About the Democratic Presidential candidates’ debate, I see it quite differently than the pundits that I have read, have seen it.

For one thing, the pundits all have a stake in the candidates, and that is primarily a stake in the Democratic DC Establishment candidate and long-time favorite, Hillary Clinton. The pundits all want to support a winner.

As I previously stated, my conclusion was that both top candidates, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton did very well making their case, utilizing their advantages, and defending against their projected faults.

Personally, I don’t think there would be much change in the polls for Clinton or Sanders. The other three candidates are not taken seriously for obvious reason, lack of financial and voter support.


Of course as far as I am concerned, the Democratic primary has always been between the more well-known Centrist and DC Establishment Hillary Clinton trying to give the appearance of being liberal progressive this time around, and the relatively unknown but genuine liberal progressive, Bernie Sanders.

The Democratic Party is primarily made up of working Middle Class and Poor who tend to be liberal progressive and if they do not have a liberal progressive candidate nominated, they most often just do not vote for the lesser of two evils in the general election or they vote for a Third Party liberal progressive like Ralph Nader, who made the 2000 election close enough for the Neocon Republican U.S. Supreme Court to decide for W. Bush in the outrageous decision Bush vs. Gore.

In 2004, the liberal progressives did not have a candidate to vote for and just refused to vote, after Centrist and DC Establishment candidate, Sen. John Kerry, threw their liberal progressive candidate, Howard Dean, under the bus.

In 2008, no one gave the Black liberal progressive Barack Obama the chance of a ‘snowball in hell’, of winning the primary away from the favorite Centrist DC Establishment Hillary Clinton; both candidates played their respective parts and Obama drew out the liberal progressive Democratic voters, and won.

Obama’s real challenge in 2008, was getting the Centrist DC Establishment voters out for the general election after having their ego bruised from Hillary’s defeat. And, America elected its first Black President instead of their first female President. Probably, the questionable Republican candidates, McCain and Palin actually won the general election for Obama.

In this 2016 primary, Clinton is playing it differently from the 2008 primary, making every effort to appeal to the liberal progressives without losing the Centrist DC Establishment voters; it is not easy for her. However, she has another distinct advantage, being the potential First Female President of the United States; this election gives every indication of being the year of the woman.

And, I personally had to laugh at one line of Sec. Clinton in the debate; she made the statement, yes I am a moderate but I am also a progressive, but she stopped short of saying ‘liberal’ progressive. I thought that was really playing it very close, and wondered if she just couldn’t say ‘liberal’ or whether it was planned to be strictly cautious, and not use the term ‘liberal’. Overall, Hillary made a good effort at appearing progressive, even if not liberal (I say that jokingly).

It is still early for the 2016 elections. I would make no bets on the Democratic primary at this point.

But, the hill is steep for Sanders to climb; he has to buck the Corporate main stream news media, the Democratic Party Establishment, and wealthy contributors; but he appears to be doing well in getting to the working Middle Class and Poor support by word of mouth and gum-shoeing around the countryside, which is what he has to do to win.

Sanders has to do it all with organizing the voters and without contributions or endorsements or help from the Democratic establishment, to reach the working Middle Class and Poor Democratic voters.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party appears to be doing all it can to elect whoever the Democratic candidate is.

Instead of positive appeal to voters, the Republicans are totally working on negatives like ‘skeletons’ in Clinton’s closet, mostly fabricated, and they have nothing on Sanders except claims he is a socialist because he is defending Social Security, Medicare, the U.S. Postal Service (which is provided for in the U.S. Constitution), and public education at and including the College level. And these are all programs appealing to the working Middle Class and Poor.

Sanders has been criticized for calling the 2016 elections a revolution, which it is, or it is a counter-revolution of the “Citizens United Decision” which had made elections nothing less than purchases by the highest bidders; however, the ‘Citizens United Effect’ is well recognized by the voters and voters have found it disgusting and basically disenfranchising them as voters.

Unfortunately, voters their self do not know how to undo the U.S. Supreme Court’s empowerment of corporations and wealth, however the People will in all probability accept reference to the 2016 elections as a kind of ‘revolution’, in in absence of any other word for it. This might give Sen. Sanders some small advantage over Sec. Clinton.

Whoever the Democrats nominate, will seemingly have an advantage over the caliber of the many Republican nominees, who offer very little for working Americans; but the real challenge for Democrats is the Democratic candidates for Congress and candidates for State offices.

The Democrats are still suffering from the first Citizens United election in the census year 2010, when Republicans successfully won State offices and Gerrymandered Congressional districts; there isn’t a clear remedy for Gerrymandering other than judicial relief, and after eight years of President W. Bush’s judicial appointments and seven years of Republicans filibustering Obama judicial appointments, the courts are politically partisan Neocon Republican.

Another ongoing problem of American government is getting the best qualified citizens to run for office; unfortunately, running for office requires a great sacrifice. Candidates and their families are treated brutally by opposition, often threatened, and successful citizens have to give up a more comfortable and lucrative private life to serve their civic responsibilities as an officer of the Government. It no longer appears to be an honor to serve the People as an elected officer of government.

The terrible state of the Republican Congress and the sorry state of the Republican Party seems to favor the Democrats in the next elections; but the problem of the Democrats will be overcoming the vast spending by corporations and wealthy individuals, in the 2016 elections.

It will be a most interesting election; the question is, will the People participate and vote in 2016 and will the two political parties play their right political game, to win. There are no sure bets in life!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.