Hard Ball
I was able to catch the late re-run of MSNBC’s “Hardball” tonight. In my opinion, Chris Matthews is doing a good job of advocating for President Obama. I think that Mr. Matthews’ reporting on the international agreement with Iran -- which, of course, includes the United States -- is among the best from the best journalists.
Tonight, for example, he had a panel review the worst five over-the-top republican attacks on President Obama and the proposed treaty. This included some rabid foam that came dripping out of Dick Cheney’s snarl. I think that the administration should make a commercial, with a few short clips of Cheney warning us about Iraq’s WMD threat, followed by a brief clip of his current crap, with the simple question: “Do you believe anything this man says?” It would be the flip side of the 1964 “Daisy Chain.”
What was equally interesting, though sadly disappointing, were Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s answers to Mr. Matthews’ important questions. There were three significant weak answers. They included to a question about the difference between a socialist and the Democratic Party. She had similar difficulty answering if Bernie Sanders should speak in “prime-time” at the Democratic Party Convention, win or lose.
Yet the most troubling response, I thought, followed Mr. Matthews’ questioning if she would vote in favor of President Obama’a effort with Iran. She said that our country needs to do what will best insure that Iran does not acquire “the bomb.” She also stated that she had to find out what the people in her district think.
I do not doubt that Debbie Wasserman Schultz represents many Democrats. But, at the same time, there are also many Democrats who not only feel that she doesn’t represent them in any way, but that she is actually part of the opposition. This is a problem, as she is the Chair of the Democratic National Committee.
She said that the 2016 presidential election will highlight the differences between the Democratic Party and the republican party. Indeed, it should. But that should include a discussion about the differences in socialism for the 99% and socialism for billionaires and corporations. It should not simply include Bernie Sanders at 3am, if he doesn’t happen to win; we should be highlighting him. And it should damn sure endorse President Obama and negotiations, and oppose VP Dick Cheney and friends’ demand for war with Iran.
Yet, we won’t get there ….we won’t reach that point in the future …..if the Democratic Party isn’t moving, perceptively, today. And that means the part of the party that believe Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaks for them, and represents their interests. This isn’t to say that the growing divides within the Democratic Party will result in a victory for republicans. But it could make it a close election, since the presidential election goes by state-by-state results, not national popular vote totals.
Primary seasons always bring out differences in opinions. That’s a good thing. But the Democratic Party seems to be experiencing significant differences in values. And it’s not good if the traditional values we associate with the modern Democratic Party no longer hold for a large segment of party members.
Peace,
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
Darn it, I missed Hardball again today and I intended to watch it because someone else mentioned it yesterday as well. I rarely watch because I got tired of Chris interrupting his guess when he ask them a question. That aggravates the hell out of me, LOL.
Wasserman-Shultz seems to have lost interest in the party to me, and I noticed similar behavior from her when I saw her on Bill Maher. She let some Republic0n dump all over Obama and she said not a word, Bill did, though. I thought it was just me being to critical, or she was just for Hillary Clinton and kind of upset with Obama, maybe even Bernie for that matter. IDK. 
Again great post, thanks for sharing!
I have a hard time watching Matthews because he tends to make statements - then speak over his guests as they try to "respond". I think Schultz does represent a segment of the party - I'm just not certain that segment is always right or what's best for progress and moving the country forward in this century. I'll try to catch the segment on my iPad this afternoon.
On the differences in values - I agree. However, I think it goes beyond the Democratic Party. Everyone jokes about the "Clown Car" pulling up over there - without acknowledging that each of those candidates represents something in the gut of the Right. It will be difficult for them to craft a platform in that framework.
Our advantage is the big differences are not as big as the DU bubble makes them out to be. 
Schultz represents that segment at DU that says we can bring our ideas to America if we hold onto those things that worked in the past. There are some tone deaf elements there - IE - when she says "the bomb" she doesn't realize the left and where the core Democratic Party voters fall within - we don't have a taste for war. I'm in that sub group of Democratic Party members that says - build, innovate, survive climate change and citizens who can contribute to that.
Keeping Iran from "the bomb" doesn't allow for infrastructure development. That's why our bridges are crumbling.
