Keywords or Terms: South Carolina and Nevada
Primaries; University of Wisconsin-Milwaukie; Bernie Sanders; Hillary Clinton;
Foreign Policy; Madeleine Albright; US Criminal Justice System; Campaign
Contributions
With the race for
Democratic Party nomination tied up, Hillary Clinton winning the Iowa caucuses and
Bernie Sanders winning the New Hampshire Primary, there were firecrackers on Thursday
night at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukie. Facing off each other as if both
of their lives depended on it, Hillary Clinton would not back down as she
reminded viewers of the clear differences between her campaign for the White
House and that of Bernie Sanders’. The upcoming South Carolina and Nevada primaries
were not to be taken lying down; and, the former US Secretary of State wanted
Democrats to know that her landslide loss in New Hampshire was just a bump in
the road. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, in his usual straight talk and close
to being a fact machine, spewed so many information out and congenially reminded
America that the welfare of the middle class must not be sacrificed any longer
at the altar of Wall Street Corporate welfare.
The hypothesis that Secretary
Clinton once demonized Bernie Sanders hardly came through at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukie
venue; however, her new strategy was to paint Bernie sander further as a
candidate singularly focused on economic inequality. As Bernie Sanders barrage
her on Social Security, immigration, trade and regime change, Hillary remained
calm as if realizing now that there is no third choice candidate, that the odd
of her losing all the coming primaries would largely be slim, except women
voters fail to show up at the polls. As if reminding everyone that she has
championed women issues in the past and would continue to do so on income
inequality and abortion rights, Hillary avoided the question of a statement
credited to another former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, that: “there
is a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women.” Coming up
with the admonition that women should vote for whomever they want, Hillary
failed to take the bait from one of the PBS hostess.
While still saying
that Bernie Sanders’ promise on healthcare cannot be kept, Hillary Clinton went
on the offensive criticizing his grasps of foreign policy ("I
know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have
yet to know who that is"); his disagreement with President Obama ("This
is not the first time that he has criticized President Obama"); and the ever so
repeated, one-issue label of Bernie Sander ("I do
not believe we live in a single-issue country"). Bernie Sander was not totally
conciliatory of Hillary Clinton’s criticisms as he pokes fun at Clinton’s
foreign regime change initiative, her call for the “rigged economy,” and her close
ties and acknowledgement of former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger; with
the Vermont Senator declaring he is not a fan or friend of a Secretary who was
part of some foreign policy on an East Asian country that led to mass genocide.
Reminding Clinton that She is not in the White House yet, Bernie Sanders diminished
the brilliance of the foreign policy credential of the former secretary with:
helping to overthrow a dictator is not the issue, but what to do, after the
despot is gone. Replying to Clinton’s objection to disagreement with US President
from Sander, the Vermont Senator said Madam Secretary that is a low blow, an
asserted his right to disagree, even with a “President who has done such an
extraordinary job.” To further rebut Clinton’s disapproval of the assailant of President
Barack Obama from Sanders, the Senator added: “One of us ran against Barack
Obama and I was not that Candidate”
As if re-calibrating her former antagonist stance to Sanders, Secretary Clinton was at times, subtle
in criticizing some policy proposals from him. Not completely dismissive of the
free public college tuition policy proposal, Secretary Clinton intoned, it is unworkable.
Precisely saying: “Senator Sanders’s plan really rests on making sure that
governors like Scott Walker contribute $23 billion on the first day to make
college free,” … “I am a little skeptical about your governor actually caring
enough about higher education to make any kind of commitment like that.” This
was in response to the slashing of about two hundred and fifty million dollars
from the University of Wisconsin system by the conservative college drop-out
governor of the state.
