-runners) — perhaps as not being serious or viable enough, which I think is fine, because sometimes, while the flighty hares are all trying to outdo each other and take each other down, the unassuming, unexciting, but solid turtle quietly — and slowly, but surely — crosses the finish line first, often under the radar, because he took the long view and because he did it unspectacularly.

P.S. Primarily based upon their low polling and their tiny chance of winning the nomination, the five candidates who appeared in last night’s debate who I’d remove from the race if I had such power are, in order: Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang. (If I were going to remove six of them, the sixth would be Cory Booker or Pete Buttigieg.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Barack Obama needs to STFU

Getty Images photo

He needs to take his own advice right about now.

By chiming in to the 2020 Democratic Party presidential race now, former President Barack Obama apparently is trying to do two things: retroactively justify his own centrist, milquetoast presidency and encourage the voters now to choose his hand-picked do-nothing successor, Deval Patrick.

Among other things, Obama recently proclaimed — to an audience of Democratic donors, of course — that “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it,” and that “We also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including the Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds. Or the activist wing of our party.” 

So although the Repugnicans never walk on eggshells or apologize for their very existence, but just ram their right-wing agenda through as much as they can, Obama and his milquetoast ilk advise Democrats to (continue to) be pussies — and thereby lose elections because the voters clearly see that they’re pussies who won’t take anything remotely like bold action to improve their lives.

Obama sorely needs to shut the fuck up.

I took a leap of faith on that ubiquitous “hope” and “change” bullshit and voted for Obama in 2008. I fucking regretted it. After it became clear during his first term that he was more interested in trying to please the Repugnicans than trying to please his base by even trying to pass a progressive agenda while he still had both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives in his own party’s control in 2009 and 2010 — once the House was lost to the Repugs in November 2010 for the remainder of Obama’s presidency, there was no way that he was going to have any significant progressive achievement — there was no way that I could vote for Obama again in 2012, and so I did not; I believe in actually holding an elected official to his or her campaign promises. (Call me old-fashioned!)

Now, after eight years of an unremarkable presidency — indeed, presidential scholars rank Obama at the bottom of only the second quartile of all U.S. presidents* — Obama is encouraging us to go with his clone. And we need to say resoundingly: Oh, hell no!

It was no secret that when Deval Patrick first considered running for president no later than in 2017, he had Obama’s backing. It can be no coinky-dink, then, that now that Patrick tardily has entered the race in a disrespectful, egomaniacal manner, Obama is piping up now in praise of the do-nothing Democrat who doesn’t scare many to even most Repugnicans — and most importantly, doesn’t scare big-money donors to Democrats.

This bullshit didn’t work when Obama was president; indeed, the Obama presidency led us to the Pussygrabber presidency. Had Obama presided progressively — had he used the power of the office to better Americans’ lives (no, Obamacare, which required people to buy health insurance from for-profit insurance companies, is not progressive) — the Democrats would have won in November 2016.

But now, Obama encourages us to repeat his own failures.

And by doing that, and by trying to put his finger on the scale for Deval Patrick, Obama only further taints his own legacy. Obama did us no favors when he was president, and he is doing us no favors now from the past-presidential peanut gallery.

*In other words, Obama is just one notch above having been ranked in the bottom half of all U.S. presidents. See for yourself. (In the table, hit the sorting icon at the top of the last column, “Most frequent quartile,” and then look at where Obama lands.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Give the egomaniacal late-comers the cold shoulder that they deserve

Associated Press photos

Deval Patrick, left, and Michael Bloomberg, right, actually think that we want them now, with less than three months before the Iowa caucuses.

As I have noted, the 2020 Democratic Party presidential field already is too large, yet now we have billionaire Michael Bloomberg and corporate whore Deval Patrick entering the race when the Iowa caucuses are less than three months away, each apparently believing that he has That Special Something possessed by none of the other candidates who already have been campaigning their hearts out for months.

With Julian Castro’s impending implosion — he didn’t qualify for this month’s debate, so say sayonara to him* — and now the entry of Bloomberg and Patrick, we have taken one step forward and two steps back.

Why Bloomberg believes that the billionaire lane is untaken when his fellow billionaire Tom Steyer is languishing in the polls (he’s at 1 percent nationwide) eludes me (except, I suppose, that Bloomberg has held elected office [well, he bought it, but nevermind…]).

Why Patrick is running is, I think, fairly obvious: I think he didn’t run initially because he’d thought that the black lane, already occupied by Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, was too crowded.

But because Harris and Booker are languishing in the polls (at about 5 percent and 2 percent nationally, respectively), I surmise, Patrick believes that he could have done — and still could do — better than either of those two.

I disagree. The Democratic presidential caucus and primary voters actually aren’t hankering for yet another corporate whore trying to leverage identity politics to get into the Oval Office. (Yes, as I’ve noted, after Patrick left his job as governor of Massachusetts in January 2015, he joined Repugnican Mittens Romney’s Bain Capital, where he was employed until yesterday.)

And the percentage of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters polled nationwide who remain undecided is only around 8 percent, per Real Clear Politics, so no, it’s not like the voters are very unhappy with their current choices; most of them have found a candidate they like.

I don’t see Patrick or Bloomberg qualifying for any of the debates that will be held between now and the Iowa caucuses, and, as others have pointed out, the lion’s share of talented consultants and staffers of course already have been employed by the campaigns that have been going on for months.

And while Bloomberg has plenty of his own money, as he demonstrated when he bought the mayorship of New York City, what about Patrick? The New York Times notes that “He will start with zero campaign cash.”

And both Patrick and Bloomberg initially were going to run, then decided not to run, and now have decided to run after all. If decisiveness is something that we want in our president, as well as the possession of good timing, then neither Bloomberg nor Patrick is our candidate.

I personally am put off by someone thinking that he or she is so fucking great that he or she is entering the race now. It shows, I think, a huge amount of egomania and utter disrespect for the process (which is that you actually fucking campaign).

The voters should give these egomaniacal late-comers the cold shoulder that they so deserve.

*The 10 who are scheduled to appear on Wednesday’s debate stage in Atlanta are Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang.

Beto O’Rourke and Castro are the only two who appeared in last month’s debate who won’t appear in this month’s, O’Rourke because he dropped out (knowing that he wouldn’t qualify for this month’s debate, apparently) and Castro because he didn’t meet the polling and fundraising benchmarks for this month’s debate.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized