I am a pragmatist and I think that the best we can do in the current climate is to prevent backsliding and hope for some small incremental gains. from a post on facebook by a Hillary Clinton supporter

Watching Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders going at it during the debate in Milwaukee, I was taken by the huge difference in their underlying energetics, for lack of a better word (humm, maybe underlying emotion would be better). As an aside, I just recently realized that both Trump and Sanders say huge in the same way, yuuge, and they both say it alot, end aside. Of course, both Clinton and Sanders preach hope but the stronger message from Clinton is fear and from Sanders it is anger. From that base, their solutions are radically different: Clinton says, in effect, Don’t reach for the brass ring,  you’ll fall off the horse and Sanders, in effect, says You won’t get the brass ring if you don’t reach for it.

If you’re worldview is fear based, we should not make promises we can’t keep, because that will further, I think, alienate Americans, Hillary is the logical choice. If your worldview is anger based, what has happened is, I think, the American people have responded to a series of basic truths, and that is that we have today a campaign finance system which is corrupt, Bernie is for you. I understand that it is way more complicated than that, still I think each is supported by a different bedrock.

Through a fear anger lens, it is easier for me to understand why Sanders is polling better with young people and Hillary with old people. I’m an old person, I am now closer to 76 than 75, and – in many ways – I am an anomaly, but where I join my age group is in our concern with what we can’t do, from running up a sand dune to driving all night to go skiing. Young people don’t carry that concern, that sense of limitations, or at least not as much. What young people do carry more than most old people is anger. Yes, there are lots of angry old people – and Bernie is one of them – but that anger is usually attached to resignation and young people haven’t learned resignation yet. I’m getting nervous that this is sounding more negative than I feel and I want to put in a disclaimer, I don’t think of fear and anger as bad motivators.

In addition, Hillary presents herself as an accomplished technocrat who wants to be president, I’ve come forward with, for example, a plan to revitalize coal country, the coalfield communities that have been so hard hit by the changing economy….I think I’m the most qualified, experienced, and ready person to be the president and the commander in-chief. I am sort of fascinated that Hillary would use the same strategy that failed her against Obama. When I was a carpenter, there was an expression that I often heard, If it doesn’t fit, get a bigger hammer. and that seems to be Hillary’s modus operandi, she lost to Obama not because of her message but because she didn’t have enough money, the problems we have in Syria and Libya are not that we shouldn’t have gone there but that we haven’t gone in hard enough. When the primary numbers started to turn against her in the Obama campaign, Hillary just lowered her head and worked harder. Her main strength is her tenaciousness.

Bernie, on the other hand, presents himself as a candidate who thinks about the big picture, in Libya, for example, the United States, Secretary Clinton, as Secretary of State, working with some other countries, did get rid of a terrible dictator named Gadhafi. But what happened is a political vacuum developed. ISIS came in, and now occupies significant territory in Libya….Judgment matters as well. And she and I looked at the same evidence coming from the Bush administration regarding Iraq. I led the opposition against it. She voted for it. Bernie doesn’t get bogged down in details and when asked How are going to make this work? his answers are usually vague and often tangential, wandering back to Income Inequality. Counter-intuitively, that is Bernie’s strength: he has a theme to his campaign, he has a reason to be president, and it makes him feel authentic. Bernie gives off a hard to pin down vibe. I don’t think he started off expecting to win as much as to influence the election, and he doesn’t have as much to lose. Now he is in a place he didn’t expect to be and the question is, At 74, can he grow into this new role?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved laetrile as a treatment for cancer in the United States. The drug is made and used as a cancer treatment in Mexico. National Cancer Institute website.

Years ago, when I was a young man, a business friend was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He decided to go to Mexico to get Laetrile treatments. Laetrile had been in the news, but most of the news was about how it didn’t work and I asked him “Why?” His answer changed my thinking.

