Monday, March 28, 2016

Bernie’s Victories in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii: A weekend to cherish for a possible comeback?

Keywords or Terms: Washington, Alaska, Hawaii ; Dumping luxury designer bags, Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Marc Jacobs, Kleo, Caoch, Palladino, Marcie Prada, Dolby and Cabana, Hermes, Long champ, Micheal Kors, Hilde Gucci, All Saints, Lana Marks and Fendi for Bernie; Corporate Wall Street; Feel-the-Bern!; Youthful Enthusiasms and Exuberance; Candid Reality; Democratic Super delegates; Corporate Wall Street; and the future

Now as you dig deeper into Bernie Sanders’ weekend of triple caucuses’ victories, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii, you find yourself wondering with the proverbial bone in your teeth, how come this is happening to a campaign some Democrats are refusing to acknowledge its phenomena. Beyond any questionable metaphor, there are big things happening for the Vermont Independent Senator on the campaign trail for the White House that marvels even the ardent establishment Democrat. How about capacity venue overflows of supporters and potential supporters ditching expensive luxury designer bags, Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Marc Jacobs, Prada, Dolby and Cabana, Hermes, Long champ, Micheal Kors, Hilde Palladino, Kleo Marcie, Coach, Gucci, All Saints, Lana Marks and Fendi bags for security reasons, just to get a glimpse of him or hear him speak? As you question the audacity of victories in three consecutive Western states in one weekend, felicitation with a bird on a podium, maybe a dove, at another rally in Portland, Oregon, you come to a candid realization that even when the votes are not necessarily with him, nature and the youths of America in the fifteen states out of the thirty-two states and territories contested so far, have blessed his candidacy; are solidly behind him; and, no one can question the obvious phenomena Bernie’s run for the 2016 White House oval office has become.

While some Democratic Super delegates are completely beholden to the former US Secretary of State’s campaign, the other undecided Super delegates in other states may want to rethink their loyalty or question their past misgiving and give Bernie Sanders a chance at the trophy. The brilliance of the three victories over a formidable candidate, while not necessarily delegate rich to overcome the past disparity, signals the brilliance of a self-styled revolutionary campaign, that calls to question the committed sworn super delegates to the wife of a former president of the United States, seeking to become president, herself.

In Bernie Sander’s campaign, the depth and breath of his probably ultra-liberal messaging become clearer even to apolitical novices, that Corporate Wall Street big businesses and usurpers have hijacked our democracy; and unless we rally round a credible candidate like Bernie Sanders to reclaim their strong hold on America’s democracy and economy, we are about toast. And, even in the face of a huge gulf in delegates’ count in favor of Hillary Clinton, a huge gulf that may likely grow with the movement of the contests to delegate rich states in the coming weeks, Bernie Sanders is unlikely to throw in the towel. The allure, affinity and exuberance of youthful America behind his campaign, which I witnessed first-hand this weekend, are just too convincing and infectious that for him to go away now will be like a death in the family for this group. Bernie Sanders is the only love they have and they are ready to go to bat for him come rain or shine. Bernie is an indisputable rival and Hillary Clinton had better seek the magic in Bernie’s campaign if she is going to do well among this voter group come November.

Beyond the the foreign policy credential and expertise of the two term Senator from the State of New York, there is hardly any doubt that the way Bernie Sanders has conducted his campaign for the 2016 White House, would easily have unseated or toppled another candidate with that credential and experience for nomination, were it not  Hillary Clinton; the wife of an establishment likable past president of the country. Bernie’s oratory at Washington State Sea-hawk's field, the celebratory atmosphere and exciting youthful drumming, just make his campaign out of this world if you are in the middle of his fans and supporters. Unfortunately, the rule-making regarding the contest for party nominee appears to have disadvantage the Vermont Independent Senator from the beginning of the contest.

Image result for cartoons of campaigns

Factoring out the impact of Governor O’Malley’s campaign, maybe Bernie Sander’s campaign messaging could have sunk in farther, with many voters; and, the enthusiasm witnessed this weekend could readily have delivered exponential growth of ‘Feel-thee-Bern’ brand across the country. Caucusing at my precinct, I came to a realization that more than ever, my initial disposition is not as credible as I initially thought and my son’s premonition, a college student in his early twenties, was far better than my predictions. Given the current conviction and follower-ship of the young and restless youths, especially the college kids, no other candidate at this time has convinced them better than Bernie Sanders; and were the youth’s vote the consideration for party nomination, ‘Feel the Bern’ brand is a runaway victory in 2016 White House race. With as many as three to one support difference in some Washington State precincts between Bernie and Hillary, younger voters are just in love with Bernie!

For example, the youths around the the western cities in Washington State, Seattle, Tacoma and Olympia, believe their long awaited revolutionary messiah in 2016 election is here; and there is none like Bernie Sanders. Separately and collectively, the youths openly voiced their support and commitment to Bernie’s message and question adult’s premonition that Bernie Sanders is not electable for socialistic doctrinaire; and for other reasons which may look distant to the youths at this time. Thus, it is a fruitless effort delivering your vote and support behind him, at the expense of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the 2016 White House oval office. The issues – impacting the Democratic party nomination process and overall elect-ability of a socialist in a general election – are issues that are impeding  complete support for Bernie Sanders as establishment Democrats want the White House to remain in the hands of the party come January, 2017. For my son and other millennials, Bernie is the real deal, no matter what baby boomers and the elderly say about his campaign. And come November, when Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, folks should not be surprised if the youths are not coming along as they should: “they are just unimpressed with somewhat lukewarm or unenthusiastic Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the White House oval office.”

It is never easy to predict what will come next in November, especially when it comes to a contest between the Republican Party’s ultimate nominee and Hillary Clinton. This past weekend for example in Washington State, the youths woke up with the feverish ‘Feel the Bernie’ loyalty that was close to being infectious, even for many of us who have surveyed the numbers and come to a realization, it is going to be difficult for any candidate, not only Bernie, to overcome the huge disparity in delegates count at the national level. Never the less, the gathering of Washington State’s youths in the prescient and their deliberations about Bernie’s campaign messages were not only youthfully and somehow infectious, they were occasionally at the messianic category or level, when you attempt to engage them with the reality of the delegates’ count. The passionate speeches and pointed rhetoric from some of the youths were like the next big thing arriving on earth. Bernie has connected with this group the way no other candidate, Democrat or Republican, has done in this election cycle. What remains to be seen is whether Bernie Sanders can eventually translate the youth’s emotion to votes that can make him scale the gulf or differences between him and former US Secretary of State

Image result for cartoons of campaigns
No one can blame Bernie Sanders for hoping that the trio victory in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii can lead to greater momentum for his campaign in Wisconsin,Connecticut, California, New York, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. With opportunities for his campaign among the youths, recently acquired 142 delegates over the weekend (WA – 101; Alaska – 15; and Alaska – 16) and desire to keep the race relatively close, it may just be possible to achieve his aim, remaining vastly competitive, even if not within the 2, 383 delegates needed to become the party’s flag bearer at convention time. With a pledged 1038 delegates as against 1, 266 for Hillary Clinton, plus 29 Un-Pledged as against 470 for the former Secretary of State, plus currently convincing gulf of delegates, 1067 for Bernie and 1,736 for Hillary Clinton, it is getting more and more likely that the contest is for Hillary to lose. The April 19th contest in delegates rich New York (247), April 26th contest in Maryland, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Delaware, all states where there are already huge pledged delegates for Hillary Clinton, it is obvious that Bernie Sanders, barring death or other unknown events of life, will not be the Democratic Party 2016 flag bearer.

