Run Joe run.

Chapel Hill is a beautiful place to live.   Despite every effort to undermine it by a now rightist controlled legislature, UNC remains one of the county’s greatest public institutions of higher learning.  The number of Duke faculty who call it home, further reinforces that we are a university town.  They are joined by a host of high tech and pharmaceutical professionals.  Chapel Hill is among the most progressive places where one can live, a liberal bubble in a swing state.  Politics hadn’t heated up when I arrived here in 2006, but that would change as we closed in on the '08 presidential vote.   People here are politically engaged.  Soon bumper stickers appeared, and in this Democratic dominated place they tended to be either for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  There were more Obama stickers (mine included), but a large number for Hillary.  It was a contest with heartfelt enthusiasm and conviction on both sides.  Obama ultimately prevailed here in the primary and then in the November election.

Fast forward to 2015 where, at this early date, presidential politics dominates the news.  Even so, I’m not seeing any bumper stickers for the seventeen announced GOP candidates — this is a Democratic stronghold — but am struck by what I do see: “Vote Bernie”.  I have yet to encounter Hillary’s name displayed in a local parking lot.  Moreover, while inundated by emails and mailings from the 2008 Obama campaign — they still keep coming even though he isn’t running in ’16 — I have seen only sporadic snail mail from the assumed Democratic nominee.  Perhaps that’s because I haven’t responded to the few that have come; in itself a big contrast from eight years ago when I had already contributed to Obama’s exploratory.  Are we ready for Hillary?  As I’ve written before, not so much, not yet.  The “Vote Bernie” bumper stickers tell me that I’m not alone.  Does that mean that I might be ready for Bernie?  Absolutely not.  I’ve cast my McGovern vote and won’t travel toward that dead end again.  Also, bumper stickers notwithstanding, Bernie commanded a paltry crowd of 200 when he appeared recently in neighboring (and even more activist liberal) Carrboro. 

It’s no wonder we’re hearing that Joe Biden may be seriously considering a run.  Months ago, as in 2008, Hillary was already considered the presumptive nominee and once again something seems to be missing.  In fact, even without the charismatic Obama in the mix, the level of Hillary enthusiasm seems, if anything, to be lower.   Disturbingly, polls give her a negative rating on both honesty and trustworthiness.  In many respects, these are the result of self-inflicted wounds, one’s that I have written about before.  I’m not of course talking about Benghazi, a politically fabricated scandal reminiscent of Whitewater.  I do think Clinton-wealth and foundations contributions are part of the problem, but perhaps not as much as her use of a personal email account while at State.  It isn’t that she did anything illegal; it is rather the optics — not what it is, but what it says.  In often tone-deaf ways the Clinton’s, emulating Frank Sinatra, like to do things, “their way”.

My question continues to be, “what was she thinking?”   Clearly, Hillary never lost the presidential bug and knew from the day Obama won the nomination that she would run again.  She knew it and everyone, most especially her close advisors, expected it.   So if your positioning yourself for a presidential run and you know how treacherous those waters can be — certainly the Clintons know from personal experience — why do something that departs from the norm?   Why raise a red flag?  Yes others, including Jeb Bush, have used personal emails while in public office, but once his brother became president few people, including him, expected a run.  He also wasn’t Secretary of State, among those in the line of succession.  The perception is that rules are not made for a Clinton, that in fact a Clinton makes her or his own rules.  It bespeaks a sense of entitlement; exactly what lost Hillary the all but certain nomination in 2008.  History may repeat itself.

