Primary Disappointment

[AP]

Both candidates are afraid of being perceived as too liberal, so they're running on moderation. If either is elected, he or she won't enter the White House with a mandate for important changes. I suspect that at least one and possibly both of them do want to achieve real change in a couple of important areas, but I don't see how he or she will do that without having run a campaign based upon making those changes. (The campaign is an excellent opportunity to create the groundswell of expectations that you can turn into a legislative agenda -- and I really don't see that happening. Bill Clinton sort of did that -- he "put people first" during his campaign, and then legislated for the people.)

I think this is related to a lot of Democrats having a desire to nominate candidates whom they think tell the world what kind of person he or she is symbolically (i.e., "I am not a racist or sexist because, I support this candidate). And it shows a failure to think strategically (e.g., "We need to turn this world upside down, and get more cultural, economic and political power to people on the bottom, so I will elect the person who is staking his or her campaign on these themes, and who has the skills and appeal to implement policies that achieve those goals").

I fear that by selecting our candidates based on what we want to tell the world about who we are, we jeopardize our ability to achieve the things that many of should now by now need to be down to get the U.S. back on the path of equality, opportunity and prosperity.

Of course, it would be great if we had the chance to elect a candidate who does both -- who is a symbol of what you believe in, and who stakes his or her administration on achieving those things...but I'm not yet sure that applies this year. I see these candidates stepping away from bold policies and big ideas out of fear that it will make it harder for them to get elected in the general election.