Howard Dean: Democrats Need a 50 State Strategy

Source:Grabien- The Beat With Ari Melber & former Governor Vermont and DNC Chairman Howard Dean (2005-09)

Just to start this off, I'm a JFK Liberal Democrat. I'm a big tent Democrat. And if you think about it, that's the only way Democrats have ever won any national election, at least in the TV era. John F. Kennedy had Liberals like himself, conservative blue-collar Democrats, Northeastern Progressives, and Southern and rural Dixiecrats. And he still barely beat Richard Nixon, who was the sitting Vice President of the United States, in a very popular Eisenhower Administration in 1960. 

And people are going to say that 1960 is not 2024. And I'll respond by saying: "Well, water is not fire. But you are missing the point". Democrats will never win a national election with just white-collar, new-tech, hipsters, who drink coffee all day, from their favorite coffee house. Mixed in with militant Socialists, who want to democratically take down the American, Federal, form of government, and replace it with some type of socialist state. There just aren't enough white-collar yuppies and Socialists, for the Democrats to even win California, statewide, let alone with a presidential election and compete not just in swing states, but mainstream Democratic states like Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey. (Just a few examples) 

So, I go back to 1960, but go up to 1992 and 96 with Bill Clinton, look at Barack Obama in 2008 and 12, Joe Biden in 2020. What these campaigns had in common, is that they were all big tent campaigns. I mean then Governor Bill Clinton won Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia, in 1992. Not just Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, all states that Kamala Harris lost in 2024. 

Go up to 2008, then Senator Barack Obama wins Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, to go with the Democratic Blue Wall states. 

4 years ago, Joe Biden wins Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, to go along with the Blue Wall states and got real close in North Carolina. 

And of course left-wing Democrats as well as people who I at least call Yuppycrats, are going to say that American politics has changed and the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are just not the same anymore. My counterargument to that is that it's not so much that the country has changed politically. But it's the Democratic Party that has changed. 

The Democratic Party today is heavily dependent on big money, big, individual donors, who don't like MAGA and want to protect the country from MAGA. And the Democrats have taken that money and perhaps haven't replaced their grassroots organizations with all the individuals doing to the day-to-day, on the ground political work, but they're more dependent now on big advertising, in big and mid-size media markets, and do a lot less on the ground political campaigning, while relying on big name, "hot celebrities", the so-called fabulous people, to do a lot of their groundwork for them. 

So this brings me to what I think the Democrats should be doing instead. As I said yesterday, America is still 35-40% working class. 70% middle class, which combines both blue-collar and white-collar workers. The most reliable voters in America, are people who go to work everyday, who work very hard for their money, to pay their bills. Hoping to put some money away, and trying to give their kids a better opportunity at life, then they had when they started out. 

So exit polls from Statista indicate how both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris did with certain income groups in America: 

"Exit polls of the presidential election in the United States in 2024, share of votes by household income

According to exit polling in ten key states of the 2024 presidential election in the United States, 46 percent of voters with a 2023 household income of 30,000 U.S. dollars or less reported voting for Donald Trump. In comparison, 51 percent of voters with a total family income of 100,000 to 199,999 U.S. dollars reported voting for Kamala Harris." 

From Statista

If you look at the Statista poll, only to income groups that Vice President Harris won, were people making under 30,000 dollars and over 100,000 dollars. Not what you would call high turnout, reliable voters, since low-income workers tend not to vote at all for multiple reasons and Americans who make over 200,000 dollars in America, is still fairly small to the rest of the country. Which gets me back to my point about Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. 

The famous bank robber Willie Sutton coined the phrase: "Go where the money is". He was once asked: "Why do you rob banks?" With his reply being: "Because that's where the money is". Take that line of thinking up to a political sense and I would add you have to go where the votes are. American presidential elections are always decided by middle class voters and at least to a certain extent blue-collar workers. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, never get near The White House (at least as President) without these voters. 

And this takes me up to Howard Dean's 2005-06 50 state strategy, but take it up 20 years: 

"Watch: Dem leader who powered wins after Bush re-election on thwarting Trump's second term... 

From MSNBC

"Howard Dean: The Democratic Party's 50 state strategy has gone into som disrepair"

From Grabien

Now, when I'm talking about a Democratic 50 state strategy, am I expecting Democrats to win back Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and West Virginia? No, of course not. 

But the last time that Iowa had a Democratic governor, was Chet Culver from 2007-11. 

The last time a Democrat won the governor's mansion in Missouri, was 2008. 

The last time that Indiana won the governor's race, was 2003. Phil Bredesen was a two-term Democratic Governor of Tennessee from 2003-11. 

Kentucky and North Carolina both have Democratic governors right now. 

Roy E. Barnes was a Democratic Governor of Georgia from 1999-03. 

There's fairly recent evidence, as well as current evidence, of Democrats not just competing, but winning in overwhelmingly, blue-collar states, that lean right on cultural issues, but where Democrats can play and win, if they focus on economic issues. The current Governor of Kansas, is Laura Kelly, she's a Democrat, she was reelected in 2022. 

The 50 state strategy is not about winning every single state and being the governing party in every single state at the same time. But instead it's about shooting for the stars and seeing how many stars that you can hit. Aiming for perfection knowing that you'll never be perfect, but doing that to see how good you can be, how close to perfection that you can get. Instead of what the Yuppycrats are doing now, which is raising as much money as possible, from big donors, in hoping of holding the Blue Wall and winning all the Deep Blue states, to be a governing party in America. 

If you look Vice President Harris's campaign message in 2024, it was mostly about freedom and opportunity. And you could argue that she made her freedom message too much about reproductive rights and let's say non-straight people rights and didn't have a broader and big enough freedom agenda, that included reproductive rights and rights for non-straights in America. And I would argue that. But her message wasn't a far-left, big government, socialist and nanny state agenda. 

The Vice President's downfall was that she didn't reach enough voters. Perhaps she didn't ignore the Clinton/Obama/Biden coalition, that had both white-collar, as well as blue-collar voters, but she didn't reach enough blue-collar voters. And it cost her and the Democrats the election. 

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Why The Democrats Lost

Source:PBS News- this photo is not meant to be insulting. At least not on my part.

The Democratic Party is going to make a huge decision about the future of this party in February or March. Which of course will be deciding who will essentially be the leader of the party, since they're going to be out of The White House again. And that position of course will be its next Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. 

But before the Democrats do that, I think we need to look at why they're going to be out of The White House for at least the next 4 years and why they're going to be the opposition party again, as well as the minority party in Congress, and why there will even be an election to nominate it's new leader. Instead of a President Kamala Harris just appointing the new DNC Chairman, while serving as the party leader. 

I think the popular thing in American politics right after an election, is to jump right in and write your own article about what went right and what went wrong. Even do it that Wednesday morning, if not late Tuesday night (if we already know who the next President will be) and give your 2 cents (even it's not even worth a penny) about what you think went well and what went wrong about the election. But I wanted to think about it and make sure I get this right. Plus, I literally had other things to do with this blog, like setting up pages for it, which took me at least another week after the election to do, so we're ready to go completely again by December. And be ready for the return of President Donald Trump.  