The question of a Biden candidacy first surfaced in late June.  At that time, I posted a blog, “Why not Joe”.  It was a statement, not a question.   Nothing has happened in the intervening weeks that would change my mind.   If anything, my unease about the coming election has grown and, despite some good speeches on substantive issues, my “not so much” feeling about Hillary has become, if anything, stronger.  This is not to suggest that the GOP is offering any alternative.  Among their crowded field are men who have been elected governors of substantial states or who serve in the Senate, but they are all avowed conservatives.   Many have taken their states backwards.  I shudder to think, for example, whom they might appoint to the Supreme Court.  In that regard, Hillary stands head and shoulders above them — no contest.  It is rather that she has done nothing to assuage my (and I think our) uneasy feeling.  At this point, I don’t see any of the announced Democrats as a credible option.  On the other hand, Joe Biden has done everything to make me feel better about him, starting with his obvious humanity but mostly his take on the issues of the day.   A devout Catholic, he was out in front of Obama on marriage equality.  He doesn’t merely understand the middle class; he is one of them.   Like Obama and sometimes more so, he has been reluctant to get us involved in more unwinnable wars.

Biden is older than Clinton, but not by much.  His biggest negative at this time in history is not his unpredictable mouth, but that he is a man.  That is disappointing for anyone like me who would so much like to see a woman in the Oval.  Is Hillary qualified for that job?  Absolutely, but she brings in a lot of baggage, some of which might prove to heavy to withstand the general election against, say, Jeb Bush or worse a Scott Walker.  What’s truly sad is that while there are some very able women, especially in the Senate, none (aside from Elizabeth Warren) has been allowed to even position herself for a run.  That said, several would be powerful Biden running mates, among them Warren, Kristen Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar and Patty Murray.   Would it be even better if one or all of them would run for president?   Yes, but I don’t think that’s likely in what has become a late date for a new face on the national scene.  Moreover, someone like New York’s Gillibrand would be hard pressed to challenge the woman whose seat she took seven years ago.

Could Joe Biden defeat Hillary Clinton for the nomination?   I don’t know, but it’s clear to me that he has a far better chance than any of the currently announced candidates.   I don’t take Sanders poll numbers and crowds for more than an expression of “none of the above”, most pointedly, Clinton.   In fact, I’d venture that many Democratic voters would be hard pressed to even name the others much less know anything about them.   Biden would give Hillary a real run  — I hesitate to say a run for her money — and he could win.  If he does, Democrats might have an even better chance of retaining the White House.  If she prevails in a real challenge the same can be said of Hillary.   I guess my bottom line is pretty simple, run Joe run.

OMG, he is us.

Donald Trump is surging in New Hampshire polls.  Okay America, what is it that you want?  I don’t think Trump has any real chance of gaining the Republican nomination, but that doesn’t mean his candidacy and early poll performance is irrelevant.  In a different time, someone like that might never have entered the fray, much less been taken at all seriously.  But this is now, not then.  The ugliness that Trump spews tokens what has happened to the GOP but also, as the seasoned journalist Howard Fineman recently suggested in the Huffington Post, to America.  The only difference is that The Donald says things out loud that others only think or have found a way to convey in more “correct” language codes.   Of course, when he disses the heroism of John McCain, the other presidential wannabes express outrage.  How quickly and conveniently they forget their collective delight when John Kerry, another war hero, was maliciously swift boated in 2004.  Trump insults immigrants and draws heat, but Republican members of the House and Senate push what are in effect anti-immigrant bills.   Trump’s mass-market persona was born on reality TV, the kind millions watch more religiously than they go to church.  His presidential campaign is just its latest iteration, this one staged without network sponsorship.  But, not to worry, the media are along for the ride, milking every last drop of controversy for their own financial benefit.

There is a sad irony in all of this.  At a time of blatant income inequality, many of the 99% still seem to adore the Trumps of this world, never connecting them with their own economic decline.  But perhaps more importantly, we should look at the allure of his loose tongue as another expression of citizen disillusionment.  He is his own tea party and not surprisingly has gained some traction among its fellow travelers.  If Bernie Sanders and even Hillary Clinton are tapping into Democratic populism, it’s because across the land, right and left, there is a sense that something has gone terribly wrong with the American dream.  The dysfunction of Congress, the continuing VA ineptness, or the tyranny of big money and lobbyists drives most of us to despair and even cynicism.  Add to that a parade of high profile officeholder corruption cases being prosecuted and conversely the fact that the executive level bankers and manipulators who nearly took our economy down — they are making more money than ever — have gone scot free.  Taken together, the public trust has been badly undermined.  Candidates tell us in almost every election cycle that our best days still lie ahead, but we have come see those claimants as the proverbial “criers of wolf” in reverse.

