Sacrifice the Party for the Good of the Country...No Way

The functionaries  of the Democratic Party, yes that includes Democratic US Senators, Democratic members of the House, Governors and all the way down to local Democratic club officers are united in putting their Party allegiance ahead of  their allegiance to what good for the country.

They know, perhaps better than most, that the whole of America is on a collision course with disaster. And they know, perhaps better than most, that the enormity of the problems facing the Country are too large to be addressed by any one segment of the political community; be that Republican, Democrat or other.

Winning is not essential to problem-solving, governance is essential.

Let us look at the political landscape if the Clintons win again. It will look fundamentally less coming together and more grid-locked that when Bill was president.

It is a demonstrable fact that Hillary will be more polarizing than Bill.
And, Bill did not receive a majority either time. In neither of his wins in the General election to become President did he reach 50%.

His inability to bring about real change (or hardly any change really) was blamed on the relentless attacks from the right. Whether this charge is true or not, the record speaks for itself: no health care reform; a punitive and Republican styled welfare reform; signing away American jobs via NAFTA;
failure to head-off further blood-shed in the Middle East and in particular to address genocide against the Kurds; you can add your own examples I know.

But what about the economy stupid! As a card carrying Ph.D. in economics, I must confess that only attention given to weather is there more talk about something over which we have less control. When economic forces are with you, anyone can claim credit and when they blow the other direction, no one takes the blame. This fact remains: when good things happen in the economy, seldom is it due from explicit action and on the isolated times when there appears to have been a connect between explicit policy, the cause and effect are years apart. The huge increase in the deficit during Reagan's presidency (resulting from the combined "policy" to cut taxes and dramatically increased defense spending) was the real hero for the performance of the economy during the 1990s; Bill can take the credit, which is his way, but he did little of consequence for the economy one way or the other,

For whatever complicated or not reasons, given the chance the Clintons always exaggerate their achievements and minimize their part in failed policy.

Give them counseling but don't give them the keys to our future.

At the Democratic Presidential debate tonight, the front-runners have been placed at the center of the stage with the others placed as book-ends. So who gets the prime locations? Hillary, Obama, Edwards and newly promoted front-runner...Bill Richardson. Luck of the draw or what? The last day I looked (this past friday) Richardson was at 4%. That put him 9% behind Edwards who is in third place at 13%. Richardson's 4% put him much closer to Biden & Dodd at 2% each. Any thoughts?

In major horse races like the Belmont Stakes and the Kentucky Derby and in international and invitational track meets like the Olympics, it is common for teams to be entered. By entering as a team, it become possible to devise a strategy to enhance the chance of winning.

For example, one member of the team sets the past (typically referred to as the "rabbit") while another member of the team tries to "force" the field wide and then the designated "finisher" tries to close on the inside and win for the team. (Hence, the expression to `have the inside track' means the best opportunity to win.)

It is common to have presidential campaigns referred to as a horse race; who goes to the front early, who is wide in the turn and who is coming up from behind. This possibility of teaming up to enhance the odds of winning might help explain why there are so many candidates in the field who appear to have absolutely no chance of themselves getting the nomination.