So I'm going to give you a few reasons why the Democrats lost The White House in 2024. It's not all President Biden's and Vice President Harris's fault. But they're both towards the top of the list. 

Remember then citizen Joe Biden promising not to run for President in 2020: 

"Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term.

While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.

According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president.

“If Biden is elected,” a prominent adviser to the campaign said, “he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.” 

From Politico

Even by October, 2023, it would've been too late for President Biden to drop out. But it would've been better than dropping out 6 months ago:

"Bill Maher called on Joe Biden to drop out of the 2024 presidential election, saying the 80-year-old incumbent is too old to run for president and likened him to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The host of “Real Time with Bill Maher” mocked Biden on Friday night, describing the president as the “only democrat who can lose to Trump,” despite the men only having a four-year age difference.

“Someone has to convince President Biden that if he runs again, he’s going to turn the country back over to Trump and go… down in history as Ruth Bader Biden, the person who doesn’t know when to quit and so does great damage to their party and their country,” Maher said, referring to the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg notoriously decided to not retire during the Obama administration when she could have been replaced with a liberal justice, only to die at the age of 87 in September 2020 during the Trump administration." 

From The New York Post

I don't agree with comedian Bill Maher on everything. But when he's right, he's damn right. (You put that stronger) And he called it in October, 2023: 

"The issue with President Biden isn’t if he will be replaced - it's who will replace him." 

From Real Time With Bill Maher

To put it simply: if President Biden announced let's say by April, 2023, that he promised not to run for reelection in 3-1/2 years a go to assure voters that he would pass the torch (so to speak) and because it was time "for a new generation of leadership", the Democratic Party would've had a full primary season and Vice President Kamala Harris probably wins the nomination anyway. And she would've been my preferred candidate right out of the gate. And all those townhalls, those debates, those TV interviews, that she didn't want to do this summer and to a certain extent this fall, all those things would've been taken care of during late 2023 and early 2024. 

And it's not just that President Biden broke his promise not to run for reelection. It's why he did that is even worst, his lack of reasoning for it. He made it about the economy and that he was the only person up to task of bringing down the high cost of living. When the fact is he knew damn well that his background as a public servant is not economics. He made his carer in Congress as a foreign policy and national security expert. As well as criminal justice and the Constitution. Not economic policy. 

The reason why President Biden tried to run for reelection, is the same reason why any other President who ran for reelection did that, because he wanted to be a two-term President. It's almost embarrassing for President's to not get the 2nd term. And probably feels worst when you don't bother to run. Worst than that when you own damn party doesn't want you to run for reelection. 

And to set the record completely straight: my colleague Fred Schneider from The New Democrat argued against what Bill Maher was back 14 months ago and this was his reasoning for it: 

"You can show me all the polls in the Democratic Party that suggest that President Biden shouldn't run for reelection and that Donald Trump might actually beat him. But for me at least to even take those polls seriously, you need someone besides a professional conspiracy theorist, whose in the same age range and generation as both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, to not only announce their own presidential campaign, but show polling that suggests that they could not just beat Joe Biden, but then beat Donald Trump next year as well." 

From The New Democrat

And I agreed with Fred at the time. We thought 14 months ago that President Biden was simply the only Democrat who could beat Donald Trump. But then the debate happened and that changed everything for everybody. And to Bill Maher's credit, he saw that President Biden was simply too weak at least politically, to beat Donald Trump 13 months before the election. 

And then we get to Kamala Harris who for the most part inherited a strong campaign, as far as the organization, the people, the infrastructure, the finances. What she gave it, was energy, enthusiasm, and the only way I can put this but political adorableness, where she's just so cute and sweet as a person, it's really hard not to like her, if not love here. Assuming you are not a neanderthal jackass, who thinks that the only job that women should have, is to stay home and make their husbands happy. 

On the downside, Vice President Harris not just starts off Election 2024 as an unpopular Vice President, with a approval rating at around 35%, but where maybe 1/2 American voters (depending on what poll you look at) don't even know who she is, what she believes. 

I was calling for on my Threads page back in July, that Kamala Harris needs to do a series of townhalls, maybe a week after figuring out exactly what kind of presidential campaign she wanted to run and do those townhalls in just the swing states in the beginning. So people, especially Independents and Republicans who didn't want to vote for Donald Trump, as well as blue-collar Democrats who were considering voting for Donald Trump based on the economy, could get a good idea of who she and what here values are. 

The Vice President doesn't do any townhalls until October. It's September with CNN anchor Dana Bash, before she does any network interviews at all. So it's not just running for President late, which wasn't her fault, but starting out real late in the gates to even do an interview, that I think set her back. And her first townhall at all was in October with Univision News and CNN. 

And far as as the Harris Campaign's strategy, it seemed to be about maxing out yuppy, white-collar, especially female, yuppy, white-collar voters, of all political backgrounds, including urban and suburban Republican women, to vote for her. And hope African-Americans fall in line, where they were even dragging with President Biden, who did so well with them in 2020. And as far as blue-collar Democrats, I guess they left that up to Governor Tim Walz. 

According to the Roper Center, Barack Obama and John McCain split middle-income voters back in 2008. And then Senator Obama won the union vote with 59% of the vote. In 2012, according to the Roper Center, then President Obama won the union vote with 58 of the vote and they split the middle-income vote. 

According to NBC News: "Biden won 56 percent of union households to Trump's 40 percent, according to NBC News exit polls, doubling Hillary Clinton's 8 percentage-point margin among the group four years ago." 

From NBC News

From Brookings: "The dominant post-election 2024 narrative is that Donald Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris was delivered largely by a multiracial working-class coalition. Backed by certain numbers, this narrative has many Democrats quaking in their 2026 campaign boots. For example, the exit polls show that working-class voters, defined as voters without a college degree, split 56% for Trump to 42% for Harris. The same polls tell us that white working-class voters favored Trump over Harris by 66% to 32%, and that Trump won a larger share of working-class Black and Latino voters than he did in 2020. 

All true, but let’s put those numbers into historical context and then, starting with the white working class, dig into what the exit poll data reveal when you run cross-tabulations by education and sex.1

As I have documented elsewhere, after winning a 56% white working-class majority in 1984 with Ronald Reagan, the GOP lost the majority in the 1990s, then got back to even with George W. Bush in 2000 (50%) and again in 2004 (51%). Mitt Romney won 56% of the white working-class vote in 2012, followed by Trump with 62% in 2016, 59% in 2020, and 66% in 2024. That two-thirds share is impressive, but many other Republican candidates have done as well or better electorally with the white working class. 

For example, in 2022, working-class whites broke 66% for Republican congressional candidates—the same percentage of those voters that Trump won in 2024. And several Republican governors who were not aligned with Trump won more than two-thirds of white working-class votes. For example, in 2022, Florida’s Ron DeSantis, who would go on to challenge Trump for the GOP presidential nomination before becoming his staunch ally, won 70% of the white working-class vote; and Ohio’s Mike DeWine, who received a congratulatory call from President Joe Biden the morning after his reelection win, received 72% of it." 

