Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

A curious endorsement

4 Replies

So last Friday, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Matt Dunne endorsed Bernie Sanders for President. Which struck me as an interesting, nay curious, move — partly due to policy, and partly due to timing.

Above all, and pardon me if my blogger cynicism is showing, it struck me as less a heartfelt choice for President and more a positioning maneuver in the Democratic primary. It seems designed to reinforce Dunne’s claim as the outsider in the race, since many current Dem officeholders have opted for Hillary Clinton. Policy-wise, I’d expect Dunne to have more common ground with a centrist than a Democratic Socialist. Indeed, in his endorsement Dunne tried to paper over the potential differences between himself and Sanders by emphasizing what “Bernie has been talking about” over the solutions Bernie proposes.

All along, Bernie has been talking about issues of critical importance at this moment in time: the loss of our middle class, addressing global climate change, fixing our broken healthcare system, providing needed support for our veterans and seniors, and giving the next generation the opportunity to graduate from college debt free.

Take the last one, for example: Sanders and Dunne both want to give students “the opportunity to graduate… debt free.” But I don’t think Dunne would back Bernie’s call for free tuition or anything like it.

Continue reading →

Hillary for President

11 Replies

Been thinking about this for a long time, waiting to see if something would change my mind. Could still happen, but for now, I’m settled.

If the presidential primary were today, I’d vote for Hillary Clinton. With apologies to Bernie, to all of Bernie’s supporters in Vermont, and to those who believe theVPO is a “hyper-partisan, far left blog.”

Why Hillary? Glad you asked.

First and foremost, Clinton is much more electable than Bernie Sanders. The policy differences between them are less important to me than keeping the Republicans out of the White House. Especially with at least two Supreme Court seats likely to come open in the next five years. It’s just hard for me to see Bernie appealing to a national electorate, especially if the Republicans come to their senses, reject the absolute crazies, and nominate someone plausible like Jeb! or Rubio.

Clinton is the best person to take on the partisan snakepit of Washington. She’s been through the wars, over and over again. She can handle it. I believe she would accomplish more than a President Sanders, even though she’d have a less ambitious agenda.

Last Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Chuck Todd asked Bernie how he’d advance a Democratic Socialist agenda through a Congress that might still have Republican majorities. Bernie acknowledged that he couldn’t do it on his own — that he’d need a “political revolution” with masses of voters demanding change. Call me cynical, but I don’t see that happening. Most people can’t be bothered to do anything more than vote once every four years. Maybe a Sanders presidency would energize the masses, but I doubt it.

Gender definitely plays a role. When other factors are equal, I’ll vote for the female candidate because women are so grossly under-represented in American politics. There is value in having a woman President, in terms of personal connection to gender issues and in sheer symbolic terms. The more glass ceilings we can break, the better.

Continue reading →

Bernie’s victory

3 Replies

Bernie Sanders’ campaign is a rousing success. He’s drawing huge — sorry, youuuuuge — crowds, he’s smashed expectations for fundraising, and he’s making noise in select polls.

None of which makes him a serious contender for the Democratic nomination. He still trails badly in national polls. And the dynamics of the primary system have shifted in favor of the frontrunner: an underdog can compete in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, but then the primaries come fast and furious, and you need a strong national organization (and a youuuuuge amount of money) to stay competitive. Even lackluster frontrunners like John Kerry and Mitt Romney can use their “inevitability” to steamroll their opponents. Hillary generates a lot more enthusiasm than either of those legacy admissions.

So no, Bernie’s not winning the nomination. But he has already won a very important victory: he has shown the potential for game-changing enthusiasm on the Left. After Bernie, the Democratic Party will have a harder time taking the Left for granted.

Continue reading →

Okay, so that happened.

1 Reply

Surprise, surprise: Peter Shumlin won’t run for re-election next year.

Many more thoughts to come, but here’s the instant reaction.

— It’s the right move, but I wasn’t sure he was capable of making it. He would have had a very, very tough time winning back the voters next year. If he’d managed to right the ship on Vermont Health Connect, and if this year’s legislation had begun to make a difference, he would have had a shot at winning a fourth term. Even so, it’d be an uphill battle.

I say “I wasn’t sure he was capable of making it” because it’s awfully hard for a politician to leave the game, and it’s hard for a politician as accomplished as Shumlin to leave with the Scott Milne embarrassment as his last electoral act. In stepping aside, Peter Shumlin shows a wisdom and perspective that many didn’t think he had.

— His image was worse than the actual person. This decision shows that there’s an authentic Peter Shumlin that doesn’t measure life by political wins and losses. He has no interest in a political future; he plans to leave his East Montpelier manse and return to Putney. I expect he will do that. And though he’ll certainly continue to have a public life, I think he’ll be true to his word: no more campaigns, no more full-time public service.

— He’s waved the white flag on single payer health care. In his speech, he mentioned health care reform as the one area of failure for his administration. If he thought he could resurrect single payer between now and 2018, he might well have run for re-election.