My friend said his doctor and the specialists he was sent to all said that he had terminal cancer, that he had no hope of a cure, and he should spend his energy making sure his affairs were in order, but the doctor at the Laetrile Center in Tijuana said that Laetrile sometimes worked. He preferred to believe that the doctor who gave him hope was right rather than the doctor who said it was unreasonable to have any hope and that Laetrile could just make it worse (although it seems hard to believe that any result could be worse than dying of cancer).

I sort of feel that way about Bernie Sanders. He is a deeply flawed candidate – he is 74 and doesn’t comb his hair for crying out loud – but he is also the only candidate who stands a chance, any chance, in moving the government in a direction I think we need to go. The way I see it we have a choice between two candidates. One, Clinton, says that it is unrealistic to expect real change and she will be a continuation of Bill Clinton’s and Barak Obama’s policies, in effect, it will be business as usual only she will push harder. The other, Bernie Sanders, says that we can make change and the way to do it is to vote for him and people who will support the change we want. That, like Obama in 2008, he will enlarge the Democratic voter turnout and the increased turnout will result in more Senators and Representative who will support him.

Michele has pointed out that Laetrile doesn’t work, that people go to Mexico to take it, and still die of cancer. That is true and, when I am honest with myself, Bernie probably won’t be the cure, he probably can’t change Washington, he probably is too much of an outsider, but probably is the operative word here and the other side of probably is maybe. Maybe Bernie Sanders is right, maybe he will generate a big turnout and a big turnout will enable change. These are strange times, and it did happen before, with both Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.

Sanders pumped his fist and smiled broadly. “That’s being human,” he said. “If you see stuff that is bad and you don’t respond with – what did King call it? – ‘the urgency of the moment,’ then you are not alive.” Last line of a complementary  article in Bloomberg Busunessweek titled Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Want Your Vote.   

Michele and I watched the last two-thirds of The Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders debate and it occurred to me that I agreed with every answer that Bernie gave and I agreed with much less of what Clinton said. A typical example was when they were asked if they supported Capital Punishment. Clinton said, “I do for very limited, particularly heinous crimes believe it is an appropriate punishment” and Sanders said “in a world of so much violence and killing, I just don’t believe that government itself should be part of the killing.”

“Thank you. So, this is the moment they said would never come”
“Unbelievable, unbelievable, I have to start by saying I absolutely love the people of Iowa. Unbelievable, unbelievable.”
“God bless the great state of Iowa. Let me first of all say, ‘To God be the glory, tonight is a victory for the grassroots'”
“What a night, unbelievable night, what a great campaign.”
“Thank you Iowa, nine months ago, we came to this beautiful city. We had no political organization, we had no money, we had no name recognition, and we were taking on the most powerful political organization in the United States of America. And, tonight, while the results are still not known, it looks like we are in a virtual tie.”
Opening lines from the Iowa caucus victory speeches by Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, in the order they were given last Monday.

The Iowa caucus is over, the results are in and, probably nobody – not the alleged experts or the candidates themselves – know what the results actually mean. Listening to the various candidates spin the results and trying to manipulate their meaning is fascinating. The post caucus wrapup started with Rubio, who channeled Obama’s “They said this day would never come” Iowa speech of 2008, with “this is the moment they said would never come” and that, in itself, is fascinating. Rubio painted himself as an outsider who exceeded expectations and that was “the day that would never come” part, but he also inferred he  was an outsider like Obama and then went on with the main thrust of his speech which was a vicious attack on Obama. He told us, in effect, that Obama is not just a lousy president, but that he is actively trying to ruin the country, and that he, Rubio, is an outsider just like him and, in effect, the only one who can beat the dreaded Hillary who wants to continue the evil Obama ways. Marco Rubio comes across as young and fresh but the longer he talks, the less likable he seems to me.

Trump was next and had been leading in the polls and expected to win. That was his main pitch, he “is a winner, they are losers”. He was also running as a unbeholden outsider using his own money to run,  and, since he didn’t win Monday night, he emphasized the outsider bit. Trump talked about how everybody – everybody – told him not to run because he would never crack the top ten in Iowa but and he did so well that he almost won. It was a better speech than I expected and the “unbelievable” bit was probably more heartfelt than rhetoric. As an aside, when Trump said he liked Iowa so much that he might buy a farm there, he must have forgotten about the other meaning of “He bought the farm”, which, in a way, he did by skipping the debate. End aside.