This is the reality that many young Democrats are hardly ready to acknowledge or failing to believe. Hillary Clinton has won twenty States or territories (Alabama, Arkansas, American Samoa, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, LouisianaMassachusetts, Missouri,Northern Mariana islands, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nevada; Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia); and Bernie Sanders, fifteen States (Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont and Washington). The remaining contests on April 19th and 26th are much more favorable for Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders. The populist message from Bernie Sanders that big corporate money is sticking it to America may be alluring to the youths, they are not just strong enough to swerve the devotion of the baby boomers and senior citizens, who are more likely to vote in November than his current base of support.

While many youths are investing their valuable time volunteering and campaigning across the country in support of Bernie Sander’s ambition, it is also important that they contemplate the question of the viability of him becoming Democratic Party nominee. Is there really a path to the nomination for him? What is it that the preponderance of democrats or likely voters in the general election want? More than compulsion of a populist message that big corporate America is sticking it to all of us, while we are made to fend for ourselves in a competitive market, what exactly is the change proposed going to deliver for us in the coming years? Are they realistic with the arrangement of economic indicators and political hegemony? Beyond the western styled, probably close to cultist favor for Bernie Sanders campaign message, what else can the voters cling on to make his proposal a reality in a cut-throat competitive capitalistic apparatus that has existed for more than two and half centuries? According to some political pollsters, if Bernie Sanders can find a way to topple Hillary Clinton for the party nomination as flag bearer, can his brand of politics actually win out in a general election, where all the stakes for votes are all encompassing including personal ideology, regional and nationwide support, political experience, campaign funding and a confluence of other realities and variables, that may not be in favor of a socialist in a capitalist system of government?

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Primaries and Caucuses' Results from Idaho, Utah and Arizona: reflecting in the shadows of Belgian Terrorist Attack?

Keywords or Terms: Belgium Apartment; NATO Country; Salah Abdeslam; Western Civilization; Paris and Brussels mayhem; American Muslim neighborhoods; ISIS or ISIL; Jihadists; New York Police Commissioner; Cuban American Canadian-born refugee child; Utah; Idaho; Arizona; Ted Cruz; Donald Trump; Bernie Sanders; and, Hillary Clinton

We are probably all familiar with the five remaining aspirants for 2016 race for the White House oval Office: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich. We spent most of our Tuesday, March 22, 2016 digesting the horrible news or contemplating what might have been at Brussels, if the security agencies at that Western European City had not dropped the ball, leading to deaths of thirty-one and about two hundred and seventy injured. The deadly explosion resonated far loud and clear that it not only caused mayhem in the country, Belgium, it obliterate any national news on the primaries’ and caucuses’ results from the States of Idaho, Utah and Arizona on any media platform. Why, why and Why all over again?

The sacrilegious acts of ISIS cowards were not only shocking to the European cultures and politics, they became a window to understanding retribution for the capture of the ring leader of another sacrilegious act of ISIS in the capital of France in November, 2015. We rose up in the middle of past week to the news of the capture of another Muslim extremist, Salah Abdeslam, the lone surviving perpetrator of the murder of one hundred and thirty people in Paris, France. We woke up yesterday to another probable consequential retribution for the capture of the planner of the Paris mayhem, with another heart-breaking and soul searching mayhem. ISIS or ISIL is hardly letting go of its usual machination and mischief and it appears Western Civilization is in another conundrum, asking itself, when are these mayhem going to stop? When are the Jihadists going to bury the hatchet and join the twenty-first century? When are Jihadists going to stop damaging the psyche of people for reason of their religion?

Will these mayhem go on for decades; or are we into another new normal, a world of violence and fear; a world full of wanton destruction of lives and properties for no sane reason; a world, run and feted by extremists, with little value for human life and determined destruction of anything that is not Islamic? Some say it is a world of clash of philosophies and ideologies; others say we are at a confluence, where we either resort to inhuman xenophobic, knee-jerk authoritarian and despicable public policy, that goes against our values for security and freedom in fighting global terrorism; or engage in unwholesome behavior with a tint of herculean debasement in constant and repeated response to counter the Jihadists’ efforts to annihilate Western civilization.

The question of being at crossroads or divergences on counter terrorism is long gone, it is now the caveman’s mentality and disposition of an eye for an eye. If Jihadists are not asking themselves why they continue to engage in barbaric acts, why must we blame Donald Trump for his: “You look at what just took place in Brussels, and that’s peanuts compared to what’s going to happen…Because we’re not tough enough, and frankly, our leaders aren’t smart enough. We have to have very strong borders;” or, Ted Cruz’s: “We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized." How about: “Radical Islam is at war with us. For over seven years we have had a president who refuses to acknowledge this reality. And the truth is, we can never hope to defeat this evil so long as we refuse to even name it. That ends on January 20, 2017, when I am sworn in as president. We will name our enemy — radical Islamic terrorism. And we will defeat it.”

Some say these comments or statements are reminiscing of reactiveness to addressing terrorist acts; or, a demonstration of how to be Presidential. Others insist these are dangerous, ineffective, ill-informed and rather illusion comments or statements that must never be uttered by anyone aspiring to occupy the White House oval office. Ardent Democrats insists, those statements are pure politics, where one or the other Republican aspirants seeking the White House oval office have chosen to lecture the current incumbent of the office on how to act; or, seeking attention by lambasting the incumbent who is probably done with the office and is on the way out the door, how to conduct the affairs of the office, hoping that will elevate or burnish their credential and candidacy for the office. These are plausible explanations; however, many people find these comments rather disingenuous at best.

