Democratic Primary Hopeful

[H2O Man]

“What you think, you become.”
-- Gandhi


It can be hard to watch television, sometimes. The terrible violence in Paris makes for painful TV. And I really do not think that I could have sat through a republican debate tonight. I don’t care to hear what any one of the republican candidates has to say right now. Nothing that they have to say does anything but promote more hatred, both inside this country and abroad.

I did just watch the democratic debate. I think that, to a large extent, we heard views that ranged from the belief that fine-tuning the system can be meaningful in some areas, to that a major revolution in values is important. Each of the three candidates had high-points in the debate, where they delivered solid, positive messages.

My goal in contributing to DU’s primary forum is not to endorse any one candidate. I understand and appreciate why good people back of of the three. And anyone who reads this forum knows exactly why “you” don’t like one or two of them. But let’s concentrate on the positive.

Is it possible -- or even likely -- that the Democratic Party will need the influence of each of the three, no matter who wins the primary in order to win? More, isn’t it possible that the United States, and indeed the world community, will require the combination of each person -- his or her insights, values, and beliefs -- to combine in order to begin to move on a new path?

I’m not talking about who would assume what top position. I’m talking about the best in each of them. And, of course, I’m speaking of each of their supporters. Wouldn’t it be great to reach the point where we all are working towards a common goal?

Peace,
H2O Man

[Dustlawyer]

1. +1! We can dream! That is not to say that we should never stop trying to make it the BEST

that we can!

[H2O Man]

4. Thank you.

We all need to keep on fighting the Good Fight.

[antigop]

2. sorry. Wall Street's goals are not mine and the people who support Wall Street don't share my

goals.

"Wall Street's business model is fraud." -- Bernie Sanders

'tis true.

[H2O Man]

3. Thank you.

I understand and appreciate your position on Wall Street. In fact, I’m confident that we have approximately the same opinion on how Wall Street has damaged our country, and is destroying our constitutional democracy. More, I think we are in full agreement that by its very nature, Wall Street contributes to many of the other social ills poisoning our nation, always because it allows the 1% to profit financially from others’ pain and suffering.

Yet, as easily and accurately as we can identify the evils of Wall Street, it is a dynamic that is not going to be cured -- much less disappear -- even with the election of the most thoughtful, insightful anti-Wall Street candidate for president. And I know that you know this; I’m not trying to come across like I’m talking down to you. At all. I’m saying that, simply to put some context into where I see the possibilities of solutions regarding Wall Street.

It appears to me that the different views on Wall Street issues is the largest, most significant divide …..between the Democratic Party candidates for president, the Democratic Base, and the people on this forum. That split is wide enough, and so deeply felt, that it is indeed the only thing that could allow for a republican victory next November. For there are good people who sincerely believe that we should support any candidate the Democratic Party runs, and those who sincerely believe that there isn’t much difference between a Wall Street Democrat and a Wall Street republican. And those deep feelings, on both sides, tend to be enhanced by the influence that Wall Street has on the primaries.

Thus, even if any one of our three candidates does win next November -- as they should -- not one of them alone has the juice to institute the type of changes within an entrenched, sick system. The divisions between each candidate’s supporters, from the grass roots to DC, can only become greater if we continue on the path that we are presently on.

I’m not sitting here, wringing my hands, saying, “Change takes time. We must be patient.” No, I think that impatience is in order. It’s not only justified, but it is necessary. The change that we must demand, however, requires that we find the common ground with others who think differently about some aspects of even those issues we deem to be the most important. That includes not viewing the supporters of various candidates as the “enemy.”

Our liberal friends are convinced the machine can be fixed by fine-tuning it; our progressive friends believe it requires a total overhaul. I think that it is fair to say that one’s economic circumstances influence their opinion on that. Personally, I am sure that we need the radical changes that Dr. King defined as a “revolution in values” in his 4-4-67 speech, “A Time to Break Silence.” In that wonderful speech, King also advocated finding common ground, because only that can lead to higher ground.

I respect that you are every bit as entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. And I don’t expect that either of us are going to change the other’s mind on this issue. Yet, we are able to engage in a civil discussion of a heated topic ….perhaps one of the few where we disagree. And that’s a good thing! Thank you.