From Brookings

Left-wing, especially woke, PC oriented, militant, left-wing Democrats, are going to hate hearing this, but the fact is if you want to win a presidential election in America, you go where the votes are and get the voters who are most likely to show up and vote. The country is officially still 70% European racially and ethnically. More like 80% if you included Spanish Latinos who of at least some Spanish descent. As well as 35-40 working class of all backgrounds. 

You can't get blown out with working class European-Americans and then try to make it up with people who don't tend to vote, like white-collar yuppies, young people, and African-Americans, as well as center-right Republicans, who don't want to vote for you anyway. And then think you get these voters with the current "hot celebrities". Who might just want the attention and money anyway.African-Americans will always be a major part of the Democratic Party. But they're still 12% of the country roughly. And European and Asian-Americans still out vote them, at least on a percentage basis. 

Hopefully tomorrow, I'll have my 2nd piece ready for why I believed Democrats lost and where to go from here. But before you can rebuilt anything, (which is what the Democratic Party needs to do now) you have to first know why you have to rebuild in the first place and what went wrong.

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNBC: U.S. Senator. 'Kamala Harris and Joe Biden- Spar Over Record On Race'

Source:CNBC- In this photo, some might get the impression that Bernie Sanders is the Centrist. LOL

"Democratic candidates take the stage together for the first time Wednesday night as they jockey for position in the race to take on President Donald Trump in 2020.

For more political coverage from CNBC subscribe to our newsletters here."

Source:CNBC

As far as my expectations for the Democratic presidential primaries and debates going in, I don't have any one particular candidate that I'm ready to say this is the one.

I don't see a Centrist winning the Democratic nomination and I don't want one as someone who is not a Centrist and has real strong beliefs, principles, and policies.

A Socialist, can't win the general election ( newsflash, for all you Bernie and Liz lovers ) and I'm not a Socialist either, because I don't even want government ( big or small ) to try to do everything for me or anyone else, especially if I have to pay for these so-called services, which might seem more like a prison sentence for the lack of individual choice and freedom that could come about if a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is actually ever elected President of the United States.

A Democratic Centrist, ( if there is such a thing anymore ) would put most American voters ( especially Millennial's ) into a national coma because of how boring they are and no one would ever want to vote again, because they see politics as so boring. And Americans are just crazy this way in the sense that they tend to actually want to know what political candidates actually think, before they decide to support them or not. And as much as they might actually like sleeping, they don't want to be put asleep by politician all the time, just when they're having trouble sleeping.

And Americans primarily don't want Uncle Sam coming in and taking over and trying to manage their economic affairs ( and if the nanny statists come in as well ) not their personal affairs for them either and make Americans believe that they're now living in national boot camp, prison, or boarding school. 

So just both as a Democrat and a voter, I believe the Democrats best shot at winning the election in 2020, is to not nominate a Socialist who doesn't even know how to pay for all their government spending, but don't nominate a Centrist either who doesn't even know what the hell they believe about anything, or at the very least doesn't know how to communicate their message and politics. But someone who can appeal to both Independents and Democrats. Win the nomination and even unite the party behind him or her, but win the Independents who even voted for Donald Trump, but now want someone else since they now know what kind of President Mr. Trump is. Like nominating an actual Progressive or Liberal, not closeted Socialist, but the real things.

Which finally after years of planning and practicing finally leads into what the video in this piece is actually about: I had three candidates going into the Democratic debates last week and all three of them did fairly well, especially Senator Kamala Harris who at least right now is the real Center-Left Progressive challenger to former Vice President Joe Biden. ( Especially if she ever figures out or takes a position for more than a day on Medicare For All ) Senator Cory Booker, had a real good night last Wednesday and Senator Amy Klobuchar, had a good night as well.

Going into last Wednesday and Thursday night debates, I believed that Senator Kamala Harris and Senator Cory Booker have the best opportunities to represent the Progressive Center-Left against the Socialists and dead and buried center in and outside of the Democratic Party. And watching her go up against Vice President Joe Biden was like watching two boxers in the ring with neither one of them having any real advantage, but with one boxer setting up their big punches and moves, before they just land their big shot and then land several big punches after that to take their opponent down. Kamala, at the very least knocked the frontrunner off of his feet last Thursday. And we''ll see if Joe can get back up. 

The Washington Post: Karen Tumulty: 'Joe Biden Learned The Hard Way There is No Middle Ground On Abortion'

Source:The Washington Post- Joe Biden: flip-flopping on the Hyde Amendment

"There has long been a relatively safe space for a Democratic politician, particularly a Catholic one, to inhabit on the morally fraught issue of abortion.

It was the stance that then-Vice President Joe Biden took during a 2012 debate: “Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” Biden said. “But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. . . . I do not believe we have a right to tell other people — women — that they can’t control their body.”

At the time, that blanket declaration was enough to satisfy most Democrats. It is not anymore — as Biden learned this week, when the man who leads all the polls for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination was thrown off balance on the question of government funding for abortion."

Read the rest of Karen Tumulty's piece at The Washington Post

Source:ABC News: Joe Biden- 'Flips on The Hyde Amendment'- Joe Biden; doing his Mitt Romney, over the Hyde Amendment 

"2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden reversed his stance on a measure that prevents using federal funding for abortions.When former Vice President Joe Biden announced that he was running for President last month, his message and appeal was basically that he wasn't President Donald Trump and that he was different."

If you look at Donald Trump before Barack Obama before he became President and then after he became President, the so-called Donald was basically a mainstream Democrat. A wealthy, New York City businessman who backed Democrats for most of his career. And then a guy named Barack Obama becomes President the first African-American in American history, with the bogus ( to be kind ) and racist birther movement around him and The Donald decides that he wants to be in politics too and becomes the champion of the Far-Right with the birther movement back in 2011.

And then in 2015 The Donald decides he wants to be President after 6 years of a Progressive, African-American President running the country and gets behind the Far-Right on everything in launching his own Nationalist movement in the country and basically other than perhaps tariffs and immigration, reverses course on almost every single political position that he had before. Making Mitt Romney look like the most principled politician that this country has ever seen.

Joe Biden, is running not just as the anti-Trump, but as someone who will change the character of the presidency and get it out of Donald Trump's morality toilet and return honor and decency to the country.

Kind of hard to make that case when on Wednesday of last week you're saying that your support for the Hyde Amendment, ( that was proposed by Representative Henry Hyde in 1976 ) that was passed by Congress in 1976 that then Senator Joe Biden voted for and continued to support during his entire career in the Senate, was a deeply heartfelt view that American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's abortions, ( except in the cases of life and health of the mother, or rape or incest ) and then on Thursday announce you can no longer support an amendment that denies abortion rights to low-income women, even though on Wednesday that you already knew that low-income women couldn't get taxpayer assistance to pay for their abortions.

The Hyde Amendment to me at least is not about whether abortion should be legal in this country: I'm pro-choice on practically everything short of people hurting innocent people with what they're doing, including abortion because I don't believe life starts at conception, but at the last stages of the woman's pregnancy. It's not a question of whether abortion should be legal in America or not, but who should pay for it.