Probably that is why President Obama’s response to Cruz’s neighborhood surveillance proposal or ideology, must now resonate very well with the Cuban-American Canadian born refugee child: “As far as the notion of having surveillance of neighborhoods where Muslims are present, I just left a country that engages in that kind of neighborhood surveillance," … “which by the way, the father of Sen. Cruz escaped for America, the land of the free. The notion that we would start down that slippery slope makes absolutely no sense. It's contrary to who we are. And it's not going to help us defeat ISIL or [ISIS]." Speaking early Tuesday in Seattle, the Democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton, castigates her potential opponents this way: “What Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and others are suggesting, [neighborhood surveillance], is not only wrong, it is dangerous.”

Given the horrendous nature of the Brussels’ mayhem, one may be sold on the idea that acting contrary to our innate principle as a nation, with couple of xenophobic fear mongering and agitating comments are all that is needed to re-assure Americans that a similar mayhem will not occur within our borders; however, US security agencies will tell you, otherwise. Our security agencies promise to continue to double down on keeping us safe so our nation does not experience another disastrous mayhem similar to September 11, 2001 experience. Maybe this is why one of America’s leading Chief Security Officer, NY Police Commissioner, William Bratton, with some degree of exasperation and annoyance puts it rightly so: “[Ted Cruz] has no idea what the hell he’s talking about”; and, the Mayor of America’s largest city that experienced the worst terrorist attack in the history of the nation, Bill de Blasio of New York, blatantly referred to Cruz’s proposal as a demagoguery. No wonder rational and reasonable folks are just ignoring Cruz’s rather unrealistic and underhanded statement that, President Obama should be back in America keeping this country safe or President Obama should be planning to travel to Brussels.

It is believed in some quarters that Ted Cruz’s campaign for the White House oval office remains second best among Republicans because of his inability to articulate let alone understand, the role of the office he is aspiring to occupy. Imagine, if a US President has to cut-short all his national and international engagements, including travels, statutory obligations and official responsibilities, any time any dastardly or unfortunate act happens anywhere in a NATO country to travel to the affected country in the name of showing solidarity with their citizens, as called for by Ted Cruz and his supporters? How practical or humanly feasible would that be? Would prior statutory obligations become inconsequential and the urgency of suiting impacted nation from a belated disaster redefine, the future of proactive foreign policy and international relations? No one could frankly tell; however, the odds that Ted Cruz will never end up being the 2016 Republican flag bearer let alone US President, is very suggestive and glaring from his utterances, delegate counts and reaction to the Belgian terrorists’ attack.

Now, to the Primary and or Caucuses results in the States of Idaho, Utah and Arizona. The “what” and “why” Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in the two Western States, Idaho and Utah, had gotten lost in the misery of understanding what happened and why some voters support a particular candidate. From here, it appeared the former US Secretary of State was strong and popular in the west, until Tuesday caucuses results. The Vermont Senator not only campaigned vociferously recently in the west, his supporters were more proactive door belling for “Feel the Bern” brand. The fact that Bernie Sanders did rather well with victories in Idaho and Utah, is actually a pay-off for hard work reach out. Campaign effort. As is the case, it is becoming apparent that Bernie Sanders campaign has decided that Hillary Clinton will have to earn her delegates from here on in the west. Now, we can get into debates regarding the delegates count gulf or deficiency, and why victories in some states do not necessarily confer huge delegate counts as others; however, the gradual up and coming performance of Bernie Sanders in the west is becoming a revolution as he terms or calls it, a revolution of a new beginning, even if belated as some political observers see it.

The “why” question for Bernie Sanders’ double victories in Idaho and Utah for the Hillary Clinton’s campaign team, may also be found in Bernie’s enduring appeal among democratic liberals and activists, who see Sanders as the hope to long for, in an establishment and Wall Street bought candidacy of Hillary Clinton. For this group of supporters, Bernie Sanders has demonstrated resilience in his campaign messaging, he has stayed close to the script not to engage in mudslinging, and he continues to be favorites of those young folks who consider Hillary Clinton too much reclusive and sold to the intuitive establishment’s preferences. What Bernie Sanders offers in this campaign for some voters, is a realistic movement of change which they truly believe in. The turnout in mostly Caucasian Dominated Western States, continue to stretch the chances of Hillary Clinton; however, more than ever, the game is about over on the nomination process. The lopsided victory in Arizona, with Hillary Clinton taking a little over seventy-five percent of the votes and probably most, if not all the delegates, further dunces Bernie Sanders’ victories and delegate counts in Idaho and Utah.

Further, the “why” question for the Clinton’s campaign team may also be found in the record breaking turnout at the Western States’ caucuses and primaries, which may help accelerate Hillary Clinton chances and performance in November, after Bernie Sanders yields the nomination to her. There were recently acclaimed stories in Idaho Democratic Party, where the heightened awareness of Bernie Sanders campaign had brought in new members participating in the process, with the caucuses activities moving venues to accommodate the growing number of participants hitherto unaccounted for in past presidential campaign cycle. Record breaking turn outs in the cities of Idaho Falls, Coeur d’A’lene and Boise were adduced to the “Feel the Bernie” brand campaign. Why is Clinton’s campaign not doing well in heavily Caucasian states? There is probably not one single answer to this question. However, the old issues of trust, heavy handed establishment influence and independents' participation in Democratic Party caucuses appear to influence the results or outcomes. Interestingly, the older and non-White Democrats still flock to Hillary Clinton as was seen in Arizona; however, the youths have practically been galvanized in more states than ever in support of Bernie Sanders’ candidacy.

Curiously speaking, on the republican side, the emerging performance and successes of Ted Cruz in the State of Utah appears to challenge Donald Trump’s dominance in delegate count. However, with the more than fifty-percent voters’ support for Ted Cruz and his ownership of all forty delegates from that Utah one is apt to believe this is a shot in the arm for the Republican front runner. Donald Trump may be contemplating how to undermine Ted Cruz in other states, as he did in Arizona, taking all the fifty-eight Arizona State’s delegates. While not completely capitulating or throwing in the towel, Ted Cruz has shown to be a candidate to be reckoned with, with his number of victories against Donald Trump. His likely prospective wins in Washington and California may re-write the history of this election; however, if he loses rather badly in those two States, it will be more daunting to overtake the leader’s delegate counts. Convincing Republican evangelic may be good for Ted Cruz’s campaign; however, for his campaign and that of John Kasich, the idea of slowing down Donald Trump’s ascendancy on the delegate counts may just be exclusionary and a rather late endeavor. Donald Trump has nearly doubled his delegates against Ted Cruz; and this is a matter of fact, which is uncontested:  With 944 delegates outstanding or remaining, Donald Trump has 739 and Ted Cruz, 465 of the 1237 delegates needed to get the nomination.