Confidence — consumer and every other kind — is low, especially with regard to governments and institutions.  The economy is vastly better on paper, but the majority of people, regardless of how they have faired, feel untouched by it.  In 2001 we were given a new century "Pearl Harbor" shock, this time on the “homeland”.   Fourteen years later, much spilled blood, incalculable trauma among battle survivors and trillions of dollars spent, the world seems less stable, less safe than ever.  If bin Laden’s band was a threat, ISIS seems geometrically more so.  Sunni and Shia are locked in mortal combat, but what concerns some (myself included) is that ultimately we could have a revival of the age-old Muslim-Christian conflict, hints of which can be seen in tensions across Europe, even in progressive countries like Denmark.  Cries of “death to the United States” probably should be taken as a placeholder for what more accurately is “death to the West” or "to non-Muslims".

While some of his comments seem calculated, Trump often appears to speak before he thinks.  He is only interested in the moment when the cameras are rolling or an audience is at hand.  He has no real plans but promises outcomes without even hinting at how they will be achieved.  He is boastful, exaggerating his successes, his popularity and, most certainly, his net worth.  What’s so unnerving is that, in doing so, he reflects our collective way: limited attention span, a focus on the short term, a lack of (and sometimes disdain for) deep thinking and, yes, a boasting — “the greatest country on earth”.  We see this reflected in our financial markets with their fickle devotion to quarterly results, in our need for instant gratification, and in our public policy and governance where continuing resolutions or very short term funding for essential programs increasingly rule the day.  Any kind of introspection or, horror of horrors, self-criticism is seen as un-American, always symbolized to me in those silly flag buttons that both Obama and Biden still seem compelled to wear on their lapels. 

In short, it is not only that Donald Trump is so bad, but also that in some disturbing ways he is us.  Absolutely not, you’ll say (and I want to say), but he is the epitome of “only in America”.  Not your America, not mine?  We wish.  It is the America of I, of me, of selfies.  It’s the place of “I’m okay” so I assume you’re okay and, even if not, it’s not really of my concern or business.  It is the America of blogs and self-proclaimed pundits (this one included) — Frank Rich rightly calls us bloviators.  Exercising, and often abusing, our right of free expression,  we say what we want with no real responsibility to verify, much less to do.  I try hard to think before I write, to add substantiation links to claims, but carry no responsibility of delivering on policies that I might suggest or support.   It’s the world of Twitter, where we often tweet before we think, not to mention say outlandish things within the required shorthand characters.  You get the point.

When things seem at their worst, some of us like to employ the cliché, “we get the best government money can buy”.   That rings especially true in the post Citizens United world, but like most clichés, it misses the real point.  Most of us are not buyers.  We are just plain old voters or, maddingly, non-voters.  Yes advertising can influence opinion (probably less that those who make their living from it would suggest) and turnout can be impacted by money spent on the ground.  But ultimately we get the government, certainly the president, whom we (or the majority) have elected.  Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama reflected us at a moment in time.  Donald Trump’s current poll standing, the “surge” may reflect name recognition and deft marketing of the moment more than anything else.  It’s unlikely to stand the test of time.  But the idea that “he is us” shouldn’t be quickly dismissed.  It’s something about which we all should be concerned.