We all make our own choices and we all have our own personal freedom in this country. We also all have our own personal responsibility in this country and are held accountable for our own personal decisions. Why should abortion be any different? I'm not talking about forcing women who are raped including by their own male relatives to be forced to carry that pregnancy to its end. Or denying women abortion even though they need it to protect their health and even life. The Hyde Amendment, has all of these exceptions in it. I'm just saying that American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the abortions of others other than the exceptions that I just laid out. And until last Thursday, Joe Biden shared this exact same position and held that exact same position since 1976 when he voted for the Hyde Amendment when it was passed in that Congress.

People who oppose the Hyde Amendment from the Left, argue that Hyde Amendment denies low-income women the same reproductive rights as women with means in this country who aren't poor and who can afford to get an abortion either from their private health insurance or out of their own pockets. And they're completely right about that, but that's not the issue. This shouldn't be a newsflash for anyone: low-income women simply don't have the same freedom as middle or high income women in this country. And low-income Americans regardless of gender, or race or ethnicity don't have the same freedom in America as middle or high-income Americans either. But that's not unfair, that's just life. You want to have a lot of freedom in America, you need to have the income to finance that freedom. That's just how America has always worked and how it should always be.

Dan Mitchell: ‘An Emerging Anti-Socialist Wing of The Democratic Party?’

Source:Aww Memes- "

SOCIALISM SIGN UP HERE NO WORK FREE STUFF WORK HARD KEEP HALF What's ...

Aww Memes

Meme, Work, and Best: SOCIALISM SIGN UP HERE NO WORK FREE STUFF WORK"

Source:The New Democrat

“Since I’m a policy economist, I rarely comment on political matters.

But I am worried that the Democratic Party is veering too far to the left. Bernie Sanders, an out-of-the-closet socialist is leading the way, followed closely by other leading Democrats with hard-left policy agendas, such as Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.

But not every 2020 candidate is hopping on the socialism bandwagon. Some of the major candidates, such as Joe Biden, have avoided saying anything favorable about socialism.

And two of the candidates have explicitly rejected the poisonous ideology.

Interestingly, they’re both from Colorado.

CNN reports that the former governor, John Hickenlooper. received a very hostile reception when he rejected socialism.”

Read the rest of Dan Mitchell’s piece at International Liberty

Source:Fortune Magazine: 'John Hickenlooper: Meet the 2020 Candidate'- Meet another governor that almost no one has never heard of

"He’s the former Governor of Colorado."

Dan Mitchell is right here, but for obvious reasons: the only evidence that you need to know that not all Democrats and not even a majority and probably more like a small minority of Democrats haven’t all moved to Cuba, Venezuela, Scandinavia ideologically, mentally, and culturally is that Joe Biden is the clear frontrunner right now. When you’re getting 30-40 of all Democratic support right now and you are running for President, you know that the Democratic Party isn’t a socialist party yet. Why, for the obvious reasons that Joe Biden is not a Socialist and never has been.

If you look at the top 5-10 Democratic presidential candidates right now as far as their support, really only Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren are the Socialists running for President. Bernie, being an out-of-the-closet Socialist ( as Dan Mitchell says ) and damn proud of it. With Liz Warren, being a trapped in the closet Socialist who believes in and proposes the exact same policies as Bernie except for a complete government takeover of the health insurance system, but they essentially believe in the same things ideologically.

Bernie and Liz,  would be part of the Center-Left in Europe, but the only problem that they have is that they are running for President of the United States and they are part of the Far-Left here. And the other problem that they have is that they’re both running for and competing for the same voters in the Democratic Party. Whether 20-30% of the Democratic Party are now Socialists, that alone is not enough to win the Democratic nomination and when you have two candidates cancelling each other out because they’re going for the same voters, that makes it even more difficult for even of them to emerge and get beyond the Far-Left of the party.

The reasons why Vice President Biden is doing so well right now, is because you still have a strong Center-Left of the party that still dominates the leadership of the party. Which Joe Biden has been part of his entire political career. And most if not all Democrats ( even if they’re Socialists with Che Guevara t-shirts in the hearts ) want to win in 2020 and are smart enough to know that a Socialist doesn’t win back Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida even against President Donald Trump. And a Socialist wouldn’t even be able to compete with President Trump in North Carolina, Texas, or Arizona. All states except for perhaps Texas where a Joe Biden could compete and perhaps even beat President Trump in.

As far as John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennett, both 2020 presidential candidates: they’re both part of the Center-Left ( the real Progressive Democrats ) wing of the Democratic Party that Joe Biden is running away with right now. And it’s good to see that they’re not Socialists either, ( as if the jury never came back on that ) but they’re probably room for only one Joe Biden type of Center-Left presidential candidate in the party right now, which would explain why he’s currently running away with the polls right now.

Newsweek: 'Joe Biden's Biggest Gaffes'

Source:Newsweek- "Joe Biden's Biggest Gaffes: Quotes, Blunders That Could Hurt a 2020 Presidential Campaign.

"In the wake of Joe Biden's official presidential run announcement, here are eight of Biden's biggest public gaffes."

From Newsweek

Laying out Joe Biden's biggest gaffes, is like trying to layout Michael Jordan's greatest dunks, or Joe Montana's greatest games, Larry Bird's best shots, Magic Johnson's best passes, Martin L. King's greatest speeches, and unfortunately I could go on and hopefully you have a good idea by now. ( If not, seek help )

What people love about Joe Biden, is also what gets him in trouble: what Americans say they want from politicians, is what gets Joe Biden in trouble. He has a tendency to speak from the heart and tell people what he thinks and what he knows and if that was actually what Americans wanted from their politicians, instead of an entire team of ass-kissers and panderers which is what they consistently vote for in both parties, Joe Biden would've already been President by now and Jimmy Carter would've been reelected in 1980. Two men who told the truth or at least were honest time and time again and at least in President Carter's case wasn't very successful as a politician.

To talk about one of Joe Biden's so-called gaffes: it was during the signing of the Affordable Care Act back in 2010 which then Vice President Biden had a role in getting passed through Congress, especially getting it through the Senate after the House already passed the bill where you had some Democratic Senator's who were wavering on the bill, but it finally got passed: Vice President Biden, gives his speech at the signing ceremony where President Obama signs the bill and introduces the President and when he believes so one is looking and I guess forgets that his microphone is still on, tells the President in private: "that this is a big fucking deal" referring to the ACA.

The Vice President got in trouble for doing what we all do in private and what a lot of us do in public on TV ( if you're familiar with cable TV ) which is swear in a public setting. He gets in trouble ( if you want to call it that ) for doing what everyone else does, but perhaps struggles to admit which is to cuss in public.

My point about Americans saying they want politicians in polling to be honest and truthful, but then get on politicians for not telling them they can have all of their cookies, cake, and ice cream ( meaning government services ) and never have to eat their vegetables, ( meaning new taxes ) Biden gets in trouble at least in the media for doing what we all do, but generally in private unless we're really pissed at a bar or in traffic, or at the airport or some place which is let out our anger or amazement through swearing.