Two things we can all
agree upon. Former US Secretary of State Clinton articulated her vision very
well with the opening statement: “I’m running for president to knock down all
the barriers that are holding Americans back, and to rebuild the ladders of
opportunity that will give every American a chance to advance, especially those
who have been left out and left behind.” On the urgent need for criminal
justice reform, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders rightly articulated his proposal
with: “They see kids getting arrested for marijuana, getting in prison, getting
a criminal record, while the see executives on Wall Street who pay billion
dollars in settlements and get no prosecution at all.” The unfortunate nature
of the problem with the US criminal justice system, is that it had often
disadvantaged minorities, Blacks, Asians and Mexicans. Slow reactions to these
urgencies make America look unresponsive to the welfare and needs of minority
groups – the need to repair the broken criminal justice system is no longer an aberration,
but fundamental to a fair, just and stable democracy. On both count, opening up
opportunities and reforming the criminal justice system, it is time for America
not only to become more inclusive, but have or create a more just society where
minority groups. It is also imperative, that the system is not further disenfranchising
a major chunk of the population on their right to something as simple as a
personal private choice on abortion. Maybe that is why the question of “moral
responsibility’ as articulated by Bernie Sander ring ever so loudly; and
Clinton’s castigation on his healthcare proposals going to significantly expand
the scope of government, sounds more hollow. Where on earth did Ms. Clinton find
her data to show that further health care reform will lead to 40% expansion in
size of US government? The proportionate share of expenses for the accommodation
of nation on healthcare, criminal justice system and fundamental human rights,
are not at par with the national gross domestic product.
That much is agreed.
But these does not say that both Hillary and Bernie are still in unison on
other liberal issues. When Bernie Sanders was asked if defeating his rival for
nomination would amount to thwarting history in a country that had never had a
female president, he responded with: “I think a Sanders’ victory would be of
some historical accomplishment as well.” When Secretary Clinton was asked how
she will bridge the racial divides in the country when the first
African-American president had had a tough time doing much, she responded with:
“the nation has seen lots of advances under the leadership of President Obama
and there had been a boon the health welfare of African-Americans, with the
passing of the Affordable Care Act. Rejecting the notion that Wall Street
contributors may influence her decision-making, Secretary Clinton reminded the audience
that President Obama was also a major recipient of that class of contributors.
Shooting back, Senator Sanders blistered, “let’s not insult the intelligence of
the American people”. The intended purpose of donations is an expectation of
favorable treatment.
Taken literally, the
closing remarks of Secretary Clinton appears support taking out money out of US
politics; however, she insisted that that notion, as well as, some policy
proposals from Senator Sanders, appears to be naïve. Yes, the nation could choose
to take first steps in taken big money out of American politics, however, who
is going to start first? Except US Congress passes new laws and or amendment to
those on the books, it is probably a mirage to expect money to get out of US
politics. By adopting the right mix of proposal to change American politics
through taxation of undesired behavior, including penalizing Wall Street
excesses, illegal campaign contributions and other disenfranchising policies,
the nation may chart a new course for herself. By agreeing with Senator Sanders
that the economy is rigged in favor of those at the top and going further to
promise to protect minorities, African-Americans and Immigrant families facing
discrimination, Secretary Clinton is indirectly agreeing that there is truly a
problem, or problems. The fact that Senator Sanders is proposing a “political
revolution” to resolve these issues, may be an over the board proposal even
with some leftists, however, the time is probably ripe for a change; a change
that will lead us to that promised land, which the preacher once informed us
about.
Without telling what
the stringent measures that are necessary to achieve the purported American
utopia, current slate of politicians seeking to occupy the White House oval
office appear to be failing the litmus test of good political campaigns: what
the voters are interested in or about, what would change their past experiences
on many levels, why their particular brand of proposal and offerings are the
things or policies that will rectify the difficulties or perceived problems.
The right strategy in a campaign is not whether the campaign is going to rake
up enough supporters at the party level, although that as well is good and
should not be discountenanced, but whether the electorate at a general election
will subscribe to the brand of proposal and would not hold against them, uncomfortable
and very offensive comments that might have slipped out of their mouth during
the respective party nomination process. The silent minor premise that many of
these candidates are going with, on what should be done and not done in party
politics, appear to have been turned upside down, with the reality of the Republican
candidate debates. On the side of the Democrats, it has not been rather obvious
regarding this challenge. The margin of support that individual candidate is
currently receiving, despite all the faults and probably fallacies of their
campaigns, is the essence of all the current party debates; and left to me,
this is why we need more of these informed debates.
No comments:
Post a Comment