For now, Donald Trump probably has a negative image problem with American Mexicans and other minorities. His most devastating remarks regarding Mexicans may not have impacted him in Arizona because the second runner, Ted Cruz, has similar views. Ted Cruz’s religiosity and credibility with evangelic may work for him in some states; however, it is unlikely to give him an edge in places like California or New Mexico to an extent that he can impact the delegate counts to a disadvantage for Donald Trump. The race for the Republican flag bearer may not be over yet; however, the direction which the Republican rank and file are taking it is probably obvious for the close polls watchers; and the outcome may not necessarily be where establishment Republicans anticipate at the time of the convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

So, while we still ponder on why Brussels is under attacks and what is the appropriate action to take to show solidarity with that Western European nation; or while all residents of Western Civilization ponder why a Jihadist and his team were able to rent an apartment with false identity, build TATP explosives without the security agencies in Belgium finding out before they committed that dastardly act yesterday, it may be sensible to start weighing seriously the character, philosophy and beliefs of either likely party flag bearer; one of which may end up occupying the White House’s oval office. Now, we are not talking about who can outdo each other regarding their spouses’ body parts and why spilling the bean about one’s spouse may be a juicier reality show leaks to undermine a candidacy for party nomination. These types of talks are better saved or left for the gutters!

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

EXIT OF MARCO RUBIO FROM 2016 WHITE HOUSE RACE: the reward of disloyalty or what?

Keywords or Terms: Establishment Republican Leaders; Marco Rubio; Jeb Bush; Donald Trump; Novice Politician; Flawed candidacy; First White House Floridian Republican Hispanic; Establishment Candidacy; Neophyte; Small fish Republican Aspirants; Mentor Vs. protégé; Social Media Fights; and Outside Challenger

By the time Macro Rubio was talking at Atlantic University in Palm Beach, Florida on Monday, March 14, 2016, he probably wasn’t expecting a bomb-shell landslide loss to one of the angriest and loathsome aspirant for the 2016 White House, Reality Show host, Donald Trump. His inability to adjust to the twist and turns of the ever changing and gravitating electorate was probably one of the reasons he lost in his home state to a New Yorker, tonight. Were his premises of what works best in Republican primaries or caucuses in 2016 White House race flawed? Was his estimation of genuine support from Floridian Republicans after the exit of Jeb Bush from the race subject to a second guess? In current race for the White House, it appears that Republican voters are turning against the Establishment Republican Class altogether and shifting their loyalty to an outsider; an outsider many hardly know or understand his politics. Is this an experiment; or was this long overdue, or was it something that would have taken place outside Donald Trump’s candidacy for party nomination? Florida Republicans would have to pose similar questions to themselves in November, should Donald Trump lose the White House oval office to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

The candor or absence of self-evaluation by Senator Marco Rubio demands a comparative or introspective evaluation by political pundits, who earlier had predicted the demise of Donald Trump, based on his brand of campaign. America and probably Floridians Republicans had never been upset or disagreeable to Establishment Republican candidates as they are in current campaign cycle. First, it was Rick Perry; second, Lindsey Graham; third, Jeb Bush; and now, Marco Rubio, all top notch or seasoned establishment candidates, who were torpedo and brutally embarrassed in the race for Republican Party nomination. Republican leaders had never expected as many as these “establishment candidates” falling on the way side against a “novice politician” as Donald Trump.

In spite of his unconventional campaign strategy, including a narcissistic and somewhat racist caricature of American minorities, Donald Trump has surpassed the probably insurmountable competition, equally surprising Establishment Republicans and Independents on the way to Republican Party probable, nomination. Further, despite his offensive use of language in referring to several minority groups the party had sought to court, the front-runner had made greater inroads to the hearts of many likely Republican voters. Donald Trump had not only beaten the establishment candidates in their game at over seventeenth states, he had outclassed some of these seasoned politicians on their home turf with breath-taking humiliation. The truth appears to be that, there are shortcomings in the way 2016 Republican Establishment candidates had run their race for party nomination; and to a larger extent, all of them, including the most seasoned and long serving in state capitols, appear to have missed the tempo of the hearts of Republican voters in current presidential nomination process.

Image result for cartoons on cartoon network
Without similar dramatic departure or characteristic uptake, the winner of the Democratic Party’s primaries in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, and probably Illinois, would be the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton. Her probable insurmountable delegate lead as of Tuesday’s night primaries and caucuses' results are now even more difficult to close by the next rival; and the ill-fated presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders for Democratic Party nomination, is now perceptually and perpetually, moribund. Further, the possibility of turning the tides of the huge gulf of delegates and super delegates between Hillary and Bernie, are now acceptable as herculean, as further results emerge from other state’s primaries and the extent of loss to the first Democratic Party female nominee flag bearer, become so glaring and obvious, that it is probably, a nightmare for the competition. The only great thing about the Democratic race is that Bernie’s Sander’s performance against the likely nominee has not been such a blunder, as to tarnish the image and prospect of a White House’s future run, as is the case for at least one of the Establishment Republican candidates.

As Tuesday’s results show in Florida, Illinois and North Carolina, the lure of Donald Trump candidacy for the Republican Party nomination and by default the White House oval office, are real. If Establishment Republicans find his candidacy as obscene and not worth the mantle of their party, it is probably too late by now; only a negotiated conference can now deny Mr. Trump’s Republican Party nomination. Bar this, it is probably safe to assume that, despite the disaffection and dissatisfaction by majority of Establishment Republicans, the rank and file have spoken; and since we are a democratic society or country, it will be ill-advised to want to deny Trump’s campaign party nomination and by default, contest for the White House oval office. Any shroud against his candidacy or the front runner, would serve no one’s interest, no matter how Establishment Republican leadership placate his candidacy, or use unconventional campaign strategy to topple the mainstream or far right Republican candidature.

It is not only extremely disappointing for the support of the 44-year old rising star in the Republican party, there is ample reason to believe that his challenge and fallout from Jeb Bush, in campaigning for party nomination, may have undone his chances or beleaguered his future in Florida politics. This is probably why he ended his campaign for the White House tonight with the message to his supporters: "There's nothing more than you could have done!" No one could have faulted Marco Rubio’s; however, there were loyalist of Jeb Bush, who could not bring themselves to vote for his protégé, no matter what the party stalwarts may tell them. The blunder of challenging his mentor for party nomination could have been the slapstick that came to roust at state’s primary. Over the past eight months, Marco Rubio’s choice to challenge Jeb Bush appeared to have undercut his credibility among supporters of Jeb Bush’s candidacy; and, the initially acceptable or engineered political objective of bringing the Hispanics to Republican Party’s fold, while very noble as conceived by the protagonists, the fact that one promising Hispanic candidate or leader, showed early or quick ambition, by attempting to erode the leadership and recognition of Jeb Bush in Floridian Republican Party, may have accounted for the humiliating loss of Marco Rubio in his home state, in what is now considered, an ambition killer, if not political apocalypse for the political career of the first White House Floridian Republican Hispanic.