I think a lot of Joe Biden's gaffes are just very funny and great material for Saturday Night Live, but a lot of them are really just him getting caught being very blunt and saying exactly what he feels about the given moment and perhaps giving out too much information. And that he represents what Americans tend to say ( at least in polling ) as far as who they want in their politicians: which are honest, truthful people who'll tell them exactly what they think and hear. Even if 2-4 years later they vote those people out for doing exactly what they said they wanted them to do which was to be completely honest and truthful.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Washington Post: Karen Tumulty: 'Joe Biden's Biggest 2020 Competitor May Be Joe Biden'

Source:The Washington Post- Joe Biden:"being Vice President, is just not good enough?"

"Former vice president Joe Biden has finally entered the 2020 presidential campaign. Columnist Karen Tumulty argues that he must prove that he isn't a politician of a different era."

Source:The Washington Post

I mostly agree with what Karen Tumulty said about Joe Biden here, but I guess I would put it differently and add a few things.

If Joe Biden really wants to be President of the United States ( and I believe it's a safe assumption that he does ) he should've ran for President in 2000. Looking back at least, a strong primary run against then Vice President Al Gore would've been good for Vice President Gore and the Democratic Party as well. Gore, only had one opponent at all in 2000 that being former Senator Bill Bradley, who didn't even win a primary against Gore. Then Governor George W. Bush, had a very strong primary challenger in Senator John McCain, which I believe only made the Bush Campaign better because it served as a strong playoff for Bush which of course was the 2020 general election against Gore. Gore didn't have that, because Democrats by 1999 had already decided that they wanted Vice President Gore and didn't make any room for anyone else to run against him.

Then Senator Biden, should've run for President in 2004: as we know now before the Democrats nominated Senator John Kerry as their presidential nominee, Senator Kerry wasn't even the frontrunner before he won the nomination. He had to fight like hell just to try to raise some money and stay alive in late 2003 and wasn't raising any money until he won the Iowa caucus. Senator Biden, would've been a strong contender that year because there were no frontrunners in that election on the Democratic side, but you had a Democratic Party that wanted to win and was prepared to get behind the nominee to defeat President Bush.

Then Vice President Biden, could've run for President for 2016: Hillary Clinton, was a strong frontrunner going in, but if you remember anything from 2007-08 she was not just the strong frontrunner going in to not just win the Democratic nomination then, but to beat Senator John McCain or whoever the Republican Party would nominate for the general election that year. But by the time super Tuesday was over in February 2008, her campaign was all but over, because then Senator Barack Obama won practically every major state on that election night.

It could've occurred to Vice President Biden and someone on his team that maybe Hillary isn't as strong a frontrunner that she may seem to be and probably needs a strong challenger, which is exactly what she got, except it came from the Far-Left in the party from Socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Not from the Vice President of the United States who has 100% name id not just in the party, but in the country. And was a loyal and great Vice President to a popular President in Barack Obama who the Democratic Party absolutely loves.

It's that old cliche that you only get one chance to make a first impression, which of course is not only true but in politics you have to seize on the moments that you get and then take advantage of them. Which is what John F. Kennedy did in 1960, what Jimmy Carter did in 1980, what Bill Clinton did in 1992, what Barack Obama did in 2008. You can't just assume that they'll come back simply because you don't you're ready or you simply don't want to run.

Would Barack Obama really had been the great Democratic contender that he was in 2008 had he waited until 2016 let's say when he had already been in the Senate for 12 years before he decided to run for President, because he wanted more foreign policy experience? We'll never know that of course, but probably not because 12 years later he would've already had a fairly long Congressional record and probably a lot of controversial votes and caught in Congressional speak and sound like a politician going a speech on the floor of the Senate, instead of this young vibrant man who spoke off the cuff and from his heart using beautiful language which is how he won the Democratic nomination in 08 and then the presidency, because he was so fresh, new, and likable, came off as a human being and not just as someone who was running for office.

And with Joe Biden, forget about being in the Senate for 12 years and instead triple that where he was one of the most powerful, influential, and respected not just Senator's who has ever served, but members of Congress that has ever served in either the House or Senate and don't fantasize for a moment that the other Democratic contenders don't know exactly how long Biden's Congressional record is and is going through every possible controversial vote ( at least in today's Democratic Party ) that he has ever made and will try to pull anything out that they can get their hands on that could hurt the former Senator and Vice President.

It's not Vice President Biden's experience that I have issues with: experience is generally a good thing in life especially if you learn from it and then apply correctly and make good judgments, it's the fact that and to paraphrase Joe Biden himself: this is your father's Democratic Party anymore. Even 10 years ago Joe Biden would've been seen as a strong Center-Left Progressive Democrat who fights for the middle class and for civil rights, who wants an America where everyone can succeed, who will also defend and protect the country from foreign and domestic predators. This is what progressivism at least use to be and what it was about and what I believe it still is and what it means to be a Progressive.

The problem that Biden has is that the party is so far to the left now to the point that people who would be viewed as Progressives just 10-20 years ago like Joe Biden and Barack Obama, are now seen as Centrists or even as Conservative Democrats, because you have this large and growing faction of Socialists in the party that view anyone to the Right of them as either Centrists or Conservatives, even if they're Democrats with solid Center-Left credentials. Like a Joe Biden or Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton even who is one of the strongest and most famous Feminists anywhere in the world, but in today's Democratic Party she looks Conservative. Or even Nancy Pelosi who is the Speaker of the House with a long Progressive record in Congress.

But then there's the issue of Senator Biden's Congressional record, so let's talk about this so-called apology tour that he night have to go on to win the Democratic nomination:

It's not that voting for the 2003 Iraq War will be a problem at least in the sense that it was the wrong decision and wrong war and we should've never been involved in and we knew that by the summer of 2003 when we learned that Saddam Hussein not only didn't have nuclear weapons program, but he didn't even had weapons of mass destruction. And then the chaos in the country after the Hussein Regime was toppled without even putting up a fight. Biden, should have to explain that and admit he made a bad call there.

It's the other votes that he had in Congress that 25-30 years later still look like very solid votes at least as far as how the policies turned out, whether the Far-Left of the party likes them or not:

like 1994 Crime Bill where we saw record low crimes rates in America during the 1990s, including in big cities with large minority populations like Chicago, New York, and Washington.

Or how about the 1996 Welfare to Work Law where we saw record lows for poverty in America, because you had all of these people in poverty who were going back to school and getting the skills that they need to become economically self-sufficient and were finally able to get good jobs for themselves. Senator Biden's support for deficit reduction and free trade, you could add to his possible apology tour and explain why he no longer supports these successful policies.

I could be wrong here ( and of course that wouldn't be the first time ) and perhaps the Democratic Party even the Far-Left is so tired of losing and seeing Donald J. Trump ( the king of real reality TV ) as President and want to take his American Nationalism Show off the air for good and will support any popular national Democrat including Joe Biden in order to defeat President Trump. We saw that in 1992 when the entire Democratic Party united behind then Governor Bill Clinton and in 1976 under then Governor Jimmy Carter. But those are just two elections and as Will Rogers once said he's not a member of any organized party: he's a Democrat.