Born on the 14th of July

We’ve seen so much focus on war and killing, that it’s more than refreshing to see a major step toward future peace.  It’s also a relief.  Barack Obama and John Kerry (who did the heavy lifting) along with Iran’s negotiators have rendered us a great service in securing a deal.  Combined with ending our ineffective fifty-year isolation of Cuba, the president perhaps more than any other recent White House occupant, is taking us forward rather than keeping us mired in the past.  He is thinking of and for the next generation.  It is a great day for the world and for the United States of American.  It is also, I firmly believe, a great day for the Mideast and especially so for Israel and its security.

Unsurprisingly, Bibi Netanyahu who traffics in fear not peace has loudly denounced the deal.  He even made a desperate and comical 11^th hour appeal in Farsi to the Iranian people, effectively siding with their hardliners.  Not so strange bedfellows.  I don’t really get this man.  He seems so consistently to be working against his country’s best and even vital interests.   Thinking in the context of our own politics, I see Bibi as a combination of the angry John McCain with the staged bluster of Donald Trump.  Aside from the occasional disingenuous smile, his trademark demeanor is best described by the Yiddish word “verbissen” — embittered doesn’t quite do it justice.  With regard to Iran, Netanyahu’s hand in the negotiations has always been weak starting with Israel’s being the region’s only nuclear state.  But his real weakness stems directly from his part in the failure of John Kerry’s earlier marathon effort to bring peace between Israel and Palestine.   Bibi is no Begin, no Rabin.  Potential and real enemies may surround Israel, but neither Egypt nor Jordan with whom they made peace are among them.  The real existential threat Israel faces is far more from not having made peace with the Palestinians than from hostile Arab states or Iran.

The occupation of Palestine has been used as an excuse for, and rallying point of, often-hyped hostility and hate pointed toward Israel.  Ending the occupation and finally seeing a Palestinian State would take the wind out of that sail.  Sadly, Bibi and his hardline rightist cohort use the same excuse in reverse.  It was employed disgracefully before our Congress and in drumming up fear in Israel’s last election.  As he pontificates to the cheers of the Aipac crowd or his conservative GOP soul mates, the marketing of fear as a must-have consumer product is palpable.  Forget the moral need to end the occupation or making peace with Israel’s closest neighbor and potential economic partner.   Completing the deal upon which Kerry worked so hard would have put Israel in a totally different position.  Beyond, lowering hostility it in the region, Bibi could have been an active partner in the Iran negotiations.  That Israel was left on the sidelines rests totally on his shoulders.  Indeed, just as I believe George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq increased the treat to our national security, I believe Bibi’s showmanship has undermined Israel’s.

The American, Israeli and Iranian publics don’t want the war that might have broken out absent a nuclear deal.   Iran is a country of sophistication with a rich tradition and a substantial educated middleclass.  It was the first nation (albeit under the Shah) to recognize the State of Israel with whom it had good relations.  Iran would make a better partner than adversary.  That’s true for us and equally true for countries in the region including Israel.  Yes, they have a theocratic society and only limited democracy, but so too do many of the nations whom we count as allies, most notably the Saudis.  They can be repressive, but so too can China and Egypt.   You get the point.

Today was an important step toward a Mideast reset, but at least one more is needed.   The urgency of ending the stalemate between Israel and Palestine has never been greater, nor the moment with more promise.  Removing the nuclear threat from the table is a very big deal.  Removing the time bomb threatening the Holy Land would be equally so.  It would be wonderful if Kerry could return to that work, but time is running out on this administration.  Peace in the Mideast will likely be part of the coming presidential debate, another reason to fear that one of the now fifteen wannabes will take charge of the White House.  We don’t want Bibi or his thinking pulling strings in the Oval.

Bernie

Bernie Sanders won’t win the Democratic nomination, won’t even get close.  In fact, I’d argue that rather than representing a real challenge, a real alternative, to Hillary, he assures her win, earlier rather than later.  He is the wrong challenger and disappointingly so.  Let me explain.