The attempt to undermine a known mentor in state party politics at the national level, while not only the reason for Marco Rubio’s loss this evening, no one would or must discountenance this within the Floridian Republican Party. The difficulty of accepting that young Hispanic Marco Rubio, a protégé of an authentic establishment Floridian Republican leader, Jeb Bush, with a prospect of becoming a national party leader, may have offended some Republican loyalists and voters, who are true and loyal to the Jeb Bush brand. Suspicion of Marco Rubio’s quick ascendancy in the National Republican Party stratosphere and more growing recognition outside Floridian Republican Party, may have done his 2016 White house race, and arouse home-state voters' disaffection and displeasure, more than the campaign strategy of aspirant, Donald Trump. Florida Establishment Republicans, who understand the power wielded by Jeb Bush within the Floridian Republican Party, may consider Marco Rubio’s 2016 White House ambition more of a disaffection or disloyalty of a protégé to probably, a renowned Republican leader, Jeb Bush of the State of Florida. The fear of disloyalty or worst yet – setting bad example by undermining the hand that fed you – may have discouraged further support for Marco Rubio’s campaign for the White House, once Jeb Bush fell by the wayside. The true and authentic question, which many Establishment Floridian Republicans are asking in private is this: “If Jeb could not do it, how could Marco Rubio, a disaffected protégé of his, with light weight support from all sphere of interest groups within the party at national level?”

There are some in the press who would like to believe that Marco Rubio’s strength at the national level are bereft of his influence or clout in Florida Republican Party. Others have indicated that, like Marco Rubio’s campaign team strategized, the aspirant’s strength at the national level lies in his ability to maintain a tight-knit shift of close advisers, who are able to keep mum about the best options of their candidate and streamlining those options to a national audience of Republican Party supporters who are yearning for new breed of Republican leadership. These groups of supporters are said to be ready for the next generation party leaders to replace the long standing and probably, discredited establishment Republicans who are betrothed to American Corporate welfare interests and whom many Tea party memberships are disaffected with in current cycle of nomination. The important question for Marco Rubio now is not whether he had lost the nomination; rather, how far has he fallen within the Republican Party with this loss, is it to an irredeemable level that will impact his future chances of running for the White House? As a young and promising Republican leader, will this loss be a career killer for his ambition; or is it probably, a minor setback that can easily be overcome? The perceived disloyalty of Marco Rubio to Jeb Bush may trounce any love for future national ambition by Republican voters, or guarantee a second coming, with better name recognition at the National Republican Party level; however, this could be an overestimation of the gravity of the loss?

Marco Rubio’s campaign for 2016 White House was probably flawed from the beginning because of the perceptual disloyalty to his mentor; and this may have been the cog in the wheel of his early rise within the party’s national hemisphere. By attempting to force a run for the White House in 2016 election cycle, where and when his mentor had indicated obvious interest, may have provided the ammunition for some Jeb Bush’s loyalist and followers to skin Marco’s ambition or deny him essential support that could have helped him overcome the wave of challenge from Donald Trump. Hopefully, there is a forgiveness in the hearts of Floridian Republican establishment and Marco will rise from the ashes again?

Image result for cartoons on cartoon network

Further, there are others who maintain that the premises above have really nothing to do with the failure of Marco Rubio to win the Republican nomination; that in all the contests so far, Marco Rubio had only managed a single state victory in Minnesota; and, his choice to go on the offensive, one-on-one against Donald Trump after February 25th debate, probably sealed his fate. To this group, the conjecture of Marco’s social media fights with Trump and “small hands” elephant in the room caricature, was the true reason for his landslide loss in his home state. While there are some validities to this perception, there are people like me that will like to believe, it is more than that; and, the failure of Marco Rubio at the polls, especially in his home state at a rather critical junction, is more telling of how some Floridian Republicans perceived his announcement to run against his mentor. The flow of support from Jeb Bush’s loyalist are not easily transferable to a neophyte or small fish in the Florida Republican Party pond. Old habits die hard; and heavy hearted Floridian Republicans who saw their favorite candidate, Jeb Bush, fall on the way side, may not be easily expected to metamorphosed to his protégé’s supporters; ironically ensuring the success of someone considered as a promising star of the future. As often said in politics, you have to wait your turn!

In addition, it appeared that Marco Rubio caught all the flacks of the Floridian Establishment Republican Elite. His candidacy splinted loyalty even among non-establishment Floridian Republicans. He lacked solid support from the rank and file, pro-abortion groups and gay right groups; neither was he held to any esteem by other pressure groups within the party that could have made a difference to his candidacy, the centrists, defense hawks or evangelical Christians. Even after Jeb Bush got out of the race, ironically ensuring further or additional support from National Establishment Republicans, the uncertainties or perceived disloyalty of Marco’s run in some quarters, was hard to swallow; and the formula that could have tied together the Florida Republican support for one candidate, was lost or at best, flaky. Thus, the failure of some Floridian Republican to bring themselves to vote for Marco Rubio, and urge to punish the protégé for his unceremonious nose thumbing of his mentor, the outcome of tonight's Florida Republican primary results. Jeb Bush, the unofficial Hispanic Republican aspirant of the state, prior to the entry of his protégé to the race, had been ridden of the allure and support that went to Marco Rubio, once he declared his candidacy. Thus, it wasn’t only the social media fight with the alleged front-runner that probably did him in; it was more of a retribution for failure to fall in line, or unwelcome premature political ambition of a Floridian Republican up-starter.

Rubio's expectation of unflinching support from Floridian Republicans for his national office run was probably shortsighted. The outrage to Marco’s premature ambition in some establishment Floridian Republican quarters may have subverted complete loyalty to his curse after the fall of Jeb Bush; neither was his call for unity among Floridian Republicans answered at the polls. Further, the attempt and exercise of choice to run in the 2016 White House race and subsequent failure at the polls, probably told more about the vulnerability of an underweight politician, who considered knocking heads with his mentor his prerogative. The issue of loyalty became central to the campaign for party nomination, at least in the Florida Republican Party immediately Marco Rubio announced his ambition. By the time Jeb Bush had fallen or opted out, the seed of discord and discontentment had already been sown among some rather loyal Establishment Republicans in Florida. Jeb Bush’s somewhat lukewarm romance with Marco Rubio’s campaign after his exit, was in essence, a nemesis to his protégé’s ambition. Neither could Marco leverage support from Jeb Bush’s cronies; or was able to gain real support of unyielding commitment from preponderance Establishment Republicans and power-brokers, that could have made a difference in national politics. Marco today is neither a Republican Party nominee for 2016, nor a Floridian Senator. The victory of John Kasich in Ohio despite a tough fight from Donald Trump, essentially bore out the fallacy of premature ambition and the essence of statewide preponderance support and loyalty for a politician, hardly facing an intra-party insurrection. Had Kasich suffered a similar atmosphere as Marco Rubio tonight, he would equally have lost with a landslide to the outside challenger, Donald Trump.