The Democratic Party tends to put ideological purity with the current Far-Left base of the party over electability, at least as the presidential level. And we'll see which course they take in 2020 and how they treat Joe Biden. Will they get behind Joe, or stay home, go third-party with someone like Jill Stein and back a Socialist instead. 

NBC News: The Pragmatic Progressive Versus the Idealistic Socialist

Source:NBC News- with their 2016 Democratic Party presidential debate.

"Join NBC News' Lester Holt, Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd and YouTube creators Connor Franta, Marques Brownlee, MinuteEarth and Franchesca Ramsey as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley debate in Charleston, South Carolina. 

Pre-Debate coverage begins at 8pm ET"  

From NBC News 

If you’re familiar with what I wrote about Hillary versus Bernie on Friday, you should know where I’m coming from here. 

Hillary, wants to be the pragmatic Progressive in this race who knows how to get things done, because she’s already done them. The pragmatic Progressive is someone with progressive goals, but is willing to settle for less than the perfect if it means the compromise moves the ball forward on the issue and makes things better than they already are. That is basically her message so far. 

Secretary Clinton wants Bernie Sanders to be seen as a Far-Left, idealistic, Socialist, who sees things as he wants them and whose not in touch with reality. And because he doesn’t see the world for how it is does not know what is possible and what can actually get done. That is Hillary’s message in this debate.

Watching the two-hour debate which I thought was very good and NBC News’s Lester Hold and Andrea Mitchell, other than the Bill Clinton’s and women’s issues, I believe did a very good job. After watching the debate I saw it as a draw with Hillary scoring big on gun control. With Bernie still being unable to answer why he believes voting for the Charleston loophole which you could make a case was a reason for the tragic shootings in Charleston last year. Not Bernie himself, but the loophole and he’s still unable to answer why voting for that loophole was a good idea. 

Bernie, came back on health care to a certain extent. But Hillary now being a very effective counter-puncher (similar to Muhammad Ali) hit him back with: "The Affordable Act, was the best that we can get right now. Let's not scrap it and try to start over especially when we might fail. Instead let's build on the ACA, like with a public option for Medicare and prescription drugs and make it better."

Bernie, scored again on Wall Street and Wall Street reform. Mentioning that Hillary has received a lot of money from Wall Street. But again Hillary, is the only one up there with a plan to reform Wall Street that left-wing economist and columnist Paul Krugman, has endorsed. Professor Krugman, hardly a right-winger, (and the sun is hot and water is wet in the world of obvious) who has a lot of support with both Progressives and Democratic Socialists. 

The debate then moved to foreign policy and national security, where I believe they all do well when it comes to civil liberties. At least in this debate, but of the three Democratic candidates, Senator Sanders comes out number three behind Secretary Clinton and Governor Martin O’Malley. And he’s been in Congress now for twenty-five years and unless he wins the presidency, will be a member of the next Congress as well. I mean calling the King of Jordan, whose a dictator, a hero, is hard to back up and explain to put it mildly. Putting Cuba in the same class as Iran, which is a state-sponsor of terrorism, is also hard to back up.

So on second reflection, this was not a draw, but a clear victory for Hillary Clinton. Not a blowout, but maybe 10-14 points, (hey it’s NFL Playoff season) because again she knows where both the Democratic Party is and where general election voters are. And is putting herself in the position of a mainstream Progressive very similar to President Barack Obama, who knows where the country is what she and the Democratic Party can do and get done. Who has both the Congressional and foreign policy background to be President of the United States, because she knows how the real world works in Washington. 

Hillary versus an idealistic, Vermont Democratic Socialist, who apparently believes the rest of the country is as Far-Left as he is. And believes the country as a whole wants what he wants and will pay the taxes for it. And I think she did an excellent job of framing the debate as a pragmatic Progressive who understands how government works. Going up against an idealistic Socialist, who sees things as he wants them and doesn’t know how to work in the real world. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Jonathan Turley: Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Answer The Difference Between a Socialist and Progressive

Source:The New Democrat 

I’m going to answer Chris Matthews here on the difference between a Progressive, like lets say Hillary Clinton, even if she’s a moderate one. And a Democratic Socialist such as Bernie Sanders.

But before I do that I just want to layout why Hillary probably didn’t answer the question. Assuming she’s the Democratic nominee for president she doesn’t want to offend the Far-Left. She’s going to need them in the summer and fall and not working and voting, if they bother to vote at all for Jill Stein. Who would be the Socialist third-party candidate for president for the Green Party. So she doesn’t want to paint Bernie Sanders at least not too hard as some radical Socialist. Who doesn’t represent America and what we stand for. And instead save those charges for the Republicans. Which was probably a smart play on her part.

I’m not running for any office this year. So I have the freedom to answer this question without worrying about offending anyone. When I think of Progressives, I think of Theodore Roosevelt, his cousin Franklin, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and go up today to Senator Sherrod Brown. People who don’t want a government big enough to take care of everyone, but want a government with the resources to see that everyone can succeed in America. And have the freedom to do that. People who believe in public infrastructure, public education, job training for low-skilled workers and the under-skilled unemployed. A safety net for people who truly need it. And there other things as it relates to civil rights, national security and foreign policy. But these are good examples.

Democratic Socialists, don’t trust the private sector and private enterprise. See capitalism as a crony way to make a lot of money from investments. Only support private enterprise to the point that they understand economics enough to know that you need a vibrant private sector in order to have a strong growing developed economy with a thriving middle class. So you’re not a Marxist state where there’s no such thing as property rights. With the state in control of everything. But with the central government responsible in seeing that everyone gets the basic services that they need to live well. Education, health care, health insurance, childcare, pension and other examples.

Progressives, believe in federalism, checks and balances, put real limits on what the Federal Government should be doing in the economy. Believe in a regulatory state, but not an unlimited one. The Socialist, their ideology is all about not just the state, but the national state. No such thing as taxes being too high with all the services that people get in return. According to the Democratic Socialist. Believe in more of a unitarian government where most of the government power is with the national government. Socialists believe that wealth and being rich are bad things. Because it makes you unequal from people who aren’t wealthy.

There are actual differences between a Progressive, again in the New Deal or Great Society sense. And a Democratic Socialist who didn’t emerge strongly in the Democratic Party until really when Senator George McGovern became a national player in the party in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But Progressives have been around in the Democratic Party at least since Woodrow Wilson if not farther. And they’ve never believed that the American form of government is flawed. And that we need to move a Scandinavian social democratic government where a lot more power is centralized with the central government.

The Daily Conversation: Bernie vs Hillary On The Issues

Source:The Daily Review

The differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton? Well which Hillary Clinton are you talking about. 2000, 2002, 2006, 2008, hopefully not as Secretary of State. Don’t want 2016 to be about Libya for her, assuming she is the Democratic nominee for president. I actually like the 2015-16 Hillary quite a bit. She’s even now in favor of legalizing marijuana at least at the state level. Has publicly admitted that the Iraq War was a mistake, even if she privately knew that in 2006.

