Tuesday and Wednesday have been stark contrasts in the possible future of the United States of America. Tuesday night, we heard a spirited debate by six of the remaining candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Wednesday, we saw the solemn procession of the House Managers as they marched the formal Articles of Impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States, across the Capitol to the Senate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The debate was spirited, with even billionaire Tom Steyer getting involved in the discussion. While the general outlines on issues for all the Democrats are similar, Tuesday highlighted the differences. In foreign policy the divide was over withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, or not. In health insurance the choices were Medicare for All, soon or now; Medicare for some and private insurance for the rest; or Medicare stays the same with a public health option added on to an extended Obamacare, and private insurance. Everyone gets covered and prescription prices go down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And everyone wants to deal with the environment. The difference in the discussion was how high a priority it must be. My concern is that it seemed like a side-discussion, thrown in as part of the debate about President Trump\u2019s new North American trade deal. It didn\u2019t have the legs to go out on its own, except with Tom Steyer. You know, it should be Pete Buttigieg\u2019s issue; he\u2019s the only one of the six who will be around to deal with the effects. Maybe he\u2019s afraid the issue highlights his youth, as if being thirty-seven on a stage with a bunch of seventy year olds (sorry Senator Klobuchar, you\u2019re not) isn\u2019t clear enough. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s not just splitting hairs: it\u2019s all-important stuff. But no matter which Democratic candidate wins the nomination, we can be assured that we will reduce troops in the Middle East, expand health care to somehow include everyone, and push a panic button on climate change. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I will admit I missed some voices in the fray. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are gone from the competition. It\u2019s not just the absence of a black candidate in a Party that depends on the black vote: they brought dignity, strength, and differing views that \u201cthe six\u201d can\u2019t duplicate. Andrew Yang and Michael Bennet, still running, did not qualify. Yang brings a refreshing outsider view to the discussion, while Bennet offers a carefully thought out program of unifying the nation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Note: I was surprised to see James Carville, architect of the Bill Clinton Presidential Campaign, come out and endorse Bennet. Carville is no ideologue. He works for winners, money, or both. He\u2019s always got an angle, and coming into what looks like a campaign on life support seems more than a surprise. He knows a lot, so maybe we will find out what we don\u2019t know about the Bennet Campaign. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n I can\u2019t say I miss Marianne Williamson, though I\u2019m sure Saturday Night Live <\/em>will. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And then there\u2019s the \u201coutlier,\u201d Mike Bloomberg. He can\u2019t be in the debates; his billionaire self-financing won\u2019t meet the qualifications. But he\u2019s out there, spending more money than anyone, even Trump himself. He offers an even more moderate alternative to the Democratic base. The good news is, whether he gets the nomination or not, he has committed his money to defeat Donald Trump. So has Tom Steyer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You can\u2019t mention this week\u2019s debates without at least giving a nod to the internecine battle of \u201cthe left\u201d between Senators Sanders and Warren. It\u2019s nothing if not personal. In 2018, Warren and Sanders had a private conversation about their running for President. In the course of the conversation, Warren says Sanders said a woman couldn\u2019t win. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, less than a month before the Iowa caucuses and with Sanders ahead of Warren in the polls, the conversation has come up. Sanders flat denies he made the statement, Warren says he did, then pivots to why women make better candidates. After this last debate, they had a standoff on the debate stage where Warren told Sanders he called her a liar. Well, he did. I guess friendships can\u2019t survive the crucible of Presidential politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The debate score: Klobuchar sounded good and so did Buttigieg. Warren and Sanders did fine other than the little tiff, but they don\u2019t surprise anyone with anything different. Biden did fine, though I would argue the bar has lowered for his performance. But he passes on the \u201che\u2019ll do\u201d test, which seems to be enough. Steyer still seems like the guest at the dinner that will go home afterwards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So now it will be an \u201ceternity\u201d until the good Democrats of Iowa gather in school gyms and churches to walk around the room, find their candidate, and go through the arcane process of \u201ccaucusing\u201d. It\u2019s an oddity of our democracy that such a small number of voters will have such an enormous impact on our choices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And who knows what they will be thinking. Events overtake the best-laid plans of any candidate. A Presidential impeachment trial, the third in the nation\u2019s history, will begin next week. The \u201cPelosi delay\u201d strategy has already paid off. Lev Parnas threw an entire tank of gasoline on the fire in his interview last night. I don\u2019t expect twenty Republicans in the Senate to vote for removal; in fact I\u2019d be surprised if there are four who want witnesses. But Democrats will hang a \u201crigged trial\u201d around Republican necks in the election like those burning tires in South Africa. And in this era, when modern history was last week and ancient history last month: who knows what comes next?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Inside and Outside<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Scoring the Future<\/h3>\n\n\n\n