Sunday, March 13, 2016

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE AFTER ELEVEN ADVERSARIAL SHOUTING MATCHES: Bringing back civility and fine decorum to political discuss?

Keyword or Terms: Civility; CNN; Governor Kasich; Senator Marco Rubio; Senator Ted Cruz; and Billionaire Donald Trump; Cuba; Transpacific trade; Climate Change; Whitehouse; Mundane and Docile response; Substantive and Elegant debate; unconventional coup d’etat; American Political Party;  North Carolina, Illinois and Florida

Contrary to what has obtained in eleven Republican Presidential campaign debates, the twelfth one, was a water shed from the past. Even the Republican polls’ leader and chief provocateur in the shouting matches of the debates past, Donald Trump, agreed that this CNN moderated debate was the most substantive and elegant of all the debates. There were no snipers or name calling; neither were there candidates talking over each other like kindergartners. Concurrently, not only did Governor Kasich of Ohio agreed that this last one was good and congenial, he acknowledged how far the Republican aspirants have come on the debate rostrum to an after-debate rendezvous with one of the CNN announcers.

As issues of immigration, trans-pacific trade, foreign policy, mostly with respect to normalization of relations with the country Cuba, and Climate Change were being trashed out, you sense a type of civility long absent from Republican debates for the White House oval office this year. American viewers of the debates had become so accustomed to the shouting matches between Republican aspirants in the past debates, that it was generally assumed – at least among citizens and establishment Republican party members – that the Coral Gables, Florida debate, was going to be another raucous reality show experience, with name-calling, body parts’ denunciation and little political communication decorum and decency. Instead, about thirty minute of debate time, the former discourteous aspirants, with their probable ring leader, were so taken aback by the level of initial civility that the uncharacteristic Aspirant Trump referenced: “So far, I cannot believe how civil it’s been up here.” The ever so missing courtesy in aspirants’ interaction was junked for a more civil interaction, and the usual put-downs, somewhat entertaining for some viewers, if not disheveled and classless for others, was a thing of the past. Even when Ted Cruz, the second polls leader among the Republican aspirants, attempted to stir up the pot with, “Trump would be a disaster as the republican standard bearer”, you get the sense that Mr. Trump was either tired of the raucous communication and would not be drawn into the usual shenanigans, or someone finally advised, he needs to move away from the usual inflammatory and or conflagration language and start being, Presidential. When Ted Cruz further added, “If we nominate Donald Trump, Hillary wins”, Mr. Trump just ignored him and moved the discussion to other sphere of public interest.

With an acknowledgement that it was time to move on from the usual rowdy forum, the atmosphere in the debate venue was congenial, with opportunities for easy jabs and casual insults passed over for more disciplined and sometimes, mundane and docile response. How about Marco Rubio’s acknowledgement that past adversarial strategy in the debates was not working for him or family and most essentially, his wife and daughter, consider his past antics during the debates, below their family’s accepted standard of decorum in communication and debates. The fact that all the jabs that he had directed against Donald Trump, the polls leader, had back fired, probably advised a more germane and respectful atmosphere, with ample time for give and take to questions from the CNN hosts. Even, where and when there were ample opportunities for electrifying rabble rouses or differences of opinion on issues of immigration and employer sponsored work visas manipulation, many of the candidates who were ready to topple the front runner and leader, just ignored the admission by Donald Trump that he is a business man taking advantage of the lapses in the law on books, and no one must begrudge him for either, not being patriotic or doing what other American businesses continue to do, to benefit their business investments.

In contrast to Marco Rubio’s stance, Ted Cruz, was more interested in engaging Donald Trump; inexorably pulling and forcing Donald Trump to come into the ring, as the polls leader and real estate magnate, understanding what was at stake, pulled back, hardly wanting to directly engage. Even when Ted Cruz chastised him about his temperament and harsh language against the Islamic religion, he refused to take the bait, offering what is probably a foreign policy statement, that he will send up to thirty-thousand US troops to the Middle East to fight ISIS, if he became President. And unlike the usual trading of insults of the past, the choice of the aspirants on the stage engaging in relational communication, strengthened the discussion points and arguably, upgraded the level of communication; with aspirants appearing well informed about what they were talking about. With the reluctance to engage Donald Trump with former hostilities and demeaning language, the entertaining aspects of past debates were relegated to where they belong, the “low information” supporters of the front runner. For once, there was a strong sense that change has finally come to the Republican debate for the White House; and when discussion digressed once again to the laxity in the issuance of HB-I visa and work permit, Donald Trump emphatically said: “I’m a business man and I know the system and I am the only one that can fix it”.

Marco Rubio’s attempt to unleash vitreous statements that could upend Trump’s restraints in language appears fragmented or insignificant even when he retorted, “The problem is presidents can’t just say anything they want, because it has consequences here and around the world”; and, “Mr. Trump’s temperament is a subject of deep anxiety among Republican Party leaders.” Mr. Trump either ignored or surreptitiously avoided immediate reaction, choosing to emerge as the real front runner to beat, among the Republican aspirants. What has pained so many aspirants in the race for the Republican nomination is the inability, or difficulty in pinning the innocuous and venomous comments from Mr. Trump and supporters, including some rather rowdy and dangerous episodes of punching and verbal altercation with protesters at Mr. Trump’s campaign rallies, on the front runner. The fierce attempt on the part of Mr. Trump to absolve himself and campaign from any accountability, probably resulted in him making comments at the twelfth debate that, he does not like it; and, such behavior should be adduced to an unbelievable anger which he cannot control or held accountable. Frankly, the atonement of substantive and elegant debate may not be completely credited to the aspirants on the debate rostrum, if the polls’ leader and probably culprit of the raucousness of past debates, quarantine himself and campaign from the often, volatile and unwelcome violence from his supporters at his political campaign rallies, and none was able to hold him remotely responsible. Mr. Trump’s unwillingness to completely and whole hardheartedly disavow many of the unwelcome violence at his rally, is now characterized by some political observers, a new normal, a socio-political upheaval in presidential campaigns that were once considered foreign or absent for campaigning for the US Presidency.