A couple of weeks ago, a liberal friend said that he would prefer Trump over any other GOP candidate and I, reluctantly, am starting to agree. Like Bob Dole said, he could “probably work with Congress, because he’s, you know, he’s got the right personality and he’s kind of a deal-maker.” The thinking of both my friend and Bob Dole is that Trump  may be an asshole , but he is a rational player. I agree, but he is a scary rational player. He reminds me a little of Mike Freesmith, a fictional politician running a gubernatorial campaign in California, in the political novel, The Ninth Wave, by Eugene Burdick, the author of Fail-Safe which became the movie Dr. Strangelove and The Ugly American. In The Ninth Wave, Mike manipulates by fear. As I remember it, his pitch was I’m going to win and you will be very sorry if you don’t vote my way. 

Ted Cruz also ran as an outsider and he was the big winner of the night and, to my of thinking, the scariest candidate. He is a True Believer and he came from behind with a big push from the Evangelical political machinery. I’m not sure how much this will help Cruz, however, as both Huckabee and Santorum won here and neither won anything else. I read that Cruz is hated by the GOP establishment and I can understand why, he is slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan and more than willing to shut the government down to get his way. Cruz’s victory speech went on and on, and just when I was beginning to wonder if he would ever leave, Hillary cut him off with her speech.

This seems pretty typical of the Clintons. Cutting into another guy’s speech is not forbidden, of course, just a little untoward. Like Trump, I think that Clinton expected to win but, unlike Trump, she was willing to give it a push. Before all the votes were counted, the Clinton campaign, preemptively, announced that she had won, “screw the actual counting”. That taking control of the message, which had echoes of another Clinton calling himself the “Comeback Kid” while coming in second or third in New Hampshire twenty-four years ago, is both admirable given the goal and scary, given the goal. I suspect her happily saying “what a night, unbelievable night” with a big smile with probably more relief than anything.

If nothing else, Hillary Clinton wants to win and I think that she will. I am not a Bill Clinton fan, I didn’t like his trashing of welfare or the Defense of Marriage Act among other things and I may be tarring Hillary with a brush that is meant for Bill, but I am concerned that, like Bill, Hillary will do almost anything to get and stay in office including selling out her progressive ideals.

Bernie Sanders was the last to give a victory speech and he came across as, well, Bernie Sanders, an outsider who would rather not be president than sell out. I like Bernie Sanders and agree with his position on everything, so I am not very objective here. He seems disheveled, but urgent, always on message because he actually believes the message. He believed in it when nobody else did and now that a big hunk of the country is catching up, he has moved from the margins to center stage. I don’t buy the argument that what Sanders is calling for is unobtainable so don’t waste a vote on him. Maybe it is unobtainable, but, at least Bernie sees the problem and is pushing for a fair solution.  That is a big step ahead of somebody who doesn’t really feel or understand the problem or doesn’t even try to solve it because the solution isn’t easily attainable. But Bernie comes with alot of baggage, he has called himself a Democratic Socialist so long it would be disingenuous to change and he is 74. Seventy four years old! that is old.

At the end, nothing changed my mind, maybe I feel a little more inclined to dislike Trump a little less, but probably not. If Bush, Christie, or John Kasich spoke, I missed it, but there is no way I would ever vote for them. They all ran as competent insiders and this is not the year for that. Even though they sound more reasonable than the Republican pack leaders, they are even worse. Trump says his hateful speech is not PC and that’s true but the politically correct speech of somebody like John Kasich has the same nasty message only it is in code. I am fascinated by politics and this year is more fascinating than ever. It is America on a big stage, and this year that is an America in which a large part of the citizenry feel the country is in decline and are pissed and want somebody to blame. Politics is the best spectator sport in the world and I love it but it reminds me of an old saw that I think was originally attributed to golf, Politics is nothing if you don’t love it and, if you do love it, Politics will break you heart.