Before going any further, I like and greatly respect Bernie.  I agree with much, perhaps most, of what he says.  Sanders is absolutely right to focus on issues like income inequality and has the record to do so credibly.  I share his view that it perhaps the most significant economic issue of our age and have written about it in earlier posts.  Until and including now, no one has meaningfully taken up that cause, and most importantly no ones — plural — have done so.  While millions of Americans are personally and directly impacted by inequality, there has been no popular uprising.   That continues to mystify me.  A few demonstrations here and there don’t stimulate change. Politicians and the public at large simply don’t take efforts that quickly peter out seriously.  That’s especially true post Citizen United when elected officials are so disturbingly dependent on the 1% to finance super expensive campaigns.

It is also true that many Democrats, myself included, still harbor doubts about or lack real enthusiasm for Hillary.  But equally true is that it seems no expected contender — a sitting popular senator or governor, for example — has even hinted that she or he might consider a run.  Yes, Sanders is a sitting senator, but again he has long claimed to be an independent not a Democrat.  So far the only other candidates are two ex-governors (one a former Republican) and a former one-term senator.  None of them is risking their day job for a candidacy as Clinton, Obama, Biden and others did in ‘08.

Don’t misread this.  I have long hoped for and advocated a strong challenge to Ms. Clinton both because of my doubts but more importantly to give her a real test, make her a better candidate if she gets the nomination.  She did a great favor to Obama in that regard.  Bernie Sanders won’t do the same for her.  Does he have the capacity to turn the conversation and perhaps push her further to the left?  To some degree that may happen but, in my view, only at the margin and probably with minimal substance.  As I’ve written before Hillary in 2016 is not Bill in 1990.  Thanks to the hard right shift of Republicans, Democrats (including Clinton) have generally moved more left, though I doubt very far left.  One could actually argue that the GOP’s rightist turn may ultimately keep Democrats in the center aiming to fill the vacuum left when moderates like Lincoln Chaffee abandoned their party.  The common truism that most Americans are in the center may be overly simplistic and overblown, but so too is any idea that they have substantively shifted to the left.  Any candidate in either party must win among so-called independents many of whom pride themselves in not being too ideological.

I saw a photo of an enthusiastic group of young people cheering at a Sanders rally.  I’m not surprised since, just at in 2008, they hunger for something new.  Understanding that, one of Mark Rubio’s major arguments is that Hillary (and by extension Jeb!) represent yesterday not tomorrow.  Leaving aside his overall message, I think he touches on one of her challenges and perceived weaknesses.  But moving beyond a rally of cheering young people or even a series of them, does Bernie Sanders really represent tomorrow in a time where optics are so very important.  More pointedly, if you really want the next president to enter office at age 75, wouldn’t you rather have someone with the national experience of a Joe Biden at 73?  I would.  Just as it will be difficult for a multi-millionaire and friend of the super rich to argue the income inequality case, so too will it be difficult for Bernie Sanders to argue the “tomorrow not yesterday” case.

We’re told that the Clinton campaign is taking the Sanders candidacy seriously and they should.  He may gain some traction in Iowa and in his neighboring state of New Hampshire.  I welcome any influence he might have on pushing her further from the center.  Nevertheless, risking making a forward prediction (always precarious) and admitting that I may be totally wrong, my sense is that there is a good chance she will dispatch his candidacy early and often.  Would that be the case had Elizabeth Warren decided to run?  Perhaps, but she would have been a much stronger contender.

Bernie Sanders is an excellent human being and senator.  The senate and we are better for having him in the room, but I suspect also only marginally so.  He is getting a fair amount of attention, as he should.  Some of it I fear is because the press desperately wants to attract eyeballs and, as such, seeks to invent a hot contest even if one hardly exists.  Is that too harsh, not on the press but on Bernie’s effort?  Well, I didn’t mean it that way, but perhaps it reflects my frustration that we still seem to have but one viable option, as Frank Rich has put it, “no Plan B”.  Bernie Sanders candidacy hasn’t changed that at all.