Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Onlooker

(5,636 posts)
Fri Aug 7, 2015, 05:38 AM Aug 2015

Hillary and Bush

Okay, I didn't actually watch the Republican debate, but I read about it. It sounds like Bush did a really mediocre job, and that made me think of Hillary. While I would love Bernie Sanders to be president, I think it's very unlikely that will happen. Even if he somehow won the primaries, Wall Street would do what it did to the likes of Upton Sinclair and Eugene Debs and make sure he lost the election. In this age of electronic voting, I doubt it would be difficult.

But, back to Hillary. Hillary, like Bush, has surrounded herself by "seasoned" politicians who are devoid of freshness and imagination. Unlike people like Sanders or Warren, she offers no new arguments or perspectives on old issues. She's boring, merely regurgitating what voters have heard time and time again. She consistently fails to bring forth inventive or surprising arguments and insights as to why Democratic policies are right. She doesn't make the case for her point of view, but instead merely states what she would do if she was president. As a result, she is not convincing or inspiring.

When Al Gore ran against Bush, he kept using the word "scheme." The more he used it, the more it sounded ridiculous and manipulative. I suppose the goal of the word was to paint the Republicans as dishonest, but the approach was contrived and distracted from any substance. After awhile, I ucringed a little every time I heard him use the word. I think we can expect the same of Hillary's campaign. Her campaign feels like it's being run by crusty old insiders who spend no time with ordinary people talking politics. Promises are not convincing. Like Sanders and Warren, one has to offer fresh logical explanations for why their policies are right and the policies of others are wrong.

In general, Sanders sounds fresh and exciting, Hillary sounds boring and simplistic. Is there actually a logical rationale for what she believes? Can she make a logical case for what she believes? Can she present fresh new arguments on climate change, social justice, financial reform, and foreign policy? If she keeps being the sort of candidate who makes promises and doesn't challenge the thinking of the American voter, I think she will lose in November. The fact that Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, is competitive, is because he offers ideas that are not only fresh, but are well-reasoned and persuasive.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hillary and Bush