Mr. Trump is unceremoniously unapologetic for his characteristic denouncement of the Islamic religion. He strongly believes, Muslims hate America and America has to do something before America suffers another possible experience like the disastrous September 11, 2001 mayhem. He vehemently and characteristically blames Islam, insisting there is no need for political correctness in the manner of consideration of the Islamic religion. As Marco Rubio elected to declare that Mr. Trump’s comment is un-presidential, Mr. Trump just ignored his comebacks or characterization of what he believes Mr. Trump was attempting to insinuate. If Mr. Trump carries the Republican nomination and ultimately, wins the White House, there are enough statements from him to believe, Muslims or Islamist extremists or jihadists are going to have a tough time with his administration. Mr. Trump’s venturous denunciations of the Islamic religion reminds us of terrorists’ attacks in Europe and possibly impending terrorist attacks in America. The perversely planned terrorists’ attacks now deified as destabilizing in Europe, are probably the events Mr. Trump is alluding to, without funfair or diplomacy, in his characterization and campaign messaging. Whether this is appropriate or out of place in American Presidential Politics, depends on who you ask; however, nearly all the three standing Republican aspirants and party’s establishment, denounce the demonization of Islam by Mr. Trump’s campaign.

The sobriety of the twelfth Republican party debate for 2016 White House oval office appears somewhat girded and a shift from the usual raucous debates of the past. There is a wide and probably open denunciation of Mr. Trump’s characterization of Islam and Islamists, as the enemy of America. American voters who probably see Mr. Trump as fanning hate, somehow admonish a degree of significant reflection in considering policy issues or talking about constitutionally protected right, that is somehow eroded with Trump’s denunciations of Muslims. Maybe the next two debates will come through with the degree of civility of the twelfth; however, for Mr. Trump, while not objecting to more debates, concluded to an interviewer that their slate of aspirants probably have had enough of these debates. Interestingly the twelfth debate happens to be the last high profile encounter that may either determine who will go home or who will stay on the trail. What is known for now, is that Donald Trump has double digits’ polls’ advantage in North Carolina, Illinois and Florida; and the inability of the other aspirants to shake down the front runner at this last debate may end up being a Waterloo, for even the establishment preferred candidate till the debate.

Finally, the battle for 2016 Republican party nominee has been unconventional and sometimes paradoxical, even for those long and seasoned in American Politics and Presidential campaigns. However, what many observers consider a crash course in unconventional coup d’etat in taking over a major American Political Party, is now a classic case of how to interject personal racist and religious bigotry in campaigning for party nomination; and by default, the US Presidency. The relatively tranquil campaign messaging of the past by both major political parties’ candidates, is now superficially questioned by Mr. Trump’s brand of campaigning. What other Republican candidates consider as “un-Republican” or “un-conservative enough” are characteristics embraced by many supporters of Trump’s campaign and a relatively new normal; one that has not only entertained so many in the past eleven debates, but propelled the protagonist to greater success in political campaign and presidential ambition. Why now a change? Was there something unnaturally offensive to the average Republican, or is Mr. Trump unnecessarily being scape-goated for sake of being politically incorrect by running an unconventional campaign?


After the tranquility in the twelfth debate, maybe a coalition of the “Anti-Trump” campaign strategists may help save face for establishment Republican Party. The supporters of the real estate mogul may well carry the day, if Trump pulls an upset in Ohio, by winning over the State governor; or, winning in Florida, thereby sending home the newly accepted establishment hometown candidate. The fragmentation of the Republican Party, which would likely ensue with Trump’s upset of John Kasick and or Marco Rubio, would probably end up being the greatest spoils of all time; and a parody of manipulation of the democratic process in the nomination of a party’s flag bearer. If you do not want to miss any ensuing fun, and the potential power play game of 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination process, just come back!

Thursday, March 10, 2016

M and M Duo Victories and the Miami Florida Experience: Debating the last Democratic National Committee Sanctioned Encounter!

Keywords or Terms: Democratic national Committee (DNC); Clinton’s campaign; Sander’s Campaign; Delegate Counts; Regional Performance; Michigan; Minnesota; Florida, Ohio; March 15th; ‘H’ Brand; ‘Feel the Bern’ Brand; “Queen of the South’; President Barack Obama; President Bill Clinton; President George W. Bush; Univision/CNN; Latino Youths; and, Mr. or Mrs. President

In the past week, I had contemplated the possible stiff and heated contest for delegates between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as the Democratic National Committee sanctioned debate for party nomination moves from south to middle and or, rust belt states. Tuesday’s primary or caucuses results from Michigan State bore out part of my contemplation; and, the outcome from the State of Mississippi, re-affirmed that Hillary Clinton is still the Queen of the South. Frankly, by now, the Clinton’s campaign team realizes that Bernie Sanders is giving them a run for their money across multiple regions of the country.

The preponderance of the minority resident voters and Democratic Party supporters of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the Southern region of the country cannot be overlooked or underestimated. However, something happened on Wednesday night at the University of Miami, Dade County, debate venue, where Hillary and Bernie got into another ‘off-the-gloves- duel’ before an audience, probably more Latino than you’ve found in other debate venues; a group focused debate that makes you wonder, if the contest has not gone into an overdrive of a toss-up; or, a friendlier outcome for Bernie Sanders?

Was the speculation regarding the potentials of either candidate performing better than hitherto conceived or, where either had had acclaimed regional dominance, a worthy subject of consideration at this time in the nomination process? Did the Tuesday’s results from Michigan pushed the Clinton’s team to the fence or, does the overall delegates’ count and acquisition affirms yet still, the dominance of Hillary Clinton on the way to party’s nomination as flag bearer? Albeit, was my initial contemplation, vis-à-vis, either candidate’s potential performance in some regions overtly optimistic and has the lopsided overall delegate count and victories in Mississippi as against Michigan, saying something more sinister about Bernie Sanders’ Campaign for party nomination? Contrarily, or in contrarian analogy, did Bernie Sander’s debate performance at the University of Miami venue, a reaffirmation of a growing love for the ‘feel the Bern’ rather than the ‘H’ brand; and, would this performance stair the ship in favor of the Vermont Senator? It depends on what campaign team you ask: Hillary’s or Bernie’s!

If ‘Feel the Bern’ campaign was experimenting with a strategy in Michigan that paid off rather well, maybe it should double down on that strategy as the campaign moves on to the next robust States’ contests on March 15th. Further, if the love that the audience showed Bernie Sanders at Dade County after the end of the eighth debate yesterday, is an indication of any promise, maybe, hell has let loose, and the ‘Queen of the South’ may not be able to easily ride her victories to sunset, sooner. Without remarkable departure from establishment Democratic Party expectation, Hillary Clinton acquired twenty-nine as against four delegates for Bernie Sanders in Mississippi. However, Bernie upset Hillary in the rust state of Michigan, where polls had earlier predicted a huge victory for her.