The 2015-16 Hillary looks like the Pragmatic Progressive. But I still prefer the Progressive With Results from Martin O’Malley. And if he can ever get a non-relative to endorse him for president and give his campaign money, he might still make a run for the Democratic nomination. Because he’s already accomplished as Governor of Maryland what Bernie and Hillary say they want to do, but have never actually accomplished anything.

With Bernie Sanders, like him, dislike him, hate him, love him, terrified of him and would never want to let him see your wallet and financial information for fear that all of your money would suddenly disappear after Uncle Sam takes what he wants from you, you have to at least respect him. Because here’s a real-life politician not a made up Hollywood politician, but a real-life human being and politician at the same time, (which might be a newsflash for a lot of Americans) who actually knows what he believes and says what he thinks. For the most part.

I mean free college, free health care, free health insurance, I think he’s at least smart enough to know that people will have to pay for all of their new government services and that of course they won’t be free. These will not be Christmas presents from their rich Uncle Bernie. But their Socialist Uncle Sam, or Bernie, who’ll have new taxes to pay for these services. Two guarantees in life, death and taxes, at least in America. And taxes are bills that Americans have to pay to get the free government services. Free government services is like trying to take a bath with dirt and playing football in the bathtub. It simply doesn’t exist for anyone whose a taxpayer.

Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders, to me at least looks like Bill Clinton vs George McGovern, or Jerry Brown, from back in Jerry’s hippie radical days in the 1960s and early 70s. Hard to imagine that once Bernie after he finally picks a number by how much he wants to expand the Federal Government in size and in money, assuming that ever happens, that he could beat Hillary anywhere outside of New England and San Francisco. And perhaps just Vermont and San Francisco. Too bad for Bernie that New York City is not a state, because maybe he could beat Hillary there.

Because Americans and even Democrats, are learning that to create all the new big government that Senator Sanders wants to create, the rich won’t pay for all of that. Their money will be in other countries even before some committee in Congress like Ways and Means, or Finance, looks at his proposals. So of course the middle class Americans will get stuck with the tax bills for all of these new programs. Hillary, is already scoring against Bernie in the debates on this. About whose going to pay to being Sweden to America. Hillary can say, “I have friends in Congress both in the Senate and House who I’ve worked with on these issues in both parties. And we can work together on these issues.” With Bernie it will an all or nothing approach that will die in Congress faster than a constitutional amendment to repeal both the first and second amendments.

CBS News: Democratic Presidential Debate- Down To Three

Source:CBS News- 2015 Democratic presidential debate.

"Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley begin their second debate with opening statements and questions dominated by the recent attacks in Paris." 

From CBS News

I believe once again Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, especially when Governor O’Malley was given opportunities to speak, we're all sharp in this debate. And Senator Sanders and Governor O’Malley, tried hard to hit Secretary Clinton and landed a few shots. 

But when you are trailing Hillary by thirty plus points in the polls you have to do better than that sound competent and land a few body shots. You have to win the game going away and put a streak together. Hillary, unlike in 2007-08, knows that she’s not only the frontrunner, but that she’s not inheriting the Democratic nomination for president. That she’s going to have to win it and not expect to win Iowa simply because of her name ID and that she’s a woman.

Hillary, took some shots especially from Bernie, but I don’t believe anything happened Saturday night that changes the Democratic race. What Bernie and Marty, (ha, ha! He doesn’t like that!) are showing is that they belong on the same stage as Hillary and are going to make her earn the Democratic nomination. Or one of them will beat her. 

Bernie hit Hillary about the contributions that she’s getting from Wall Street. Hillary, came back at the Senator and accused him of questioning her integrity. And pointed out that she has a hundred-thousand small contributors. Something that if Governor O’Malley had, he would be in the race right now. Because he’s the Center-Left Progressive alternative to Hillary, who has real executive experience. Not Bernie Sanders, who represents the Far-Left of the Democratic Party. As well as the Green Party and Democratic Socialists USA.

I wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago that is in the Martin O’Malley section of this blog arguing about what should be the message for the Governor of this race. That he should be running as the Progressive With Results, because all the issues that they’re talking about in this race, he’s already accomplished in a very diverse state, of over six-million people, who has the highest per-capita income in the country and the best schools in the country. 

Governor O'Malley, decriminalized marijuana, additional infrastructure investment, minimum wage increase, legalizing same-sex marriage, Maryland’s economy and bond rating didn’t collapse during the Great Recession and you could add legalizing gambling, which has kept a lot of jobs and money in Maryland. 

We finally got to hear the Governor make the case for why he should be the Democratic nominee for president. He’s the candidate who accomplishes progressive goals. And just doesn’t talk about what he wants to do.

I believe Senator Sanders, wants to be the next President of the United States, but a big part of his campaign is giving socialism and positive national voice and platform. And he doesn’t want the next president to be a Republican. Especially someone like Don Trump, or Ted Cruz and he agrees with Hillary Clinton on enough to vote for her over the Republican, or a social democratic third-party candidate. 

I also think Bernie knows what he’s up against in trying to beat Hillary and is not going to do anything that can actually hurt her in the general election next year. So he’s not going to make this campaign about character and personal attacks. But instead make the best case for himself to be president and see where that takes him.

And I don’t see Bernie right now throwing a lot of long bomb passes at Hillary looking to get back in the game quickly. And the Democratic Party, wants Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States. 

Until Bernie and Marty O’Malley, make the case that they would be a better presidential candidate than Hillary, this race in the party will never be close. So yeah, Sanders and O’Malley, both hit Hillary with a few shots especially as it relates to Wall Street. But neither one hit her hard enough to change the complexion of this race yet. Which is good for the Democratic Party, because it means assuming she is the nominee, the party will have an excellent opportunity to go into their convention next summer as a united party. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Caleb Rojas Castillo: Hillary Clinton on Good Morning America- 1998

Source: Caleb Rojas Castillo- U.S. First Lady Hillary R. Clinton.

Source:The New Democrat

Lisa McRee, hosting ABC’s Good Morning America. Gee, there’s a blast from the past. She co-hosted that show, what two weeks. I guess when your network’s overnight newscast gets better ratings than your morning show, that’s a clue that you might need to change your morning crew. Diane Sawyer, saved Good Morning America and perhaps is the reason why that show is a strong competitor with The Today Show. Or at least while Diane was hosting GMA.

Hillary Clinton, is either the most gullible person on the planet. And would take the word of a known compulsive liar, when the liar says that fire is cold and water is dry and it snows in South Florida in July, or she’s just a bad liar herself. I mean, to say she believed her husband, who just happens to be Bill Clinton, perhaps better known as Wild Bill and Slick Willy, when he told her that allegations about Monica Lewinsky were false, is hard to believe. I mean, Bill is her husband and it’s not like they have a long distance marriage and do not know what is going on in the other’s life. They’ve shared a bed at this point for over twenty years. Well they shared that bed when Bill wasn’t with one of his girlfriends.