— This gives the Democratic Party a clean slate. Without Shumlin on the ticket, it could be a very good year for the Democrats; it’s a Presidential year with either Hillary Clinton or (haha) Bernie Sanders atop the ballot, and Pat Leahy presumably running for re-election. We should have a substantial and very Democratic turnout. Sad to say, but Shumlin would have been a net negative.

— This is bad news for the VTGOP. They won’t face a wounded incumbent with a long track record and personal unpopularity; they’ll face a candidate with substantial experience (see below) and with a full 18 months to fundraise and put together a top-notch campaign. And even if there’s a spirited Democratic primary, 2010 has shown that that isn’t a bad thing.

— The Republicans really blew it in 2014. If they’d run a real candidate, they would have won the corner office. If Phil Scott has any real ambitions to be Governor, he’s gotta be kicking himself right now.

— The Democrats have an incredibly deep talent pool. I could name you half a dozen eminently qualified candidates without any trouble. There’s been a logjam at the top for quite a while, what with our extremely senior Congressional delegation and our very capable statewide officeholders (well, Pearce, Hoffer, and Condos anyway — three out of four ain’t bad) and our sclerotic state senate. By contrast, of course, the Republicans’ talent pool is more of a puddle, aside from Phil Scott.

— Early favorite for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination? House Speaker Shap Smith. If he can get the Democratic caucus behind him, he’d have a big advantage at the grassroots level and he’d be very, very tough to beat. And he did a great job during this year’s legislative session of threading a very narrow needle, being an honest broker, and subtly creating a political persona of his own.

More thoughts to come, I’m sure. I welcome your comments below.

Voter registration: I want this too

1 Reply

So in addition to advocating restoration of the full Voting Rights Act and calling for at least 20 days of early voting nationwide, Hillary Clinton also called for automatic voter registration for every citizen.

Yes, please. I want this too.

Until reading about her speech, I’d forgotten that I wrote about this very issue in mid-March, when Oregon’s governor signed a universal-registration bill into law.

As you may recall, a universal registration measure (H.458) was introduced in Vermont this year by Rep. Chris Pearson.

Continue reading →

The Same-Day Boogeyman

Leave a reply

Removing barriers to voter participation: it’s an issue that’s long overdue for some serious attention. Vermont’s new law, allowing same-day voter registration, is a nice start.

What else? Well, there’s no good reason other than tradition to hold elections on Tuesdays. Especially in Vermont, where polling places close at 7 p.m. That’s not much time for working folk to get to the polls.

But if you want to keep your Tuesday voting because Grandfather’s Light Bulb, then I’d suggest adoption of Hillary Clinton’s proposal for at least 20 days of early voting. That would give everyone a full opportunity to participate. Early voting has allowed many more to exercise their right when it’s been adopted.

“This is, I think, a moment when we should be expanding the franchise,” Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said in an interview. “What we see in state after state is this effort by conservatives to restrict the right to vote.”

Of course, the new law is being greeted with whining and carping from Vermonters with no apparent interest in getting more people to vote. Accounts of the bill becoming law were lightly sprinkled with comments from town clerks alleging that we’re opening the door to voter fraud.

Ah, voter fraud, favored chimera of conservatives. The Bush Administration bent its Justice Department to the task of rooting out voter fraud. And after eight full years of effort, they found a mere handful of cases. In a time when hundreds of millions of ballots were cast.

Continue reading →

Okay, Bernie, go for it.

Leave a reply

So Bernie Sanders is running for President. Good for him.

He doesn’t have a snowball’s chance, of course. FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten thoroughly debunks any notion of a Sanders victory:

Polls show Sanders doesn’t match up well against Clinton. He trails her by nearly 57 percentage points nationally, 54 percentage points in Iowa and 40 percentage points in New Hampshire.

More than that, there seems to be very little desire on the left for a challenger to Clinton. She regularly earns 60 percent support among self-described “liberal” and “very liberal” voters, according to national polls. And Sanders’s colleagues in the Senate with the most liberal voting records — those who would be key to starting a mutiny against Clinton — have already endorsed her.

Which is not to say that Bernie shouldn’t run. He absolutely should. But his candidacy should be seen as a useful counterpoint to Hillary Clinton’s cautious centrism, and a rare opportunity to get high-visibility coverage for Sanders’ left-of-center ideas. Rarely does a leftie get the kind of serious media exposure that is routinely given to conservative nutbags like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Having Bernie share the debate stage with Hillary is a singular opportunity to spread the leftist vision and force the front-runner to define herself more clearly.

She’ll win. And if she becomes President, I expect the Sanders challenge won’t have any effect on her administration. But it’s useful nonetheless, if only for the media exposure.

Besides, what has Bernie got to lose? Nothing. He’s not up for re-election in 2016; he’s near the end of his political career anyway; and while he has little hope of matching Clinton in fundraising, he doesn’t have to. He’s got a good start already, in the big fat campaign accounts that he’ll never need in Vermont.

He had four and a half million bucks at the end of December. He’s got proven broad appeal to a nationwide base of small donors who can be counted on to give generously (as defined within their financial limitations) to a Sanders presidential bid.