In the words of Hillary Clinton last night, if the campaign is about delivering results, maybe her victories will deliver the nomination; however, it is not ever going to be on a platter of gold, if you ask Bernie Sanders. The audience probably sensed that, when she was asked a tough question by the Univision/CNN host regarding the issue of trust, and she replied with some resignation that, she is hardly a conventional politician as her husband, Bill Clinton, or as President Barack Obama; however, she will continue to give of her best in public service and hope Americans, stop judging the book by its cover; and, eventually find the luxurious taste in the pudding. Further, if her ultimate victory will help deliver jobs and lost hopes to Americans the way she anticipates and intoned at the debate, maybe the re- insurgence of Bernie Sander’s campaign is more of a cog in the wheel of progress, or a fly in the oil pan, for the quick coronation of the ‘Queen of the South’, or eventual Democratic Party nominee; and probably, the first female President of the United States.

For now, Bernie Sanders appears to be reshaping the Democratic Party’s campaign narratives in some regions of the country; and there is evidence that the challenges that he has faced in the South, because of the preponderance of support of minority groups flocking to Hillary Clinton in that region, are surmountable, even in the ninth hour of the contest. Notwithstanding, there is the possibility that Hillary Clinton will continue to score more delegates and super delegates, as she begrudges Bernie Sanders as supporting legislation granting gun makers legal immunity for damages caused by their product, an issue rather sensitive with black voters, just as she did at the University of Miami debate venue yesterday, highlighting the factually disputed assertion that Bernie Sanders once stood with the anti-immigrant militias, the Minutemen.

Eventually, Hillary Clinton may be able to call off the bluff of Bernie Sanders after March 15th, and scorn at Sander’s assertion that delegates have to be splinted as in Michigan because of his emboldened victory, that was heartfelt and worth celebrating by his campaign. Evidently, the huge delegates' gulf between Hillary and Bernie is such as to have the Vermont Senator very much behind; one reason political pollsters are articulating, for Bernie to remain in competitive play, he would have to win over three-fifths of the remaining delegates, a reality that appears mathematically impossible, as ascertained by the Cook Political Report. Further, If the aggrandizement of Bernie’s Campaign as the only one standing up for the poor and middle class, or his being anti-trade pact and anti-Wall Street excesses, are going to draw more supporters and voters to him and help him make up the lagging difference, while remaining proactively competitive, his performance and voting returns or outcome, in States of Florida and Ohio on March 15th,have to be impressive. For now, it is still safe to assume that Bernie’s delegate count will not easily match up to the leader’s, and this somehow continues to put him behind in the race for the 2,382 delegates to clinch the nomination.

The question yesterday at the University of Miami debate venue to Hillary Clinton was, did she lie to families of the Libya, Benghazi’s diplomats’ deaths, may prove costly in general election, if not better articulated in form of response from Hillary Clinton. While her response that she had exhausted answers and provided all information she knew and corrected some, as new information was available in real time, regarding the disaster, may suffice at intra party debate, American voters would demand more than: “I’m a work horse, not a show horse.” The Benghazi fiasco called for more answers and transparency, that a more substantial and possibly, reflective assertion that an installation retribution may have been essential to answer the pounding question from the nation regarding what actually happened around the event that led to the deaths of Americans.

Yes, there are all good reasons to believe that Hillary Clinton as the US Secretary of State answered all the Congressional Proceedings questions and provided all she knows about actions taken by the administration while this unfortunate event occurred; however, as a presidential aspirant, opponents and naysayers are going to insist that her responses are not enough. A retarded after thought collaboration or credibility of an incensed failure of Hillary when serving as the US Secretary of State will continue to reverberate; however, a better approach to responding may be in showing more compassion, prompter and unwavering consistency in repeating all that she answered before the congressional investigative panel and broadcast, she knows no other way, than to assuage this nightmare than apologize to families of the deceased, not for error of judgement, rather, because they all died as heroes serving the United States of America.

No matter what, Hillary Clinton’s response to the Benghazi fiasco will remain suspiciously flawed because she is a member of an opposition party, one that occupied the White House, when this dastardly event occurred. However, former US Secretary Clinton must remember that George Bush did not capitulate when accosted for lies regarding absence of Iraq’s weapon of mass destruction; neither did Ronald Reagan, when caught selling arms to Iran, the Iran Contra-affair, even after John Poindexter and Lt. Col Oliver North were found guilty and Reagan himself, probably culpable, he still maintained an innocence of hardly contravening American policy and law. Thank goodness, the Benghazi disaster has not risen to the level where a federal prosecutor will be appointed to unearth, what probably does not exist, but which Republicans will like to score points with, because a member of the outgoing administration is attempting to vie for the White House oval office. This is just the regular order of politics and one should be used to that: “making a mountain out of a mole hill!”.

One rather commendable thing at the eighth Democratic Presidential Debate was that when Hillary Clinton came under fire with numerous questions from UNIVISION/CNN host and hostess, she held her ground, kept cool and collected, with a posture of reliability, even though, she appeared irritated by some questions coming to her with respect to her service as US Secretary of State; and, when Bernie Sanders sarcastically chimed in that, she was paid fifteen million dollars for her speeches and some of the content of the speeches must be so sacrosanct or great, that she will not want to share them with the rest of the public. Bernie’s prickly comment that Wall Street was not expending all that money without expecting something, including their funding of her PAC groups to help solidify her candidacy and campaign for the White House, Hillary hardly collapsed under pressure. She maintained a solid and convincing demeanor, reasserting herself by maintaining that contrary to all the noise of building a very huge and beautiful wall coming from the republican front-runner, she is convinced that the right thing to do is not to engage in mass deportation of undocumented immigrants around us today; rather, it is to facilitate bringing families together under one roof. If this issue was to become something to fight over, it was hardly coming from Bernie Sanders, as he reiterated that there was not going to be a deportation of undocumented immigrants under his administration; rather, Bernie was more interested in creating more jobs for Latino Youths and harnessing their support to further his campaign.

Finally, maybe Secretary Clinton’s admonishment that she is proud of the campaign that Senator Sanders and herself are running; and the difference between both campaign teams are reminiscent of the fine qualities of either candidate attempting to represent the Democratic Party at the general election, is fantastic. For as much as either of these candidates want to triumph at the polls for nomination, they still defer to each other, regarding the qualification and veracity of each campaign teams, edifying each other’s campaign and acknowledging the worth of each other’s argument without being disrespectful or demeaning to the ideas and the foundation of each other’s campaign for the White House oval office. That is what superb politics ought to be; that is what makes great men and women of America see a future in the type of leaders offering themselves to step into the shoes of the outgoing President of the United States. As citizens of the greatest democracy on earth, we hope the opposition party candidates’ will borrow a leaf from these two fine Democrats making America great, not by being discourteous, xenophobic or outlandish in their ideas, policies and or proposals in seeking the office of, Mr. or Mrs. President!