When you’re a fly in hot water and you can actually swim, I know a little tough to consider, you get yourself out of the water and fly away. That is what Hillary is trying to do here. Lisa McRee, wants to talk about Lewinsky. Hillary, would rather talking about the color of a brick wall, or how often someone should clean their garbage cans. Or how come the Chicago Cubs, haven’t won a World Series in a hundred years, or the price of Arkansas dirt, than talk about her husband’s latest affairs. So of course she’s going to try to change the subject from Lewinsky and try to talk about her husband’s political agenda. Outside of saving his ass in the White House. And that is exactly what she tried to do here.
Caleb Rojas Castillo: Hillary Clinton On Good Morning America- 1998

The Week: Peter Weber: How The Democrats Became The New Party of Liberty

Source:The New Democrat

To start off with a cliché and hopefully this will be my last one in this piece, (no promises) but how times have changed. Instead of the Republicans and so-called Conservatives talking about the need and the importance of freedom in America, Democrats are not only doing that, but actually pushing policies to accomplish that.

It started in May, when House Republicans thanks to members of their own caucus and the Democratic Caucus, didn’t have the votes to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Because of privacy and personal freedom issues that both caucus’s had with the bill. So, with House Democrats and Republicans actually working together for a change, they pass the USA Freedom Act. Which has stronger privacy protections in it, that eventually passed the Senate. But with mostly Senate Democratic votes, after Senate Republicans let the Patriot Act expire, because they didn’t have the votes for it.

June, has been perhaps the biggest month at least in the Obama Administration, for personal freedom at least and perhaps even economic freedom. Congress, with the House dragging the Senate along, passes the USA Freedom Act, that President Obama was happy to sign. Last week, the Affordable Care Act, gets held up again. Which means Americans won’t lose their health insurance, simply because they get sick and actually need what they paid into. Working class Americans, who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for private health insurance, won’t lose their health insurance subsidy, because they live in the wrong state. Because of the Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling, gays can’t be denied marriage, simply because they’re gay and not straight. Or they live in the wrong state.

Americans, are moving against the War on Drugs and are open to marijuana legalization and against over incarceration. Support comprehensive immigration reform and don’t see non-European immigrants as some threat to America and American values. As I blogged last week, prostitution, will become the next Culture War issue. As more Americans become familiar with that and ask why are we locking up people for having consensual sex between adults, even if money is involved. Even if financial transactions are involved. Which again, goes to over incarceration in America. And something that young Democrats, will support legalizing.

By in large, I’m happy as a Liberal Democrat with where my party is on both economic policy and social policy. We’re becoming the party of both personal and economic freedom. We just want that freedom to be available to everyone and not see people denied access, simply because of their complexion, race, ethnicity, gender, or even sexuality. We do have a growing big government wing in the party, that Salon, the new The New Republic and others support everyday. That publishes pieces that question both personal and economic freedom. Which no real Liberal would and they support political correctness, in defense of people who aren’t Caucasian and Christian. And they support the nanny state and higher taxes on the middle class. And more bigger centralized government in America.

But by in large, if you look at especially where young Americans are when it comes to the so-called Culture War and these personal freedom personal choice issues and that they tend not to be fans of big government involved in our personal economic affairs as well, Democrats at least at the leadership level, tend to be with these voters. Which is how someone like Barack Obama wins North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Indiana in 2008 an wins Florida and Virginia again in 2012. Because these voters tend to agree with President Obama on these key social issues and using government to empower people, not take care of them. As Republicans bash big government when it comes to economic policy and promote it when it comes to social policy.

C-SPAN: Hillary Clinton’s FDR Park The Bargain Speech

Source:The New Democrat

Hillary Clinton, finally found her vision and theme for running for President. Which is to create and build an America where all Americans can succeed. Where everyone who plays by the rules, works hard and is productive can make it in America and live in freedom and security. Unlike Senator Elizabeth Warren, even though this speech did have some progressive populist themes in it, it was much more positive. And not talking about the rules are rigged just for the wealthy, or corporations and the rich are screwing the rest of America. But instead talking about an America where everyone can do well if they work hard and are productive.

By talking about how the wealthy have done so well, while the rest of the country is still struggling, but at the same time talking about an America where everyone did better and well, which was the 1990s, she offered a contrast and vision from the neoconservative trickle down supply side economic policy of the Republican Party right now. The theory supply side being that if you cut taxes and regulations for business’s and the wealthy, somehow that will benefit everyone else. That theory has never been proven to work, but that is still the main Republican economic policy. And she was able separate from the Sanders/Warren social democratic wing of the Democratic Party that wants more taxes and social programs for everyone to close the economic gap.

What Hillary did, was separate from both the Tea Party and Reagan Republican wing of the Republican Party and the Sanders/Warren social democratic wing of the Democratic Party. And carve about a big area where most of the rest of the country is in between. Not a centrist message, but a message and vision of her own. That says government can’t do everything for people, but it can’t do nothing. That it should focus on people who are struggling and empower them to be able to do well in America. Get them the tools to do well. With traditional Liberal Democratic policies of individual initiative, education, infrastructure and economic development. So everyone can do well in America and I think she hit out of the park.

The Washington Post: Katrina Vanden Heuvel: 'A New Definition of Freedom in America'

Source:The Washington Post- Hillary R. Clinton, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate. 

Source:The New Democrat

It’s great to see Democrats talking about freedom again. This is something that Liberals and Progressives should be talking about anyway. Since we created freedom in America. With the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, the national infrastructure system, regulatory state and safety net. Liberals and so-called Progressives, ( Socialists, in actuality ) just tend to differ on what freedom is and means. Liberals, tend to be more interested in individual rights and opportunity. Tools that can be used to be able to live in freedom and build a good life for yourself and your family.

Progressives or Social Democrats, tend to be more interested in social welfare rights. The ability to not have to go without. That the basic necessities in life will always be guaranteed. To always be guaranteed education, housing, health care, income, food, health insurance and perhaps some others. That these rights would be guaranteed by the Federal Government, of course. All part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, especially Freedom From Want and his Economic Bill of Rights.

And freedom to me as a Liberal, is the ability for one to live their own life and be completely responsible for their own life. To make their own decisions and live with the consequences for good and bad. To not have government interfere with their economic, or personal affairs. As long as they aren’t hurting any innocent people. To have the knowledge and resources to be able to provide for themselves and have the freedom to make their own decisions. Freedom to me, is about tools and power. Where government comes in, is not to make sure everyone is taken care of. And not as FDR put to have the Freedom From Want, but the freedom to control their own destiny in life. Freedom of Self-Determination.

Hillary Clinton on Saturday, will give a huge presidential campaign speech at the FDR Four Freedoms Park in New York. And it will be about her vision for America and why she wants to be President of the United States. At least that is how its being built. And she’ll have the opportunity to start to bring me over to her side, if her speech covers the themes that I just talked about when it comes to what freedom means. And if she talks about she wants an America where all Americans can succeed and have the freedom to take care of themselves and their families and have both economic and personal security and not the freedom to not have to take responsibility for yourself and be taken care of by government, she’ll be able to impress me and bring her to her side.

Source:TYT Interviews: Nomiki Konst- Interviewing Katrina Vanden Heuvel - Katrina Vanden Heuvel, talking to The Young Turks