Besides, a Bernie candidacy will be less fueled by money than by the force of his personality and ideas. Bernie doesn’t need a robust 50-state ground game to achieve his goals; he needs to hold noisy rallies with partisan crowds cheering him on.

So go ahead, Bernie. There’s no shame in being a useful foil, and in capping your thoroughly unlikely political career with a high-profile run for the Presidency.

I do wish you’d found a way to announce your campaign in Vermont, though.

Dr. Dean dips toe into Beltway cesspool

6 Replies

Oh boy, oh boy, it’s a Tweetfight!

In this corner, former Vermont Governor and DNC chair Howard Dean!

In that corner, Ron Fournier, senior political columnist for the National Journal and longtime bete noire of liberal politicos. At the NJ and previously for the Associated Press, Fournier’s coverage has been notably harsh on Democrats and relatively soft on Republicans.

So, of course, a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy puts her firmly in the crosshairs. Fournier’s latest hack job: a gossipy, fact-free piece floating rumors that Hillary’s email practices may have been related to Clinton Foundation fundraising. Specifically, that she might have been using her pull as Secretary of State to induce fat contributions from foreign governments and potentates.

Fournier comes right out and says there is “no evidence of wrongdoing,” but that doesn’t stop him from filling his column with the kinds of leading questions you usually expect from Fox News or Darrell Issa:

Is the foundation clean? Is it corrupt? Or is the truth in the muddy middle, where we so often find the Clintons? … Without those emails, we may never be able to follow the money. Could that be why she hasn’t coughed up the server?

He even makes it clear he has a personal beef with the Clintons and what he calls “their entitlement, outsized victimization, and an aggravating belief in the ends justifying the means.”

Hmm, yeah, that sounds like a journalist to me.

Fournier, being a multi-platform content provider, dutifully Tweeted about his “scoop.”

This is where the good Dr. Dean stepped into Fournier’s cesspool.

Fournier’s self-satisfied response:

Now there’s Washington schmoozing at its grossest: “I’m right, you’re wrong, but hey, let’s do lunch! Have your people call my people.” Dean tries to pin him down:

Fournier, being a veteran of the Beltway game, is having none of it.

Good God, what a slimeball. If Fournier’s column is notable for anything, it’s for the complete lack of facts. It’s nothing but rumor and characters assassination. And he has the gall to top it off with “Be well.” I’m feeling the need for a shower. Dean’s redirect:

To which Fournier can offer nothing but a hasty exit:

“Gotta run,” indeed. Can’t stay and let himself be pinned down, can he? Dean closes with a dollop of sarcasm.

The two protagonists return to their respective corners.

Props to Dean for a noble effort. But Fournier has been a slime merchant for far too long to waste much time on a mere former governor, Presidential front-runner and major-party chair. Ron Fournier has bigger fish to fry, and a whole lot of grease to fry ’em in.

BREAKING — Bernie Sanders Announces A Timetable For An Announzzzzzzzz…..

Leave a reply

One of the things that makes me long for a parliamentary democracy is the blessed briefness of election seasons. Call an election, a couple months later you’re done.

America, on the other hand, suffers a severe case of Campaign Bloat, especially in the Presidential sweepstakes. I may be a politics nerdboy, but I couldn’t be more bored by the early maneuverings of would-be candidates and their dutiful swings through Iowa, New Hampshire, and other self-appointed bellwethers of national opinion.

The Collegiate Bernie. (From his own website.)

The Collegiate Bernie. (From his own website.)

Even the endless travels of our own Bernie Sanders bore me. I don’t care where he’s eating rubber chicken and giving the same speech he’s been giving throughout his career. I feel no desire to keep up with Seven Days’ attempt at journalistically justifiable clickbait, “Bernie Beat.”

And I don’t care about the latest Hot News (came out during my Xmas vacay), as reported by Dave “The Hat” Gram:

SANDERS: I’LL DECIDE ON PRESIDENTIAL RUN BY MARCH

“I don’t want to do it unless I can do it well,” he told The Associated Press. “I don’t want to do it unless we can win this thing.”

Yuh-huh. Well, if that’s the deciding factor, I think the decision is all but made. Especially when…

Sanders said he is weighing whether to run as an independent, as he has done in Vermont, or as a Democrat.

Oh yeah, running as an independent. That’ll work.

Now look, I appreciate Bernie’s dedication to his role as a progressive firebrand. I like the fact that he talks about issues in a way that connects with working Americans, unlike many of us who are too darn academic and literary for our own good. But he will never be a serious candidate for president.

He can be a useful part of a presidential campaign, focusing on issues and themes that “mainstream” Democrats often avoid. Roughly speaking, he’s the Ron Paul of the left: a true believer who attracts attention through the raw power of ideas boldly expressed.

As such, I’d welcome his candidacy, if only as a foil for Hillary Clinton. Which is about all he could reasonably hope to be.

Now, Elizabeth Warren, she’d have a chance. But in her absence, sure, Bernie, take a rip. Just don’t expect me to pay attention to your three-month-long Final Decision Tour. And don’t expect me to believe your insistence that you’d only be in it if you can win.