Adlai Shakespeare

[H2O Man]

“I’m not an old, experienced hand at politics. But I am now seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.”
-- Adlai Stevenson


Throughout the day, and especially during last night’s debate, I found myself thinking of Adlai Stevenson. Older forum members will recall Adlai as a good man, an intellectual Democrat who twice was our party’s nominee for president. Unfortunately for him, those runs were in 1952 and ‘56, when he opposed Dwight Eisenhower, a symbol of American strength. For Adlai and his strong supporters, this was frustrating, for surely he had the background and experience to make him superior in qualifications to serve as Chief Executive.

However, in both elections, people voted with their hearts, not their minds, and twice put Ike in office. Adding insult to injury, this placed Richard Nixon a heart-beat away from the Oval Office. Indeed, Nixon was a central theme in Adlai’s 1956 campaign.

Early in the 2008 Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton was positioned as the party’s inevitable nominee. As 2007 turned to 2008, there were a couple capable candidates running against her, that her campaign took seriously. But Senator Barack Obama was not considered a real threat. In a relatively short time, however, it was evident that the Clinton campaign had underestimated Obama.

The Clinton campaign and its strongest supporters believed that people were voting with their hearts, and not their heads, and thus were going to nominate a candidate who could not possibly win the general election.

When Bernie Sanders entered the 2016 Democratic primaries last year, the Clinton campaign did not view him as a serious threat. Again, they believed her securing our party’s nomination was inevitable. Those few candidates who might have provided more serious primary competition had opted to not run. For a variety of reasons, it was assumed that Sanders was intent upon making a symbolic run, in an attempt to bring Hillary a little to the left.

By now, it is clear that the Sanders campaign has the potential to defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. There is a Shakespearean flavor to the primary dynamics. First, while she was First Lady, Hillary was viciously attacked by rabid republicans as a Marxist; now, a self-identified socialist virtually ties her in Iowa, then wins in a New Hampshire landslide. More, Sanders campaign is fueled not only by passionate young adults -- vital to the Obama coalition’s victories -- but also by women.

The frustrated response to this has been given voice by a couple of high-profile Hillary supporters, who speak of things such as “the hottest places in hell,” and “where the boys are.” The bitterness was also expressed, in an article that was featured in a DU:GDP OP recently, by a university professor with very real political experience. She spoke of the betrayal of women who would vote for Bernie, noting that this was the second time a charismatic male threatened to defeat Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

I do not doubt that Hillary Clinton can win the nomination. But I am concerned that her campaign is being run by people who are intent upon winning, even if in doing so, they show they are not worthy of winning.

Peace,
H2O Man

[Gregorian]

1. Unless it's unfair to say she pals around with a war criminal,

I feel this is a big problem for her chances of winning the nomination. Am I wrong? I can't let go of the fact that she is literally proud of her relationship with Kissinger. Being a socialist is a noble title compared to one who fomented civil disruption and mass murder on a scale only rivaled by the nastiness of Hitler.

I can't let go of this, even if it's not addressing your post. I think we need to hammer this home continuously. This is not about winning as much as keeping someone like this away from the White House.

An unhappy morning. Maybe it's time for this:

[H2O Man]

4. I find myself thinking

that Hillary keeps talking about Sanders's words being used to promote Bill Press's book. The full blurb reads, "Bill Press makes the case why, long after taking the oath of office, the next president of the United States must keep rallying the people who elected him or her on behalf of progressive causes. That is the only way real change will happen. Read this book."

Compare that to Hillary Clinton's review of Henry Kissinger's new book (Washington Post; September 4, 2014). It is a long, glowing review of Kissinger and his opinions on the (New) "World Order." She connects the concepts of Kissinger with the her work as Secretary of State, as described in her new book, "Hard Choices." Indeed, she goes so far as to write, "Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly ...."

I like Bill Press. That doesn't mean that I always agree with him. But he is a gentle, intelligent, caring man. Henry Kissinger is a cold-blooded war criminal.

In one of the books on President Obama's first year in office, there is information on how he was disappointed that his administration had not harnessed the power of the grass roots supporters who helped elect him. President Obama recognized that this would have allowed him to put much needed pressure on Congress -- because, as we know, the Congress was ignoring Obama's mandate from the 2008 election. President Obama knew he needed the grass roots; it was people in his administration who failed him and the country.

It's rather difficult to see why any good Democrat would find Bernie's saying the next president needs to utilize the power of the grass roots objectionable.

Kissinger, on the other hand, is intelligent, but a cold-blooded reptile. There is nothing about him that warrants praise from any Democrat. Then again, it's hard to understand why Bill and Hillary have become close in their relationship to the Bush family.

[antigop]

10. I think George Carlin was right.

It's all a big club.

And we ain't in it.

(At least, I'm not.)

[longship]

2. As an atheist, I cannot help but dip into the Bible.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Matthew 16:26

Granted the author got the pronouns wrong, but the sentiment remains the same.

[H2O Man]

5. Well done!

I think that the American public is learning that Bernie Sanders is a man of integrity. And that is a rare quality in politicians. The more that people learn about him, the more active support this movement gains.

[antigop]

3. so what, exactly, would we "win"?

More wars?

More disastrous trade agreements?

More selling out to the highest bidder?

More corporate control?

[H2O Man]

6. Right.

It's time for change. And Bernie Sanders represents the possibility for real, meaningful institutional change.

[antigop]

7. I think so. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to get someone in there who really wants to

fix the system.

Let's hope we don't blow it.

[H2O Man]

8. Yeah, I agree.

"Opportunities" are funny things. Ones such as this are unique, indeed. Another may pass our way in the future, that looks, smells, and feels similar ....but it will be different. Very different.

As you say, this is once in a lifetime.

[cali]

9. He's so quotable. K&R

We travel together, passengers on a little space ship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil; all committed for our safety to its security and peace; preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work, and, I will say, the love we give our fragile craft. We cannot maintain it half fortunate, half miserable, half confident, half despairing, half slave—to the ancient enemies of man—half free in a liberation of resources undreamed of until this day. No craft, no crew can travel safely with such vast contradictions. On their resolution depends the survival of us all.[2]